2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Aerin]

I'd have to imagine that against a normal opponent, it being proven that she ran a pay-for-play state department would cause huge issues.

But it's Trump, so shrug.

Pretty much. Your choices are someone who comes across as corrupt, but capable and not crazy. Or someone who would probably bring about the end of the world. God bless America.

[Zealot]

Seeing a lot of breaking news that it's been established she had one of her top State Department aides conduct interviews on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.

[kisada]

it's more like GOP's insanity and shittiness finally catching up with them. once clinton wins (and if they can take senate) that'll effectively bury the republican party for a longggggggggggg time, and i'm not sure they could ever come back.

[Zealot]

The GOP has had and continues to have a fantastic ground game in state and local elections. Until people care more about those, the GOP will continue to exist and thrive.

[Quicklet]

We'll have to see how much of a downballot buffer the GOP has in the event of a 6-8+ Trump loss. I don't know how much presidential campaign field work mixes in with party field work for downballot races, but Trump's lack of organization in a lot of key states could have an effect as well.

2016 is *probably* a lost cause for them at this point, but if they can minimize their losses by disassociating from Trump early enough, they can focus on a comeback in 2018 or 2020. They have to excise the Trump cancer from the party though, or they're going to be in even worse position come 2020.

[Olo401]

I'd have to imagine that against a normal opponent, it being proven that she ran a pay-for-play state department would cause huge issues.

But it's Trump, so shrug.

It being proven.. but it never happened.

[kisada]

@zealot yeah you are right. i'm speaking more of the national level.

maybe it's my optimism/naivete, but if dems take WH/senate, we're gonna see a lot of shit getting done which hasn't exactly been the case over the past 8 years because of GOP interference.

Furthermore, while technically they can make some kind of comeback in 2018/2020, i just don't see how that's gonna happen. The GOP's top members are all still living in an age where they obsess over gay rights, religion, environmental issues being non-issues, etc. and america has been over that shit for a while now. The biggest signal was when the 2012 election autopsy came out and very clearly defined why they lost and what they needed to do better. But instead of actually fixing that shit and presenting a functional republican candidate in 2016, virtually every single one of the nominees quadruple-downed on all the things that fucked them up in 2012. As a result donald trump is their nominee.

with america continually trending towards being more liberal and the party's conservatives pretty much wanting to stay stuck in whatever fucking era they're in now and not wanting to change, i don't see them doing anything meaningful for a while.

[Dimmauk]

Again, the only person that can save the Republican party is Tim Tebow

[Andalusian girls]

AG, here's an interesting counterpoint to the idea that we could've kept troops there if we wanted to, and that they would've made a huge difference in stopping ISIS.

Curious what you think.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/1243874...ded-isis-trump

The relevant section

read the whole article and need to preface by saying i hope you aren't getting your history lessons from Vox as that piece is riddled with elementary errors. as to the germane section-

his first argument is that the collapse of central authority in Syria gave ISIS a safe haven from which to operate and the United States could do nothing to prevent this. the former is accurate, the latter is a matter of debate. Hillary Clinton for one desired intervention in the Syrian Civil War on behalf of the FSA quite early in the struggle, but that is a discussion distinct from the withdrawal from Iraq.

his second argument is Maliki's policies alienated and disenfranchised Iraq's Sunni minority, leading to hotbeds of civil unrest that readily joined the struggle against Baghdad's rule when ISIS rose in rebellion and the United States could do nothing to prevent this. again the premise is accurate, the estimation of American influence quite inaccurate. time and again during our occupation there American leadership forced al-Maliki into a more conciliatory stance with both Sunni and Kurdish minorities than he otherwise would have taken, and our direct dealings with both groupings proved rather more fruitful than their dealings with Baghdad. knowing American support was tied to political reconciliation as well as military success made Maliki a far more moderate leader than he would be in the absence of an American presence, as we discovered the moment we withdrew from the nation letting all and sundry know Iraq was no longer a primary geopolitical concern and his eyes promptly turned to the sectarian support of Shia Iran.

to wit the last American units withdrew from Iraq on December 18th 2011 and on December 19th 2011 president al-Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice-president on terrorism charges. you can believe the timing is coincidental if you want but, well.

his last argument is the most nonsensical, that negotiations were doomed with the Iraqis and no SOFA permitting a limited troop presence could have been affected. the sticking point in the negotiations was the impression a continued American presence would only be accepted by the Iraqi Parliament if American troops were subject to Iraqi legal authority when they committed crimes against Iraqi civilians. in response to that we did not threaten to withdraw American reconstruction aid, we did not seek a political agreement with al-Maliki himself bypassing the Iraqi Parliament, and we did not offer to allow some measure of legal jurisprudence over our service members as we have done in South Korea and various other nations in which we maintain a military presence. in sum we've no idea if negotiations were doomed to failure as Obama barely attempted to negotiate.

i don't know if our continued presence could have prevented the rise of ISIS, but i do know the total withdrawal from the region enabled the group to gestate into something far fiercer than it had ever been as they overran much of Iraq and Syria in the resultant power vacuums, eventually necessitating our reentry into the theater under far worse military and political circumstances than those present when we abandoned it.

