2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Brian? wrote: »

I predicted Biden v Bush.

Looks like Biden's a non runner at this stage. Which is a terrible pity, Biden's debate performance in 2012 was solid gold.

I don't know why, but "Joe Biden" and "solid gold" in the same sentence remind me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-dri,2718/

Sorry!

Black Swan

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I don't know why, but "Joe Biden" and "solid gold" in the same sentence remind me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-dri,2718/

Sorry!

Now I have this mental image of Biden running shirtless in the Democrat's 2016 primary. Thanks Hold the Cheez Whiz... :pac:

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

I predicted Biden v Bush.

Looks like Biden's a non runner at this stage. Which is a terrible pity, Biden's debate performance in 2012 was solid gold.

It would be a pity if Clinton was to just waltz into the Democratic nomination without any opposition. But right now I am not seeing anybody that seems willing to take her one on the Democratic side.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

You did? For some reason I remember thinking you had claimed Joe Biden would be the Democrat candidate?

edit: Opps... I see you were referring to Jeb Bush. So perhaps I did, thinking it was too soon after brother George. But didn't factor in the possibility of Obama screwing up his second term so badly and making Democrats look so bad.

How exactly did Obama screw up his second term so badly?


For me I am not a fan as he as refused to cut the military budget which has got out of control since 9/11. He has ratched up a massive spying problem which tears up American citizens right to privacy. He has continued to take a highly militarized approach to foreign policy and has gone after whitsleblowers at a scary rate and his threatment of the principle of freedom of the press is alarming to say the least. Those would be some of my specific reasons why I feel Obama's second term has been so bad to this point in terms of where I would point the finger of blame at Obama.

Brian?

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I don't know why, but "Joe Biden" and "solid gold" in the same sentence remind me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-dri,2718/

Sorry!

The brilliance of the Onion's portrayal of Biden is the slight element of truth.

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

How exactly did Obama screw up his second term so badly?

He pretty much copied RomneyCare with ObamaCare and sold out to the private-sector-for-profit medical insurance corporations, broke his promise to close Gitmo, doubled the fed deficit just like the presidential administrations beginning with Republican president Reagan, and appears that he may reinvest boots-on-the-ground continuing GW's Bush's 2nd Persian Gulf War (Iraq II the sequel) with his war on ISIS.

eire4 wrote: »

...he as refused to cut the military budget which has got out of control since 9/11.

Generally, most past presidential administrations haven't cut the Military-Industrial-Complex budget since Dwight Eisenhower.

eire4 wrote: »

He has ratched up a massive spying problem which tears up American citizens right to privacy.

Yes, this is a No Such Agency expansion greatly fueled by the 911 scare tactics of the GW Bush administration and the Congressional PATRIOT Act. I had someone the other day challenge this criticism, claiming that "If you were doing nothing wrong, why should you complain?" I asked if he was doing anything wrong in his bedroom, and if not, he should not complain if I put a cam in there and watched them, ha!

I would like to see John Thune of South Dakota run, but he is sitting out 2016. I believe that he is one of the very few Senators that has not yet become corrupted. Then again... give him time and exposure to his colleagues...

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Brian? wrote: »

The brilliance of the Onion's portrayal of Biden is the slight element of truth.

Absolutely. :pac:

Black Swan

Joe Biden provides comic relief from the otherwise all too serious (and boring) Obama administration.

Brian?

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Absolutely. :pac:

Why wouldn't you want him as POTUS?

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Joe Biden provides comic relief from the otherwise all too serious (and boring) Obama administration.

That is true. In all seriousness though, he's a very intelligent man and an extremely effective VP. I'm disappointed he's not even going to try a run at 2016.

Black Swan

Very early polls collected by RCP all show Hillary Clinton beating Jeb Bush by a comfortable margin in most cases. RCP average Clinton +9.9 lead.

Note: Caution should be exercised when interpreting this polling data, especially given that it's not tracking yet (not longitudinal), and it's over 2 years off from the November 2016 election (a long shot).

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

He pretty much copied RomneyCare with ObamaCare and sold out to the private-sector-for-profit medical insurance corporations, broke his promise to close Gitmo, doubled the fed deficit just like the presidential administrations beginning with Republican president Reagan, and appears that he may reinvest boots-on-the-ground continuing GW's Bush's 2nd Persian Gulf War (Iraq II the sequel) with his war on ISIS.


Generally, most past presidential administrations haven't cut the Military-Industrial-Complex budget since Dwight Eisenhower.

Yes, this is a No Such Agency expansion greatly fueled by the 911 scare tactics of the GW Bush administration and the Congressional PATRIOT Act. I had someone the other day challenge this criticism, claiming that "If you were doing nothing wrong, why should you complain?" I asked if he was doing anything wrong in his bedroom, and if not, he should not complain if I put a cam in there and watched them, ha!

I would like to see John Thune of South Dakota run, but he is sitting out 2016. I believe that he is one of the very few Senators that has not yet become corrupted. Then again... give him time and exposure to his colleagues...

I completely agree with you on his all sell out to private health companies and all but copying of and introduction of Romney's health plan. What was particuarly disappointing is he never even made an effort for a single payer system. The for profit health system in operation in the US is one of the most broken parts of how the US currently operates so his slight improvements really are a mere papering over of the massive faultlines that underlay the health system in the US.


You are right also about the continued growth of the military budget and all the private corporations involved as well often called the militray industrial complex. This has been on a dangerous upward trend since FDR. Since 9/11 military spending has grown from 3.1% of GDP to 4.8%. In reality the real figure is even worse as the bloated military budget has gone hand in hand with the massive expansion in spying and covert operations that have all but turned the US into Orwell's 1984.
The classic but I have done nothing wrong so completely misses the point. Most of this spying on US citizens is done by contracted private companies. Thus various private citizens have unlimited ability to go after individual citizens. All it takes is an employee with an agenda to destroy a persons life or at least cause him serious difficulties.
History teaches us that when you give someone this much power especially with little or no oversight they will abuse that power. The only question is how badly. It is also similar to how many local US police forces have been militarized. If you give someone these tools they will use them whether they need to or not. The idea of but I have done nothing wrong misses the point and reminds me of the famous Martin Niemoller quote:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Black Swan

During the 2012 campaign we heard Republicans attacking ObamaCare, conveniently ignoring that it had been largely developed from Mitt Romney's RomneyCare. I wonder what "doublethink" in campaign speeches, ads, and debates will occur in the next 2 years leading up to the 2016 presidentials by both Democrats and Republicans? In any case, 2015 and 2016 promises to be dirty campaign years by both.

Amerika

Mitt Romney appears to be running around the country pushing an “I told you so!” campaign. And appearances are it is coming across to many voters with a rounding success. I guess it helps that Mitt was pretty much right about everything (IMO).

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Mitt Romney appears to be running around the country pushing an “I told you so!” campaign. And appearances are it is coming across to many voters with a rounding success. I guess it helps that Mitt was pretty much right about everything (IMO).

Was he right about RomneyCare?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Was he right about RomneyCare?

Again? As I recall, Romney said that “Romneycare” would now work for the rest of the country. MA wanted this form of healthcare, it’s population was considered more affluent than the rest of the country, and had very few residents without insurance therefore the model worked for MA, but wouldn’t for most of the rest of the country. So, yeah, I guess he was.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Mitt Romney appears to be running around the country pushing an “I told you so!” campaign. And appearances are it is coming across to many voters with a rounding success. I guess it helps that Mitt was pretty much right about everything (IMO).

what exactly was he in your opinion was he right about?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Again? As I recall, Romney said that “Romneycare” would now work for the rest of the country. MA wanted this form of healthcare, it’s population was considered more affluent than the rest of the country, and had very few residents without insurance therefore the model worked for MA, but wouldn’t for most of the rest of the country. So, yeah, I guess he was.

Apparently RomneyCare is also failing in MA, and is just as dysfunctional as ObamaCare:

RomneyCare’s pioneering health insurance exchange is headed for the scrap heap.

Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law

How can you criticise ObamaCare without also criticising RomneyCare? ObamaCare was modeled from RomneyCare. Both are too expensive, dysfunctional, punish citizens if they do not enroll, and ultimately benefit private-sector-for-profit medical insurance corporations. For Republicans to champion Mitt Romney for 2016, while at the same time attacking ObamaCare is a contradiction that appeals to partisan politics, not reason. This reminds me of George Orwell's doublethink.

Black Swan

“Sit down and shut up!” Republican NJ Governor Chris Christie yelled at a recent heckler, which is now giving him press backlash as being unpresidential.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

“Sit down and shut up!” Republican NJ Governor Chris Christie yelled at a recent heckler, which is now giving him press backlash as being unpresidential.

