2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin · 01-05-2015 6:57pm

Amerika wrote: »

Besides pejoratives, what’s makes you think so?

Just look at some of the things he's said:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-provocative-quotes-116304.html

Now tell me how this guy is in any way qualified to be President?

Brian? · 01-05-2015 7:18pm

Amerika wrote: »

Besides pejoratives, what’s makes you think so?

I've posted several links in this thread already. You've already said he wouldn't be your choice, so why defend him?

Brian? · 01-05-2015 7:22pm

jank wrote: »

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.

Are we agreeing the economy was poorly managed by Bush? I feel I may be missing a point here.

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?

I agree Obama has made many mistakes. It's far more nuanced than simply pointing at defecit figures though, I believe that was my point.

Brian? · 01-05-2015 7:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

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.

Your 2 preferred candidates? Paul and Romney?

Amerika · 01-05-2015 7:31pm

Brian? wrote: »

I've posted several links in this thread already. You've already said he wouldn't be your choice, so why defend him?

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to better understand, beyond simplistic pejoratives, why the poster I responded to seems to hates him so.

PopePalpatine · 01-05-2015 7:33pm

Plus, who can forget his crazy father?

Amerika · 01-05-2015 7:41pm

Brian? wrote: »

Are we agreeing the economy was poorly managed by Bush? I feel I may be missing a point here.

Yes, the economy was poorly managed by Bush, and even more so by Obama.

I agree Obama has made many mistakes. It's far more nuanced than simply pointing at defecit figures though, I believe that was my point.

And my point that unless we do something now... by choosing a POTUS who isn't afraid to tackle the big problems facing us in the next decade, we're in for some deep doo-doo. Our current one is a hopeless cause in getting our spending addiction under control, and his currently plans on immigration will cost us billions more.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 7:51pm

Brian? wrote: »

Your 2 preferred candidates? Paul and Romney?

Romney isn't running. It's Walker and Paul as of now.

Manach · 01-05-2015 8:28pm

Blame for the economic great recession is usual conditional on the leaning of the economist. From two books I'm reading at the moment, John Lancaster is firmly placing blame on an amok and unregulated financial sector. In another, it was state social policies that drove the financial bubble in the US to its apex. Thus the sobriquet of the dismal science is not too far wrong.

Amerika · 01-05-2015 9:03pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Just look at some of the things he's said:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-provocative-quotes-116304.html

Now tell me how this guy is in any way qualified to be President?

Well, if we’re going on basic qualifications for POTUS, I can only go with 2 of the 3 qualifications. He is at least 35 years of age and he’s lived in the United States for at least 14 years. I can’t say he’s a natural born U.S. citizen, so I’m figuring on that point he isn’t qualified. But I doubt that’s what you meant.

I read your link. Which one(s) of his comments exactly do you find that would cause him not to be qualified. I though most of them were fairly accurate in their context.

Candidates say lots of things. Some promises and statements made are followed through with when they become president, others not. Some candidates castigate former or sitting presidents and then do exactly the same thing when they get into office. Some move to the left during a campaign others to the right, and others to center. It is more important to see what a candidate has done, then what a candidate says to get a better feel of what he/she might become when President.

Thargor · 01-05-2015 9:47pm

Manach wrote: »

Blame for the economic great recession is usual conditional on the leaning of the economist. From two books I'm reading at the moment, John Lancaster is firmly placing blame on an amok and unregulated financial sector. In another, it was state social policies that drove the financial bubble in the US to its apex. Thus the sobriquet of the dismal science is not too far wrong.

Make a list of all involved in the repeal of Glass Steagal and you've answered your question, its a long bipartisan list though.

eire4 · 01-05-2015 10:07pm

Thargor wrote: »

Make a list of all involved in the repeal of Glass Steagal and you've answered your question, its a long bipartisan list though.

Without a doubt the repeal of Glass Stegal was a key factor in creating the enviornment that lead to the financial collapse of 2008 and no question for me returning banks to being banks and seperate completely from inverstment houses would be a very positive step forward.

eire4 · 01-05-2015 10:10pm

jank wrote: »

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

Maybe you will be right and Sanders won't win the Democratic primary. But who knows that is what most people though at the start when it was Clinton v Obama and that didn't turn out as most people expected it would. I would not be so quick to dismiss Sanders.

alaimacerc · 01-05-2015 10:15pm

Amerika wrote: »

I can’t say he’s a natural born U.S. citizen, so I’m figuring on that point he isn’t qualified.

Well, a certain amount of credit for being somewhat bipartisan in the "birther" type stuff. Perhaps about the worst possible topic for such, but...

jank · 02-05-2015 1:23am

eire4 wrote: »

Maybe you will be right and Sanders won't win the Democratic primary. But who knows that is what most people though at the start when it was Clinton v Obama and that didn't turn out as most people expected it would. I would not be so quick to dismiss Sanders.

I will give you odds of 20/1 (very very generous) and will put 100 euro on it. Any takers?

Brian? · 02-05-2015 3:50am

eire4 wrote: »

Maybe you will be right and Sanders won't win the Democratic primary. But who knows that is what most people though at the start when it was Clinton v Obama and that didn't turn out as most people expected it would. I would not be so quick to dismiss Sanders.

I'm shocked he's running for the nomination tbh. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party. He's too good for them.

eire4 · 04-05-2015 8:42pm

Brian? wrote: »

I'm shocked he's running for the nomination tbh. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party. He's too good for them.

He is running in the Democratic primaries though so he will be up against Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination.

Brian? · 04-05-2015 8:44pm

eire4 wrote: »

He is running in the Democratic primaries though so he will be up against Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination.

I know, I'm disappointed by it. The thin veil of independence Bernie Sanders had is gone.

eire4 · 05-05-2015 9:27pm

Brian? wrote: »

I know, I'm disappointed by it. The thin veil of independence Bernie Sanders had is gone.

I get where your coming from but I think he is only doing it for tactical reasons. If he ran as an independant he would be completely igorned by the MSM and would likely not be allowed into the presidential debates as that is actually owned and run jointly by the Republican and Democratic parties and is not non partisan. Given the many rules within states that both Republicans and Democrats use to suppress any third or more parties being able to emerge he might have been kept off the ballot in some states etc.
Bottom line I hear where your coming from but I am ok with what he has done by running in the Democratic primaries as now the MSM media will at least be forced to show him in their debates and coverage of the Democratic primaries whereas I think he would laregly have been deliberately igorned if he ran as an Indepandant.

eagle eye · 14-05-2015 10:02am

I think the Republicans are being realistic and are putting up the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hilary Clinton and that is Jeb Bush.

I still think that Bill Clinton will win this election for Hilary. Hilary is a huge name in US politics but when she has massive exposure she doesn't enamour her audience. That is the job that Bill will do for here.

Any mistakes though and Jeb could well win it.

Even if he doesn't win it this time I think he is a future President at some stage.

Amerika · 14-05-2015 4:48pm

I’m a dreamer, and still hold out hopes for the GOP. But as a realist, unfortunately, the Democrats could probably put a chimpanzee on the ballot and still win this election. Hillary Clinton pretty much already has a guaranteed 247 (even without including Ohio or Florida) of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Throw in Colorado and Virginia, which will likely vote Democrat this time around, and she’s up to 269. She then only needs one small state for the win. How much money will she be putting into Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire do you suppose?

eire4 · 14-05-2015 5:56pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I think the Republicans are being realistic and are putting up the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hilary Clinton and that is Jeb Bush.

I still think that Bill Clinton will win this election for Hilary. Hilary is a huge name in US politics but when she has massive exposure she doesn't enamour her audience. That is the job that Bill will do for here.

Any mistakes though and Jeb could well win it.

Even if he doesn't win it this time I think he is a future President at some stage.

Speaking of mistakes. Jeb Bush's back and forth gaffs over the Iraqi invasion this week already looks like a very big problem for him.

Manach · 14-05-2015 11:47pm

Well apart from black swan events (no pun intended) such as the Iranian hostage crisis, international event rarely seem to bother US voters. Which might be just as well given the Obama admin's issues with Drones, Syria/Libya instability and the various hacking scandals that continues to poison its relations with such allies as Germany.

Overheal · 15-05-2015 1:09am

Jeb Jeb gets called out in a town hall for his brother contributing to the creation of ISIS

You know what I have a link on my iOS clipboard but it refuses to paste so fcuk it, you will just have to google for it. It's been one of those days... /throws mic at wall /exeunt

alaimacerc · 15-05-2015 1:20am

Amerika wrote: »

I’m a dreamer, and still hold out hopes for the GOP. But as a realist, unfortunately, the Democrats could probably put a chimpanzee on the ballot and still win this election.

