US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by james0246

Rubio, Kasich and Cruz had good nights. Hell, Trump had a good night as well. Jeb! was awful though. The rest were pretty hit or miss, and new front runner Carson just kind of floated along meandering his way through everything (how is such a non descript ineffectual person a front runner for the nomination? ).

If i never see another Bush run for office it will be a good thing. Though I say the same about a Clinton. I dont want to see families ruling over this country over generations. Not what this country was set up for. Nor how it was suppose to be run. I am disappointed in Carson. He needed to have more fire in his belly. He is too nice and too just there to be President. I had hopes for him.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Well how about the rest of the world? We can't vote, but we still have to suffer your decision to burn the world down?

You have any idea how frightened we are about having insane politicians with nuiclear weapons?

I'm not. I'm curious. I kinda want to see what will happen.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If i never see another Bush run for office it will be a good thing. Though I say the same about a Clinton. I dont want to see families ruling over this country over generations.

I would HOPE that regardless of one's political beliefs we can at least come together and agree on this point. Unfortunately, it seems like some people consider this to be a non-issue.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm not. I'm curious. I kinda want to see what will happen.

Nothing too exciting, I'm afraid. The GOP candidates are either cynical opportunists or people with genuine but misguided ideals. I don't see the antichrist on these debate stages, nor do I see the harbinger of WWIII. It would seem to me that if one is sitting on the edge of their seat squirming with worry over the prospect of a republican president, they might consider that they are suffering from delusional paranoia.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I would HOPE that regardless of one's political beliefs we can at least come together and agree on this point. Unfortunately, it seems like some people consider this to be a non-issue.



Nothing too exciting, I'm afraid. The GOP candidates are either cynical opportunists or people with genuine but misguided ideals. I don't see the antichrist on these debate stages, nor do I see the harbinger of WWIII. It would seem to me that if one is sitting on the edge of their seat squirming with worry over the prospect of a republican president, they might consider that they are suffering from delusional paranoia.

Neither party has a monopoly on crazy paranoia people. Sometimes I wonder how people manage to leave their homes.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Solace

Do you really listen to yourself? What you're advocating is that I should vote for the person who will kill me slowly versus the person who will do it quickly. Have you actually looked at these candidates, or the political climate across the country, or are you just looking at D vs R, and making sweeping general statements you have no clue about?

My hope is that Sanders is elected and that he uses that energy to make people have actual debates about the future and shake them out of their apathy and cynicism. It's already happening in some ways, but if he wins the nomination it absolutely will change the course of the country.

But if Hillary is elected, the course of the country isn't going to change. The only difference between electing her and electing a Republican is the speed of which that course is taken. So no, I have zero interest in voting for someone who has a long history of being a closet Republican, who has a long history of flip flopping whenever it suited her career, who has a reputation for being tied too closely to Wall Street and Defense.

So yeah, if we're going down that road, I'd rather rip the band-aid off and get the pain over with.

This is part of what I've been trying to point out and what Vallen doesn't get is that no matter who among the candidates gets elected none of them have the wherewithal or means of actually effecting meaningful change, because the underlying problems are much deeper and affect many different aspects of the sociopolitical spectrum in the US than any individual candidate would be capable of acting alone. At a minimum something like the New Deal is necessary for a constructive way out of the current morass, but I think that it may be too little, too late by the time the public at large either realizes or acts.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Nothing too exciting, I'm afraid. The GOP candidates are either cynical opportunists or people with genuine but misguided ideals. I don't see the antichrist on these debate stages, nor do I see the harbinger of WWIII. It would seem to me that if one is sitting on the edge of their seat squirming with worry over the prospect of a republican president, they might consider that they are suffering from delusional paranoia.

i worry about having a republican president NOT because i think whoever it is would start ww3. What i am squriming about would the long term effect of having a ted cruz appoint 1 or 2 supreme court justices.

[Anh_Minh]

What are you afraid of? Becoming a theocracy?

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i worry about having a republican president NOT because i think whoever it is would start ww3. What i am squriming about would the long term effect of having a ted cruz appoint 1 or 2 supreme court justices.

I worry the same thing from the other side. I dont want to see more leftist judges myself.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

there is a difference between the Clintons and the current Republican party. Your statement about letting it all burn your guy didn't win reminds me of the tea party about how they are purging their party of anyone suspected of being a rino.

No, there really isn't. I'm not being a leftist purist, looking to purge the party of unbelievers. Hillary is deeply tied to the same powers that heavily influence the republican party. Her political career has generally been center-right, moderate a best, and rarely left. She'll govern as someone a bit more to the right than Obama was.

I want to vote for someone who represents my lefty leanings. Sanders would do that, Hillary would not. If I have to choose between her and a Republican, why not just vote for a Republican? At least they're honest about how badly they want to screw you over. Their last debate should have made that painfully obvious.

[risingstar3110]

Is it just me, or at this rate, Hillary's slogan will be "Hillary: better me than the GOP"?


Meanwhile:

[aldw]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Is it just me, or at this rate, Hillary's slogan will be "Hillary: better me than the GOP"?


Meanwhile:

Both Clintons have been been aping the GOP line with a Democrat label even back to the first Clinton administration, so that's not a surprise. If Bernie Sanders pushes for improved public health care provision (universal health care) then he's got my support.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Have you seen this video or heard about what is being discussed in the video? It's short, so give it a watch. Please do not vote for Hilary, and please don't pretend it's a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" choice. She is just like Jeb Bush and all the other establishment politicians.

I withheld my natural skepticism of Youtube Politics (tm) and actually read the stupid blog. It had some interesting points, namely that Bill Clinton sold out the Left to win. It missed another key point, namely that his doing so allowed the Democrats to retake the U.S. government from the Republican Party while remaining, for the most part, moderate.

It also did not understand the Clintons' convictions. Not that they are particularly ideologically convinced, quite the opposite, but they are very driven people in other ways. Naturally "powerful" people, albeit in different ways.

Here's what's what: the Clintons are two things -- chameleon politicians, and technocrats. They believe they are smart. They think they can do good in the world. They talk to Very Smart People in think tanks and consultancies with names like McKinseys and Center for American Progress and universities and large foundations and, yes, lobbyists. They build their actual policy plans around that, and then play dirty politics and make compromises, electoral or congressional, to, as they see it, get things done. They don't listen to the People very well, or at least, that's Hillary. She's badass one or one, it's obvious with the Benghazi farce. But she's not very good at the populism thing. Bill's an extraordinary populist without having to concede to populist impulses. Clever bastard.

The problem is that Very Smart People in think tanks, foundations, universities, and advisor circles in Washington D.C. are deeply influenced by the media narratives and larger populist trends however much they pretend they aren't. They are also very heavily affected by "conventional wisdom," and fuck up despite thinking themselves superior to the rest of the American people.

Sounds bad? Well, actually, they also achieve a lot of good things. Very Smart People understand that certain policies are really good for real people and propose it to anyone who would listen, and the Clintons listen. Bernie may. Ben Carson does not. Very Smart People influence uptakes on climate change policies. Very Smart People achieve things like Colorado's dramatic success in birth control policies (it has to do with "a friend" helping funding startups and research into IUDs, effective privacy policies, economies of scale, and near-universal buy-in from the medical community because they also have a lot of Very Smart People). At least, until the program is about to shut down courtesy of the local Fuck The Women Party, which, again, is why I consider attitudes of "let it all burn" to be REALLY FUCKING SELFISH, GUYS.

Bottom line: The Very Smart People are far, far better than the other alternative in Washington right now: the racist, sexist, nativist, overtly religious populism of the Republican Party. Ted Cruz isn't a technocrat. He's prepared to crash the world economy and bring untold sufferings (incidentally, so does our Solace, apparently) to preserve his ideological purity, an ideology which happens to have its own built-in hypocrisies. Very Smart People do not do that shit. That is a very, very real difference that affects very real people who are often in worse positions in life than you and I.

We have a responsibility as citizens in a democracy. Please do not fuck shit up. Build a movement. Rally behind Sanders. Feel the Bern. Change the world. I bless you all the way and may even join you in the march. Bernie's already doing great changing the narrative, and increasingly Very Smart People with views similar to his will finally have the opportunity to get their thinking through to the Clintons of the world. But if Bernie Sanders cannot save the world, be prepared to do the right thing. You owe it to teenage girls in Colorado, to black people in Ferguson, to gay people who still have rights to fight for, to people like me who still wish for an America that is not ruled by people who say things like "we are a Christian nation" and then do things that are the opposite of good.

You owe it to the world as well because climate change is really going to hurt us and we need the Very Smart People to have all the backing in the world to "move the dial." Now. Clinton and Sanders both will give that backing. The Republicans will not. I exaggerate slightly, but we may have the save the world first, here.

Originally Posted by aldw

This is part of what I've been trying to point out and what Vallen doesn't get is that no matter who among the candidates gets elected none of them have the wherewithal or means of actually effecting meaningful change, because the underlying problems are much deeper and affect many different aspects of the sociopolitical spectrum in the US than any individual candidate would be capable of acting alone. At a minimum something like the New Deal is necessary for a constructive way out of the current morass, but I think that it may be too little, too late by the time the public at large either realizes or acts.

And you are wrong on that, because Vallen is an Australian, The U.S. president is very limited domestically especially in circumstances faced by our dear President Obama, yes. However, with regards to foreign policies, they set the agenda. They sign things that look like treaties but are technically not, and send entire combat armies into "commitments" that look remarkably like war but are technically not. They talk to heads of states and make promises which are generally kept with or without Congress' agreement. They have huuuuge leeway. They lead. They also react to world developments that have nothing to do with elections at home.

We have first hand experience with how much a stupid and belligerent American president can really fuck the world up. We are still dealing with the aftereffects of Bush's adventures. Vallen doesn't give a shit about American domestic policies (or he might, but at a far lesser degree than us). He rightfully worries for his country, his region and, more or less, the stability of the world.

Trump may not start WW3, but he can very well destroy the entente with Iran, break a few alliances, torture a few thousand people, crash global climate treaties, renew anti-American sentiment worldwide, lay a few seeds of evil, cause a million or two of distant and unimportant brown people to die. He can, because Bush did all of these, and more.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I withheld my natural skepticism of Youtube Politics (tm) and actually read the stupid blog.

What was stupid about it? Do you consider Elizabeth Warren to be a stupid person, or are her views as expressed in the video stupid? Is pointing out that Hilary is a lying phony stupid because you think she's not as bad as the other guy? What makes these things stupid?

I might respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.

[risingstar3110]

Frankly it bugged me a lot when Hillary crowd (may sound like it, but don't mean you specifically, Irenicus) already tried to guilt-trip other Democrats into voting for Hillary, in case she won't get enough support after winning nomination.

In fact, frankly, the Democrat Party will totally deserve to lose in that case. What with limiting the number of debates (which is objected by all candidates but Hillary) that limit Democratic candidates exposures to the public. In addition, the media blackout over other candidates as they spend 90% of the time on either Trumps or Hillary's email coverage. And then changed the debate rule to keep Larry Lessig out (who could have added another additional voice to the Democratic party campaign).


That's why yes, if the DNC and part of the Democratic establishment (including Hillary herself) wanted Hillary's nomination at the cost of the party. Then they should prepare to see their plan backfire with the low turnout in 2016 Election

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Bottom line: The Very Smart People are far, far better than the other alternative in Washington right now: the racist, sexist, nativist, overtly religious populism of the Republican Party. Ted Cruz isn't a technocrat. He's prepared to crash the world economy and bring untold sufferings (incidentally, so does our Solace, apparently) to preserve his ideological purity, an ideology which happens to have its own built-in hypocrisies. Very Smart People do not do that shit. That is a very, very real difference that affects very real people who are often in worse positions in life than you and I.

Ted Cruz is absolutely part of that "think tank" group. What, you think it's only for "progressives"? Conservative think tanks and "Very Smart People" are a bedrock of Republican politics. Or do you think that those "lower taxes are great!" and "privatize everything!" talking points are pulled from their ass?

We always talk about the Koch brothers, ALEC, and Fox News. These things don't exist in a vacuum. The reason the GOP controls a majority of the country is because they've worked really hard at it for decades. Those think tanks and very smart people have paid off hugely for the GOP, and in turn, the people behind the money that has funded them.

Third Way politics is a failure. It always has been. Well, it did make a lot of "progressives" extremely rich. So there's that. But in terms of being a better option than the GOP? No, it's a failure.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

And you are wrong on that, because Vallen is an Australian, The U.S. president is very limited domestically especially in circumstances faced by our dear President Obama, yes. However, with regards to foreign policies, they set the agenda. They sign things that look like treaties but are technically not, and send entire combat armies into "commitments" that look remarkably like war but are technically not. They talk to heads of states and make promises which are generally kept with or without Congress' agreement. They have huuuuge leeway. They lead. They also react to world developments that have nothing to do with elections at home.

We have first hand experience with how much a stupid and belligerent American president can really fuck the world up. We are still dealing with the aftereffects of Bush's adventures. Vallen doesn't give a shit about American domestic policies (or he might, but at a far lesser degree than us). He rightfully worries for his country, his region and, more or less, the stability of the world.

Trump may not start WW3, but he can very well destroy the entente with Iran, break a few alliances, torture a few thousand people, crash global climate treaties, renew anti-American sentiment worldwide, lay a few seeds of evil, cause a million or two of distant and unimportant brown people to die. He can, because Bush did all of these, and more.

WRT Iraq it was Cheney who pushed for military action against Iraq from the get go, Bush Jr went along with it as a matter of political expediency for himself, and that same decision was supported by Hillary whereas Obama opposed it (which I do give him credit for). That's why at the heart of the matter Hillary would just continue on Bush policies for the most part irrespective of her campaign rhetoric at a minimum.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by aldw

WRT Iraq it was Cheney who pushed for military action against Iraq from the get go, Bush Jr went along with it as a matter of political expediency for himself, and that same decision was supported by Hillary whereas Obama opposed it (which I do give him credit for). That's why at the heart of the matter Hillary would just continue on Bush policies for the most part irrespective of her campaign rhetoric at a minimum.

really you guy are just go hold that one vote against her forever?

let me put his one here:

Bernie Sanders vote for Shield Liability law for the gun manufactures therefore Sander is nothing more then a NRA stooge.

holding one single vote against either candidate is stupid especially since it is over a decade.

If you don't like Hillary just state you don't like her. No need to try to cover yourself with a fig leaf like the Iraq war vote.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

really you guy are just go hold that one vote against her forever?

let me put his one here:

Bernie Sanders vote for Shield Liability law for the gun manufactures therefore Sander is nothing more then a NRA stooge.

holding one single vote against either candidate is stupid especially since it is over a decade.

If you don't like Hillary just state you don't like her. No need to try to cover yourself with a fig leaf like the Iraq war vote.

I don't consider Bernie Sanders vote to be unreasonable if one holds gun manufacturers to the same accountability levels of other manufacturers, such as one can't sue a car company for a car made by them used in a crime (otherwise Ford would have gone out of business in the 1930's).

[SeijiSensei]

The Senate vote for the Iraq War was 77-23. Clinton's vote was hardly decisive. Yes, I would prefer that she had not cast that vote, and yes, she stands to my right on most defense issues. Would I vote for any of the Republicans over Clinton next November? Of course not. The last thing we need is for Justice Ginsberg to be replaced by someone like her fellow opera-lover, Antonin Scalia. That would make Roberts the decisive ("median") Justice, not Kennedy. He's no liberal either, but he's more open-minded than Scalia or Alito.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by aldw

I don't consider Bernie Sanders vote to be unreasonable if one holds gun manufacturers to the same accountability levels of other manufacturers, such as one can't sue a car company for a car made by them used in a crime (otherwise Ford would have gone out of business in the 1930's).

So much this.