• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nuanced Opinions on Trump, Elections, etc. - Part 1 of many (1 Viewer)

In today's polarization, it is almost impossible to express nuanced opinions on Trump or Republicans (or Biden or Democrats now). Many on Facebook see what they want to see, read between nonexistent middle lines, claim you mean a specific situation that refers to the person when you are making a general assumption and more. So, we go to forums like these and hope for a more civilized discussion, which sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. This forum is a more civilized venue than Facebook, that is for certain, though we do devolve into pettiness once in a while.

Here are some nuanced opinions that I want to get off my chest, and that are guaranteed to offend everyone if they so choose to be offended :)

Hillary was too interested in her career rather than her country
Let's track back to 2015. In 2015, Hillary barely won (or tied) the Iowa Caucuses. Shortly after, her emails caused her problems and Trump's popularity soared in the Republican primary. The media had already concluded Hillary would win the primary. Donald Trump was frequently a guest on shows so they could laugh-without-laughing at his ridiculousness.

Meanwhile, we had a candidate, Trump, who was basically following Hitler's playbook to get elected. He stoked xenophobic flames, voiced the frustrations of white people who were losing their status as an ethnic majority, and dialed into the frustrations of Middle America by setting up the election as an "Us vs. Them" scenario. Trump said the only person who could beat him was Biden. He later turned out to be correct, legitimate election or not. (Personally, I think 2020 was the most unsecured election we've had in history. More on this later)

Things got ugly. Women were worried about their rights, African-Americans were concerned about their future, and as it became more obvious that Trump would win the primary, Hillary was presented as the inevitable candidate. In the months leading up to and passing the Democratic Convention, it became clearer that Trump was a "monster," and Hillary was the savior. But the polls didn't show this. The polls, specifically at the electoral college level, showed that every time she spoke, the polls put Trump closer to her.

Hillary stated on multiple occasions that Trump represented a threat to democracy and a threat to everyone's rights. If Hillary truly believed this, then as they neared the end of the primary season, the right thing to do was to withdraw. If Hillary really and truly believed that the election would negatively alter the course of history to put the United States on a potentially pathway to dictatorship that negatively would affect millions, and statewide polls were showing an incredibly close race, she needed to withdraw and endorse someone else to run.

Instead, she put her blinders on. She assumed everything was okay. She made massive blunders with her messaging, and screwed up the third Presidential debate. And, as she said, "This was not the outcome that we wanted."

In my next opinion, we'll talk about how the mainstream media gave rise to QAnon and OANN.
 
Click to expand...
PoliSciPulse said:
In today's polarization, it is almost impossible to express nuanced opinions on Trump or Republicans (or Biden or Democrats now). Many on Facebook see what they want to see, read between nonexistent middle lines, claim you mean a specific situation that refers to the person when you are making a general assumption and more. So, we go to forums like these and hope for a more civilized discussion, which sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. This forum is a more civilized venue than Facebook, that is for certain, though we do devolve into pettiness once in a while.

Here are some nuanced opinions that I want to get off my chest, and that are guaranteed to offend everyone if they so choose to be offended :)

Hillary was too interested in her career rather than her country
Let's track back to 2015. In 2015, Hillary barely won (or tied) the Iowa Caucuses. Shortly after, her emails caused her problems and Trump's popularity soared in the Republican primary. The media had already concluded Hillary would win the primary. Donald Trump was frequently a guest on shows so they could laugh-without-laughing at his ridiculousness.

Meanwhile, we had a candidate, Trump, who was basically following Hitler's playbook to get elected. He stoked xenophobic flames, voiced the frustrations of white people who were losing their status as an ethnic majority, and dialed into the frustrations of Middle America by setting up the election as an "Us vs. Them" scenario. Trump said the only person who could beat him was Biden. He later turned out to be correct, legitimate election or not. (Personally, I think 2020 was the most unsecured election we've had in history. More on this later)

Things got ugly. Women were worried about their rights, African-Americans were concerned about their future, and as it became more obvious that Trump would win the primary, Hillary was presented as the inevitable candidate. In the months leading up to and passing the Democratic Convention, it became clearer that Trump was a "monster," and Hillary was the savior. But the polls didn't show this. The polls, specifically at the electoral college level, showed that every time she spoke, the polls put Trump closer to her.

