Don't forget John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
For me, I want qualified people to run. It is on the electorate if they can't separate one Clinton or Bush from another. Personally, I never had that problem.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Don't forget John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
For me, I want qualified people to run. It is on the electorate if they can't separate one Clinton or Bush from another. Personally, I never had that problem.
Regardless of that it's probably not China, Mexico and Vietnam that is going to kill manufacturing jobs. It's automation that is going to do them in.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/
Bloodline-based monarchies don't have to win elections. Name recognition gets these candidates in the door, but it doesn't automatically give them the win, as this election demonstrates, and it can also end up hurting them as much as helping depending on the name.
Michelle Obama hasn't expressed any public interest in running for office (not that she can't change her mind in the future), but Chelsea Clinton recently has suggested that she's open to the possibility, and I don't see why she should be discouraged from running just because of her last name and what offices her parents held.
Also, no one was suggesting that Michelle Obama ascend directly to the presidency without gaining experience first, although after this election, apparently no one gives a fuck. The idea would I'm sure be for her to hold some lower office like a Senate seat or governorship to build up experience for the presidency. And no, I'm not the one suggesting Michelle Obama first and foremost as a candidate, though I think she's great. I'm just indulging the hypothetical scenario presented here.
Yeah...I actually covered that. In fact, I claimed that I was the one killing jobs. I'll spend an afternoon writing a script (maybe less than 300 lines of code) and suddenly my company doesn't need to hire a new clerical worker.
My team might network a bunch of fabrication machines together, so now one person can monitor 30 machines at once from a desk, when even a year ago 1 person was needed for 10.
And there's a few million people just like me, few of them working in Silicon Valley, that do this every day, every week. We keep down costs by keeping dozens to hundreds of people from being hired. All for one upper middle class salary.
There's nothing *wrong* with family of past presidents running for the same position. Its just really unlikely that out of a nation of 300 million they're the best person for the job. Also, if you've risen high enough to live in that bubble once, it's probably been a long time since you've had to live with the threat of life-destroying events that keep most Americans up at night. Hilary Clinton may be unemployed, but she's not at risk of losing her home. Any of them.
Also note this is pretty much the same reason why I don't trust billionaires (particularly the scions of already wealthy families) much either. They don't know strife. They can't, their wealth means they've never been without options.
Also, let's be honest. George W Bush, JEB, and Hilary are all kind of lame candidates or awful presidents. W had 8 years in office and the only good thing to come out of it was his Campaign to end AIDS in Africa. Though, since it single handedly turned the corner on that crisis, it almost makes up for all the other awful things he did.
Last edited:
In a nation of 350 million people, I doubt we've ever had "the best person" for the job get the job. Did you see the idiots row of candidates on both sides? Not sure there are any of them that I would implicitly trust to run a McDonald's, much less the United States. Though Hilary Clinton was likely the most qualified candidate to come down the road in a very long time, even though she was a flawed candidate.
American Presidents are historically more on the mediocre side. We're pretty lucky to get a good one now and then.
Sure, she has an excellent resume, but is such a lousy campaigner that she lost to the least qualified candidate of the last century (at minimum). Who is also cozy with white nationalists, intellectually lazy and a internet troll.
She spent months repeating the line "if helping people is playing the woman card, then deal me in". While I'm sure that sounded great in the head of whoever thought it up, it's f*cking awful. At the same time, the best they could come with after years of talking about emailgate was "my bad, I won't do it again, also Powell did it".
Even when she was right, she said it in the cringiest way possible. Even if she had won, she'd have had major difficulties winning legislative victories simply because she'd lose most of the PR battles.
I stand by my earlier statements that none of this justifies supporting a racist. Voters have their own responsibilities, and they failed at them, but all blame needs to be laid at the feet of ALL responsible.
There is certainly blame to go around.
Did the wipeout of Dems in the midterms or Obama recruiting many of the most promising governors to serve in his administration have such a significant effect in the shallow bench of Democrat candidates this election. Aside from Sanders and Clinton, there was only O'Malley and Webb. Or was this because everyone else knew Obama had backed Clinton?
OOoo Sorry Mrs Rosa Parkes I don't care about your story. Sit at the back of the goddam bus...its the law!
But at least you would have got your country back from those kidnappers!
The A-lister Democrats sat this one out due to deference to Clinton. Arguably, the B-listers stayed home too. The people that ran against Clinton in the primary were C-list at best. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. And don't forget Lincoln Chaffee. He might qualify as D-list.
Ironically, most of the people who glommed onto Trump and then won the political lottery were the minor leaguers of the right. Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guliani were/are hasbeens living a posh life of semi retired consulting and pundantry. They don't know how the world works anymore, if they ever did.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/higbie-japanese-internment-muslim_us_582d2f9fe4b099512f80f7b7
Yes I know it's Huffington Post but to think someone had this idea and thinks its perfectly OK to do this. I am not that surprised seeing what we just got for the new administration.
Yes I know it's Huffington Post but to think someone had this idea and thinks its perfectly OK to do this. I am not that surprised seeing what we just got for the new administration.
Umm... he's finishing up his second elected term. He isn't eligible to run.
It all boils down to this: A significant portion of voters either didn't like Hillary, thought it was time for a change, were sick to death of being talked down to by Democrats, a bunch of other stuff, or any/all of the above.
One thing stands out to me. In 2008 and 2012 there were exactly zero free counseling stations for distraught Republicans.
They probably went out and stomped bunnies or sonething.
One thing stands out to me. In 2008 and 2012 there were exactly zero free counseling stations for distraught Republicans.
They probably went out and stomped bunnies or sonething.
The people needing counseling are minorities worried about their future because Trump ran on a platform that was openly hostile to them and promising to make changes that would affect them. Republicans never experienced that, so there is a difference.
More like they have bigger things to deal with day to day than who wins an election. Like stomping bunnies and shit.
- Status
Similar threads
