Bill Maher For President - 2028

[Politesse]

It is obvious that so-called "progressives" are more powerful in the Democratic Party now then they were before. The primarying of moderate Dems by those who formed the Squad is the prime example. As is Joe "Theoden" Biden being pulled to the Left by Alexandria Wormtongue and Bernie Sandersman the White.

So.... five progressives. I agree this is more than usual, but we're hardly coming for your children tomorrow.

 

[Derec]

But he simply lacked the intelligence, judgment and knowledge to be President.

Speaking of John McCain, and the claims of qualifications and experience: 2008 McCain was also more experienced than 2008 Hillary. She was in Senate for 7 years at that point, with no chairmanships. He was in the Senate for 21 years, and had served as the chair of Indian Affairs and Commerce committees. He was also in the US House for 4 years and was also captain in the Navy.

I seriously do not see why Hillary is touted by some as the most qualified candidate ever. She really wasn't the most qualified even among other candidates running in 2008 and 2016, much less of all time.

This becomes absolutely clear if you read a book about the 2008 crisis and campaign. His choice of Sarah Palin -- whom he'd never heard of -- as running-mate is proof of his total lack of sound judgment.

The choice was mostly foisted upon him by those in the Republican Party who thought him not sufficiently evangelical.
I agree that Palin should have been better vetted. However, on paper she seemed fine. Governor of Alaska, Chair of Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Mayor of Alaska. And she was a woman and I am sure Reps were hoping to attract some of the disaffected Hillary fans who started the PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass") group.

 

[Derec]

So.... five progressives. I agree this is more than usual, but we're hardly coming for your children tomorrow.

Nine actually in the more hardcore Squad, but there are 96 House members and 1 Senator (guess who) in the larger Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Hopefully, two of them (Fire Marshall Jamaal and Cori Bush) lose their primaries, so that the Squad is down to seven.

 

[Derec]

If Michelle is elected, the U.S. would get an extremely competent First Husband. I oppose the idea ONLY because I fear there are too many racists and misogynists in America for her to win. (2008 was a "perfect storm" where the Democrat should have won in a landslide but due to racism, Barack barely eked out victory against the most incompetent duo ever nominated by a major party.)

I call BS on all that. First of all, Barack Obama did well with whites. His win in Iowa made his run in 2008, and him coming close in NH confirmed his status as a bona fide contender. Both of these are very white states.
Also, he did not "barely eke" a victory in 2008. He won a decisive victory, with a large margin. 53-46% in the popular vote (almost as good as Bush v. Dukakis), 365-173 in the Electoral College (almost as good as Clinton v. Bush).
In what universe does that count as "barely eking" it?

Also, I think you are selling McCain far short when it comes to competence.

Given Biden's age, the Ds NEED a strong contender warming up in the bull-pen. Unfortunately i have no good suggestion to offer.

True. And I guess you think Kamala Harris is chopped liver? I think chances are better than 50% that she will take over sometime during Biden's 2nd term (should he win). I do not necessarily mean that he would die in office, but any serious health setback might be enough for him to decide to resign.
And if she is the incumbent, that would make things harder for any 2028 challengers.

 

[Swammerdami]

Estimating "experience" or "qualifications" to be President is hardly clear-cut. Some claim that Ike -- who held no political office prior to POTUS -- was unqualified. Yet, two bullets on his resume strike me as impressive:

• Served as Supreme Commander (Europe).
• Directed the largest amphibious invasion in history.

The same people who label Hillary as "most qualified," if based solely on a count of bullet-points, presumably -- if not hypocrites -- label Obama as "one of the least qualified." In fact Obama was one of the smartest and most competent Presidents ever; it's too bad the GOP had already devolved into an Obstruction and Hatred Machine by that time.
Anyway, Hillary, if not the VERY most qualified candidate ever, was hugely qualified. I'm sure Derec won't click, but objective Infidels might want to read about Hillary's address to fellow graduating seniors -- she was the first student ever to speak at her college's Commencement. At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...esley-years/OEapzWGuzSNAFiIHL2zm9K/story.html
And that's just one of many many examples of her strengths.

But some of you are too busy scouring right-wing sources for anti-progressive slurs to actually educate yourself about great Americans like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he simply lacked the intelligence, judgment and knowledge to be President.

Speaking of John McCain, and the claims of qualifications and experience: 2008 McCain was also more experienced than 2008 Hillary. She was in Senate for 7 years at that point, with no chairmanships. He was in the Senate for 21 years, and had served as the chair of Indian Affairs and Commerce committees.

It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points. And seem unaware that Chairmanships are mainly a matter of seniority.
Derec, are you that guy in HR who throws away the resumes of the most promising candidates?

But in fact, McCain -- whom I still admire greatly for his integrity and humanity -- lacked necessary cognitive skill. Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia. At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.

He was also in the US House for 4 years and was also captain in the Navy.

I seriously do not see why Hillary is touted by some as the most qualified candidate ever. She really wasn't the most qualified even among other candidates running in 2008 and 2016, much less of all time.

This becomes absolutely clear if you read a book about the 2008 crisis and campaign. His choice of Sarah Palin -- whom he'd never heard of -- as running-mate is proof of his total lack of sound judgment.

The choice was mostly foisted upon him by those in the Republican Party who thought him not sufficiently evangelical.

"Foisted upon him"?? He sure went along willingly. IIRC he had a very brief interview with the Alaskan imbecile, then signed her up. Most of us knew she was a moron as soon as she opened her mouth.

I agree that Palin should have been better vetted. However, on paper she seemed fine. Governor of Alaska, Chair of Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Mayor of Alaska. And she was a woman and I am sure Reps were hoping to attract some of the disaffected Hillary fans who started the PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass") group.

There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska." If you could see yourself as others see you -- denigrating Hillary's resume bullets while boasting that Palin was "Mayor of Alaska" -- you might be laughing too!

If Michelle is elected, the U.S. would get an extremely competent First Husband. I oppose the idea ONLY because I fear there are too many racists and misogynists in America for her to win. (2008 was a "perfect storm" where the Democrat should have won in a landslide but due to racism, Barack barely eked out victory against the most incompetent duo ever nominated by a major party.)

I call BS on all that. First of all, Barack Obama did well with whites.

Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)

An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.

Derec: Before you pound Reply and brag that you know Kerry lost in the 2004 election, re-read the paragraph and Google the word "differential."

Also, I think you are selling McCain far short when it comes to competence.

We know you're too busy even to read the Wikipedia bios of the political women you despise. And have no plan to read Game Change or any other book on the 2008 campaign. How could you possibly imagine anyone has any interest in your opinion about McCain's competence?

 

[southernhybrid]

He's not really anti vaccine, but he has claimed that the reaction to COVID was extreme and he makes fun of people who wear masks.

He is antivax. Just because somebody takes a vaccine sometimes doesn't mean they're not antivax. It's part of his general distrust of modern medicine, he thinks he knows better. He spreads misinformation about medicine whenever he talks about it. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Bill Maher Supports Vaccine-Autism Connection

On the November 1, 2019 episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” he had a conversation with pediatrician Jay Gordon, MD, known for providing troves of high-profile families with personal belief exemptions and medical exemptions to postpone or forego vaccinations for their children.

www.forbes.com

Ok. I never saw him say that. I apologize, as I was pretty sure he said he had the vaccines, but I never heard him say anything against the vaccine. I do believe he's a bit off his rocker, and has narcissistic tendencies, as I've said before.

 

[Derec]

Estimating "experience" or "qualifications" to be President is hardly clear-cut.

True to some extent. But the actual positions they have held is a good starting point.
And nobody who has claimed that Hillary was "the most qualified candidate ever" has defended that position well.

Some claim that Ike -- who held no political office prior to POTUS -- was unqualified. Yet, two bullets on his resume strike me as impressive:

• Served as Supreme Commander (Europe).
• Directed the largest amphibious invasion in history.

Yes, experience/qualifications are not only elected office. SAC Europe is an important position where he actually ran things.
I would definitely put Ike as a well-qualified, well-experienced candidate.

The same people who label Hillary as "most qualified," if based solely on a count of bullet-points, presumably -- if not hypocrites --

She doesn't even have that many bullet points compared to many others.

label Obama as "one of the least qualified."

He certainly lacked in experience, I do not think anybody would dispute that. But he was also pretty young, so he got a pass on that.

In fact Obama was one of the smartest and most competent Presidents ever; it's too bad the GOP had already devolved into an Obstruction and Hatred Machine by that time.

He is smart and he was competent, true.

Anyway, Hillary, if not the VERY most qualified candidate ever, was hugely qualified.

I did not say she was not qualified, but it is hyperbole to claim she was most qualified, or even among the most qualified.
What exactly sets her apart from all the other people who ever threw their ring in for presidency?

I'm sure Derec won't click, but objective Infidels might want to read about Hillary's address to fellow graduating seniors -- she was the first student ever to speak at her college's Commencement.

I clicked. Still don't see how that makes her "most qualified ever".

At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation.

What does that prove other than she was popular among the audience and that they liked her speech?

But some of you are too busy scouring right-wing sources for anti-progressive slurs to actually educate yourself about great Americans like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sigh. And you only scour sources that like her, like that Boston Globe author. I must say, I do not like her. For one, she has a problem with honesty, like her made-up story of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or that she and Bill were broke after leaving the White House.

It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points.

It's a good starting point.

And seem unaware that Chairmanships are mainly a matter of seniority.
Derec, are you that guy in HR who throws away the resumes of the most promising candidates?

It may be due to seniority, but chairmanships come with responsibility. It's different than being a run-of-the mill Senator or even an unremarkable SecState.

But in fact, McCain -- whom I still admire greatly for his integrity and humanity -- lacked necessary cognitive skill.

Really? Now you are calling him dumb?

Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia.

And your girl Hillary never misspoke?

At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.

Could you summarize? And your disagreement with his policy position does not make him unqualified.

"Foisted upon him"?? He sure went along willingly. IIRC he had a very brief interview with the Alaskan imbecile, then signed her up. Most of us knew she was a moron as soon as she opened her mouth.

More or less foisted, yes. Of course he had to sign off on that, but there was a lot of pressure from the Party.
Speaking of running mates, Hillary's choice was not exactly inspired.

There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska."

I meant to write mayor of Wasilla. The thing is, these positions, mayor and governor are executive positions. She had to run things at least.
There was also some unfair attacks on Palin. Like making fun of the small population of Alaska as if Delaware was much bigger (and Vermont is even smaller). Or pretending that Tina Fey's words were actually spoken by Palin.

If you could see yourself as others see you -- denigrating Hillary's resume bullets while boasting that Palin was "Mayor of Alaska" -- you might be laughing too!

So I wrote the wrong word. Big whoop! You know what I meant. Mayor of Wasilla.
And yes, Hillary's resume is thin. Corporate lawyer, then first lady for 16 years which I do not think should count as experience, then a Senator for a short while and a SecState for one term. It's pretty run of the mill for a politician, except the first lady part, but again, I do not think that counts as experience any more their wives' experience should be imputed to Denis Thatcher or Joachim Sauer.

Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)

That was my point. He had to do well with whites. So your claim that US is such a racist country does not hold water. If it was, we would not have elected Obama by a wide margin (not "barely" as you falsely claimed). And therefore, race would not be an obstacle for a Michelle candidacy.

An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.

Ooh, an academic study calling certain counties "racist" based on a Google search. Do you have a link to that supposed study?

Also, Loren Pechtel gets attacked by the Ilk every time he uses "black" as a noun. I wonder why it's fine when you use it. And what does "all things being equal" mean? That between two identical candidates most whites would prefer the white one? Perhaps. But it is also certainly true that among two identical candidates, blacks would prefer the black one.

Derec: Before you pound Reply and brag that you know Kerry lost in the 2004 election, re-read the paragraph and Google the word "differential."

I know what the differential means. It's the device that allows the wheels on a driving axle to move at different angular speeds. Or alternatively, an infinitesimal change in a quantity, e.g. dx.
Anyway, do you have a link to that alleged study?

We know you're too busy even to read the Wikipedia bios of the political women you despise. And have no plan to read Game Change or any other book on the 2008 campaign. How could you possibly imagine anyone has any interest in your opinion about McCain's competence?

Of course I did read Hillary's wiki entry. Does not show her to be "most qualified", sorry. And you have not exactly made that point either. Instead, you have attacked my intellect over minor slips (like Wasilla) as is your usual MO.

I did not read that particular book. What case does it make that Hillary was the "most qualified candidate" ever? Or does it just assert it and then insults their readership like you are wont to do?

 

[Toni]

I can't think of a female TV personality that'd be more well known than Colbert.

Oprah Winfrey, who morons also frequently insist ought to run.

Well, in Winfrey’s favor, she does not appear to be a sociopath and she seems to have gained her wealth and fame by the dint of her own hard work and of course, considerable luck. On the downside, she tends to fall for some woo ( Dr. Oz).

But she’s been immensely popular with the masses ( sorry, guys but women actually do count) and would certainly attract a lot of votes.

None of this is any indication that she’d be a good head of state but she’d beat the hell out of Trump, any of his family or cult members.

 

[Elixir]

votes.

None of this is any indication that she’d be a good head of state but she’d beat the hell out of Trump

So would you.
But I bet she “knows a lot of people” who would give her their ear.

 

[Toni]

Estimating "experience" or "qualifications" to be President is hardly clear-cut.

True to some extent. But the actual positions they have held is a good starting point.
And nobody who has claimed that Hillary was "the most qualified candidate ever" has defended that position well.

Some claim that Ike -- who held no political office prior to POTUS -- was unqualified. Yet, two bullets on his resume strike me as impressive:

• Served as Supreme Commander (Europe).
• Directed the largest amphibious invasion in history.

Yes, experience/qualifications are not only elected office. SAC Europe is an important position where he actually ran things.
I would definitely put Ike as a well-qualified, well-experienced candidate.

