A message from Elizabeth

All you say is irrelevant if America has a whole doesn't like the candidate. America as a whole wanted someone else from the Democrats. The presidential election is more of a beauty contest, a contest of shall I say charisma, of likes and dislikes. Its an election where one tries to install enthusiasm and energy in their supporters and convince the unconvinced to vote for them. Our presidential elections are all about turnout, about Republicans voting for Republican candidates and Democrats voting for Democratic candidates regardless of which is the better candidate or best qualified. It's about the candidates convincing the non-affiliated, independents to vote for him or her. Clinton lost them.

2016 was one campaigner installing tons of energy within his supporters. A lot smaller portion of supporters than Hillary for sure. But Trump's supporters were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary's were more ho hum to go along with her inept ho hum campaign. Let me repeat, presidential elections are a beauty contest and all about perceptions of likes and dislikes.

Take a look at questions 10 and 11, the independent voters which make up roughly 40-45% of the total electorate today. You'll find 27% had a favorable view of Hillary, 70% unfavorable. Trump among independents, 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable. Independents went to Trump over Hillary 46-42 with 12% voting third party. The Democrats didn't want to listen to independents when they nominated Hillary, they didn't have to for sure. Might have been wise, but the Democrats had every right in the world to nominate Hillary even the Democrats chose her four years in advance.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Without winning the independent vote, Trump would never have been president. You do realize Trump received 46% of the vote, but 23% of that 46% were anti Hillary voters. Half of all the votes Trump received were against the other candidate, not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. That again comes form the desire of all of America for the Democrats to nominate another candidate. Ignored was America as a whole.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

We had the two least wanted presidential candidates by America as a whole since Gallup and Pew Research began keeping track of these things during FDR. It doesn't matter how good Hillary would have been as president. What mattered was how America perceived her in November of 2016. She caused her own defeat. Do you really believe that any other Democratic candidate would allow their Republican opposition to both outwork and out campaign by 116-71 margin? That's pure laziness. It seems to me Hillary thought she had the election in the bag, that being next in line was enough. It almost was.

Clinton did worst among almost every voting group than Obama did in 2012. Why, ho hum, she couldn't install an energy or enthusiasm within them to vote for her. Whites, Obama 39% Hillary 37%. Blacks Obama 93% Clinton 89%, Hispanics 71% Hillary 66%, Asian Obama 73% Hilllary 65%. Perhaps one of the biggest was union households when it came to the decisive states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Obama 58% Hillary 51%. 18-29 age group Obama 60% Clinton 54%. Even among the young Hillary did much worst than Obama and I could go on and on. What did Obama have that Hillary didn't>

Charisma, fresh young face, ability to install enthusiasm and energy and perhaps more important likability by America as a whole. You also had a candidate in Obama that was willing to out work and out campaign Romney, just the opposite of Hillary. Obama in 2012 had a 58% favorable rating, Romney 51%. Compare that to 2016, Hillary 38%, Trump 36%. Likability in a beauty contest. Likability, Obama won, Hillary lost.

The bottom line is no matter how good a candidate would be once they assume office. One first must win the beauty contest. One must be liked and wanted by America as a whole or as good as that candidate would be, in your eyes anyway, that becomes totally irrelevant. One last thing, 25% of all Americans disliked and didn't want either Trump or Clinton to become our next president. That includes 54% of all independents. 2016 was a choice between two unwanted and unliked candidates. Thank you much Republicans and Democrats, you are responsible for what we have.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/poll...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

 

MISCONCEPTION?

Simplistic caricatures, me arse. Prove it's a "misconception"* on my part, and we can "debate".

Meanwhile, here is the list of "elected or appointed female heads of state" around the world. One would have to vet the list for those that are elected, as some were appointed.

Don't bother looking for a woman from the US on the list, because there is none. (Most have been elected since 1990.)

Yeah, right, I know - minor oversight of the entire American public for the last two-hundred years ...

