Hillary Clinton

[AquaMan]

Screw off. It was a compliment. Screw off is not.

[AquaMan]

Do you have a link on the "first" part?

Do I need one? This idea that every statement has to be backed up with someone else's thoughts to be accepted is not relevant. I'm not defending my thesis for a masters. Perhaps I should have said "in my lifetime", or "in all the history I've read". But I assure you that if it mattered that much to me or you I could find a link. We can find links for the 77 people Clinton has killed as well. It doesn't bolster their statements.

I thought the three posts each of us, CF, Conan and myself made, were decently written and thought out, civil, and defensible. No one else has bothered to ask for links or impugned the motives of the other two.

I'm feeling picked on here.

[Red Arrow]

Do I need one? This idea that every statement has to be backed up with someone else's thoughts to be accepted is not relevant. I'm not defending my thesis for a masters. Perhaps I should have said "in my lifetime", or "in all the history I've read". But I assure you that if it mattered that much to me or you I could find a link. We can find links for the 77 people Clinton has killed as well. It doesn't bolster their statements.

I thought the three posts each of us, CF, Conan and myself made, were decently written and thought out, civil, and defensible. No one else has bothered to ask for links or impugned the motives of the other two.

I was unaware that you were presenting Newt being first was an opinion.  It read more like a statement of fact. Opinions don't need links.  Facts sometimes do.

[AquaMan]

I was unaware that you were presenting Newt being first was an opinion.  It read more like a statement of fact. Opinions don't need links.  Facts sometimes do.

I stand by my statement of opinion as fact till someone can make a reasonable argument that his was not "the most systematic, organized effort ever". I was paying attention at that time and doing a lot of reading of creditable sources (internet wasn't here yet). That and my grasp of history was where I drew my conclusions.

Facts sometimes do require citations, but this is a forum of facts mixed with opinions and the buyer must beware to decide their merits. My surprise is that only my statements appear to need citations or links. After re-reading the other comments by CF and Conan and I found at least two of them to be dubious.

[Conan71]

I stand by my statement of opinion as fact till someone can make a reasonable argument that his was not "the most systematic, organized effort ever". I was paying attention at that time and doing a lot of reading of creditable sources (internet wasn't here yet). That and my grasp of history was where I drew my conclusions.

Facts sometimes do require citations, but this is a forum of facts mixed with opinions and the buyer must beware to decide their merits. My surprise is that only my statements appear to need citations or links. After re-reading the other comments by CF and Conan and I found at least two of them to be dubious.

Gingrich was very much a divisive little turd and he made politics personal.  One need look no further than the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill on how to have a cordial and respectful relationship even with many idealogical differences.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Gingrich was the first ever to do this, but simply stating he was really the first SOTH who was so outwardly and openly virulent toward the POTUS of another party affiliation.  He was also bolstered by the new popularity of talk radio and conservative-leaning programming on cable.

[erfalf]

Which was my point. I think evil has always been present. 24/7 media has just shed light on it.

[TulsaMoon]

Gingrich was very much a divisive little turd and he made politics personal.  One need look no further than the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill on how to have a cordial and respectful relationship even with many idealogical differences.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Gingrich was the first ever to do this, but simply stating he was really the first SOTH who was so outwardly and openly virulent toward the POTUS of another party affiliation.  He was also bolstered by the new popularity of talk radio and conservative-leaning programming on cable.

Trump is the result of Gingrich politics.

Though I do not believe he was the author of demonizing politics he sure took it to a whole new level.

[cannon_fodder]

Gingirch made a career of divisive policy. What did his Congress DO other than harass Clinton? That was his mainstay.

He continues it now. He just did a social media listing today about the FBI needs to release the emails NOW so the American people can decide if Hillary is guilty of treason... some such nonsense. No ideas. No big tent. No debate of alternating views. Just an attack dog, and that's all he's ever been.

[Conan71]

Gingirch made a career of divisive policy. What did his Congress DO other than harass Clinton? That was his mainstay.

He continues it now. He just did a social media listing today about the FBI needs to release the emails NOW so the American people can decide if Hillary is guilty of treason... some such nonsense. No ideas. No big tent. No debate of alternating views. Just an attack dog, and that's all he's ever been.

Assuming Congress really does define the budget and hold the purse strings, we did have (more or less) balanced budgets and a surplus while Gingrich was the SOTH.  It is next to impossible to get a straight answer or opinion if it was the growing tech economy, slow discretionary spending growth initiated by Congress, Clinton's 1993 tax increase, residual policies of Reagan, or fairy dust.  Take your pick.

[Ed W]

Aqua, you really think Gingrich was the first to demonize his opponents? I think what the modern day media has shown is how morally bankrupt politicians HAVE ALWAYS BEEN!

I once read an account of the tit-for-tat political fights that began with the Boeing-United divestiture back in the 1920s, threaded through the anti-communist hearings in the 30s that continued through the Army-McCarthy hearings and the House Un-American Activities Committee, giving rise to the ill-fated Richard Nixon. It continued through his impeachment, Iran-Contra, and culminated in the divisive politics we have today. I wish I could find it again.

But the point is that the extreme acrimony is nothing new. The simple intransigence of the Republican party, notably the refusal to even have hearings on a Supreme Court justice, is both new and a threat to our system of government.

[AquaMan]

Interesting little story that does more than describe that turd, but also makes note of how he compares to the current floater.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-newt-gingrich-scandals-accomplishments-veepstakes-running-mate-trump-gop-republican-214050

"More than anyone else in the modern history of Congress, it's Gingrich who observers credit for bringing the hyperpartisan, obstructionist approach to Washington that we associate with the capital to this day. "When in doubt, Democrats lie," he said in 1988. He trafficked in sticky political nicknames: the "loony Left" and "daffy Dukakis." In 1996, he actually sent out a memo to Republican candidates to help them learn to "speak like Newt."

[Breadburner]

Hillary sh*t the bed....

[swake]

Hillary sh*t the bed....

But won the popular vote.

Americans aren't choosing our presidents anymore.

[rebound]

But won the popular vote.

Americans aren't choosing our presidents anymore.

What are you talking about?  I absolutely can't stand Trump, but (apparently) he won fair and square.

We HAVE NEVER had a popular vote for President, so not sure what you mean by "anymore".  And it is a lot more direct than it used to be.  Only relatively recently have the electors been bound by the majority vote in the state they came from.  Originally, the general public was not considered to have requisite knowledge, etc, to directly elect the President.  Hence the electorial college.

I'm not happy with the result, either, but insinuating that the election process is "unfair" in some way reeks of the same inuendo that was coming out of the Trump camp when they thought they were going to lose.

[Conan71]

But won the popular vote.

Americans aren't choosing our presidents anymore.

This is the fifth time in history this has happened.  I was previously unaware or had forgotten that John Quincy Adams became president after losing not only the popular vote but the electoral vote as well, so the HOR ended up electing Adams.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/07/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/93441516/

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

There are plenty more articles out there suggesting why this is an outmoded method of selecting our president.  It seems those on the losing side are unhappy with it and Trump supporters are likely thankful for it this morning.