The same people who label Hillary as "most qualified," if based solely on a count of bullet-points, presumably -- if not hypocrites --

She doesn't even have that many bullet points compared to many others.

label Obama as "one of the least qualified."

He certainly lacked in experience, I do not think anybody would dispute that. But he was also pretty young, so he got a pass on that.

In fact Obama was one of the smartest and most competent Presidents ever; it's too bad the GOP had already devolved into an Obstruction and Hatred Machine by that time.

He is smart and he was competent, true.

Anyway, Hillary, if not the VERY most qualified candidate ever, was hugely qualified.

I did not say she was not qualified, but it is hyperbole to claim she was most qualified, or even among the most qualified.
What exactly sets her apart from all the other people who ever threw their ring in for presidency?

I'm sure Derec won't click, but objective Infidels might want to read about Hillary's address to fellow graduating seniors -- she was the first student ever to speak at her college's Commencement.

I clicked. Still don't see how that makes her "most qualified ever".

At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation.

What does that prove other than she was popular among the audience and that they liked her speech?

But some of you are too busy scouring right-wing sources for anti-progressive slurs to actually educate yourself about great Americans like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sigh. And you only scour sources that like her, like that Boston Globe author. I must say, I do not like her. For one, she has a problem with honesty, like her made-up story of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or that she and Bill were broke after leaving the White House.

It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points.

It's a good starting point.

And seem unaware that Chairmanships are mainly a matter of seniority.
Derec, are you that guy in HR who throws away the resumes of the most promising candidates?

It may be due to seniority, but chairmanships come with responsibility. It's different than being a run-of-the mill Senator or even an unremarkable SecState.

But in fact, McCain -- whom I still admire greatly for his integrity and humanity -- lacked necessary cognitive skill.

Really? Now you are calling him dumb?

Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia.

And your girl Hillary never misspoke?

At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.

Could you summarize? And your disagreement with his policy position does not make him unqualified.

"Foisted upon him"?? He sure went along willingly. IIRC he had a very brief interview with the Alaskan imbecile, then signed her up. Most of us knew she was a moron as soon as she opened her mouth.

More or less foisted, yes. Of course he had to sign off on that, but there was a lot of pressure from the Party.
Speaking of running mates, Hillary's choice was not exactly inspired.

There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska."

I meant to write mayor of Wasilla. The thing is, these positions, mayor and governor are executive positions. She had to run things at least.
There was also some unfair attacks on Palin. Like making fun of the small population of Alaska as if Delaware was much bigger (and Vermont is even smaller). Or pretending that Tina Fey's words were actually spoken by Palin.

If you could see yourself as others see you -- denigrating Hillary's resume bullets while boasting that Palin was "Mayor of Alaska" -- you might be laughing too!

So I wrote the wrong word. Big whoop! You know what I meant. Mayor of Wasilla.
And yes, Hillary's resume is thin. Corporate lawyer, then first lady for 16 years which I do not think should count as experience, then a Senator for a short while and a SecState for one term. It's pretty run of the mill for a politician, except the first lady part, but again, I do not think that counts as experience any more their wives' experience should be imputed to Denis Thatcher or Joachim Sauer.

Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)

That was my point. He had to do well with whites. So your claim that US is such a racist country does not hold water. If it was, we would not have elected Obama by a wide margin (not "barely" as you falsely claimed). And therefore, race would not be an obstacle for a Michelle candidacy.

An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.

Ooh, an academic study calling certain counties "racist" based on a Google search. Do you have a link to that supposed study?

Also, Loren Pechtel gets attacked by the Ilk every time he uses "black" as a noun. I wonder why it's fine when you use it. And what does "all things being equal" mean? That between two identical candidates most whites would prefer the white one? Perhaps. But it is also certainly true that among two identical candidates, blacks would prefer the black one.

Derec: Before you pound Reply and brag that you know Kerry lost in the 2004 election, re-read the paragraph and Google the word "differential."

I know what the differential means. It's the device that allows the wheels on a driving axle to move at different angular speeds. Or alternatively, an infinitesimal change in a quantity, e.g. dx.
Anyway, do you have a link to that alleged study?

We know you're too busy even to read the Wikipedia bios of the political women you despise. And have no plan to read Game Change or any other book on the 2008 campaign. How could you possibly imagine anyone has any interest in your opinion about McCain's competence?

Of course I did read Hillary's wiki entry. Does not show her to be "most qualified", sorry. And you have not exactly made that point either. Instead, you have attacked my intellect over minor slips (like Wasilla) as is your usual MO.

I did not read that particular book. What case does it make that Hillary was the "most qualified candidate" ever? Or does it just assert it and then insults their readership like you are wont to do?

I think you really do give short shrift to Hillary’s qualifications. By all accounts, she seems to have been very actively involved in helping formulate her husband’s positions when he was governor and when he was POTUS. Indeed, she was more like Mrs. Wilson than either Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Eisenhower or Mrs.Nixon and a hell of a lot more extracted and informed than Mrs. Reagan ( or Mr.). A selling point of Bill’s campaigns was that you didn’t get just Bill, but Hillary, as well. What Bill had that Hillary dud not, aside from male genitalia, was a greater degree of personal charisma. Hillary was stuck being a woman in a man’s world and felt it necessary to act more ‘manly’ than ‘womanly’ but in fact, she would have been and was pilloried for either.

As far as whether she gained pertinent experience as First Lady, I would say that she did. Not every First Lady does—certainly not the ones I mentioned earlier, with the exception of Mrs. Wilson. Eleanor Roosevelt was formidable in her own right as is Michelle Obama.

I did not vote for Bill and Hillary was not my first choice candidate but I did vote for her.

 

[Toni]

If Michelle is elected, the U.S. would get an extremely competent First Husband. I oppose the idea ONLY because I fear there are too many racists and misogynists in America for her to win. (2008 was a "perfect storm" where the Democrat should have won in a landslide but due to racism, Barack barely eked out victory against the most incompetent duo ever nominated by a major party.)

I call BS on all that. First of all, Barack Obama did well with whites. His win in Iowa made his run in 2008, and him coming close in NH confirmed his status as a bona fide contender. Both of these are very white states.
Also, he did not "barely eke" a victory in 2008. He won a decisive victory, with a large margin. 53-46% in the popular vote (almost as good as Bush v. Dukakis), 365-173 in the Electoral College (almost as good as Clinton v. Bush).
In what universe does that count as "barely eking" it?

Also, I think you are selling McCain far short when it comes to competence.

Given Biden's age, the Ds NEED a strong contender warming up in the bull-pen. Unfortunately i have no good suggestion to offer.

True. And I guess you think Kamala Harris is chopped liver? I think chances are better than 50% that she will take over sometime during Biden's 2nd term (should he win). I do not necessarily mean that he would die in office, but any serious health setback might be enough for him to decide to resign.
And if she is the incumbent, that would make things harder for any 2028 challengers.

Please don’t faint from the shock, but I mostly agree with what you wrote. I also suspect that Kamala would need to take over the reins during a second Biden term. Unfortunately I think that would set the Dems up for a losing 2028.

FWIW, if Trump should win a second term ( heaven forbid), I think within his party, it is a foregone conclusion that he would be, at most, a figurehead and in all likelihood, a very temporary one at that. Look at who is lining up behind him, trying to bring the kingdom of God or at least as much wealth and power into their own hands as possible. Trump might have a better chance of surviving 4 years in Rikers.

 

[Elixir]

Donald Trump is the most qualified candidate of all time. Not only has he already learned how to corrupt run the executive branch, he already owns Congress and the Judiciary!

 

[Swammerdami]

It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points.

It's a good starting point.

Oh? AOC has several impressive bullets: Did you have an asteroid named after you when you were still in High School? Yet you made clear that you made ZERO effort to check her resume's bullets. After I tried to educate you, months later you remembered nothing. I know you don't like to be reminded of your pernicious slanders against this fine woman but to listen to you the only three bullets on her resume are bartender, barmaid, bar girl.

I clicked. Still don't see how that makes her "most qualified ever".

At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation.

What does that prove other than she was popular among the audience and that they liked her speech?

Would you mind doing an experiment? Stand up and clap your hands. For seven minutes -- 420 seconds. Or use your Google skills to see how often seven-minute standing ovations occur. Spoiler: EXCEEDINGLY rare. (Frankly, I won't rule out that the ovation was only 5½ minutes, and exaggerated!)

That's just one of many MANY bullets on her resume. I didn't want to flood you with homework! So I picked an example BEFORE she married Bill. (I know Ilkists are often eager to credit women's success to their husbands.) And -- did I mention? -- SEVEN-minute ovations are unusual.

She lacks the special voice of a politician/orator, yet some of her speeches have become famous, e.g.

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/Hillary%20Clinton%20-%20UN%20Commission%20on%20Women.pdf

I have NEVER said that she was the "most qualified." But excerpted below we see you defending Sarah Palin's qualifications!
The cognitive disconnect you need to belittle Clinton's qualifications and exaggerate Palin's is truly phenomenal.

Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia.

And your girl Hillary never misspoke?

Misspeaking even a few times is NOT the same as consistently getting something wrong, and building a whole scenario on a mistaken link between Iran and Sunni terrorists.

McCain: Sunni? Shia? What?

Where did all that vaunted national security experience go? WaPo: Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote...

www.motherjones.com

Not a Gaffe

The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.

www.theatlantic.com

McCain: So wrong, so what?

