2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal · 08-10-2015 05:25PM

I prefer Sanders who isn't really a democrat..

Who on the GOP side, do I want to see stay in the race? Honestly, I couldn't tell you at this point. I could have told you Carson seemed like a nice chap a month ago but some of his choice comments/opinions have put me off. I'd love to see Trump stay in it until election day, for the ****s and the giggles. Even my dad recently expressed warming up to Christie, having had an irrational grudge against the man for hugging Obama during a post-hurricane relief meeting.

Amerika · 08-10-2015 06:13PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Just a quick question for the majority Democrat supporters on this thread? If you had to choose somebody from the current GOP cans to be President, who would it be and why?

I doubt you will get any Democrats here willing to point to a Republican they would vote for... Out of fear of bursting into flames. In honesty, I think Johnson, Christie and Pataki would appeal most because they are the least conservative of the GOP hopefuls.

As a Republican, if I had to choose a Democrat to vote for, it would be Jim Webb because he is the least liberal Democrat running.

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 06:43PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Just a quick question for the majority Democrat supporters on this thread? If you had to choose somebody from the current GOP cans to be President, who would it be and why?

I dunno, perhaps a giant Pillsbury Doughboy rampaging through the city? There's no genuine centrists left in the field, and it would be quite the stretch of the imagination to suppose there were some individual meriting the position by dint of their sheer personal brilliance.

I'd be inclined to lean towards the "libertarian" quadrant of the field, if I really had to. Given the nature of the office, that represents a certain amount of harm minimisation. Can't unilaterally abolish the IRS and dismantle the federal government; can start bombing places and nominate "litmus test" SC justices.

So that would mean someone like Paul or Pataki, I suppose. No-hopers, as it's panning out. (I mean primary no-hopers. They all look like no-hopers in the general, at this stage.) But that's what one would expect: the "libertarian" noises of the Tea Party were always nonsense (whether vain PR, or Koch brother aspiration). The Republican base is actually pretty authoritarian.

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 06:54PM

Amerika wrote: »

As a Republican, if I had to choose a Democrat to vote for, it would be Jim Webb because he is the least liberal Democrat running.

Really? Because he believes in punching Dubya and the 2nd amendment?

Is there a case that he's more centrist than Clinton that's based on their voting record and stated policy positions? As opposed to the usual Vast Hillary Conspiracy stuff that's wholly based on unverifiable supposition?

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 07:01PM

Overheal wrote: »

I could have told you Carson seemed like a nice chap a month ago but some of his choice comments/opinions have put me off.

That Carson has such a reasonable and calm demeanour almost makes it more disturbing. Causes a sort of affect dissociation. Trump, as someone (here or elsewhere, I forget) has the sort of manner one expects from someone who says the sort of thing he says: ranting, red-faced, bullying. With BC there's a whole "wait, what?" double-take involved.

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 07:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

I genuinely hope that we avoid trying to push for presidents based on a minority success (first black president, first woman president, first jewish president)

You may feel that way, but clearly a significant chunk of the 51% female "minority" think that a 240-year monopoly on being the head of government by the 49% "majority" is over-doing it.

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 07:16PM

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

It's only mostly false, like claiming the moon is a big round ball of cheese.

That's a completely unfair comparison.

"Big round ball of cheese" is 75% accurate. And the remaining 25% can't be completely excluded, either. (Though it would have to be Lunar Core Cheese of a very high specific density, it must be admitted, and I'm not sure how one tweaks the giant impact model to account for it.)

Amerika · 08-10-2015 07:33PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Really? Because he believes in punching Dubya and the 2nd amendment?

Is there a case that he's more centrist than Clinton that's based on their voting record and stated policy positions? As opposed to the usual Vast Hillary Conspiracy stuff that's wholly based on unverifiable supposition?

There were times I felt like punching Dubya also, especially the bailout in 2008, and the spending habits over his 8 years.

Webb was the former Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan, and his policy positions do not march in goose step along Democratic party lines. His positions on the environment and the EPA appeals to me, he’s against the Iran deal, and advocates for only a piecemeal approach to an overhaul of the immigration system.

alaimacerc · 08-10-2015 08:14PM

Amerika wrote: »

Webb was the former Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan, and his policy positions do not march in goose step along Democratic party lines. His positions on the environment and the EPA appeals to me, he’s against the Iran deal, and advocates for only a piecemeal approach to an overhaul of the immigration system.

That was simultaneously borderline "report post" fodder (Democrats are Nazis, ha-ha-hah!), and somewhat informative on the policy areas aspects.

It hardly makes him strikingly less liberal than the other candidates (esp. Clinton), but in the context of a much narrower, less clown-car-like Democratic field, I suppose less variation is inevitable.

Black Swan · 09-10-2015 01:12AM

Overheal wrote: »

I genuinely hope that we avoid trying to push for presidents based on a minority success (first black president, first woman president, first jewish president)

Brian? wrote: »

I'm going to be pedantic here, women aren't a minority. There's more women in the world than men.

But you're right, the gender, ethnic background or creed of a candidate shouldn't matter. The most qualified candidate should win, i.e. Joe Biden.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You may feel that way, but clearly a significant chunk of the 51% female "minority" think that a 240-year monopoly on being the head of government by the 49% "majority" is over-doing it.

There is a massive but slow moving demographic shift occurring in America that has no historical precedent, consequently only armchair speculation as to its consequences (not historical or empirical). Today over half of US college and university enrollments are female according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, when following WWII it was a third, and less before WWII. In like manner, today college and university business degree major enrollments are over half female, an unheard of percentage historically.

Methinks that this huge educational shift in the population will result eventually in a huge shift in authority structures for both public and private management, and that in 100 years, if not before, half of congress will be held by qualified female office holders, and half of those winning the presidency may be accordingly. This is not driven by a legislated quota system, or some attempt to be PC, rather a demographic shift that greatly raises female qualifications and will have consequences that we can only guess about today.

The Randy Riverbeast · 09-10-2015 03:15PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's a completely unfair comparison.

"Big round ball of cheese" is 75% accurate. And the remaining 25% can't be completely excluded, either. (Though it would have to be Lunar Core Cheese of a very high specific density, it must be admitted, and I'm not sure how one tweaks the giant impact model to account for it.)

It is actually mostly true then. I'll draw a chart without a y axis to make it look more right than it is. The y axis is optional anyway.

Black Swan · 11-10-2015 03:11AM

Paul Ryan may be out of contention for a GOP VP slot for 2016, as he "plays hard to get" with fellow Republicans regarding the suddenly open Speaker of the House post. Methinks that he really wants the 3rd highest position in US government, but says he does not in public, and that it's the age old political game of appearing to be drafted by his party with a lot of begging by noted party figures. If someone believes this impression management malarkey, I have pigs that fly for sale too. I doubt that he would have been a good VP if he had won during 2012 presidentials, and doubt that his pseudo-personal sacrifice to become Speaker will be any better.

Thargor · 11-10-2015 07:40PM

Ben Carson is a serious weirdo:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ben-carson-was-a-vegetarian-at-the-time-he-claims-to-have-been-robbed-at-popeyes-chicken/22779/

In the days following Ben Carson’s claim that he once survived being held at gunpoint at a Popeyes chicken restaurant by telling the gunman to target the cashier instead of himself, the nation has grappled with whether to believe his story. The Baltimore Police Department says it can find no records to support his claim, even though the restaurant chain would certainly have filed a police report after a robbery. Now it turns out Carson was a vegetarian at the time – so why would he have been at a chicken restaurant?

In keeping with the times, Popeyes has added vegetarian dishes to its menu. But the Ben Carson camp alternately claims that the robbery happened either “thirty” or “more than thirty” years ago, and at that time the restaurant chain simply offered chicken. If this were the only suspicious part of Ben Carson’s robbery story, one might be tempted to explain it away by suggesting that perhaps he merely stopped in to use the restroom. But within the larger context of the story, it increasingly appears that he may have simply made up the story in an effort to justify his earlier comments about America needing more guns to fight back against gunmen. The story gets even stranger.

Ben Carson’s business manager attempted to confirm the truthfulness of the robbery story by claiming that Carson had included the details about it in his book, Take The Risk. But those who have read the book have confirmed that it makes no mention of such an incident. Throw in the police not being able to find any evidence of the robbery, and his increasingly bizarre claims about the Holocaust, no wonder have come to seriously ask whether Ben Carson may be suffering from a mental illness.

ECO_Mental · 11-10-2015 09:40PM

Thargor wrote: »

Ben Carson is a serious weirdo:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ben-carson-was-a-vegetarian-at-the-time-he-claims-to-have-been-robbed-at-popeyes-chicken/22779/

Yeah when I watching the debates his mannerisms seemed a bit off, a bit like Aspergers I thought. Didn't he lose the plot when he was in high school and tried to gut one of class mates with a hunting knife. He mentions in his book that he had serious anger issues and tried to hurt people with baseball bats etc.

You don't need a POTUS with anger issues.. Even though he had suppressed them for a good few years with the pressure of being in the white house these could come back

MightyMandarin · 11-10-2015 11:10PM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Yeah when I watching the debates his mannerisms seemed a bit off, a bit like Aspergers I thought. Didn't he lose the plot when he was in high school and tried to gut one of class mates with a hunting knife. He mentions in his book that he had serious anger issues and tried to hurt people with baseball bats etc.

You don't need a POTUS with anger issues.. Even though he had suppressed them for a good few years with the pressure of being in the white house these could come back

To be fair, I wouldn't judge him based on that story. The stuff about the Jews resisting the Holocaust if they had guns was just weird though.

MightyMandarin · 11-10-2015 11:13PM

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/time-sane-republicans-realize-no-longer-party/

A good article about how moderate or 'sane' Republicans are now struggling without a political party as their own one has now been hijacked by the Tea Party nutjobs.

Thargor · 12-10-2015 10:36AM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Yeah when I watching the debates his mannerisms seemed a bit off, a bit like Aspergers I thought. Didn't he lose the plot when he was in high school and tried to gut one of class mates with a hunting knife. He mentions in his book that he had serious anger issues and tried to hurt people with baseball bats etc.

You don't need a POTUS with anger issues.. Even though he had suppressed them for a good few years with the pressure of being in the white house these could come back

Theres something seriously off about him alright, a neurosurgeon and a highly regarded one so obviously in the gifted/genius zone on one hand but then when you hear his opinions, his mannerisms and the weird stories attached to him I dont even know how to describe it, this is with the media in soft touch mode with him aswell, if he became a serious candidate God knows what would be dug up.

Amerika · 13-10-2015 03:35PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

...The stuff about the Jews resisting the Holocaust if they had guns was just weird though.

Yes Carson is inartful at times, and gave the media ammunition to go all Nazipalooza this past week. But we’ve lost sight of the real point Carson was making... Why deny those brave enough to resist the opportunity to do so? The main point, which has buried to media scorn, is not if an armed people can overthrow a tyrannical government, but rather, does the government get to deny them the chance to try?

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2015 03:44PM

Just giving a heads-up, CNN are streaming the first of the Democrats' nominee debates tonight for free from 8-11pm ET.

Amerika · 13-10-2015 04:06PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Just giving a heads-up, CNN are streaming the first of the Democrats' nominee debates tonight for free from 8-11pm ET.

****** Snoozeapalloza warning! *******

Yup, the first Democratic debate is tonight. Gear yourselves for the swinging at softballs and seeing candidates agreeing with each other, ad nauseam.

Doubtful to be on the topic tonight will be Benghazi, emails, or pay-to-play personal foundations. And if they do manage to get slipped in, does anyone doubt here will be a general consensus of how stand up a gal Hillary is?

alaimacerc · 13-10-2015 04:10PM

Amerika wrote: »

Doubtful to be on the topic tonight will be Benghazi

Doubtful to be on-topic ever.

The Fox rebroadcast stuff is especially relentless today, it seems. Might as well be in the Politics Cafe at this rate.

Wompa1 · 13-10-2015 04:12PM

Amerika wrote: »

Yes Carson is inartful at times, and gave the media ammunition to go all Nazipalooza this past week. But we’ve lost sight of the real point Carson was making... Why deny those brave enough to resist the opportunity to do so? The main point, which has buried to media scorn, is not if an armed people can overthrow a tyrannical government, but rather, does the government get to deny them the chance to try?

He's not just inartful. He's either purposely trying to follow Trumps lead of using hatred to gain popularity or he's an hateful idiot. Saying hateful, stupid crap in order for people to see him as off the cuff and unrehearsed as Trump. After his comment about the US should never have a Muslim President, his popularity rating doubled.

It's worrying that popularity in one of only two prominent political parties is driven by hate. Hopefully Americans think long and hard about the character of the person they vote in and that includes Hillary...her character is highly questionable

alaimacerc · 13-10-2015 04:13PM

Amerika wrote: »

The main point, which has buried to media scorn, is not if an armed people can overthrow a tyrannical government, but rather, does the government get to deny them the chance to try?

I don't think your respinning does him much favours. It's the government's duty to facilitate armed insurrection from the Right! Otherwise, socialist (which is of course the same thing as "Nazi", Because Reasons) tyranny!

Thargor · 13-10-2015 04:13PM

Amerika have you ever actually said what the Obama administration could have done about Benghazi or what they could now do to satisfy you?

alaimacerc · 13-10-2015 04:15PM

Thargor wrote: »

Amerika have you ever actually said what the Obama administration could have done about Benghazi or what they could now do to satisfy you?