Dreamer? Realist? Blamer of the electorate? Manager of expectations?

Hillary Clinton pretty much already has a guaranteed 247 (even without including Ohio or Florida) of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Throw in Colorado and Virginia, which will likely vote Democrat this time around, and she’s up to 269.

You seem to be a little free in your reading of the key to your own source. "D safe", "D likely" and "D leaning" are all rounded up to "pretty much guaranteed". Then you dip heavily into the pool of "Toss-Ups" for your "likelies". Any particular reason for this? Or indeed, source that actually says this?

If you're actually sincere in favouring Hillary to win, that might say more about your faith in the Republicans coming up with a viable candidate than it does any mysterious anomalies in the electoral college.

alaimacerc · 15-05-2015 1:41am

Overheal wrote: »

Jeb Jeb gets called out in a town hall for his brother contributing to the creation of ISIS

You know what I have a link on my iOS clipboard but it refuses to paste so fcuk it, you will just have to google for it. It's been one of those days... /throws mic at wall /exeunt

Terrible use of Latin chatroom commands, unless there's more than one of you.

Here's the vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mztRWfmt8E

And here's for example the WP's take on recent Bushisms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-iraq-question-jeb-bush-stumbles-and-his-gop-rivals-pounce/2015/05/13/05dccac4-f97c-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

jank · 23-05-2015 4:32am

on the day of its scheduled release, the State Department, at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, labeled a part of a November 2012 e-mail to her about arrests in the Benghazi killings as classified, and kept it secret. That’s a problem for Clinton because she said the private e-mail address she chose to use while secretary was never the vehicle for classified information.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/redacted-words-caused-more-trouble-for-clinton-than-296-e-mails

Brian? · 30-05-2015 3:40pm

I'm watching Martin O'Malley announce here. He's not getting much love from MSNBC.

Can he make an impact? He needs to shake the legacy of the Baltimore riots.

alaimacerc · 31-05-2015 1:29pm

Brian? wrote: »

I'm watching Martin O'Malley announce here.

Is this some sort of marketing ploy for DVD box sets of The Wire? Extraordinary.

C14N · 31-05-2015 8:53pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I think the Republicans are being realistic and are putting up the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hilary Clinton and that is Jeb Bush.

I still think that Bill Clinton will win this election for Hilary. Hilary is a huge name in US politics but when she has massive exposure she doesn't enamour her audience. That is the job that Bill will do for here.

Any mistakes though and Jeb could well win it.

Even if he doesn't win it this time I think he is a future President at some stage.

It's kind of a funny situation where Jeb isn't going to appeal to a lot of the same newer, more radical Republican voters that Cruz or Rand Paul might but at the same time, those lot will probably still vote for him if he's the candidate against Hillary because of the two-party system and Jeb kind of has to be the one to do it because no moderate voters will go for someone like the former two candidates and that's who they need.

MightyMandarin · 02-06-2015 2:47am

I might disagree with Rand Paul on most things, but hats off to him for taking a stand against the Patriot Act. Took some serious balls to ignore establishment Republicans and stand up for what he believes in. He probably ruined his campaign, not that he was going to win anyway, but he deserves praise for trying to stop the NSA spying on its citizens.

Amerika · 02-06-2015 2:43pm

Looks like Lindsey Graham jumped into the race to run against Rand Paul.

alaimacerc · 02-06-2015 6:18pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I might disagree with Rand Paul on most things, but hats off to him for taking a stand against the Patriot Act.

Evil genius Obama repeals PATRIOT Act by cunning use of reverse psychology on the 'Publicans? Only theory of this so far that makes much sense...

MightyMandarin · 02-06-2015 10:53pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Evil genius Obama repeals PATRIOT Act by cunning use of reverse psychology on the 'Publicans? Only theory of this so far that makes much sense...

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

lochderg · 03-06-2015 1:34pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

It's strange ,given the feelgood factor which accompanied Obama's rise and the perception that he's a 'goodie' that he wouldn't feel compelled to explain more about his actions

eire4 · 03-06-2015 5:20pm

lochderg wrote: »

It's strange ,given the feelgood factor which accompanied Obama's rise and the perception that he's a 'goodie' that he wouldn't feel compelled to explain more about his actions

When it comes to military spending, military action around the world spying on his own people and supposed allies etc there really is little difference between Obama and the Bush regime before him so his latest threats and intimadation tactics over the Patriot/freedom act is not surprise at all.

Brian? · 04-06-2015 1:38am

Amerika wrote: »

Looks like Lindsey Graham jumped into the race to run against Rand Paul.

In my opinion, the GOP need to coalesce behind 2-3 candidates very soon, or they risk being drowned out.

The Trump sideshow is about to steal the headlines form many more serious contenders.

jank · 04-06-2015 3:25am

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

Tbh Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and they are not known for their love of a small state, in fact quite the opposite. It is interesting though that the main opponents against the 'Freedom Act' is indeed the libertarian wing of the GOP with Rand Paul being its most vocal critic.

The democrats look very much the same it seems, while the GOP have candidates that have widly different views on many matters.

lochderg · 04-06-2015 10:29am

jank wrote: »

Tbh Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and they are not known for their love of a small state, in fact quite the opposite. It is interesting though that the main opponents against the 'Freedom Act' is indeed the libertarian wing of the GOP with Rand Paul being its most vocal critic.

The democrats look very much the same it seems, while the GOP have candidates that have widly different views on many matters.

I also think anything anti-Obama is a good bandwagon for a republican/Libertarian-they've proved that again and again

Thargor · 04-06-2015 10:33am

Cant believe how few people are questioning that name "The Freedom Act". George Orwell would have passed on using it because it was too cheesy...

jank · 04-06-2015 3:01pm

lochderg wrote: »

I also think anything anti-Obama is a good bandwagon for a republican/Libertarian-they've proved that again and again

Not so in this case. Obama and the Hawks in the GOP are on the same page as this one. Will Obama have to hand back his nobel peace prize?

Brian? · 04-06-2015 6:12pm

Now I'm watching Rick Perry declare his candidacy. He just compared himself to George Washington. Nice.

Another big name enters the fray. But he's not piling high enough to actually get into the debate.

eire4 · 04-06-2015 7:49pm

Thargor wrote: »

Cant believe how few people are questioning that name "The Freedom Act". George Orwell would have passed on using it because it was too cheesy...

haha it is funny but not funny. I get where your coming from. The names they give for these acts are so the exact opposite of what they actually do. I think they really do spend time working on these names with PR people as many Americans don't really pay attention as they are so checked out of the US system of government. All they hear is Patriot Act then Freedom Act and its to save Americans from terrorists and keep the US safe so who wouldn't be for that.

Paleface · 05-06-2015 1:00pm

I'm glad Rick Perry is back in the race as he's bound to come up with another glorious gaffe during the primaries.

Also I hope these guys do another video of him!

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

lochderg · 05-06-2015 2:22pm

brilliant

arold10 · 11-06-2015 11:20pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a conservative, has the well known Bush family name with 2 former US presidents, but also the GW Bush Great Recessionary image problem (as well as having launched the 2 longest wars in US history). He may run, or he may sit this one out.

That's my biggest problem with Jeb Bush trying to run for president as a third Bush. We've already had two Bush, they both have been a disaster for this country. I don't see why we should try another one. I think that something he'll have a very tough time to defend after the abject failures of both his father and brother.

Amerika · 12-06-2015 1:44pm

arold10 wrote: »

That's my biggest problem with Jeb Bush trying to run for president as a third Bush. We've already had two Bush, they both have been a disaster for this country. I don't see why we should try another one. I think that something he'll have a very tough time to defend after the abject failures of both his father and brother.

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

arold10 · 12-06-2015 2:06pm

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Well, although many may not be satisfied with the current administration. But you cannot compare the type of terrible legacy both Bush have left behind with what Obama will be left behind. Come on man! We don't need another third Bush, we've already tried two, they've both failed. We can't gamble our way with another one.

Thargor · 12-06-2015 2:45pm

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Do you honestly believe George W Bush's economic and military adventures can be described as a better way to run a country than the Obama administration? Do you genuinely believe it or do you just feel its something you have to say when you see republicans being criticized?

Brian? · 12-06-2015 3:31pm

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Let's leave Benghazi aside. What were Hilary Clintons "abject failures" as Secretary of State.

I don't want to hear about the "pay for play" rumours related to the Clinton Institute again. I want you to actually back up what you've just said. If she was an "abject failure" tell us why.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments