I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

the freed child rapist + laughed about it "scandal" is so disingenuous

he keeps getting older, but women in their late 20s keep being a demographic

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2c/ef/cb/2cefcb07573cbafe34a3ee9cb90dd291.jpg

dammit just saw your gif shakey

henwood is pretty dumb, huh.

I have a followup question: If my grandmother had wheels, exactly what brand of trolley car would she be?

By citing Lewinsky et. al. Trump is appealing to those who cannot conceive of Bill ever being back in the White House in any capacity. But Trump had those votes already. He has only one audience he understands, appreciates and panders to. I expect a good 20% of the votes he'll get will be from voters who find him completely disgusting, but they'll do it because he's the Republican nominee.

Henwood has a rage-boner for Hillary that won't quit and it's disappointing because otherwise I think he does valuable work

Serious question: If Sanders had been the nominee, who would all the neocons be endorsing?

And if your answer is a variation of "Not Sanders," what does that say about who Clinton is?

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, September 30, 2016 2:02 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^^valid questions, imo

my guess is that most of them would've just remained silent?

henwood is pretty dumb, huh.

the questions were mine, Prince Stoner.

what does that say about who Clinton is?

it says she's someone with political positions that neocons find more palatable than sanders' positions. but that is hardly a surprise to anyone who can rub two neurons together. I note only that sanders is not the nominee. feel free to write him in if you wish.

serious answer: presumably they wouldn't endorse sanders but maybe they would have. he's still more a part of the US foreign affairs consensus than Trump. or maybe bc of his other issues they'd decline to endorse anyone but it's kinda a silly counterfactual. it doesn't indicate anything about who hillary /is/ - only that she is more palatable than Trump or Sanders to neoconservatives. but that's meaningless. if Trump is -50 palatable and Sanders is -30 and Hillary is -20, she'd be the closest to them and still lack much in common. now in reality she does share enough tenants in common that i think they should all endorse her but this game u keep playing of knowing her by her endorsements, especially when she's running against trump, just continues to be asinine.

tenets*

political positions that neocons find more palatable than sanders' positions. but that is hardly a surprise

Both ilxors and my friends on FB were saying in the spring that BS and HRC "were not that different."

The question presupposes that an American electorate that would nominate Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side would also have still nominated Trump on the Republican side, which I don't take as a given at all. The two processes are largely independent, but that doesn't mean they're completely independent.

"were not that different" i mean do u not understand nuance at all? they could disagree on 10% of things, and if she agrees with neoconservatives 5% more often than he does they'd obv prefer him to her. i don't understand why this is complicated for you?

i mean obv prefer her to him

this game u keep playing of knowing her by her endorsements

i don't; they are just (partly) confirmatory. Her smelly resume/mendacity is the North Star.

but it's non-information. preferring her to trump means that you recognize trump is an existential threat. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

if they had endorsed her over jeb or cruz you'd have a case but of course they would not have

I think it'd be a good idea to have a president that neocons find revolting and refuse to endorse. (Unless it's Trump.)

HRC and BS are not that different inasmuch as they are both relatively rational actors who would've been running against a shit-flinging ape.

nobody who is reading this thread has any blinders on about who hillary clinton is, which is why the morbs robot is so tedious

Serious question: If Sanders had been the nominee, who would all the neocons be endorsing?

And if your answer is a variation of "Not Sanders," what does that say about who Clinton is?

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, September 30, 2016 2:02 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if sanders had been the nominee we would be seen complete solidarity from center right to far right against a jewish northeast socialist. the three parts of the republican coalition that are the most HRC friendly -- "professionals" from the national security blob, the "apolitical" centrist business/media elites, the pressed-khaki suburban decent types -- would absolutely find a way to make their peace with vulgar nationalism if faced with redistribution. hippie punching is a national pastime.

HOWEVER what's p stunning about this election is that the iron laws of partisan ID seem to be asserting themselves even when the candidacies are so bizarre. neither HRC and DJT are running all that diff from O vs Mitt.

The safest counterfactual is that Bernie would be running about the same! i think maybe worse for the reasons above, maybe a little better w/o the sexism and the peculiar specific hatred that magnetizes around HRC. it would not be a different country.

The question presupposes that an American electorate that would nominate Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side would also have still nominated Trump on the Republican side, which I don't take as a given at all.

seems to me that this would actually have implied a more unified mood

i think, if pressed, they would have endorsed trump, tbh. even for the wing of the gop more interested in empire-building than tax cuts, socialism is the worst thing.

In examining the overall history of major party presidential nominees, Clinton doesn't stand out as noticeably more mendacious or opportunistic than her nominee peers.

as ilx's resident neocon i'd like to say that if it were bernie v trump i'd endorse bernie. i find his foreign policy positions much more palatable than trump's.

some bad modifier agreement there, editing in a hurry as yoozh

xp unremarked upon in all of this was bernie's relative hawkishness! he wanted to do the necessary to destroy ISIS (and kick out assad/russians ?) iirc

I'd like to think a sizeable portion of the GOP would've gone Bernie. Rich people with international financial interests probably prefer to not have those interests threatened by the reactionary whims of a maniac.

yeah i think the pt is that would be the rational choice. whether they could've brought themselves to do it idk

but there are not enough of those people

fuckin tribes man

i liked schilling when he was playing for the red sox

it's also entirely possible that sanders would have a hardcore shift to the center for the national election because he actually wanted to become president

Ha ha , oh man, Chicago Tribune endorses ... Johnson. What a bunch of idiots.

eeehhhh i don't buy it. "Rich people with international financial interests" were bernie's sole villains!

i'd like to think he definitely wouldn't have cozied up to putin

Uh oh, conspiracy fuel: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-was-apparently-right-about-the-debate-microphone/502484/

"When I tested, it was beautiful, like an hour before, I said what a great mic.”

Of course you did.

Eh. It'll delude people into thinking he'll do great next time and fix ALL his problems. Hell, he probably thinks that.

which is why the morbs robot is so tedious

iatee you disappointed me til i got over it

The two best things anyone in this situation can do is a) throw something at Trump that'll wound his ego and stick in his craw and that he'll feel the need to respond to incessantly and b) do whatever you can to give Trump a false sense of confidence. Per point b), if he really does think the microphone was his problem in the last debate, watch him show up to the town hall even less prepared than before and probably comfortably going all-in on how awful and disgusting women are.

I figure there's already a 0% chance that he doesn't blast Machado next Sunday.

My microphone in the room, they couldn't hear me, you know, it was going on and off.

If the television audience heard everything (I did, down to the last sniffle) and if the live audience could hear him well enough to react to various zing lines, this still seems like nothing more than excuses for his poor debate performance.

If Hillary says "Donald thinks women are disgusting" at the next debate then he can either say nothing and let it stand, or say something like "No, I don't. My daughter has a great body". There doesn't seem to be a third option.

Or he could pull out of all remaining debates, citing conspiracy

That'd be great! Anecdotal accounts seem to agree that Clinton is at her best when she's communicating with people one-on-one, so 90 minutes of her doing just that without interruptions from a manic orangutan should do nothing but help her.

did "Nancy Reagan started a national conversation about AIDS" count as one-on-one?

yeah clinton has been doing one on one type stuff since the 70s. trump is barely human.

tiny detail that will surprise nobody: the kid who coined "don't tase me bro" has grown up into a trumpist:

https://twitter.com/TheAndrewMeyer

takes you back, doesn't it

Dollars to donuts lightsaber kid is firmly behind Hillary.

He's in for more tasing, if not shooting, in the new wild west that will be the Trump presidency. xp

Mainstream media cut my tough questions to John Kerry into a sound bite