Hillary stated on multiple occasions that Trump represented a threat to democracy and a threat to everyone's rights. If Hillary truly believed this, then as they neared the end of the primary season, the right thing to do was to withdraw. If Hillary really and truly believed that the election would negatively alter the course of history to put the United States on a potentially pathway to dictatorship that negatively would affect millions, and statewide polls were showing an incredibly close race, she needed to withdraw and endorse someone else to run.

Instead, she put her blinders on. She assumed everything was okay. She made massive blunders with her messaging, and screwed up the third Presidential debate. And, as she said, "This was not the outcome that we wanted."

In my next opinion, we'll talk about how the mainstream media gave rise to QAnon and OANN.
Click to expand...

OK. I am replying to your post.
 
Obama is a good and intelligent man... but he was a weak President. Don't believe me? Name one domestic success during his second term.

His utter haplessness during the Garland saga only highlighted how weak a President he was. People can only handle weakness so long... eventually, though, they'll choose someone who at least projects strength.

When you look at the campaign from that angle, all of a sudden Clinton's fainting spell at the 9/11 commemoration becomes all the more important. Didn't exactly project strength. And truth be told, I don't think she ever really recovered from that.
 
I was keeping track of the polling numbers at the individual state level. What I saw made me laugh. Clinton faints, is off the campaign trail -- poll numbers went up in many states. I want to say there was some random state in the Midwest that she had no rights winning that turned in her favor. She comes back to the campaign trail, her numbers sunk.

Biden's strategy (say what you will about his effectiveness in office) was the opposite of Hillary. While Hillary had this "Stop Trump" message, Biden just sat back (even during the debates) and let Trump speak for himself. It made it an effective "null v. Trump" strategy, and most people choose the null.

Trump said that only Biden could stop him and, in the end, he was right. And if Hillary wanted to "Save the country," as her messaging was, she should have stepped down and forced Joe's hand vs. Sanders.

The "Breaking the glass ceiling" I imagine also rubbed the important voters the wrong way and read it as "career advancement."

Don't get me wrong, a lot of people (including me) enjoyed the underdog victory just for the sake of watching Hillary lose. What we got instead was a much larger net negative than Hillary would have been though.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
I was keeping track of the polling numbers at the individual state level. What I saw made me laugh. Clinton faints, is off the campaign trail -- poll numbers went up in many states. I want to say there was some random state in the Midwest that she had no rights winning that turned in her favor. She comes back to the campaign trail, her numbers sunk.

Biden's strategy (say what you will about his effectiveness in office) was the opposite of Hillary. While Hillary had this "Stop Trump" message, Biden just sat back (even during the debates) and let Trump speak for himself. It made it an effective "null v. Trump" strategy, and most people choose the null.

Trump said that only Biden could stop him and, in the end, he was right. And if Hillary wanted to "Save the country," as her messaging was, she should have stepped down and forced Joe's hand vs. Sanders.

The "Breaking the glass ceiling" I imagine also rubbed the important voters the wrong way and read it as "career advancement."

Don't get me wrong, a lot of people (including me) enjoyed the underdog victory just for the sake of watching Hillary lose. What we got instead was a much larger net negative than Hillary would have been though.
Click to expand...

Where it comes to Biden's campaign, it always brings me to mind of that old Italian saying, "After a fat pope, a thin one".... there's a natural tendency to want to replace someone with their complete opposite. Trump was the first President whose first day of public service was the day he was sworn in. He never held any elected office, never held any kind of government position, never served in the military. No experience whatsoever. And it showed.

Well, who'd we replace him with? A man who served 6 terms in the Senate and 2 terms as Vice President. The most politically experienced President in US history.

Fat Pope, Thin Pope.
 
Cordelier said:
Obama is a good and intelligent man... but he was a weak President. Don't believe me? Name one domestic success during his second term.

His utter haplessness during the Garland saga only highlighted how weak a President he was. People can only handle weakness so long... eventually, though, they'll choose someone who at least projects strength.

When you look at the campaign from that angle, all of a sudden Clinton's fainting spell at the 9/11 commemoration becomes all the more important. Didn't exactly project strength. And truth be told, I don't think she ever really recovered from that.
Click to expand...
The ACA
 
The ACA was one of Obama's strategic blunders. I do not mean the sense that it did good or bad (That is subjective, depends on where you are in life as does most legislation), etc. There's always been a power struggle for political dominance between the President and Congress. When he started communicating "If you pass its, I'll sign it," and at least publicly implying that he was delegating to Congress, that's when the wheels came off. He never really fully recovered. Interestingly Trump did the exact same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (if I remember correctly). Makes one wonder what would have happened if Trump had not delegated to Congress as his first act, doesn't it?
 
