World, Writing, Wealth discussion

58 views
World & Current Events > Elections: agenda and persona or best defamation team?

Comments Showing 1-31 of 31 (31 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14973 comments In business you say: 'Nothing personal, it's just business', if you feel semi-apologetically.
In politics, it seems there is no need to say or feel anything similar. Any ignobility is understood as something inherent. At least, as opposed to authoritarian regimes, the electorate is given some choice.
From competition of agendas and personalities elections often turn into a competition in best procurement of compromising materials. Anything goes. A defamation show with anti-defamation explanations.
Does it stop after the elections? Dies down to a certain degree, but compromising stuff is always in high demand.
And the abundance of found materials, may it say something about the politicians? Sometimes, it looks like especially decent and diligent people would steer away from politics and maybe they won't fit.
What do you think: are integrity, impeccable reputation are long-forgotten or still have a small market on political arena?


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments It's not so black and white. You have:
- politicians who always try to do what they feel is right in the right way
- politicians who do what they feel is right through any means necessary
- politicians who are not idealists and will get what they want through any means possible.


message 3: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14973 comments With nearing election in New Zealand, we can't possibly sit idly by. What goes in the campaigns?


message 4: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments Nik wrote: "With nearing election in New Zealand, we can't possibly sit idly by. What goes in the campaigns?"

The dreaded Aussies! I wrote a blog item, readable on GR
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

No need to go through that again, other than to note we here were stunned to be referred to as a "foreign power colluding to bring down the Aussie government." Foreign, OK, if they insist, but a POWER??? My left leg is now inches longer than my right one!!! (I now expect comments from my Australian friends.)

Now the Greens have had a meltdown (co-leader admitted previous electoral and benefit fraud) the election is now anyone's game. Previously, the National Party looked almost certain to prevail, Rather oddly, they portrayed themselves as "Strong and Stable". Seemingly, they are advertising a lack of perspective, and we await the accusation of "Weak and Wobbly".


message 5: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14973 comments Manafort might've been doing excellent biz/job in/for Ukraine and maybe elsewhere until some less glorious details became known.
Again elections, again Ukraine. One president allegedly asked another about the biz of his political rival's son: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...
Appropriate/inappropriate - what do you think?


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments Not exactly appropriate use of presidential power, but equally the Dems in Congress have been using their power in Congress to wreck his presidency for little better than spite at having their Hillary lose, and that is not exactly appropriate either


message 7: by Anne (new)

Anne Attias (anneattias) | 50 comments World politics seem to becoming increasingly divisive. Our English situation is a fine example of Parliament bullying and negativity on a previously unseen scale. Many other countries are also facing their own divisions and crises. Surely, the best solution is unity, working together for the common good. Once politicians get elected they tend to forget the voters until the next election. Ego takes over from the will of the people and we find ourselves stuck in useless, unnecessary situations. It's too bad helping each other and common sense cannot replace these egoistic, arrogant losers who claim to rule over us.


message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments Anne, I think the problem might be that the quality of politicians has slipped. One upon a time, some of them at least did feel they should be working for the country; they entered politics to serve. I believe now they have little interest other than staying in politics, so they send all their efforts at attacking each other to look better in the polls.

In the end, I feel the fault is partly that of the masses because the idea of voting for the politician based on evidence of what they are doing and of thinking about the situations has been replaced by who gives the best TV appearance and who looks "stronger".


message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14973 comments Anne wrote: "Once politicians get elected they tend to forget the voters until the next election. Ego takes over from the will of the people and we find ourselves stuck in useless, unnecessary situations...."

That is why I'd prefer direct democracy without these so-called 'representatives'


message 10: by Nik (last edited Sep 26, 2019 01:50AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 14973 comments Funny or maybe sad, but the impeachment move might be following one of the "milder" Trump's conversations. The transcript gives us a glimpse at how mundane the foreign policy can be :)


message 11: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Democrats want to eliminate Trump from the 2020 election because that's their best bet for getting a Democrat elected. That's why they've overstepped this time and will continue trying to impeach him up until the election. They're focused on eliminating the competition.


message 12: by Anne (new)

Anne Attias (anneattias) | 50 comments Ian wrote: "Anne, I think the problem might be that the quality of politicians has slipped. One upon a time, some of them at least did feel they should be working for the country; they entered politics to serv..."