Impeach themselves and disband the Democratic Party, I think that's about the gist of it.

brooke 2 · 13-10-2015 04:21PM

Thargor wrote: »

Theres something seriously off about him alright, a neurosurgeon and a highly regarded one so obviously in the gifted/genius zone on one hand but then when you hear his opinions, his mannerisms and the weird stories attached to him I dont even know how to describe it, this is with the media in soft touch mode with him aswell, if he became a serious candidate God knows what would be dug up.

I saw him during the debates and was seriously unimpressed by.him. Could not understand how he was so popular. Even a simple question, such as would he raise the minimum wage, he had difficulty answering, replying that he 'possibly' or
'probably' would. He came across as someone displaying very little confidence, from what I saw of him. Am totally puzzled as to why there has been so much hype about him.

Wompa1 · 13-10-2015 04:23PM

Amerika wrote: »

****** Snoozeapalloza warning! *******

Yup, the first Democratic debate is tonight. Gear yourselves for the swinging at softballs and seeing candidates agreeing with each other, ad nauseam.

Doubtful to be on the topic tonight will be Benghazi, emails, or pay-to-play personal foundations. And if they do manage to get slipped in, does anyone doubt here will be a general consensus of how stand up a gal Hillary is?

Similarly not mentioned in the Republican debate. The actions of the delegates in Texas that passed abortion regulations despite the fact they missed the deadline. The championing of the crazy rancher in Texas as some kind of beacon of hope for American freedom when he turned out to be a vehement racist. The Government shutdown. Bringing Netanyahu into speak without prior approval. The fact that Obamacare has actually been a success and has improved things for millions of Americans. Not one of them has spoken about their comprehensive plans for what they'll do after they repeal Obamacare....they have not mentioned keeping any of like the fact insurance companies must provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions....They just placate and talk about Joe Blow who can't go to his Doctor any more...which is BS..if Joe Blow can't go to his Dr any more it's because he either changed his plan or his Dr has decided to refuse his insurance...that's not an issue with the policy...it's a problem with either his Dr's greed or the fact he changed insurance to get something that's cheaper and then feels entitled to keep his Dr.

Which by the way, he should be able to BUT that's not how it works here. Before or after the introduction of 'Obamacare'. I've changed jobs a few times in the last few years. Each time I've had to change my Dentist and Dr. because my insurance wouldn't cover them....that should be changed but successive Republican and Democrat Presidents have not changed it. Nor will they. Ever.

Amerika · 13-10-2015 05:01PM

Thargor wrote: »

Amerika have you ever actually said what the Obama administration could have done about Benghazi or what they could now do to satisfy you?

Don’t know yet. Will have to wait on the House Select Committee on Benghazi report (hopefully they will succeed, unlike the prior committees, in finally getting the needed information to make an accurate assessment about the event). Maybe all that could have been done was done... maybe not. But the truth needs to be told before any recommendations can be made.

Amerika · 13-10-2015 05:07PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

Similarly not mentioned in the Republican debate. The actions of the delegates in Texas that passed abortion regulations despite the fact they missed the deadline. The championing of the crazy rancher in Texas as some kind of beacon of hope for American freedom when he turned out to be a vehement racist. The Government shutdown. Bringing Netanyahu into speak without prior approval. The fact that Obamacare has actually been a success and has improved things for millions of Americans. Not one of them has spoken about their comprehensive plans for what they'll do after they repeal Obamacare....they have not mentioned keeping any of like the fact insurance companies must provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions....They just placate and talk about Joe Blow who can't go to his Doctor any more...which is BS..if Joe Blow can't go to his Dr any more it's because he either changed his plan or his Dr has decided to refuse his insurance...that's not an issue with the policy...it's a problem with either his Dr's greed or the fact he changed insurance to get something that's cheaper and then feels entitled to keep his Dr.

Which by the way, he should be able to BUT that's not how it works here. Before or after the introduction of 'Obamacare'. I've changed jobs a few times in the last few years. Each time I've had to change my Dentist and Dr. because my insurance wouldn't cover them....that should be changed but successive Republican and Democrat Presidents have not changed it. Nor will they. Ever.

Would not the responsibility for bringing up those issues have fallen to the moderators, if they indeed were germane to the GOP campaign for POTUS?

Amerika · 13-10-2015 05:10PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Impeach themselves and disband the Democratic Party, I think that's about the gist of it.

What was that you said about the Politics Cafe? :rolleyes:

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments