What a Mess

[woodchip]

The DNC convention shows that the Dems are the real ones that have to be worried about unity. Forget Trump and the RNC, that was a walk in the park compared to whats going on. First there was the DNC chair getting boo'd off the stage. So bad was the situation she had to be protected by security. Pretty bad when you have to protect one of your own from fellow members. Then we have Bernie protestors with Trump like signs saying "Lock her up". You can gauge how much the Dems believe in America by the fact they have no US flags visible. Today (I think) the DNC will have mothers of sons slain by the police to no doubt give tearful testimony and tug at the unstable emotional heart strings of the liberal masses. Curious how no mothers of slain policmen were invited for their tearful testimony.

Now lets throw in DNC emails making fun of gays and calling crazy Bernie a athiest because he is jewish and we have the loony tune left giving us comedy gold. Going to be fun seeing what goes on today and the next couple of days. I suspect at the end of this Hillary Clinton will not get much of a bounce if any. Get your popcorn made and tune in for some fine SNL type comedy.

[Vander]

Do you feel better now after your Two Minutes Hate?

[woodchip]

At least as good as slick did when he had his hate moments against the RNC

[callmeslick]

time to address yet another bald faced lie by woody. I posted here that I don't even watch the first two nights of either convention, then went to VA after the first night, commenting not one bit as I didn't have web access in the beach house, by choice.

[Tunnelcat]

Now woody, what do you think the Republican Convention would have looked like if they had conspired, and succeeded, in dumping Trump as the nominee? A crazy zoo being led by a bunch of foul mouthed Trump goons and supporters in all probability. It would have been a free-for-all. Your party was run over by the Trump train and no dissenters were left alive. A perfect little Neo-Fascist convention, don't you think?

Hillary may have rigged her nomination, but she's not controlling the convention like a dictator. A lot of Bernie delegates are at the convention and have been allowed their free will and the free speech to back up their convictions. They aren't being silenced by any Hillary convention goons. She obviously has thicker skin than the thin-skinned Trump, who can't put up with anyone saying anything UNTOWARD about HIS EXCELLENCY. In your convention, only Ted Cruz had the conviction to rain on the Trump Parade. Why? Because the Trump storm troopers were controlling everything and everyone down to the nth degree like a bunch of Neo-Fascist brown shirts. Trump didn't want to hear ANY dissent. He tamped it down with an iron fist. You'll also notice that a whole lot of notable Republicans skipped the whole convention, like Romney, ALL the Bush's, Rubio, Kasich and McCain, to name a few.

[woodchip]

Funny TC how there are allegations by Bernie supporters that their pro Bernie signs were taken away by the DNC goon squads.

[Vander]

Funny TC how there are allegations by Bernie supporters that their pro Bernie signs were taken away by the DNC goon squads.

Interesting. I've read separate accounts that Bernie signs were actually provided by DNC people.

[callmeslick]

they WERE, as were the Michelle signs and others. That, and this whole messy looking process is what you get when you have real diversity and real inclusion. A big tent can get rowdy.

[Tunnelcat]

Funny TC how there are allegations by Bernie supporters that their pro Bernie signs were taken away by the DNC goon squads.

It does appear there were signs taken from people at the convention. I stand corrected. I still saw a LOT of Bernie signs all over the convention floor though, so they weren't very successful at it. But yeah, it looks like they tried being heavy handed and pissed off a lot of Bernie supporters in the process. It's now a moot point though. Bernie and Vermont just suspended the rules and gave all their delegate votes, and the nomination, to Hillary. It really sucks. The Dems are no better than the Republicans, they're all arrogant politicians.

https://twitter.com/dizzyeyes

[callmeslick]

they hand them out and they take them back. Happens with ALL the handheld signage made up by the National Committee. They weren't taking peoples signs that they brought with them, although that signage is pretty well vetted. When watching conventions(either party), note how many people are walking around like little billboards. They can't really do much about that, unless, I suppose, someone showed up with obscenities or such in plain view.

seriously, nothing to see here. Let's move along:

Now, my thoughts about Bernie or Bust delegates, and I limit this to delegates. If you are going to be obstinate and not accept the legitimately nominated candidate(and there is ZERO evidence that despite many in the DNC rooting for Hillary, that any state outcome was affected), you have no business being a delegate for a party convention. Period. Especially given the level of accomodation in terms of platform focus, the outreach from Sanders and his key surrogates, there is no reason anyone going on TV and saying they are voting Green or some such shouldn't be ruled off the floor. Maybe I'm an old-school parlimentarian, but there is a purpose for a party convention, and as opposed to a primary or even caucus, this is a function SOLELY of the party. Every number I've been shown in the past two days up here is that over 85 percent of all Bernie supporters say they will vote for Hillary, right now, so that would be about 5 percent above of where Obama was with Hillary people in 2008. Time will tell, but that number should actually go up....Obama saw 90 percent by the election. Apologies for any typos, I'm working for a few days on a crap Lenovo tablet and my fat fingers don't deal too well by this point in the night...........

