PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Presidential Election



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

RhettButler
01-13-2015, 09:27 AM
In just about 22 months Americans will go to the polls and elect the 45th President of the United States.

Some recent articles state that Mitt Romney wants to put his hat in the ring for the third time and that there is likely to be a showdown between him and Jeb Bush, as both men are going after the same donors and both men are favorites among the GOP "establishment."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-2016-114199.html#ixzz3Oeu91ztP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-jeb-bush-and-mitt-romney-a-history-of-ambition-fuels-a-possible-2016-collision/2015/01/10/255bfbaa-98f0-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html

The primaries are still a year away and anything can happen, but it's likely to be Bush or Romney running against Hillary Clinton, who I think is all but certain to win the Democratic nomination. I like Warren and Sanders, but I just don't see them winning the nomination. Sure, pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton would win the nomination in 2007, a year away from when the first votes were cast, but Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate, and I don't see anyone like that this time around. It's worth noting that Obama and Clinton split the electorate pretty much 50/50 in 2008.

In the end I predict Clinton will be the next president, but what do I know?

Thoughts/Opinions?

allegro
01-13-2015, 09:30 AM
As much as I want a female President, I really hope it's not Hillary. She's just the same old shit, recycled. I wish somebody new and refreshing threw their hat into the ring. ALL of these candidates are boring fucking legacy dinosaurs. I liked Romney's dad but Mitt AIN'T his Dad, not by a longshot. We've had too many Bushes and Clintons, already.

So far, candidates = YAWN.

It's hilarious how the candidates and the GOP don't seem to think about what the voters want. Young voters ain't likely to go for Hillary, and we've already seen what happens to the electoral college votes when candidates don't care about minorites in big urban areas (looking at you, Marie AntoiMitt).

I'm just tired of all these geezers.

RhettButler
01-13-2015, 09:35 AM
As much as I want a female President, I really hope it's not Hillary. She's just the same old shit, recycled. I wish somebody new and refreshinh threw their hat into the ring. ALL of these candidates are boring fucking legacy dinasaurs.
From 1980 to 2008 a Bush and/or a Clinton ran for president or vice president in EVERY election. So I see what you mean.

Now we might have a Bush run against a Clinton. Party like it's 1992!

allegro
01-13-2015, 09:45 AM
Hahahaha UGH!!!!!

RhettButler
01-13-2015, 09:58 AM
Clinton is too centrist for me, but I'll vote for her. Hopefully she'll be able to work with congress and get things done. Plus, even though she would be president, the Clintons are a team. The 1990's weren't so bad, really. They weren't perfect, but a lot of people would rather have that than another Bush or a Romney.

allegro
01-13-2015, 10:50 AM
Every time I like Hillary, some bullshit comes out of her mouth that makes me change my mind.

aggroculture
01-13-2015, 11:15 AM
Elizabeth Warren vs Ted Cruz
Warren wins.

NO Hillary. She'll totally lose against anybody. Hillary voters should vote Warren.
Yeah I know she used to be a republican, but as far as I can see, she's the best option.

allegro
01-13-2015, 11:42 AM
They're going to have to have some kind of US Supreme Court decision, first, re Cruz being born in Canada.

Then maybe all the Obama birthers will finally STFU.

I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, but she's not saying anything new, really. And she keeps saying she's not going to run for President, isn't she?

WorzelG
01-13-2015, 12:03 PM
Although not American, my husband would really like to see Arnie be president (he genuinely thinks he would be a good president), but he's ruined by the US born rule. I think if someone has become a us citizen they should be able to become president.

Deepvoid
01-13-2015, 12:44 PM
I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, but she's not saying anything new, really. And she keeps saying she's not going to run for President, isn't she?

That's what I've been reading about Warren. However, she's under a lot of pressure from progressives.
On the other hand, the establishment is most likely behind Hilary. The banks are, that's for sure.

Dra508
01-13-2015, 05:47 PM
I think if someone has become a us citizen they should be able to become president.I'm no Nationalist, but I actually like this rule. Also the one about being of a certain age - like 35 I think. They should also have an age limit, say 72. Yeah, I said it - the average brain is dimishing by than. I don't want some ol geezers finger on the button. Shit, Reagan was already showing signs of dementia when he left office right?

I don't think Warren will run and if she did, I'd be afraid for her life. Seriously, some dumb 'merican folk think she's a communist.

