US GENERAL ELECTION MEGA-THREAD II: Clinton vs. Trump

[Thermodolia]

Here comes Mitch

[Ashmoria]

and what the fuck was wrong with his mouth??

[The Romulan Republic]

and what the fuck was wrong with his mouth??

Perhaps he just had to swallow something unpalatable?

[Thermodolia]

and what the fuck was wrong with his mouth??

I thought it was always like that

[Ngelmish]

Politics is contextual and comparative, so I'd say that her overall lack of a governing resume is disqualifying, although we can quibble over the degree to which it's disqualifying.

This seems somewhat a matter of semantical nitpickery.

But if her major selling point is that she can rally more voters around a progressive vision of America and the Democratic party, the fact that she hasn't enacted any of those policies, whereas there are others who have, makes that selling point bunk.

Eh, people said Sanders never did much either, focusing on legislation he'd proposed as opposed to legislation he'd amended. I'd have to look more closely at Warren's record to say weather this critique is merited.

I'd also argue that Warren's decision to stay neutral in the primary arguably shows a fair amount of political savvy, as it poised her to help united the two main factions.

I also think she'd be an effective campaigner against Trump, and not for purely symbolic reasons.

I want my candidate to be accomplished and to have a record of policy achievement and political statesmanship. Are those absolutely necessary qualifications? Of course not. We've had ridiculously unqualified VP's before, and presidents as well for that matter.

Off the top of my head, Lincoln's highest office before the Presidency was one-term Congressman.

Lincoln being, of course, arguably the greatest President in American history and one of the main reasons there is a United States today.

So perhaps I stated my objection badly previously. Could she do the job? Sure. But so could Donald Trump. Her resume tells against her inasmuch as it makes her more disqualified than others. Your mileage may vary.

I disagree that Trump could do the job in any way a reasonable person would consider satisfactory.

The man is all hot air, bluster, and ego. His only real talent that I can see is as a con man and reality TV personality.

If the question is, "Can she do the job?" then of course, yes, she can. She literally can do it. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could also literally do it. So, for that matter, could Lincoln Chafee. I don't think that question, in itself is the most important. The question is how someone would do the job.

If I'm comparing potential candidates against each other, I don't think the extent of person's resume, or what their demonstrated governing capabilities are is irrelevant. Warren's record is thin on both of those particulars. Does that mean that she would necessarily be a bad VP, president or choice? Not necessarily. But there are other progressive candidates with more accomplished records, so from where I'm sitting the major argument in favor of Warren is political. She's less qualified than almost any of the governors that could be mentioned, several of the senators and even two of the cabinet members. She's not ideologically irreplaceable either. I'd take a Clinton/Warren ticket, as I think I said somewhere above, but it would fairly destroy Clinton's case that she's looking first at governing and second at politics.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I'm sure he's got a hole lot to say.

She, technically.

Oops, sorry. I'm fortunate enough not to be watching it.

[Eol Sha]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

[The Romulan Republic]

This seems somewhat a matter of semantical nitpickery.



Eh, people said Sanders never did much either, focusing on legislation he'd proposed as opposed to legislation he'd amended. I'd have to look more closely at Warren's record to say weather this critique is merited.

I'd also argue that Warren's decision to stay neutral in the primary arguably shows a fair amount of political savvy, as it poised her to help united the two main factions.

I also think she'd be an effective campaigner against Trump, and not for purely symbolic reasons.



Off the top of my head, Lincoln's highest office before the Presidency was one-term Congressman.

Lincoln being, of course, arguably the greatest President in American history and one of the main reasons there is a United States today.



I disagree that Trump could do the job in any way a reasonable person would consider satisfactory.

The man is all hot air, bluster, and ego. His only real talent that I can see is as a con man and reality TV personality.

If the question is, "Can she do the job?" then of course, yes, she can. She literally can do it. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could also literally do it. So, for that matter, could Lincoln Chafee. I don't think that question, in itself is the most important. The question is how someone would do the job.

You can seriously be arguing that Trump is as able to do the job as Warren?

If I'm comparing potential candidates against each other, I don't think the extent of person's resume, or what their demonstrated governing capabilities are is irrelevant.

No, but they are hardly the only, or even necessarily the most important factor.

Warren's record is thin on both of those particulars. Does that mean that she would necessarily be a bad VP, president or choice? Not necessarily. But there are other progressive candidates with more accomplished records, so from where I'm sitting the major argument in favor of Warren is political. She's less qualified than almost any of the governors that could be mentioned, several of the senators and even two of the cabinet members. She's not ideologically irreplaceable either. I'd take a Clinton/Warren ticket, as I think I said somewhere above, but it would fairly destroy Clinton's case that she's looking first at governing and second at politics.

Political strength and ability to govern are, regrettably, somewhat intertwined, are they not?

[Ashmoria]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

yeah but I liked the "return the favor" line

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

Probably because he himself is uninspired.

[Thermodolia]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

Well de does do a good job of not doing his job

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

I might buy a vacuum cleaner from him if he were a salesperson at Sears. Maybe.

[Corrian]

"We gave you a majority to be proud of"

No you didn't. You gave us a gridlocked piece of shit government.

Oh look, and now they're also praising NOT DOING THEIR JOB. Yay! So great, you can't do your job!

[Roskian Federation]

Tbh of all the problems with the rnc i feel like they are focusing on the plagarism to downplay the fact that the republican party has given away the election. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Socialist Nordia]

Mitch McConnell is pretty uninspiring.

Well de does do a good job of not doing his job

He's great at his job. Saying no to everything Obama tries to do, no matter what.

[Thermodolia]

Who the hell is this guy?

He seriously just left out the Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard

[Eol Sha]

Who the hell is this guy?

Apparently, they're the ten newest Republican Senators who didn't want to come before Mitch gave them a talking to.

[Thermodolia]

Who the hell is this guy?

Apparently, they're ten Republican Senators who didn't want to come before Mitch gave them a talking to.

Oh

[Eol Sha]

Apparently, they're ten Republican Senators who didn't want to come before Mitch gave them a talking to.

Oh

Newest Senators, that is.

[Thermodolia]

Oh god it's Ryan!

[Thermodolia]

Oh

Newest Senators, that is.

You mean the ones that get voted out in 2016 and 2018

[Ngelmish]

If the question is, "Can she do the job?" then of course, yes, she can. She literally can do it. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could also literally do it. So, for that matter, could Lincoln Chafee. I don't think that question, in itself is the most important. The question is how someone would do the job.

You can seriously be arguing that Trump is as able to do the job as Warren?

If I'm comparing potential candidates against each other, I don't think the extent of person's resume, or what their demonstrated governing capabilities are is irrelevant.

No, but they are hardly the only, or even necessarily the most important factor.

Warren's record is thin on both of those particulars. Does that mean that she would necessarily be a bad VP, president or choice? Not necessarily. But there are other progressive candidates with more accomplished records, so from where I'm sitting the major argument in favor of Warren is political. She's less qualified than almost any of the governors that could be mentioned, several of the senators and even two of the cabinet members. She's not ideologically irreplaceable either. I'd take a Clinton/Warren ticket, as I think I said somewhere above, but it would fairly destroy Clinton's case that she's looking first at governing and second at politics.

Political strength and ability to govern are, regrettably, somewhat intertwined, are they not?

Warren would be a better president than Trump. Cruz probably would be too. The point of the comparison is that the literal ability to do the job is facile. You're asking about a specific set of qualities you have in mind when you ask that question. And the best answer I have to that is that the past is prologue to the future. How a person has governed in the past is the best predictor. Warren mostly hasn't, and shouldn't be vaulted to the highest levels of government on the basis that she talks about accomplishing the kinds of things that Mark Dayton, Martin O'Malley and Daniel Malloy have done.

We can never know what the single most important factor is going to be, but the combination between what a person publicly says they want to do and their record-- that's what we can measure. I'm not ignoring ineffable facts like character, chemistry, political potential, but I think they're more unknowable. And ultimately, rarely decisive.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Oh

Newest Senators, that is.

They should all be forced to dress like this again, give the place some decorum:

[Eol Sha]

Oh god it's Ryan!

What he's thinking: "I coulda been VP. Fuckin' Romney."

[Geilinor]

"We gave you a majority to be proud of"

No you didn't. You gave us a gridlocked piece of shit government.

Oh look, and now they're also praising NOT DOING THEIR JOB. Yay! So great, you can't do your job!

Trump fans don't even like McConnell, IIRC.