2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

sin_city · 03-10-2014 4:07am

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Um, the fact that oil and gas is hugely profitable is the point: why should they receive massive subsidies from the federal government for exploration?

I dunno. Maybe they pay lots of taxes. Maybe its seen as a good return. Rand Paul doesn’t like to see money go to waste and investment in solar didn’t produce much profit for Obama.

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Like most politicians, his positions are pretty consistent with those of his top donors. The question is, which way does the causal arrow go? From your comments, you seem to think that the tail wags the dog - do you think that Paul is somehow exempt from that?

His Dad got lots of small contributions from individuals. I would guess that Rand also gets lots of these. Do you have a total of contributions under $200 for Rand Paul in comparison to others?

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Perhaps I am too cynical to believe that Rand Paul is a magical unicorn in the Senate who is not just as beholden to the special interests of his state and key national constituencies as ever other Senator. I don't like Paul's social conservatism, environmental policies or (in my view, misguided) faith that the free market fixes everything (or is always preferable to the government). I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not particularly crazy about any candidate, but there are some that are less intolerable than others.

The free market doesn’t fix everything. Then again we’ve never really had a completely free market.

Rand Paul will not fix the US. It is too far gone in my opinion but I’m sure he has some similarities to his Dad and Ron woke up many people to the fact that in general there is no difference between most Republicans and Democrats.

He’s simply the best option but he can’t fix the impending mess that is coming.

Black Swan · 03-10-2014 10:18am

Amerika wrote: »

Giving her a few more years executive experience, I could get behind a Governor Susana Martinez (R) run for the presidency next time around in 2020.

I'm uncertain at this point if she is a viable candidate for president. She was the "I'll be damned" speaker at the 2012 Republican Convention that got more applause than Mitt Romney. The 1st Latina Governor in the US (of the fastest growing US voter minority). But needs to distance herself from Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, Tea Party Republican faction, and take a more independent stance, perhaps a conservative position just slightly right of middle. She appears to be ahead in a recent NM election poll with Martinez 50% vs Gary King (Democrat) 41%. If reelected, I doubt that she will be ready to take on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Furthermore, I truly doubt that the GOP will run a female presidential candidate against Hillary Clinton in 2016, but perhaps a female VP. Their party is not ready to make such a bold move.

Strong right conservatives have little chance to swing enough independents, or get a sufficient number of Democrat cross-overs needed to win in 2016. You can't just win with registered Republicans. Now if there is a recessionary cycle that hits early in the 2016 election year, conservatives may have increased chances, but if the economy continues to gradually grow as it has since 2010, a more moderate position will probably draw more Independents and Dem cross-overs.

eire4 · 03-10-2014 11:03pm

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I'm fine with it. It’s part of the reason why the US, in a little over 200 years, has become the beacon for the world; and has excelled in opportunity, might, compassion, innovation, technology and medicine... to list just a few.

Ok I just wanted to make sure I had you right. Your saying your fine with the current state of US politics.

Personally I am not. As I said earlier I see a system that is broken. We have a 2 party monopoly. A large number of seats are gerrymandered by both parties in terms of the districting. While the supreme courts money is speech rulings have meant that the wealthy and powerful corporations have massive power. Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

I think we need a wider democracy which can be more representative of the country and one way to do that would be to more to some form of a PR system in elections.

Black Swan · 04-10-2014 12:55am

eire4 wrote: »

Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

Plus, the PACs to elect the president (and other officials) conveniently circumvent campaign finance reform, which are all too often funded by special interests.

Fr Tod Umptious · 05-10-2014 1:55pm

FatherTed wrote: »

There will be a lot of talk and money spent between now and the election. We should just save ourselves the hassle and annoint Hillary now because she's going to win.

Is Hillary's success that guaranteed at this stage ?.

I can see a few reason why she may not be ideal.
She will be 69 on election day.
I know that Regan was older but he was a Republican following a poor Democrat, Hillary will be a Democrat trying to follow a less than spectacular Democrat.

If the GOP could find a younger dynamic candidate , and its a big if, then he/she would really give Hillary a run for her money.
Remember the last time the incumbents put up an old stager v a young kid on the block ?

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 2:00am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is Hillary's success that guaranteed at this stage ?

I'm not thrilled by Hillary Clinton, finding her an unenlightened bore. But the Democrats have not produced anyone that could complete with the Clinton machine. Name one? Obama was a 2008 dark horse that didn't really appear until the race gate opened. I doubt there will be another such Democrat in 2016 to all-of-a-sudden appear as he did. Oh, there will be candidates, but not strong ones.

Ronald Reagan was older too, just like Hilliary Clinton is now, as you say. But I am not sure that age will be a negative factor, given that the massive 70 million US Baby Boomers (born between 1946-1964) are beginning to retire in substantial numbers (and such seniors tend to vote in greater numbers than youthful voters at the other end of the election continuum). Seniors may identify with Hilliary Clinton because of her age, who knows?

In like manner, Republicans or Democrats would be wise not to talk about the predicted failure of Social Security, or propose cut-backs during the 2016 presidential debates. It may make fiscal sense to propose cuts, or some other alternative to SS failure, but it would be political suicide with the Baby Boomer segment of the voter population. And there are enough senior retirees to make a difference between who wins in 2016, who might forget their party registration and cross-over to defend their retirements.

Obviously the older age voting segment is not the only segment to worry about in 2016, but it's an important one. So Hilliary Clinton's age may be a wash, similar but in some ways different from Reagan times.

On the flip side, who leads the GOP today? I don't see a Republican equivalent to Obama leading Democrats. Once again, 2016 will be a horse race for the Republican nomination, with no clear winner picks when the gate first opens.

FreudianSlippers · 06-10-2014 11:12am

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I'm fine with it. It’s part of the reason why the US, in a little over 200 years, has become the beacon for the world; and has excelled in opportunity, might, compassion, innovation, technology and medicine... to list just a few.

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

sin_city · 06-10-2014 12:15pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

It's called Capitalism....they used to have it in the US

Godge · 06-10-2014 12:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

On the flip side, who leads the GOP today? I don't see a Republican equivalent to Obama leading Democrats. Once again, 2016 will be a horse race for the Republican nomination, with no clear winner picks when the gate first opens.

And they will have thrown so much dirt at one another by the end of the nomination race that Hilary will look like a saint by comparison.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 4:18pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

I’d put American educations and Espionage at the top of the list.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 4:40pm

eire4 wrote: »

Ok I just wanted to make sure I had you right. Your saying your fine with the current state of US politics.

Personally I am not. As I said earlier I see a system that is broken. We have a 2 party monopoly. A large number of seats are gerrymandered by both parties in terms of the districting. While the supreme courts money is speech rulings have meant that the wealthy and powerful corporations have massive power. Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

I think we need a wider democracy which can be more representative of the country and one way to do that would be to more to some form of a PR system in elections.

Actually I’d say we have three parties. Independents comprise the largest party at 42%. The Independent party forces the other two parties to adjust at elections. Haven’t you noticed Democrats suddenly turning into centrists every four years, and Republicans growing hearts? And what party could make a run for a large slice of the power in the future? Libertarian, Conservative, Green, Socialist? Don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

I prefer our Democratic Republic over a Democracy any day.

Thargor · 06-10-2014 4:45pm

I really hope they sort out the debates this time around instead of these ridiculous soundbite reading sessions with only vague relations to the questions that were asked. Wishful thinking but maybe the networks will come around to how entertaining it can be and the social media buzz it can stir when you let imbeciles like Perry run their mouths a bit.

Way too early for Susana Martinez, she'll give it a few more years first but definitely a future contender.

FreudianSlippers · 06-10-2014 6:14pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d put American educations and Espionage at the top of the list.

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 6:35pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

Worthless?

I was at Yale University last month checking out the campus for my daughter, who is being recruited by them (and tuition costs would be less than 5% for her). I thought I was at some Asian university, and couldn’t understand what most of the students said.

The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment. The number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew from 110,000 in 2001 to 819,644 in 2013. The majority of international students in the US study science, technology, engineering, mathematics or business, management and marketing fields. Students from China, India and South Korea make up 49% of the total number of international students in the United States.

So tell me again why China and Asia are now excelling in the sciences?

BoJack Horseman · 06-10-2014 6:49pm

Amerika wrote: »

Worthless?

I was at Yale University last month checking out the campus for my daughter, who is being recruited by them (and tuition costs would be less than 5% for her). I thought I was at some Asian university, and couldn’t understand what most of the students said.

The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment. The number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew from 110,000 in 2001 to 819,644 in 2013. The majority of international students in the US study science, technology, engineering, mathematics or business, management and marketing fields. Students from China, India and South Korea make up 49% of the total number of international students in the United States.

So tell me again why China and Asia are now excelling in the sciences?

True.

But there are some "for profit" colleges that are all but worthless.

By & large though, an American education is a pretty good one (if pricey) at all levels.

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 10:03pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

You may wish to review this ranking system. The London Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 are "the only global university performance tables to judge world class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments."

Amerika wrote: »

Worthless?
The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment.

Of the top 20 ranked universities in the world (The London Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015), 15 are in the US, including the top 2: California Institute of Technology (1st), and Harvard University (2nd).

Amerika: Yale University has improved its ranking in the past academic year, climbing from 11th to 9th.

Caution should be exercised when interpreting these rankings. Specific academic programmes are not ranked, rather overall university performance based upon their ranking criteria; e.g., a specific discipline may be ranked higher than the host university.

eire4 · 06-10-2014 10:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

Actually I’d say we have three parties. Independents comprise the largest party at 42%. The Independent party forces the other two parties to adjust at elections. Haven’t you noticed Democrats suddenly turning into centrists every four years, and Republicans growing hearts? And what party could make a run for a large slice of the power in the future? Libertarian, Conservative, Green, Socialist? Don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

I prefer our Democratic Republic over a Democracy any day.

There is no independant party.

What I have noticed is that Washington politicans are so under the influence of those who paid to put them there that they only give lip service to taking care of the needs of the people they represent.

As for what parties could make a run for office you see that kind of thinking is party of the problem with Washington as it stands. If lets say a Green Party and a Libertarian Party were allowed to function and grow they might only say each have 5% of the vote but they would at least have a voice and be allowed to offer an alternative. Sure they would need time to grow and become a viable alternative in terms of gaining significant and high office in Washington but thats only to be expected.

I have no idea what level of support those 2 parties could build in the first few years if given a fair playing field to put forth their messages but there is no doubt that the system as it stands is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans as a duopoly and they set up rules and regulations to make sure smaller parties have as small a voice as possible and do not have a chance to ever actually threaten them for office.

The presidential debate commission for instance is thought by many I would say to be an indpendant commission. It is in fact an organization owned by and controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties who make sure that presidential candidates from other parties are excluded from the debates.

As I have said earlier more then once on this thread I would like to see some form of a PR sytem used for elections in this country. I also think it is vital we end the blatant gerrymandering of political districts which is done by both parties depending on a state level who controls each state. We also need to find a way to level the playing field financially so that Washington is not there to serve only those who paid to get them elected.

OLeary in the Grave · 06-10-2014 10:52pm

2008 was unusual in being fought out among senators. They usually elect a Governor with executive experience.

I fancy Martin O'Malley, Democratic Governor of Maryland, to defeat Scott Walker, Republican Governor of Wisconsin in November 2016.

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 11:26pm

Former president GW Bush claims that his brother Jeb Bush “is weighing his options” for the 2016 presidential race. It would appear that Jeb is sending up test balloons to see what the responses might be at this point. I still believe that he will not declare for 2016, giving the US voter a little more time to forget the Great Recession and the 2 longest wars in US history that occurred under brother GW's administration.

Amerika · 07-10-2014 2:13pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

True.

But there are some "for profit" colleges that are all but worthless.

By & large though, an American education is a pretty good one (if pricey) at all levels.