I'll still find someone to vote for and all you assholes here better be fucking registered and vote too or I will hunt you down. :)

RhettButler
01-13-2015, 05:59 PM
I'm no Nationalist, but I actually like this rule. Also the one about being of a certain age - like 35 I think. They should also have an age limit, say 72. Yeah, I said it - the average brain is dimishing by than. I don't want some ol geezers finger on the button. Shit, Reagan was already showing signs of dementia when he left office right?

I don't think Warren will run and if she did, I'd be afraid for her life. Seriously, some dumb 'merican folk think she's a communist.

I'll still find someone to vote for and all you assholes here better be fucking registered and vote too or I will hunt you down. :)
I'd be against an age-limit. Plenty of people are still sharp into their 80's or even 90's. But perhaps it should be easier to remove a president if he or she is unfit.

elevenism
01-13-2015, 08:28 PM
In the end I predict Clinton will be the next president, but what do I know?

Thoughts/Opinions?

SADLY...and yes, i say this with much sadness, i believe that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of a democrat winning the next presidential race.
Obama has galvanized the right and the pendulum must swing...that seems to be how it works in these extremely polarizing times.

Jinsai
01-13-2015, 08:35 PM
SADLY...and yes, i say this with much sadness, i believe that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of a democrat winning the next presidential race.
Obama has galvanized the right and the pendulum must swing...that seems to be how it works in these extremely polarizing times.

If they pick Bush, it might stir people's memories enough to the point where they'll sit up in shock and say "OH HOLY FUCK NO!!!!' and actually mobilize a voting base.

Obama has not done as bad of a job as the republicans are spinning it. I would vote for him again. And I sure as fuck will vote for Clinton over Bush if it comes to that... but please, let's not let it come to that... that's so fucking stupid. Please, let the election come down to ANY candidates but Clinton vs Bush. I will literally lose my fucking mind.

elevenism
01-13-2015, 09:07 PM
I just don't know Jinsai . i hope your right about the bush thing.

RhettButler
01-13-2015, 09:10 PM
SADLY...and yes, i say this with much sadness, i believe that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of a democrat winning the next presidential race.
Obama has galvanized the right and the pendulum must swing...that seems to be how it works in these extremely polarizing times.
Romney and Bush are weak retreads and every poll has Clinton ahead in a potential match-up. Plus the Republican party is splintered, with the Tea Party wing steering the party far to the right of most voters. Democrats on the other hand are far more united. I'd be very surprised if the Republicans win in '16.

allegro
01-13-2015, 09:23 PM
Jeb Bush is NOT his brother, and has a lot of Latinos in Florida behind him. He could totally run away with this. And I wouldn't think it would be as horrible as Romney. Go figure.

But, yeah, I've seen a lot of statistical studies showing that unless Republicans clean up their act and ditch the Tea Party and court us Independents and the minority voters, they will never again win the Pres election. They'll keep House control forever due to gerrymandering, but President? Forget it.

Face it, Hillary is a weak retread, too. This is her 2nd try. She was in the WH for 8 years.
WHITEWATER. Can't we have someone NEW?

And I feel TERRIBLE as a feminist for saying that; Hillary is from Chicago, she's smart, educated, driven. But, she speaketh with forked tongue and I don't like her. I don't trust her. I like Warren or Stein a LOT more.

Deepvoid
01-14-2015, 09:13 AM
Can you image for a second having Warren as POTUS?
The right would literally go insane. They think Obama is a communist? They haven't seen nothing. Warren is so far off to the left compared to Obama.
Problem is what would Warren do without controlling the Senate?

Anyways, how much is Rand Paul polling these days? Does he have shot at winning the primaries?

allegro
01-14-2015, 09:17 AM
I dunno, wayyy too early, people are too sick of the November election to care, yet.

But Rand Paul might do really well in a primary with geezers like Romney and Bush. And if Clinton is the snooze Dem frontrunner, I think you'd see a lot of Independents swinging over to Rand Paul.

Swykk
01-14-2015, 11:44 AM
Clinton would likely need a VP nom like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to get over huge, and I doubt she'd make a choice like that. Democrats are way too center and "safe" anymore.

icecream
01-14-2015, 11:48 AM
I hope the Republican primaries are even crazier this time around. Also, has Bush the second ruined the Bush name? Most people outside the States hate him. But in the US there seems to be a section of conservatives who love him. Is it big enough to give him a serious chance if he runs?

allegro
01-14-2015, 12:02 PM
Also, has Bush the second ruined the Bush name?
Technically, W isn't "Bush the 2nd" since he has a different middle name than his dad. Dad is George Herbert Walker Bush. And, no, there are a lot of people here who view Jeb a lot differently, in a more positive light. Actually, lots of Americans still view George HW in a very positive light.