Yes and isn't it sad. The most suitable people probably do not apply. This present Parliament should be disbanded and get decent people to replace them. Doubt they understand unity, co-operation or anything positive to move forward. They just want to keep hanging on indefinitely wasting money, time and progress.


message 13: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Scout wrote: "Democrats want to eliminate Trump from the 2020 election because that's their best bet for getting a Democrat elected. That's why they've overstepped this time and will continue trying to impeach h..."
Ironically, I think they just knocked Biden out of the race. Elizabeth Warren was already beginning to surge ahead of him in the polls, and now the video is coming out of the Right-wing corners and into the mainstream of him admitting to doing the same thing they accuse Trump of doing...threatening to pull US funds if they didn't get rid of a prosecutor who was investigating the company his son worked for when he was Vice President. I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic voters see this as the same kind of vulnerability that plagued Clinton, and decide to nominate someone else.

I'll admit I don't like Warren's politically, but I see her as a much stronger candidate than Biden. Even though the progressive policies are turning off a lot of people, she seems to be doing a better job of selling herself than the other progressives in the field. She comes across as someone who genuinely cares about the average American instead of some of the others who feel like they're just pandering for votes.


message 14: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments I get the impression (unreliable from this distance) that Warren has got more momentum than any of the other progressives. I think the others might have the problem that there are too many of them with similar attitude, albeit with slightly different approaches, and they are cancelling each other out. Inability tp get big funds behind them probably hurts too.


message 15: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 3711 comments With the recent issues in the repo market, Warren should be positioning herself as the solution to the "banksters", and thus attract attention from independent voters. Instead, she is continuing with the left wing bs with which the dems seem so eager to commit sepuku. She truly is the Last of the Nohicans.

As for the latest impeachment, this is one of the better explanations of the legal issues, which I could find.

https://youtu.be/BD3my03ioio


message 16: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments It seems to me that the Democrats will defeat themselves with their far left agenda. They need to come more to the center if they want to win the election.


message 17: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments If you take any given election, there are four subsets of people for a two-party system: those who vote left, those who vote right, and those two sets always vote the same way s they can be basically ignored, other than to make sure they vote. The third set includes those who may vote either way, and these are one important target. Finally, there are those who don't vote, and these are a very rich source of votes if you can persuade them. This last lot seems to comprise those who feel the system has forgotten them. Now, out of the two potential targets, how many do you think will b swayed by promises to give illegal immigrants what they don't get themselves?


message 18: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Well said, Ian.


message 19: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Scout wrote: "It seems to me that the Democrats will defeat themselves with their far left agenda. They need to come more to the center if they want to win the election."

I think the thinking is that Trump is so unpopular, it doesn't matter who wins the nomination, they'll win the election. So that emboldens them to push whatever agenda they want. But as you suggest, they'll end up scaring Middle-America, and a lot of independents will realize another 4 years of Trump is preferable to the insanity they're pushing.

But, it won't just be the eventual nominee that kills their own chance. Trump and the RNC took in $125 million in the 3rd quarter this year. Contrast this to Obama who raked in the cash during his campaign: Obama and the DNC "only" took in $70 million at this point in 2011. Then consider Clinton outspent Trump in 2016 and lost. This time around, Trump has a lot of cash on hand, and he can do what he wants.

He's already sent out signs he plans to fight for Minnesota which he lost in 2016 by about 1%, and New Hampshire which Clinton also won. I think it's New Mexico where he also plans to fight for. And then there's Virginia where the Democrats might be vulnerable because of the blackface and #metoo scandals that caught up the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General - all Democrats. What this means, is the Democrats will have to spend a lot of their resources in those states in order to hold them in 2020. That means less money to spend trying to win back Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania; and flip some of the purple states like Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. He will be fighting an offensive war in 2020, and the Democrats may not be prepared to fight it, especially if they have a far-left candidate who's unpalatable to the independents in those states.


message 20: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Are you saying that independents will again win the election for Trump? If so, I think you may be right. Trump also has the advantage of not being aligned with Washington insiders. I don't think the Dems have any idea how sick people are of their political shenanigans and the biased campaign the liberal press is running against Trump, making him the underdog. People who feel that the system is biased and unfair love an underdog. This is America, after all, land of the underdog :-)


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments I think a lot of people will think along the lines, if their only policy is to impeach Trump, if they win the election Trump is gone, so what next? A "No policy government?" "An anything can happen government, but most likely what their fringe wants?" My view is the Dems should run a candidate that wants to do something more constructive.


message 22: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Scout wrote: "Are you saying that independents will again win the election for Trump? If so, I think you may be right. Trump also has the advantage of not being aligned with Washington insiders. I don't think th..."
I'm seeing Republicans in congress (not just Trump) complaining about the impeachment process itself. Every impeachment attempt in the past has gone to a vote on the House floor before the "investigation" began. Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn't held such a vote, but claims the investigation is underway.

What is the consequence of this?

1) When the House votes to begin the investigation, the minority party gets subpoena power along with the committee chair. I think it's a given the Republicans will subpoena Joe and Hunter Biden before anyone else. Their involvement in Ukraine will be forced out, whatever it amounted to. by avoiding the necessary vote, Pelosi denies the Republicans the right to call their "witnesses," thereby shielding Biden from his role in the scandal. This will set the whole proceeding up as being biased and one-sided. when it goes to the Senate for the "trial," the Democrats aren't going to win over any Republicans (except for maybe Mitt Romney who seems bitter that he lost his presidential run and Trump won his). They'll have a lot of fun picking apart the House charges and laying this out as the farce it is.

2) Pelosi claims she can proceed without the House vote because statutes, and not the Constitution, allow this course. Problem is, those statutes allow Trump to continue to exert executive privilege and shield the testimony and documents the Democrats are after. Giuliani, for instance, doesn't have to answer any questions because they cover attorney-client privilege. If she had put forth the vote, that privilege would have gone away, and Trump would have to disclose anything and everything. However, by leaving him the legal ability, Democrats can claim it as "proof of guilt" when he he exerts his legal rights. You already hear Schiff whining that any attempt to hold back constitutes obstruction of justice in his mind.

3) Without the vote, Some Republicans claim that Schiff has no authority to question some of the figures he has subpoenaed. For instance Schiff's Intelligence Committee lacks the jurisdiction over State Department business - Volker's testimony should have fallen under the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Democrats have had the courts clock every attempt so far to expand the individual investigations beyond their original scope. If the Democrats are ignoring House rules over who has the authority to subpoena and question certain individuals, it will ultimately undermine the whole process.

This isn't about what's "right," like they're claiming. This is purely about exploding this scandal the way the Republicans did with Clinton over Benghazi and the email server, hoping to destroy his re-election bid the way her campaign was damaged. Not doing this thing right will certainly backfire and cost them next year. I can see the Republicans actually increasing their majority in the Senate next year, and this may cost the Democrats the House. Don't forget, all those freshmen ran on promises to focus on issues, and a definitive promise not to support Pelosi to the Speaker's role. Their Republican challengers will be merciless against them for broken promises.


message 23: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments More news on the 'private' email server scandal that appears to exonerate HC. No classified email on the server. A whole stack of IT people not following process and procedure (nothing new there) and surprisingly little evidence the server was ever hacked. Cries of 'lock her up' withering on the vine?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10...

The Register is a tech focused web site. It always has interesting stories and comments on technology in the news and sometimes very technical explanations of what happened


message 24: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments How do they know what was classified and what was not? By definition, if classified, not [publicly available


message 25: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Ian wrote: "How do they know what was classified and what was not? By definition, if classified, not [publicly available"

All the documents had protective markings or not as the case may be. Originals held elsewhere were not classified therefore it does not appear to have been a removal of said markings. In some cases documents had been classified later and elsewhere (Not normal process) to a higher classification. e.g. a report sent from state department to email server then to embassy got classified at the embassy.

The bit I have never understood is how emails got sent there in the first time. Procedures and systems prevent users sending classified information to not cleared locations or systems. Therefore if something is on that server the person in breach is the sender not the receiver


message 26: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments As I understood it, the problem was supposed to be that HC was sending policy "on the hoof" with her comments that included material that was classified, but not copies of the documents marked "classified". Thus a sentence starting "I think . . ." may have information that should be classified, but it isn't obvious. On the other hand, Russians intercepting the message might find the information to be really interesting.


message 27: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments She deleted thousands of emails, some of which might have dealt with classified material or shady dealings. She made sure that we'll never know, and that will always leave doubt in people's minds.


message 28: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10769 comments And if you are going to delete some, but not all, you tend to delete the most embarrassing stuff.


message 29: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Or incriminating stuff.


message 30: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments I also remember from the hearings back then that many emails were marked with a "C" to indicate they were classified. Because Clinton, as the top person over these departments, claimed not to know what that "C" meant.


message 31: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Yeah, right. She was either crooked or stupid. And, having watched the Benghazi hearings, I think it's the former. Slick Hilly :-)


back to top