I agree with you intellectually that some degrees received at some of the "for profit" colleges are all but worthless. Even at some of the low cost state colleges. But on a practical level I would disagree. I believe it still holds true that that “piece of paper” (college degree) commands an average extra earning potential of $1 million (US) over the course of an individuals working life against someone without the piece of paper, as long at the individual receives a marketable degree, and not something like Toltec Literature.

Black Swan · 07-10-2014 11:57pm

Much to the chagrin of his right wing Republican competitors for the 2016 presidential nomination, after months of investigation the US Justice Department found no evidence that Gov Christie knew about the closure of the George Washington Bridge in advance. Bridgegate is losing its media and rival spin, as moderate Republican Christie continues to successfully fund raise about the US. Unless he slips on another banana peel between now and the November 2016 elections, he may turnout to be a strong candidate against his GOP rivals for the nomination. And he WILL RUN in 2016.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 08-10-2014 2:26pm

OLeary in the Grave wrote: »

2008 was unusual in being fought out among senators. They usually elect a Governor with executive experience.

I fancy Martin O'Malley, Democratic Governor of Maryland, to defeat Scott Walker, Republican Governor of Wisconsin in November 2016.

The current race for governor of Wisconsin is a statistical toss-up with less than a month to go.

Amerika · 08-10-2014 5:04pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

The current race for governor of Wisconsin is a statistical toss-up with less than a month to go.

The Republican has gotten their fiscal house somewhat back in order. Now time to muck things up again with a Democrat again? Seems to be the cycle oft repeated here.

eire4 · 08-10-2014 6:49pm

Walker’s decisions have harmed our state. By Lori Compas
There’s a lot to be said for positive thinking, but facts are facts. Wisconsin’s economy is in worse shape today than it was four years ago.
One of Scott Walker’s first actions as governor was rejecting $23 million in federal funds for expanding rural broadband access. Expanding broadband would have boosted business opportunities in small towns and rural areas throughout Wisconsin, but now those tax dollars — tax dollars we sent to the federal government and could have gotten back — have gone to other states.
Walker also rejected funds for high-speed rail. Again, these funds were essentially a rebate on our federal taxes, and they would have benefited businesses across the state by linking Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and the Twin Cities. But again, our tax dollars went to other states. Train-maker Talgo has closed its Wisconsin factory, and the trains we paid for will link Chicago to Detroit instead of Milwaukee.
Wisconsin’s job growth has fallen far behind neighboring states and the U.S. as a whole. In fact, our state’s job growth ranks ninth among the 10 Midwestern states, according to the latest figures available at press time. Unemployment numbers are down here, as they are across the country, but it’s important to keep in mind that unemployment figures don’t account for people who have given up and fallen off the rolls.
And finally, our state’s budget does not have a surplus. Our current leaders essentially paid off the state’s debt with a credit card, borrowing money to finance our obligations.
No amount of crowing about an imaginary surplus will erase our state’s serious debt. Reciting misleading unemployment numbers will not reopen closed factories or stop Wisconsin from losing jobs. And it’s just plain silly to pretend that broadband access and high-speed rail aren’t important in today’s economy.
I’m all for positive thinking, but it’s time to face the facts. Our state’s economy is in worse shape than it was four years ago, and it won’t get better until our leaders invest in modern infrastructure and stop cherry-picking jobs and budget numbers.
Lori Compas is a small business owner and the executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Business Alliance, WisconsinBusinessAlliance.com.

Black Swan · 09-10-2014 8:28am

It appears that the unofficial 2016 presidential GOP nomination campaign is in full swing. US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) labeled Christie the “Rudy Giuliani of this cycle” to campaign donors. Odds are that both Ted Cruz and Chris Christie will be running.

Paleface · 09-10-2014 1:49pm

How can Ted Cruz run if he was born in Canada?

