U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Svip]

Your sister is not undecided, she has decided to vote for Hillary. A lot of people vote along party lines, so it seems like a reasonable decision.

[sivispacem]

 

It's not so much that Hillary is a liar - all politicians are liars - but it's that she's about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Your complacency disgusts me. I'm more bemused by why someone would want a politician to be exciting. Surely boring competency is kind of what you hope for?

[Aether]

We lost our chance at getting his father into office....

 

Rand Paul anyone?

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tempest

[Svip]

There was never a chance.

[Eutyphro]

 

 

It's not so much that Hillary is a liar - all politicians are liars - but it's that she's about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Your complacency disgusts me.

I'm more bemused by why someone would want a politician to be exciting. Surely boring competency is kind of what you hope for?

 

 

I think competency in a politician is exciting though. I remember watching Corbyn in the Labour leadership debates. His competency was a major turn on I tell ya. I've never seen a politician tackle the issues and silence the establishment frauds so elegantly. I like Bernie, but he doesn't turn me on like that. I love it when steamy hot rationality destroys idiotic populism or boring establishment conformism. And that's the reason why Hillary is so boring, because she is a political establishment phony. And when she does her girl power first female president bullsh*t act, or her fake southern accent act, she's outright disgusting.

 

[Aether]

Just went through the threads history regarding rand... was not disappointed ..

 

You may be correct though about there not being a chance though^... if only.

[Svip]

Just went through the threads history regarding rand... was not disappointed ..

 

You may be correct though about there not being a chance though^... if only.

Regardless of one's opinion of Ron Paul, it was clear that the media completely eclipsed him and the other Republican candidates could therefore completely ignore his issues. The media is hungry for a fight on the Democratic side, therefore they are giving Bernie Sanders a much larger media coverage (they even covered Joe Biden before he effectively declined).

 

Through no fault of his own, Paul was not even able to influence the public debate, but Sanders have.

 

Rand Paul, unfortunately, doesn't have the same gist as his father, and while the media seems more keen on covering him than his father (for some reason), he lacks the ability to gather a crowd and a strong base like his father. I suppose largely because he doesn't have a coherent message like his father did. I sure don't know what he wants, other than cut budgets. And Ted Cruz is eclipsing him on that front. He just has some additional crazy and always seem so angry.

 

With so many candidates, it's natural for Rand Paul to disappear in the crowd.

[X S]

I'm more bemused by why someone would want a politician to be exciting. Surely boring competency is kind of what you hope for

 

But charisma is an ability to motivate and/or influence others, and Hillary has neither. So how does she expect to work with Congress in the manner that her husband did? Bill did an excellent job working with some of the most cut-throat Republicans on Capitol Hill. This was attributed to his interpersonal skills and charisma, which included negotiations, relationship management and emotional control/sensitivity.

 

Here's a great excerpt from a HBR article on the subject:

 

 

Charisma has been getting a bad rap recently. The trend among leadership gurus is to discredit the “great man” theory of leadership (there aren’t enough women leaders yet for a “great woman” theory to discredit), and emphasize instead the ideas of multiple leaders, followership, distributed leadership, and teams. It is true that no single individual succeeds by himself or herself. Even so-called “water walkers” (named after a religious figure) have stones holding them up while they walk on the water — that is, support systems just below the surface. It is also true that the religious tinge associated with charisma conjures up images of blind faith, whether leading people to drink the lethal kool-aid or invoking the false hope that a new CEO can rescue a failing corporation all by herself. But rejecting charisma as a factor goes overboard, missing the personal appeal that makes someone a leader.

 

Similarly, U.S. Presidential elections have been criticized for emphasizing personality over substance. Social psychologists have turned likeability and competence into distinct variables, as though leaders can’t have both. In election season, the likeability factor is measured but simultaneously discredited by pundits who caricature it as a choice of beer-drinking companions. I come down on the other side: I think people should choose the more charismatic candidate, all other things being roughly equal, because a leader that can charm us and lead us into a movement reflecting our better selves is also the most likely to use that appeal to get things done in a contentious political environment. Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had charisma in abundance. Leaders can hire for spreadsheet skills, but they can’t outsource relationship skills.