Cordelier said:
First term. And he blew all of his political capital on getting it passed. He should have done middle class tax reform first, and then used the momentum from getting that done to pass a better version of ACA.
Click to expand...
You are correct, I didn't read the full question.

He did a hell of a lot in his first term and his second term was more quiet, but honestly, that's perfectly fine with me. Especially, give how much the world has sucked since his presidency finished.
 
tacomancer said:
You are correct, I didn't read the full question.

He did a hell of a lot in his first term and his second term was more quiet, but honestly, that's perfectly fine with me. Especially, give how much the world has sucked since his presidency finished.
Click to expand...

He could have done a lot more, though.... with the momentum he had coming into office, and the economic crisis, he could have been a transformational President like FDR or Reagan if he had played his cards right. Instead, he was just an average one.
 
Cordelier said:
He could have done a lot more, though.... with the momentum he had coming into office, and the economic crisis, he could have been a transformational President like FDR or Reagan if he had played his cards right. Instead, he was just an average one.
Click to expand...
Given the presidents I remember since I was sold enough to vote, he is the second best with Clinton being the best.

Bush got us into a war in Iraq over a lie, so he's out
Trump is a sociopath, so he is out
The jury is still out on Biden since he's only a year in.
 
tacomancer said:
Given the presidents I remember since I was sold enough to vote, he is the second best with Clinton being the best.

Bush got us into a war in Iraq over a lie, so he's out
Trump is a sociopath, so he is out
The jury is still out on Biden since he's only a year in.
Click to expand...

Well, we haven't exactly had an abundance of talent in either party as of late... the first election I voted in was '88, so I've got to agree with you there.

But transformational Presidencies are something else entirely. During and after FDR's Presidency, the political geography was essentially the same until the late 70's.... then Reagan changed it, and the political geography was essentially the same up until Trump. It's due for another seismic shift again - I think we're in kind of a limbo period right now, waiting for someone to set the tone for the next 30-40 years. Obama had the vision, but not the will.... Trump had the will, but not the vision. Biden? Who knows? Maybe he's got both, maybe he's got neither?
 
Last edited:
Do you what would be an awesome Presidential match-up?

Cory Booker v. Ben Sasse .... they're both outside the box, independent thinkers. Both relatively young and energetic. But they'd both bring very different policies to the table... Can you imagine the televised debates they'd have? They'd fight each other tooth and nail, but would still honestly shake each other's hand with a smile at the end of it.

I know there's no chance of it actually happening.... but I think that's exactly the kind of election this country needs.
 
PoliSciPulse said:
In today's polarization, it is almost impossible to express nuanced opinions on Trump or Republicans (or Biden or Democrats now). Many on Facebook see what they want to see, read between nonexistent middle lines, claim you mean a specific situation that refers to the person when you are making a general assumption and more. So, we go to forums like these and hope for a more civilized discussion, which sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. This forum is a more civilized venue than Facebook, that is for certain, though we do devolve into pettiness once in a while.

Here are some nuanced opinions that I want to get off my chest, and that are guaranteed to offend everyone if they so choose to be offended :)

Hillary was too interested in her career rather than her country
Let's track back to 2015. In 2015, Hillary barely won (or tied) the Iowa Caucuses. Shortly after, her emails caused her problems and Trump's popularity soared in the Republican primary. The media had already concluded Hillary would win the primary. Donald Trump was frequently a guest on shows so they could laugh-without-laughing at his ridiculousness.

Meanwhile, we had a candidate, Trump, who was basically following Hitler's playbook to get elected. He stoked xenophobic flames, voiced the frustrations of white people who were losing their status as an ethnic majority, and dialed into the frustrations of Middle America by setting up the election as an "Us vs. Them" scenario. Trump said the only person who could beat him was Biden. He later turned out to be correct, legitimate election or not. (Personally, I think 2020 was the most unsecured election we've had in history. More on this later)

Things got ugly. Women were worried about their rights, African-Americans were concerned about their future, and as it became more obvious that Trump would win the primary, Hillary was presented as the inevitable candidate. In the months leading up to and passing the Democratic Convention, it became clearer that Trump was a "monster," and Hillary was the savior. But the polls didn't show this. The polls, specifically at the electoral college level, showed that every time she spoke, the polls put Trump closer to her.

