Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was In)

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I can see how someone would feel that way. I would counter it thusly: treating the Clintons as a package deal (as you do) they have been consistent on policy for their public career, which is the largest body of work any presidential candidate has had with the possible exception of FDR running for his 4th term.

The Clintons are Third Way Democrats. There are no dramatic or revolutionary changes. They lean slightly left on fiscal and social policy, and leave monetary policy to the MIT econ PhDs. They run to the center whenever there is any trouble, risking the alienation of the extremes of both parties but taking refuge in the bell curve rump of the middle.

Much as with Obama, the histrionic opposition to them from the right has been politically motivated, not policy centered. It has been because of an anger that the Clintons have been able to reach and control the American political center. In 1988 the Republicans were convinced they owned the middle, and they were infuriated when America did not not follow along as they veered farther and farther right. The result was the over-the-top fury which they and their surrogates have continuous recited against the Clintons.

The Clintons are essentially Eisenhower Republicans, but since they operate in 2016 rather than 1956 they violate the highly questionable worldview that actual Republicans have come to hold.

The bolded part is the only thing I have a problem with. 24 years ago supply side economics ruled the land. This was the single biggest threat facing progressive government. It was the perfect con. Pay for top tier tax cuts with borrowed money, then claim there was no money to spend on social programs because the debt was too large.

Bill Clinton single handedly crushed supply side economics. He called it out in a debate and ran specifically on increasing taxes on the rich, a promise he kept! By having the best economy since the 50's/early 60's he destroyed the lie that tax hikes on the rich would ruin the economy.

The NRA hasn't lost on Capitol Hill since the 1960's...EXCEPT for the Brady Bill. That was Clinton who pushed that through.

Gays were banned from the armed forces, even if it had nothing to do with their duties as a soldier. Despite pushback from the military, Clinton changed the law to DADT meaning for the first time you could be gay and serve and couldn't be outed in your private life and then dishonorably discharged.

I'm reluctant to cheapen these accomplishments just because society has moved left since that time.

 

[BassAle]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I'll walk for four years.

you do realize that isn't an option? We are getting in a ****ing car and going on a ride.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

Now is that any way to treat a guy who just gave you a glowing compliment a few posts down?

It was backhanded at best

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

If we're going to keep going with car analogies, let's get it right. HRC is the rusted out Geo Storm. Trump is the unrecognizable picture of a car your five year old drew this morning. It's pretty hilarious to see the conservatives around here continuing to try to apply the reduction of "both cars suck" to a discussion of what car we should take to work today. I get it, I don't want to be seen in the Geo Storm either, but we can't drive the picture to work...you guys get that right?

That is pretty apt actually. Well done

 

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

you do realize that isn't an options? We are getting in a ****ing car and going on a ride.

I guess that's right. The question is not whether we will go for a ride; it's whether we want to have some say in what we ride in.

And btw, Over the years, I've found Hovey to be a bright, thoughtful guy. However he got to where he is politically, that path does not fit the knuck stereotype in any way.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I have to wonder if the people who avoid tough decisions in who to vote for also avoid tough decisions altogether. Life's full of choices, some of them harder than others. You can choose to do nothing and live in your parents' basement all day instead of say getting a job that's not perfect for you. You can choose to not ask somebody out because you don't want to take the chance of being rejected. You can not go to college because you can't find a place that's ideal.

Avoiding difficult decisions is in of itself a choice, but is it ever a good one?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

The bolded part is the only thing I have a problem with. 24 years ago supply side economics ruled the land. This was the single biggest threat facing progressive government. It was the perfect con. Pay for top tier tax cuts with borrowed money, then claim there was no money to spend on social programs because the debt was too large.

Bill Clinton single handedly crushed supply side economics. He called it out in a debate and ran specifically on increasing taxes on the rich, a promise he kept! By having the best economy since the 50's/early 60's he destroyed the lie that tax hikes on the rich would ruin the economy.

The NRA hasn't lost on Capitol Hill since the 1960's...EXCEPT for the Brady Bill. That was Clinton who pushed that through.

Gays were banned from the armed forces, even if it had nothing to do with their duties as a soldier. Despite pushback from the military, Clinton changed the law to DADT meaning for the first time you could be gay and serve and couldn't be outed in your private life and then dishonorably discharged.

