POTUS Election thread

[Sarmatian]

Since Americans like their acronyms, I decided to use one in thread title to fit in better. Also, imagine I'm chewing gum while I'm writing this.

You Yanks have become lazy. Mrs. C. has declared that she will run for president in 2016 and nary a peep from you. Get back in shape.

What does this mean, who'll be the president, is Clinton doing it only to get back at here husband by hiring a hot male assistant if she wins and so on...

[rvg]

Bush 2016.

[CrossLOPER]

Since Americans like their acronyms, I decided to use one in thread title to fit in better. Also, imagine I'm chewing gum while I'm writing this.

You Yanks have become lazy. Mrs. C. has declared that she will run for president in 2016 and nary a peep from you. Get back in shape.

What does this mean, who'll be the president, is Clinton doing it only to get back at here husband by hiring a hot male assistant if she wins and so on...

From where I am, some of her supporters think that she is just a bud from Obama's tenure. Personally, I think most of the leaders are total tripe, but I suppose you have to choose the best from the worst.

Geriatrics vs. numbskulls. Go.

[Crandar]

Why does Hillary's old age matter so much? Mithradates was killing Romans in his late sixties...

[Hooahguy]

Hey, we always got Waka Flocka Flame.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyd_eIgrnfk

[drone]

You Yanks have become lazy. Mrs. C. has declared that she will run for president in 2016 and nary a peep from you. Get back in shape.
We aren't lazy, we are just hoping that if we ignore them it will go away. 18 months of this crap...

[CrossLOPER]

Why does Hillary's old age matter so much? Mithradates was killing Romans in his late sixties...

She is actually one of the younger contenders.

[Kralizec]

It's pretty telling that a number of Republicans who might run in 2016 felt it necessary to slam Clinton immediately after she announced her candidacy.

When she lost the Democratic primary in 2008 I thought that we had all witnessed the end of her political career. It seems to me Obama did her an immense favor in making her the secretary of state (allthough he presumably would have had political motives to do so, instead of / in addition to the kindness of his heart)

[rvg]

She is actually one of the younger contenders.

If by "younger" you mean "one of the oldest", then yes, she's one of the "younger" ones.

[Kadagar_AV]

Soooo... let me see if I got this right...

You USAnian guys, out of a population of about 320 MILLION people... Are considering whether Clinton or Bush is what you should put your life and energy into?

Don't get me wrong, I love flaming the US of A. But seriously this feels like pumping a shotgun to a already dead animal...

Very, very, very dead.

[Greyblades]

Jeb might not be nearly as bad as his brother but america's not going to risk burning itself thrice. Hillary is worse than her husband but america is going to jump on her in the hope of reignighting her husband's spark.

What matters in a post recession economy, I suppose, is economic performance and the Bush name is long spoiled by dubya's mess. Clinton is still somewhat fresh from Bill's surplus so I think Hillary is going to win and I think hillary is likely to be another obama. She'll be technically good, maybe even great for the country's finances, but she's not going to live up to liberal voters hopes.

So, Ladies and Gentlmen, liberals and conservatives, prepare for dissapointment.

[Kadagar_AV]

prepare for dissapointment.

Is the topic still about the US of A?

If so there is absolutely no need to prepare for disappointment. After the WMD in Iraq and OBL in Afghanistan.

Get this, the world at large is disappointed in you regardless, and for good reasons.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nothing has happened yet. Hillary announcing is not news at all. I was hoping I could get 4 more months of peace before this mess started.

[Papewaio]

So which number Clinton will she be in the family dynasty?

And if Jeb runs which one will he be fore the Bush dynasty?

[Sarmatian]

Nothing has happened yet. Hillary announcing is not news at all. I was hoping I could get 4 more months of peace before this mess started.

Could have been worse. Imagine you're from Iowa.


Who here thinks it will be down to a Bush vs. Clinton showdown?

[Hooahguy]

Who here thinks it will be down to a Bush vs. Clinton showdown?
Im actually thinking that the GOP are going to go with Rubio. While he's on his knees for the hard right just like the rest of the candidates, there is some glimmer of hope that hes not like all the rest, like when he introduced immigration reform (which he promptly retracted because the hard right started throwing tomatoes). Hes also younger I think then the rest, though Cruz is only a year older. But then again, Cruz does look much older than he actually is, because from my experience, being possessed tends to age you by another 10-15 years.

[HopAlongBunny]

She shall save us all!

http://readyforwarren.com/

[Hooahguy]

She shall save us all!

http://readyforwarren.com/

...despite her saying repeatedly that she won't. And its probably a good thing too, she didnt win her home state last election by a very large margin, and she probably does the most good in congress anyways.

[HopAlongBunny]

... she probably does the most good in congress anyways.

Agreed; I don't think she would like to run against Clinton and expose the serious divisions in the Democratic party.
It is nice to hear that progressive voice in American politics again though :)

[Hooahguy]

It is nice to hear that progressive voice in American politics again though :)
Yup, her and Bernie Sanders are a welcome addition! There are so few members of congress I dont view with disdain nowadays, having a few people who give me even a sliver of hope is always good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could have been worse. Imagine you're from Iowa.


Who here thinks it will be down to a Bush vs. Clinton showdown?

I think it's depressingly likely.

[Montmorency]

I was going to make a crack about getting a Roosevelt into the running, but it appears we're down to just a couple of those...

[Gilrandir]

I was going to make a crack about getting a Roosevelt into the running
Eleanor?

[Montmorency]

Eleanor?

She daid, unless you mean the 88-year-old relative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt_Seagraves).

At that point, why not just call back Jimmy Carter for a do-over.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A deeply religious Democrat?

Careful, you'll upset the 30-something class of current politicians and talking heads.

[Fisherking]

It is a shame the rabbit didn't get him.

[Gilrandir]

She daid, unless you mean the 88-year-old relative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt_Seagraves).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-dead-idUSBRE8A62AK20121107
Way to go!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One of the under-spoken things about US politics is the existence of a quasi-aristocracy. It is not completely exclusive and in no way as "insular" as the aristocracies of Europe, but in politics the age of your money does seem to make a difference....

For example, were Jeb to be elected, he would be the 9th Mayflower family descendent to hold the Presidency -- out of 44 persons who will have held the office as of January 2017 (Yes, I am aware that Obama is the 44th POTUS, but trivia buffs will remember that Cleveland served in two separate presidencies in the late 1800s).

So, if you tend to see familiar names cropping up, it may be less surprising than one might hope.

[HopAlongBunny]

Quick detour to the influence of money in the latest POTUS test.
Is Jeb simply keeping his powder dry in order to better direct the PAC's lending him support?:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/jeb_bush_destroying_campaign_finance_rules_his_tactics_will_be_the_future.html

Overall, since Citizens United has the influence of wealth increased?:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/04/one-percent-campaign-giving

hmmm...

[Hooahguy]

So Bernie Sanders will be throwing his hat into the ring. Should be interesting. Most likely wont win the nomination, but at least he will challenge Hillary.

[Husar]

I wish someone sensible like Bill Gates would run, but he is probably too sensible.
Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.

[Hooahguy]

Im rather excited to see someone who calls himself a socialist running for president. The smear campaigns should get interesting.

[Greyblades]

Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.
He'd never take the job, there arent enough sofas or closets in the whitehouse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bernie Sanders will get his reputation ruined because of this, Clinton will give the Republicans fodder as she tries to counter the criticism that Bernie gives her. Now instead of cultivating support, she has to defend herself as a liberal and expose herself to Republican jabs when it comes time for the general election. Meanwhile, the Republicans wont have as big of a shit show as the last two elections, so instead of everyone looking like a fool, the Republican winner will come out stronger for it.

[Gilrandir]

Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.
Mission impossible.

[Montmorency]

Bernie Sanders will get his reputation ruined because of this, Clinton will give the Republicans fodder as she tries to counter the criticism that Bernie gives her. Now instead of cultivating support, she has to defend herself as a liberal and expose herself to Republican jabs when it comes time for the general election. Meanwhile, the Republicans wont have as big of a shit show as the last two elections, so instead of everyone looking like a fool, the Republican winner will come out stronger for it.

Why wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

Also, I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders cares about his reputation in national politics when it comes to this...

[Fisherking]

I don’t see any reason to take any of the candidates seriously. The media will trash anyone they view as a threat to Hillary and she need do nothing except continue to tell her lies. The Republican Candidate that emerges will be the one most easily defeated and everything will continue on track.
Should the Republican win it still would make little difference as they will be beholden to the same people as the Democrat and the same special interests (Banks and Mega-corporations) will still get everything they want.

You may agree with what a party says but if you actually agree with what they are doing it is only because they managed to deceive you.

[Montmorency]

You may agree with what a party says but if you actually agree with what they are doing it is only because they managed to deceive you.

The interesting thing is that individual politicians in general actually do most of the things they say they will do while campaigning. Most outright "promises" are not technically broken.

But this is cleverly concealed through a mass of obscurantist and non-committal language. When politicians "say a whole lot of nothing", they're doing so in a very careful way. "Plausible deniability" is one way to put it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

Also, I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders cares about his reputation in national politics when it comes to this...

Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.

You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.

The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.

[Montmorency]

Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.

You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.

The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.

Ah, but you see, there's some important distinctions:

1. Sanders is not an unsavvy politician.
2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.
3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.

My prediction:

Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.

The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. Sanders is not an unsavvy politician.
That is yet to be seen. The campaign trail will show either way.



2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.

Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992. The US left is now what used to be called "third way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way)". Sander's is a bonafide Socialist, and some of his views are probably closer to Eugene Debs than Clinton.



3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.
I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.



My prediction:

Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.

The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...

I think you are way off base here with your predictions, but your last sentence gets close to the truth.

[Montmorency]

Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Point out anything unusual, please.

At this point, Clinton would be about as left as Nixon.


I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.

That alone will have little bearing on the upcoming election, and the long-term productivity is still doubtful.

[Vuk]

Scott Walker...next POTUS...true story...

[HopAlongBunny]

I'm a little surprised at Sanders rising to the occasion. I thought he might lie low for the same reason as Warren; not to expose the real divisions in the Democratic party.
It could nudge policy closer to the center; I consider all present American hopefuls as simply different shades of right-wing policy hucksters.
As Fisherking points out, the big surprise would be anything that does not cave to the Banks and Mega-corporations

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Point out anything unusual, please.

There were no policies listed there. What am I supposed to point out? A liberal and a socialist will both say "gender inequality is wrong" but they will have two different policies towards it.

[Montmorency]

There were no policies listed there. What am I supposed to point out? A liberal and a socialist will both say "gender inequality is wrong" but they will have two different policies towards it.

???

Aside from that not being a very clear example to focus on...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sanders is exactly what Clinton's team wants. Since the GOP will, for the most part, attempt to paint her as a rabid lefty, she gets to primary campaign -- politely -- as the more sober and centrist Democrat against Sanders' well-intentioned but impractical hyper leftie. Since THAT message will go down much more palatably in the General Elections and since there is virtually ZERO chance of any of the Dem core support groups opting for the GOP in protest to Clinton's not being pure enough, the Sanders campaign is a good way for Clinton to strengthen her candidacy, not weaken it.

The greater threat is a "Green Party" candidate siphoning votes in the General Election and costing her a key state or two because she isn't "pure" enough for the more rabid fringe left wingers. Remember, if HALF of the votes that went to Nader in Florida in the 2K race -- many of which were protest votes against Gore 'abandoning' his eco-advocacy stance -- then it would have been President-Elect Gore by 2am the next morning.

Clinton's team will direct a good bit of effort at keeping any credible fringe left protest effort from forming -- and Sanders (fully litmus tested leftie) endorsement of her and promise to work with her administration in the cabinet if so asked -- will likely head off such a concern.

Now, can Clinton actually do as well as Gore in a General Election against a GOP opponent who has survived a fully contested primary season? A much more difficult question.

[Hooahguy]

The greater threat is a "Green Party" candidate siphoning votes in the General Election and costing her a key state or two because she isn't "pure" enough for the more rabid fringe left wingers. Remember, if HALF of the votes that went to Nader in Florida in the 2K race -- many of which were protest votes against Gore 'abandoning' his eco-advocacy stance -- then it would have been President-Elect Gore by 2am the next morning.

Clinton's team will direct a good bit of effort at keeping any credible fringe left protest effort from forming -- and Sanders (fully litmus tested leftie) endorsement of her and promise to work with her administration in the cabinet if so asked -- will likely head off such a concern.


Im not so sure about this. I would say that there arent enough of the rabid environmentalists who demand an ideologically pure candidate to really change things, at least not anymore after they saw what happened in 2000. But we will have to see.

And its times like this I wish we had the Alternative Vote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE).

[drone]

Carly Fiorina entered this morning on the Republican side. I'm curious on why she thinks her business "acumen" will get her anywhere politically, any competitor just needs to put an HP employee in front of a camera to see her off.

[Hooahguy]

Carly Fiorina entered this morning on the Republican side. I'm curious on why she thinks her business "acumen" will get her anywhere politically, any competitor just needs to put an HP employee in front of a camera to see her off.
Delusions of grandeur if I had to guess. Im actually thinking they will put her in the VP position to try to counter Hillary, kind of like how they did with Palin in 2008.

[Sarmatian]

Delusions of grandeur if I had to guess. Im actually thinking they will put her in the VP position to try to counter Hillary, kind of like how they did with Palin in 2008.

I do have a feeling she is just there to ensure Democrats can't cry "sexism!" when she attacks Hillary.

Also, another woman in the race draws the attention from Clinton. She's no longer the "only one".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Im not so sure about this. I would say that there arent enough of the rabid environmentalists who demand an ideologically pure candidate to really change things, at least not anymore after they saw what happened in 2000. But we will have to see.

And its times like this I wish we had the Alternative Vote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE).

In Florida and New Mexico and Colorado, the margins are very close. THERE, a moderate showing by a fringe party can and has altered the results of the election as a whole -- a product of our electoral college system.

[Hooahguy]

Yes that is true, but the question is that after the debacle of 2000, will people still vote as much as they did for 3rd parties knowing the harm it can do? Compare 2000 to 2012. In 2000, Nader got almost 3 million votes (2.74% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Results)). In 2012, the Green party replacement candidate, Jill Stein, didnt even get past 500,000 votes (0.36% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results)). I think the political realities are dawning on the people who would vote third party, and anyone who is serious about their choice issues will vote for the person in the main two parties who represents them a bit more than the other. It certainly still is a danger, but I dont think as much as it was in 2000.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i thought California sent Carly Fiorina back to the tech world so she could ruin another company.

[Hooahguy]

i thought California sent Carly Fiorina back to the tech world so she could ruin another company.
Nah, the only one she was allowed to be the CEO of her own company, Carly Fiorina Enterprises. Which flunked too. Shes unhireable in Silicon Valley, and the same goes for any political office.

[Hooahguy]

In reinforcing the idea that he would be no different than his brother, ol' Jeb said he would have invaded Iraq in 2003 (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/11/405961442/jeb-bush-would-have-authorized-iraq-war-even-knowing-what-we-know-now), even knowing what we know now. Personally I think he just torpedoed his chance of ever being elected, much less being nominated.

He then tried to backtrack (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/12/406305401/jeb-bush-backtracks-on-iraq-says-he-interpreted-the-question-wrong-i-guess) but the damage was already done.

[Greyblades]

The way he answered it; it seems like he expected the question to be "would you have invaded iraq at the time" and either didn't notice the question prefix "knowing what we do now"
Or he did notice and had no idea how to answer it, so went with the question he prepared for.

I'm starting to notice a lot of politicians arent very good at improvisation.

[Hooahguy]

If the GOP had any sense at all, they would pick George Pataki as their candidate. As a moderate Republican I think he would have an actual shot.

[Beskar]

They probably want to check if he has a true American birth-certificate first, simply because his ideological position is "non-American" by being a filthy moderate. That is why Romey lost the election, naturally.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If the GOP had any sense at all, they would pick George Pataki as their candidate. As a moderate Republican I think he would have an actual shot.
Why do you go out of your way to pick people that will never win

[Montmorency]

Haji Bakr 4 Prez

[Hooahguy]

Why do you go out of your way to pick people that will never win
Ah yes, because going even further to the right is totally the way that the GOP will win.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah yes, because going even further to the right is totally the way that the GOP will win.

Going to the right is the only way to win the GOP primaries, and hence the only way to win if you are a Republican.

[Hooahguy]

Because winning the GOP primaries is what really counts, amirite?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Because winning the GOP primaries is what really counts, amirite?
Yes

[Montmorency]

It's more complicated than that. With the various weird reforms the Republicans have been playing with in anticipation of 2016 primaries and delegate allocation, primaries held between mid-March and the end of April will be the impactful ones. After that, the conclusion will almost certainly be foregone. Before that, many if not most delegates will be proportionally allocated (according to candidates' performance in each primary).

What this means is that the influence of Texas and California will be reduced - March 1 primary and June 7 primary, respectively - while the influence of New York - undetermined primary date - may be increased.

Altogether, a successful Republican contender need not "win" any primaries until the Illinois, Florida, and Missouri conventions on March 15.

Also, recall that there is a technical out to the whole process. There are to be 2470 Republican delegates to the national convention. Of them, taking 1235 will clinch the nomination. However, if the contest is very mixed such that no one contender can reach the 50% mark, but there is one contender who has a plurality by the end of the primary season, then it is easily possible that this contender would, if deemed a risk by the party leadership, be thrown under the bus for someone else.

How could this happen? Well, don't forget the super/bonus delegates. There are more than 400 of them for the Republicans this time. If Rick Santorum gets 1000 delegates but Pataki gets 900, then we should expect Santorum to get cooked at the Convention.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Technically it's 1236 to win. 50% + 1 vote (otherwise there could theoretically be a tie between two people who get 50%).

[Hooahguy]

So Trump is threatening a third party run. This might be 1992 all over again!

[drone]

So Trump is threatening a third party run. This might be 1992 all over again!
If he is still going by Nov 2016 (either as the nominee or 3rd party), he is going to crush whatever slim chance the GOP has of getting in the White House. Hillary must be loving it.

[Papewaio]

I thought the simplest selection method of a party candidate for POTUS would be the one that mimics the actual election the closest. Not only would it be simpler you would have a candidate who is supported by your voter base across the country not just some states.

Oh look we won Idaho by a landslide and lost every other state. But at least we have a convulted selection process.

[Strike For The South]

Trump is a smokescreen so that Hillary has an easier time getting to the polls. She is calling in all her favors.

I want my America back.

[Sarmatian]

I want my America back.

Which America is that and do you have to have rose-tinted glasses to see it?

[Montmorency]

He wants Revolutionary America back so he can have something to fight for.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If I was a conspiracy guy, I would believe that Trump is a Democratic Party plant meant to embarrass the Republican Party. Trump has been on the record back in the early 2000s and 1990s as being very liberal with things such as universal health care.

The truth is probably closer to the fact that Trump has an extremely large ego, believes his background caters to Republicans more and thinks that the publicity driven by this will somehow cement his family name further into American history.

[Montmorency]

He profits from running. As in, he gets money as a direct consequence. Not necessarily from mattering, mind you, but from running.

[Hooahguy]

If I was a conspiracy guy, I would believe that Trump is a Democratic Party plant meant to embarrass the Republican Party. Trump has been on the record back in the early 2000s and 1990s as being very liberal with things such as universal health care.

The truth is probably closer to the fact that Trump has an extremely large ego, believes his background caters to Republicans more and thinks that the publicity driven by this will somehow cement his family name further into American history.
Both are good theories in my book, and I wouldnt be surprised at all if either of them turned out to be the truth.

[Husar]

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895


And the TV spots are just the beginning. I know you, and I know what you like. You’ll absolutely eat it up when you see the “Trump ’16” T-shirts, the lawn signs, the bumper stickers; in fact, you’ll probably get a real kick out of pointing them out to your friends. Now, just imagine me shaking hands with senior citizens at a nursing home in Iowa. Wouldn’t you love to watch that? Or hear what comes out of my mouth when I speak to blue-collar workers at a struggling auto factory?

Yes, I absolutely do want to see this!

[Ironside]

Both are good theories in my book, and I wouldnt be surprised at all if either of them turned out to be the truth.

Do you honestly think Trump's ego would handle being a plant?

[Hooahguy]

Do you honestly think Trump's ego would handle being a plant?
I dont think he even realizes hes a plant. But just because the plant is clueless doesnt mean hes not a plant.

[Kralizec]

Trumps ego is hilarious. He sued a reporter once because he wrote that Trump's net worth was less than 1 billion USD, and demanded 5 billion USD in damages.

good stuff:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-21/dear-mr-trump-i-m-worth-10-billion-too-


When they asked him about how he calculated his net worth, he noted that the figure “goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.” Later he added that “even my own feelings affect my value to myself.”

[rvg]

Trumps ego is hilarious. He sued a reporter once because he wrote that Trump's net worth was less than 1 billion USD, and demanded 5 billion USD in damages.


The more I hear Trump speak, the more I like him. I still think he's unelectable, but boy, he stands in such contrast to the usual rank'n'file weather vane politicians. Chris Christie is the only one who comes close, but he has him own electability issues.

[Hooahguy]

I thought this was the Onion at first...
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-rick-perry-to-donald-trump-you-me-pull-up-contest/)

Is it wrong that I really want to see this happen?

[whyidie]

If I was a conspiracy guy, I would believe that Trump is a Democratic Party plant meant to embarrass the Republican Party. Trump has been on the record back in the early 2000s and 1990s as being very liberal with things such as universal health care.



Heh, if we had to vote on conspiracy theories I'd go the other way. Trump makes the other GOP candidates look more palatable to the gooey middle which will decide the election in the battleground states. Case in point, Rick Perry has someone he can call nuts. Quite a turn around from 4 years ago.


The more I hear Trump speak, the more I like him. I still think he's unelectable, but boy, he stands in such contrast to the usual rank'n'file weather vane politicians. Chris Christie is the only one who comes close, but he has him own electability issues.

Christy would be interesting. I think he is one of the few GOP candidates who could win a general election.

Best shot for GOP is to flip FL, OH, VA and one of the mountain west states (CO, NV, NM).

Only candidates they have that are capable of pulling it off are Kasich, Bush, and Christie. Everyone else is noise. They're playing for the 2nd prize of book/tv/campaign money.

[a completely inoffensive name]

TRUMP IS GOING TO THE DEBATE. Muh American Dream coming true.

[Hooahguy]

My mother, who is fairly conservative, wanted to watch the debates with my brother and I so we armed ourselves with a suite of sitcom crowd noises in preparation for the event.

[Hooahguy]

So that was a pretty interesting debate.

For Trump, he basically admitted to bribing politicians and that he was fine making degrading comments about Hispanic immigrants and women, and when asked if he would pledge to not run third party, his reaction can be very, very accurately summed up as this: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seeing Christie and Rand Paul go at it over the 4th Amendment was interesting, especially since Christie lied about when he was appointed as US attorney for New Jersey. He kept repeating it was the day before the 9/11 attacks when in reality he wasnt nominated until December after the attacks and didnt take office until January of 2002. But more amusing was his loud argument with Paul, where Rand kept repeating "Use the Fourth Amendment!" to which Christie didnt really seem able to give a good reply to. Oh yeah, and then they argued over Christie giving Obama a hug after Hurricane Sandy. Really.

Walker mentioned his Harley motorcycle only once, surprisingly, and then mentioned busting the unions, which is also funny because Harleys are famously made by union workers.

I kinda wish they would have given Cruz more talking time as I like how he argues. I might hate everything he stands for but he is a great debater and I respect him for that. And speaking of talking times, the New York Times clocked (http://www.nytimes.com/live/republican-debate-election-2016-cleveland/a-final-count-of-candidate-speaking-time/)in most candidates around the 6:46 length, but Trump had well over 11 minutes to talk while some, like Rand Paul, had as few as not even 5 and a half minutes. Probably because Trump muscled his way into more talking time.

I have a feeling that they purposely let Trump go on talking because they want him out of the race ASAP, and by letting him run his mouth they are gambling on him saying something that will crash him campaign. A risky gamble to say the least.

Anybody else watch the debates?

Should also mention Fiorina did a pretty good job in the "loser debates" and outshone the others on stage, and quite possibly secured a VP nomination at the very least I think.

[Husar]

So it will be Trump with Fiorina as VP?

I mean if the others can't even wrestle speaking time from Trump, how can they wrestle the nuke from Iran??!!?!?!?!?!111

[Hooahguy]

So it will be Trump with Fiorina as VP?

I mean if the others can't even wrestle speaking time from Trump, how can they wrestle the nuke from Iran??!!?!?!?!?!111
Nah, didnt Trump say that he wanted Palin as his VP? That would be a fun nomination. But thats a valid point, Im trying to figure out Trumps end game (besides winning the general election). Hes basically holding the GOP hostage, and from an outsider its pretty amusing. Though I cannot imagine the amount of sheer terror that the GOP establishment is having over Trump still leading the polls by a good amount from what I can tell.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The GOP will try to kill trump by just ignoring him since attacking him during the debates did not work out as well as they thought. The media will spend less coverage. By the next debate more than a few will drop out from pressure or lack of funds. At that point they will pick the chosen ones which will receive all the attention and poll stronger for it.

[Hooahguy]

So because everyone knows how much of a joke the 2016 election is, a third party candidate named Deez Nuts is polling in North Carolina at 9%. Shame the guy behind it is only in high school.

Link to story: (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/20/deez-nuts-independent-2016-candidate)


Wednesday was a big day for Deez Nuts. First he won 9% of the vote as an independent in a Public Policy Polling poll of voters in North Carolina – which, on top of recent results of 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa from previous polls, makes him what experts confirmed is the most successful independent candidate for president in two decades.

I dont know whether to laugh or to cry at this point.

[Gilrandir]

So because everyone knows how much of a joke the 2016 election is, a third party candidate named Deez Nuts is polling in North Carolina at 9%. Shame the guy behind it is only in high school.

I dont know whether to laugh or to cry at this point.

You guys in America are falling behind the world trend setters if such people are runnung for an office only now:

http://europe.newsweek.com/darth-vader-runs-prime-minister-ukraine-vowing-take-back-crimea-putin-279629

[Hooahguy]

Kanye 2020

[Idaho]

Surely Trump is a joke candidate? Someone tell me that it's just the die-hard lunatics who would even consider him for a moment? I suppose you went for two terms with Reagan and Bush, maybe nothing is beyond you.

[Greyblades]

Remember the "American Presidential Dynasties" rhetoric a few months ago?

It's kinda backfired.

[Husar]

I will just hope that Joe Biden runs and wins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dl8vqbgAog

[Hooahguy]

As I said before, I still think he's sort of a Democratic plant in the GOP to make them look bad. I mean I think it was just yesterday that he let a guy stand up and say that he wanted Trump to kick out all the Muslims. And that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. And Trump didn't bother to correct him like McCain did before the 2008 election. The difference of quality in candidates then and now is vastly apparent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

NBC post debate poll shows trump at 29% support, which is up from 22% in late August.


CANT STUMP THE TRUMP

[Hooahguy]

I suspect that once people start dropping out then the margins wont be so wide. Right now Trump is attracting all the nativists while the rest of the group is split up among the rest of the candidates.

Though due to Carson's rather controversial statement that Muslims shouldnt be allowed to be president, I dont see him as a viable candidate so if the GOP wants to pick an anti-establishment candidate then I think Fiorina will be the best pick, despite her dubious business record she has a solid debate presence and doesnt come off as a total bigot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

According to that same poll I mentioned, 30% of those polled believe trump to be the eventual nominee. Maybe the overlap is 100% with trump fans, but its interesting.

[Hooahguy]

So Walker is going to be the second to drop out. Which is a tad surprising as I was expecting Santorum or Jindal to go before Walker, but either way I can't say that I'm going to miss the guy much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

CNN runs with the one poll they have that show Trump losing percentage points and ignore the NBC poll that gives Trump a huge jump over where he was at the end of August. The extreme media bias against Trump makes me scared that all the conservatives here were right about the media carrying Obama in 2008/2012...

[Hooahguy]

Nonsense, in 2008 Obama won by being not Bush, and in 2012 he won because Romney was terrible. The GOP doesnt know how to pick good candidates because the base is full of hard-liners who dont appeal to the middle guys.

[CrossLOPER]

extreme media bias
The extensive media bias that will not stop giving attention to a man that realized that, sometimes, women menstruate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The extensive media bias that will not stop giving attention to a man that realized that, sometimes, women menstruate.
Carly Fiorini accused planned parenthood of selling baby organs from aborted fetuses or some nonsense. Carson says Muslims cannot be president, that the Quran is incompatible with the constitution. Donald is not the craziest, yet they treat him like he is.

[GeneralHankerchief]

If Trump more or less maintains his current positioning, and assuming the rest of the establishment party is still dead-set against him, we could potentially see an actual meaningful convention for the first time in decades as they try to block his nomination. That would be interesting, just to be a break from the established pattern of "four days of bloviating from gradually more important people."

[Hooahguy]

When the field is narrowed to 3-4 candidates we will have a real view at who is winning in the GOP race. Until then this whole polling deal is basically meaningless as the base is fractured among the 15 candidates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem with your analysis is that the top three candidates are all outsiders. If you add up Trump, Carson and Fiorini, you get about 50% of voters. Half of the party is essentially rejecting the establishment and many more are still undecided/not participating. The holy establishment Trinity of rubio, bush and walker was shown today to be dead on arrival. I don't care if there are still 15 candidates, no one likes pataki, no one likes Cruz, no one likes santorum. And no amount of name recognition will bring these campaigns back from the dead. There is a whole lot to learn here and bush better hope his advisors are worth the money.

[Hooahguy]

And two of your three top candidates are totally unelectable. Fiorina is the only one of the three who could possibly be electable (even though she is shooting herself in the foot as the moment with the Planned Parenthood fiasco), but perhaps as VP not the big dog. My guess? Rubio, with Fiorina as VP to try to lasso in those anti-establishment voters.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The voters don't care if someone is unelectable. Like what GH said, the party would have to force their candidate down the voters at the convention to prevent someone like trump or Carson from winning the nomination. That is assuming if trump is able to ride his momentum that long.

[Hooahguy]

Voters being the GOP base, I assume you mean. The base in most cases will vote for their party regardless of the candidate. Its the people in the middle who you need to capture. And saying things like "Mexican immigrants are rapists" and "Muslims shouldnt be allowed to be president" doesnt really inspire those in the middle to look favorably on the candidate.

[Montmorency]

Do people still imagine that Trump is popular because of some position or other (e.g. nativism, protectionism), which would not hold up under the scrutiny of the larger base?

If so, they are quite confused. Remember Huey Long.

[Montmorency]

A couple of hints to make it clearer:

1. Much of Trump's support comes from the "Tea Party" membership, and most of the Tea Party membership in turn likes Trump.

2. The Tea Party has never been about libertarianism.

[Idaho]

The tea party is about getting really stupid people to give mass support for benevolent corporations to harvest our organs and render us down for tallow so their boards can live longer and have access to high quality soaps and cosmetics.

[Hooahguy]

No the Tea Party in its earliest strains was an actual grassroots movement with libertarian ideas. Then it became an astroturf movement once corporations started getting in the game.

[Hooahguy]

So it looks like Trump and Carson are almost tied in the polls. (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-trump-carson-lead-gop-clinton-loses-ground-n433991?cid=sm_fb)

[a completely inoffensive name]

So it looks like Trump and Carson are almost tied in the polls. (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-trump-carson-lead-gop-clinton-loses-ground-n433991?cid=sm_fb)
Poll has an error of +/- 6%. Why bother posting it? More accurate polls show trump in the high twenties. Carson is far behind trump.

[Hooahguy]

I actually did not see that part, my bad. But regardless, Carson is coming in not that far behind Trump.

[Hooahguy]

So Carson, who said after the recent shooting at the college that he would charge the shooter and try to take him out, in a recent interview (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9480797/ben-carson-gunman-popeyes) he told a story when he was held up at gunpoint:


I have had a gun held on me when I was in a Popeyes [in Baltimore]. … A guy comes in, puts the gun in my ribs, and I just said, "I believe that you want the guy behind the counter." … He said, "Oh, okay."


Normally this wouldn't be a huge deal because when you have a gun pointed at you its pretty difficult to tell how you will react. But to imply that victims of mass shootings were cowards, then admit that when a gun was pointed at you, you cowered and directed the gun at someone else, that's pretty despicable.

[Montmorency]

Carson is a real alpha, none of that pussy-ass BS.

We don't need more gun ownership to stop crime - we need more Ben Carson.

:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

The Democratic debate is actually pretty good I think. Much less of a circus than the GOP one was.

Hilariously enough, Trump went on twitter and called it "This is one of the most dysfunctional debates I've seen in my lifetime."

:laugh4:

[Veho Nex]

I hope with all my heart that anyone but Clinton wins. I feel her election to president would be a disaster on Par with Emperor Nero of Rome.

[Idaho]

I hope with all my heart that anyone but Clinton wins. I feel her election to president would be a disaster on Par with Emperor Nero of Rome.

Really? Anyone? Trump? How could you even contemplate it.

[Veho Nex]

Yeah, I would rather see Anchor Baby trump leading the USA than Hillary Clinton

[Hooahguy]

Mind telling us the reasons why? Personally I feel that if Trump was president it would be like President Camacho from the movie Idiocracy.

While I don't really like Clinton, I do think she is at least a capable politician and won't make the nation look pathetic.

[Greyblades]

I gotta agree with Veho, while I may concede that Bernie sanders is your best choice he's not likely to beat Hillary, and in a choice between Clinton and Trump, I'd vote Trump.

[Sir Moody]

... Seriously why

Trump is an egotistical monster - why would anyone voluntarily back him...

[Greyblades]

Because A: they're all egotistical, (it's kind of a requirement, the only difference between candidates is by degree) B: he's not gonna be swayed by big business; dude doesn't need more money and C: the Email debacle showed Hillary as maybe suspect and definitely irresponsible. Basically I see Trump as the lesser of two evils.

Also, monster? Really? He's said some stupid stuff but what has he actually done to earn that?

[Hooahguy]

he's not gonna be corrupt, dude doesnt need more money
If anything he would be serving his own interests. Dont kid yourself how he wont be corrupt. The difference is that he will just serve his own interests when he is in office. While he might be forced to leave his companies once he becomes president, dont think that he wont go back to those companies after he leaves office.


the Email debacle showed Hillary as maybe suspect and definitely irresponsible.
And the large number of Trumps debacles proves the same thing. Look up Trump University.

He said some pretty terrible things about Hispanic immigrants, and Trump supporters invoked his name when beating up a homeless Hispanic man. Dont delude yourself how Trump is any better than Hillary. If anything he is worse.

Trump held many left-leaning positions in the past like on abortion, health care, gun control and the like, and only reneged on them when he wanted to come out more as a conservative hero with the whole birther movement (which by itself should tell you that hes an idiot). He's as much of a flip-flopper as Hillary.


On the other hand, electing Trump might be the kick in the behind that the US needs to finally wake up and stop giving clowns like this a political podium to speak from.

[Greyblades]

If anything he would be serving his own interests. Dont kid yourself how he wont be corrupt. The difference is that he will just serve his own interests when he is in office. While he might be forced to leave his companies once he becomes president, dont think that he wont go back to those companies after he leaves office. As I clarified in my edit I meant he would be less likely to be swayed by big business; He's a multi-billionaire that barely anyone could afford to bribe and he likely wouldn't care if they tried as he's set for life regardless, whereas with Hillary its basically predetermined she will take lobbyist donations by the truckload. That's not even getting into the fact that Trump is unlikely to toe the party line as I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about his political career outside the oval office.


And the large number of Trumps debacles proves the same thing. Look up Trump University. Did trump university put state secrets into servers located in a loft apartment' bathroom?


He said some pretty terrible things about Hispanic immigrants, and Trump supporters invoked his name when beating up a homeless Hispanic man. Dont delude yourself how Trump is any better than Hillary. If anything he is worse. Trump is not responsible for the actions of everyone who claim to support him and I frankly don't consider what he said about Hispanic immigrants all that important in gauging his ability.

[Montmorency]

Still waiting on http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hueyplongking.htm

[Sarmatian]

As I clarified in my edit I meant he would be less likely to be swayed by big business; He's a multi-billionaire that barely anyone could afford to bribe

It's not about money, it's about power and influence.

What is the difference between 1 and 5bn? What can't you buy for 1bn? Can you actually spend it? Unless you want to form your own army and conquer yourself a piece of Africa, there is no difference between 1, 5 or 500bn. And yet, they always want more.

It would be interesting to see if it ends up Trump vs. Sanders. That would be priceless.

[Greyblades]

It's not about money, it's about power and influence. Considering he's be the president, I dont see anyone being any more capable of swaying him with power and influence than they would money.



What is the difference between 1 and 5bn? What can't you buy for 1bn?

Can you actually spend it? Unless you want to form your own army and conquer yourself a piece of Africa, there is no difference between 1, 5 or 500bn. And yet, they always want more.Do they? All of them? I'm getting the feeling you don't know many rich people outside of those who end up in the newspapers.


It would be interesting to see if it ends up Trump vs. Sanders. That would be priceless.
Yup.

[Hooahguy]

As I clarified in my edit I meant he would be less likely to be swayed by big business; He's a multi-billionaire that barely anyone could afford to bribe and he likely wouldn't care if they tried as he's set for life regardless, whereas with Hillary its basically predetermined she will take lobbyist donations by the truckload. That's not even getting into the fact that Trump is unlikely to toe the party line as I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about his political career outside the oval office.
Oh I dont disagree that Clinton wouldnt be in the hands of big business. I just dont think that Trump is immune. Rather, he would be in the hands of his own businesses so suit his interests once he gets out.


Did trump university put state secrets into servers located in a loft apartment' bathroom?
As bad as being investigated and possibly charged for illegal business practices that cheated thousands of people out of money in a scam I would say.

Besides, I think the whole email scandal is making mountains out of molehills. Nothing illegal was done from what Ive read. Poor judgement, yes. Compromising national security? Possibly. Was anything actually compromised? That's still being determined, but from what I have read, there is no evidence that it was.


Trump is not responsible for the actions of everyone who claim to support him and I frankly don't consider what he said about Hispanic immigrants all that important.
I disagree. You are, to a degree, responsible for the actions you influence. And while you might not consider the racist things that he said about Hispanic immigrants important, it sure is for a lot of others, especially considering that Hispanics make up a rather large section of the US.

[Ironside]

Because A: they're all egotistical, (it's kind of a requirement) B: he's not gonna be corrupt, dude doesnt need more money and C: the Email debacle showed Hillary as maybe suspect and definitely irresponsible. Basically I see Trump as the lesser of two evils.

Also, monster? Really? He's said some stupid stuff but what has he actually done to earn that?

Trump will ruin the US budget. Huge income tax drops (that are focused on the rich, since the poor barely pays the type of taxes he wants to cut), financed by magical growth numbers. Or massive cuts in medicare/aid, social security or the military (they+ the debt interest on 9% are more than 75% of the total budget).

He'll probably start a at least one war. He'll definitely try to strong arm himself in international politics, so expect Putin to be more popular than Trump.
Expect state sponsored xenophobia.
This is either public or him behaving exactly as he already does, no secret conspiracy needed.

A. He's somewhat more severe than usual. He's also known to be petty.
B. Eh what? Having money/power is by far no guarantee of not wanting more. The opposite is common enough to have their own expressions (like power corrupts.The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.).
C. The Republicans screamed fire enough to get it to stick there, despite Biden saying what the US agrees on? I mean, short version, she stored non-classified work mails on a private server at home server when she worked as a Secretary of State, with an increased risk of that being hacked.
It's pretty obvious that the only purpose of the Benghazi committee is to try to get dirt on the Obama administration and Hillary in particular.

[CrossLOPER]

he's not gonna be swayed by big business; dude doesn't need more money
You honestly believe this? You honestly believe that money shields you from money? That's like saying that being on fire shields you from fire because more fire can't get on you.

[Greyblades]

Money always shields from money? No. Can? Yes.

Trump's not gonna be swayed by any sum lower than several hundred million and as samaritan said "What is the difference between 1 and 5bn? What can't you buy for 1bn?"
I also take Trump's ego into account as I believe that most everything will boil down to trump saying "I want to do this and I don't have a particular need for more money so I'm gonna do it. Halliburton/JPMorgan/Exxon/whatever big company who objects can suck it." Which would be a big improvement over the last few presidents.

Oh I dont disagree that Clinton wouldnt be in the hands of big business. I just dont think that Trump is immune. Rather, he would be in the hands of his own businesses so suit his interests once he gets out.
Maybe, perhaps even probably but I don't see him reneging or delaying a campaign promise due to outside pressure like Obama has or bending over backwards for big buisness like bush. His platform might not be all that nice to contemplate but I do believe that he will follow through on most if not all of his promises, a belief that I cant remember ever holding about any other major politician.