Whether he runs in 2016 for president or not I have no idea. But a public gaff like that will be red meat no doubt for anybody running against him if he does indeed run. The Bridge scandal and the poor state of the New Jersey economy certainly do not help his cause either.

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

Whether he runs in 2016 for president or not I have no idea.

RCP average of 7 polls show Hilliary Clinton ahead of Chris Christie by +9.4, compared to +9.9 for Clinton if she were to run against Jeb Bush. Of course the confidence intervals would make the differences between Jeb Bush and Chris Christie meaningless, as would the 2 years before the general election.

Amerika

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market. Moves that appeal to the public and affects the 2016 race for the White House. And if they do, It might be a double edged sword for Hillary Clinton. Because if they try to get things done which appeal to the public, and Obama vetoes most everything, it will bode negatively for Hillary. And if the GOP succeeds in getting things done to help the public, it will put them in a good light, and again bode negatively for Hillary.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

what exactly was he in your opinion was he right about?

I think he was right on foreign policy. He was right when he said Russia was a serious strategic threat to the US. He was right that ObamaCare would be hard to implement. He was right that Obama would struggle to work with Congress. He was right in taking a strong stance on illegal immigration and the negative effects on the US. He was right about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%... Unfortunately the 47% got nothing voting for Obama.

And I think his message was right for getting the economy going and improving jobs to help the average American, instead of just the rich.

What do you think he was wrong about?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I think he was right on foreign policy. He was right when he said Russia was a serious strategic threat to the US. He was right that ObamaCare would be hard to implement. He was right that Obama would struggle to work with Congress. He was right in taking a strong stance on illegal immigration and the negative effects on the US. He was right about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%... Unfortunately the 47% got nothing voting for Obama.

And I think his message was right for getting the economy going and improving jobs to help the average American, instead of just the rich.

What do you think he was wrong about?

I think he is wrong on healthcare. I believe that we need a single payer system. I think his job plan was bad and would at best have lead to only modest job growth if not actually made the situation worse. His tax cuts I believe would only have made ths situation worse. He was always very vague on how they were going to be paid for. He wanted large cuts in public spending and investment which I feel is wrong. That would realy have hit things like Medicade, education and health research. He wanted to boost the military budget to 4% of GDP. To my mind the military budget is already bloated. Those would be some areas I think that Romney was wrong on.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market.

The last time Republicans controlled both houses resulted from the November 2004 elections for the 109th Congress (Senate 51 Republicans; House 227 Republicans, 205 Democrats). Congress helped GW Bush put Cox in as chairman of the SEC, increased deregulation, and cut SEC staff to a point that the investment banks were essentially responsible for themselves; i.e., the foxes were responsible for the chicken coup. High risk investments occurred over the next 3-4 years which greatly contributed to massive investment bank failures (e.g., Bear Stearns, etc.) and helped make the Great Recession "Great" in 2008 as a result. One party control of both houses of Congress was generally not good for the US form of government, regardless if the Republicans or Democrats were in control; e.g., ObamaCare passed when the Democrats controlled both houses, etc.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

The last time Republicans controlled both houses resulted from the November 2004 elections for the 109th Congress (Senate 51 Republicans; House 227 Republicans, 205 Democrats). Congress helped GW Bush put Cox in as chairman of the SEC, increased deregulation, and cut SEC staff to a point that the investment banks were essentially responsible for themselves; i.e., the foxes were responsible for the chicken coup. High risk investments occurred over the next 3-4 years which greatly contributed to massive investment bank failures (e.g., Bear Stearns, etc.) and helped make the Great Recession "Great" in 2008 as a result. One party control of both houses of Congress was generally not good for the US form of government, regardless if the Republicans or Democrats were in control; e.g., ObamaCare passed when the Democrats controlled both houses, etc.

One of the interesting points from last nights results is that in 5 out of 5 states measures to raise the minimum wage passed. Now Republicans are very much against that. Indeed some believe there shuld be no minimum wage at all. What makes those measures passing interesting is that in all 5 states Republicans had a great night yet this measure which is very much a polar opposite to the Republican agenda passed.


To me that is just another example of the broken system and how it is hurting the United States ability to function in a manner that works for it's people other then a small few.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market. Moves that appeal to the public and affects the 2016 race for the White House. And if they do, It might be a double edged sword for Hillary Clinton. Because if they try to get things done which appeal to the public, and Obama vetoes most everything, it will bode negatively for Hillary. And if the GOP succeeds in getting things done to help the public, it will put them in a good light, and again bode negatively for Hillary.

So tax cuts then?

Rightwing

I can't see the Republicans win in 2016. The country is just too poor for that to happen.

Black Swan

Rightwing wrote: »

I can't see the Republicans win in 2016. The country is just too poor for that to happen.

What do you mean by "poor?"

Rightwing

Black Swan wrote: »

What do you mean by "poor?"

The Republican's base is being constantly eroded. Is there 155m people depending on the Govt there now? Those people will want the Dems in power.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

So tax cuts then?

I think we’ll see them start with getting the XL oil pipeline approved, wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses, streamlining government agencies and reducing the size of the federal government, enacting some energy-related legislation, tackle some tax issues, get a budget approved, and work on a much needed long term highway bill.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses

Teddy Roosevelt was the 26th president, and one time GOP leader, that was "bully" champion for environmental conservation. The Republican political platform has dramatically changed since his time.

Amerika wrote: »

streamlining government agencies and reducing the size of the federal government

Does that include reducing the investment bank auditors and staff of the SEC like GW Bush did through chairman Cox in 2004?

Amerika wrote: »

work on a much needed long term highway bill.

Absolutely agree with this position, and if such legislation passes both houses of Congress, Obama will sign it.

FreudianSlippers

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Black Swan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Excellent observation.

eire4

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

To an extent you just described The Libertarian Party. But there is no way the Republicans or the Democrats will allow them to become a real player in American politcs. Both parties really have become corporate entities and they value way to much the monoply they have over the current system which is one of the main reason it is so broken.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

eire4

Rightwing wrote: »

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

What I feel the election shows is the broken nature of the system and the monoply on power held by the 2 main parties. Look at the economic numbers. Stock market way up, unemployment under 6% great corporate profits. Yet these benefits are only felt for the most part by an elite at the top so the public angry at the party in power votes heavily against it. Yet the Republicans have no interest in an agenda that will benefit the vast majority of Americans either.
About $4 Billion was spent on this election the vast majority by wealthy individuals and big corporations. The idea that there is a real democracy functioing in the interests of the majority of Americans is a joke. What we had on Tuesday was in many ways an auction.

FreudianSlippers

eire4 wrote: »

To an extent you just described The Libertarian Party. But there is no way the Republicans or the Democrats will allow them to become a real player in American politcs. Both parties really have become corporate entities and they value way to much the monoply they have over the current system which is one of the main reason it is so broken.

I think the Tea Party has ruined the word Libertarian in the US. Tea Party candidates are running wild in the Rep party and traditional republicans aren't sure what to do... On one hand they like the popularity in a partisan, 2 party system; on the other they don't really want to vote for them.

FreudianSlippers

Rightwing wrote: »

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

A number of states are imposing massive tax hikes (some inexplicably retroactive) on high-middle earners.

PopePalpatine

I find it the term "libertarian" a misnomer when applied to the Tea Party. "Big government" is OK when Jeebus wills it.

Memnoch

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

Recognition Scene

Amerika wrote: »

wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses

Most worrying part of the election results imo... ending up with climate change deniers who will prioritize the quick buck over the environment.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

Suryavarman

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

They are a viable alternative because they won't vote for corporation backed bills that enhance the power of those corporations.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

If you reduce "Government power" who regulates corporate behaviour?

Government power should be the direct expression of the will of the people. The problem now is not too much government, it's the wrong type of government.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

If you reduce "Government power" who regulates corporate behaviour?

Government power should be the direct expression of the will of the people. The problem now is not too much government, it's the wrong type of government.

It's both.

eire4

Recognition Scene wrote: »

Most worrying part of the election results imo... ending up with climate change deniers who will prioritize the quick buck over the environment.

These kind of politicans and the polices they push and support are the perfect example of what the auctioning off of the US government has lead to and how dangerous it is to all of us not just Americans.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

jank wrote: »

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

I am not saying this to be a smart-ass or to bait you, but is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that a lack of government regulation in any way stems the influence of corporate power? Any at all? And how are you defining power here?

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

It's both.

Why so? You don't believe the will of the people should be the right way to govern a country?

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

Why so? You don't believe the will of the people should be the right way to govern a country?

But what's the will of the people, who can define that? Some here don't want water charges, many don't want quangos etc.