Amerika · 09-10-2014 2:36pm

eire4 wrote: »

Walker’s decisions have harmed our state. By Lori Compas
There’s a lot to be said for positive thinking, but facts are facts. Wisconsin’s economy is in worse shape today than it was four years ago.
One of Scott Walker’s first actions as governor was rejecting $23 million in federal funds for expanding rural broadband access. Expanding broadband would have boosted business opportunities in small towns and rural areas throughout Wisconsin, but now those tax dollars — tax dollars we sent to the federal government and could have gotten back — have gone to other states.
Walker also rejected funds for high-speed rail. Again, these funds were essentially a rebate on our federal taxes, and they would have benefited businesses across the state by linking Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and the Twin Cities. But again, our tax dollars went to other states. Train-maker Talgo has closed its Wisconsin factory, and the trains we paid for will link Chicago to Detroit instead of Milwaukee.
Wisconsin’s job growth has fallen far behind neighboring states and the U.S. as a whole. In fact, our state’s job growth ranks ninth among the 10 Midwestern states, according to the latest figures available at press time. Unemployment numbers are down here, as they are across the country, but it’s important to keep in mind that unemployment figures don’t account for people who have given up and fallen off the rolls.
And finally, our state’s budget does not have a surplus. Our current leaders essentially paid off the state’s debt with a credit card, borrowing money to finance our obligations.
No amount of crowing about an imaginary surplus will erase our state’s serious debt. Reciting misleading unemployment numbers will not reopen closed factories or stop Wisconsin from losing jobs. And it’s just plain silly to pretend that broadband access and high-speed rail aren’t important in today’s economy.
I’m all for positive thinking, but it’s time to face the facts. Our state’s economy is in worse shape than it was four years ago, and it won’t get better until our leaders invest in modern infrastructure and stop cherry-picking jobs and budget numbers.
Lori Compas is a small business owner and the executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Business Alliance, WisconsinBusinessAlliance.com.

I’ve read those talking points from several sources. I wonder if the author got her information from, or was influenced by, the secretive leftwing low-profile Google group network “Gamechanger Salon” (which IMO could legitimately be considered “The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy”), that was recently discovered through WI records law, and is used by over 1,000 state and national leftwing leaders, activists, and the media. The membership to “Gamechanger Salon” is a “who’s who” of the Left and is dedicated to creating a more coordinated movement for liberals across the country.

Here’s the membership list if anyone’s interested…
http://mediatrackers.org/assets/uploads/2014/07/Gamechanger-Salon.pdf

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 09-10-2014 3:29pm

Paleface wrote: »

How can Ted Cruz run if he was born in Canada?

Well isn't that an interesting question. According to Article II section I of the US Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Some have interpreted the 'natural born Citizen' clause to mean that an individual had to be born entitled to citizenship, whether by being born within the territory of the United States (the more restrictive view) or by being born anywhere but with an entitlement via a parent (the looser interpretation). Although Cruz was born in Canada, his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, so according to the looser interpretation, he would qualify. If Cruz runs, his candidacy will likely be challenged in court and I would fully expect those birther groups that spent years harping on about Obama's birth certificate to lead the charge against a Cruz candidacy.

:pac:;)

Black Swan · 09-10-2014 10:11pm

Paleface wrote: »

How can Ted Cruz run if he was born in Canada?

Born 22 December 1970 (age 43), Calgary, Canada. There is a debate as to if he is qualified to run for the US presidency.

Alternatives: (1) reinterpret the US Constitution using the current Republican stacked Supreme Court; or (2) invade, conquer, and annex Canada in time for the November 2016 elections.

FreudianSlippers · 10-10-2014 9:05am

Black Swan wrote: »

Born 22 December 1970 (age 43), Calgary, Canada. There is a debate as to if he is qualified to run for the US presidency.

Alternatives: (1) reinterpret the US Constitution using the current Republican stacked Supreme Court; or (2) invade, conquer, and annex Canada in time for the November 2016 elections.

It's still legally ambiguous what "naturally-born citizen" means - had John McCain won, I'd say there would have needed to be a Constitutional amendment as it's clear that he was not naturally born (rather made retrospectively a citizen, having been born a citizen of Panama); Ted Cruz is, academically, a different story as he was never a Canadian citizen AFAIK.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments