Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 18, 2016 15:38:31 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of that Phoenix. People will care about this election though, I believe. People (at least Dems) still remember the election of 1972 and the drubbing they took. They also remember the fractured party that led up to that election. I have a feeling the Trump wave will be remembered for a long, long time. I think people will remember Trump and this election for a long time, I agree. The question is will it affect election results. And I think that in the long term no it won't. The whole election was just so bizarre precisely because it was so out of the ordinary.
There's been a lot of press given to moderate republicans not supporting Trump. Suburban, educated voters (women in particular) who might otherwise be inclined to vote republican instead voting for Hillary. I just don't see that happening in the future unless we have a repeat of this election cycle. And the democrats would be fools to count on it.
in 4-8 years there will be some more pressing matter on voters minds, not Trump. I think the GOP has a long term image problem it needs to address if it wants to remain relevant. But I think a lot of people, democrats in particular, are getting swept up in the moment and assume the sky is falling for the GOP and it will cease totally implode and cease to be a political party. I just don't see that happening. There's too strong of a conservative element in this country for that to happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 18:51:05 GMT -5
I think people will remember Trump and this election for a long time, I agree. The question is will it affect election results. And I think that in the long term no it won't. The whole election was just so bizarre precisely because it was so out of the ordinary.
There's been a lot of press given to moderate republicans not supporting Trump. Suburban, educated voters (women in particular) who might otherwise be inclined to vote republican instead voting for Hillary. I just don't see that happening in the future unless we have a repeat of this election cycle. And the democrats would be fools to count on it.
in 4-8 years there will be some more pressing matter on voters minds, not Trump. I think the GOP has a long term image problem it needs to address if it wants to remain relevant. But I think a lot of people, democrats in particular, are getting swept up in the moment and assume the sky is falling for the GOP and it will cease totally implode and cease to be a political party. I just don't see that happening. There's too strong of a conservative element in this country for that to happen.
Well, again, I mostly agree. But I think that what WILL change is the GOP will take a little bit more control of the candidate vetting and nominating process. if they had given 1/10th the scrutiny to Trump that they have given to Clinton, he would not have made it to March.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 19:20:16 GMT -5
It's not "blame Bush when bad stuff happens." It is, "Blame Bush for the continuing negative effects of all the stupid stuff he did." That IS legitimate. ![](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg&w=1484) note what the biggest chunk of the deficit is. Completely useless chart. It skipped one of the biggest drivers in the increase of our deficit and debt... Obamacare. Unless you are limiting it to the between 0.9 and 1.5 Trillion ONLY that those things added, of course. Then it's a good chart. Worthless in the real world, but pretty.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 19:22:43 GMT -5
Well, again, I mostly agree. But I think that what WILL change is the GOP will take a little bit more control of the candidate vetting and nominating process. if they had given 1/10th the scrutiny to Trump that they have given to Clinton, he would not have made it to March. If someone would have "had the stones" to USE 1/10th of the scrutiny they gave to Clinton, she wouldn't have made it to March either.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 18, 2016 19:23:01 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of that Phoenix. People will care about this election though, I believe. People (at least Dems) still remember the election of 1972 and the drubbing they took. They also remember the fractured party that led up to that election. I have a feeling the Trump wave will be remembered for a long, long time. I think people will remember Trump and this election for a long time, I agree. The question is will it affect election results. And I think that in the long term no it won't. The whole election was just so bizarre precisely because it was so out of the ordinary.
There's been a lot of press given to moderate republicans not supporting Trump. Suburban, educated voters (women in particular) who might otherwise be inclined to vote republican instead voting for Hillary. I just don't see that happening in the future unless we have a repeat of this election cycle. And the democrats would be fools to count on it.
in 4-8 years there will be some more pressing matter on voters minds, not Trump. I think the GOP has a long term image problem it needs to address if it wants to remain relevant. But I think a lot of people, democrats in particular, are getting swept up in the moment and assume the sky is falling for the GOP and it will cease totally implode and cease to be a political party. I just don't see that happening. There's too strong of a conservative element in this country for that to happen.
The other thing to take into account is that both society as a whole and demographics in particular are moving away from the social conservatives. The fiscal conservatives who are at least moderate socially need to take back control of the party. They need to let the electorate push them back to where they should be. For someone like me who believes that the hallmark of what it means to be an American is that individual liberties are paramount, the social conservatives are on the wrong side of pretty much every issue. One cannot logically be in favor of individual liberty and still try to dictate behavior in areas that harm no one. Social conservatives believe in individual liberty only for those who live and believe as they do. If the GOP can correct this problem, they can and will be relevant again. If they can't, they will continue to marginalize themselves into a permanent minority.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 21:32:07 GMT -5
if they had given 1/10th the scrutiny to Trump that they have given to Clinton, he would not have made it to March. If someone would have "had the stones" to USE 1/10th of the scrutiny they gave to Clinton, she wouldn't have made it to March either. that makes no sense. i appreciate the thought, but....it doesn't. she is the most scrutinized politician in history, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 21:34:23 GMT -5
![](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg&w=1484) note what the biggest chunk of the deficit is. Completely useless chart. It skipped one of the biggest drivers in the increase of our deficit and debt... Obamacare. Unless you are limiting it to the between 0.9 and 1.5 Trillion ONLY that those things added, of course. Then it's a good chart. Worthless in the real world, but pretty. Gross Costs of ObamaCare
CBO report April 2014: The gross cost of ObamaCare is $1,839 offset by $456 billion in revenue for 2015–2024, for an estimated net cost of 1.36 Trillion. It is the Congressional Budget Office’s job to point out what must change with spending to keep the deficit and debt in-line. Sot it is expected that we see cost curbing measures and taxes on the table for 2015. that is about $150B/year, or about 10% of the deficit for those years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 21:52:05 GMT -5
If someone would have "had the stones" to USE 1/10th of the scrutiny they gave to Clinton, she wouldn't have made it to March either. that makes no sense. i appreciate the thought, but....it doesn't. she is the most scrutinized politician in history, imo. You must have missed the word I bolded. I never said she wasn't scrutinized. The problems are: 1. That no one ever used that scrutiny. 2. The scrutinizing that was done was done in a poor and flawed manner (look at the recent FBI investigation for an example)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 21:54:20 GMT -5
Completely useless chart. It skipped one of the biggest drivers in the increase of our deficit and debt... Obamacare. Unless you are limiting it to the between 0.9 and 1.5 Trillion ONLY that those things added, of course. Then it's a good chart. Worthless in the real world, but pretty. Gross Costs of ObamaCare
CBO report April 2014: The gross cost of ObamaCare is $1,839 offset by $456 billion in revenue for 2015–2024, for an estimated net cost of 1.36 Trillion. It is the Congressional Budget Office’s job to point out what must change with spending to keep the deficit and debt in-line. Sot it is expected that we see cost curbing measures and taxes on the table for 2015. that is about $150B/year, or about 10% of the deficit for those years. That was but one example, of many. If you'd like to limit your chart to just ONE example, then we can talk about how it compares. ETA: Obama has done his share of adding to the debt and deficit... to the tune of DOUBLING the debt. He added twice as much as Bush did. You can't do that without twice as much deficit (on average) each year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:12:59 GMT -5
that makes no sense. i appreciate the thought, but....it doesn't. she is the most scrutinized politician in history, imo. You must have missed the word I bolded. I never said she wasn't scrutinized. The problems are: 1. That no one ever used that scrutiny. 2. The scrutinizing that was done was done in a poor and flawed manner (look at the recent FBI investigation for an example) how would you suggest they USE it, Richard?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:13:48 GMT -5
Gross Costs of ObamaCare
CBO report April 2014: The gross cost of ObamaCare is $1,839 offset by $456 billion in revenue for 2015–2024, for an estimated net cost of 1.36 Trillion. It is the Congressional Budget Office’s job to point out what must change with spending to keep the deficit and debt in-line. Sot it is expected that we see cost curbing measures and taxes on the table for 2015. that is about $150B/year, or about 10% of the deficit for those years. That was but one example, of many. If you'd like to limit your chart to just ONE example, then we can talk about how it compares. ETA: Obama has done his share of adding to the debt and deficit... to the tune of DOUBLING the debt. He added twice as much as Bush did. You can't do that without twice as much deficit (on average) each year. actually, it might not affect the graph at all. do you want me to explain why?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 22:17:18 GMT -5
You must have missed the word I bolded. I never said she wasn't scrutinized. The problems are: 1. That no one ever used that scrutiny. 2. The scrutinizing that was done was done in a poor and flawed manner (look at the recent FBI investigation for an example) how would you suggest they USE it, Richard? Ohhh... I dunno... what should be done with blatant and obvious proof of wrongdoing... If only we had a system of justice where the doers of wrong could be judged for their crimes...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 22:27:51 GMT -5
That was but one example, of many. If you'd like to limit your chart to just ONE example, then we can talk about how it compares. ETA: Obama has done his share of adding to the debt and deficit... to the tune of DOUBLING the debt. He added twice as much as Bush did. You can't do that without twice as much deficit (on average) each year. actually, it might not affect the graph at all. do you want me to explain why? Not really. Because the explanation will likely be as flawed as the graph... and I'm busy eating chicken soup
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:30:22 GMT -5
how would you suggest they USE it, Richard? Ohhh... I dunno... what should be done with blatant and obvious proof of wrongdoing... If only we had a system of justice where the doers of wrong could be judged for their crimes... nobody seemed to think that enough evidence could be brought to convict her. but you do. i don't know what to make of that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:31:33 GMT -5
actually, it might not affect the graph at all. do you want me to explain why? Not really. Because the explanation will likely be as flawed as the graph... and I'm busy eating chicken soup "might" is a pretty low hurdle to clear, Richard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 22:34:57 GMT -5
Ohhh... I dunno... what should be done with blatant and obvious proof of wrongdoing... If only we had a system of justice where the doers of wrong could be judged for their crimes... nobody seemed to think that enough evidence could be brought to convict her. but you do. i don't know what to make of that. You could "make of that" that I'm not blinded by Hillary's charms, nor am I afraid of what she might do to me (physically OR politically).