Unsolved mysteries of the universe: Where did matter come from?

www.latimes.com

At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.

Could you summarize? And your disagreement with his policy position does not make him unqualified.

Read a book. En route to, and attending an emergency White House meeting to cope with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, McCain had nothing to contribute beyond fatuous gossip.

There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska."

I meant to write mayor of Wasilla.

You missed the joke! Wasilla was a tiny town with a whopping 7000 population, for which Palin just served as a right-wing mascot. Treating the mayorship of such a tiny town as a "bullet" relevant to POTUS, while denigrating the credentials of Hillary Clinton shows such ENORMOUS cognitive disconnect one can only roll on the floor laughing.

That you upgraded, consciously or subconsciously, her trivial job from "Mayor of Wasilla" to "Mayor of Alaska" was just a little extra frosting for the joke.

Normally I ignore minor typos and even thinkos. But YOU seize on Every.Single.Misspelling as though spotting spelling errors proves your superiority. It seemed right to give you a little taste of your own medicine.

Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)

That was my point. He had to do well with whites. So your claim that US is such a racist country does not hold water. If it was, we would not have elected Obama by a wide margin (not "barely" as you falsely claimed). And therefore, race would not be an obstacle for a Michelle candidacy.

Oh my. Something is either black or it's white. USA is either racist or it's not.
Even six year-olds know that there are shades of gray.

An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.

Ooh, an academic study calling certain counties "racist" based on a Google search. Do you have a link to that supposed study?

My bookmarks are scattered hither and yon! But Google quickly found links to some related studies. Or, do I need to say, to conform with your Trumpist world-view, "supposed studies"?

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election - American Economic Association

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election by Alexandre Mas and Enrico Moretti. Published in volume 99, issue 2, pages 323-29 of American Economic Review, May 2009

www.aeaweb.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272714000929

 

[Elixir]

It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points.

It's a good starting point.

Oh? AOC has several impressive bullets: Did you have an asteroid named after you when you were still in High School? Yet you made clear that you made ZERO effort to check her resume's bullets. After I tried to educate you, months later you remembered nothing. I know you don't like to be reminded of your pernicious slanders against this fine woman but to listen to you the only three bullets on her resume are bartender, barmaid, bar girl.

I clicked. Still don't see how that makes her "most qualified ever".

At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation.

What does that prove other than she was popular among the audience and that they liked her speech?

Would you mind doing an experiment? Stand up and clap your hands. For seven minutes -- 420 seconds. Or use your Google skills to see how often seven-minute standing ovations occur. Spoiler: EXCEEDINGLY rare. (Frankly, I won't rule out that the ovation was only 5½ minutes, and exaggerated!)

That's just one of many MANY bullets on her resume. I didn't want to flood you with homework! So I picked an example BEFORE she married Bill. (I know Ilkists are often eager to credit women's success to their husbands.) And -- did I mention? -- SEVEN-minute ovations are unusual.

She lacks the special voice of a politician/orator, yet some of her speeches have become famous, e.g.

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/Hillary%20Clinton%20-%20UN%20Commission%20on%20Women.pdf

I have NEVER said that she was the "most qualified." But excerpted below we see you defending Sarah Palin's qualifications!
The cognitive disconnect you need to belittle Clinton's qualifications and exaggerate Palin's is truly phenomenal.

Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia.

And your girl Hillary never misspoke?

Misspeaking even a few times is NOT the same as consistently getting something wrong, and building a whole scenario on a mistaken link between Iran and Sunni terrorists.

McCain: Sunni? Shia? What?

Where did all that vaunted national security experience go? WaPo: Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote...

www.motherjones.com

Not a Gaffe

The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.

www.theatlantic.com

McCain: So wrong, so what?

Unsolved mysteries of the universe: Where did matter come from?

www.latimes.com

At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.

Could you summarize? And your disagreement with his policy position does not make him unqualified.

Read a book. En route to, and attending an emergency White House meeting to cope with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, McCain had nothing to contribute beyond fatuous gossip.

There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska."

I meant to write mayor of Wasilla.

You missed the joke! Wasilla was a tiny town with a whopping 7000 population, for which Palin just served as a right-wing mascot. Treating the mayorship of such a tiny town as a "bullet" relevant to POTUS, while denigrating the credentials of Hillary Clinton shows such ENORMOUS cognitive disconnect one can only roll on the floor laughing.

That you upgraded, consciously or subconsciously, her trivial job from "Mayor of Wasilla" to "Mayor of Alaska" was just a little extra frosting for the joke.

Normally I ignore minor typos and even thinkos. But YOU seize on Every.Single.Misspelling as though spotting spelling errors proves your superiority. It seemed right to give you a little taste of your own medicine.

Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)

That was my point. He had to do well with whites. So your claim that US is such a racist country does not hold water. If it was, we would not have elected Obama by a wide margin (not "barely" as you falsely claimed). And therefore, race would not be an obstacle for a Michelle candidacy.

Oh my. Something is either black or it's white. USA is either racist or it's not.
Even six year-olds know that there are shades of gray.

An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.

Ooh, an academic study calling certain counties "racist" based on a Google search. Do you have a link to that supposed study?

My bookmarks are scattered hither and yon! But Google quickly found links to some related studies. Or, do I need to say, to conform with your Trumpist world-view, "supposed studies"?

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election - American Economic Association

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election by Alexandre Mas and Enrico Moretti. Published in volume 99, issue 2, pages 323-29 of American Economic Review, May 2009

www.aeaweb.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272714000929

Sure, dude. But she’s a girl.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sure, dude. But she’s a girl.

Girls have cooties, dontcha know?

 

[Derec]

Well, in Winfrey’s favor, she does not appear to be a sociopath and she seems to have gained her wealth and fame by the dint of her own hard work and of course, considerable luck. On the downside, she tends to fall for some woo ( Dr. Oz).

Her penchant for woo should be a disqualifier.
And funny how the Left thinks only rich entertainers work hard, but rich businesspeople like Musk or Bezos did not.

But she’s been immensely popular with the masses ( sorry, guys but women actually do count) and would certainly attract a lot of votes.

Women do count, but so do men. And I can't see WInfrey appeal to many of us.

None of this is any indication that she’d be a good head of state but she’d beat the hell out of Trump, any of his family or cult members

Wishful thinking. She would turn a lot of people off.

 

[Derec]

I think you really do give short shrift to Hillary’s qualifications.

Am I? I do not think her unqualified, but far from being "most qualified candidate ever" as repeated on here as well as elsewhere. I think that, just like calling her "smartest woman in America" are gross exaggerations.

By all accounts, she seems to have been very actively involved in helping formulate her husband’s positions when he was governor and when he was POTUS. Indeed, she was more like Mrs. Wilson than either Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Eisenhower or Mrs.Nixon and a hell of a lot more extracted and informed than Mrs. Reagan ( or Mr.).

Wilson was pretty much incapacitated by the closing stages of his presidency. I do not think that situation is at all comparable to the Clintons.

What Bill had that Hillary dud not, aside from male genitalia, was a greater degree of personal charisma.

Indeed. She has no charisma.

Hillary was stuck being a woman in a man’s world and felt it necessary to act more ‘manly’ than ‘womanly’ but in fact, she would have been and was pilloried for either.

I do not think it's her sex that held her back. Quite the opposite. Had Hillary been born a boy, say Hildebrand Rodham, he would have been a successful corporate lawyer or something, but would not have entered politics. Unless, perhaps, he met Wilhelmina Clinton (she goes by Billie) and became the first First Gentleman in 1992 ...

I did not vote for Bill

You did not vote for Bill? Who did you vote then? Perot?

I guess that's where Katie Porter got that thing with the whiteboards ...

and Hillary was not my first choice candidate but I did vote for her.

I could not stomach voting for either of the 2016 major candidates. Certainly not for Hillary after she wrote an op-ed saying that women should get lesser criminal sentences than men for the same crime.
Hillary Clinton: Women and prison – the cost in money and lives

 

[Derec]

Oh? AOC has several impressive bullets: Did you have an asteroid named after you when you were still in High School?

No, I did not. Silly me.
She also had some less impressive bullets in her career, as you are well aware

Yet you made clear that you made ZERO effort to check her resume's bullets.

Whose now? Hillary's or the Sergeant's?

After I tried to educate you, months later you remembered nothing. I know you don't like to be reminded of your pernicious slanders against this fine woman but to listen to you the only three bullets on her resume are bartender, barmaid, bar girl.

Ah, the sergeant. Ok then. You are the one who incessantly keeps bringing up her gastronomical endeavors, along with her astronomical ones.

I remember nothing? Not true. I have not forgotten anything. In fact, I recall that, in a different thread a while ago, that her story is one of two halves.
Half the first: the intel competition. The asteroid. The economics and international relations degree from BU.
But then comes her descent into radical activism. I do not think she failed to get a corporate job for lack of trying but that bartending gave her more flexibility for her activism, like driving 1700 miles one way in a Subaru to protest against oil. If that Subaru got 34 mpg on average, she would have burned 100 gallons on that trip and emitted ~900 kg of CO₂.

Would you mind doing an experiment? Stand up and clap your hands. For seven minutes -- 420 seconds. Or use your Google skills to see how often seven-minute standing ovations occur. Spoiler: EXCEEDINGLY rare. (Frankly, I won't rule out that the ovation was only 5½ minutes, and exaggerated!)

And what does that prove, except what I said, that she was popular among her Wellesley audience?

That's just one of many MANY bullets on her resume. I didn't want to flood you with homework! So I picked an example BEFORE she married Bill. (I know Ilkists are often eager to credit women's success to their husbands.)

It's not crediting the woman's success to her husband. It's the opposite. Your Ilk wants to credit Bill's governorship and presidency as Hillary's experience in order to pretend that she was somehow uniquely qualified among all the presidential candidates.

And -- did I mention? -- SEVEN-minute ovations are unusual.

As unusual as irrelevant as far as qualifications go.

She lacks the special voice of a politician/orator, yet some of her speeches have become famous, e.g.

... the "I don't feel no ways tired" speech?

God, I forgot just how shrill her voice sounds.

I have NEVER said that she was the "most qualified."

Then what are you arguing with me for? I never said she was unqualified, just that the "most qualified" mantra repeated here by Colonel Sanders (who even gave her an ambassadorship), but that same argument has been made before.

But excerpted below we see you defending Sarah Palin's qualifications!
The cognitive disconnect you need to belittle Clinton's qualifications and exaggerate Palin's is truly phenomenal.

Saying that somebody is not "the most qualified" is not belittling them.
And there is no cognitive disconnect here. I do not think Palin would have made a good vice president. At the same time, I can acknowledge that some of the attacks on her were unjustified.
It is a sign of black-and-white thinking to see it as anathema that Hillary is anything less than perfect or that Palin is any better than her SNL character played by Tina Fey.

Misspeaking even a few times is NOT the same as consistently getting something wrong, and building a whole scenario on a mistaken link between Iran and Sunni terrorists.

Oh, so he did not even misspeak then. Of course the regime in Tehran funds and arms Sunni terrorists. For example Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

McCain: Sunni? Shia? What?

Where did all that vaunted national security experience go? WaPo: Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote...

www.motherjones.com

LMAO at citing Mother Jones of all things. What's next? Teh Intercept? Jacobin?

Not a Gaffe

The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.

www.theatlantic.com

Behind the paywall, but Matthew Yglesias is a leftist.

Iran Continues To Offer Safe Haven To Al-Qaeda, US Confirms
The Al Qaeda-Iran Connection
Making Sense of Iran and al-Qaeda’s Relationship
Iran and Al Qaeda Links and Indicators of Support

I guess the old Maverick is vindicated.

Read a book. En route to, and attending an emergency White House meeting to cope with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, McCain had nothing to contribute beyond fatuous gossip.

I am not going to read a book just to answer a post on an internet forum.
But if the claims are as false as "McCain confused Shia and Sunni Islam" (which I have shown above he didn't) then it's not one worth reading anyway.

You missed the joke! Wasilla was a tiny town with a whopping 7000 population, for which Palin just served as a right-wing mascot. Treating the mayorship of such a tiny town as a "bullet" relevant to POTUS, while denigrating the credentials of Hillary Clinton shows such ENORMOUS cognitive disconnect one can only roll on the floor laughing.

Running even a small town of 7,000 is more relevant experience than giving a speech when graduating from college, something you are very impressed by.

That you upgraded, consciously or subconsciously, her trivial job from "Mayor of Wasilla" to "Mayor of Alaska" was just a little extra frosting for the joke.

I did not upgrade, I miswrote. Happens to everyone. But I bet you will keep bringing it up years from now. That's your MO.

Oh my. Something is either black or it's white. USA is either racist or it's not.

You made the claim that US was too racist to elect Michelle Obama. You based your claim on the false statement that Barack Obama "barely won" in 2008, when it reality it was a decisive victory in both popular vote and electoral college.

Even six year-olds know that there are shades of gray.

No kidding.

My bookmarks are scattered hither and yon! But Google quickly found links to some related studies. Or, do I need to say, to conform with your Trumpist world-view, "supposed studies"?

It does not take a Trumpist to realize that the much of research in social sciences is highly suspect.

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election - American Economic Association

Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election by Alexandre Mas and Enrico Moretti. Published in volume 99, issue 2, pages 323-29 of American Economic Review, May 2009

www.aeaweb.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272714000929

First one is behind the paywall, the second one is mostly behind the paywall. I still think the methodology of using google searches is questionable at best. It also flies in the face of the fact that Obama won decisively in 2008. But in any case, the meat of the study, the results section, is locked behind the paywall.

 

[Derec]

Girls have cooties, dontcha know?

Well Hillary does, at least.

You asked for it with the stupid "cooties" comment ...

 

[thebeave]

Girls have cooties, dontcha know?

Well Hillary does, at least.

You asked for it with the stupid "cooties" comment ...

Dang! Never thought I would say this, but I think Southpark may have crossed a line there.