As bad as being investigated and possibly charged for illegal business practices that cheated thousands of people out of money in a scam I would say.

Besides, I think the whole email scandal is making mountains out of molehills. Nothing illegal was done from what Ive read. Poor judgement, yes. Compromising national security? Possibly. Was anything actually compromised? That's still being determined, but from what I have read, there is no evidence that it was. Well the illegality of Clinton's operations isn't what I'm most interested in it's the incompetence she showed, in a time of cyber warfare a candidate for the presidency of the united states should not be so deficient in the area of cyber security as to give sensitive information to such a ramshackle IT company.

Basically it does not give me confidence in her competency.


I disagree. You are, to a degree, responsible for the actions you influence. And while you might not consider the racist things that he said about Hispanic immigrants important, it sure is for a lot of others, especially considering that Hispanics make up a rather large section of the US. I'm not entirely convinced that he so much racist against Hispanics as he is paranoid against first generation Mexican immigrants, regardless of that distinction I do not think it is a significant factor in determining his competence; I really don't think he will act specifically against the interests of native Hispanics or anyone who arrived before 2010.

[Hooahguy]

I'm not entirely convinced that he so much racist against Hispanics as he is paranoid against first generation Mexican immigrants, regardless of that distinction I do not think it is a significant factor in determining his competence.
I gotta run to class so I cant do a full response but I will ask you this: if someone called Jewish immigrants thieves coming to take money away from non-Jews, would that not be antisemitism?

The President is the face of the nation in international affairs. Would you really want Trump representing the US? What if he has to meet with the leaders of Central and South America? I will wager that he wont be regarded kindly.

[Husar]

The President is the face of the nation in international affairs. Would you really want Trump representing the US?

Greyblades is British, be careful. :laugh4:

[AE Bravo]

I can't believe this idiot is still running.

This idiot grew up in NY in the 80s, his corruption is practically in Sammy the Bull's book from what I hear too. You know somewhere down the line this guy was in bed with the mafia, how many family businesses has this real snake agent stiffed? Feds probably have their files and as soon as this guy moves up EEEeeeehrhrrrr where the $$ at Trump. In b4 cops go super-saiyan under this clown.

Get this crook out of here. Calling people who crossed the border thieves when his wives had to do nasty things to get citizenship.

[Veho Nex]

I know where trump stands. Hillary scares me because if she takes power she doesn't strike me as the person to give it up. If she won a second term at the end she'd campaign for President4Lyfe.

I want Sanders to win. I stand by the majority of what he stands for and if enough people feel that way he may win.




Anyone but Clinton and I mean that.

[Hooahguy]

Hillary scares me because if she takes power she doesn't strike me as the person to give it up. If she won a second term at the end she'd campaign for President4Lyfe.

Lolwut? :dizzy2:

You do realize that the crazies on the far right are saying the same thing about Obama right? How January 2017 will roll around and he will refuse to give up office?

[Veho Nex]

I consider myself to be pretty centrally located between the left and right. Hillary just looks like a greasy corrupt politician who actually would try to buy her way into president for life. The crazies on the right are just that. I remember people on the far left worried about GWB running for life, going to school in SF at the time I heard all sorts of stupid crap.

Hillary would America's metaphorical Nero IMO.

[Montmorency]

More like America's (female) Gerald Ford, if anything.

[Hooahguy]

Sounds like a bunch of silly paranoia to me.

[rvg]

...If she won a second term at the end she'd campaign for President4Lyfe.

This ain't Russia, pal. This kind of stuff doesn't fly here in the States.

As for Bernie, if that moron gets the Dem nomination, that just means that a republican, any republican will be our next prez. Yes, even Trump.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know where trump stands. Hillary scares me because if she takes power she doesn't strike me as the person to give it up. If she won a second term at the end she'd campaign for President4Lyfe.

---- Because you have not even read the 22nd Amendment.

[Montmorency]

To be honest, I wouldn't myself recommend that anyone read the 22nd Amendment.

:daisy: that noise. :creep:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lol, its not even 500 words.

[Montmorency]

If I were elected President, I would declare that, on penalty of summary execution, no one perform an electronic or automated search for any "22nd Amendment" in any source, and that wherever lists or descriptions of amendments are given, that no space beyond the 21st Amendment or immediately prior to the 23rd Amendment be glimpsed. Avert your eyes or pay the price.

Then, when I run for a 3rd term and the whining begins, I'll say, well, can you prove that there is any such amendment to the Constitution prohibiting a 3rd term?

"The 22nd Amendment."

I sure don't see any such Amendment listed anywhere.

"But it's right h-BLAM"

You all know the policy forbidding the gathering of sensory information on any concrete or abstract space between the 21st Amendment and the 23rd Amendment.

"Thousands of diverse sources across decades reference it or even describe it at length. In fact, here's a -"

Making secondary claims about constitutional amendments that could be construed to constitute a 22nd constitutional amendment is, while not a capital offense, still quite serious. *motions to SS agents*

"Well, I'm sad to see two of my colleagues go, but nevertheless, I distinctly recall there being a 22nd Amendment, and that there was a general consciousness of there being such an amendment to the effect that -"

It's all a :daisy: hoax, you fools, a goddamn fairy tale! Things have always been this way, get it through your thick skulls!

Now that we have confirmed the absence of any empirical evidence toward my ineligibility to run for a third term, I will assume the office of President for my third term, effective immediately.

Further, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society, which I assure you will last for ten thousand years. An Empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body and a sovereign ruler chosen for life. An Empire ruled by the majority, ruled by a new constitution!

:sneaky:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Palpatine is behind it all!

[Sarmatian]

As for Bernie, if that moron gets the Dem nomination, that just means that a republican, any republican will be our next prez. Yes, even Trump.

Sanders is the only guy who actually makes sense. He doesn't speak in political double talk and doesn't play to nation's basest fears or prejudices. Everybody else, just a rehash.

I do understand that in America left-right spectrum is totally different, but in the rest of the world, Sanders is your normal, moderate, everyday, run-of-the-mill, center left guy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If Sanders gets elected, he will tax away the money I need to pay for my extremely expensive health care, and for the EZ-Pass I use for the extremely expensive toll roads, and for the extremely expensive rent that my slumlord keeps raising and for the extremely expensive student debt I pay 9% interest on. This socialist will rob me of my wealth!

[Gilrandir]

Palpatine is behind it all!

PalPutin?

[Fisherking]

Don't care.

There is no one running for this office I would trust not to eat a sack lunch I have left with them but someone thinks they should run a country?

[rvg]

I do understand that in America left-right spectrum is totally different, but in the rest of the world, Sanders is your normal, moderate, everyday, run-of-the-mill, center left guy.

Yeah, but he's not running for president of "the rest of the world", so to hell with him. He's just another left wing pinko demagogue who is very focused on stripping the wealth of the top 1 percent instead of focusing on increasing the wealth of the remaining 99.

[Husar]

Yeah, but he's not running for president of "the rest of the world", so to hell with him. He's just another left wing pinko demagogue who is very focused on stripping the wealth of the top 1 percent instead of focusing on increasing the wealth of the remaining 99.

Given that wealth is relative, how can you do one without the other?
By increasing the size of the planet and its resources?

On second thought, the answer is free for all since IIRC rvg has me on ignore...

[Hooahguy]

Yeah, but he's not running for president of "the rest of the world", so to hell with him. He's just another left wing pinko demagogue who is very focused on stripping the wealth of the top 1 percent instead of focusing on increasing the wealth of the remaining 99.
Well I suppose if you buy into the idea that the president of the US is the leader of the free world, then I guess he is kinda running for the president of "the rest of the world."

And your comment reminds me of someone who only hears the "tax the wealthy more" part of his plan and ignores the rest of his plan to help the middle and lower classes.

[Veho Nex]

That dirty Socialist is going to tax these righteous citizens that make more money each minute than I and mine will see in our life times. Dirty hippy is then going to give out free college edumatcations like ma chilluns need that. I and mine are going to McDonalds to use our god given food stamps. BYE

On a side note: Same people who believe "Trickle down economics" actually works. Who the hell builds a house from the roof down. No one. You put money into the lower and middle class to build the economy. Not hoard it in the upper classes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I watched the debate, it was meh.

[Tuuvi]

That dirty Socialist is going to tax these righteous citizens that make more money each minute than I and mine will see in our life times. Dirty hippy is then going to give out free college edumatcations like ma chilluns need that. I and mine are going to McDonalds to use our god given food stamps. BYE

On a side note: Same people who believe "Trickle down economics" actually works. Who the hell builds a house from the roof down. No one. You put money into the lower and middle class to build the economy. Not hoard it in the upper classes.

I think trickle down economics is equivalent to feeding scraps to the dog underneath the dinner table.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lincoln Chaffee was so embarrassing, they should just exile him from the party on principle. I will vote for Jim Webb because I would rather have the NSA wasting its time tracking down the man who threw a grenade at President Webb 30 years ago then looking at my porn habits.

[Hooahguy]

So Webb, continuing his theme of complaining about how he didnt get enough time, decided to drop out of the Democratic race but Im not entirely sure if hes dropping out of the race altogether.

And Biden says hes not going to run which basically seals the nomination for Hillary.

Meanwhile Carson said that he has the power of God behind his campaign. I wonder what thats like.

[HopAlongBunny]

In other news: Canada went all "hopey-changy" on Monday:

http://wonkette.com/595110/lets-gay-marry-canadas-hot-new-prime-minister-and-let-him-try-to-get-us-pregnant

Prime Minister is apparently a dynastic position now :)

[Papewaio]

Meanwhile Carson said that he has the power of God behind his campaign. I wonder what thats like.

So if he fails does that mean he isn't a good disciple or that there isn't a god?

Is he shouting out "Oh Gawd! Take me now from behind! Oh Gawd!"

[Hooahguy]

Is he shouting out "Oh Gawd! Take me now from behind! Oh Gawd!"
Nah, he would have to be in prison for that to happen.

[Papewaio]

Or a frat initiation according to Dick Cheney...

[a completely inoffensive name]

In other news: Canada went all "hopey-changy" on Monday:

http://wonkette.com/595110/lets-gay-marry-canadas-hot-new-prime-minister-and-let-him-try-to-get-us-pregnant

Prime Minister is apparently a dynastic position now :)
Harper really failed this election.

[Husar]

Nah, he would have to be in prison for that to happen.

Since he is black, the chance of that happening is high though, no?

[Hooahguy]

Since he is black, the chance of that happening is high though, no?
:shrug:

What I do know though is that a rather large percentage of the African Americans Ive talked to about Carson regard him as an Uncle Tom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom#Epithet).

But my original comment about him in prison was a reference to his earlier comment about how going to prison turns you gay.

[Husar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1g1j8yq-qE

I'd vote for him.

The whole "unelectable" and "can't do anything anyway" is just propaganda to perpetuate the status quo. Even if the latter is true, voting for the status quo will only cement that fact. Therefore, either dare to vote for a change or succumb to your puppet masters.

[Hooahguy]

So in tonights CNBC Republican debate, the moderator asked Ted Cruz a very valid question about how Cruz really doesnt like compromising. Instead of answering the question, Cruz went on a rant about how the media is all liberal and biased and all of that. While I do agree that the debate was mishandled, the questions posed just highlighted how stupid the positions the candidates are taking on policy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This was the greatest debate I have ever seen. The questions were amazing, the responses were on point and vicious. If every debate was like tonight I would think I was in heaven. I have formally decided to vote for trump over Clinton.

[Montmorency]

This was the greatest debate I have ever seen. The questions were amazing, the responses were on point and vicious. If every debate was like tonight I would think I was in heaven. I have formally decided to vote for trump over Clinton.

I don't get it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't get it.
Trump is going to make America great again.

[Montmorency]

Why are moderators even present at these debates? They should be doing their jobs over intercom while seated in separate rooms.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rubio, Cruz and Christie looked strong. Jeb may just drop out of embarrassment. Trump had his moments and it is telling that the media wants to claim he was "silent" throughout most of the debate when he still was 4th out of 10 in total speaking time.

[Papewaio]

American Presidential candidates are a good advert for a Monarchy...

[Hooahguy]

Cruz might have looked strong, but it was just a smokescreen. Instead of actually answering valid questions, he just attacked the moderators and the media as a whole, thus avoiding the hard questions. Literally the definition of "pop smoke and run." And the rest of the candidates followed suit. What a :daisy:show.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cruz was strong because he said the right things. Audit the fed, remove the IRS, gold standard, blame the media. Just hand him the tea party votes.

[CrossLOPER]

remove the IRS
Alright, alright, I heard this one before. Why is this wanted? Is dismembering this agency necessary because it would be redundant? Why not just re-purpose it to just estimate taxation and send it off to citizens quarterly?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The first thing you do after removing the IRS, is to create the IRS.

[HopAlongBunny]

A nice summation of the debate. A little short, but at least it isn't 90% mocking:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/republican_national_committee_chairman_pulls_out_of_nbc_s_february_debate.html

[a completely inoffensive name]

They should cancel the next NBC debate, it was a joke how they handled it. What's funny is that CNBC is all financial free market believers, so it wasn't even liberal bias but the sheer stupidity of financial news journalists that caused the cluster:daisy:.

[Montmorency]

That doesn't get at the heart of it. Honestly, I've never seen a politician who is willing to debate at all, let alone debate well.

I have never watched a debate or speech from the past generation, but I have read some transcripts.

The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with the average politician.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That doesn't get at the heart of it. Honestly, I've never seen a politician who is willing to debate at all, let alone debate well.

I have never watched a debate or speech from the past generation, but I have read some transcripts.

The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with the average politician.

Debates were never about 'real, clear, policy discussion'. Debates have always been style over substance. The goal of a moderator is to ride the line between fluff and attack, throw the candidates off their balance and allow for moments of candor to come through.

If you want the 1960s equivalent of a debate gone out of control watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24


EDIT: I will note that perhaps in the past, all parties at least attempted to present the image of competing ideas, but really, the time period that the above debate is from was probably just as politically polarizing or even more so than today.

[Montmorency]

I wasn't talking about policy, but character.

I know it's important to empathize with how others regard candidates and evaluate their public performances in order to follow the overall process, but to me they always come off as peevish dopes who would rather be anywhere else if it weren't that they would lose face by not attending. From a purely rhetorical perspective, a 6th-grade momma joke contest would be more interesting to experience.

The content is drivel and I can't analyze the presentation much from the shoes of others, so I generally don't pay attention.

[Strike For The South]

Gore Vidal is BAE.

Also I'm casting for Trump, Hilliary shill or not. Literally nothing will change my mind. Unless Carson stabs him, then I vote Carson.

[Hooahguy]

Unless Carson stabs him, then I vote Carson.
He would have to wake up first.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why are you lurking on the org when it is Halloween?

[Hooahguy]

Oh thats a funny story, so I was at a party earlier tonight but then my friend thought he was having an allergic reaction to something so he and I took a cab to the hospital since we were all drinking. So I was hanging out on the Org while waiting for him to be released (hes fine, phantom sickness or something, a bit of a hypochondriac) and when we got back the party was over so yeah, great night!

[a completely inoffensive name]

If only you were in California, I would love to drink with another org person.

[Montmorency]

Didn't you say the only person you wanted to meet was Vuk?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Didn't you say the only person you wanted to meet was Vuk?
I changed my mind. Hooahguy has met 5 other people, so I know he won't murder me. I still want to meet Vuk, though, he seems nice, although his opinions infuriate me.

[Montmorency]

What's a little murder between friends?

[Shaka_Khan]

I'm concerned about all the candidates that are doing well in the ratings list.
After watching Sanders try to nullify Clinton's e-mail scandal and then get attacked by Clinton herself later on, I felt that he could be a naive optimist. I bet Clinton convinced Sanders that she was her new friend before the debate went on. I worry that he could get betrayed internationally, too.
I hope Clinton learned from her e-mail scandal. Although I disagree with a lot of Trump's delusional points, I agree that Clinton's e-mail scandal is a serious issue.
I find Trump to be too isolated in the boss role of his company. It disturbs me how Trump refuses to listen to anyone who questions him in a contradictory way. Would he listen to his advisors? If you have enough meetings with a boss whose acquaintances are limited to yes-men/women, then you'd know what I'm talking about. He'd be in for a rude awakening if he becomes president. Trump reminds me of a couple of former presidents of another country. One former president had too many political enemies who prevented him from getting anything done. Another former president achieved a lot internationally, but was also blocked from getting much done domestically. Come to think of it, remember when Bill Clinton (and Hillary?) tried to get health care passed? And I find Trump to be naive about the world outside his business in a different way from Sanders. And I have a hunch that he'd end up offending a huge proportion of the world. Many people who never left the US don't realize that Trump's statements are full of generalizations. The Trump supporters would be very disappointed with his leadership.
After reading Carson's statements... well, those of you who paid attention to what he said would be deeply concerned, too. I'm pretty sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye shudder at the thought of Carson.

[Hooahguy]

I felt that he could be a naive optimist.
That pretty much sums up most of the Sanders supporters Ive met. I used to be one of them but I was quickly shaken out of it when I realized that his solutions pretty much come down to :"tax the rich!" Which is not really the solution to all of our problems. A lot of the Sanders supporters Ive met are borderline delusional, saying that he can unite both parties and get stuff done to which they gotta be kidding themselves: to think that a self-proclaimed democratic socialist can get more done than Obama could is a straight up fantasy. Yeah, I like the guy, I think hes honest in a field in which most are not very honest at all. But I dont think he could really be president, much less win the general election.

[Greyblades]

At this point I've come to believe that america's best choice would be to settle for someone who will fully fund the essential public services, even if s/he has to raise taxes to do it.

[Montmorency]

America will probably manage for now regardless of who gets elected; same goes for any potential disasters further along.

America is the ruler of everything, you see:

Without looking down
Gliding around
Like a bumbling dragon it flies
Scraping its face on the sky

[Hooahguy]

So this past weekend, Ted Cruz said that "any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation." That's a weird thing for him to say because he said he doesn't want to see a gay president...

[rvg]

So this past weekend, Ted Cruz said that "any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation." That's a weird thing for him to say because he said he doesn't want to see a gay president...

Uhhh, that's a low blow :laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

That pretty much sums up most of the Sanders supporters Ive met. I used to be one of them but I was quickly shaken out of it when I realized that his solutions pretty much come down to :"tax the rich!" Which is not really the solution to all of our problems.

I've seen him on the tubes a few times and that isn't what he's saying at all.

He's the only one who has the balls to talk about what's truly wrong with America. Whether he can accomplish anything against the system is a whole other issue, though, but, if I were American, I'd want to give those in control of the system a serious wake up call at least.

[Greyblades]

So this past weekend, Ted Cruz said that "any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation." That's a weird thing for him to say because he said he doesn't want to see a gay president...

No no no. You misunderstand. Dont you see? He's decided to endorse hillary.

[Hooahguy]

I didnt say that he was wrong in his assessments. I actually think that he is spot on most of the time. I just dont think his solutions are in any way viable.

[Husar]

I didnt say that he was wrong in his assessments. I actually think that he is spot on most of the time. I just dont think his solutions are in any way viable.

They would be in the OWG unless tax evasion became possible by moving to Mars.

[Sarmatian]

I didnt say that he was wrong in his assessments. I actually think that he is spot on most of the time. I just dont think his solutions are in any way viable.

Just to be clear, do you believe them to be wrong solutions, or do you think they are good in theory but he would be unable to implement them in practice?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can't wait for today's debate. I want more crazy from Carson and more loud from Trump.

[Hooahguy]

Just to be clear, do you believe them to be wrong solutions, or do you think they are good in theory but he would be unable to implement them in practice?
Some of both. Mostly of the second. After all the promises of Obama in 2008, Im really wary of all politicians and their promises, no matter how honest they might be. And as I said before, if you think that Sanders can get more done than Obama could, you are fantasizing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even Jesus would be called a failure of a President if two years into his term, the atheist party gained large control of Congress.

[Hooahguy]

The undercard debate is pretty interesting.

Question: "Who in congress on the Democratic side do you admire most?"

Answer: "The Democrats are all terrible people."

Nice answer, Christie. Also, Hillary is coming for your wallet.

Santorum thinks he can win over the blue states. In his fantasies.

[Brenus]

"tax the rich!" Well, in UK they tax the poor, and it make the rich richer, but the debt increases. They don't wage war on poverty, they wage war on the poor.
So perhaps it is time to tax the rich, to tax companies making money in using tax payed infrastructures.

I am always amazed when Media are saying that economy is good when millions are paid under living wages, millions are under zero hours contract and millions are on temporary jobs or short term contracts (this morning, BBC, speaking of Portugal).
What a piece of luck to be homeless in rich countries, better chance to find food in the bins.
Well, that is if the owner of the bins doesn't decide to go to Court for theft, of course...

[Hooahguy]

"tax the rich!" Well, in UK they tax the poor, and it make the rich richer, but the debt increases. They don't wage war on poverty, they wage war on the poor.
So perhaps it is time to tax the rich, to tax companies making money in using tax payed infrastructures.

I am in no way saying that there shouldnt be tax hikes for the wealthy. I absolutely think they should be paying more. In 2012 Romney said that he was paying something like 12% in taxes, was it? Last year I paid a full 15% and I was in the lower end of the tax bracket. And that was after the tax return.

Im just really wary when politicians give such easy answers to big problems. Like how people are saying that overturning the Citizens United decision would solve the problems with elections, but there was dark money and corruption before the decision as well. Its going to take a lot more than just overturning that Supreme Court decision to really change things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in no way saying that there shouldnt be tax hikes for the wealthy. I absolutely think they should be paying more. In 2012 Romney said that he was paying something like 12% in taxes, was it? Last year I paid a full 15% and I was in the lower end of the tax bracket. And that was after the tax return.

Im just really wary when politicians give such easy answers to big problems. Like how people are saying that overturning the Citizens United decision would solve the problems with elections, but there was dark money and corruption before the decision as well. Its going to take a lot more than just overturning that Supreme Court decision to really change things.
You can tell the impact of the citizens united decision though. There should only be 4-5 Republican candidates max right now. There are so many that won't drop out because they all found at least one donor to bankroll travel expenses. This division of personalities is why trump and Carson are doing as well as they are. Jeb should have quit after the CNBC debate but there is too much money backing him.

[Hooahguy]

That is absolutely true. But overturning the decision wont fully solve the issue. And considering how partisan everything is now, overturning it via constitutional amendment is just not going to happen. Not with this political climate anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is absolutely true. But overturning the decision wont fully solve the issue. And considering how partisan everything is now, overturning it via constitutional amendment is just not going to happen. Not with this political climate anyway.
Eventually someone good enough at PR will introduce the idea as a conservative principle (reducing the influence of big unions) and it will catch on. The system is literally destabilizing and from a practical standpoint there will be a breaking point when the legitimacy of the institution must be saved by elimination of private donations. The only other option is a devolution towards oligarchy.

[Hooahguy]

:laugh4:

The flood of money into campaigns has enabled GOP candidates to take the majority of local, state, and even federal positions. Maybe if the tables turn in a big way the GOP will reconsider the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The democrats self defeating ideology is why they have lost local, state and federal positions. Nothing to do with money. Look at Kentucky, Democrats couldn't bother to vote against the Republican that promised to remove Obamacare coverage for 100,000+ people. Democrats have the worst strategists.

[Hooahguy]

Democrats always do better in years with a presidential elections, since more than a third of eligible voters come out to vote. Simple fact is, Republicans are just much better at mobilizing the ones who are more likely to vote, via large influxes of cash to pay for commercials and signs and all that fun stuff. When I went to vote in the latest election, 90% of the people I saw at the polls were elderly. Who tend to be more conservative anyways.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Democrats always do better in years with a presidential elections, since more than a third of eligible voters come out to vote. Simple fact is, Republicans are just much better at mobilizing the ones who are more likely to vote, via large influxes of cash to pay for commercials and signs and all that fun stuff. When I went to vote in the latest election, 90% of the people I saw at the polls were elderly. Who tend to be more conservative anyways.

No, the republicans are better not because they have the money to mobilize, but because they mobilize. The Democrats could do the same tactic if they wanted to, there is no limitation or imbalance of money between either party. Most donors give generously to both sides so they win no matter what.

What the Democrats fail to do is realize that people connect better to the issues on a local level. The Democrats are morons that want to shove every single issue they care about onto the national stage, they refuse to use acknowledge the Federalist structure of the US to their own deficit. There was no reason to push for a supreme court ruling on gay marriage when time was on their side. All that came about was a big pat on the back for being "on the right side of history" followed by massive right wing backlash and mobilization There is no reason to make gun control an issue since states that want gun control generally have it and states which don't want gun control generally don't. All that came about from gun control legislation is further alienation of swing states that like the big government programs but want to pretend that the US is still the land of the triumphant individual.

Democrats NEEDED to make health care Obama's number 1 priority despite the fact they got crushed in the 90s and they nearly got crushed again by having to pass what was essentially Romneycare AKA the Republicans 1992-1993 alternative to Hilarycare. Then once they finally got their big Federal bill passed, Democrats repeatedly fail to bother fighting for it on the state and local level by leaving millions of Americans to remain uninsured under Republican governors.


The real irony is that the Republicans who obstruct the Democrats at every turn are actually the loyal opposition that the Founders envisioned. They appealed to their constituencies and won a majority in the house along with majorities in the majority of state legislatures and are using the system the way it was intended to be used. The Democrats plan of having their voters come out only once every 4 years to sweep POTUS, the House and the Senate is a tactic that ONLY works due to the 17th Amendment. Because of the direct election of Senators, Democrats pull this bullshit of sweeping a presidental election year, passing what they want in the two years they have and then attempting to hold on after the midterm elections sweep congress back towards the Republicans. Without the 17th Amendment, Democrats would have to respect the state legislatures and it would force them to think on a local level and cater to the needs of individual communities. This is why current liberalism is lazy and ill-conceived.

[Montmorency]

Very good.

In ideological terms, would you say that the Democrats string themselves out across too many distinct issues while Republicans more or less follow a couple of narrow scripts that are relatively-easy to identify with?

My impression is that the Democrats maintain the most ideologically-diverse base in how they approach or interpret the same episodes, and further what issues they identify with most closely in the first place.

For all the talk of the GOP fragmenting, at least it has some lines to fragment along. The Democratic Party can't fragment because it's already so fragmented that the collective gravitational pull makes it difficult for any one bit of debris to escape, let alone a cohesive mass.

So I guess the paleoconservatives are correct: the Democratic Party is too Jeffersonian for its own good.

[Montmorency]

Interesting anecdote:

I was once working in some clinical research when it came time to process an interview conducted by the PI for speech samples. Here's what I took away from listening to the "free talk" portion, in which the subject chose to discuss his personal life and work.

The subject had been active in the Democratic Party in the 1960s and eventually worked as a mid-level organizer on the state-level. He left the party in the mid-70s because he "was very disappointed" in the policies the party was taking with respect to abortion. After leaving the party, he basically (aside from whatever small business ventures he discussed) spent his time doing nonpartisan community-level work to improve infrastructure, get public services to people, etc.

[Hooahguy]

Fair enough, didnt think of it that way.

A relevant article. (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble)

[Viking]

So, the first voting (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0), in Iowa, is tomorrow.

Not sure who to root for. Don't like Clinton, but also sceptical of some of Sanders' views.

[Greyblades]

So is anyone going to talk about how hillary's email scandal has become potentially indictable? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35446455)

[drone]

So is anyone going to talk about how hillary's email scandal has become potentially indictable? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35446455)

Pffft. The rules only apply to us peasants.

[Hooahguy]

So Cruz won Iowa, with Trump in second and Rubio in third. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck but Clinton will probably end up winning.

According to the early results anyways.

EDIT: The Huckster and O'Malley have dropped out of the race. Eager to see who else will drop out.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Anyone else feel like they could basically give the post-election speeches for any candidate by this point?

Seriously, it's essentially a paint-by-numbers job:
1. Thank the crowd for their warm reception
2. Thank the people of [location campaign is in]
3. Excessively positive spin on night's result. If loss, ignore it and focus on the good points, momentum, etc. If win, describe victory as decisive or something similar. Actual margin of victory irrelevant.
4. Congratulate opponent[s] on a good race. Bonus points for using "my friend" even though you just spent the past however many months trying to destroy them in the media.
4a. If conceding, say how now is the time to put faith and support behind opponent. Gently chide crowd for booing mention of opponent.
5. Launch into short version of stump speech. The broad ideas and broad positions that campaign touched on. Broad.
6. [If primary race] Say how you'll be back in however many months for the general election
7. Final round of thanks
8. [If primary race] Rallying cry to see you in next state being contested

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Cruz won Iowa, with Trump in second and Rubio in third. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck but Clinton will probably end up winning.

According to the early results anyways.

EDIT: The Huckster and O'Malley have dropped out of the race. Eager to see who else will drop out.

Should see the GOP rapidly drop to 5 or 6. Rand Paul will stay in because he's a Paul. Jeb will stay in through SC to see if he can take out Rubio in the old South. The three top votes in Iowa will stay. Christie hinges on NH performance. Carson will not drop until after SC. Rest should be out then too.

[Montmorency]

Well, looking back at the thread (almost a year?), all of us said some pretty embarrassingly-imprescient or uninformed things. For me the worst was, while I was on the right track concerning recent rule changes for GOP primaries and bound delegates, I mistakenly thought that the 400+ bonus delegates would all be unbound until the National Convention.

At any rate, given the preponderance of proportional delegates and the concentration of winner-takes-all bindings on March 15, I speculate that:

1. We are in fact down to just Rubio, Cruz, and Trump after the first shots in Iowa. No one else can realistically expect to meet the upcoming thresholds. Indeed, if Carson holds out he will only sap votes from Trump.

2. Trump's last chance for a Republican path would be March 15 (Super Tuesday). After that, he is either set (on paper), or he has to give up (on paper).

3. Depending on March 1 (Super Duper Tuesday) performances and his supporters' reactions, Trump will indeed back down - mediocre performance leads to anemia by mid-March - or he will threaten to schismatize the party with an attempted coup or an outright break (most likely in the case that he maintains consistent proportions and is in second place but 50-100 delegates behind the leader).

4. Unless it turns out that Trumpians are really resilient to setbacks, Carson promptly drops out and gets the VP nod, and Rubio and Cruz vacillate and cannibalize each other's delegates, Donald Rhetoric Duck has blown all his steam and is now a rhetorical lame duck. That's it, people, no need to give the Trump candidacy any more thought.

[Greyblades]

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xtf1/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e35/12353347_1660454257567831_1958711236_n.jpg

[Shaka_Khan]

I wonder what will happen to Trump if he loses? He made a lot of enemies during his campaign.

[Greyblades]

I somewhat doubt we'll find him face down in a ditch, if that's what you mean.

[Shaka_Khan]

Haha! I didn't think of that until you mentioned it. I was thinking more in terms of mainstream media coverage and business relationships.

[Papewaio]

I somewhat doubt we'll find him face down in a ditch, if that's what you mean.

IRS Audits is how they get whittled down to size...

[Idaho]

So with Trump is it a case of the media getting carried away withe their own news narrative - rather than what the majority of sane people would actually vote for?

[Greyblades]

Actually my understanding is that Idaho is a largely evangelical state and for cruz, being the evangelical candidate, it was his to lose.

[Idaho]

What about Iowa?

[Greyblades]

Iowa, Idaho, whats the difference!?

Yeah, typo. whoops.

[Sarmatian]

Bernie's winning this. The reason?

The Big Short.

[Hooahguy]

Lol no hes not, the GOP is purposely not attacking him because they know how easily they will beat him in the general election. All they gotta bring up is the fact that he visited the USSR on his honeymoon, sympathized with communists in his early days, and apparently there are reports that he even had hung a Soviet flag in his office when he was mayor or something. Dont know if the last one is true but it doesnt matter because it makes a great attack ad. Theres even rumors that the GOP is helping Bernie defend himself against Hillary. It will be so easy for the GOP to paint the country red in November should he win the nomination. Especially since his main group of supporters are college age kids who are notorious for not showing up on election day.

Also did anyone catch Rubio's hilariously bad debate performance? Sounded very robotic. Some are even saying he torpedoed his chances of getting New Hampshire. Seems like when he got attacked by Christie he froze.

And what was with Carsons entrance? :laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

Lol no hes not, the GOP is purposely not attacking him because they know how easily they will beat him in the general election.

Why are you so sure?

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.

Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.

[Husar]

Why are you so sure?

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.

Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.

I wish it were so and I'd definitely vote for him if I could, but I suppose Hillary is going to get the democratic nomination because we can't have actual change and noone really wants that.
The only thing that really matters in politics is that trickle up never changes.

[Sarmatian]

Win or lose, Sanders has shown that young people especially want a significant change and that they are tired with the two factions of the "Business party" battling it out.

[Husar]

Win or lose, Sanders has shown that young people especially want a significant change and that they are tired with the two factions of the "Business party" battling it out.

You can count me among them.

[Hooahguy]

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.
His base is mostly independent white people who are also young. Ive been to a Bernie rally, and that was the vast majority of people there. Hardly a real base. A true base wouldnt say "if Bernie doesnt get the nomination then Im not going to vote" they say "well she isnt ideal but we risk losing everything if we dont turn out for Hillary." Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!" They dont actually care about left-wing values, they just orbit around Planet Bernie. In my honest opinion they are walking into a GOP trap. By purposely not really attacking Bernie, the GOP is giving Sanders a false sense of security that he can actually win. Then they pounce and he will get wrecked since he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that are ripe to see sunlight. At least Hillary has been weathering their attacks for decades, she knows how to handle it. Im not convinced that Bernie does. He just goes back to the tired trope that anyone who opposes him is obviously in the hands of the banks and whatnot, seemingly not understanding that a large portion of the country are outright opposed to him ideologically. There will be no "revolution" that sweeps the country as Bernie envisions, putting in congressmen who agree with Bernie because there are simply too many people who dont agree with him on a fundamental level.


Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.
The youth vote is notoriously unreliable. Not saying they should be discounted but you cant rely on them.


I wish it were so and I'd definitely vote for him if I could, but I suppose Hillary is going to get the democratic nomination because we can't have actual change and noone really wants that.
The only thing that really matters in politics is that trickle up never changes.
You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

[Sarmatian]

His base is mostly independent white people who are also young. Ive been to a Bernie rally, and that was the vast majority of people there. Hardly a real base. A true base wouldnt say "if Bernie doesnt get the nomination then Im not going to vote" they say "well she isnt ideal but we risk losing everything if we dont turn out for Hillary."

That just means that Bernie is reaching out to those who don't vote in the elections in general. They see Hillary as "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".


Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!" They dont actually care about left-wing values, they just orbit around Planet Bernie. In my honest opinion they are walking into a GOP trap.

The Big Short joke aside, I still believe Clinton will win the nomination. But, if Sanders wins, I wouldn't discount him so easily. He is experienced and he knows what he is up against as he's been fighting them for a very long time.


By purposely not really attacking Bernie, the GOP is giving Sanders a false sense of security that he can actually win. Then they pounce and he will get wrecked since he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that are ripe to see sunlight. At least Hillary has been weathering their attacks for decades, she knows how to handle it. Im not convinced that Bernie does.

I don't really think Sanders isn't aware of possible avenues of attack.


He just goes back to the tired trope that anyone who opposes him is obviously in the hands of the banks and whatnot, seemingly not understanding that a large portion of the country are outright opposed to him ideologically. There will be no "revolution" that sweeps the country as Bernie envisions, putting in congressmen who agree with Bernie because there are simply too many people who dont agree with him on a fundamental level.

Possibly.


The youth vote is notoriously unreliable. Not saying they should be discounted but you cant rely on them.


They are also very powerful when energized. That's how Milosevic lost the elections. In the first round no less, because the young went out to vote. Even if Sanders loses, he has shown just how disgruntled the young people in America are, and that they want real change. They don't care who's in charge of the system, they want to change the system. What happens when a younger, charismatic politician start doing the same in 4, 8, 12 or 16 years.


You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

Actually, I'm seeing Clinton as same old, same old. Sanders is the first one who is calling the system rigged.

[Hooahguy]

That just means that Bernie is reaching out to those who don't vote in the elections in general. They see Hillary as "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
So he is appealing to people who have no actual grasp of how politics work. Gotcha.


But, if Sanders wins, I wouldn't discount him so easily. He is experienced and he knows what he is up against as he's been fighting them for a very long time.
Hardly. If they managed to turn Kerry, who is a legit war hero, into a lying coward in 2004, imagine what they will do to Bernie.


I don't really think Sanders isn't aware of possible avenues of attack.
Maybe, but are his supporters?


They are also very powerful when energized. That's how Milosevic lost the elections. In the first round no less, because the young went out to vote. Even if Sanders loses, he has shown just how disgruntled the young people in America are, and that they want real change. They don't care who's in charge of the system, they want to change the system. What happens when a younger, charismatic politician start doing the same in 4, 8, 12 or 16 years.
So it would be a repeat of 2008? Not really the same conditions now as it was in 2008.


Actually, I'm seeing Clinton as same old, same old. Sanders is the first one who is calling the system rigged.
Ok. :laugh4:

Hes hardly the first, and wont be the last. Again, with Clinton I'm seeing a continuation of Obama. With Sanders I see someone who wants to change the whole system. Looking at things realistically, who do you think has more of a chance of effecting change? I want change, I really do. I would love to see Bernie's ideas put into action. I just do not think that the US is ready for those changes and trying to move too quickly risks losing all the progress that has been made over the past eight years.

[Husar]

You do realize that Sanders and Clinton match up rather closely when it comes to issues right? Their main difference is that Bernie wants to tear everything down and build from scratch while Hillary wants to build on what Obama has done so far.

Yes, the difference is that Hillary wants to continue on the path of working with the system, which means continuing to have tax loopholes, tax exemptions and other niceties that rich people can easily get and poor people can't. While Bernie thinks that continuing down this path is not really going to change anything other than details. I had good hopes with Obama, but as we have seen hope and change meant changing some details and leaving the core problem (trickle up) intact. I'm not saying that Hillary or Obama did not improve some things, I'm just wondering whether that is enough. It's very possible that Bernie couldn't change much more, but that doesn't change that I think he has a point and I'd still vote for him just to make that point instead of always going for the tired "electability compromise" that just perpetuates the basic problems.

[Hooahguy]

I agree that much more change is needed, but considering how split the country is, its better to go with the option of making gradual change to sow the seeds of bigger change later on. Too many people voted in Obama expecting things to change overnight and got burned. There is no reason why Sanders will be any different.

[Montmorency]

Sanders, if nominated, would be caught flat-footed in trying to elaborate a plank to a wider population than his current "base"; the Republican core are talking about entirely different things, so he would have to expand his own plank, reorient the parameters of the Republican debate to his own ground, and then throttle them left and right, pun intended.

A Sanders nomination would only have a chance against a Trump nomination - but this is 2016, not 1936 or sommit

[Sarmatian]

So he is appealing to people who have no actual grasp of how politics work. Gotcha.

Why do you assume people who don't vote have no grasp of politics? Does that mean that those who vote do have a grasp? How many votes would Trump get if nominated?

People can have a good grasp of politics, and precisely because of that, they can be disillusioned and refuse to cast their votes, because they feel there's no real choice.


Hardly. If they managed to turn Kerry, who is a legit war hero, into a lying coward in 2004, imagine what they will do to Bernie.
IIRC, Kerry won more votes than Bush.


Maybe, but are his supporters?

Well, the main line of attack against him by the GOP is basically the reason why his supporters have chosen him. And he appears to be gaining support not so much by cutting into Hilary's base, but by getting new voters.

I feel he'll prove much more resilient than many expect. Yes, in the end, he'll probably lose the nomination to Clinton, but she will have to put all her effort into it.


So it would be a repeat of 2008? Not really the same conditions now as it was in 2008.

Arguably, they are worse.


Ok. :laugh4:

Hes hardly the first, and wont be the last.

I haven't heard any other candidate refer to themselves as socialists. Maybe really far back.


Again, with Clinton I'm seeing a continuation of Obama. With Sanders I see someone who wants to change the whole system.

Even if we assume that Clinton isn't in the pockets of Wall Street and big corporations, surely, at this point, you must see that system is the reason Obama failed.


Looking at things realistically, who do you think has more of a chance of effecting change? I want change, I really do. I would love to see Bernie's ideas put into action. I just do not think that the US is ready for those changes and trying to move too quickly risks losing all the progress that has been made over the past eight years.

To change the system you have to fight against it, not work with it. That is the main difference between Hillary and Bernie in my view.
He may fail, but if I were American, I certainly wouldn't let the fear of failure stop me from trying.