See this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19657-jeb-bush-will-not-run-as-a-conservative

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 05:35 PM
Jeb Bush is NOT his brother, and has a lot of Latinos in Florida behind him. He could totally run away with this. And I wouldn't think it would be as horrible as Romney. Go figure.

But, yeah, I've seen a lot of statistical studies showing that unless Republicans clean up their act and ditch the Tea Party and court us Independents and the minority voters, they will never again win the Pres election. They'll keep House control forever due to gerrymandering, but President? Forget it.

Face it, Hillary is a weak retread, too. This is her 2nd try. She was in the WH for 8 years.
WHITEWATER. Can't we have someone NEW?

And I feel TERRIBLE as a feminist for saying that; Hillary is from Chicago, she's smart, educated, driven. But, she speaketh with forked tongue and I don't like her. I don't trust her. I like Warren or Stein a LOT more.

A recent poll has Clinton ahead with Latino voters in Florida:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/308761-poll-clinton-hugely-popular-among-latino-voters-rubio-still-unknown
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-hispanic-poll-president-economy-20140917-story.html

Bush may have done well with Hispanic voters when running for governor, but I really question whether he will be able to carry the state, much less enough of the electorate to get to 270. Bush may do better among Hispanics than Romney, but will it be enough to matter?

And yes, this is Hillary's second run--but she almost did win the nomination in 2008. In fact, going by the popular vote (excluding states that held caucuses), she received more votes than Obama. Since leaving the senate she's served as Secretary of State. Romney is a one term governor and has already run for president twice and failed. Neither Bush nor Romney has held office since 2007--which makes them more of a retread than Clinton.

And no one really gave a shit about Whitewater in 1993, much less 2016. And they all speak with a forked tongue--they're politicians, except for maybe Carter.

allegro
01-14-2015, 07:08 PM
A recent poll has Clinton ahead with Latino voters in Florida:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/308761-poll-clinton-hugely-popular-among-latino-voters-rubio-still-unknown
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-hispanic-poll-president-economy-20140917-story.html

Bush may have done well with Hispanic voters when running for governor, but I really question whether he will be able to carry the state, much less enough of the electorate to get to 270. Bush may do better among Hispanics than Romney, but will it be enough to matter?

And yes, this is Hillary's second run--but she almost did win the nomination in 2008. In fact, going by the popular vote (excluding states that held caucuses), she received more votes than Obama. Since leaving the senate she's served as Secretary of State. Romney is a one term governor and has already run for president twice and failed. Neither Bush nor Romney has held office since 2007--which makes them more of a retread than Clinton.

And no one really gave a shit about Whitewater in 1993, much less 2016. And they all speak with a forked tongue--they're politicians, except for maybe Carter.
I still think it's way too early to take any polls seriously.

I realize that they're all politicians, yes, but some lie more than others. And Whitewater, us OLD voters remember it, it was an example of legacy.

Hillary is gonna get BURIED this time around due to that stupid Benghazi spin job the Republicans are doing; they're gonna use it against her BIGTIME, and it's probably going to work because it's enough to form a shadow of a doubt of bad PR in Americans' minds. This will just make it easier for voters to vote for the other candidate, so she ain't a good primary choice for the Dems.

I'm an Independent (although I was a card-carrying Democrat for nearly 20 years), so I would much rather see an Independent like Sanders run, himself, but that ain't likely.

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 07:13 PM
I disagree. Benghazi is old news. Yeah, the Republicans will bring it up, but it won't work. Anyone worked up about that probably wouldn't have voted for her anyway. Come November 2016 people will be thinking about jobs and the economy, not Benghazi or Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky or any other scandal the Drudge Report or Fox News tries to make hay over.

allegro
01-14-2015, 07:15 PM
We'll see ... they love to dig up dirt, they've been spinning that Benghazi bullshit before she even had an inkling about running, just in case. They have it in their arsenal. It's gonna be in every single fucking debate. Because they need some ammo.

Actually, now that Chelsea had a baby and Hillary went underground, I'm wondering if Hillary has changed her mind and has decided not to even run at all.

I wish Jill Stein would run as a Democrat so she might actually WIN.

I think the big subject won't be jobs and the economy, it will be IMMIGRATION, college tuitions, mortgages, and TAXES. I think the American public is finally figuring out that Presidents can't create jobs and these politicians are lying blowhards.

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 07:20 PM
I would be shocked if she doesn't run. Romney is a grandparent too, doesn't seem to stop his ambitions.

allegro
01-14-2015, 07:23 PM
Maybe Hillary realizes that being so driven means you never get to spend ANY time with your family, and she's not getting any younger and fuck it, have some fun. SERIOUSLY, WHO'D WANT THAT FUCKING JOB? Everybody who has it comes out of it looking like shit and pretty much being hated. It doesn't look like fun, to me. Just so you can have a fucking library?

Ann Romney REALLY DIDN'T WANT Mitt to run for President, she has M.S., she is a breast cancer survivor, but Mitt's a selfish dick with a Bucket List, so ... yeah ...

(Also, Hillary "almost won" the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY; we really have no idea how she'd do in an election against a Republican, we haven't seen that, yet, natch.)

I wonder if Michelle Obama will pull a whammy and throw her hat into the ring.

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 08:28 PM
Maybe Hillary realizes that being so driven means you never get to spend ANY time with your family, and she's not getting any younger and fuck it, have some fun. SERIOUSLY, WHO'D WANT THAT FUCKING JOB? Everybody who has it comes out of it looking like shit and pretty much being hated. It doesn't look like fun, to me. Just so you can have a fucking library?

Ann Romney REALLY DIDN'T WANT Mitt to run for President, she has M.S., she is a breast cancer survivor, but Mitt's a selfish dick with a Bucket List, so ... yeah ...

(Also, Hillary "almost won" the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY; we really have no idea how she'd do in an election against a Republican, we haven't seen that, yet, natch.)

I wonder if Michelle Obama will pull a whammy and throw her hat into the ring.
All signs point to Hillary running, as her team is gearing up for a 2016 campaign. For example, John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff and a top Obama adviser is leaving the White House next month, in order to be part of Hillary Clinton's inner circle. And you're right, there is no way to know how Clinton would have done had she been the nominee in 2008. My sense is she also would have beaten McCain. The American people had had enough of Bush/Cheney at that point and were ready to have the opposition party in power.

elevenism
01-14-2015, 09:02 PM
I'm a straight ticket yellow dog democrat.

But like allegro , i don't trust Clinton.
I supported her until she made that statement about dodging bullets while trying to get on her plane in bosnia.

Here is a list of things she has lied about. (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hillarys-list-of-lies-do-you-trust-hillary-clinton/question-3670493/)

Don't get me wrong, y'all. I WILL vote for whoever we run.
I just hope we can come up with someone better.

That being said, when we talk about the republican party being splintered, that's great. It's wonderful.
But at the end of the day, won't they come out and vote for whomever their party is running?

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 09:16 PM
Some of those things like dodging bullets or being a Yankees fan are pretty silly. All politicians exaggerate. I'm not a Clinton apologist either, but I do think that she's smart, competent and will be an effective president.

allegro
01-14-2015, 09:29 PM
She's VERY intelligent. She did what I think was a really good job as Sec'y of State. But she just didn't impress me during the Obama/Clinton primaries. I thought she did a shit job at debate and it surprised me. Maybe she'll do better this time and pleasantly surprise me. Her responses to some tough questions given during her book tour were nasty responses, not good PR. She has a nasty side like McCain. A grumpy gruff side that's almost evasive in a bad way.

I'd still like Warren better. But I haven't seen her debate in a presidential primary. She may stink.

I love Bernie Sanders but he's too radical for the majority of America.

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 09:38 PM
Amazing how people can support Romney even after his infamous "47 percent" video. Behind closed doors he states that nearly half of all voters are losers who won't take personal responsibility for their lives and that he doesn't worry about them--yet nearly half of all voters still went for him. Go figure. Romney doesn't give a fuck about you, is that not clear?

allegro
01-14-2015, 09:44 PM
Amen to that. They think because he's rich, he has some magic formula that's gonna make ALL OF US RICH, TOO! Except he doesn't have a fucking clue, he has his dad's money and he intends on keeping it and he don't give a fuck about you old or poor people. He's a spoiled brat. This is just on his Bucket List.

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 09:46 PM
His VP nominee was/is an Ayn Rand fanboy, that says it all.

elevenism
01-14-2015, 10:12 PM
I have a confession to make.

I was an Ayn Rand fanboy in high school. I believed that i was part of the elite, because, hey, i won all the awards and whatnot.

But pretty quick after getting into the real world, my views changed. I made a full on 180.

And like RhettButler said, "that says it all."

To me, objectivism = the tea party = SATANISM.

Yep, that's right. satanism.

I'm not talking about theistic satanism, mind you...not the kind with goat's heads and black magic and serving Lucifer.

Rather, i mean that rand's philosophy is very similar to Anton Lavey's.

If you've read the satanic bible and a bit of rand and then listened to the ideology of the tea party, you will see the correlations.

I honestly believe that the tea party is EVIL. Their values are, for the most part, the opposite of mine, and piss on everything i hold sacred.

And then these right wingers have the balls to claim fucking MORAL SUPERIORITY? Also, being a right wing conservative goes hand in hand with being a christian these days. It just blows my mind.

Their brand of Christianity is all about judgement: they are against gays and abortion and that sort of thing. They miss the whole fucking point of the religion, which is ALTRUISM and LOVE.

Sorry for going off on a tangent there.

(gets off soapbox)

RhettButler
01-14-2015, 10:16 PM
elevenism--you were in high school, so you get a pass.

allegro
01-14-2015, 10:52 PM
To me, objectivism = the tea party
Well, but Paul Ryan wasn't hardcore Tea Party, his budget ideas were based on some stupid economics that make zero financial sense but he isn't Ted Cruz hardcore Tea Party. He said he believed in Rand's idea of the "morality of Capitalism" and he's especially a proponent of laissez faire capitalism, which is not only important to the Tea Party but also to Libertarians.

He has since, however, toned that down quite a bit when he was advised / realized that it was wrecking his political career, and perhaps he has learned some real economics, not just Atlas Shrugged economics.

Of course, he helped stop the sequester. And, he's now the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/), so the Republican Tea Party people don't really like him, anymore. But he's still the darling of Evangelical Protestants in Wisconsin.

The Tea Party members are really just hardcore pretend libertarians running under the Republican party ticket because they know they'd never win as Libertarians and none of them are Rand Objectivists. REAL Libertarians are guys like Rand Paul, also a Republican, but I don't think he likes Rand at ALL. Both of these groups want less government, less taxes, less regulation, but the Tea Party is specifically demanding the reduction of the national debt and the Federal budget deficit. And Tea Party candidates running under the Republican ticket are pretty much expected to tow the Republican conservative platform pro-life line, although there are a few exceptions. The gay marriage thing has now become a hot potato that nobody is touching since the Supreme Court has already made it a non-issue.

Fucking two-party system, ugh.

elevenism
01-14-2015, 11:50 PM
REAL Libertarians are guys like Rand Paul, also a Republican, but I don't think he likes Rand at ALL.

Fucking two-party system, ugh.

Ron Paul is his father, right?
I watched the republican debates last year (yes, i am THAT into politics around election season,) and thought that Ron Paul had the most interesting ideas.
Do they share the same ideology?

Two party system. Sigh.

I don't even think it's really that anymore. I fear that government has devolved into something that is quite literally for sale.

That's what bothers me about this young country. It may have been founded on good and benevolent ideals.

But it was raised and grew on pure greed.

Khrz
01-15-2015, 01:29 AM
Same everywhere I'm afraid. Differing systems means different failsafes to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, but eventually there are a thousand ways to circumvent or simply ignore those, it's like trying to filter a flood. Too many people interested in twisting a government's arm...

Deepvoid
01-15-2015, 08:08 AM
Ron Paul is his father, right?
I watched the republican debates last year (yes, i am THAT into politics around election season,) and thought that Ron Paul had the most interesting ideas.
Do they share the same ideology?

Two party system. Sigh.

I don't even think it's really that anymore. I fear that government has devolved into something that is quite literally for sale.

That's what bothers me about this young country. It may have been founded on good and benevolent ideals.

But it was raised and grew on pure greed.

Thanks to your Supreme Court (Citizens United & McCutcheon).

RhettButler
01-15-2015, 08:38 AM
Wondering if Cruz will run. He knows that he won't win the nomination of course. Then Santorum might make an unwelcome return.

Wretchedest
01-15-2015, 02:14 PM
I have a confession to make.

I was an Ayn Rand fanboy in high school. I believed that i was part of the elite, because, hey, i won all the awards and whatnot.

But pretty quick after getting into the real world, my views changed. I made a full on 180.

And like RhettButler said, "that says it all."

To me, objectivism = the tea party = SATANISM.

Yep, that's right. satanism.

I'm not talking about theistic satanism, mind you...not the kind with goat's heads and black magic and serving Lucifer.

Rather, i mean that rand's philosophy is very similar to Anton Lavey's.

If you've read the satanic bible and a bit of rand and then listened to the ideology of the tea party, you will see the correlations.

I honestly believe that the tea party is EVIL. Their values are, for the most part, the opposite of mine, and piss on everything i hold sacred.

And then these right wingers have the balls to claim fucking MORAL SUPERIORITY? Also, being a right wing conservative goes hand in hand with being a christian these days. It just blows my mind.

Their brand of Christianity is all about judgement: they are against gays and abortion and that sort of thing. They miss the whole fucking point of the religion, which is ALTRUISM and LOVE.

Sorry for going off on a tangent there.

(gets off soapbox)

i just want to throw out there a few things that seem to be confused. For one Ayn Rand outspokenly hated liberatarianism and resented their claim to her philosophy.

Also it is true that objectivism is the name is of one of ayn rands philosophy but it is actually a definition of the state of reality, (that there is one true reality, and therefore a correct answer to every question) not an economic guideline.

Finally what i think a lot of people ig.ore about her is how she valued absolute and total creativity and artistic expression, a value I see reflected a lot here on ETS. So, while she had some nut job ideas about financial systems, she had many philosophies that had nothing to do with politics, and i think that gets lost in todays modern perception of her.

Deepvoid
01-15-2015, 02:31 PM
Wondering if Cruz will run. He knows that he won't win the nomination of course. Then Santorum might make an unwelcome return.

Cruz will run for sure.
Both McCain and George Romney weren't born in the US. Both made a run for POTUS.

allegro
01-15-2015, 03:39 PM
Cruz will run for sure.
Both McCain and George Romney weren't born in the US. Both made a run for POTUS.

Re McCain: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-john-mccain-was-a-citizen-at-birth

Re George Romney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibil ity

Note that only ONE of Ted Cruz' parents (his mother) is a natural-born U.S. Citizen. His father was born in Cuba. (BOTH of George Romney's and John McCain's parents were natural-born U.S. Citizens.)

allegro
01-15-2015, 03:55 PM
i just want to throw out there a few things that seem to be confused. For one Ayn Rand outspokenly hated liberatarianism and resented their claim to her philosophy.

Also it is true that objectivism is the name is of one of ayn rands philosophy but it is actually a definition of the state of reality, (that there is one true reality, and therefore a correct answer to every question) not an economic guideline.

Finally what i think a lot of people ig.ore about her is how she valued absolute and total creativity and artistic expression, a value I see reflected a lot here on ETS. So, while she had some nut job ideas about financial systems, she had many philosophies that had nothing to do with politics, and i think that gets lost in todays modern perception of her.
We're not really discussing what Ayn Rand thinks (er, thought); we're discussing what the Tea Party and Libertarians think, for the record. Libertarians generally don't follow Ayn Rand, and the Tea Party isn't standing around giving away copies of Atlas Shrugged. Paul Ryan said that HE handed out copies of Atlas Shrugged, but he's not a member of the Tea Party, he's a Protestant Evangelical Republican (and, of course, Rand was an atheist). Oddly enough, the biggest thing he got out of Ayn Rand was her "nut job ideas about financial systems" LOL, wtf. I think he's finally coming to his senses, though. I think elevenism might have been confused about the Tea Party but he seems to be learning some stuff.

allegro
01-15-2015, 04:23 PM
Ron Paul is his father, right?
I watched the republican debates last year (yes, i am THAT into politics around election season,) and thought that Ron Paul had the most interesting ideas.
Do they share the same ideology?]
Welp, if you're really into politics, you watch ALL the debates, yeah. Ron Paul, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Jinsai
01-15-2015, 04:54 PM
sentiments like "Jeb Bush wouldn't be as bad as Romney" make me feel so fucked... I understand the reality of what we're dealing with, I just will never understand how we got here.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 07:53 PM
Welp, if you're really into politics, you watch ALL the debates, yeah. Ron Paul, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , yeah, i know who ron paul is...i'm from texas, remember?
One of my best friends has been campaigning for him forever and trying to convert me.

