Never a nominee with a major party. And there's a reason I said Trump is worse in the racism/xenophobia department in the post-Civil Rights era. Plus Thurmond was at least good in other ways (experience as a governor for starters). Trump is not. He literally has nothing going for him.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Hope is the denial of reality
Teddy Roosevelt was a state legislator, a reformer of the spoils system in the bureaucracy, a police commissioner, an assistant secretary, and governor. He might have had a rotten temperament, but was otherwise a good politician.
Hope is the denial of reality
He was a candidate and got 39 electoral votes. You didn't say "major party candidate", you said "candidate" and Thurmond was a candidate.
I never said he had nothing going for him but when compared to people like Thurmond nothing is still better than that.
I assumed it was, I was asking RB.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oops sorry tired from a long day at work. You did say "major party candidate" my mistake. In which case that excludes the truly awful like Strom and his ilk which I was thinking of so I think you're right.
Major = Democrat or Republican. And there's a reason I said that. I was explicitly excluding George Wallace. But he never had a chance of victory because he didn't run with the major parties.
Even with that, he was nowhere as bad as Trump, especially in relation to his competitors and norms of the time. Are we going to pretend Trump is better than Washington because Trump isn't supporting slavery?
Hope is the denial of reality
See my post above. I made a mistake, I thought you were including people like him.
If Washington was standing as a pro-slavery candidate as a reactionary against an anti-slavery incumbent, say Washington was standing against Lincoln with the issue of slavery post-Emancipation Proclamation then yes I would think that was relevant. Thurmond was standing against Truman's federal anti-lynching laws etc so it's not just that he stood in a time where it wasn't an issue.
But not every War has been declared by Congress....which is one of their most important functions, that supports the theory of a divided government, and doesn't give too much power to the Executive branch. So which is it? We've been involved in military actions, but not outright declared wars, for decades now. We helped to install the Shah of Iran, which turned out to be disastrous.
Not sure what your point is Geegee. Loki is explicitly saying that the President holds the power and you're replying to say "but the President has used the power". That's exactly what he's saying ...
I'm saying that while POTUS is a lofty public office...it's our constitution, and separation of powers, that makes the presidency less important. Most of the work is done by congress. Including confirmation of SCOTUS judges, appointees to the Treasury, and the Central Bank. It's not like the POTUS can demand things, like Erdogan has done in Turkey....or that a referendum will be put to popular vote like Brexit was in the UK. Ours is a peculiar and special system.
Are you trying to be sarcastic here? Congress hasn't been the most dominant branch since the 1930s, possibly earlier.
Hope is the denial of reality
He was also the last person the party wanted to see in office. They nominated him as vice president because they were desperate to get him out of the governor's seat in New York and it was the only thing they had that could induce him to leave. History judges him positively. But as far as the Republicans at the time were concerned, he was a nightmare.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Parties could dislike candidates for lots of reasons though, many of them unrelated to how horrible the candidate is a person or how much he'd accomplish in the presidency (in fact, they might occasionally have the opposite incentive). Given what he did later on, he wasn't exactly the most loyal Republican either.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, I'm being sardonic, sarcastic, and skeptical. Congress IS the dominant branch according to the US Constitution, that mandates consent from voters. Unfortunately our political process has mucked up the principle. And we find our soldiers are involved in WARS that aren't declared by congress, and their healthcare can't be funded with public dollars, either. When they come home they're on their own.
Hoo ya, huh.
Which kind of supports my point about not putting a lunatic in charge of the de facto strongest branch...
Hope is the denial of reality
Only if you think the strongest branch is the Executive, or the Presidency.
Don't get me wrong, I think a President Trump would be disastrous.....but only on a superficial basis: the congress would still be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.
One of my personal beefs is that the media doesn't cover political principles very well.
You yourself just admitted as much.
Congress has abrogated on its foreign policy responsibilities at least 80 years ago. Only marginally better on domestic policy. I don't quite understand why you think Congress would magically claim back all that power (especially when they've given it up for so long that even the Supreme Court started ruling that they no longer possess it).
Hope is the denial of reality
I think (hope?) there are new metrics. And if that looks like political parties at odds with themselves, or inner party disagreements, so what? Congress can only hide behind Party or Presidential politics for so long.....You yourself just admitted as much.
Congress has abrogated on its foreign policy responsibilities at least 80 years ago. Only marginally better on domestic policy. I don't quite understand why you think Congress would magically claim back all that power (especially when they've given it up for so long that even the Supreme Court started ruling that they no longer possess it)
So we should vote for the candidate who openly wants to dismantle those checks and balances? I'm talking about Hillary by the way. The anti-Trump case is easy, even if we want to dabble in the shallow media narrative of the socialist elite. The pro-Hillary case is far more challenging for me.
There's no need for a pro-Hillary case. She is not a lunatic. That's sufficient. The bar is that low.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/st...43347838586880
Trump is really taking this to epic proportions. This is a man who can't live without daily crises. If he doesn't get one, he creates one. Imagine how he'll react when he's facing a real crisis.
Last edited by Loki; 08-01-2016 at 10:17 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
I've never voted for a third party before but if I was an American I'd be sorely tempted to vote Libertarian this year.
Clinton has the election in the bag making a vote on principles safer.
She does not have this election in the bag and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Until I see a consistent 10% lead for Clinton, I'm assuming the polls are underreporting Trump support.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'd say Clinton is highly favored to win unless a big scandal (whatever wikileaks has been teasing they have) or she bombs the debates. Outside of that its an easy win for her.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html 3.9% isn't "highly favored".
Hope is the denial of reality
Outside of the convention bump Trump hasn't ever been leading. I swear its like Trump is the bogeyman to you.
And I already pointed out that numerous polls in the last few years significantly underestimated support for far right candidates or positions.
Hope is the denial of reality
#johnson2016
Fairly sure he's not far right.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes it is (if you believe in polls) plus that's a distorted average as it includes polls between the conventions.
Plus if you look at the State polling the picture is even clearer. Which 2012 Obama states is Trump going to take to get enough Electoral College votes? Which red states is he losing?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote