2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

23-04-2015 6:08pm

Amerika wrote: »

If it comes down to Jeb and Hillary as the two choices, we might just see a third party contender actually get a real shot at becoming POTUS. Perhaps Rand Paul running as a Libertarian or Independent.

You believe that a Libertarian 3rd-party candidate could win over Hilary?

Amerika · 23-04-2015 6:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You believe that a Libertarian 3rd-party candidate could win over Hilary?

I couldn’t say for sure. But as I watch her missteps mount and her support decrease, I think the chances of a Libertarian possible win increase along with it, especially if there are a number on the right who wouldn’t want to vote for Jeb Bush.

There are some real concerns surrounding her Clinton Foundation. And deleting 30,000 emails just makes the trust issue on here part even worse. Nobody believes they were all about yoga and such. If Hillary refuses to address the concerns over the Foundation in a way that is believable, and keeps doing what is happening right now with her surrogates attaching everyone who questions her integrity, as a member of the right wing conspiracy, evildoers, sexists, or just plain idiots, her popularity will slide even more and in turn give a 3rd party candidate better chances.

PopePalpatine · 23-04-2015 8:05pm

The only way I could ever see a 3rd party win control over either the White House or at least one House of Congress would be if the USA moved to either PR or a second run-off round for an election.

Manach · 23-04-2015 8:28pm

Offhand, commentators like the late Robert Dahl mention democracies come in two main camps. Those that maximise the electoral choice of the voter (PR) and those that funnel the choice between two blocks (US college system). The advantage of the former is more respresentation at the cost of less stable governments (ie Italian governments) while the latter has less representative but more stable (ie elections at fixed times). It would take a major systematic overhaul to change thus the US setup and there would be the mentioned tradeoffs.

alaimacerc · 24-04-2015 1:15pm

Manach wrote: »

Those that maximise the electoral choice of the voter (PR) and those that funnel the choice between two blocks (US college system).

It doesn't have much to do with the Electoral College, per se. You could reform the EC without changing FPTP or vice versa. And indeed, not all US elections use FPTP -- some use two-round runoff, as PP just alluded to.

lochderg · 25-04-2015 11:44am

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... What does that then make Democrats?

.

it makes them right of centre,corupted by Wall St. but unlike the GOP who are frigging certifiable -electable

lochderg · 25-04-2015 11:59am

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare essentially copied RomneyCare, except that ObamaCare applied to the nation, and RomneyCare only affected the State of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. I dislike both. Both plans force citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit corporate medical insurance plans, both punish their citizens if they don't enroll, and both are dysfunctional.

And no comment on the alternative?-excrutiatingly expensive,60million Americans not covered?-these same creatures are now holding talks to worm their way into the NHS -the Tories like the Republicans holding profit above all else, will welcome them in with open wallets.

lochderg · 25-04-2015 12:01pm

Amerika wrote: »

Newsflash people... Sarah Palin isn't running. Sorry to disappoint.

she's been commited

lochderg · 25-04-2015 12:06pm

Amerika wrote: »

I don't watch Fox News (although I do occasionally catch O'Reilly's "Talking Point" segment which opens his show). When I go the the TV for political information, it's usually MSNBC. I do hear some negativity about Cruz, but usually it is from those who have no real clue about him or have never actually heard his positions... and just parrot the musings of the rabid left.

The problem for Ted Cruz is that he himself gives us clues all the time-he speaks regularly to audiences and TV & radio with the full knowledge that it will make its way on to social media.We hear what he says again and again, we get a full sense of his values and priorities again and again so how can you possibly say that we have no clue about him and that it's because we're rabidly left -wing?

lochderg · 25-04-2015 12:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

I'm curious... How did Mitt Romney intend to do that? And how did Barack Obama not do that?

more tax breaks
"Romney’s plan, in reality, would provide the very richest Americans a $264,000 tax break. It also maintains current tax rates on investments that are otherwise set to expire at the end of the year, and it eliminates the estate tax, paid by only the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans."Think Progress.-Obama hasn't really done anything for the middle-classes-too scared of the right.
quotes and articles don't really matter -we all know that the prevailing wind among the Republicans is to maintain the wealth gap

AbusesToilets · 27-04-2015 12:08am

As a voter, I find myself increasingly discouraged with each election cycle. The media plays up the importance of the Presidential office, but as seen by the current status quo between Obama and Congress, power mostly resides in the Congressional branch. Given level of corporate investment in electioneering, I have little faith in fair governance from either party, though the current thrust of the Republican party towards a more conservative stance on issues like abortion and social services has me leaning to the Democrats.