[Tunnelcat]

It looks like you're right about Sander's supporters, that around 90% are going to vote for Hillary, at least in the most recent poll. However, I will not. The Democratic Party wanted Hillary, so they coronated her and pushed her down our throats long before the whole primary process was finished, marginalizing and ignoring a fairly large chunk of voters who obviously thought outerwise. The party worked for her and against Sanders, even before all the nation's votes were finally cast. I'm glad Sander's supporters made a stink.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need fresh blood, new leadership, different ideas and a new direction. Not Trump either. He's not a leader, just a hollow narcissistic showman plutocrat. Hillary herself brings back with her the old, stale, entrenched, insular, tired and failed ideas from days past. She changes her positions to suit herself or her monied donors. She doesn't keep a promise and she lies to protect herself. She's a party sycophant in a party that's failed to change along with it's younger voters. I'm an old fart and I'm saying this. The Dems have gotten too comfortable in their ramshackle political house and they're corrupt, so that's why I'm going back to being an independant. I want no part of the Democratic Party.

She also dragging along baggage in the form of a previous polarizing president who was responsible for many of our current problems now. I don't want him nor do I want her anywhere near the Oval Office. Been there, done that, screwed it up. Personally, I think she's so polarizing that she may just lose the election too.

[Vander]

I agree with a lot of that, but I have a more favorable view of Clinton than you. I think she's been defined very negatively since the 90's by people who peddle every batsh!t theory they can come up with. There's a "cry wolf" effect going on that informs my perception that she isn't as bad as people say. Then, there's a certain level of grift/cronyism I'll accept as a given in politics at this level. That's horrible, I know, but I think it's realistic. So there's kind of a push and pull between she's not as bad as everyone says vs ok she can be a little bad.

Somewhere in the middle, I think there's a boring, imperfect centrist public servant with an incredible amount of experience. Hardly someone to get excited about, but still preferable to the alternative.

My vote in Presidential races is already pretty worthless. The primary has already been decided in every primary I've voted in by the time it got to California, and the last couple decades since we've been any kind of swing state. It's the local votes that really matter anyways, but I figure if I have a ballot in my hand, I'll throw a vote against Trump.

[callmeslick]

I even learned new things last night from Bill, who may not have been on his A plus game, but his B game is amazing. You likely have never seen a 20K plus crowd become an intimate chat like he made it for the first 20 minutes. Anyhow, I agree with the assessment that she's a sort of wonky public servant with a very good heart, and bright mind. I came away from yesterday realizing that on sheer experience alone, she has to be the most qualified candidate for POTUS since maybe Pappy Bush, and may even have a more versatile balance of domestic and foreign policy that he did. Yes, in some ways she reflects traditional politics, but also has at times shown what good can be done by traditional politics done correctly, and an appreciation(this is something I learned in the past 2 days) for the role of private citizen involvement. TC, take a look at the depth of resume. You are free, of course to keep your long developed beliefs, but in my case, I've gained a far deeper appreciation of her good points in the talks I've had of late with folks who know her(I have never met her), and realized how much of my image of her came from media generalizations and the obvious 30 year smear campaign. As one who wants this nation to move to Universal Health Care, I have always appreciated that Hillary was the one, to date, who gave that the best try. Maybe the next time, she will succeed, if we let her.

[vision]

Somewhere in the middle, I think there's a boring, imperfect centrist public servant with an incredible amount of experience. Hardly someone to get excited about, but still preferable to the alternative.

Everything you said was on-point, and this in particular matches my feeling on the matter. This board is a good example of how the outrage machine churns out anti-Clinton garbage. The most gullible on this board are also the most vocally against her.

...she has to be the most qualified candidate for POTUS since maybe Pappy Bush...

Funny that you mention this because I was thinking something similar. It's probably why a few of my Republican friends are voting Clinton (I'm assuming all my Republican friends are voting for Clinton or Johnson since not a single person I know has admitted to backing Trump).


That said, I'm not voting for her and don't care too much if Trump get elected. Neither of them will last more than four years and the country won't collapse in the meantime.

[callmeslick]

I'm actually quite convinced, or at least FAR more convinced, that she has what it takes to be a two term POTUS who might turn out to be vastly better than her husband, so long as she is surrounded with folks who can communicate the goals more forceably than is her nature. Don't you think that if, and this can well be the case if the Dems regain the Senate and gain steam down ballot this year, by the year 2019, we have a nearly universal health insurance plan available to the populace, don't mess with the Obama recovery, and start working towards long-term planning, infrastructure building and MAYBE even address the tax code inequities, she wouldn't ROLL to a second term? Thing is the GOP is neither organized enough, nor having enough political capital to block everything like they tried with Obama.

[callmeslick]

oh, and the spin her people would put on the changing positions over the years(and I take this with a grain of partisan salt) is that she was a Senator who actively sought out opinions of the voters, and when confronted with a consensus among those she represented, she changed her position. It is tricky, especially in this goofy period where any idea of traditional politics is rejected out of hand without nuance(see TC above), to make regular folks grasp the differences between a President, who sets policy agendas, and a Senator who represents an electorate in a deliberative body.

[sigma]

A typical story of the decline of the once powerful country, when for Presidency to nominated are pensioners almost at the point of death.
I still make a bet on a dark horse.

[Top Gun]

Only in countries like yours with terrible average life expectancies. (70 years? Really? That's just pathetic.)

[vision]

A typical story of the decline of the once powerful country, when for Presidency to nominated are pensioners almost at the point of death.

What is your point?

Our politicians live longer than Russian politicians. Since 1977 only one president has died from old age, many years after he left the presidency.

[Tunnelcat]

I even learned new things last night from Bill, who may not have been on his A plus game, but his B game is amazing. You likely have never seen a 20K plus crowd become an intimate chat like he made it for the first 20 minutes. Anyhow, I agree with the assessment that she's a sort of wonky public servant with a very good heart, and bright mind. I came away from yesterday realizing that on sheer experience alone, she has to be the most qualified candidate for POTUS since maybe Pappy Bush, and may even have a more versatile balance of domestic and foreign policy that he did. Yes, in some ways she reflects traditional politics, but also has at times shown what good can be done by traditional politics done correctly, and an appreciation(this is something I learned in the past 2 days) for the role of private citizen involvement. TC, take a look at the depth of resume. You are free, of course to keep your long developed beliefs, but in my case, I've gained a far deeper appreciation of her good points in the talks I've had of late with folks who know her(I have never met her), and realized how much of my image of her came from media generalizations and the obvious 30 year smear campaign. As one who wants this nation to move to Universal Health Care, I have always appreciated that Hillary was the one, to date, who gave that the best try. Maybe the next time, she will succeed, if we let her.

Oh, I agree with you that she's more than qualified to be president. She's got experience in spades and considerably more judgement, patience and sensibility that Trump will ever have. That's why I hope she prevails over Trump, because that bastard plain and simple is a traitor, a traitor who actually encouraged a foreign power to engage in computer hacking against our own politicians. What an ass.

But I can't give her my vote for one of the reasons you said. She's a traditional old school corrupt politician. She's become too comfortable in her political position for too long. She's become far removed from the lives of average Americans. She can no longer relate to what most people struggle with in their everyday lives. When was the last time she drove her own car, shopped for her own food, paid for her own rent, cleaned her own house or paid her own utility bills? She may be smart, but she's insular, too connected and too cozy with the rich, powerful political heavies in Washington. She knows nothing else because she's been immersed in the culture for so long. Rich donors fighting one another just to get the chance to pay the required $200,000 donation just for the priviledge of sitting in the coveted spot next to Clinton at some lavish political dinner. It comes off as snooty and arrogant.

If we want change, we have to demand change starting with the type of leaders we elect, we need someone without the taint of wealth, power and greed. We need someone who has a connection to the average American and knows all too well how the wealthy class has been gutting the middle class for decades. The only second best thing Hillary did was pick Tim Kaine. The first would have been Bernie, but that's now in the past. At least Kaine has actually done a lot of substantial work for people in need or who were destitute and oppressed.

[sigma]

A typical story of the decline of the once powerful country, when for Presidency to nominated are pensioners almost at the point of death.