I don't know where you would get the idea that i was confused about the tea party though.
As far as i could tell, the movement started out being about debt and taxation and fiscal responsibility, and eventually began to encompass right wing conservative populism in general...unless i'm missing something.

AND some of them like to wave around signs that say "I am John Galt" and "Read Ayn Rand" and claim that the "prophecy" of atlas shrugged is happening today.
@Wretchedest (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=107) , when you are talking about Objectivism, you are talking about Ayn Rand's entire movement...not just the metaphysical (one true reality, a is a) part of it. Another part of it IS a financial blueprint (see Government Finance In a Free Society, The Virtue of Selfishness.)

Also, Ron Paul pretty much started the tea party. When i say he has interesting ideas though, i mean in terms of drug legalization and avoiding foreign entanglements...most of his ideas are abhorrent.

edit: also, as far as Rand and creativity, yes, The Romantic Manifesto had SOME good artistic ideals, but she also had VERY clear cut definitions of what is and isn't art, or what is good art and what is bad art...that sort of thing

allegro
01-15-2015, 07:54 PM
sentiments like "Jeb Bush wouldn't be as bad as Romney" make me feel so fucked... I understand the reality of what we're dealing with, I just will never understand how we got here.
I assume you're not old enough to remember living through EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OF REAGAN.

UGH.

1968: Nixon wasn't as bad as Reagan

Jinsai
01-15-2015, 07:56 PM
I assume you're not old enough to remember living through EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OF REAGAN.

UGH.

Reagan took office when I was one year old. My first memories of ideas like "politicians are terrible awful people!" revolved around Reagan... and I say this as someone who grew up in a Republican household.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 07:58 PM
We are the same age, @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) .

So where are people saying "bush wouldn't be as bad as romney?"

that's fucking horrifying. honestly i believe the opposite.

Jinsai
01-15-2015, 08:03 PM
So where are people saying "bush wouldn't be as bad as romney?"

Mitt Romney is the fakest fucking thing that's ever breathed air. Did any of you guys see that horrifying documentary Mitt on Netflix? Holy shit. He's like a living irony-free Norman Rockwell painting.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:05 PM
Mitt Romney is the fakest fucking thing that's ever breathed air. Did any of you guys see that horrifying documentary Mitt on Netflix? Holy shit. He's like a living irony-free Norman Rockwell painting.
Oh, no no...i didn't because i thought it was PRO Mitt. Is it not?
I'll go put that shit on right now...

Jinsai
01-15-2015, 08:09 PM
Oh, no no...i didn't because i thought it was PRO Mitt. Is it not?
I'll go put that shit on right now...


I think it was intended to be pro-Mitt... as in, he actually signed off and thought it was gee-shucks just dandy.... and didn't realize that it made him look like a sociopathic version of Leave it to Beaver.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:12 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , yeah, i know who ron paul is...i'm from texas, remember?
One of my best friends has been campaigning for him forever and trying to convert me.

I don't know where you would get the idea that i was confused about the tea party though.

From your diatribe about Satanism. That's total confusion, bro.

Ron Paul didn't start the Tea Party; the Tea Party movement isn't a real thing, it's a movement that was partly started on some of the ideals of Ron Paul, but that's up for grabs, depends on whose history book you're looking at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santelli). Compare Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, etc., to Ron Paul, and you have a bunch of completely different animals. Ron Paul wants to LEGALIZE DRUGS. Ask Michelle Bachman if she wants to legalize drugs, go ahead, I'll wait here.

Here, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_affiliated_with_the_Tea_Party_ movement).

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:14 PM
I think it was intended to be pro-Mitt... as in, he actually signed off and thought it was gee-shucks just dandy.... and didn't realize that it made him look like a sociopathic version of Leave it to Beaver.
those are the best documentaries about people who are tools.

He looks like a sociopathic version of leave it to beaver just looking at his fucking face, btw. ;)

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:17 PM
From your diatribe about Satanism. That's total confusion, bro.

Ron Paul didn't start the Tea Party; the Tea Party movement isn't a real thing, it's a movement that was partly started on some of the ideals of Ron Paul, but that's up for grabs, depends on whose history book you're looking at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santelli). Compare Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, etc., to Ron Paul, and you have a bunch of completely different animals. Ron Paul wants to LEGALIZE DRUGS. Ask Michelle Bachman if she wants to legalize drugs, go ahead, I'll wait here.

Here, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_affiliated_with_the_Tea_Party_ movement).

oh i know Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs. That's what i meant, that was one of his interesting ideas.