A Clinton administration is likely to face levels of obstruction from Republicans that would exceed even those that Obama currently faces. What hope then of any substantial legislative efforts to tackle issues? Is a Republican Executive going to focus on attacking Obama's legislative activities, while pursuing the same economic policies that led to the market collapse and increasing the social gulf that separates the rich from everyone else?

Amerika · 27-04-2015 2:52pm

lochderg wrote: »

more tax breaks
"Romney’s plan, in reality, would provide the very richest Americans a $264,000 tax break. It also maintains current tax rates on investments that are otherwise set to expire at the end of the year, and it eliminates the estate tax, paid by only the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans."Think Progress.-Obama hasn't really done anything for the middle-classes-too scared of the right.
quotes and articles don't really matter -we all know that the prevailing wind among the Republicans is to maintain the wealth gap

I recall Romney stating he would make all of the 2001-2008 tax cuts permanent, and allow some of the 2009-2010 tax cuts to expire as scheduled. He'd cut tax rates on ordinary income by 20 percent across the board. He would work to repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He’d make capital gains, dividends, and interest tax free for households making $200,000 or less, and tax capital gains and dividends at the current 15 percent rate for those making more than $200,000.

From the looks of it, everyone would have benefited.

AbusesToilets · 27-04-2015 4:18pm

Amerika wrote: »

I recall Romney stating he would make all of the 2001-2008 tax cuts permanent, and allow some of the 2009-2010 tax cuts to expire as scheduled. He'd cut tax rates on ordinary income by 20 percent across the board. He would work to repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He’d make capital gains, dividends, and interest tax free for households making $200,000 or less, and tax capital gains and dividends at the current 15 percent rate for those making more than $200,000.

From the looks of it, everyone would have benefited.

You mean the unfunded Bush era tax cuts that dumped hundreds of billions of dollars onto the national debt annually? Great idea all together.

Amerika · 27-04-2015 4:57pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You mean the unfunded Bush era tax cuts that dumped hundreds of billions of dollars onto the national debt annually? Great idea all together.

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense. How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

alaimacerc · 27-04-2015 5:06pm

Amerika wrote: »

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense.

Whee, and right back to trickle-down voodoo. Perhaps the most debunked idea in all of political history. Ford and Bush #1 called it, what, forty years ago? Back when the Republicans had a "moderate wing" that wasn't such an offence to the core meaning of words.

How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

Seems to me you need to imagine a little harder.

Which branch of the government is responsible for initiating money bills, again? Which of Obama's proposals to reduce the deficit have they assented to?

AbusesToilets · 27-04-2015 5:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense. How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

That is pure fantasy and has been shown as such time and again. As has been pointed out, Congress is responsible (lol) for the budget, a duty they have failed to discharge repeatedly. Even with that, the deficit has decreased by half since Obama took office.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

Amerika · 27-04-2015 8:09pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That is pure fantasy and has been shown as such time and again. As has been pointed out, Congress is responsible (lol) for the budget, a duty they have failed to discharge repeatedly. Even with that, the deficit has decreased by half since Obama took office.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.

AbusesToilets · 27-04-2015 9:09pm

Amerika wrote: »

Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.

With respect, while I don't buy into the constant fear mongering that surrounds talk of the national debt, it is relevant when you addressed it as a point to show a failure of Obama. Congress is responsible for spending, and has failed in its duties consistently over the last number of years.

The tax cuts you mentioned previously contributed significantly to increasing the deficit and were disgracefully irresponsible.

alaimacerc · 27-04-2015 9:09pm

Amerika wrote: »

Obama’s deficits [...] President Obama [...] added by him [...]

You're not doing so well on the constitutional homework I set you. Here's a hint: Origination Clause.

Black Swan · 27-04-2015 10:21pm

Amerika wrote: »

Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far.

The US Congress legislates spending, not Obama. Obama can propose a budget, but cannot pass it. What one party has controlled the US House for years, its powerful Speaker position, and now also controls the US Senate?

lochderg · 28-04-2015 10:42am

Amerika wrote: »

Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.

why is it that you point at Obama and not Wall St.?

PopePalpatine · 28-04-2015 10:58am

lochderg wrote: »

why is it that you point at Obama and not Wall St.?

Because trickle-down is love, trickle-down is life.

lochderg · 28-04-2015 1:17pm

is that a song?

Amerika · 28-04-2015 1:45pm

Remember way back in the 2008 presidential campaign when Barack Obama was campaigning and assigned blame to President Bush for the increase in debt that happened under his watch? You know, the kind of thing people believed and took him at his word, and got him elected?

In case you’ve forgotten, he said, “The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Well, Obama was right, it’s the role of a President to set a budget that ensures that spending stays in line with available revenue. But President Obama didn’t set budgets and has both increased non-defense discretionary spending and failed to propose any serious reforms to entitlement spending. So yes, the debt that was increased under his watch is his, just as the debt incurred under Bush was W's also.

Irelandcool · 28-04-2015 1:48pm

I like how in american politics and everywhere else it isn't about the best person for the job, its just who is less evil, corrupt and stupid then the rest so the country doesn't get screwed up as bad.

Amerika · 28-04-2015 1:52pm

Irelandcool wrote: »

I like how in american politics and everywhere else it isn't about the best person for the job, its just who is less evil, corrupt and stupid then the rest so the country doesn't get screwed up as bad.

Yeah, we should have gone with Romney last election. Alas... buyer's remorse.

This time around we might actually pick the person who is more evil, corrupt and stupid, and hand the top job to Hillary Clinton. God help us.

MightyMandarin · 28-04-2015 2:42pm

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, we should have gone with Romney last election. Alas... buyer's remorse.

This time around we might actually pick the person who is more evil, corrupt and stupid, and hand the top job to Hillary Clinton. God help us.

So Ted Cruz comparing the gay rights movement to jihadists is less stupid than Hillary? Good man yourself.

Amerika · 28-04-2015 2:45pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So Ted Cruz comparing the gay rights movement to jihadists is less stupid than Hillary? Good man yourself.

Ted Cruz won't be getting my vote either.

MightyMandarin · 28-04-2015 2:50pm

Amerika wrote: »

Ted Cruz won't be getting my vote either.

Well, out of the candidates likely to run who will?

I mightn't be the biggest Hillary supporter, as I find her dry, boring, and I think she's quite a sinister character, but she is a million times better than anyone the Republicans have put forward so far. Cruz, Paul, Bush, Walker and Christie all fit the description put forward above.

Amerika · 28-04-2015 3:09pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well, out of the candidates likely to run who will?

I mightn't be the biggest Hillary supporter, as I find her dry, boring, and I think she's quite a sinister character, but she is a million times better than anyone the Republicans have put forward so far. Cruz, Paul, Bush, Walker and Christie all fit the description put forward above.

The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.

FatherTed · 30-04-2015 5:32pm

Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.

Brian? · 30-04-2015 7:44pm

Amerika wrote: »

The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.

Paul won't make a 3rd party run. If he did it would guarantee a Dems POTUS. Just like Paul Snr, he likes to posture and pose as a libertarian, but stay firmly attached to the GOP.

You're right about one thing, this is the most diverse array of candidates the GOP have ever had. Unfortunately most of them parrot the same message.

Brian? · 30-04-2015 7:45pm

FatherTed wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.

Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.

eire4 · 30-04-2015 7:53pm

Brian? wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.

I would agree with you there. It is amazing he is even a senator and able to even run given the way the very word socialist is demonized in America. It will be very interesting to see how he does.

Amerika · 30-04-2015 10:29pm

FatherTed wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.

I liked him in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Brian? · 30-04-2015 10:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

I liked him in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

How witty.

jank · 01-05-2015 2:17am

Black Swan wrote: »

The US Congress legislates spending, not Obama. Obama can propose a budget, but cannot pass it. What one party has controlled the US House for years, its powerful Speaker position, and now also controls the US Senate?

In fairness, the democrats had a super majority in 2008 to 2010. What did Obama do with all that political capital? Blow it all on Obamacare. Also, this is the timeframe that incurred the biggest increase in national debt in History of the world!

Black Swan · 01-05-2015 2:34am

jank wrote: »

In fairness, the democrats had a super majority in 2008 to 2010. What did Obama do with all that political capital? Blow it all on Obamacare. Also, this is the timeframe that incurred the biggest increase in national debt in History of the world!

Comparative data tells a rather interesting story. See the below chart, which shows that the federal deficit had been rapidly increasing regardless if Republicans or Democrats controlled or shared control of the US Congress and Executive. Both parties were NOT fiscally conservative since the Ronald Reagan administration and US Congress forward.

jank · 01-05-2015 3:04am

Brian? wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.

'We're in it to win!!' Eh, no your not.

jank · 01-05-2015 4:10am

Black Swan wrote: »

Comparative data tells a rather interesting story. See the below chart, which shows that the federal deficit had been rapidly increasing regardless if Republicans or Democrats controlled or shared control of the US Congress and Executive. Both parties were NOT fiscally conservative since the Ronald Reagan administration and US Congress forward.

I agree with you. However its a bit rich for those complaining about the Bush deficit spending to brush off Obama's worse deficit spending, especially when its much much worse.

lochderg · 01-05-2015 11:43am

Amerika wrote: »

The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.

really?- Ted Cruz? -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8bFf7s4gE0

Brian? · 01-05-2015 2:03pm

jank wrote: »

I agree with you. However its a bit rich for those complaining about the Bush deficit spending to brush off Obama's worse deficit spending, especially when its much much worse.

Deficit spending cannot be viewed in a vacuum though. Bush took over a booming economy, managed it poorly and handed Obama an absolute disaster.

Unless you believe that state governors control the US economy, a phenomenon that occurs the year before every presidential election.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 3:07pm

We can’t change the past. We need a president who is willing to tackle our spending addiction and debt going into the future. I can only think of two potential candidates at the present time that might have the fortitude to get our madness under control... and they both come from the GOP side.

About ten years ago the CBO predicted that US debt would be about $8 Trillion by now. Here we sit at $18 Trillion. The CBO has a history of being around 40% too low on debt five or more years into the future. The CBO now estimates in about 10 years debt will hit $25 Trillion, and if they are 40% off the number, it will be more like $35 Trillion. Now lets say US interest rates return to reasonable rates of about 5%. At $35 Trillion our interest payments will be about $1.75 Trillion a year (more than the government currently spends on the national defense budget or Social Security). In addition, in 10 years, what will Social Security payments, Medicare payments, governmental pension and benefit payments, and other entitlements look like? Dismal!

Unfortunately the CBO estimates only has us at $5 Trillion in revenues in 10 years.

And I shutter to even think about it, but what if the Bank of China closes its doors to the US irresponsibility?

Good thing I have dual citizenship, but is Ireland, under US & European pressure, phasing out the loophole that helps multinational corporations legally dodge billions of dollars in homeland taxes? That might put a damper on things. Well, I guess there’s always Canada.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 3:08pm

lochderg wrote: »

really?- Ted Cruz? -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8bFf7s4gE0

I'd take T. Cruz over H. Clinton.

jank · 01-05-2015 4:41pm

Brian? wrote: »

Deficit spending cannot be viewed in a vacuum though. Bush took over a booming economy, managed it poorly and handed Obama an absolute disaster.

Unless you believe that state governors control the US economy, a phenomenon that occurs the year before every presidential election.

Em, not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

By managing it poorly you mean the Fed, pressured by government as in both Dems and Repub's to lower interest rates to fuel a property bubble? Yes, you are correct.

However, here we are almost 8 years later and we are still hearing the echo's of "But bush... but bush...." When is Obama and his acolyktes going to take responsibility for his own mistakes?

alaimacerc · 01-05-2015 4:46pm

Amerika wrote: »

I'd take T. Cruz over H. Clinton.

I think at this point we've established that you'd vote for whatever stiff the GOP put up, over Jesus H. Christ himself Returned in Glory, running for those nasty statist self-hating godless commie liberals.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 5:04pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think at this point we've established that you'd vote for whatever stiff the GOP put up, over Jesus H. Christ himself Returned in Glory, running for those nasty statist self-hating godless commie liberals.

Does J.C. have a website showing his plans for POTUS? I’d be willing to give him a look over... As long as he's Constitutionally qualified to run. :rolleyes:

Take a look at Cruz’s website. Some good points, some not so good. Cruz wouldn’t be my first choice (or second, or third for that matter) but I would pick him above Hillary Clinton. And I have voted for some Democrats in the past (Shock, Horror).

Personally, I don't think Cruz is Constitutionally qualified to become POTUS.

https://www.tedcruz.org/record/

Amerika · 01-05-2015 5:33pm

Brian? wrote: »

How witty.

Hmmm... David Letterman got a better response. Perhaps it's all in the delivery.

MightyMandarin · 01-05-2015 5:49pm

Amerika wrote: »

Personally, I don't think Cruz is Constitutionally qualified to become POTUS.

He's not anything qualified to be president. The man is a complete and utter clown, who says most ridiculous things and his actions show he is a complete hypocrite. His behaviour before the Govt shutdown last year showed most people that he really doesn't care about helping America, and just wants to be powerful.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 6:44pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

He's not anything qualified to be president. The man is a complete and utter clown, who says most ridiculous things and his actions show he is a complete hypocrite. His behaviour before the Govt shutdown last year showed most people that he really doesn't care about helping America, and just wants to be powerful.

Besides pejoratives, what’s makes you think so?

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments