Give people a choice and I define that as a person which is not self absorbed, can say "I was wrong, but I will not make that error again" then doesn't. Someone who is a leader, not a platform and bullet points, someone who has lead, not just headed something. Demonstrated character and ethics. That holds his or her party as accountable as the opposition. To pick the right thing over the party line. That doesn't look at America as a demographic to divide against one another, some one of unity who understands that "those poor white people" may be exactly that. That blacks do face problems which cannot be dismissed. Work constructively for people because they are people, some guy in a lot to sell a used car to.
Do these people exist? All descendants of Diogenes grab your lanterns before it's too late.
So, someone like Hillary then who did exactly every single thing you mentioned?
US Attorneys are political appointees, a patronage job. Traditionally each incoming President pretty much cleans house. Not firing them all at once, as Sessions promised he would not do, and we also had the special case this time around where Trump promised in person twice not to fire a particular US attorney, and Sessions made the same in person promise, and both broke their promises.
As far as federal judges go, the nominations have to be approved by the Senate. Obama had the problem of GOP pocket vetoes (a single Senator being able to put an indefinite hold on a nominee without stating any reason) plus McConnell did everything he could get away with to freeze the nomination process.
Sooner or later the Dems will get control of the Senate again, and the GOP will find out what it is like on the other side of their repressive tactics.
OP's post is like pinning the blame on the victim in a rape case.
Ultimately, most of those battles over judges have really been about Obama, a nasty front in the larger partisan war that has raged throughout his presidency. And as with most of the foreign and domestic policy battles of the Obama era, the result, after a lot of bellicose rhetoric and political brinksmanship, has been a lot of change. Obama has already appointed 329 judges to lifetime jobs, more than one third of the judiciary, and they’re already moving American jurisprudence in Obama’s direction. He got two left-leaning women onto the Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, and Elena Kagan, his former solicitor general. He also flipped the partisan balance of the nation’s 13 courts of appeals; when he took office, only one had a majority of Democratic appointees, and now nine do. Just last week, two Obama appointees to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down some of North Carolina’s strict new election law, calling it a discriminatory effort to stop blacks from voting.
So what's the solution? Get just as dirty as their opponents?
They do exist and you didn't vote for her.
I disagree. Some time ago IIRC we had a discussion where I found her uninspiring and you starting talking about how people aren't looking at her platform and emotions have no place or something like that.
The qualities of a good leader appeal on an Intellectual and empathetic level. The need for connection is not some stupid quality, but something which allows for trust to be established. Without that we would be extinct as a species because we'd have no sense, real sense for what was happening.
And like Joe I found this vital quality virtually absent. If she was genuine she is unable to show it and at the risk of boasting I believe I'm at the high end of perception, and in any case Bill had that appeal, and many did not get that from Hillary.
Dirtier.So what's the solution? Get just as dirty as their opponents?
[QUOTE="Hayabusa Rider, post: 39016912, member: 10614"The qualities of a good leader appeal on an Intellectual and empathetic level. The need for connection is not some stupid quality, but something which allows for trust to be established. Without that we would be extinct as a species because we'd have no sense, real sense for what was happening.
Bill and Barrack are literary two of the more talented politicians to have ever lived.
They were. People who met them (I met Bill) came away with the sense that they were wanted and for more than their vote, that there was an interest in them for themselves. I think that despite any human imperfections they pretty much walked that talk. I certainly do not despise them for it.
So you see the problem with holding others to that standard.
It is a real problem. The question then becomes a matter of standards. While rare I do not believe these kinds of people are extinct. If that is true, do we (meaning those who wish to see better future) find these people, encourage them and put them in office? I'm not a partisan but I do identify with many who are democrats and with for more than party advancement. Would it not be to their benefit to seek rather than settle?
I can't answer for them, just myself, but I think that my preference would ultimately provide the better result. Naturally not always, sometimes the bad guy wins, but not always.
What is important and how do we "get there from here"? I believe it's worth thinking about.
That is a load of bullshit, in most countries they vote for actual policies because that is what will affect them, not the personality of the leaders.
In the US this personality bullshit has been taken to a point where policy does not mater AT ALL anymore, someone who would do everything you wanted might not be someone you'd vote for because you dislike their looks or someone once said something bad about them and now you are voting for the other candidate.
That's not democracy, that is cult followings getting their way every once in a while no matter what the policies are.
They're not "extinct", but rather rare as once-in-a-lifetime status might imply. I mean, who the hell else makes a speech like the 2004 DNC masterpiece. Contemporary democrats were just incredibly lucky to get two within theirs.
Policy never mattered. Do you think the average voter was ever, throughout all of history, weighing policy consequences when voting? What fantasy world is this?
Speaking of loads of bullshit do you have any empirical evidence that backs that up? People in most countries act similarly, which is to say, tribally.
Policy never mattered. Do you think the average voter was ever, throughout all of history, weighing policy consequences when voting? What fantasy world is this?
That is complete and utter bullshit, in most nations the people vote based on policy, not based on the origin of the parties, this changed in the 60's and there is a load of data on political movements on it, do I really need to give you hundreds of millons of links or are you capable of using google all on your own?
You're telling us Trump's claimed policies and dog whistles during the campaign didn't strike true with people?
Our policies need to supplant those, turn them obsolete and inferior to our own solutions. When people believe ours are better, the country moves Left.
By all means give me hundreds of millions of links.