(01-09-2017 06:35 PM)Barrett Wrote:  But to be clear: Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for The Great Wall was dumb, and I would bet he has no idea on how to get Mexico to pay for it. If this were a litigation matter, I'd label it fraudulent inducement: inducing another to enter into a contract (or provide a vote, as in this case) by providing a promise that you know is false or likely to be false.
If a Democrat does the same thing (which I'm sure has happened and will continue to happen--I know some would point to Obama and ACA), they should be called out on it, too.
No matter who does it, it's bullsh-t.

Fraudulent inducement is so prevalent in today's politics that I wonder if it is indeed even possible to get elected by promising to do those things which you will actually do once elected. You are right about it being BS. I don't know any way to get rid of it as long as our electorate is full of sheeple.

Trump has promised so much that there's no way he can deliver on all of it. My problem with Trump is that I really like about half of what he has promised (tax cuts and clean up the swamp) and I really hate the other half (particularly the tariffs and immigration parts, which seem to be the most vocal elements). I don't know where this goes.

GWB promised us that he would cut the size of federal government and get us out of the nation-building business--both of which I agreed with 100%--and then did a complete 180 on both--largest pre-Obama growth of federal government in history, and not one but the two most massive nation-building efforts in our history. And no, I do not give him a pass because of 9/11. Obama promised to give us the moon and make somebody else pay for it. Unfortunately, as Maggie Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money.

I don't really recall Bill Clinton making outlandish promises that he didn't deliver, which may be one reason why as basically a conservative I can still think of him as an excellent president. GHWB obviously overpromised with, "Read my lips," which probably won him one election and lost him another.

You raise an interesting question. Is it possible to get elected today by promising what you will do, and then doing what you promised?

(01-10-2017 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You raise an interesting question. Is it possible to get elected today by promising what you will do, and then doing what you promised?

In this reality TV show world we live in (and I use the term "reality TV show world" not as a specific reference to Trump, but to the general zeitgeist that I feel has been in effect since the late-90s or so), my guess is that politicians probably can't get elected by being simply measured, honest, and, well . . . boring. But I actually want my politicians to be boring, rather than someone looking to be some kind of star.

I honestly think of many modern politicians as nothing but celebrity-wannabes who have simply chosen politics as their medium or avenue to celebrity. Some people seek celebrity/attention by acting, some by singing, some by releasing a sex tape of themselves, and some by being politicians.

I think of a good example is Rick Perry. When Rick Perry ended his tenure as governor, he ended up on Dancing with the Stars. He just wanted to stay in the limelight. He wanted to hold on to his celebrity. In my opinion, no self-respecting statesman who truly cares about government and policy and statecraft does something like this. Celebrity requires a narcissistic appeal to the masses that I think easily lends itself to demagoguery.

(01-10-2017 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I really doubt this was nefarious, but Sessions just made his confirmation much more difficult by failing to disclose the nature of some oil leases that he holds.

In fact, I think he really screwed the pooch a bit because, just like McConnell, he went a bit too far previously with an Obama nominee for almost the exact same thing, and I don't think Dems are going to roll over. That's because in 2010, he was integral in writing a letter about Goodwin Liu (in relation to him not disclosing all of his academic papers) that said:

“At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...6c090fb0f8

tit-for-tat season is in full swing.

"He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way"

As is to be expected, democrats will try to portray this as treason and republicans will try to minimize it.

My guess is that it ranks somewhere well below Tim Geithner's tax returns, but we shall see. Sounds more like an administrative error in filling out a form than anything else.

(01-10-2017 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As is to be expected, democrats will try to portray this as treason and republicans will try to minimize it.

My guess is that it ranks somewhere well below Tim Geithner's tax returns, but we shall see. Sounds more like an administrative error in filling out a form than anything else.

Agreed. I don't think its outside the realm of intentional non-disclosure due to where the land isn't located, but I doubt it was trying to be hidden.

(01-10-2017 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I really doubt this was nefarious, but Sessions just made his confirmation much more difficult by failing to disclose the nature of some oil leases that he holds.

In fact, I think he really screwed the pooch a bit because, just like McConnell, he went a bit too far previously with an Obama nominee for almost the exact same thing, and I don't think Dems are going to roll over. That's because in 2010, he was integral in writing a letter about Goodwin Liu (in relation to him not disclosing all of his academic papers) that said:

“At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...6c090fb0f8

tit-for-tat season is in full swing.

"He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way"

At the moment, no one wants to be the bigger person and treat others how they want to be treated. Everyone is now just treating everyone else like crap. The partisan lines are deepening on both sides.

(01-10-2017 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I really doubt this was nefarious, but Sessions just made his confirmation much more difficult by failing to disclose the nature of some oil leases that he holds.

In fact, I think he really screwed the pooch a bit because, just like McConnell, he went a bit too far previously with an Obama nominee for almost the exact same thing, and I don't think Dems are going to roll over. That's because in 2010, he was integral in writing a letter about Goodwin Liu (in relation to him not disclosing all of his academic papers) that said:

“At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...6c090fb0f8

tit-for-tat season is in full swing.

"He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way"

At the moment, no one wants to be the bigger person and treat others how they want to be treated. Everyone is now just treating everyone else like crap. The partisan lines are deepening on both sides.

Problem is, if you act like the bigger person, the other side still treats you like crap. The shining example thing doesn't work so much in politics.

Just when I think things can't get any more bizarre...

I think Wolfgang Blau summed up my thoughts on the new Trump/Russia allegations:

"Rare that a story stinks from every possible angle: the source, the content, the consequence, the messenger, the target."

https://twitter.com/wblau/status/8189665...wsrc%5Etfw

Rumors of Trump having much closer ties to Russian oligarchs and mobsters than revealed previously have been around for a long time, as have rumors that he was caught in a "honeytrap" and the Russians had video. (Ewwww!) But they've mostly not been reported since they are just that, rumors.

I loath Trump and the think he is a grave threat to our country. But so is the idea of the intelligence services trying to take down a President - therefor I guess we should hope the allegations are true, because that's the least bad outcome for our democracy? I honestly don't know.

(01-11-2017 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Just when I think things can't get any more bizarre...

I think Wolfgang Blau summed up my thoughts on the new Trump/Russia allegations:

"Rare that a story stinks from every possible angle: the source, the content, the consequence, the messenger, the target."

https://twitter.com/wblau/status/8189665...wsrc%5Etfw

Rumors of Trump having much closer ties to Russian oligarchs and mobsters than revealed previously have been around for a long time, as have rumors that he was caught in a "honeytrap" and the Russians had video. (Ewwww!) But they've mostly not been reported since they are just that, rumors.

I loath Trump and the think he is a grave threat to our country. But so is the idea of the intelligence services trying to take down a President - therefor I guess we should hope the allegations are true, because that's the least bad outcome for our democracy? I honestly don't know.

This sounds horrible --- but now that Hils will not be President I would not mind a removal of President Trump. In this cycle, *both* VP nominees were immeasurable improvements over the individuals that led the tickets, imo.

Kind of like back when Bentsen was the VP candidate, I remember saying it was really too bad that he was on the second slot as *that* pick would be both easier and would have changed my vote vis a vis party affiliation.

Given how the Republicans have done a three way split between normal, deep red social conservative (i.e. abortion is still a big litmus test), and this weird ass Trumpism, and how the Democrats have tacked at a left angle to port, I doubt you will see in the near future any moderate types at the front of tickets.

(01-11-2017 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Just when I think things can't get any more bizarre...

I think Wolfgang Blau summed up my thoughts on the new Trump/Russia allegations:

"Rare that a story stinks from every possible angle: the source, the content, the consequence, the messenger, the target."

https://twitter.com/wblau/status/8189665...wsrc%5Etfw

Rumors of Trump having much closer ties to Russian oligarchs and mobsters than revealed previously have been around for a long time, as have rumors that he was caught in a "honeytrap" and the Russians had video. (Ewwww!) But they've mostly not been reported since they are just that, rumors.

I loath Trump and the think he is a grave threat to our country. But so is the idea of the intelligence services trying to take down a President - therefor I guess we should hope the allegations are true, because that's the least bad outcome for our democracy? I honestly don't know.

This sounds horrible --- but now that Hils will not be President I would not mind a removal of President Trump. In this cycle, *both* VP nominees were immeasurable improvements over the individuals that led the tickets, imo.

Kind of like back when Bentsen was the VP candidate, I remember saying it was really too bad that he was on the second slot as *that* pick would be both easier and would have changed my vote vis a vis party affiliation.

Given how the Republicans have done a three way split between normal, deep red social conservative (i.e. abortion is still a big litmus test), and this weird ass Trumpism, and how the Democrats have tacked at a left angle to port, I doubt you will see in the near future any moderate types at the front of tickets.

Kaine's debate performance was so bad, that I'm not sure that I would say he would be a marked improvement over Hillary, although for entirely different reasons. I think that as a President, Pence would be fine, but he's so polarizing to the left on social conservative issues that it will spill over into how the country supports him, even if there is no significant action on those social issues (i.e., he's focused on the issues associated with running the country).

I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

Agreed. Although, our best and brightest generally don't want to / eventually become career politicians.

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

(01-11-2017 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

I will agree with Owl, but would leave out Romney.

Kerry has the same flaw pattern as Hillary === nothing but a power (and wealth)-hungry opportunist with a deep veracity problem.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."


Or perhaps the fact that he was a first hand witness to US servicemen who "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks."

This guy ranks up there with the Kosovo sniper on the tarmac cr-p. And he is the reason why the term 'swift-boated' has an actual meaning....

As for Obama, needless to say most are position issues with him. But having a person who's highest long term position in life prior to the Presidency was being a community activist was quite a "tell" for me at the get-go at the path that would be taken in terms of 'red lines' in the sand, appeasement, and going out of his way in pissing off and/or screwing over many of our deepest allies. I would call that deeply flawed at the very least.

so if the best amd brightest are not going into politics, where are they going? My guess is business, where they can advamce to very high levels on their abilities.