Hillary stated on multiple occasions that Trump represented a threat to democracy and a threat to everyone's rights. If Hillary truly believed this, then as they neared the end of the primary season, the right thing to do was to withdraw. If Hillary really and truly believed that the election would negatively alter the course of history to put the United States on a potentially pathway to dictatorship that negatively would affect millions, and statewide polls were showing an incredibly close race, she needed to withdraw and endorse someone else to run.

Instead, she put her blinders on. She assumed everything was okay. She made massive blunders with her messaging, and screwed up the third Presidential debate. And, as she said, "This was not the outcome that we wanted."

In my next opinion, we'll talk about how the mainstream media gave rise to QAnon and OANN.
Click to expand...

Things for Hillary were pretty okay before Comey announced just days before the election that they were reopening the Clinton investigation.
 
j brown's body said:
Things for Hillary were pretty okay before Comey announced just days before the election that they were reopening the Clinton investigation.
Click to expand...
At the popular vote level yes. But at the state level, Comey was shutting the door on the way out. She was never able to explain the email scandal in a way that didn't sound condescending or in different, you had the "What difference does it make" moment at the Benghazi hearing (even though she handled it well, it was this moment that became the primary soundbite), and the air of entitlement ("I'm going to break the glass ceiling" is what what most voters heard, not "you're going to break the glass ceiling")

So what we're seeing is not necessarily that she has done anything illegal and wrong, but that she just mishandled things. She ran a very poor campaign, just like she did in 2008. She (and her staff) learned absolutely nothing from their loss to Obama. Trump simply played the Obama victory path on steroids.

EDIT: And the "Russians leaked my emails" thing would have been put to bed if she had a good response to it.
 
Last edited:
PoliSciPulse said:
The ACA was one of Obama's strategic blunders. I do not mean the sense that it did good or bad (That is subjective, depends on where you are in life as does most legislation), etc. There's always been a power struggle for political dominance between the President and Congress. When he started communicating "If you pass its, I'll sign it," and at least publicly implying that he was delegating to Congress, that's when the wheels came off. He never really fully recovered. Interestingly Trump did the exact same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (if I remember correctly). Makes one wonder what would have happened if Trump had not delegated to Congress as his first act, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No president "delegates" legislating to Congress, that's where the power to make laws lies. The prior attempt at health reform in 1993 conspicuously ignored that reality and ended up failing spectacularly because of it. Given that Obama's approach worked, passing legislation where so many before him failed, I don't know how that outcome could be described as a "strategic blunder." In an alternate universe where the legislation failed, maybe!
 
Presidents should be giving input on legislation. By saying "you write it, I'll sign it" he is upsetting the power balance. You don't have to repeat 1993, but you can say "if these five things aren't met, then I won't sign it." He surrounded what little power he had maybe is a better way of saying it?

Note I didn't say the way he handled it led to a failure. It simply emboldened Congress to be more aggressive in pushing back against him. He could have gotten more done if he stood firm from the beginning.

EDIT: In the case of 1993, Clinton was asking for TOO much power in the process. There needs to be a happy medium.

EDIT 2: Remember, just because something succeeds in the short run, does not mean your strategy for getting it done isn't going to hurt you in the long run
 
Last edited:
PoliSciPulse said:
Presidents should be giving input on legislation. By saying "you write it, I'll sign it" he is upsetting the power balance. You don't have to repeat 1993, but you can say "if these five things aren't met, then I won't sign it." He surrounded what little power he had maybe is a better way of saying it?
Click to expand...

That's essentially what he did. He had plenty of op-eds, town halls, even speeches to Congress back in 2009 where he laid out the key elements of what became the ACA.

It's not a coincidence that by and large Congress ended up passing what Obama ran on in '08.

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Health Care

Official Website of Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign
web.archive.org web.archive.org

A world in which that legislation doesn't pass is not a world in which Obama had more stature with respect to Congress. It would've been a devastating defeat handed to him by Congress. Anyway, it's not like the ACA was the last major piece of legislation that particular Congress got through, they were churning out major legislation right up into the last day of the term for Obama to sign.

Congress became more antagonistic with Obama the next year because it changed hands, not because Obama wasn't assertive enough in the passage of the ACA.
 
