[HoosierDaddy]

The public/private thing:

"But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."

"CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, "balance" — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

That's called politics.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 11 October 2016 - 10:58 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

I have a Hillary anecdote. It might be dull but this election needs a bit of dullness. Two of my cousins are obsessed with famous people and have a running competition for who sees the most. There's a points system with increasing points depending on international status and attire. Top points are for an American famous person wearing sunglasses indoors. One cousin blew the other out of the water at her brothers Oxford uni graduation. Chelsea was graduating so Bill and Hills were there and Hillary was wearing sunglasses. The end. You're welcome.

[worry]

Bonus points if they were this pair:



On a more serious note, more women are coming forward: http://www.nytimes.c...rump-women.html

[EmperorMagus]

worry, on 12 October 2016 - 11:28 PM, said:

Bonus points if they were this pair:



On a more serious note, more women are coming forward: http://www.nytimes.c...rump-women.html

Color me surprised.

[worry]

And another one. A firsthand account from a People Magazine reporter who personally covered him as part of her beat: http://people.com/po...-people-writer/

He is a sexual predator.

[Tiste Simeon]

And now his fans are saying women should no longer be allowed to vote after someone did a map saying that is only women voters nearly every state would be blue... I'm at work and about to start so I can't link but there's a #repealthe19th going round...

[worry]

That sounds more like 4chan trolling than something that would originate with Trump folks, to be honest. I'm not saying it didn't catch on a little with some of them, but it seems keyed specifically to get a reaction after the Access Hollywood tape...and people (and media) obliged.

Edit: That's just a hunch, mind you.

This post has been edited by worry: 13 October 2016 - 07:27 AM

[Silencer]

Well, pretty sure nearly every state would be blue if the demographics were limited by the 18-35 age bracket too (just going by what I've seen of us polling stats from memory), or limited to those with a degree. So unless they want to enact laws to restrict the voting age to middle age or older white men.... Hmm... Probably shouldn't suggest that, in hindsight. XD

[Tsundoku]

Are you guys referring to this?

http://www.news.com....7759c10bc2cfe1a

[Vengeance]

The map is from 538 he did one that showed if only women voted as well. It is almost totally blue.



538 article

[QuickTidal]

Not sure if this was posted yet as its a few weeks old now...but it's pretty spot on.

[Terez]

Vengeance, on 13 October 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

The map is from 538 he did one that showed if only women voted as well. It is almost totally blue.

538 article

MS is a depressing exception. I made the mistake at looking at the comments on an article from WLOX (Biloxi) about a Miss Universe pageant participant from Hattiesburg, my college town. Every single top-voted comment was about how women who parade around on stage in bikinis should expect that kind of treatment. It was atrocious, and most of the comments were from women.

[HoosierDaddy]

I can legitimately see Michelle Obama as Hillary 2.0 with a far higher rate of popularity.

She's got the chops, but not the experience though. That said, if she went 2 years in House, Senate for 1 or 1/2 a session.....

Hillary's biggest hitters are the Admin she worked in with Biden and Barack and Michelle Obama, with Bill at #4.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 14 October 2016 - 01:52 AM

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 October 2016 - 01:52 AM, said:

I can legitimately see Michelle Obama as Hillary 2.0 with a far higher rate of popularity.

She's got the chops, but not the experience though. That said, if she went 2 years in House, Senate for 1 or 1/2 a session.....

Hillary's biggest hitters are the Admin she worked in with Biden and Barack and Michelle Obama, with Bill at #4.

Could happen, but I would not automatically expect it. Hillary was always politically driven.


She was a force behind Bill. Michelle has maintained credibility and popularity but in a more traditional first lady role. No talk of co-presidency or such. The closest attacks I can recall republicans having on her was wanting to force their fat kids to eat better. That's a far cry from a first lady pushing single payer health care.

Lets put it this way. Hillary was always going to want to run. I would not expect that from Michelle, but depending on the state of the party I could see people reaching out to her to go for first a senate seat, then the big job. But a presidency takes a lot out of you. The Obamas may well get pressure and still simply enjoy their retirement.

[HoosierDaddy]

Nevyn, on 14 October 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 14 October 2016 - 01:52 AM, said:

I can legitimately see Michelle Obama as Hillary 2.0 with a far higher rate of popularity.

She's got the chops, but not the experience though. That said, if she went 2 years in House, Senate for 1 or 1/2 a session.....

Hillary's biggest hitters are the Admin she worked in with Biden and Barack and Michelle Obama, with Bill at #4.

Could happen, but I would not automatically expect it. Hillary was always politically driven.


She was a force behind Bill. Michelle has maintained credibility and popularity but in a more traditional first lady role. No talk of co-presidency or such. The closest attacks I can recall republicans having on her was wanting to force their fat kids to eat better. That's a far cry from a first lady pushing single payer health care.

Lets put it this way. Hillary was always going to want to run. I would not expect that from Michelle, but depending on the state of the party I could see people reaching out to her to go for first a senate seat, then the big job. But a presidency takes a lot out of you. The Obamas may well get pressure and still simply enjoy their retirement.

Oh, I don't think she will ever run, so it doesn't really matter. BUT, she's so fantastically awesome.

That being said, a little experience here and there, it wouldn't take much... if she did. Hypothetically.

But, she won't. And shouldn't for her and her family.

Hillary will work for at least 4.

[worry]

She's an all-time great though for sure.

[HoosierDaddy]

The Trump campaign has now gone full Alt-Conspiracy.

Every conspiracy you can think of? He just agreed with.

I typed "Lol.". Then I thought: This is my country.

I'm sad. Let's vote and get this done.

[worry]

Seriously scary: the barely coded language about an international cabal of bankers and media to go with the Dem and minority bashing. Even when he loses it's not gonna stop being ugly.

[Silencer]

worry, on 14 October 2016 - 05:14 AM, said:

Seriously scary: the barely coded language about an international cabal of bankers and media to go with the Dem and minority bashing. Even when he loses it's not gonna stop being ugly.

See, the thing is, conspiracies like that actually make a certain amount of sense. Money, after all, makes the world go round, and bankers are pretty much in control of the money. After the clusterfuck that was the GFC, it's *very* easy to point at the financial sector as being outright malicious, engaged in conspiracy, and corrupt as hell.
Of course, that doesn't explain why it was grounded in America, or why various people within the industry were trying to raise the red flag, why it all actually fell over instead of just continuing to suck the economy dry, why the bailouts and post-bailout bonuses happened, etc, etc.

But it's an easy conspiracy to sell, and an easy conspiracy to believe. Of course, it's more likely to be a dozen or more competing "conspiracies" (read: rich people trying to get richer and damn the consequences), and be much less in control than a *real* global conspiracy would have to be, even if you want to take it that far. So yeah, that particular sort of talk won't be going away for a loooooooooong time after he loses.

[EmperorMagus]

http://www.nytimes.c...ump-letter.html

I believe that's what you would call a burn.

The level of snark in that response is physically hurting me. Also, I wonder how stupid someone has to be to become Trump's lawyer. Have they no self respect?