(01-11-2017 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

I will agree with Owl, but would leave out Romney.

Kerry has the same flaw pattern as Hillary === nothing but a power (and wealth)-hungry opportunist with a deep veracity problem.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."


Or perhaps the fact that he was a first hand witness to US servicemen who "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks."

This guy ranks up there with the Kosovo sniper on the tarmac cr-p. And he is the reason why the term 'swift-boated' has an actual meaning....

As for Obama, needless to say most are position issues with him. But having a person who's highest long term position in life prior to the Presidency was being a community activist was quite a "tell" for me at the get-go at the path that would be taken in terms of 'red lines' in the sand, appeasement, and going out of his way in pissing off and/or screwing over many of our deepest allies. I would call that deeply flawed at the very least.

Looking at that list, my take away is don't commit political malpractice and nominate someone who isn't able to connect with the intended audience at a gut level.

Kerry, Clinton and Romney - each had positives, not so much with the retail politics and any sort of ability to make a personal connection.

McCain the exception, but he was up against Senator Obama, a unique personality with respect to campaigning.

Trumps performance today rather unique as well. Curious that he's doubling down on his spat with the intelligence agencies. Makes one wonder what's next to drop.

(01-11-2017 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

I will agree with Owl, but would leave out Romney.

Kerry has the same flaw pattern as Hillary === nothing but a power (and wealth)-hungry opportunist with a deep veracity problem.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."


Or perhaps the fact that he was a first hand witness to US servicemen who "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks."

This guy ranks up there with the Kosovo sniper on the tarmac cr-p. And he is the reason why the term 'swift-boated' has an actual meaning....

As for Obama, needless to say most are position issues with him. But having a person who's highest long term position in life prior to the Presidency was being a community activist was quite a "tell" for me at the get-go at the path that would be taken in terms of 'red lines' in the sand, appeasement, and going out of his way in pissing off and/or screwing over many of our deepest allies. I would call that deeply flawed at the very least.

I thought swift boating was when people made up stories that denigrated others unfairly for political gain? wasn't the Swift Boat stuff mostly debunked?

(01-11-2017 08:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought swift boating was when people made up stories that denigrated others unfairly for political gain? wasn't the Swift Boat stuff mostly debunked?

Debunked? Really?

I recall competing stories, but I don't think anyone ever proved them wrong.

(01-11-2017 08:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 08:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought swift boating was when people made up stories that denigrated others unfairly for political gain? wasn't the Swift Boat stuff mostly debunked?

Debunked? Really?

I recall competing stories, but I don't think anyone ever proved them wrong.

There was a reason I put a question mark after my statement - I'm not what I would call well-versed in the Kerry Swift Boat business (it was before I started following politics), so yeah, I was really asking if it was mostly debunked? Sorry for trying to get some information.

I knew that the whole controversy was fairly convoluted, but that was all I was certain of. Going back and trying to find information on this proved that to be true.

However, since I know that swiftboating was used as defined above, I figured that it must have been developed because the supposed controversy that was brought up by the Swift Boat group turned out to be primarily fake/false.

I did some more digging and found that I guess debunked was the wrong word. There were some issues that were debunked (like the attacks that Kerry did not deserve his medals/lied to get them), but many others (attacks on Kerry for his anti-war work) weren't really de-bunkable, it was more the question of whether the accusations were valid. A good quote I found about that was in relation to the attack on Romney's time at Bain:

Quote:Then there's the whole question of the "truthiness" of the Bain attacks, said Christopher Arterton, a professor of political management at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.
"The comparisons (to Swift Boat) are apt, particularly with the Bain outsourcing of jobs charge because there is a thin veneer of truth to that just as there was a thin coating of truth with the attacks of Kerry not deserving his medals," Arterton said. "We're taking a small truth and blowing it up into a substantial charge."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/25/politi...index.html

I think this quote, though, does a much better job explaining the situation:

Quote:An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Aug21.html

Anyways, I learned a bit more today about something I didn't know a lot about before. So I guess that's good.

(01-11-2017 08:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

I will agree with Owl, but would leave out Romney.

Kerry has the same flaw pattern as Hillary === nothing but a power (and wealth)-hungry opportunist with a deep veracity problem.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."


Or perhaps the fact that he was a first hand witness to US servicemen who "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks."

This guy ranks up there with the Kosovo sniper on the tarmac cr-p. And he is the reason why the term 'swift-boated' has an actual meaning....

As for Obama, needless to say most are position issues with him. But having a person who's highest long term position in life prior to the Presidency was being a community activist was quite a "tell" for me at the get-go at the path that would be taken in terms of 'red lines' in the sand, appeasement, and going out of his way in pissing off and/or screwing over many of our deepest allies. I would call that deeply flawed at the very least.

I thought swift boating was when people made up stories that denigrated others unfairly for political gain? wasn't the Swift Boat stuff mostly debunked?

Christmas in Cambodia is "seared", mind you..... "seared" in my mind.

The long and short is that Kerry simply made up lots of sh-t. And got called on it.