(NB: My next list will be that of "Elected M C Ps"** who were heads of government. I will do the list on a spreadsheet - I hate counting names. ;^)

*misconception = a view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding.
**MCP = Male Chauvinist Prats (or somethin' like that)

 

I'm laughing till I cry ... but aint got there yet. There is soooo much to make one laugh, I will cry with joy after the November elections ...

*narcissism =

1. excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance.
   • PSYCHOLOGY, as manifested by-
     extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
   • PSYCHOANALYSIS, as manifested by-
     self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.

 

I never said it could eradicate poverty.

What a government, by law, should be able to do is minimize the harm that poverty causes.

And most European nations do this effectively by two government provided measures. The first is a National Healthcare System that is much better than the US when measured for "effectiveness".

And the other is free Tertiary-education to all citizens of the European Union.

Neither of which are wholly provided by any US government, either state or nationally ...

 

Wanna know why?

Here's why:
*After Obama stopped dead a skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% in 2009 by passing, with a Democrat Congress the ARRA spending-bill ($875B),
*In 2010, the Replicants took control of the HofR and refused any further stimulus-spending, claiming that the National Debt was too high.
*The result being that the Employment-to-population ratio (as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) shows that from 2010 to 2014 NO NEW JOBS WERE CREATED IN THE US. (See that fact confirmed here.)

So, enough of the BS suggesting that "It's all Obama's fault". Cuz it aint ...

 

Pretty well describes Saint Hillary, no?

 

It all depends upon "what they want to do with their property". In most cases, yes. In some cases, where "what you do" can have a consequence on others, then the government has every right (to protect others) to prevent you.

For instance, just because yo have property surrounded by housing DOES NOT MEAN you have right to build a chemical plant there. What makes YOU think that you can do anything you want with YOUR money?

And that is just one example. There are others. We all live together in a collective called "a nation". And what's good for the nation is good for everybody and not just some ...

No, I'm not an effing socialist. Besides, I doubt most Americans on this forum would even recognize a socialist if one bit them on the arse.

Name calling, that's all you (plural) are good for ...

 

How might electing Hillary, and her baggage, have proved we aren't a nation of "bruised male egos who are dead-scared of American womanhood's ascendancy to equality with males." ?

Maybe we should elect a black man to be President. That will prove we're not racist.

 

That sounds like something a state govt should handle. Basic regulations of safety is not what concerns me. Weird how that is almost always the argument that people run to..
I didnt call you a socialist..
And you have been quit the repugnant poster in this thread. Please, dont pat yourself on the back.

 

A message from Elizabeth? Damn I thought it was a message from The Queen of the Brits.

Or at the very least from Randy Macho Man's ole Lady.

 

Kansas is a Democracy and the USA is a Republic. Many of us like it that way. The EC protects the smaller states from being dominated by the larger. That was the agreement made when this country was formed and I see not reason to give up the few protections my state has. As to Hilary losing, maybe next time the Democrats will not take the electorate for granted and actually campaign in all the states. Also perhaps they could run a candidate with a chance to win. The Republicans did not win the election the Democrats just lost it. Sanders could have beaten Trump in my opinion but the DNC decided that their members were not smart enough to pick the candidate so cheated.

 

No that difficult to see. Not sure why you are having a problem.

I will give you a good example. The free market when it comes to labor. So if you are short of a particular skill, and business needs that skill, in the past they would work with local education and get more people in the pipe line for those skills, and generally wages would go up to attact this particular skill set. This would benefit the american people, and also fill jobs for employers.

But what if an employer, or a sector of employment did not want to pay more in wages that a free market would dictate, from supply and demand? Well, they could bring in foreigners, from poor nations, who would work cheaper, and businessmen would not have to pay more in wages to americans. In effect, they, the businessmen are manipulating a free market to keep from paying what a free market would dictate...higher wages. And there is a history of free market manipulation by the greedy.

Or they could bring in illegal aliens to keep from paying more to americans, dictated by the free market and supply/demand. You are too shallow and naive, imo, to understand reality. Or ideologically driven which is hardly any difference.

See the trouble is, the free market is a concept, that has seldom been allowed to work. They will accept it when it benefits them, but find ways to get out of it when it does not. Since it never actually operates, it is just a concept on paper.