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 18, 2016 22:36:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 22:36:08 GMT -5
Not really. Because the explanation will likely be as flawed as the graph... and I'm busy eating chicken soup "might" is a pretty low hurdle to clear, Richard. It's a much higher hurdle to take Clinton to task for her crimes, apparently.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:47:52 GMT -5
nobody seemed to think that enough evidence could be brought to convict her. but you do. i don't know what to make of that. You could "make of that" that I'm not blinded by Hillary's charms, nor am I afraid of what she might do to me (physically OR politically). i doubt anyone in the legal profession is, either.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 18, 2016 22:49:46 GMT -5
Well, he's not exactly non-partisan, is he? But it is essentially correct. Reagan created the problem. Bush exacerbated it. Obama got stuck with it, though admittedly has not done enough to fix it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2016 22:50:16 GMT -5
"might" is a pretty low hurdle to clear, Richard. It's a much higher hurdle to take Clinton to task for her crimes, apparently. i guess. personally, i think that Obama should be tried for war crimes, and that the "evidence" is utterly clear. but i say the same for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower, as well.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2016 22:50:27 GMT -5
... ... nor am I afraid of what she might do to me (physically ... wow, that is a powerful statement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 23:47:31 GMT -5
... ... nor am I afraid of what she might do to me (physically ... wow, that is a powerful statement. I was referring to the people that she supposedly had killed. (I'm not saying that she did or didn't... just saying that I'm not worried about it)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2016 23:51:28 GMT -5
wow, that is a powerful statement. I was referring to the people that she supposedly had killed. (I'm not saying that she did or didn't... just saying that I'm not worried about it) Exactly my understanding of your statement.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,500
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 19, 2016 0:21:19 GMT -5
I think people will remember Trump and this election for a long time, I agree. The question is will it affect election results. And I think that in the long term no it won't. The whole election was just so bizarre precisely because it was so out of the ordinary.
There's been a lot of press given to moderate republicans not supporting Trump. Suburban, educated voters (women in particular) who might otherwise be inclined to vote republican instead voting for Hillary. I just don't see that happening in the future unless we have a repeat of this election cycle. And the democrats would be fools to count on it.
in 4-8 years there will be some more pressing matter on voters minds, not Trump. I think the GOP has a long term image problem it needs to address if it wants to remain relevant. But I think a lot of people, democrats in particular, are getting swept up in the moment and assume the sky is falling for the GOP and it will cease totally implode and cease to be a political party. I just don't see that happening. There's too strong of a conservative element in this country for that to happen.
The other thing to take into account is that both society as a whole and demographics in particular are moving away from the social conservatives. The fiscal conservatives who are at least moderate socially need to take back control of the party. They need to let the electorate push them back to where they should be. For someone like me who believes that the hallmark of what it means to be an American is that individual liberties are paramount, the social conservatives are on the wrong side of pretty much every issue. One cannot logically be in favor of individual liberty and still try to dictate behavior in areas that harm no one. Social conservatives believe in individual liberty only for those who live and believe as they do. If the GOP can correct this problem, they can and will be relevant again. If they can't, they will continue to marginalize themselves into a permanent minority. So much this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 19:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 0:30:57 GMT -5
I was referring to the people that she supposedly had killed. (I'm not saying that she did or didn't... just saying that I'm not worried about it) Exactly my understanding of your statement. It's actually got more to do with my belief in life and how it ends than anything to do with Hillary. When it's your time to go, if it's not an assassin's bullet, then it will be a bus... or a piece of chicken in your throat... or a meteor... or tripping over a break in the sidewalk. So the HOW is irrelevant. It's the WHEN that matters and we don't know that until it happens.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 19, 2016 2:09:01 GMT -5
"I just finished a article in this weeks "Time" and what I got from it..at this stage for Trump and the GOP, it's all about what kind of GOP and the way it wll be headed is what this election is a;; about..not who will be POTUS..at this stage it is acknowledged it will be HILLERY...hopefully the Senate...need only four seats to switch for Democratic control...because of the gerrymanding the house stays for the GOP most likely...
If anyone can get to read this weeks Time I do recommend it...great explanation of what is happening and why about the Donald...and the deal with the GOP.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 19, 2016 5:14:09 GMT -5
The idea is so depressing that I don't want to read it. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 19, 2016 5:14:47 GMT -5
Look where she's from and who she "represents." She's from America and she represents Americans. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) Not really
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 19, 2016 5:17:33 GMT -5
if they had given 1/10th the scrutiny to Trump that they have given to Clinton, he would not have made it to March. If someone would have "had the stones" to USE 1/10th of the scrutiny they gave to Clinton, she wouldn't have made it to March either. Nah, she made a deal and heads would roll if she wasn't given the presidency. Literally.
|
|