(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...why a guy who goes around saying he can use his fame and wealth to "grab women by the *$*$*" or to walk into dressing rooms so he "gets to see" girls as young as 15 naked isn't in jail.

Disgusting though they are, on what criminal charge would you imprison someone for "going around saying" those things?

(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think many Trump supporters and anti-Hillary people don't get how devastating this campaign has been to many women, non-whites, and non-Christians, that one of our major parties is essentially running a campaign saying they are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy. And that so many of their fellow citizens think that America needs to marginalize them...

Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

Let's put aside all the corruption charges alleged against both candidates for just a few minutes and consider the following: The President of the United States is more than just the leader of the third branch of government who approves or vetoes the legislation that is passed by the Congress. He (or She) also becomes the symbol of the country itself. For all of those who distrust and even despise Hillary Clinton, put your steady 20-year diet of Fox News factoids to the side for a minute and ask yourselves whether Donald Trump would truly be a better symbol of what America represents to the world. Does he have any experience in foreign relations and diplomacy outside of hotels, golf courses, Miss Universe pageants, and marrying foreign-born models? Is that experience of more value to America's image than that of a former Secretary of State?

Second, I hear over and over that Trump will be great for the economy because he's a successful businessman. I will put aside any commentary on the "successful" part of that rationale, and simply point out that success in business is apples to success in governing's oranges. Trump has not had any experience in public service nor has he ever held any elective office. At least Plain Sarah had been the mayor of a medium-sized Alaskan town (comparable to being mayor of West U. for you Houstonites) and governor of one of our smallest (population-wise) states for not even two years when she was chosen by McCain. The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

I also keep hearing that Trump's temperament will be kept under control by the 'checks and balances' of the Constitution. So show me how his campaign managers have 'controlled' him since he received the nomination, or how the RNC has 'controlled' Trump over the last 15 months, or how the Republican leadership (e.g. Ryan & McConnell) has 'controlled' him at any time over the last few months.

Pundits say the Trump phenomenon is driven by a burning desire for a real "change." So my parting words to all of my fellow alums and other readers of this board who believe Trump represents that positive change are as follows: When you leave the polling booths, don't forget to bend over and kiss your ass goodbye!

(11-01-2016 01:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I love the "not been indicted, let alone convicted" defense. Worked for Al Capone for years. Worked for Bernie Madoff for years.

That is just silly.

Well, a better analogy might be that Clinton is innocent to the same degree that Brock Turner was properly sentenced.

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  For all of those who distrust and even despise Hillary Clinton, put your steady 20-year diet of Fox News factoids to the side for a minute ...

People who distrust Hillary Clinton >> followers of Fox News.

By the way.

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

Well, the historical premise is false: a guy named Eisenhower was sought as nominee by BOTH parties, and served in the White House for eight years. Before that, he had never held elective office of any kind.

Even so, it is astute to observe that experience with real political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think many Trump supporters and anti-Hillary people don't get how devastating this campaign has been to many women, non-whites, and non-Christians, that one of our major parties is essentially running a campaign saying they are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy. And that so many of their fellow citizens think that America needs to marginalize them to be "great again"...

This 1,000x. I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump, but I find it extremely strange when anyone other than a white male (I excluded "straight", as I don't think Trump has any soundbite where he denigrates the LGBT population, but correct me if I'm wrong) says that they are voting for Trump. Not that a white male voting for Trump is any better, but frankly, that is the only group in this entire country that he has not offended. Yet there are women (some of them are the vapid, materialistic, Stepford Wife types I saw interviewed on CNN on a segment regarding women that support Trump) that somehow turn a blind eye to his behavior and words. Sad that they don't have higher opinions of themselves as women or that they can sleep at night knowing that they have voted who boasts on objectifying women and making unwanted advances against members of their gender.

The Republican Party was already on the verge of losing the 18-35 year-old vote for a decade plus before Trump was nominated due to its exclusionary policies regarding women's rights, LGBT rights, non-Christians and other social issues. The intolerance and disgusting language and behavior exhibited by Trump will make that hole even deeper for the GOP to dig out of.

(11-01-2016 04:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think many Trump supporters and anti-Hillary people don't get how devastating this campaign has been to many . . . . . , and non-Christians, that one of our major parties is essentially running a campaign saying they are second class citizens at best,

The Republican Party was already on the verge of losing the 18-35 year-old vote for a decade plus before Trump was nominated due to its exclusionary policies regarding . . . . . . . , non-Christians and .

These are pretty broad statements . . . . .both pre- and post-Trump. Given Trump is not necessarily a regular church attender . . .

