Jump to content
The Political Lounge

SHOCKING NEWS FROM OUR NATION’S CAPITAL


MrPotatoTed
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

Still, the Clintons always struck me as very slimy and highly disingenuous, not to be trusted at all. Not worse, of course, just a different package, than the incompetent, incendiary, ignorant, rabble-rousing blowhard and bull-in-a-china-shop campaigning on toxic charisma, debunked myths, and bad stereotypes. But, this is why, by the time the GE in 2016 rolled around, and given the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates was still a big factor in the rigged election system of the U.S., I had the sinking and fatalistic view that no good would come of that election, and whichever of two tickets the system allows to win won, it would be the second worst U.S. President of my lifetime - after George W. Bush - just for different reasons - and I stated this opinion openly and repeatedly back on 270soft, if anyone recalls.

Yeah, but you also feel this way about everybody and everything. ;c)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Not nearly as shocking as the many luncheons the Clintons used to have with Trump in Manhattan patio diners - or even this one:

Look who was at Trump's wedding to Marla. And they're all smiles!

Maybe, just maybe, these people don't really detest each other as much as the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign seemed to indicate. But, if that is the case, it was good acting, wasn't it. But, then again, Trump was always a FAR better showman than businessman, politician, and certainly leader.

Trump_and_the_Clintons_Friends.jpg

I think you undervalue Trump's business skills. To take a million-dollar loan and build it into a multi-billion dollar luxury real estate enterprise in the most competitive real estate market (New York) in the world is no easy feat. He's a great businessman - one of the best real-estate investors of all time. He's a low C-tier President (in my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Patine said:

Now, now. Just because I don't tend to praise your favourites, and the American politicians I believe would be the best and most needed leaders are the most likely to get locked out by the unfair and rigged American political machine, doesn't mean turning my words to disingenuous absolutes I've never said is at all appropriate.

"Only Sith think in absolutes,"

-Obi-wan Kenobi, Star Wars, Episode 3, Revenge of the Sith

Who would that be?

Love Jimmy Carter as a person. I'd have probably voted for him in 1976 had I been alive. But he was not a good President, perhaps not entirely to his own fault. But he did not handle the crisis of his time well. Easily the worst of your life time, but not the worst of all time I'd say. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

Love Jimmy Carter as a person. I'd have probably voted for him in 1976 had I been alive. But he was not a good President, perhaps not entirely to his own fault. But he did not handle the crisis of his time well. Easily the worst of your life time, but not the worst of all time I'd say. 

Agree with this. Going off of character and integrity alone Carter is easily a top 3 in that regard. Going off of executive action, crisis management, general presidency and policies he is still bottom third at best. Great man, bad president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

@PringlesAlthough, I will admit, in terms of U.S. Presidents in my lifetime - and @DakotaHale, @ConservativeElector2, and @Dobs might be interested to hear this, too - that although I strongly disagree with motives and tenor of the Reagan Administration, Reagan was the last U.S. President, to date, to bring any sort of significant national unity and support behind him WITHOUT requiring a war effort or national emergency. Outside of France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, mainstream Conservative parties in the First World (which tended to be more highbrow, rational, pragmatic, and down-to-earth in terms of their political leaders and ideologues, compared to their analogs, today) tended to be firmly dominant, even winning landslide electoral victories, although admittedly for economic, political, social, and global reasons that were endemic and unique to the '80's and don't remotely exist today, and will certainly never, realistically, be reprised.

I respect it. It's what happens when you're just too based. 😉 

For real though, no one will be able to match the brilliance of Reagan in terms of both politician, and charisma. There's only one who may come close and that is Barack Obama. Yet he did not win in the huge landslides Reagan did. And as you said, Reagan had this national unity like never before that won't come back for a long time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

I respect it. It's what happens when you're just too based. 😉 

For real though, no one will be able to match the brilliance of Reagan in terms of both politician, and charisma. There's only one who may come close and that is Barack Obama. Yet he did not win in the huge landslides Reagan did. And as you said, Reagan had this national unity like never before that won't come back for a long time. 

If Biden is the new Jimmy Carter like everyone’s saying (stagflation, gas prices, etc.) then hopefully that means a new Reagan is coming next... especially when you could consider Trump to be the new Nixon. 

I would even accept a Democratic Reagan at this point. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Yes, the job of U.S. President was indeed over his head. But it seemed he was an attempt by the DNC at a 19th Century, "Dark Horse," candidate.

I think his Administration is underestimated in it's importance for sure though. A dark horse is what America needed after the man on my profile picture. An honest face to restore at least some sort of transparency or confidence, if that makes sense, in the government. However as his presidency would go on, the cycle would appear to somewhat reset and lead to Reagan. 

His Vice President, Walter Mondale, God rest his soul, revolutionized the role of the Vice President. 

I also don't think anyone else could've brokered a peace between Israel and Egypt. It took that humble personality. That hard-working, peaceful, easy going personality to do that. I couldn't imagine one of the masters of realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, doing something like that. Too cold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DakotaHale said:

If Biden is the new Jimmy Carter like everyone’s saying (stagflation, gas prices, etc.) then hopefully that means a new Reagan is coming next... especially when you could consider Trump to be the new Nixon. 

I would even accept a Democratic Reagan at this point. 

Same haha. I've tried to be supportive of the Biden Administration since Day 1. I've been reluctant to criticize. But past events of the last 2 weeks, I find myself becoming increasingly discontent. Gas problems, stagflation appearing to be looming, and also this whole Israel fiasco, I hope we get a Reagan.

With Republicans still being Trump Cultists and me having a feeling the best they can do is Ron Desantis just won't cut it for me. I need to know the old GOP is back. 

With that said, Democratic Reagan could show up... please? Maybe Andrew Yang wins the mayoral race and Biden doesn't run for a 2nd term. Then Yang takes the nation by surprise and wins a landslide as the supposed "Anti Trump Republican Party" that may be formed soon splits the vote from the cultists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unlikely anyone could have done better with the hand Carter was dealt as president.  The economic problems were an inevitable result of the dissolution of the Bretton Woods agreement which had been delayed by Nixon's socialistic wage/price controls.  The hostage crisis dragged on too long, but in the end Carter got all the hostages back alive and relatively unharmed without giving the Iranians anything of real value in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pilight said:

It's unlikely anyone could have done better with the hand Carter was dealt as president.  The economic problems were an inevitable result of the dissolution of the Bretton Woods agreement which had been delayed by Nixon's socialistic wage/price controls.  The hostage crisis dragged on too long, but in the end Carter got all the hostages back alive and relatively unharmed without giving the Iranians anything of real value in return.

 

Just now, Patine said:

To be fair, by empirical, rather than theoretical, ideological doctrine, through history, wage/price controls can't truly be considered, "Socialistic," as they tend to always done to deal with wartime economies or economic emergencies by governments with ideologies across the spectrum. Under less stressful economic conditions, actual Socialists far prefer other policies to such, "blunt hammer," tactics, just as Capitalists, and adherents of various hybrid economic systems in a spectrum between, also do under more ideal economic conditions. I suppose you could say, rather than sitting on a place on the spectrum proper, it's an, "emergency segue policy used by many ideological groups who vary widely," like certain other economic - and social and political - temporary schemes in such a light.

I can see where socialistic may come into play in describing Nixon's economic policy. But I'm sure you'd be surprised, Former Texan Governor John Connally... notorious Conservative was responsible for a lot of Nixon strategy concerning the economy. Leaving the Gold Standard, price controls, wage controls, freezes, import tariffs. Etc. 

I think a lot of what Nixon did was quite necessary tbh. After the passage of the Great Society and the rising inflation, it took drastic measures like these that went against the Republican norm. 

However, classic Nixon, being more motivated by self interest, conveniently staged the economic recovery with his good old friend Arthur Burns, right before the 1972 election. So as detente was ongoing, Nixon could brag about a "good" and "recovering" economy all he wanted too. 

Not like he needed too anyways. Democrats nominated the disaster known as George McGovern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...