 

https://hbr.org/2012/09/why-you-need-charisma.html

 

I think this pretty much echoes what I've said a few times in this thread.

[sivispacem]

Charisma and excitement are very different things, though.

[Eutyphro]

Meh, semantics.

[Dingdongs]

I think Hillary has an ability to get things done and to execute policy in a way that Obama never had. If you look at memoirs from people in the Obama administration, it seems to go something to that effect. She's definitely nothing like her husband in terms of getting along with people, given her caustic personality. That being said she's more of an effective leader than Obama has ever been. Obama's problem with gridlock is that he's just so arrogant and idealistic that he can't work out deals with people. The Clinton way is a lot more conciliatory and willing to compromise, which I think will do wonders.. even if she's not as friendly/charismatic as her husband.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Irviding

[Clem Fandango]

 

I'm more bemused by why someone would want a politician to be exciting. Surely boring competency is kind of what you hope for

 

But charisma is an ability to motivate and/or influence others, and Hillary has neither. So how does she expect to work with Congress in the manner that her husband did? Bill did an excellent job working with some of the most cut-throat Republicans on Capitol Hill. This was attributed to his interpersonal skills and charisma, which included negotiations, relationship management and emotional control/sensitivity.

And is she going to use this nebulous charisma to have congress address our grievances and better our positions, or is she going to continue to impoverish and oppress us? I think the latter. Do stars and stripes block your vision, or do you think you deserve destitution? An effective politician under late Capitalism is a destructive force.

[X S]

And is she going to use this nebulous charisma to have congress address our grievances and better our positions

 

No, but there is a very real and imminent danger concerning the hype around Hillary Clinton. Her ability to persuade and coax the masses is unprecedented yet incredibly impressive, and there's something very colorful about, something beyond the political "spectrum": the power of her suitpants.

 

 

 

[El Dildo]

Charisma and excitement are very different things, though.

Meh, semantics.

yeah I dunno about that.

I think Sivis made an important distinction.

 

people seem to be excited about Ben Carson... who has the charisma of a burlap sack.

[Eutyphro]

Nah, people aren't excited about Ben Carson. They just dislike him the least. Trump is more popular than Carson, and Trump is like an older billionaire version of Eric Cartman. So the troll master is the front runner..That tells you what people think of the other candidates, or even politics in general.

[El Dildo]

dude someone is excited about Ben Carson by definition

 

he sure as hell won't win, but you don't lead in the polls for nothing.

as a rational human being who enjoys logic, I don't understand the excitement, but clearly it's there.

[slimeball supreme]

But we all forget that if Ben Carson becomes president, we will have the first ever Goblin First Lady.

A huge step for Goblin Rights imho.

[Eutyphro]

@Diablo: Cause your tv or your New York Times tells you so? There's not much excitement about politics dude. The only candidate generating genuine excitement is Bernie. Mainstream media may try to make you think otherwise, but that's the way it is. That's probably true in any rich Western country. People are so obsessed with their little perfect consumer bullsh*t issues and identity issues, mostly manufactured by the same mainstream, that they are just apathetic spectators in the realm of politics. Wanna see people excited about politics? Go to South America.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

 

And is she going to use this nebulous charisma to have congress address our grievances and better our positions

 

No, but there is a very real and imminent danger concerning the hype around Hillary Clinton. Her ability to persuade and coax the masses is unprecedented yet incredibly impressive, and there's something very colorful about, something beyond the political "spectrum": the power of her suitpants.

 

 

 

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be a throne sniffer?

[El Dildo]

There's not much excitement about politics dude. The only candidate generating genuine excitement is Bernie...

I disagree with both of those statements.

 

I'm referring to people who are already interested in politics; likely voters.

not people who already don't care.

 

aside from 2012, voter turnout in the US has increased by several percentage points every election.

it's a fairly hot time in politics for those that are into it. multiple candidates are generating excitement on both sides.

[Eutyphro]

Voter turnout is still low as hell though. And Carson supporters are likely middle aged or old, narrow minded, prudish, christians... People whose worldview depends on what they see on their tv or read in their newspaper.. These aren't the kinds of people that are 'excited' about politics. They just vote for some candidate the mainstream accepts, doesn't offend them, and they think might be a nice person. People who are 'excited' about politics are generally either activists, or people aligned with (paid by) maistream candidates. How much people go to Ben Carson rallies? Not a lot. The type of people that like Carson are generally people that don't go further than reading their paper or watching their news.

[El Dildo]

US voter turnout has always been relatively low but it has been increasing over the last few cycles. and whether or not it's for the right reasons, multiple candidates are generating excitement amongst their base. we're dealing with pretty big social issues that the country hasn't really wanted to face since the 80s.

[Dingdongs]

US voter turnout has always been relatively low but it has been increasing over the last few cycles. and whether or not it's for the right reasons, multiple candidates are generating excitement amongst their base. we're dealing with pretty big social issues that the country hasn't really wanted to face since the 80s.

Agreed. Euty, you should look at the amount of people going to Trump rallies. You can't seriously argue that Bernie is the only candidate generating excitement. That's just narrow-minded. Yeah most of us on this forum think Trump's politics are f*cking ridiculous, but you can't discount the fact that he has the same number if not more people going to his rallies as Bernie.

[Eutyphro]

Which is likely due to Obama's ability to persuade certain groups that used to probably have a pretty low turnout. I don't deny the way Obama has 'excited' people. I must admit he even got me back in 08. But it doesn't have to do with 'excitement' over Republicans. We are dealing with massive issues, correct. But the type of establishment solutions mainstream candidates provide don't excite people. They might vote for them because they might be persuaded by the mainstream to think these people are capable and dependable, or they might be persuaded to fear the actual solutions like Bernie is providing, but they're not excited by them, hence why few go to a Carson rally eventhough nationally he polls as well as Bernie.

Trump is a billionaire celebrity though. I'd go see Trump if I could... I'd laugh my ass off, but maybe be a little ashamed at being around people that think he's genuinely a good candidate.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Eutyphro

[X S]

Can you like, for one minute, not be a throne sniffer?

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be such a whining malcontent?

[Clem Fandango]

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be a throne sniffer?

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be such a whining malcontent?

 

Nah things are pretty f*cked aye. I mean you can turn up the music at the 4th of July Freedom Bash all you want, it won't unboil the oceans. I should be happy that you live in a country where elections are decided by a streamers and bullhorn contest?

 

I'd love to see you follow a British election like 'when do they hand out the big foam fingers?'

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be a throne sniffer?

 

Can you like, for one minute, not be such a whining malcontent?

 

Nah things are pretty f*cked aye. I mean you can turn up the music at the 4th of July Freedom Bash all you want, it won't unboil the oceans. I should be happy that you live in a country where elections are decided by a streamers and bullhorn contest?

 

I'd love to see you follow a British election like 'when do they hand out the big foam fingers?'

 

go back to australia

[Eutyphro]

Dudes, this ain't general chat. We're supposed to debate content with long paragraphs here and sh*t. You guyz make funny jokes tho.

[darthYENIK]

Dudes, this ain't general chat. We're supposed to debate content with long paragraphs here and sh*t. You guyz make funny jokes tho.

Debates & Discussion.

 

I'm going full blue, voting for Sanders. I'd vote for Hillary, but she just would provoke the Republican Party to keep acting like stubborn kindergarteners who won't eat their vegetables because Hillary is feeding them. I despise bipartisan bullsh*t, and hope that any president elected would have at least a reasonable amount of cooperation. All we've heard for the last 16 years is whatever party the president is part of, the other party treats like the enemy.

 

I think Sanders has the most chance to not have that bullsh*t happen, as much.

[El Dildo]

Sanders really is the man and I want to vote for him.

 

ugh