Its too bad that the Clinton campaign continues to lie. At what point do they realize that sometimes the truth is better than the lie?

Everything with Trump is a con:

I'm starting to think that the two major parties could run Hitler and Stalin and this country still wouldn't vote third party.

Something has to change right? We can't get two historically unpopular, old candidates who have run such uninspiring and gaffe prone campaigns and stick with the exact same system the next time around? Please?

trade in your wife every 15 years for a younger and more vigorous model?

That hypothetical pair might be more in tune with what the large majority of voters actually want than what we've seen from the large majority of actual third party candidates.

Anyone actually believe she has pneumonia? They lied about her being healthy, they lied about fainting from overheating, and now its pneumonia.

This is exactly what I thought before pneumonia was mentioned.


Oh Jesus Christ.

Hey guys, he hasn't posted since he posted this. Think it went OK? :D

I dunno, it might be time.

{Raises hand.} I'm not a supporter of telling lies, but I totally get *why* they told that lie. She's being hit on her health, and now she has a legitimate serious-sounding illness. Of *course* they're not going to put that out there unless absolutely necessary.As mentioned earlier in the thread, this is where I think they just plain screwed up. They got caught with their pants down when that video came out.

Of course all that said, pneumonia for people over 65 is more serious for those who are younger. So I hope Clinton does get some rest. Of course that's easy to say when you aren't running for office.

She wasn't doing much the last few months...another week or two should be fine.

I got pneumonia last year, thinking it was a cold that wasn't going away. Antibiotics and going to bed early for a couple of days worked for me, but I'm 43 and in reasonable shape.

Then like two days later I was reading an article about a scientist who lived in the early 20th century and it happened to mention, off-handedly, that he died at age 35 of pneumonia. I was like: "Well, FUCK!"

"Sick with pneumonia and still beating Trump in the polls!"

I've had pneumonia twice. Both times were basically colds that felt like they went on and on. Both times went to the doctor after 4 weeks because finally I felt so bad that I could barely move around. Would get lightheaded and faint with just standing. Both times had to take multiple days off work, basically doing nothing but just laying down.

So yes, I believe it.

I've had pneumonia once. I was 24 years old and in good physical condition. It's the only time in my life where I thought "I might actually die." During the worst 36ish hours of it, I felt so drained and lightheaded when I tried to stand that when I had to relieve myself, I would literally crawl to the toilet and pull myself up on it.

No doubt! Hell, you or I could beat Trump in the polls. :)

Given the number of people the candidates meet and hands they shake, it's kind of amazing the Presidential candidates in particular aren't always sick.

The Dutch-Flere ticket. The National Liberal Neo-Conservative Socialist Capitalist Party.

Our slogan can be: "If you don't accept everybody were kicking everybody's ass"

That or "What could possibly go wrong?"

I like my campaign theme.

"Let's face it. Whoever you elect is going to fuck you. But I promise you this. I will fuck you less than the other guy. Don't get me wrong - I'm going to fuck you. But I'm going to do it just a little bit less than my opponents."

"Vote Rob - He'll fuck you less."

I recall reading somewhere that Obama said that the best non-standard advice that W gave him for the job was "keep hand sanitizer around at all times."

She hit me in the arm once and that was it. I've got feeling back in the limb now, but it was touch and go for a while.

Of course, now that the story has developed that she has pneumonia, I get to deal with my 70 year old father who was in the hospital for a week last month with necrotizing pneumonia and is now claiming he feels fine. He's also been claiming for months that Clinton is on death's door and might not live to the election.

I guess it's time to ask if his will is up to date. :)

Doesn't Trump not shake hands due to germs?

That's Howie Mandel.

I don't know if you were going for a joke, but I laughed.

Both candidates are ~70 and have refused to release (accurate) medical reports, the job noticeably ages younger men, and we've heard increasing stories about the hidden health problems of the last elderly President. It's the height of hypocrisy that Donald Trump is the one raising the issues, but yeah I question whether either candidate could survive the grind for 8 years.

Not that it'll happen, but the replacement discussion is interesting. I guess the decision to withdraw is entirely up to her, then the DNC committee (which is presumably still stacked with establishment members even if DWS isn't running the clown show anymore) would meet and vote. I think Joe Biden would be the presumptive favorite over Kaine, but I wonder if they'd go to Gillibrand instead as a symbolic torchbearer who keeps up the first woman president theme and avoids having two white males on the ticket. I don't think Warren would be a good candidate and her speech at the DNC would be used as evidence of that. The angst from the Bernie supporters as he isn't even considered would be hilarious. The one other wild card I could see who could turn this race into a rout would be Michelle Obama, but I think it's too soon for her.

OTOH, in 2008 people were claiming there was no way John McCain would live 8 more years and here we are in 2016 and he still looks strong at 80 (I hope I didn't jinx him...).

It's fairly amazing that Trump can get away with calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.

But that's very different than saying because she passed out or almost passed out that validates the rumors about her health.

At some point, we'll stop starting sentences this way.

I once heard a college basketball analyst say that constantly aggressively pressing teams have an advantage--the refs simply are not going to call every foul when you are fouling every time. You start to get away with routine fouls.

It's the same way with Trump. He's either figured out or lucked into the fact that the media won't keep reporting your outrageous statements as long as you keep being outrageous.

But aren't we pretty much right on top of the window for getting a different name on the ballot in enough states to even have a chance for an electoral victory? (I've seen "early September" cited in a recent article, WSJ or WaPo I think it was)

At this point I don't know if, short of literally dying, she could withdraw even if she wanted to. Not and still have a chance for her party to win at least.

I can get behind these. Literally in CW's case. WOAH! :D


Correct: Trump Is Right About One Thing: Shaking Hands Is Kinda Gross | Huffington Post


Yeah, but he wasn't President these past 8 years.

10 U.S. Presidents Before And After Their Terms In Office | Bored Panda


There's precedent for dead people winning elections: Five people have won election to Congress, despite being dead - The Washington Post

This is very macabre, but if Clinton died or withdrew tomorrow and the DNC said the ticket would be Biden/Kaine (even if it had to be convoluted like Clinton/Kaine wins, Kaine gets inaugurated and appoints Biden, Kaine resigns, Biden appoints Kaine VP), they probably win with 55%+ of the vote.

As I understand it there's a functional difference in winning after death versus her simply "withdrawing". You can do the former & remain on the ballot, and there's procedures to handle that. If she does the latter however, I believe the Ds are pretty much screwed electorally since she cannot be replaced on the ballot in every state and there apparently isn't enough wiggle room for it to simply be treated as "well, those votes really just count for X"

What could happen however is that the race gets thrown to the House if no candidate manages an electoral majority after a Trump vs Hillary (where she remained on the ballot) AND Trump vs Replacement Candidate race (where replaced). Or at least that's what an analysis I read last night (written weeks ago, actually prompted by a Trump withdraws scenario) suggested.

Blah, sorry about my grammar mix up. Should of said due, not do.

Some of these Presidents look substantially older... some don't. For instance, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower just look 8 years old.

:D

The weird brain damage rumors? Sure. But I'd say her passing out due to an undisclosed illness that the campaign tried to cover up validates the theory that her campaign isn't being 100% honest about her health. I think it's valid to question her health, just as it's valid to question Trump's due to that absurd medical report, or was valid to question McCain's in 2008. Old people tend to have more health problems, it's a very high stress job, and any of the 3 would be the oldest President elected. Just because some weird conspiracy nuts took it too far doesn't mean the basic questions are invalid.

Well, actually Hillary Clinton would be younger than Ronald Reagan at time of first election to the Presidency. I realize that's not a great argument considering what likely happened with Reagan in his 2nd Term (though saying that Reagan's 2nd term included some pretty great successes, especially with the Soviets - and it was his second term ;) )

Clinton's choice of Kaine is looking even better now. We'd have an even bigger problem if she picked Sanders or Warren.

Many people are saying that Trump isn't even alive. His body has been cryogenically frozen and he's just this soulless heartless being with whatever they inject in you running through his veins.

Sad!

I wonder if we'll ever move away from older politicians as Presidential candidates. Both are in their seventies and while I don't want to say that disqualifies them, it's also not at the peak of physical and mental status.

It feels like as an electorate we should be aiming more for people in their 50's when it comes to electing a President. Even if Clinton and Trump looked like the picture of perfect health, so many issues start creeping in at that age that it could result in big issues for the country.

Also maybe I'm crazy but I think Trump stands a better chance if Clinton stays in the raise and just has a bunch of questions over her heard. If they replaced her with Kaine for instance, I think it'd benefit the Dems because he's a boring candidate and people would be essentially voting against Trump anyway.

I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who said "I hate Clinton but I can't vote for Trump".

You know our last three presidents have been 47, 54 and 46, right?

Eh, maybe drunk thread?

Partly drunk, partly typing on a phone and using Android auto-complete.

I saw on FB a posting by my wifes ultra liberal friend, the new spin is HRC went to a ceremony while having pneumonia and it being hot and humid.

This election is AWESOME!

She didn't go to a ceremony while having pneumonia?

HAHA. Got me.

While having?

With?

She went but then lied?

Or she just lies and covers up her lies with pats on her own back?

Say it how you want.

I hope this election never ends. :lol:

Donald Trump, Pepe the frog, and white supremacists: an explainer | Hillary for America

Lost me at Hillary for America

You can have the peak of one's physical and mental abilities, or you can give them time to build the sort of CV you'd want from a Presidential candidate.

It's really hard to have both. The Constitution disqualifies anybody under the age of 35 from holding the Presidency, so you're either relying on people in their early 20s being able to defeat entrenched incumbents to begin their career in public service preparatory to a Presidential run, or accepting that Barack Obama wasn't "inexperienced," but rather the epitome of what we want from a Presidential candidate in terms of the age/CV matrix.

This does not even make any sense. She was sick, thought she could handle it and did not.

Anyway, whenever I see posts like these, I'm reminded of why this new-ish political game is so effective. I mean, I guess it's been going on for a while, but maybe not as evident. The whole say a complete and utter lie repeatedly and force the person to address something that has no merit. Trump jumped on it with the whole birther thing, where if you keep repeating something so absurd, the dumbest of the supporters will pick up on it and continually make it a big deal. I mean, half of his supporters think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Now we have this whole health thing...pretty amazing. Is the electorate dumber or just louder?

Quite.

And there were plenty of folks on the Republican side that were in that age range: Rubio, Cruz - they just weren't picked.

You know, on second thought, let's just make this the drunk thread.

Will Do!!!!!!!

So I typically try to stay out of this thread because my views are pretty well know and in stark opposition to the majority of the board, and I am certain that I am never going to change their opinion nor are they going to change mine. So to keep the hostilities to a minimum I just avoid the conversation.

I also am not a big politics guy. Just never caught my fancy the way it does so many.

Compound the above with the fact that I do not have, nor have I ever had a facebook page.

SO I may be way behind here. But i read something earlier about Hillary having on some, special European only Zeiss manufactured anti-Seizure glasses. Any truth to this?

And if so...I guess my bigger question is, for those that are Hillary supporters if you knew her health was such that she couldn't survive her first term, or felt it reasonably likely, would it change your vote in any way?

I havent researched Caine enough to form an opinion to be honest. However I can say if Hillary were not the face of the Democratic nomination I'd have to seriously consider him as an alternate to Trump.

Kaine would be fine with me.

I would've voted for any viable candidate other than Hillary in the primary. I believed Sanders was not a viable candidate.

And herein lies the rub.

If HRC misses the event, she's too sick to be President, and maybe, too un-American to be President since she missed a 9/11 event.

And if she goes and passes out, she's too sick to be President and didn't stand at a 9/11 event.

Meanwhile, Pocahontas.

:Aaaand now to bring Healthgate full circle, Dr. Bennet Omalu, who was one of the main researchers into CTE in the NFL, has advanced the theory that much like Alexander Litvinenko, Putin has had Hillary poisoned. :banghead:

That's one of two reasons I see for the vice presidential pick to matter (and one reason I ultimately couldn't support McCain in 2008). If you're voting for an older President/candidate, be it a Reagan, a McCain, or a Clinton, you'd like to feel like if there's an unanticipated transition of power, that you're still going to be in good hands.

The other reason, a bit more esoteric, is that a Vice President, as president pro tempore, will be expected to build a relationship with the Senate at minimum; having a veep who either has a history there, or has the ability to gladhand people to grease the skids for an executive agenda, matters.

In Clinton's case, no, it wouldn't change my vote - if Tim Kaine were suddenly President of the United States, I would not have any qualms about it. Had McCain's cancer recurred and Sarah Palin been suddenly President...different story.

There is literally nothing I could learn about Hillary's health that would cause me to change my vote. I think molson said it best earlier. What kind of person supports Hillary now, but thinks she's too sick and then votes Trump?

I'll co-sign this.

The notion that anybody is changing their vote over much of anything at this point is pretty much comically naive afaic.

Sounds like Brietbart-level conspiracy theory, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.


Nope.


Yep. Look, if you change your vote from Clinton to anyone else, you're basically voting for Trump. I have a hard time believing anyone currently willing to vote for Clinton wants to see Trump in the Oval Office. It's that simple.

Just to be clear, my current intent is to vote for Trump.

I despise Trump as a candidate, but not nearly as much as I despise Hillary.

Given the choice between Trump and a Democratic option better than HRC, I might vote Dem for the second time in my life.

yeah pretty much what Flere just said-I'll take a sick Hillary over Donald because her politics and party platform are similar to my beliefs. My vote this election year more than any other is based on party not person. So if something comes up with her health that prevents her from running or continuing as President, I'm still voting for her party.

I think a more reasonable question would be "is there something that one of the candidates/parties could say/do to raise/lower the odds that people will vote at all?"

I tend to suspect that's where this election *could* turn. It's not going to turn on people switching sides entirely. Specifically, in order for Trump to win, he needs more HRC voters to think along the lines of "Meh...she's not THAT much worse than Trump, and it's a cold/rainy night...I'd rather just get/stay home than be bothered on her behalf."

I think the Trump "outreach" to minorities is probably about the flip side of that: convince non-racist Republicans who are currently "meh" about Trump that his campaign isn't bigoted, and increase the chance that they won't sit this one out or vote third party.

I have a feeling this Democratic option is someone who is a conservative Democrat. I mean, would you consider a 3rd term Barack Obama as a better Democratic option?

No, but if only because the idea of a 3rd term,to me, fundamentally weakens the republic. If it were a 2nd term of BHO, you know, I would actually consider it. I'm not sure. Glad I dont have to make that decision.

As for me, I would enthusiastically vote for a third Obama term(if it wasn't a violation of the Constitution, of course) as an alternative to Trump or HIllary. I'd also vote for anyone else since at least Nixon in that vein, were they still around and able to discharge the duties of the office.

Heh. I hadn't thought about it in that regard, but yeah, in a 3-person race, I'd pick any of them over these two. I'd probably even vote for any of the losing major party nominees.

I probably wouldn't pick W over Clinton, but otherwise...

Here's how I'd rank the candidates going back to Nixon...

Obama
B. clinton
Carter
Gore
H. Clinton
Mondale
Dukakis
Kerry
McGovern
Romney
GHWB
Ford
McCain
Reagan
GWB
Nixon
Trump

If you included major party primary candidates who actually got a decent percent of the vote, Robertson and Buchanan are the only two I can think of who I would have lower than Trump and Cruz is a tossup. You'd probably have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican who I'd consider voting for over Hillary or any other Democrat.

Today in my government class we were talking about Rousseau and consent to govern. I said that this election comes down, in part, to who's (promised) rules and laws we want to follow. I said for Trump it's build a wall and for Clinton...

We, as a class, could not really think of any specific laws Clinton is promoting/promising. Other than some of Bernie's giveaways I guess.

I think Warren lost some street cred in this election. She got into the dirt and mud-slinging with Trump--which Hillary hadn't until her deplorable comment. I'm not a Warren or liberal supporter, but I kind expected a higher standard from her. She then went all-in with Hillary, despite railing against her and everything she represents in the past.

Let's say Gary Johnson, along with Weld, make the first Presidential and VP debate. With a projected audience that could surpass the Super Bowl ratings, how much would that throw things into more chaos?

Fair question, but it sure does appear that the vast majority of people are driven by fear of the other one far too much for Johnson to make any serious dent. ("Voting for Johnson is a vote for {insert name of major Party candidate that you hate the most}")

Kaine is definitely the most appealing to me of all the President and VP candidates. My vote for Hillary is more my regarding Trump as one of my least favorite human beings, and that was was before he started running for President.

Though 'considering it' doesn't mean you'll pull the trigger ;). It's like the generic D or R... those numbers are much higher than actual candidates.

Hillary Clinton on the issues | Hillary for America

I realize your point is more about how she's done a poor job of marketing her agenda. Just wanted to clarify that she has policy positions on pretty much every major issue out there.

I can't think of the last time a political party decided that the best way to follow up a popular two-term president would be to nominate someone promising a vastly different set of laws.

Well, what are the vastly similar laws that she is promoting? And please, limit your answer to something that can fit on a hat or bumper sticker.

For better or worse, I can't point to a policy promise of Clinton's as cornerstone of her campaign. Bernie: free college, Trump: wall, Stein: pot, Cruz: repeal Obama care, Clinton: ?, Supreme court? Not Trump? Keep on keeping on?

Well, I'd start by saying that the fact you want to boil this down to WALL or POT or whatever other one word sound byte is going about the exact wrong way. And admittedly that is part of the challenge for HRC. In some sense that's our culture. She doesn't have a fancy chant about building a wall or locking Donald Trump up. But, she's got reasoned policy positions, and can speak in detail on them with a vast amount of knowledge to back them up.

HRC has been the most vocal gun sense candidate in a generation. She's been very outspoken on issues surrounding disabilities as well as mental health issues. Remember she was the first health care champion in the 90s. She's hawkish on foreign policy and a free trader. The list goes on.

Why does she need a single issue bumper sticker?

They also just don't have a big potential constituency. On the right, how many people are there that would support his economic platform at the expense of his social platform? On the left, how many people are there that would support his social platform at the expense of his economic platform? People like to believe that there is a vast pool of economically conservative/socially liberal voters, but polling doesn't back that up.

[quote=AENeuman;3118450]Well, what are the vastly similar laws that she is promoting? And please, limit your answer to something that can fit on a hat or bumper sticker.

The fact that someone who's supposed to be teaching students about government needs a slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker has me thinking we might deserve Trump after all. I mean, outside the "secret Muslim socialist" stuff, Obama's number one criticism seems to be that what he's actually accomplished in office has fallen short of his pretty lofty slogans that looked nice on a poster or bumper sticker.

To go back to my original point, you could boil down numerous presidential campaigns throughout history as "let's continue building upon what President ______ has done over the past eight years." More often than not, it's even the vice president who ends up being nominated to succeed a popular two-term president. If we currently had a ban on Muslim immigrants, gay marriage, etc., people would be saying "what does Donald Trump even stand for?" but I wouldn't expect someone to change their views just for the sake of being different.

Well, being a teacher I am used to repeating myself, so here goes: what will the voters givie Clinton consent to do? Trump is easy, Clinton, not so much (for better or worse). Sure there's lot of well argued, well thought out, comprehensive plans. But if I say- tell me the top 2 things Clinton is promising to do, I think interestingly the best answer might be: hold the course and stop Armageddon

My bigger point is that we anthropomorphize politicians. They don't really exist, they are the jungian shadows of their followers and detractors. Thus, every critique and characterization is permissible. So there :p

That certainly is not stopping the HRC apologists or excusers here and elsewhere, though. Funny how hard they have to try against a deplorable candidate. :p

The only choice/deciding factor in the presidential election is to vote for one or to not vote for any.

In what way am I trying hard?

Neither does voting, which is even more accurate than polling.

It's ironic that Clinton's greatest strength (well argued, well though out, comprehensive plans - basically due to her being a wonk and part of Washington for 20+ years) are sold as her biggest weakness.

Maybe what you should tell your students that the fact that you can't sum up Clinton's campaign in one word, like the others, is how you sum it up.

Voting results don't mean much when there's rarely, if ever, a feasible candidate that legitimately believes in economic conservatism. Both major parties love spending all the moneys.

I believe part of the problem is for voters like these is one issue or the other is more important to them and they vote that way.

Yes. Just to take one example, if you're pro-life you probably aren't going to consider Johnson no matter how much you might agree with his economic platform.

This statement from a candidate in the GOP Senate primary in Louisiana is great.

Side note: anecdotally, lately I'm seeing a bit of buzz from pro-life folks about Johnson, mainly spurred by this particular article:

Gary Johnson: Pro-Life Conservatives’ Best Pick | National Review

(11 pro-lifers from my FB friend list have shared that article, including 2 pastors.)

I'm not convinced that it's anything real; it's the same crowd that I've mentioned in this thread before: Mainly-Rubio-Supporting, Bible-Over-Culture Evangelicals who are aghast at the top two options. I tend to suspect that if Trump manages to maintain the level of decorum that he has in the past couple of weeks or so, a decent percentage of them will try to convince themselves that Trump has changed.

To be 100% clear, though, I won't. :D