Care to elaborate?

(11-01-2016 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

It is very astute to observe that experience with political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

Neither a good analogy nor a good interpretation of what I said. And I doubt that you really want to pit President Obama's 12 years of experience as a state legislator and U.S. Senator (I assume you would claim would be non-qualifying) against, let's say, President George W. Bush's five years of experience as Governor of Texas (which I assume you would claim would be qualifying). As ineffective a Governor as W was in a state where that office is less powerful than that of the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate (one of the weakest of the 50 states!), the best you'd get, arguably, would be a tie.

So since Obama has been President for eight years, by your definition he's "responsible" for unemployment dropping from 10% to 4.9%, for uninsured adults dropping from 18% to 11.9%, for U.S.-made cars sold increasing from 10.4M to 17.5M, for consumer confidence increasing from 37.7 to 104.1, just to name a few. I'll have another helping of that flavor of 'political responsibility,' please!

Thank you.

(11-01-2016 04:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Sad that they don't have higher opinions of themselves as women or that they can sleep at night ...

Have you tried explaining to them how, as women, they are wrong? That usually works...

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

LOL - Good one.

Louisiana politics - the blueprint for democracy - - - - - -

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

It is very astute to observe that experience with political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

Neither a good analogy nor a good interpretation of what I said.

Actually, it's a good analogy and a good interpretation of what you said.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  And I doubt that you really want to pit President Obama's 12 years of experience as a state legislator and U.S. Senator (I assume you would claim would be non-qualifying) against, let's say, President George W. Bush's five years of experience as Governor of Texas (which I assume you would claim would be qualifying). As ineffective a Governor as W was in a state where that office is less powerful than that of the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate (one of the weakest of the 50 states!), the best you'd get, arguably, would be a tie.

You are wrong. Most political observers would view five years of experience as a governor as greater experience of real political responsibility than a dozen years of ideological and mostly absent service as a legislator. Even candidate Obama didn't claim to be experienced.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  So since Obama has been President for eight years, by your definition he's "responsible" for...

I gave no such definition, and it's not clear how you could plausibly think that I did.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ... unemployment dropping from 10% to 4.9%, for uninsured adults dropping from 18% to 11.9%, for U.S.-made cars sold increasing from 10.4M to 17.5M, for consumer confidence increasing from 37.7 to 104.1, just to name a few. I'll have another helping of that flavor of 'political responsibility,' please!

Thank you.

Your comment is cute, but the relevant question is not whether certain statistics correlate with an office-holder's chronological term, but what are the caused results of the office-holder's actual initiatives. The American economy is both robust and cyclical, and most reasonable observers agree that saying particular indicators were "caused" by the occupant of the White House is nearly impossible. It is fair to say that some economic measures have gotten better and some have gotten worse; that in each category, it is not clear which have done so because of, in spite of, or independently of his presidency; and that some would no doubt have improved (or fallen) even more had he not been president. It is also possible that you are not a reasonable observer, as the comment in another post equating "people who distrust Hillary Clinton" with "steady consumers of Fox News factoids" tends to demonstrate.

Lastly, as noted in an edit my original post, your historical premise is false: Eisenhower served as President for eight years without previously having had elective office of any kind. Hoover was not the most recent, nor clearly representative.


Thank you. Cheers.

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

So which one is the female?

(11-01-2016 05:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

It is very astute to observe that experience with political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

Neither a good analogy nor a good interpretation of what I said.

Actually, it's a good analogy and a good interpretation of what you said.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  And I doubt that you really want to pit President Obama's 12 years of experience as a state legislator and U.S. Senator (I assume you would claim would be non-qualifying) against, let's say, President George W. Bush's five years of experience as Governor of Texas (which I assume you would claim would be qualifying). As ineffective a Governor as W was in a state where that office is less powerful than that of the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate (one of the weakest of the 50 states!), the best you'd get, arguably, would be a tie.

You are wrong. Most political observers would view five years of experience as a governor as greater experience of real political responsibility than a dozen years of ideological and mostly absent service as a legislator. Even candidate Obama didn't claim to be experienced.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  So since Obama has been President for eight years, by your definition he's "responsible" for...

I gave no such definition, and it's not clear how you could plausibly think that I did.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ... unemployment dropping from 10% to 4.9%, for uninsured adults dropping from 18% to 11.9%, for U.S.-made cars sold increasing from 10.4M to 17.5M, for consumer confidence increasing from 37.7 to 104.1, just to name a few. I'll have another helping of that flavor of 'political responsibility,' please!

