| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Aleppo gaffe, I think.All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.Linky?
Though it wounds my heart as a classicist that a presidential candidate would not even have heard of one of the oldest cities in the world and one of the great cities of the Near East, I'd have let it go in 2012. Hurrah for low educational standards.
At a time when the Syrian civil war is a major factor destabilizing the international system, I'd prefer that a presidential candidate know what Aleppo is, though.
Then again, if I am honest, Gary Johnson wasn't getting my vote anyway.
I hear the Trump-Putin lovefest is back on the front burner.
The Aleppo gaffe, I think.All I know is that now the Libertarians are groaning in their beer about today's debacle.Linky?Though it wounds my heart as a classicist that a presidential candidate would not even have heard of one of the oldest cities in the world and one of the great cities of the Near East, I'd have let it go in 2012. Hurrah for low educational standards.
At a time when the Syrian civil war is a major factor destabilizing the international system, I'd prefer that a presidential candidate know what Aleppo is, though.
You want your president to know history --- I'd prefer mine to know science and economics. Both of us are overoptimistic; presidents are politicians and what they actually need to know is political science, and for everything else, there are presidential advisors.
But the Syrian instability moves Aleppo from the "history" category to the "political science" pile, at least for the present. In roughly the same way that not knowing where Hanoi was in 1956 was fine, but not knowing where it was in 1968 would be appalling ignorance in a national political candidate.
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?
I don't.
Even if it were true, it speaks of a degree of ignorance in international affairs that is truly frightening.
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?
Is it even a visible gaffe compared to the mountain of crazy coming out of the trump campaign?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to let Trump be our benchmark for rationality, in part because he keeps moving the bench. Let's judge them independently, yeah? XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to let Trump be our benchmark for rationality, in part because he keeps moving the bench.
Oh look, we DO have a space program
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?Is it even a visible gaffe compared to the mountain of crazy coming out of the trump campaign?
It's kind of like going from sighting artillery to sighting for a normal firearm again, getting back to scale can be disconcerting.
I agree it's just more proof that Johnson isn't what we need, but yeah comparably it's not as big.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump says Clinton could shoot someone and not get prosecuted.
Given that he's said basically the same thing about himself, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Although he did say "This is what's happening to our country", so it seems to have been meant in a negative way... so it's okay and good when it benefits him, but bad if it benefits someone who opposes him...?
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?
Adding: It's not that I so much support Johnson (though looking more about him right now after the remarks about Clinton really being the most hawkish candidate out there...no so certain going to war that much is a good thing for the US), as much as thinking people are putting a lot of hash on someone for no good reason.
Would I accept Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO (especially as put with all capitals) as some acronym instead of the city.
I might, seeing how insignificant Aleppo really is.
Why would ANYONE really address Aleppo.
It's easy for people to try to point fingers at this after reading (what was actually an ill informed media repudiation from what I've seen, in all truth, Aleppo isn't a capital of ISIS or even a major stronghold of ISIS) what some media idiot wrote.
I'm guessing some of those on these boards criticizing Johnson do not have any clue to why Aleppo may even have in any interest.
Aleppo has no military or strategic significance in all truth. You might as well ask what about Donetsk as it has about the same significance right now.
Aleppo has become a political situation for the US and Russia. It used to be one of the largest cities (if not THE LARGEST) in the area, or at least for Syria. It's been torn with struggles between the Rebels and Syria for some time now. The difference that is represented is that the US and Russia have very different viewpoints in regards to Aleppo, and it is due to these viewpoints that possibly have led to a continued situation there instead of any real resolution. In many ways, just like some areas of the Ukraine, it represents a cold war type situation where the US and Russian policy divert into very opposing views.
However, to the situation against ISIS...it is no more important than a HUGE number of other areas where you have a LARGE number of refugees. In that instance, instead one should ask...what about the refugee crisis as that is actually a more pertinent question.