[Xantavia]

Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?

Trumps Twitter lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does he not see an issue where every statement he makes needs to be clarified? You can only say it was a joke so many times before people stop believing you, which is like 20 "jokes" ago for Trump.

[Mertron]

trump just said in one of his rallies that he was being sarcastic about obama being the founder of ISIS, then followed up immediately by saying "but maybe not that sarcastic, to be honest"

edit: was in erie PA

[Aerin]

maybe it's my optimism/naivete, but if dems take WH/senate, we're gonna see a lot of shit getting done which hasn't exactly been the case over the past 8 years because of GOP interference.

Furthermore, while technically they can make some kind of comeback in 2018/2020, i just don't see how that's gonna happen. The GOP's top members are all still living in an age where they obsess over gay rights, religion, environmental issues being non-issues, etc. and america has been over that shit for a while now. The biggest signal was when the 2012 election autopsy came out and very clearly defined why they lost and what they needed to do better. But instead of actually fixing that shit and presenting a functional republican candidate in 2016, virtually every single one of the nominees quadruple-downed on all the things that fucked them up in 2012. As a result donald trump is their nominee.

with america continually trending towards being more liberal and the party's conservatives pretty much wanting to stay stuck in whatever fucking era they're in now and not wanting to change, i don't see them doing anything meaningful for a while.

I'd remind you that in 2008 the Dem's also won control of both the House and the Senate, in 2010 the Dem's lost 63 seats and the majority. The Senate only switched back to Republicans in 2014. Also, in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, I remember watching the news and hearing various Republicans saying the party needed to do some soul searching. 3rd time's the charm?

[Quicklet]

Does he not see an issue where every statement he makes needs to be clarified? You can only say it was a joke so many times before people stop believing you, which is like 20 "jokes" ago for Trump.

He knows what he's doing. The more he has to clarify, the more media attention he garners. That's all he cares about. He doesn't give a shit about winning or losing -- he just wants to be on magazine covers and on TV and talked about nonstop, and he's doing a pretty damn good job of that.

maybe it's my optimism/naivete, but if dems take WH/senate, we're gonna see a lot of shit getting done which hasn't exactly been the case over the past 8 years because of GOP interference.

It won't happen without winning the House back. Paul Ryan won't be able to compromise on anything substantial for fear of a mutiny from the Freedom Caucus on issues like immigration. The Trump wing of the GOP is already laying the groundwork for blaming the moderates / intellectuals if he loses. I think people need to be realistic and pragmatic about what the near-term future of our politics is going to be like for at least the next 2 to 4 years.

[kuronosan]

Trump being a complete nutjob does not negate Hillary's untrustworthiess. It just bails her out for now by putting her against a cataclysmically terrible opponent.

Uh, yes. Yes it does.

[Krandor]

Uh, yes. Yes it does.

How is what he said in any way wrong?

[Tyrath]

One of you probably thinks negate means undoes, other things negate means make irrelevant.

[MyTitthias]

He knows what he's doing. The more he has to clarify, the more media attention he garners. That's all he cares about. He doesn't give a shit about winning or losing -- he just wants to be on magazine covers and on TV and talked about nonstop, and he's doing a pretty damn good job of that.

This 100%. He absolutely doesn't really give a shit about winning or losing. Trump is the definition of a raging hard narcissist. He only wants to constantly stay in the news, even if it is burning down his campaign faster than the Hindenburg.

[kisada]

in the event trump or someone like him won (someone with significant active businesses) how exactly does that work? would a president have to give up their rights or hand them off or something?

[Krandor]

Cheney was in a pretty similar situation, and had to leave whatever companies he was associated with (Haliburton being the big one).

Of course that didn't stop him from giving Haliburton a bunch of government contracts, but that's a story for a different time.

[kuronosan]

One of you probably thinks negate means undoes, other things negate means make irrelevant.

Bingo.