Violence At A Nevada Convention...

[Lord Jim]

If you're counting on dredging up Paula Jones to derail her presidential run when it failed to tarnish her husband, who was the real villain in that piece, then you should get used to the idea of a second President Clinton.

Uh, you may recall I'm actually voting for Hillary Clinton, (or more precisely against Donald Trump) so I'm not counting on anything to "derail her Presidential run"....

I'm in the unfortunate position of having to hope her Presidential run succeeds...

But just because I want her to win the election over Donald Trump doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to start rationalizing the despicable things she has done, or find her to be less calculating, cynical, and self-serving then she obviously is.

I'd make a really lousy surrogate speaker for her campaign...

[Joe Guy]

It's interesting that Paula Jones said she saw Arkansas tattooed on Bill's penis but Hillary said he has Kansas tattooed there.

I wonder why that is.... ?

[Big RR]

Jim--if you're claiming that her statements claiming Bill was being railroaded show that she is calculating and self serving, I would say it is no more so than most other women or en who have family members accused of crimes. So far as i now she never lied under oath to protect him and she still has her license to practice law, which distinguish her from Bill. As i said before, I think she was a jerk after the accusations arose, but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (and she has hardly been singing his praises as a family man since then). And as for the mishandling of the classified documents, I seriously question what evidence exists, given the congressional investigations and the general hatred many republicans (and others) express for her. I would have thought the smoking gun would have been out in the open by now if one exists. And face it, as secretary of state she was constrained to publicly present the administration's story, not her own. But again, if she lied under oath or seriously mishandled documents, I haven't seen that proof.

I am no fan of Hillary, but I honestly don't understand the hatred lobbed at her (then again,many call her a liberal which is just as incomprehensible).

[Econoline]

I find it really funny (in both senses of the word) that it's Republicans who are absolutely convinced that Hillary is a committed, true-blue liberal (if not a socialist or a communist) with a strong belief to a traditional left-wing agenda...while the those furthest to the left on the Democratic side are just as convinced that she's a right-wing Republican capitalist pig.

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, I suspect she is neither. I suspect she is a petty, vindictive, narcicsstic, amoral, Maciavellian sociopath with no core beliefs beyond "do whatever it takes to seize and hold power."

[Lord Jim]

More confirmation of just how beloved our two major party Presidential nominees are:

Candidate Characteristics

Clinton and Trump have made quite an impression so far. Overall, voters feel the candidates lack honesty, empathy, and strong moral values, and that they’ll say anything to win.[But other than that, they're a splendid pair...]

Clinton has a net negative honesty rating of -35 points. That’s because a new low 31 percent say she’s honest, while a record 66 percent say she isn’t.

Trump does better on this measure, although he is still underwater by 17 points: 40 percent think he’s honest and 57 percent say he’s not.

In addition, over half say the phrase “has strong moral values” does not describe Clinton (57 percent) or Trump (58 percent).

Many think “cares about people like me” doesn’t fit Trump (55 percent).

More voters than not think the “cares” attribute doesn’t work for Clinton either (46 percent yes vs. 51 percent no).

Clinton performs best on “is a strong leader,” although the reviews are mixed: 49 percent say it applies to her, while 50 percent say it doesn’t.

“Strong leader” is also Trump’s best trait, as 59 percent feel it describes him (38 percent disagree).

Even so, half or better say “is a reliable leader” doesn’t describe Clinton (55 percent) or Trump (50 percent).

Most think Clinton (71 percent) and Trump (65 percent) will “say anything to get elected.” And majorities think the main reason the former secretary of state (57 percent) and businessman (56 percent) are running is for themselves -- rather than for the country.

Who is more corrupt? By a 49-37 percent margin, voters give that dubious distinction to Clinton.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... dates.html

And yet there's no way that at this point a realistic third choice can even get on enough ballots to compete...

[Big RR]

Most think Clinton (71 percent) and Trump (65 percent) will “say anything to get elected.” And majorities think the main reason the former secretary of state (57 percent) and businessman (56 percent) are running is for themselves -- rather than for the country.

