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.

POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

unofan said:
Dude, that was the choice already.

Supposedly a quarter of French voters didn't vote because they hated both candidates. That's what the third parties would have done.
Click to expand...

But Macron still won 70-30, like Chirac beat Jean-Marie Le Pen won 80-20 in 2002. That's what I'm saying would have happened here with a runoff. A two round system builds in a fire alarm. France has faced this twice now, with Le Pen and her father making it to the title game and the rest of the country waking up and saying "mon Dieu!"

There is a large psychological difference between "I have so many choices but I hate the major ones and the minor ones have no chance" and "I can choose to stop a Nazi or sit it out."
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Aren't the primaries (sort of) supposed to act as that moment of clarity, where we go, you know, if this is the best both sides offer, let's go with the safer pick?


And if we adopt anything from the French regarding the elections, I'm more partial to their hard cap on campaign spending and their ban from advertising on TV with their official TV air time being only on public television.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

aparch said:
Aren't the primaries (sort of) supposed to act as that moment of clarity, where we go, you know, if this is the best both sides offer, let's go with the safer pick?
Click to expand...

Trump is the first time that the objectively worst candidate won a party nomination -- but party affiliation is such a decisive factor in American elections that we could use a "circuit breaker" after that. I mean, that's why we have an Electoral College, and if Trump had made a run in Olden Times the Founders would have gutted him in the EC. Of course, they also would have preserved slavery, so maybe the Founders shouldn't be our benchmark. :)

What we really need is IRV. Two rounds is just IRV for stupid people.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ScoobyDoo said:
No. You need to ignore them. Completely. Hillary wasted her time in West Virginia, and Georgia, and was on her way to Arizona when the second Comey letter came out. You're never going to get Trump voters to vote Democrat and you're never going to get Susan Sarandon Democrats to vote for Hillary.

So, let's just stop trying to re-litigate it and live in reality.
Click to expand...

Well you and I might think so, but face facts. What do we really know about it? Most of the people behind the drive on this kind of messaging for Hils and now for other prominent D's, studied poly sci and have myriad alphabet degrees from Harvard and Yale - they are the best and brightest and the best educated we have to offer. Why in the world would we question them? They know about this stuff and they know what they're doing for chrissakkes!
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Well you and I might think so, but face facts. What do we really know about it? Most of the people behind the drive on this kind of messaging for Hils and now for other prominent D's, studied poly sci and have myriad alphabet degrees from Harvard and Yale - they are the best and brightest and the best educated we have to offer. Why in the world would we question them? They know about this stuff and they know what they're doing for chrissakkes!
Click to expand...

They're questioned every day of their lives. Why do you think otherwise?
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

According to all three former officials, Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn. The Obama administration fired Flynn in 2014 from his position as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, largely because of mismanagement and temperament issues.

Obama's warning pre-dated the concerns inside the government about Flynn's contacts with the Russian ambassador, one of the officials said. Obama passed along a general caution that he believed Flynn was not suitable for such a high level post, the official added.

Two administration officials said Obama also warned Trump to stay vigilant on North Korea.
Click to expand...

Today is Yates Day, so get your popcorn and hope she has a police escort.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

NBC News‏Verified account @NBCNews

Trump admin official confirms Obama raised issue of Flynn, but says it seemed like the remark was made “in jest”

Imagine the followup questions here. “funny like ‘haha’ funny or funny like ‘compromised by a foreign power’ funny?”
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

rufus said:
So coddle the hillbilly snowflakes so their widdle feefees don't get hurt. Gotchha.
Click to expand...

What have I ever posted in my history of this forum that would suggest I have any warm/fuzzies for that lot? And who said coddle them? My commentary was in reference to fringe voters not the mouth-breathers.

The point is Hillary didn't sell herself enough by ignoring some key states toward the end of the campaign and she alienated many on the fence voters with her commentary. Along with voters staying home and it was a recipe for a loss to a POS candidate.

I'm sick of lazy excuses that Comey and misogynists cost her the election. She had plenty of influence on the loss all by herself. She needed what - 3% more votes in WI, MI and ?? I believe it was to turn the electoral in her favor? Make some better decisions and she would have easily overcome Comey and Trump's hayseed supporters.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The Sicatoka said:
When Obama sacked Flynn, did he also pull Flynn's security clearances?
Click to expand...

Clearances automatically revoke* if you no longer have a position requiring them.

(* Well, technically, they go dormant for a while unless your sponsoring organization actively pulls them.)
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

bronconick said:
NBC News‏Verified account @NBCNews

Trump admin official confirms Obama raised issue of Flynn, but says it seemed like the remark was made “in jest”

Imagine the followup questions here. “funny like ‘haha’ funny or funny like ‘compromised by a foreign power’ funny?”
Click to expand...

When I read "in jest" I thought it was like "Now don't go giving a job to Hitler," the joke being who in their right mind would do that?
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Rover's been blaming the wrong people.

... between 2012 and 2016, white voter turnout jumped 2.4 percent nationally, while black voter turnout fell 4.7 percent.

The split was even more dramatic in the midwestern states that tipped the scales for Trump. In Ohio, black voter turnout dropped 7.5 percent; in Wisconsin, it declined 12.3 percent; and in Michigan, it was down 12.4 percent.

...

Had every demographic turned out to the polls in 2016 at the same rates they had in 2012, the researchers determined, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House today.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Trump feebly tries to turn this into a witch hunt:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861592420043157504">May 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The Sicatoka said:
When Obama sacked Flynn, did he also pull Flynn's security clearances?
Click to expand...

And if he didnt? Let me guess you are "just asking the question" you arent showing any real bias here.

Flynn was fired and he told Trump not to hire him and he still did...there is only one person to blame here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top