What is your point?

Our politicians live longer than Russian politicians. Since 1977 only one president has died from old age, many years after he left the presidency.

Actually in a coma sometimes people live quite a long time too.

[woodchip]

I understand Nixon was deemed eminently qualified to be president also.

[sigma]

Nixon is generally a separate special story.

[Tunnelcat]

I understand Nixon was deemed eminently qualified to be president also.

True. But Trump is definitely unqualified to be president, and an egomaniac, foul-mouthed narcissist, with tendencies towards treason when it suits him, just to top things off.

[sigma]

Only in countries like yours with terrible average life expectancies. (70 years? Really? That's just pathetic.)

TG, statistics is a tricky thing as you know. According to my observations, the average life expectancy in Russia is the standard 80-83 years. While no doubt that in different regions there is a big difference. Somewhere people can not live up even to the retirement age, somewhere people live 100 years and more. Truly.

[Top Gun]

I'm sorry to say that your observations don't really mean anything when compared to statistical analysis. My country has several population subsets that have unfortunately low life expectancies, yet we still manage to rank in the high 70s overall, and even that isn't all that impressive when compared to multiple other first-world countries. A value as low as 70 indicates some serious societal issues going on.

[Tunnelcat]

Unfortunately Top Gun, THIS country, out of all the high income nations in the world, has the most costly healthcare with the worst outcomes. So Americans are more likely to die bankrupt and destitute once they reach old age. Japan, Macau and Monaco have considerably higher life expectancies than ours too.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... er-nations

[Top Gun]

Oh yeah, definitely, and you could write entire novels (people have!) going into the reasons why. (Personally I think that statistic about the US being the only country in that study that spends more on healthcare than social services is particularly telling.) But what cracked me up the most about sigma describing Clinton and Trump as "near death" is that they're both extremely wealthy white people, i.e. the subgroup with easy access to the best healthcare and the longest life expectancies of all. Also the part where he continues to throw stones in glass houses, but that's hardly a shock by now.

[sigma]

Naturally, I did not do a deep analysis of life expectancy. I just expressed my personal overall impression.

"near death" - it is a figurative, colloquial, metaphorical verbal expression, not literally, of course. As you have correctly understood, I drew an analogy with Era of Stagnation in the Soviet Union, when the heads of state were elderly, sick people (although they were under the care of medical luminaries of world renown, but, that does not matter much generally).

[callmeslick]

I suspect, sigma, from reading your words, that the reality in Russia is quite similar to ours. If one lives in proximity to greater affluence(not necessarily being affluent one's own self), you will have a far greater life expectancy than in pockets of poverty or remote geography. As you have far more of the latter than we do, that alone might be a strong. As Americans, we have potential access to some of the absolute cutting edge finest healthcare on the planet. However, due to a delivery system, plus the sheer costs of making such available in every region, that is but a dream for many here. Our insurers often will not compensate for actual viable lifesaving therapies, rendering the costs prohibitive. The interesting part of the comparison of the US and Russia is that NEITHER of our nations ranks in the top tier, worldwide in either life expectancy, infant mortality(tied to the previous innately), or efficiency of outcome management. Maybe we both have things to work on......

[sigma]

If our countries will no longer spend so much money on upgrading and maintenance of weapons, the social situation of our citizens will improve much faster.

[Tunnelcat]

Naturally, I did not do a deep analysis of life expectancy. I just expressed my personal overall impression.

"near death" - it is a figurative, colloquial, metaphorical verbal expression, not literally, of course. As you have correctly understood, I drew an analogy with Era of Stagnation in the Soviet Union, when the heads of state were elderly, sick people (although they were under the care of medical luminaries of world renown, but, that does not matter much generally).

In other words, our leaders are typically old people who are more likely to suffer from old age diseases and infirmities. Don't brag about Putin sigma, he's in his 60's, no youngster either. I will grant you that since Trump is 70 and Hillary is 69, they definitely qualify as old people. Even Bernie Sanders is ancient at 75. Only one of the Republican candidates was very young and that was Marco Rubio, who at 45, almost looks like a baby to me.

[callmeslick]

Nixon is generally a separate special story.

the Russian fellow gets it. Perspective, that is. Good job!

[callmeslick]

If our countries will no longer spend so much money on upgrading and maintenance of weapons, the social situation of our citizens will improve much faster.

see above

[sigma]

Keep it up, heaven-born politician )