Bored or Disgusted?

LOST said:

Maybe he's going for the Tacos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-taco-bowl_us_572bf20be4b096e9f090e1c5

IMHO, the discussions here have become somewhat less interesting than in past years. Some of the more insightful people seem to have drifted away. And I perceive the discussions as more about the "horse race" than about issues compared to past years. Not that it wasn't always like that to an extent. But I'm not interested in the day's news cycle and whether it's "good" or "bad" for Trump or Clinton. I feel like the balance on the site has tipped more toward discussing the "optics" instead of the issues. Just my two cents.

LOST said:

It's surprising to log on to MOL, go to Soapbox-Politics and see that no one has posted for almost 24 hours.

Where are the usual suspects? Has everyone gone on vacation and left their computers at home or has the Presidential contest just become too boring or too disgusting?

ml1 said:

IMHO, the discussions here have become somewhat less interesting than in past years. Some of the more insightful people seem to have drifted away. And I perceive the discussions as more about the "horse race" than about issues compared to past years. Not that it wasn't always like that to an extent. But I'm not interested in the day's news cycle and whether it's "good" or "bad" for Trump or Clinton. I feel like the balance on the site has tipped more toward discussing the "optics" instead of the issues. Just my two cents.

What are the issues? Donald Trump seems to think immigration is a major issue and that the Nation is undergoing a crime wave. The latter is just nor true and the former is of little concern to most people outside of the Right-wing "base". Further Trump's proposals to deal with these issue are absurd.

Hillary seems to think that Trump is the issue.

The candidates are not having a serious discussion of the economy or foreign policy. Should we?

LOST said:

The candidates are not having a serious discussion of the economy or foreign policy. Should we?

One candidate talks about policy (including related to the economy and foreign policy) a lot, and has detailed policies on her website. The other candidate seems incapable of talking about policy in a manner that is consistent, serious, and w/in the bounds of the Constitution.

I don't know why you'd paint both candidates with the same brush.

The economy is one real issue that the candidates have been talking about. Trump has an economic plan that's "serious" in the sense that it's the same as Romney's plan, or the same as what Paul Ryan would propose if he was the candidate.

Or maybe not. Maybe we'd just end up in another tedious discussion of whether or not taxes are "theft."

LOST said:

ml1 said:

IMHO, the discussions here have become somewhat less interesting than in past years. Some of the more insightful people seem to have drifted away. And I perceive the discussions as more about the "horse race" than about issues compared to past years. Not that it wasn't always like that to an extent. But I'm not interested in the day's news cycle and whether it's "good" or "bad" for Trump or Clinton. I feel like the balance on the site has tipped more toward discussing the "optics" instead of the issues. Just my two cents.

What are the issues? Donald Trump seems to think immigration is a major issue and that the Nation is undergoing a crime wave. The latter is just nor true and the former is of little concern to most people outside of the Right-wing "base". Further Trump's proposals to deal with these issue are absurd.

Hillary seems to think that Trump is the issue.

The candidates are not having a serious discussion of the economy or foreign policy. Should we?

mjh said:

LOST said:

The candidates are not having a serious discussion of the economy or foreign policy. Should we?

One candidate talks about policy (including related to the economy and foreign policy) a lot, and has detailed policies on her website. The other candidate seems incapable of talking about policy in a manner that is consistent, serious, and w/in the bounds of the Constitution.

I don't know why you'd paint both candidates with the same brush.

I don't, but have they been having a discussion with each other about actual issues? I haven't heard it.

Trump is not a serious candidate in the sense of having any core beliefs or any actual realistic proposals.

I guess we on MOL could look at Clinton's policy proposals and debate them.

When Trump says he will "build a Wall and Mexico will pay for it" you can't debate it because it's just a joke.

LOST said:

It's surprising to log on to MOL, go to Soapbox-Politics and see that no one has posted for almost 24 hours.

Where are the usual suspects? Has everyone gone on vacation and left their computers at home or has the Presidential contest just become too boring or too disgusting?

...bored or disgusted yes AND OUTRAGED that the press has given Her Royal Crookedness a complete pass on WASSERGATE. You know the same folks that hounded and pounded RMN on Watergate. Where the h*ll are they now?

Bernie complained about those shenanigans for months, but I only recall a few (at most) mentions about it in the press. Then the whole scandal blew up and the press didn't do a thing. They were handed a smoking gun case. hrc's campaign wanted to clean up the mess quickly. The press held up the carpet and said, "Sweep it under here."

Wassergate has cast doubt on the legitimacy of hrc's nomination. So far she's getting a pass on this. If elected-Wassergate- will give the gop perfect cover to be defiantly obstructionalist during her whole regime. ted, paul and bit*h mac will portray themselves as Davids against hrc's megalomaniacal lust for power.

Bernie got 12 million HONEST votes -including mine- do you really blame me for being disgusted and outraged?

BCC said:



Trump goes to Mexico, sounds 'Presidential'.

Comes home, gives a stem winder that should guarantee he loses any chance of getting a decent share of the Hispanic vote which he needs to win the election.

I didn't think he could do any worse with Hispanics than he was doing already. Then I read this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hispanic-leaders-arizona-immigration-227615

Apollo_T said:

...bored or disgusted yes AND OUTRAGED that the press has given Her Royal Crookedness a complete pass on WASSERGATE. You know the same folks that hounded and pounded RMN on Watergate. Where the h*ll are they now?

Bernie complained about those shenanigans for months, but I only recall a few (at most) mentions about it in the press. Then the whole scandal blew up and the press didn't do a thing. They were handed a smoking gun case. hrc's campaign wanted to clean up the mess quickly. The press held up the carpet and said, "Sweep it under here."

Wassergate has cast doubt on the legitimacy of hrc's nomination. So far she's getting a pass on this. If elected-Wassergate- will give the gop perfect cover to be defiantly obstructionalist during her whole regime. ted, paul and bit*h mac will portray themselves as Davids against hrc's megalomaniacal lust for power.

Bernie got 12 million HONEST votes -including mine- do you really blame me for being disgusted and outraged?

Sorry, but "Wassergate" wasn't really much of anything. Secretary Clinton is the nominee by virtue of getting more votes and more delegates. Even Senator Sanders didn't keep on with the revolution after the Convention - the candidate he endorsed against Representative Wasserman Schultz didn't get any real support from him.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/canova-revolution-bernie-sanders-debbie-wasserman-schultz/497807/

nohero said:


Sorry, but "Wassergate" wasn't really much of anything. Secretary Clinton is the nominee by virtue of getting more votes and more delegates. Even Senator Sanders didn't keep on with the revolution after the Convention - the candidate he endorsed against Representative Wasserman Schultz didn't get any real support from him.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/canova-revolution-bernie-sanders-debbie-wasserman-schultz/497807/

Bernie has never shown interest and support in the down ballot races. Which he should have been if he really wanted a real political revolution.

I'm convinced Bernie has always been for one thing ... Bernie.

Now he can go back into his comfortable life as a US Senator, hobnobbing with the Democratic senators in their cloak room.

Maybe in four years, he'll wake up and again have his revolution.

ps - reading the news, I understand Bernie's campaign raked in tons of campaign money. Where does it now go?

BG9 said:

Bernie has never shown interest and support in the down ballot races. Which he should have been if he really wanted a real political revolution.

I'm convinced Bernie has always been for one thing ... Bernie.

this is just not true.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/15/as-sanders-campaign-wraps-up-down-ballot-candidates-reap-big-bern-rewards.html

Sanders has raised funds for a number of congressional and state-level candidates to a degree unprecedented in presidential campaigns. Indeed, as Sanders slows down his campaign, he has continued to raise funds for other candidates as recently as Saturday.

some folks still have hard feelings and may always have hard feelings about this years race. its understandable, people believe in whom they believe in and have very good reasons or an emotional attachment.

pragmatically it makes no sense.

Incompetent fascism or whatever it is that Clinton morphs to by January? Thats the choice as I see it.

LOST said:

mjh said:

LOST said:

The candidates are not having a serious discussion of the economy or foreign policy. Should we?

One candidate talks about policy (including related to the economy and foreign policy) a lot, and has detailed policies on her website. The other candidate seems incapable of talking about policy in a manner that is consistent, serious, and w/in the bounds of the Constitution.

I don't know why you'd paint both candidates with the same brush.

I don't, but have they been having a discussion with each other about actual issues? I haven't heard it.

Trump is not a serious candidate in the sense of having any core beliefs or any actual realistic proposals.

I guess we on MOL could look at Clinton's policy proposals and debate them.

When Trump says he will "build a Wall and Mexico will pay for it" you can't debate it because it's just a joke.

The main reason you haven't heard it is because both are trying to frame the discussion by painting their opponent as someone who is unfit and too incompetent to be President. That's what the media is promoting.

How many people have gone to Hillary's web page to read her policy outlines?

It is she who has been described as 'boring', certainly not a tag you would attach to Trump.

Besides, you can't discuss Trumps position on just about anything, Hillary has done a fair amount of 'evolving' but nothing to compare with him. Currently he is being described as sort of crazy to, as Krauthammer suggested, acting like a businessman in a negotiation, starting with a maximal position and negotiating down to an agreement.

BG9 said:

I'm convinced Bernie has always been for one thing ... Bernie.

I don't think that is true. What I do think is true is the Bernie never expected to do as well as he did.

ml1 said:

IMHO, the discussions here have become somewhat less interesting than in past years. Some of the more insightful people seem to have drifted away. And I perceive the discussions as more about the "horse race" than about issues compared to past years. Not that it wasn't always like that to an extent. But I'm not interested in the day's news cycle and whether it's "good" or "bad" for Trump or Clinton. I feel like the balance on the site has tipped more toward discussing the "optics" instead of the issues. Just my two cents.

LOST said:

It's surprising to log on to MOL, go to Soapbox-Politics and see that no one has posted for almost 24 hours.

Where are the usual suspects? Has everyone gone on vacation and left their computers at home or has the Presidential contest just become too boring or too disgusting?

At the risk of sounding defensive, I think it's also very much about the dearth of serious and relatively sober political discussion nationwide during this way-too-long-and-too-wacky election "season."

there's something to be said for that. Most of the discussions of politics on any forum in any of the media tend to be substance-free. But I find endless discussions of polls, who's up or down, speculation about what events will or will not hurt a candidate to be tedious beyond description.

Who gives a flip about the latest poll? I don't. Why? Because anyone can cherry pick any poll to say any damn thing they want. And then -- there's another friggin' poll tomorrow. And another one the day after that. And like a person with brain damage that leaves them with no long term memory, the media and the political junkies act as if today's poll is the only one, and that it contains some sort of essential truth. Until tomorrow's poll. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's tedious and discouraging.

It appears that we are actually having a discussion and the last five posts are all very good.

Hooray!

hoops said:

some folks still have hard feelings and may always have hard feelings about this years race. its understandable, people believe in whom they believe in and have very good reasons or an emotional attachment.

pragmatically it makes no sense.

The Primaries are over, so it makes no sense at all. I do not understand the continued bitter feelings by some Clinton and Sanders supporters. The candidates themselves do not have those feelings.

BCC said:

Besides, you can't discuss Trumps position on just about anything, Hillary has done a fair amount of 'evolving' but nothing to compare with him. Currently he is being described as sort of crazy to, as Krauthammer suggested, acting like a businessman in a negotiation, starting with a maximal position and negotiating down to an agreement.

Trump "evolves" from the beginning of a speech to the end. He said that there would be know way to legal residency for any illegal alien and that enforcement would be increased greatly. In other words as he has previously stated all "illegals" must be deported. Then at the end of his speech he said after all this is done we will figure out what to do with those still here. Huh?

tjohn said:

I don't think that is true. What I do think is true is the Bernie never expected to do as well as he did.

I agree.

GL2 said:

At the risk of sounding defensive, I think it's also very much about the dearth of serious and relatively sober political discussion nationwide during this way-too-long-and-too-wacky election "season."

Yup.

ml1 said:

t

Who gives a flip about the latest poll? I don't. Why? Because anyone can cherry pick any poll to say any damn thing they want. And then -- there's another friggin' poll tomorrow. And another one the day after that. And like a person with brain damage that leaves them with no long term memory, the media and the political junkies act as if today's poll is the only one, and that it contains some sort of essential truth.

I am a "political junkie"and I do not focus on the latest poll as the only one. I check out "Five Thirty-Eight" which tracks the trends in all the polls. If that is not your thing, OK, but I find the statistical analysis and the psychology of the voters fascinating.

I look at polls. I look at fivethirtyeight.com.

But if you watch TV news, or a headline in the NYT, or some posts right here on MOL, you see -- "the latest poll says.." and then some pompous discussion of (usually) why this is terrible news for Clinton. (Because if you're a "fair and balanced" "centrist" and not a "shrill" partisan, everything is bad for Democrats).

It's fine if polls are put in context as snapshots in time. And if they are looked at in aggregate. And if people realize that state polls are more important than national polls. But for it to be "news," each new poll has to be treated as if it's meaningful. And no single poll is meaningful.

ml1 said:

there's something to be said for that. Most of the discussions of politics on any forum in any of the media tend to be substance-free. But I find endless discussions of polls, who's up or down, speculation about what events will or will not hurt a candidate to be tedious beyond description.

Who gives a flip about the latest poll? I don't. Why? Because anyone can cherry pick any poll to say any damn thing they want. And then -- there's another friggin' poll tomorrow. And another one the day after that. And like a person with brain damage that leaves them with no long term memory, the media and the political junkies act as if today's poll is the only one, and that it contains some sort of essential truth. Until tomorrow's poll. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's tedious and discouraging.

Didn't you also say polls are important when they show a trend?

I would say Hillary's negative trend re: honest and trustworthy is important.

I would say the inability to show any trend line for Trump because, as was pointed out, he can end a speech changing what he said in that speech, is important.