Thank you.

Your comment is cute, but the relevant question is not whether certain statistics correlate with an office-holder's chronological term, but what are the caused results of the office-holder's actual initiatives. The American economy is both robust and cyclical, and most reasonable observers agree that saying particular indicators were "caused" by the occupant of the White House is nearly impossible. It is fair to say that some economic measures have gotten better and some have gotten worse; that in each category, it is not clear which have done so because of, in spite of, or independently of his presidency; and that some would no doubt have improved (or fallen) even more had he not been president. It is also possible that you are not a reasonable observer, as the comment in another post equating "people who distrust Hillary Clinton" with "steady consumers of Fox News factoids" tends to demonstrate.

Lastly, as noted in an edit my original post, your historical premise is false: Eisenhower served as President for eight years without previously having had elective office of any kind. Hoover was not the most recent, nor clearly representative.


Thank you. Cheers.

I agree with the logic in the first bolded part- but then doesn't that mean that the same would be said for many, if not all, of the negatives that you'd like to ascribe to Obama's time as POTUS?

For the second, I think you intentionally missed a very important part of what ColOwl said. He did not say that Hoover was the last person who did not previously hold elected office, but rather that he was the last person with more 'business experience' than elective office responsibility. Eisenhower had NO business experience before he became president and went straight into the military from West Point. The closest he came to having a job in "business" was being the President of Columbia for about 1 year, which he quit to become the Supreme Commander of NATO. So I doubt business acumen was one of his selling points.

Digging a bit more into Eisenhower's past, he was appointed the Military Governor of the US Occupation Zone in Germany, which I have to imagine is very similar to being elected.

Anyways, point being, I think you're stretching a bit here.

(11-01-2016 04:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

LOL - Good one.

Louisiana politics - the blueprint for democracy - - - - - -

In many ways, this has turned into a campaign of "vote for the crookedest".

Hillary's main claim to competence is that she has never been indicted, and everybody knows people don't get rich honestly.

IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2012. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

(11-01-2016 03:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...why a guy who goes around saying he can use his fame and wealth to "grab women by the *$*$*" or to walk into dressing rooms so he "gets to see" girls as young as 15 naked isn't in jail.

Disgusting though they are, on what criminal charge would you imprison someone for "going around saying" those things?

(11-01-2016 01:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think many Trump supporters and anti-Hillary people don't get how devastating this campaign has been to many women, non-whites, and non-Christians, that one of our major parties is essentially running a campaign saying they are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy. And that so many of their fellow citizens think that America needs to marginalize them...

Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

I've always been a bit amazed at this view and how people use logic to get there. As a white male, I don't think I've ever felt marginalized for being a white male, but I guess I shouldn't use personal experience to color my opinion on such a large issue.

I've definitely seen plenty of things that try to de-margenalize those who aren't white men, such as the Black Lives Matters movement. But I guess the bolded line of thinking uses the same logic as those who think that when people say Black Lives Matter, they're saying that other colored lives don't. But the more I think about it, I guess that line of thinking makes sense in the same way that when I see a house on fire on my block, I'm going to call the fire department to report it. And when they ask me which house is on fire, I'm not going to tell them the exact number of the house that's on fire, because hey, ALL houses matter, why should we only pay attention to the one on fire? If I only tell them about the one on fire, I must think the other houses don't matter.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2016. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

I happen to agree with this for the most part. I think he did do some things that positively effected the recovery, like bailing out the auto industry. Those companies have done very well since then and have, for the most part, repaid a lot of the debts they incurred from that.

(11-01-2016 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2012. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

I happen to agree with this for the most part. I think he did do some things that positively effected the recovery, like bailing out the auto industry. Those companies have done very well since then and have, for the most part, repaid a lot of the debts they incurred from that.

I think the auto companies would have done pretty much the same thing without the "bailout." It would have occurred through a different process, one more respectful of the rule of law, but the results would have been pretty much the same. They would have gone through 11s, not 7s, and they would never have ceased to operate.

(11-01-2016 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2016. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

I happen to agree with this for the most part. I think he did do some things that positively effected the recovery, like bailing out the auto industry. Those companies have done very well since then and have, for the most part, repaid a lot of the debts they incurred from that.

I think the auto companies would have done pretty much the same thing without the "bailout." It would have occurred through a different process, one more respectful of the rule of law, but the results would have been pretty much the same. They would have gone through 11s, not 7s, and they would never have ceased to operate.

But that would not have achieved the REAL purpose of the "bailout", which (like most policies) was to dispense economic favors to favored constituencies.