Discussion:
Americans are about to get the first landslide president we don't want
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2016-08-25 21:48:02 UTC
Permalink
We’ve got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.

And she’s become a bystander in this race.

On Thursday, after the usual barrage and tumult of nuttier-than-a-
Skippy-factory stories about the Donald Trump campaign, Hillary Clinton
didn’t show up until page A15 of that day’s edition of The New York
Times, in a story in which she practically begged America, “Hey! Over
here! I’m in this thing too!”

It turns out Clinton has some sort of tax proposal. (She wants to raise
them.) Nobody cares. It won’t pass. Nothing she says matters. These
days she might as well be reading “Twilight” fan fiction at her
rallies. She is the first major presidential candidate since James
Monroe ran unopposed in 1820 who could spend October of election year
in Fiji if she wanted to.

Hillary Clinton, it appears, will be elected president on Nov. 8 and
probably by a margin in the “wide” to “vast” range. She has so much
money, she’s become Richard Pryor in “Brewster’s Millions,” struggling
to unload it all before the deadline. This week she opened a field
office in Lubbock, Texas, a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic
president since 1976.

The enthusiasm about Clinton being the first woman to reach the
presidency will fizzle quickly. Indeed, it has already fizzled because
the fresh, exciting, renewing aspect of her ascendance is effectively
canceled by her persona. She’s a 68-year-old FBI-branded liar who for
years has been at the levers of a breathtakingly sordid fee-seeking
apparatus in which praising Goldman Sachs in return for $675,000
constitutes among the least alarming maneuvers. “First woman president”
implies novelty, and Hillary Clinton is the opposite of that. It
implies outsider status, and she gets a nope there too. It implies you
blazed your own trail away from the patriarchy, but Hillary would be an
obscure lawyer somewhere if it weren’t for her husband.

Get ready for the winner-by-default president. Hillary Clinton’s
selling point, and the one that’s probably good enough for America
right now, is that She isn’t He. But so is every other person (but
one). How many of them could also have beaten Donald Trump? Not only
Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren but Al Gore, John Kerry, Walter Mondale
and Alec Baldwin must be shaking their heads and wondering why they
didn’t run. (Thought bubble over Baldwin’s head: I could have been the
stable, even-tempered voice of reason in this race.)

‘Voters can change their minds quickly, but in Clinton’s case
it won’t even be clear what they think in the first place.’

Clinton may have been dreaming and scheming for this since she took
that job on the Watergate committee, but she still figures to be an
accidental president, a beneficiary of circumstance in the same strange
category as Gerald Ford. There is much chatter in DC these days about
the meaningless, journalist-invented concept of “a mandate,” a voodoo
belief that a president elected by a wide margin can do whatever he or
she wants.

Voters don’t think that way, though: As soon as Barack Obama started
doing unpopular stuff, they remembered they were still allowed to have
opinions and opposed his policies, then immediately began installing
Republican roadblocks to the Obama agenda starting with the election of
Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy just one year into the new
president’s term.

Voters can change their minds quickly, but in Clinton’s case it won’t
even be clear what they think in the first place. A double-digit win, a
“Hillary Clinton mandate,” would mean what, exactly? What does she
stand for? Her early Flower Power radicalism, best expressed by her
trippy Wellesley commencement speech in which she said politics was
about opening up “ecstatic and penetrating modes of living”? Her wonky
moderate turn in the last six years of the (first) Clinton
administration? Her support for the Iraq War and for Wall Street as
senator? The sharp turn left she made this summer, after primary
season, solely to secure the endorsement of Bernie Sanders? Even
Hillary must go to sleep at night wondering, “Wait a sec, which me am I
this time?” You can’t vote decisively for a blur.

An astonishing (but kinda not really) NBC News/Survey Monkey poll
released this week has her winning the presidential race by 9 points,
even though just 42 percent of voters said Clinton has the personality
and temperament to serve, just 23 percent agreed that she “cares about
people like you,” just 20 percent said she shared their values, and
only 11 percent said she is honest and trustworthy.

Your average IRS auditor/ambulance chaser who moonlights as a used-car
salesman enjoys better numbers. Unfortunately for Clinton, as of Nov.
9, she will no longer enjoy the benefit of comparison with Trump.
Americans are about to get the first landslide president we didn’t
want.
--
New Comprehensive List of Hillary's Accomplishments:
.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
super70s
2016-08-27 00:29:59 UTC
Permalink
We've got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she's become a bystander in this race.
It isn't Hillary's fault the Republicans nominated an idiot egomaniac
who's about to lose spectacularly.

BTW if you're going to lift from the NY Post you could at least give
them a little credit.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-08-27 01:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by super70s
We've got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she's become a bystander in this race.
It isn't Hillary's fault the Republicans nominated an idiot egomaniac
who's about to lose spectacularly.
NOT Hillary's fault that she was selling influence and running a
cover-up of the *Clinton Crime Foundation* Hillary was just a bystander.
Post by super70s
BTW if you're going to lift from the NY Post you could at least give
them a little credit.
If we tell the truth and you require the cite to confirm it, you should
give them the credit.
--
That's Karma ;)


*Rumination*
#1.0.8 - Liberalism is the lie that never ends.
super70s
2016-08-27 10:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by super70s
BTW if you're going to lift from the NY Post you could at least
give them a little credit.
If we tell the truth and you require the cite to confirm it, you
should give them the credit.
That harangue is hardly "the truth," it's an opinion. Probably of
someone who's been afflicted with HDS for decades.
who would back a dumb candidate?
2016-08-26 00:31:06 UTC
Permalink
We've got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she's become a bystander in this race.
[snip]

Yeah, well . . . .

Donald Trump’s shocking ignorance, laid bare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-shocking-ignorance-laid-bare/2016/03/24/b66d2b6c-f1f7-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html?utm_term=.6e223dc352f8
NoBody
2016-08-30 10:39:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:31:06 -0700 (PDT), "who would back a dumb
Post by who would back a dumb candidate?
We've got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she's become a bystander in this race.
[snip]
Yeah, well . . . .
Donald Trump’s shocking ignorance, laid bare
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-shocking-ignorance-laid-bare/2016/03/24/b66d2b6c-f1f7-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html?utm_term=.6e223dc352f8
What about the candidate who doesn't know what it means to "wipe a
server"? I guess that's not ignorance to you...
Gronk
2016-09-06 03:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:31:06 -0700 (PDT), "who would back a dumb
Post by who would back a dumb candidate?
We've got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she's become a bystander in this race.
[snip]
Yeah, well . . . .
Donald Trump’s shocking ignorance, laid bare
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-shocking-ignorance-laid-bare/2016/03/24/b66d2b6c-f1f7-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html?utm_term=.6e223dc352f8
What about the candidate who doesn't know what it means to "wipe a
server"? I guess that's not ignorance to you...
As if McTrumpFace would know...

Christopher Helms
2016-08-26 07:32:54 UTC
Permalink
We’ve got a presidential campaign that stars one of the most
polarizing, divisive and talked-about figures in American life, an
international celebrity and lightning rod for all sociopolitical topics
going back a quarter of a century.
And she’s become a bystander in this race.
On Thursday, after the usual barrage and tumult of nuttier-than-a-
Skippy-factory stories about the Donald Trump campaign, Hillary Clinton
didn’t show up until page A15 of that day’s edition of The New York
Times, in a story in which she practically begged America, “Hey! Over
here! I’m in this thing too!”
It turns out Clinton has some sort of tax proposal. (She wants to raise
them.) Nobody cares. It won’t pass. Nothing she says matters. These
days she might as well be reading “Twilight” fan fiction at her
rallies. She is the first major presidential candidate since James
Monroe ran unopposed in 1820 who could spend October of election year
in Fiji if she wanted to.
Hillary Clinton, it appears, will be elected president on Nov. 8 and
probably by a margin in the “wide” to “vast” range. She has so much
money, she’s become Richard Pryor in “Brewster’s Millions,” struggling
to unload it all before the deadline. This week she opened a field
office in Lubbock, Texas, a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic
president since 1976.
The enthusiasm about Clinton being the first woman to reach the
presidency will fizzle quickly. Indeed, it has already fizzled because
the fresh, exciting, renewing aspect of her ascendance is effectively
canceled by her persona. She’s a 68-year-old FBI-branded liar who for
years has been at the levers of a breathtakingly sordid fee-seeking
apparatus in which praising Goldman Sachs in return for $675,000
constitutes among the least alarming maneuvers. “First woman president”
implies novelty, and Hillary Clinton is the opposite of that. It
implies outsider status, and she gets a nope there too. It implies you
blazed your own trail away from the patriarchy, but Hillary would be an
obscure lawyer somewhere if it weren’t for her husband.
Get ready for the winner-by-default president. Hillary Clinton’s
selling point, and the one that’s probably good enough for America
right now, is that She isn’t He. But so is every other person (but
one). How many of them could also have beaten Donald Trump? Not only
Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren but Al Gore, John Kerry, Walter Mondale
and Alec Baldwin must be shaking their heads and wondering why they
didn’t run. (Thought bubble over Baldwin’s head: I could have been the
stable, even-tempered voice of reason in this race.)
‘Voters can change their minds quickly, but in Clinton’s case
it won’t even be clear what they think in the first place.’
Clinton may have been dreaming and scheming for this since she took
that job on the Watergate committee, but she still figures to be an
accidental president, a beneficiary of circumstance in the same strange
category as Gerald Ford. There is much chatter in DC these days about
the meaningless, journalist-invented concept of “a mandate,” a voodoo
belief that a president elected by a wide margin can do whatever he or
she wants.
Voters don’t think that way, though: As soon as Barack Obama started
doing unpopular stuff, they remembered they were still allowed to have
opinions and opposed his policies, then immediately began installing
Republican roadblocks to the Obama agenda starting with the election of
Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy just one year into the new
president’s term.
Voters can change their minds quickly, but in Clinton’s case it won’t
even be clear what they think in the first place. A double-digit win, a
“Hillary Clinton mandate,” would mean what, exactly? What does she
stand for? Her early Flower Power radicalism, best expressed by her
trippy Wellesley commencement speech in which she said politics was
about opening up “ecstatic and penetrating modes of living”? Her wonky
moderate turn in the last six years of the (first) Clinton
administration? Her support for the Iraq War and for Wall Street as
senator? The sharp turn left she made this summer, after primary
season, solely to secure the endorsement of Bernie Sanders? Even
Hillary must go to sleep at night wondering, “Wait a sec, which me am I
this time?” You can’t vote decisively for a blur.
An astonishing (but kinda not really) NBC News/Survey Monkey poll
released this week has her winning the presidential race by 9 points,
even though just 42 percent of voters said Clinton has the personality
and temperament to serve, just 23 percent agreed that she “cares about
people like you,” just 20 percent said she shared their values, and
only 11 percent said she is honest and trustworthy.
Your average IRS auditor/ambulance chaser who moonlights as a used-car
salesman enjoys better numbers. Unfortunately for Clinton, as of Nov.
9, she will no longer enjoy the benefit of comparison with Trump.
Americans are about to get the first landslide president we didn’t
want.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's going to be like having a really dumb, incompetent version of
Billy Sol Estes as President. She could easily do more damage to
the Democrat party than Dubya did to the Republicans. Which is saying
something.
Loading...