Unless one wants to discuss US and Russia's counterposing international strategic policy, which includes FAR MORE than Aleppo, even if Aleppo is currently the hottest spot in regards to war, wounds, blood, and horror that is occurring due to those policies, it is by far not the ONLY location, and in many ways, though the most visible, very much NOT the center of that activity nor the most important most likely. Far more pertinent would be to ask about Donbass, Luhansk, and Donetsk, but the media is relying on the US public's ignorance on these locations (much less the actual significance between them and the strategic variation between US and Russia's international policies currently, as also represented in Aleppo) as well as exhibiting their own in regards to the sitation of what Aleppo, much less these others, represent.
In regards to ISIS, why not actually ask about Raqqa, or more importantly, how about the current situation in Ramadi now that it's supposedly been retaken, and how about places such as Haditha, Rawa, or Tal Afar or Sinjar? Why focus on Aleppo instead of those cities? Are the refugees from Aleppo that much more important (though admittedly there are a higher number of them)?
How many here are simply mocking him because that was the in thing to do due to what the media (who mistakenly listed Aleppo as the ISIS/ISIL capital...rather than Al-Raqqah) portrayed.
I probably would have answered similarly (though I might not have thought it was some sort of Acronym, considering ALEPPO in regards to other things, I could have easily seen it as some sort of mistake, who here follows DRM or other Acronym type policies enacted quite regularly and the struggles ensued politically with it).
More like, what about Aleppo?
If they persisted...
I'd probably answer similarly to what I stated here...is there some reason you feel Aleppo is FAR more important than other FAR MORE important areas in regards to US and Russian policies, or is it simply that Aleppo is currently one of the most visible due to media portrayal and the currently battles going on there (which, by the way are not the ONLY extensions of policies taking hot action, as I referred to previously in regards to the Ukraine situation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?
Uhm no. No more than I accept Trump's version of reality substitution.
Honestly I still think someone had it right when they said "Vote Loki! He'll lie to your face and you'll love it!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running subtheme BREAKING NEWS!:
Justice Dept., Army & Interior Dept. Temporarily Block DAPL Construction under Missouri River
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump says Clinton could shoot someone and not get prosecuted.
FINALLY! A concrete plan from trump on how to improve america.
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?Uhm no. No more than I accept Trump's version of reality substitution.
Honestly I still think someone had it right when they said "Vote Loki! He'll lie to your face and you'll love it!"
So, since you know all about that area, tell me about the Iron triangle and why it's important to ISIS...
Edited for more clarification of the specific area I'm talking about: For those Americans who do know the region, by Americans it is more aptly called the Sunni Triangle.
This is a different area than the Triangle of Death. The Triangle of Death is more of a time defined area than the Sunni Triangle though. Hence why the reference to the Sunni Triangle as the why it is important and it's relation rather than the area more to the South.
Just to clarify as some may have had both related to as the above term at one point or another.
FINALLY! A concrete plan from trump on how to improve america.Trump says Clinton could shoot someone and not get prosecuted.
LOL.
Unfortunately, he may be right. That's probably what he is banking on, is that many people have opinions that reflect that what he just said, could be right on the money. I don't know anyone else who could do what she did with Classified information and simply walk away from it.
Intent doesn't actually matter to anyone else in the charges, intent isn't what determines the charges typically, but what happened to it.
However, even if I could see his point with that...THIS statement in that article from Trump scares the bejebus out of me.
With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people, that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump promised. The arena filled with cheers.
That's a good way to start wars. Someone said Clinton was hawkish, but I think remarks like that make Clinton seem like the most peaceful dove this side of the Atlantic!
Statements like that are downright scary...and people cheered him as well!
This is an election where I really think we need a valid third option.
...Have you accepted Cthulhu as your personal savior destroyer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope Clinton hammers Trump's fire all the generals comment in areas with heavy military populations.What makes you think that this idea won't also be supported by many of the Military.
Afterall, they've done a LOT of cuts over the past 8 years, and almost all of it comes from those who are NOT the high brass.
They've had token brass cuts, but nothing really hefty, and a LOT of the high brass didn't fight back against the cuts by stepping down or doing other things. Instead, the high brass supported kicking a LOT of the veterans to the curb.
In addition, (don't know if it's been stopped or better now) there was a terrible thing happening in the Army where you'd have people that were injured and then instead of having the right way of having a medical board meet for a long time and an evaluation, they were simply dropped overboard and kicked out without further ado. This meant a LOT of disabled veterans were suddenly out on their butt without any support system.
This happened far more to those with PTSD and other afflictions (of which we've seen some of the results of in a few of the military base shootings and other areas) WITHOUT the proper support.
They have the VA, but the VA sometimes takes a while to get it done (personel that they've asked the government to buff up their employee count so they can actually handle the higher number of disability claims hasn't actually been met by Congress, so they are doing what they can with the partial staff they have to try to figure out the claims).
So, I don't know.
You may be right, but I wouldn't be surprised either if that is actually a bad call by Trump, or if it would actually be wise for Clinton to hammer down on that point or not.
- I'm a veteran.
- When I was active, I used to do the paperwork for discharging people.
- I'm a disabled veteran, so I've personally gone through the process.
- I have family members who work at the VA.
- I have friends who work at the VA.
- I've looked at data on this issue.
- I disagree with most everything you're saying.
Problems exist, but they aren't the ones you're saying.
I really hope Clinton hammers Trump's fire all the generals comment in areas with heavy military populations.What makes you think that this idea won't also be supported by many of the Military.
Afterall, they've done a LOT of cuts over the past 8 years, and almost all of it comes from those who are NOT the high brass.
They've had token brass cuts, but nothing really hefty, and a LOT of the high brass didn't fight back against the cuts by stepping down or doing other things. Instead, the high brass supported kicking a LOT of the veterans to the curb.
In addition, (don't know if it's been stopped or better now) there was a terrible thing happening in the Army where you'd have people that were injured and then instead of having the right way of having a medical board meet for a long time and an evaluation, they were simply dropped overboard and kicked out without further ado. This meant a LOT of disabled veterans were suddenly out on their butt without any support system.
This happened far more to those with PTSD and other afflictions (of which we've seen some of the results of in a few of the military base shootings and other areas) WITHOUT the proper support.
They have the VA, but the VA sometimes takes a while to get it done (personel that they've asked the government to buff up their employee count so they can actually handle the higher number of disability claims hasn't actually been met by Congress, so they are doing what they can with the partial staff they have to try to figure out the claims).
So, I don't know.
You may be right, but I wouldn't be surprised either if that is actually a bad call by Trump, or if it would actually be wise for Clinton to hammer down on that point or not.
I'm a veteran. When I was active, I used to do the paperwork for discharging people.
I'm a disabled veteran, so I've personally gone through process.
I have family members who work at the VA.
I have friends who work at the VA....
Thank you for your service.
How long ago were you in?
I have several friends who have been in, and I'd say it's split with recent people in the service. Some follow what they are told and their orders, but moral was extremely low in some parts of the navy/marines.
In addition, others were not so fond of choices the upper Brass have made.
I've also seen firsthand the damage PTSD has been doing, as well as the miscontent among many veterans who have problems getting healthcare.
However, your point is valid. It may work...I don't know. I'm just saying, it could also backfire.
Clinton, or more aptly, democrats, are HIGHLY unfavored among almost all the military individuals I know. If I had to guess, I'd say it's around a 60% favor Republicans in the more LIBERAL associates I know, and almost 90% in the more conservative individuals I know who are veterans or in the military presently.
That said,
Regardless,
No matter what your views,
once again...
Thank you for your service.
...Have you accepted Cthulhu as your personalsaviordestroyer?