It's the "you do it, I'll sign it" messaging that seems to be to be ceding too much power. That emboldened his own party to stand up to him and water down the legislation perhaps more than it should have been. I think if he had avoided just that line of messaging, he would have been better suited for the long term. Yes, he diid have input in the way you say. I'm just questioning whether seeming to delegate the process of law making entirely to Congress (remember, the president -does- have to sign it) was the right move.

Trump, same thing. It emboldened the Tea Party to stand up to him and axe the American Health Care Act (AHCA - remember that?) not once but three times if I remember correctly. Definitely twice.

Here's the primary difference though -- not only did Obama project leadership, he was very hands-on after the ACA, kind of like how I have been in my positions at work - very concerned with the details. Trump is what you would call in the business world a "top level manager" where it doesn't care if the work gets done or by who just as long it gets done.

The secondary difference is that Obama painted the Republicans as the bad guys from day one. This set up a "Damned if I do, damned if I don't" mentality where the Republicans could steamroll him. Trump to his credit, though he didn't stick with it for too long, did at least try to work with Pelosi.

I believe Obama to be a net positive (or at least not a net negative -- I have issues with him I'll bring up on a later thread) and Trump to be a net negative despite their approaches. Out of the three most recent Presidents, I believe (And you can fact check me :) ) that Bush got the most substantive legislation passed when the other party was in power. And if I remember correctly, he did not have too much of an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Fact check me especially on that last claim please. :)
 
PoliSciPulse said:
In today's polarization, it is almost impossible to express nuanced opinions on Trump or Republicans (or Biden or Democrats now). Many on Facebook see what they want to see, read between nonexistent middle lines, claim you mean a specific situation that refers to the person when you are making a general assumption and more. So, we go to forums like these and hope for a more civilized discussion, which sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. This forum is a more civilized venue than Facebook, that is for certain, though we do devolve into pettiness once in a while.

Here are some nuanced opinions that I want to get off my chest, and that are guaranteed to offend everyone if they so choose to be offended :)

Hillary was too interested in her career rather than her country
Let's track back to 2015. In 2015, Hillary barely won (or tied) the Iowa Caucuses. Shortly after, her emails caused her problems and Trump's popularity soared in the Republican primary. The media had already concluded Hillary would win the primary. Donald Trump was frequently a guest on shows so they could laugh-without-laughing at his ridiculousness.

Meanwhile, we had a candidate, Trump, who was basically following Hitler's playbook to get elected. He stoked xenophobic flames, voiced the frustrations of white people who were losing their status as an ethnic majority, and dialed into the frustrations of Middle America by setting up the election as an "Us vs. Them" scenario. Trump said the only person who could beat him was Biden. He later turned out to be correct, legitimate election or not. (Personally, I think 2020 was the most unsecured election we've had in history. More on this later)

Things got ugly. Women were worried about their rights, African-Americans were concerned about their future, and as it became more obvious that Trump would win the primary, Hillary was presented as the inevitable candidate. In the months leading up to and passing the Democratic Convention, it became clearer that Trump was a "monster," and Hillary was the savior. But the polls didn't show this. The polls, specifically at the electoral college level, showed that every time she spoke, the polls put Trump closer to her.

Hillary stated on multiple occasions that Trump represented a threat to democracy and a threat to everyone's rights. If Hillary truly believed this, then as they neared the end of the primary season, the right thing to do was to withdraw. If Hillary really and truly believed that the election would negatively alter the course of history to put the United States on a potentially pathway to dictatorship that negatively would affect millions, and statewide polls were showing an incredibly close race, she needed to withdraw and endorse someone else to run.

Instead, she put her blinders on. She assumed everything was okay. She made massive blunders with her messaging, and screwed up the third Presidential debate. And, as she said, "This was not the outcome that we wanted."

In my next opinion, we'll talk about how the mainstream media gave rise to QAnon and OANN.
Click to expand...

Your propaganda driven understandings of these points makes them comical.
 
code1211 said:
Your propaganda driven understandings of these points makes them comical.
Click to expand...
Well then, surprise me and tell me where I'm wrong.
I am not the best communicator so it's entirely possible that you and I believe the same thing or can meet in middle somewhere.

(Full disclosure: During the 2015-2016 election cycle, I did not watch most cable news networks, including Fox or MSNBC, nor will I specifically remember what they said. So if you refer to them I'm going to genuinely have no clue what you're referring to. The networks I remember watching the most at that time was either CNN or CBS)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom