You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 12:19:14 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?  (Read 26646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Eh, that seems a pessimistic view. 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
There's two ways that a person can change their opinion.  One is by following every breath of wind that comes from the polls, and the other is by analyzing their original position and determining that it needs to change for justifiable reasons.  I respect the ability of someone to do the latter.  Far more politicians go for the former.

Offline Cycle

Even Trump is a better candidate in that sense since he's batsh*t but he doesn't generally hide that he's batsh*t so you know where he stands.

I don't agree with this.  Knowing--for certain--that someone is going to do batsh*t stuff in the White House does not make me want to vote for them.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 01:56:42 PM by Cycle »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
There's two ways that a person can change their opinion.  One is by following every breath of wind that comes from the polls, and the other is by analyzing their original position and determining that it needs to change for justifiable reasons.  I respect the ability of someone to do the latter.  Far more politicians go for the former.

Well, what's the point of voting then?  If a change in a politician's attitude should only come from internal reflection, not from the polls, why not just find the smartest guy in the country, make them president and stop having polls?  I understand what you mean and sympathise with it to some extent, but that's not a democracy.  If you want government of/for/by the people then a necessary part of that is politicians listening to the people and occasionally doing what they, the people, want even if the politician in question doesn't agree with it.


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I think I may need to clarify.  Polls are a useful barometer of the public's opinion.  However, many things can affect public opinion, so it's important that they are not the sole reason for a politician to change positions.  Seeing a change in public opinion should produce the response of 'I should look into this more', not 'Fred, get my speech-writer on the line.  Press conference in 10 minutes on whatever this thing is.'

Offline Renegade Vile

Eh, that seems a pessimistic view.

More cynical than pessimistic, but yes. Live in Belgium long enough and you quickly learn that most politicians are out for their wallets and will say and do anything to get there. Real figures of state are hard to come by and because they would bring actual change, they are also warded from the public eye as much as possible.



I don't agree with this.  Knowing--for certain--that someone is going to do batsh*t stuff in the White House does not make me want to vote for them.

Didn't say I'd vote for him. Well, I would between him and Hillary because I honestly think she'd do more damage, but that's a choice between the lesser of two idiotic evils and I'd sooner abstain.



Well, what's the point of voting then?  If a change in a politician's attitude should only come from internal reflection, not from the polls, why not just find the smartest guy in the country, make them president and stop having polls?  I understand what you mean and sympathise with it to some extent, but that's not a democracy.  If you want government of/for/by the people then a necessary part of that is politicians listening to the people and occasionally doing what they, the people, want even if the politician in question doesn't agree with it.

Actually, if you were able to find the objectively smartest person in the country that would do the objective best for the entire country and beyond, then yes, why bother having polls when that person exists and you know their address. Sadly, this is impossible, so what we have instead is the next best thing: democracy. And politicians are experts are wading through it all to their own benefit, with a minority actually having a passion for it and a desire to do good - whatever their opinion may be.
And the whole reason we have elections is to elect politician that AT THAT TIME represent that government of/for/by the people. They can change their opinions, but if that's all you see them do, there's a red flag. As for doing what the people want, that depends. The politician was elected because they were trusted to do what was right, the reason we have elections regularly is because this may have changed. Should they listen to the people if they have a significant grievance? Yes, but again, they should not just flipflop and fold every ten seconds because the majority has changed. To put it bluntly, a lot of people are idiots (myself included when it comes to governing a nation) and sometimes the slightest thing can cause an opinion shift to a very wrong place and it's a politician's duty to try and resist going along with it. Just look at Europe's ever-continuing shift to radical right, you're going to have some politicians turning coat before long because they want to jump on a different bandwagon. Something like that can be prevented with someone that was elected in a calmer period and that has a backbone.



I think I may need to clarify.  Polls are a useful barometer of the public's opinion.  However, many things can affect public opinion, so it's important that they are not the sole reason for a politician to change positions.  Seeing a change in public opinion should produce the response of 'I should look into this more', not 'Fred, get my speech-writer on the line.  Press conference in 10 minutes on whatever this thing is.'

Precisely what I mean and much more succinct.

Offline TaintedAndDelish


Regarding Hillary and her changing views, there's a difference between someone who learns from their mistakes and adjusts accordingly, and someone who will just lie and say whatever they need to say to persuade others to support them. The former is someone who is learning and growing while the latter is a con.

So how do we know if Hillary is learning and adjusting or just manipulating?

Offline Florence

The idealist in me wants to say Bernie Sanders.

The cynic in me wants to say Hillary Clinton.

The nihilist in me wants to say Donald Trump.

Offline elone

Regarding Hillary and her changing views, there's a difference between someone who learns from their mistakes and adjusts accordingly, and someone who will just lie and say whatever they need to say to persuade others to support them. The former is someone who is learning and growing while the latter is a con.

So how do we know if Hillary is learning and adjusting or just manipulating?

My vote is that she is manipulating and pandering. It is who she is. Some issues are too big to just be changes of mind. One is gay marriage. She defined marriage as between a man and woman. Now she is all in for the LBGT community. You are either progressive or you are not. She is nothing but a neocon in disguise.

Look at the pandering at the AIPAC meeting as another example. No mention of the illegal settlements and occupation. No mention of human rights abuses by the Israeli's. Hillary was Secretary of State, she knows what is going on. One would think Palestinians do not exist. Read Bernie's speech for for a real honest viewpoint.

https://berniesanders.com/sanders-outlines-middle-east-policy/
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 08:49:32 AM by elone »

Offline Cycle

My vote is that she is manipulating and pandering. It is who she is. Some issues are too big to just be changes of mind. One is gay marriage.

Sanders has played "politician" on the same issue.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/03/sanders-evolving-and-wishy-washy-stance-on-same-sex-marriage/

Quote from: Associated Press, June 7, 2006
Asked whether Vermont should legalize full marriage rights for same-sex couples, [Sanders] said: "Not right now, not after what we went through."

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Out of the three I'd take Hilary.  I actually know where I stand with her and have faith that she'll do the best for the country.  She doesn't need us as much as we need her.

At this point Trump seems to be devolving into a frightening mess given his latest hissy fit over his wife's naked pictures.  I couldn't sleep last night and happened to catch the Seth Meyers late night talk show.  He did a monologue segment on Trump that tore him to pieces and all he did was tell the truth.

As for manipulative, I think Bernie Sanders has a lock on that, too.  He plays the cute Jewish zayde (grandpa) card pretty well but when push comes to shove he turns petulant and snarky. 


Offline elone


As for manipulative, I think Bernie Sanders has a lock on that, too.  He plays the cute Jewish zayde (grandpa) card pretty well but when push comes to shove he turns petulant and snarky.

Cute Jewish grandpa??

How about Hillary; vote for me because I am a woman. I just do not trust her, period. Where are her transcripts? Why does she feel the need to hide her own words? Why does she tout Hillarycare? "Before Obamacare there was Hillarycare."  What a dismal failure she made of that. How can she lead a nation? Look at her donors, she is bought and paid for by the special interests. Hillary is the establishment politician that America is sick of, the politician of 20 years ago.

She may win the nomination, but she will never win my vote.

I will stick with "grandpa" Bernie, thank you.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 08:18:41 AM by elone »

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
How about Hillary; vote for me because I am a woman. I just do not trust her, period.

That comment becomes a lot more hilarious if you remove the final comma.

EDIT: Although now I come to think of it, she's got to be in her sixties hasn't she.  Frankly I suspect everyone would be a bit suspicious of it.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 09:16:29 AM by Kythia »

Offline Cycle

As for manipulative, I think Bernie Sanders has a lock on that, too. 

He's been a politician for 35 years and switched to being a Democrat a year ago just so he can run in their primary.  So yeah, he knows how to play the game...

Offline TheGlyphstone

He's been a politician for 35 years and switched to being a Democrat a year ago just so he can run in their primary.  So yeah, he knows how to play the game...

To be fair, that's not so much playing the game as making yourself capable of entering it. It's a point of unfortunate fact that independent candidates might as well not exist in the American presidential system, so you have to pick a flag and run under it; doing otherwise is just delusional.


Question for the staff: What, exactly, makes this thread suitably different than the main Presidential thread, minus the reporting of poll results every so often?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 06:35:15 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Cycle

To be fair, that's not so much playing the game as making yourself capable of entering it.

That's a matter of opinion.  I'm sure if Clinton did the same the responses from many will be quite, quite different.

Offline TheGlyphstone

That's a matter of opinion.  I'm sure if Clinton did the same the responses from many will be quite, quite different.

Probably not, because everyone here is intelligent. This isn't a pro-Bernie bias conspiracy; we likely wouldn't like Clinton any better, but it's a matter of blatant fact in American politics that Independent candidates are almost never serious contenders for the presidency. At best, they end up as spoilers who split a party vote.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 06:52:44 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Blythe

Question for the staff: What, exactly, makes this thread suitably different than the main Presidential thread, minus the reporting of poll results every so often?

My thread was more of a sweeping sort of "updates on candidates in general" topic. It's pretty much a large thread to discuss any candidate who is currently running or any candidate who has dropped out.

Question Mark's thread has a specific focus on who people think will be POTUS.

There's a lot of overlap, but there really seems to be no harm in the threads both being open. Mine's getting a little over-large/clunky, though. >_>;

Offline Cycle

Probably not, because everyone here is intelligent. This isn't a pro-Bernie bias conspiracy; we likely wouldn't like Clinton any better, but it's a matter of blatant fact in American politics that Independent candidates are almost never serious contenders for the presidency. At best, they end up as spoilers who split a party vote.

You argue that Sanders' decision to change political parties last minute doesn't mean he knows how to play the political game, because he has to do that in order to have a chance to become President.  I think you're proving the opposite.  Changing one's stance for political expediency most clearly shows that you know how to play the game.  He's not a Democrat.  He's just using their platform to advance his own agenda.

(And it's not like this is the first time Sanders has demonstrated he knows how to play the political game to gain power.)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM by Cycle »

Offline TaintedAndDelish


And yet the Democratic party had no issue with letting him run with their group as a Democrat? I have to wonder if they would be bitching about him not being a "true democrat" if he was beating Hillary? Right now, who cares. He's not in the lead, so no need for anyone to make a fuss.


Offline Cycle

And yet the Democratic party had no issue with letting him run with their group as a Democrat? I have to wonder if they would be bitching about him not being a "true democrat" if he was beating Hillary? Right now, who cares. He's not in the lead, so no need for anyone to make a fuss.

I think you're advocating a different point.  The original point I made is that Bernie knows how to play the political game.  He's a politician, and a savvy one.  He chooses his words carefully and flips on issues when necessary to advance his agenda.  I have presented evidence of this.  It has not been countered.

Attacking the Democratic party doesn't negate my point.


Offline TaintedAndDelish


Oh no, I wasn't trying to negate your point, just more of a side note. I guess I didn't word that too well.

Offline elone

... Bernie knows how to play the political game.  He's a politician, and a savvy one.  He chooses his words carefully and flips on issues when necessary to advance his agenda.  I have presented evidence of this.  It has not been countered.

Attacking the Democratic party doesn't negate my point.

Bernie Sanders may have changed an opinion, but he pales in comparison to Clinton's flip flops on issues. "Every politician flip-flops. But Clinton flip-flops so frequently that course changes have become her signature move. As long as there is new or better information to consultóand when isnít there?ónone of Clintonís positions can be considered fixed or even rooted." (see below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-flip-flops-it-still-might-not-work/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-flip-flop-213247#ixzz44IdfpaxH
« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 08:59:21 AM by elone »

Offline Cycle

Glad to see we're in agreement that Bernie is a politician who flip flops on issues.

Online ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Just so I can clear the air, and understand this (because I feel like we keep saying things and missing each other), what precisely is your argument against Bernie?  Why shouldn't we be voting for him compared to someone else?  (As if there is a someone else to vote for on the Democratic side.)