 

So the govt manipulates the free market in response to the private sector manipulating the free market by using policies in-acted by the manipulating govt. Awesome.

 

She proved what she was in 16. She just wants to remain in power, like most of those in DC. And will do what it takes, even if it means crapping on her supposed principles when it is needed.

 

The gov't has stepped in in the past, think monopolies, which was the excess of capitalists, to try to keep that from happening, but also have stepped in on behalf of the elites, in order to give them the ability to manipulate the free market captialism. So both things have happened.

It is only awesome when gov't works in the interests of the People, to keep capitalists from abusing capitalism. Not much of that goes on these days.

 

Hey, i wasnt arguing for any type of economic model. I was just saying how stupid it is to say the government manipulating the economy, isnt manipulating the economy.

 

Then we agree! Which is always nice. So both the gov't does it as well as the big capitalists. Free market capitalism is only a concept, on paper, and human nature, the base side of it, from the private sector will of course manipulate it, or try to when the free market does not serve them. And when it does, they tout how great free markets are. ha ha. But when it does not, some of them will get busy in getting out of the free market, for sometimes it does not serve their profits. And they are very good at doing this, given tried and tested ways of doing it.

 

A 100% free market could never work. Never.

 

It has never existed, so that means something. Like marxism, as some have said, it looks great on paper, but it has never made it into reality from that paper. ha ha.

Given what man is, greatly controlled by human nature, will always insure that what looks fine and even good on paper, if it negates human nature, will never work out as it should. A lesson which has been shown time and time again to be true, and yet people seem to ignore it.

I believe in pragmatism over ideology. If something has proven to actually work, regardless of what ideology embraces it, and as long as it does not defile the constitution, it should be used. And we should have a great idea, using american history, of what worked and what did not work, in the best self interests of the People, who are the non elites. We should note what did work, and what failed. But we do not do that! Instead we do not use pragmatism, but rely upon ideological beliefs, and if a solution driven by ideology, fails, we do not discard it, we keep trying it again and again, and as Einstein once said, repeating the same actions while expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

I read about what a historian noted about FDR, the most popular president in recent american history. He had to die to leave office. ha ha. And this historian said that FDR was not an ideologue, but a pragmatist. He said we should try to solve a problem, and if the means to do that failed, then we need to try something else. Until we find the solution. But DC does not do this, not at all! It is not important whether something works, but it is important that an ideological solution is used, even if we know from history that it has failed in the past.

 

Like Nikki Haley?

 

Did she discuss if she'd be willing to take a DNA test to confirm her claims of Native ancestry?

 

I am a moderate-conservative independent. I actually share some of your concerns about wages, and I believe that full time work ought to be able to minimally sustain a person at minimum wage. But what I find disturbing about progressives is this obsession they seem to have with gender and/or race being the qualifier for a presidential run. What difference does gender or race make, as long as the candidate holds views that you agree with?

 

Genderism!
Warren would disqualify consideration of a male candidate.


That Warren's position is P.C. is why I will be voting for a

Straight, White Male as the first criteria.​

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us. ​

 

Evidently, you would not know genderism if it bit you on the backside.

Elizabeth is a highly intelligent and capable political candidate.

She will put to shame Donald Dork presently occupying the premises of the White House, munching BigMacs whilst watching Right-wing TV all night long ...

The average Canadian can be expected to reach the age of 82 years. The average American, if lucky, gets to be 79.

Canadians envious of America, when they have a longer lifespan and lower overall crime-rate? Crime Rate Canada, 39.03, Crime rate US 55.84 - US 43% more than Canada? Who are you kidding? Yourself.

Read the stats before barfing in a Debate Forum ... !

 

She use to be.
I was disappointed when she did not run for President this last election.
She should have announced before Hillary.

The politics of Bernie Sanders is much closer to Warren than Hillary.
When she supported Hillary over Sanders, I lost faith in her.
She sold "us" out over genderism!


Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us. ​

For further study, notice most is referenced
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-it-true-part-deux.495478/