13 Questions that determine who will be our next President
invite response
2016 Jul 23, 4:02pm 9,753 views 32 comments
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 32 of 32 Search these comments
Strategist
2016 Jul 23, 6:42pm
I disagree with you on #2
So why do the Clinton emails show that the DNC was so concerned?
Both parties are always concerned about something. I think the Republicans had a far fierce contest for their nomination.
What worries me are the odds of Hillary winning by the bookmakers. They are more frequently right, and they have Hillary as the hot favorite.
Strategist
2016 Jul 23, 6:44pm
9. Democrats would disagree
So, none of this would scandalize the current administration...?
I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 6:46pm
13. Democrats would disagree
Charisma is a tough one, as it's subjective. Let's start with the definition:
compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.
Inspire devotion in others... He went from having zero chance to winning the Republication nomination... He might not have an effect on Ds... But his ability to forge ahead of all the other candidates meets the very definition of charisma. Hillary, on the other hand, had only one other real candidate... But even if you give her a true on charisma (presumably because you are literally deaf -- and therefore immune to her shrillness when she gets excited), it's still not enough.
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 6:49pm
I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?
I understand what you are saying, but the fact that the questions leading to the scandals exist means that the administration suffered scandals. Just because Ds don't agree with the facts of the various cases doesn't erase the scandals from reality. The administration was plagued by scandals whether or not you think the facts have merit.
Shaman
2016 Jul 23, 6:49pm
It's over. Get ready for a YUUUGE change! The Orange Revolution is nigh.
NK and Iran have not been contained.
North Korea is a much more recent issue (democratic foreign policy blunder) but Iran has had a nuclear program since the early 80s and it took the United States about 18 years to figure it out. Prob not best allocation of CIA resources, which were being offered to train Osama bin Ladin at the time.
Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. Sanctions at best would only delay the inevitable. In other words, if their program is about developing weaponry, then someday they will get it, because they have the brains to do so, unlike Arabs.
Sanctions last time didn't seem to hurt the Iranian elites all that much.
Strategist
2016 Jul 23, 6:51pm
13. Democrats would disagree
Charisma is a tough one, as it's subjective. Let's start with the definition:
compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.
Inspire devotion in others... He went from having zero chance to winning the Republication nomination... He might not have an effect on Ds... But his ability to forge ahead of all the other candidates meets the very definition of charisma. Hillary, on the other hand, had only one other real candidate... But even if you give her a true on charisma (presumably because you are literally deaf -- and therefore immune to her shrillness when she gets excited), it's still not enough.
I think Trump has more charisma than Hillary. A lot more. But die hard democrats are not gonna agree. In politics there is a bias that is very difficult to overcome.
To me the 2 most important issues are terrorism and economy. I am confident Trump can do a better job on both.
So, none of this would scandalize the current administration...?
Yeah, many good points, but many people even on this site will overlook that and vote for Clinton
Strategist
2016 Jul 23, 7:01pm
I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?
I understand what you are saying, but the fact that the questions leading to the scandals exist means that the administration suffered scandals. Just because Ds don't agree with the facts of the various cases doesn't erase the scandals from reality. The administration was plagued by scandals whether or not you think the facts have merit.
Both parties will find meaningful scandals against each other, though I am prone to believe it's the Democrats who have the most scandals.
Bill Clinton had the Lewinsky scandal.
Bush was accused of lying about Iraqi WMD, just to take revenge on Saddam.
Hillary has her e-mail scandal.
Welcome to politics.
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 8:54pm
Wrong. No American thinks long term.
Perhaps, but this T/F questionnaire has been accurate 7 times in a row.
Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. S
No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them. Making a nuclear bomb just isn't that hard. The physics was worked out a long time ago and is well known. Processing enough material to make a nuclear bomb is very, very hard and very very expensive. Which is why a country has to really want it.
Why would you think Pakistan didn't grow their own nuclear program. Not only did they grow their own, they sold the technology all around the world. Read up on Munir Ahmad Khan. Pakistan (America's BFF) provided Iran with technology as well as North Korea. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Pakistan
Strategist
2016 Jul 23, 9:16pm
NK and Iran have not been contained.
North Korea is a much more recent issue (democratic foreign policy blunder) but Iran has had a nuclear program since the early 80s and it took the United States about 18 years to figure it out. Prob not best allocation of CIA resources, which were being offered to train Osama bin Ladin at the time.
Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. Sanctions at best would only delay the inevitable. In other words, if their program is about developing weaponry, then someday they will get it, because they have the brains to do so, unlike Arabs.
Sanctions last time didn't seem to hurt the Iranian elites all that much.
Can Islamic nations be trusted with nukes? They are people who put ideology before life.
No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them.
Islamic countries that pursue nukes must be controlled. There is no other choice.
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 9:19pm
www.youtube.com/embed/c18TkF5n1UA
Some Hillary v. Trump side-by-side items.
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 9:22pm
11.
TrueFalse (there's been no foreign or military successes)
So you don't think the Dems can take credit for Osama? That was a big coup.
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses
2016 Jul 23, 9:31pm
Democrats suck at keeping anything safe, t
Yeah, good thing that bush stopped 9//11.
Thinking. Not a conservative thing. Certainly not a fortwhine thing!
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 9:47pm
Did you see any of the actual SEAL videos from their body cams during the so called raid, pictures of the dead body or the burial at sea?
Okay, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Osama Bin Laden was killed May 2, 2011. Obama was President in 2011, not Bush. Are you suggesting that Osama Bin Laden was killed on a different date, several years before?
No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them.
Islamic countries that pursue nukes must be controlled. There is no other choice.
Controlled how? We couldn't get Pakistan to tell us where, which they damn well knew, Bin Laden was for 9 years. How are we going to control their nukes? Any practical suggestion? I thought not. Iran? A country as big as the US east of the Mississippi with 80 million people? Should we invade? Nice bit of neocon wet dream though. Change the sheets and go back to sleep.
Any country that really wants to develop nuclear weapons and has the money to pay for it will.
Are you suggesting that Osama Bin Laden was killed on a different date, several years before?
Of course he is, fox told him it's true.
turtledove
2016 Jul 23, 10:18pm
Yes
Bin Laden wasn't in that compound raided by SEAL team 6.
I've been searching for 14 minutes. I cannot find what you are talking about that disputes the date of Osama Bin Laden's death. Could you cite a source?
This professor has predicted every presidential election since 1984. He’s still trying to figure out 2016.
Allan Lichtman says he can predict the outcome of any U.S. presidential election. He often does it months or even years ahead of time. Oh, and his predictions have been right in every presidential election since 1984.
But Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, doesn’t use polling, demographics or sophisticated analysis of swing states. He makes his predictions based on 13 true/false statements that he says indicate whether the incumbent party will retain the White House or lose it in a given election.
Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.
The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016†are:
1.Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
So how does all of this apply to Donald Trump and the wholly unusual 2016 election? Lichtman is still trying to determine his prediction.
The Fix sat down with Lichtman at his Washington office this week to get his thoughts on the 2016 race and how it might play out. Our conversation has been edited only for length.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/