Is there any president (or medium to long term politician for that matter) who does not run for him or herself but for the country? I cannot think of one, especially at the presidential level. Face it, to run for president and put up with all the attendant garbage (or stay in an elected position for a couple or more terms) one needs an ego far bigger than the country as well as an insatiable lust for the power of the position. I would love someone who would run for the country and put the interests of its people first, but that person would never get elected. Look what happened when Bush Sr raised taxes during his first term because he thought it was for the good of the country, his constituency dissolved.

[Lord Jim]

to run for president and put up with all the attendant garbage (or stay in an elected position for a couple or more terms) one needs an ego far bigger than the country as well as an insatiable lust for the power of the position.

As I've said before, I don't think it's a coincidence that the two least ego driven Presidents we have had in modern times, (Harry Truman and Gerald Ford) are also the two who never initially sought the position and never expected to hold it...

That having been said, the negative ratings for our current two candidates are worse than they have been for any two nominees in the history of modern polling...

[rubato]

Considering the 20-year long propaganda campaign of partisan hatred, outright lies and innuendo, with no facts ever produced, against Hillary her poll numbers are remarkably good and reflect her admirable service in the Senate and as Secretary of State. The GOP hate machine was cranked up and running many years before she ever had a record as a public official to hate her, for.

I don't care for her personally and the speaking fees show a lack of judgement but when that lack of judgement is up against Bush (collapses the economy and starts a war which has cost trillions based on lies) McCain (Sarah Palin, and abandoning all of his principles to run for president) Mitt Romney ("47% of the country are parasites") she comes off very well, actually.




Yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

Is there any president (or medium to long term politician for that matter) who does not run for him or herself but for the country?

This is only true to a certain extent for many pols. At one extreme you have Trump and HRC (and her husband for that matter) who seek power for power's sake, and their political agenda is a far distant second.

You have the pols who run who are not necessarily agenda-driven but are there not for their desire for power, but for their desire to serve. Your example of the first President Bush is a good example of this type. Those pols are primarily driven by their desire to serve the country first, and their interests second. In this season, Kasich was probably in this grouping.

Then you have the agenda driven pols, and in their minds they are serving the country since they believe their agenda is the best thing for the country. In this go-round, Cruz and Sanders were the most-obvious in this category. I'd also put Obama primarily in this category (and GWB before him).

Of course, it is not a binary (trinary?) situation, but more of a continuum, as to where a pol falls in these categories. It is no hard task to find successful or unsuccessful politicians in each category.

[BoSoxGal]

before she ever had a record as a public official for which to hate her, for.

for Meade . . .

[rubato]

before she ever had a record as a public official for which to hate her, for.

for Meade . . .

Mine was better.

"for which to hate her" is flimsy and falls away at the end.

"to hate her, for." uses the comma to allow you to take a breath (literally or mentally) and come down hard on the "for" at the end.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Never end a sentence in a preposition; it's one grammar rule that really serves well, because sentences ended in such a way sound entirely awkward, IMHO. As does yours.

[Big RR]

That's exactly the sort of English up with which I will not put.

[BoSoxGal]

[Big RR]

LR--I missed your post, but I only agree to a point; yes, some politicians start out agenda driven, but then develop that lust for power because they honestly believe they are the smartest ones in the room and need that power to enact their agenda. When they get some power and their efforts are still thwarted, they either push for more and more power (like Nixon or LBJ), or become bitter and petulant (like Obama and Carter or LBJ at then end of his elected term). Ditto for those who start out wanting to serve; even when they see they are getting little done, they still persist in the quest for power (look at Bush Sr, for example). I think the power and the acquisition of it becomes an end unto itself for the politicians because, at the end, that's all there is.

[Big RR]

BSG--I'll see your and raise you an .

[BoSoxGal]

[rubato]

Never end a sentence in a preposition; it's one grammar rule that really serves well, because sentences ended in such a way sound entirely awkward, IMHO. As does yours.

Never fuck up good pithy writing to follow an arbitrary rule which dilutes meaning and reduces impact.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Sorry, but your sentence wasn't good pithy writing, and the comma prior to the preposition only made it sound more awkward.

This is where you weigh in with your assertion that your opinion on language arts issues is more substantial that somebody with an advanced degree in linguistics.