No because I already owe my soul to like 150 Demon Princes/Lords, All Nine Archfiends of Hell, the Four Horsemen, and a few other minor powers of the Lower Planes not to be named here.
...Have you accepted Cthulhu as your personalNo because I already owe my soul to like 150 Demon Princes/Lords, All Nine Archfiends of Hell, the Four Horsemen, and a few other minor powers of the Lower Planes not to be named here.saviordestroyer?
You do realize after that harry dresden incident they came up with a soul sharing plan right?
Late to the Aleppo game, but maybe you guys are being too hard on Gary?
NY Times Report on Johnson Aleppo Screw-Up Also Doesn’t Know What Aleppo Is
More Aleppo fun:
Apparently, former ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill (which, oddly enough, was also the name of the preeminent Marxist historian of the English Civil War) made the same "Aleppo is the capital of ISIS" mistake while talking shiznit about Former Republican Governor Gary Johnson on MSNBC.
Also, the NYT apparently hadn't finished making mistakes, going on, after the mistakes documented above, to refer to Aleppo as the capital of Syria.
New York Times Issues Correction to Its Correction About Mistakenly Corrected Story
Does no one buy Johnson's explanation of misinterpreting ALEPPO as some acronym instead of the city?I'm willing to take him at his word because it really doesn't matter much if he is lying.
Give him the benefit of the doubt because he needs every benefit he can get?
Hilary brings nothing but the same old political middle of the road... BLEEEURGGGGH!
At least with Trump you would hope things got interesting! ;))
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Lots of stuff)
You're point about political leanings is right now. Most all military folks lean Republican. I'm not sure what the split is with POC in the military, but I'd wager it leans more conservative than the general population in that regard as well. As for analysis of who they'll vote for, I'm not sure on that, but the military vote is pretty small. A lot of it is absentee ballots, which are rarely even counted in the process.
I'm not saying shit in the military is good, but I see people complaining about discharges and the VA and medical benefits and they really don't understand what they're talking about. I even see veterans talking about this shit and they don't know what they're talking about.
1) Cuts. There actually haven't been that many cuts. Defense spending is down as share of federal budget and GDP, but this is largely to stagnation in spending. Military pay has increased.
The Army and Navy continue to see large amounts of SRB's (selective reenlistment bonuses) and typically the total amount goes up every year. This is the primary tool for retention. If they were trying to oust large numbers of people, you'd see a decline in this as it would save you money AND discourage people from reenlisting. SRB's are a signing bonus for a contract and can be up to $90,000 for 6 years. The Marines are the exception to this and have seen 50 MOS's lose their SRB's and another 40 see a reduction. Again, Army and Navy have seen an increase in spending on retention (I haven't seen the Air Force's numbers).
2) Discharges. Medical discharges depend on the type of medical problem. Injuries and illness receive honorable discharges, while obesity tends to get a General. The primary determinant of benefits after a medical discharge are length of service. If you're in boot camp and lose a leg, you're not going to be eligible for a lot of benefits. The VA will take care of your medical stuff for life, but you won't get the GI Bill and lots of other stuff.
If you want to talk about discharges, what you should do is look at the numbers from the Army that involve misconduct. There are six broad categories of discharges (I did this for a living, I had to take tests on this in order to get promotions, I regularly scored in the 95% on these tests):
- Honorable
- General - Under Honorable Conditions
- OTH - Other than Honorable
- Bad Conduct Discharge
- Dishonorable
- ELS - Entry Level Separation
Honorable - this means you complete your term of service. You're leaving the military because your time is up (either you didn't reenlist, or weren't eligible for reenlistment).
General - this is an administrative discharge. Something happened that is causing you to leave the military, it's not a punishment necessarily, but includes medical discharges. It can include bad performance, if someone is evaluated negatively, consistently gets in minor trouble and generally doesn't get along with their superiors, this discharge can be used.
OTH - This is a step down from a General. It's still administrative but always includes non-judicial punishment, typically of more severe variety (security violations, violence, it used to include being gay). Misconduct (as judged by the military) is always involved.
BCD and Dishonorable - These are used by a court-martial. Dishonorable is worse than BCD, depending on what you did will determine which one you get.
ELS - this is used when you have served less than 180 days. Basically if you can't make it through boot camp + job training, you get one of these.
What the Army has had an issue with over the past 10 years is discharging people with General or OTH people who had no obvious physical injuries, but had suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and/or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). What happens is that someone with PTSD starts to behave erratically, violently or unpredictably. They get in trouble routinely. A pattern of misconduct develops and instead of having the person get checked out and receive treatment, the Army discharges them based on the severity of their misconduct. This means their PTSD is undiagnosed while active and it doesn't go into their medical record. Then when they apply for benefits they have to prove they have PTSD and that's takes time if you've never received treatment.
3) VA processing time
Yeah, it sucks. The VA and DoD haven't been able to agree on a electronic records system. They both claim to have different needs and priorities and have spent money differently. Congress has mandated that they integrate by the end of this year, but they didn't actually allot any money to the issue or put any force behind it. The VA does actually have a very modern records system, it just isn't compatible with the DoD's.
Another issue is staffing. This delays claims processing. It also delays treatment once you're in. For me I have to schedule appointments about 6-8 weeks in advance. If I know I need a recurring appointment, I schedule 3-4 of them at a time and plan it out about 3 months in advance. I can get in to take care of stuff, it's just not going to be immediate (unless it's something I can go to urgent care for, like I did with an infection in my elbow about 2 years ago).
4) Not standing by the brass
While enlisted folks will definitely trash officers and tell you they're the worst, they also want to stand by the sacrifices they've made enacting policy over the past 15 years. By that, they want to think of their sacrifices (limbs, friends, peace of mind) as having been worth something and towards a greater good. If someone comes in and says that all that was for nothing, that their leaders where shit and they were led to do shitty things, most military people who lost something are going to disagree. This is the sunk-cost fallacy and is super common to human thinking.
It goes like this: Because I gave up a lot to do a thing, that thing must be important. I will now rationalize how this thing was important.
We do it to justify our actions and our stories of ourselves. It's really normal and we all do it constantly throughout our day, not just our lives. So while the enlisted personnel might not like the brass, they're going to stand by them if someone says that they're all bad and everything they've led the enlisted on was also bad. They'll do it because they've already rationalized to themselves why they had to follow the brass through all those shitty times.
Of course some will break from this, but this will be people predisposed to disagree with authority anyways. Interestingly enough, anti-authoritarian people don't like Trump. Authoritarians (people who have an affinity for strong leadership) are more likely to like Trump, but they're also more likely to see the military leadership in a positive light. I think it's fairly split with how all this will shake out. If instead, Trump were more military positive (instead of saying they sucked), he'd lock up that vote no problem. As is, he keeps running his mouth and costing himself small portions of that vote.
Not that the military vote is very significant in any election (other than for endorsements and publicity).
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy. If anything, it looks like their lower tier (third and fourth party candidates) get more votes then our lower tier candidates.Of course the big difference there isn't what happens with the third and fourth party candidates, it's the second party ones.
The US is a 2 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties. Russia is a 1 party system, despite the formal existence of other parties.That really is a huge difference. One person strongman rule is just not the same as the US, despite all our shortcomings and failures.
One wonders how big is the difference with so many main-line Republicans willing to endorse Clinton because she's a lot closer to being a mainstream Republican than the current standard-bearer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hilary brings nothing but the same old political middle of the road... BLEEEURGGGGH!
At least with Trump you would hope things got interesting! ;))
I don't have the abs to live in a post apocalyptic wasteland and i've already lost the water chip
You do realize after that harry dresden incident they came up with a soul sharing plan right?...Have you accepted Cthulhu as your personalNo because I already owe my soul to like 150 Demon Princes/Lords, All Nine Archfiends of Hell, the Four Horsemen, and a few other minor powers of the Lower Planes not to be named here.saviordestroyer?
I'm already on the soul sharing plan.
I don't have the abs to live in a post apocalyptic wasteland and i've already lost the water chipHilary brings nothing but the same old political middle of the road... BLEEEURGGGGH!
At least with Trump you would hope things got interesting! ;))
I fully expect to live in one. The question becomes is it 2018 or 2056?
*I figure if I'm still alive by 80, I'll have that nice Megas XLR upgrade I want*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm already on the soul sharing plan.
Have you considered the benefits of sacrificing your soul to Azathoth so that it will never be taken by an infernal plane, when compared to your current plan for distribution-of-self following the termination of your mortal life?
Meanwhile, the Washington Post says Democrats are wondering why Clinton isn't far ahead.
Myself? I wonder if the media's excessive softballing on Trump - including rarely fact-checking him and granting enormous free publicity for everything he says - while going overboard on criticizing Clinton to create the conflict they need to sell ads has anything to do with it. o wo/ But there's definitely no way that's true because even they're not that irresponsible and lacking in journalistic ethics, right? 8D
I'm already on the soul sharing plan.Have you considered the benefits of sacrificing your soul to Azathoth so that it will never be taken by an infernal plane, when compared to your current plan for distribution-of-self following the termination of your mortal life?
Yes but I don't feel much like being anywhere near this reality if I can help it. At least with planar powers, I get my soul to have interesting times.
I'm already on the soul sharing plan.Have you considered the benefits of sacrificing your soul to Azathoth so that it will never be taken by an infernal plane, when compared to your current plan for distribution-of-self following the termination of your mortal life?
Meanwhile, the Washington Post says Democrats are wondering why Clinton isn't far ahead.
Myself? I wonder if the media's excessive softballing on Trump - including rarely fact-checking him and granting enormous free publicity for everything he says - while going overboard on criticizing Clinton to create the conflict they need to sell ads has anything to do with it. o wo/ But there's definitely no way that's true because even they're not that irresponsible and lacking in journalistic ethics, right? 8D
It may be a mystery for people that are hardcore Clinton devotees, but I can definitely see why.
There are many different reasons. Some of those I think are hypothesis on my part, but I think they illustrate some problems people have with Clinton.
1. We KNOW Clinton and the DNC cheated, lied, and twisted in conjunction with the media to present a totally different picture of the truth. It was this way that they cheated to beat Bernie. I have a self preservation instinct to keep Trump from winning, and I'm STILL PISSED as hell about that.
It means that Clinton is about as dishonest as they come, and it confirms everything you've heard about the media being blatantly evil and unbalanced in their reporting.
This from someone with a vested interest in supporting her.
I'm certain those who were undecided, not as hardcore to support, have it to an even greater extreme. It's very possible many of them don't even trust what the media is saying anymore simply because they know one of the outlets was CAUGHT REDHANDED twisting the truth for a political reason.
In otherwords, if it comes from the media and is negative about Trump, or positive about Clinton, many would probably be wondering just how honest the report is. That "leak" probably did more to undermine the respect and trust many had of the media in regards to Clinton and the DNC than almost anything else in the past 2 years.
This may be the number one reason why I'd personally prefer to have a third option. Yes, I still feel burned about Bernie. I'm positive that there may be many out there, most who didn't support Bernie, that see this as far worse.
2. In relation to the first. Clinton has done things that many see that she should have been punished for. Trump is still pending a judgement call, but with the classified information thing, where she was caught, but not punished. People are upset about that. What is probably hurting her more is that she refused to take any responsibility for it (probably a wise thing, politically. If she had taken responsibility, she'd probably be in jail). Presidents who shirk the responsibility on others might not be seen as all that great of an option.
3. Using the second point, the Republicans keeps bringing up dirt that some feel relative or accept as truth (and part of that once again could be seen as related to the first). Whether I think it matters or not, or roll my eyes at it, there are people that see what the Republicans are doing and feel Clinton is even more criminal than even the Classified information thing looks (and looks are a great deal of it in politics). Things like the bribing to see her by paying money to her foundation, aka...paying for influence. Book keeping in her foundation, and many other things stated have an influence on people.
They don't trust her.
This is not an argument for Trump, but listing a few of the reasons why she probably is not further on the polls. Sure, it can be yelled at and conversed by Liberals about why they don't matter or how stupid can people be to believe things like that, but the point is, these are reasons people feel strongly about and why Clinton probably isn't as far ahead in the polls or doing as well as another candidate (such as Bernie) would be doing in her place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not an argument for Trump, but listing a few of the reasons why she probably is not further on the polls. Sure, it can be yelled at and conversed by Liberals about why they don't matter or how stupid can people be to believe things like that, but the point is, these are reasons peaople feel strongly about and why Clinton probably isn't as far ahead in the polls or doing as well as another candidate (such as Bernie) would be doing in her place.
Nope, I'm not buying a word of that, I'm afraid. It's almost purely a result of the post-reality campaign, combined with the "backup quarterback" effect I discussed earlier. The only reason that people think that Bernie would be doing better than Hilary is because no one actually bothered to campaign against Bernie. Hilary read the tea leaves early on and realized that she would be better served to focus on the general election, and the Republican party generally realized that they would be better served by a long and divisive Democratic primary campaign.
If Bernie -- or anyone other than Hilary -- had won the nomination, the same sort of allegations, calumnies, and outright lies would simply be directed at different people.
The simple fact is that politics and news reportage has become so polarized that 40% of the population has been programmed to listen only to what is told to them by appropriately partisan sources, and the truth doesn't matter. Which means that 40% of the electorate is simply unreachable, no matter what positions or actions your preferred candidate takes.
(Or doesn't take, because someone will simply ascribe actions to your candidate that never actually happened.)
As I said, people here can scream all they want, doesn't change why people aren't looking to vote for Clinton.
Independents really don't like crooks in many instances.
If I were Clinton, my #1 priority right now (beyond what she is doing, staying out of the lime light and letting Trump sink himself actually seems like a decent strategy, and removes the ability to make snafu's yourself) would be to somehow make it so that the media seems trustworthy again.
I know I don't trust what they are saying, and I'm one who is probably more easily supportive of her than a LOT of others.
Which is why I'm pretty certain that if I have my doubts about the media, it's FAR worse among the independents and those further right.
The ONLY thing keeping Clinton afloat right now is probably Trump. He's so devastated his campaign that if it were anyone else with a different reputation right now, I think Trump would be absolutely destroyed far worse than what Clinton has done.
It isn't any mystery to me why Clinton isn't doing better than she should be doing, but I can see why some people may be mystified.
That said, she isn't doing poorly right now by any shot, what the polls say about her at this point probably would have been seen as pretty good overall at this point for any other presidential election at this period before the election.
It just seems jaw dropping to those who can't understand why independents (who are the ones who are probably going to decide most presidential elections these days) might not be jumping with joy over Clinton.
To many of them it probably seems a choice between the devil and going to hell...aka...neither leads to nirvana.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what the House says about Clinton is true and after all those investigations, hearings, and taxpayer money spent they still don't have anything concrete despite everyone 'knowing' how criminal she is, then they themselves are grossly incompetent by any objective measure.
I can't bring myself to vote for pathetic incompetents.
The problem is Trey Gowdy and the other Republican members of the house select committee have been caught lying and fabricating evidence against Clinton multiple times. People don't realize this because that part doesn't make the nightly news, only the initial accusations.
So if there was something real it wouldn't matter since the Republicans have literally done worse trying to make something up in the first place.