What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

SJHovey said:
Before you get too worked up, read the article and get the context.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, where are you on Drumpf?

There are a number of longtime, solid conservatives here (yourself, Bob Gray, etc) who I'm really interested to know about. Is it just a matter that the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the one on the back? Or that opposing Hillary justifies pretty much anything ("Paris is worth a mass.")?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

St. Clown said:
I'm not calling a landslide in terms of overall voter split 56-43, etc., rather in electoral vote count. People know these two people's names. They're not being introduced to the public at their conventions.
Click to expand...

If all goes well Clinton should win around 350 EV (midpoint between '08 and '12) with about a 54-46 margin ('12 +2% for demographics). I'm thinking that with the right combination of variation within the MOE and self-selection of friendly polls by Echo Chamber outlets, they can convince themselves that Drumpf has closed to within 3-5 points by the end of the conventions. That's too close to give up, even if it's built on sand.

Remember too, these guys do not know they're dying off demographically. They don't believe the polls if the polls say something they don't like. They're more likely to listen to voices from the clouds than demographers. And even if they wanted to make a tough choice and take the dog out back for its own good, their foot soldiers would never forgive them. Those people think they won the last two elections and somehow Obama rigged the ballots with his black magic. They think they're in the majority because in their town they are. The Republicans have become the Anecdotal Party.

So no, I don't see how someone who cares about his future in the GOP could backtrack on Garland.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
Probably, though the GOP has a Chicken Little problem there. They call every Democrat a communist, so why should anybody not already in their cult listen this time?
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't call everyone or frankly anyone a communist. And he's been proven to be overwhelmingly effective at painting opponents...also there's no doubt he will try.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
I'm curious, where are you on Drumpf?

There are a number of longtime, solid conservatives here (yourself, Bob Gray, etc) who I'm really interested to know about. Is it just a matter that the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the one on the back? Or that opposing Hillary justifies pretty much anything ("Paris is worth a mass.")?
Click to expand...
I have no intention of voting for Trump.

He's a blowhard. He's a self-promoter. He's a bully. He can't speak a sentence without including the word "I" in it. In other words, he's pretty much exactly the opposite of the descendant of scandinavian farmers from North Dakota (moi).

Right now I'd say the odds are about 90/10 I leave the Presidential vote box blank. The 10% is figured in for possible third party candidates, myself as write-in, or something crazy happening between now and the election to the major party candidates.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

MaizeRage said:
The context is that he's a dickbag.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's an article that follows his divorce, in which he's giving a tour of a spa he's filled with hot women hired to give rich white guys massages and shoulder rubs after a tough round of golf. Of course he's going to mock the "doctor" who's in there giving "chiropractic" treatments, and play up her physical attributes. He's being snarky.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
I think they'll try to confirm him after they lose, and hopefully Hillary has already worked out whatever deal is necessary for Obama to withdraw Garland so she can nominate somebody under 35 recommended by Stephen Reinhardt.
Click to expand...

No time to pull this off after the election. Congress is in session for like 2 hours after the X-mas break until new Congress takes over. If they hold hearings on him, sure. But if they don't there's no way they go straight to a vote and there's no time for hearings and testimony/grandstanding.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I think if they stonewall he will definitely withdraw.

Scooby, they are pot committed on this crap. If The Senate GOP goes back on their word to not confirm until the next president is voted into office then every open seat is challengeable. This is worse than The Tea Party and the threat of being "Primaried" this is their own party going against them. Face facts, whatever the percentage of Old White Racists that are out there voting for Drumpf, they have no allegiance to the GOP Senate and will vote them out in a heartbeat.

The GOP made this election about the Supreme Court Seat...if the pivot away from that its all over but the shouting.
 
Rover said:
No time to pull this off after the election. Congress is in session for like 2 hours after the X-mas break until new Congress takes over. If they hold hearings on him, sure. But if they don't there's no way they go straight to a vote and there's no time for hearings and testimony/grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Two words - recess appointment. But I don't know if that works when the Congre$$ adjourns sine die.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

SJHovey said:
I have no intention of voting for Trump.

He's a blowhard. He's a self-promoter. He's a bully. He can't speak a sentence without including the word "I" in it. In other words, he's pretty much exactly the opposite of the descendant of scandinavian farmers from North Dakota (moi).

Right now I'd say the odds are about 90/10 I leave the Presidential vote box blank. The 10% is figured in for possible third party candidates, myself as write-in, or something crazy happening between now and the election to the major party candidates.
Click to expand...

Jill Stein turns her lonely eyes to you. ;)

As a rule I vote for the Libertarian whenever I can't make a choice, just to keep their morale up. But I haven't had to do that for a decade. I've been voting straight "whoever has the best chance of beating the Republican" ever since they went round the bend.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

If the big-L Libertarians really do nominate Gary Johnson, it's possible I could be convinced to fill-in the bubble for him over Hillary. It's not like he'll actually win.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
If the big-L Libertarians really do nominate Gary Johnson, it's possible I could be convinced to fill-in the bubble for him over Hillary. It's not like he'll actually win.
Click to expand...

I half expect one of the (R)'s who can't stand Trump to try to get on the Libertarian or Constitution tickets, since they're already on the ballot in 48 and 30 states already unlike an independent run.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I just saw a great tweet a couple minutes ago.

@FullFrontalSamB
Shouldn't #TedCruz have been forced to carry his unviable campaign to term?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

St. Clown said:
I just saw a great tweet a couple minutes ago.

@FullFrontalSamB
Shouldn't #TedCruz have been forced to carry his unviable campaign to term?
Click to expand...

That joke sounds familiar. I know I've heard it in the past year in reference to another candidate, that account has just re-purposed it for Cruz.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

tD is not a stupid man. Hillary is not a stupid woman. Each probably has intelligence sources in the private/public sector.

Who has the most dirt on the other? The debates could be epic bomb throwing.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

joecct said:
tD is not a stupid man. Hillary is not a stupid woman. Each probably has intelligence sources in the private/public sector.

Who has the most dirt on the other? The debates could be epic bomb throwing.
Click to expand...

It won't move the needle. They have been public figures for 25 years. People long ago decided whether they hated or really hated them.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
People long ago decided whether they hated or really hated them.
Click to expand...

Hate is a strong word, Kep. I have disliked Hillary for many years because of her unbridled ambition for power, as well as the "♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀!!!!!" pathos of some of her sycophantic female constituents. That said, I have always admired her figurative balls of steel, and I did gain some respect for her during her tenure as SoS. I dislike Trump because he's Trump, but I can somewhat respect that he has built a brand far larger than Fred Sr. could have ever envisioned, and while he once severely overextended himself, still savvily avoided personal bankruptcy and the total loss of the family fortune. Hell, he came back even stronger. A lesser charlatan would've certainly succumbed to personal bankruptcy in 1991, and been a mere footnote in 80s history.

That said, none of these...erm..."qualities", are reasons to rush out and vote for either of them to be Leader of the Free World.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top