I'm reluctant to cheapen these accomplishments just because society has moved left since that time.

From a policy standpoint I have always viewed Bill Clinton as a mixed bag. I think some of his policies were the right way to go, others not so much.

I believe Presidents get both too much credit and too much blame for some of the economic events that occur during their terms. I think Clinton's initial tax increases helped, although as I recall he ended up cutting taxes later in his Presidency, including as I recall some pretty significant cuts to the capital gains tax which is much more likely to help people who own the projects, not live in them.

The economic boon of his term was driven, at least in part, by the productivity increases created by the technology boom of that decade, something that went bust, as I recall, as the Clintons were leaving through the back door of the White House.

The Brady Bill had been floating around long before Clinton showed up, although he did use some of his political capital available during his honeymoon period to help push it through. But didn't Reagan also support it publicly? But I'll give Clinton credit for that. If not for those efforts, who knows what kind of gun carnage we'd be seeing on the streets of this country today.

But history has not yet decided to what extent Clinton's signature legislation, NAFTA, has helped or hurt this country. It's also reasonable to assume that Clinton's well-meaning, but fiscally questionable pressure on the federal agencies to make home loans easier to get played at least some part in the fiasco we saw 8 years ago.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

You apparently have all kinds of reasons but don't bother to write any of them down.

So you didnt read any posts from the primaries...or any of the posts in '08 during the primaries either? I spent countless posts ripping into The Shrill (or the Pantsuited Robot as I like to call her) and ripping into Liberals like Kepler that were (imho) selling out by voting for her. But because apparently you need validation:

I find Hillary Clinton's sucking up to Wall Street to be reason #1 why I cant support her. It is bad enough that the GOP are giving handjobs to Wall Street we dont need the Dems to openly do it as well. The crash of '08 showed we cant trust them to police themselves or do the right thing (Greed trumps the Free Market) so someone needs to act as a check and she will never be that person.

Hillary supported Dont Ask Dont Tell which is a non starter for me since I am big on Gay Rights.

Hillary supported the "Gas Tax Holiday" in '08 which, while on its face was a great idea was just another way for her to kick back money to her corporate overlords while helping out the average person very little.

As a supporter of "Medicare for All" I find Clinton's slavish devotion to The Public Option for all those years to be a non-starter. I liked her much better when her and Dole were working to try and give Health Care to everyone. I will say I like the Public Option better than Obama Care.

Ultimately, every issue she is not progressive enough for me. She is your average Limousine Liberal who will most likely govern by the polls not by what she feels is right. I also think she is a crook but that is a different story. I dont trust her to reign in spending, I dont trust her to watch over Wall Street, I dont trust her when she says she wants to get rid of Citizens United and in reality I dont think she has the best interests of anyone but the Clintonistas at heart. Just how I feel on the subject.

All that said, she doesnt even compare to Drumpf and anyone who pretends she does is living in a bubble. She at least knows what she is doing, this is the guy being sued by everyone who has had more failed businesses than most people have jobs in their lifetime. The guy couldnt even sell meat for a profit...to a country filled with gluttonous idiots. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with politics...Drumpf represents everything that is wrong with AMERICA! Electing him would make the Brexit debacle look like a drunk text in the realm of stupidity.

Put it this way, I would sooner vote for a third Dubya term than let that man be president.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I have to wonder if the people who avoid tough decisions in who to vote for also avoid tough decisions altogether. Life's full of choices, some of them harder than others. You can choose to do nothing and live in your parents' basement all day instead of say getting a job that's not perfect for you. You can choose to not ask somebody out because you don't want to take the chance of being rejected. You can not go to college because you can't find a place that's ideal.

Avoiding difficult decisions is in of itself a choice, but is it ever a good one?

You have a choice between Satan and Lilith. You hope that Monty will reveal that there is in fact a Door #3.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

@SpeakerRyan "When you advance to a national championship don't you root for a Longhorn if you're an Aggie? Start thinking that way."

The Aggies literally changed their major conference association to get away from Texas.

It may be the worst rivalry metaphor he could’ve chosen.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I believe Presidents get both too much credit and too much blame for some of the economic events that occur during their terms. I think Clinton's initial tax increases helped, although as I recall he ended up cutting taxes later in his Presidency, including as I recall some pretty significant cuts to the capital gains tax which is much more likely to help people who own the projects, not live in them.

On the flip side, if we absolve Presidents for what happens on their watch economically, we'd pretty much have to give Bush a free pass for the financial crisis 7 years into his Presidency....

From a policy standpoint I have always viewed Bill Clinton as a mixed bag. I think some of his policies were the right way to go, others not so much.

The economic boon of his term was driven, at least in part, by the productivity increases created by the technology boom of that decade, something that went bust, as I recall, as the Clintons were leaving through the back door of the White House.

If that were true, the US would have lost almost all 22M jobs created during Clinton's Presidency when the subsequent recession hit. IMHO, the US economy did so well because of huge amounts of investment in this country (capital inflows) from within and externally since we had our fiscal house in order. Presidents directly control the budget (with Congress of course) and Clinton's ability to balance it but not on the backs of poor people, and also avoid the temptation to hand out the gimmicky tax cuts enacted by W a few years later, should be the model for future Presidents to follow.

The Brady Bill had been floating around long before Clinton showed up, although he did use some of his political capital available during his honeymoon period to help push it through. But didn't Reagan also support it publicly? But I'll give Clinton credit for that. If not for those efforts, who knows what kind of gun carnage we'd be seeing on the streets of this country today.

.

If Ronald Reagan was in favor of background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases that is news to me although he did start his term when I was pretty young. You'll have to post a link on this one.

But history has not yet decided to what extent Clinton's signature legislation, NAFTA, has helped or hurt this country. It's also reasonable to assume that Clinton's well-meaning, but fiscally questionable pressure on the federal agencies to make home loans easier to get played at least some part in the fiasco we saw 8 years ago.

Yes on NAFTA remaining to be seen, but your last point is standard right wing BS with an undercurrent of "blame the minorities" that we're seeing at the RNC convention today. The fiscal crisis had nothing to do with federal agencies making home loans easier. Simply put the people writing mortgages and the people purchasing packaged mortgages thought the market would continue to increase, and therefore discounted the risks associated with giving loans to people with little ability to pay if a crisis hit. If housing prices are going up, you don't care because you'd just take the house and sell at a profit. Also in the mix were firms such as AIG taking the opposite end of every hedge with no ability or inclination to cover those hedges since they also thought rising house prices would negate the need to do so.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

I have to wonder if the people who avoid tough decisions in who to vote for also avoid tough decisions altogether. Life's full of choices, some of them harder than others. You can choose to do nothing and live in your parents' basement all day instead of say getting a job that's not perfect for you. You can choose to not ask somebody out because you don't want to take the chance of being rejected. You can not go to college because you can't find a place that's ideal.

Avoiding difficult decisions is in of itself a choice, but is it ever a good one?

Making a choice not to cast a vote for POTUS is a tough decision. And it's a decision I may very well make. It will depend upon whether anything happens in the major parties between now and November, and what I can learn about third party candidates, which as of right now is precious little.

I have never, and will never, vote for someone just because I want to vote against the other candidate. I believe a vote for a candidate is just that. I want them to represent me.

Just because we have developed this arbitrary process in this country whereby two organizations have taken control of the nomination process for candidates doesn't mean I have to vote for either of them. If the sheeple want to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess I have to vote for one," let them. I'm not going to. For at least this office you can put be down with the apathetic 40% who never vote anyway.

Maybe someone, somewhere, will see those numbers and realize there are customers out there for a legitimate candidate and our system will change for the better.

 

[mookie1995]

The Aggies literally changed their major conference association to get away from Texas.

It may be the worst rivalry metaphor he could’ve chosen.

All the more reason for nobody pulling for the Aggies. (Go read what metaphor means again )

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

. If the sheeple want to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess I have to vote for one," let them. I'm not going to. For at least this office you can put be down with the apathetic 40% who never vote anyway.

.

Well, when you get off your high horse please try to notice the sheeple who don't find any heroism in your indifference. A lot of people self-congratulate themselves for not voting, like they're some sort of martyrs in their own mind. I'm wondering if Bob Gray will let you borrow one of his crosses to nail yourself to.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

If Ronald Reagan was in favor of background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases that is news to me although he did start his term when I was pretty young. You'll have to post a link on this one.



Yes on NAFTA remaining to be seen, but your last point is standard right wing BS with an undercurrent of "blame the minorities" that we're seeing at the RNC convention today. The fiscal crisis had nothing to do with federal agencies making home loans easier. Simply put the people writing mortgages and the people purchasing packaged mortgages thought the market would continue to increase, and therefore discounted the risks associated with giving loans to people with little ability to pay if a crisis hit. If housing prices are going up, you don't care because you'd just take the house and sell at a profit. Also in the mix were firms such as AIG taking the opposite end of every hedge with no ability or inclination to cover those hedges since they also thought rising house prices would negate the need to do so.

Reagan.

BS on the home loan issue.

No question wall street played a role. But the fact the we were seeing huge numbers of defaults on these loans was just as important.

I agree that part of the "american dream" is owning your own home, and I don't fault Clinton's motives. But candidly, some people simply aren't going to reach that dream due to financial circumstances. Trying to artificially make it happen hurts them, and hurts everyone else as we've seen.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

Well, when you get off your high horse please try to notice the sheeple who don't find any heroism in your indifference. A lot of people self-congratulate themselves for not voting, like they're some sort of martyrs in their own mind. I'm wondering if Bob Gray will let you borrow one of his crosses to nail yourself to.

You think I'm happy about the prospect of not casting a vote for POTUS? I have cast such a vote dating back to when Jimmy Carter was on the ballot. It doesn't bring me any pleasure or satisfaction at all.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

Making a choice not to cast a vote for POTUS is a tough decision. And it's a decision I may very well make. It will depend upon whether anything happens in the major parties between now and November, and what I can learn about third party candidates, which as of right now is precious little.

Two words, "Gary Johnson."

Since I live in MN, my vote does not count regardless, as the state will go D on the presidential vote 10 times out of 10. At least voting Libertarian, I can make something of a statement of my dissatisfaction with the other choices I am given.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

Reagan.

BS on the home loan issue.

No question wall street played a role. But the fact the we were seeing huge numbers of defaults on these loans was just as important.

I agree that part of the "american dream" is owning your own home, and I don't fault Clinton's motives. But candidly, some people simply aren't going to reach that dream due to financial circumstances. Trying to artificially make it happen hurts them, and hurts everyone else as we've seen.

Your article on Reagan is from 1991, 3 years after his Presidency and in the middle of full on Alzheimer's disease. There's no way he wrote that article and I question if he even knew what was written in his name.

Home loan defaults affected everyone, not just low income minorities. Greed and a fundamental misreading of the potential for a real estate crash caused the recession. It wasn't just "Wall St" as Countrywide and AIG aren't investment banks. It was people whether they be white as a ghost, Hispanic or whatever living beyond their means, and mortgage brokers writing mortgages to them under the guise that there'd be no risk to them if they defaulted. BTW - What time are you speaking tonight at the convention?

Moving on, I think Roger Ailes just became Kep's public enemy #1 after this Megyn Kelly revelation.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/19/kelly-says-ailes-sexually-harassed-her-too/

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

Two words, "Gary Johnson."

Since I live in MN, my vote does not count regardless, as the state will go D on the presidential vote 10 times out of 10. At least voting Libertarian, I can make something of a statement of my dissatisfaction with the other choices I am given.

That's cool. That's another one of my issues with people whining about their choices. The libertarian ticket is somewhat sane (Weld was my gov and did a good job), and if you're a Sanders person who can't let go vote Jill Stein. If you can't find someone close enough to your standards out of those 4 people, maybe you need to run for President yourself.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was

That's cool. That's another one of my issues with people whining about their choices. The libertarian ticket is somewhat sane (Weld was my gov and did a good job), and if you're a Sanders person who can't let go vote Jill Stein. If you can't find someone close enough to your standards out of those 4 people, maybe you need to run for President yourself.

Personally I'm thinking of following the lead of Kevin Baugh.