I don't feel confused comparing Rand to Lavey to the Tea Party.

The clear cut parallel is self interest being the highest value.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:20 PM
Reagan took office when I was one year old. My first memories of ideas like "politicians are terrible awful people!" revolved around Reagan... and I say this as someone who grew up in a Republican household.

Reagan was the worst fucking President in the last 75 years. Period. What a total piece of shit. War on Drugs my ass. We're still suffering from his trickle-down economics bullshit. But people have Reagan Amnesia.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:21 PM
oh i know Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs. That's what i meant, that was one of his interesting ideas.

I don't feel confused comparing Rand to Lavey to the Tea Party.

The clear cut parallel is self interest being the highest value.

The Tea Party is originally tied to Rick Santelli and the economy. You can tie self-interest to CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM. You don't get any more fucking self-interest than fucking capitalism, brother. Trickle-down economics, fuck socialism, it's all self-interest. The United States is based on individualism. SELF-INTEREST. EXCEPTIONALISM. You talk about Texas and how great it is, that's Exceptionalism, brother; that's still self-interest. We all do it to a certain extent. Christianity? Put God first? What's that? It's just satanism flipped in the reverse, what's the difference. Socialism has no deity, it puts the people first, equally. In countries with the opposite of individualism, the nail that stands up gets nailed back down. Here, everybody wants to stand out. That's self-interest. The land of SELFIES.

Even organized labor, the brotherhood, eventually gets corrupted by human nature, greed.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:23 PM
i do see what you mean allegro , though...about the tea party not being a "real movement."

but like i said, anything that comes back around to rational self interest, for me, is inherently evil.

as far as Reagan...i bet the same thing will happen with W in time.

Swykk
01-15-2015, 08:31 PM
In my opinion, the origin of this country's economic troubles (among other shitty politics), began with Reagan. Yes, fuck trickle down. It was the first step toward us becoming the oligarchy we are today.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:32 PM
The Tea Party is originally tied to Rick Santelli and the economy. You can tie self-interest to CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM. You don't get any more fucking self-interest than fucking capitalism, brother. Trickle-down economics, fuck socialism, it's all self-interest. The United States is based on individualism. SELF-INTEREST. EXCEPTIONALISM. You talk about Texas and how great it is, that's Exceptionalism, brother; that's still self-interest. We all do it to a certain extent. Christianity? Put God first? What's that? It's just satanism flipped in the reverse, what't the difference. Socialism has no deity, it puts the people first, equally. In countries with the opposite of individualism, the nail that stands up gets nailed back down. Here, everybody wants to stand out. That's self-interest. The land of SELFIES.

Even organized labor, the brotherhood, eventually gets corrupted by human nature, greed.

i agree with all of that. but it's that baser part of human nature that i struggle against.

Altruism is my goal, more so than putting god first.

Capitalism is inherently fucking evil, and i agree that socialism doesn't work because of human nature.

I don't know what the answer is. But at the end of the day, the right is far more ostensibly self interested than the left. AND Anton Lavey was influenced by Ayn Rand.

That's what i meant.

I'm not trying to sound like a bible beater or anything for fuck's sake.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:32 PM
but like i said, anything that comes back around to rational self interest, for me, is inherently evil.
I don't believe in evil. Evil is just the absence of good. Rational self-interest lives in us all. Just ask Adam and Eve [rhetorically]. See Milton's "Paradise Lost" for further reference. :)

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:34 PM
I don't believe in evil. Evil is just the absence of good. Rational self-interest lives in us all. Just ask Adam and Eve [rhetorically]. See Milton's "Paradise Lost" for further reference. :)

i know it does, but for me it's something to be FOUGHT against, not embraced!

I can't do this yet, allegro ...i just woke up and haven't eaten my xanax...this is making my brain hurt.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:35 PM
But at the end of the day, the right is far more ostensibly self interested than the left.
Ohhhhhh, don't be too sure about that. Not if you're thinking "the Left" are Democrats.

There are plenty of Dems serving prison sentences right now. ALL Democrats are taking lobbyist's and Corporations' dollars right now, millions and millions of dollars, just like the right. There really isn't a whole hell of of a lot of difference between Democrats and Republicans right now, because Democrats ain't "the Left." Not by a fucking longshot.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:36 PM
I can't do this yet, allegro ...i just woke up and haven't eaten my xanax...this is making my brain hurt.
You don't really need a Xanax to have an intellectual conversation. If you do, you ain't ready for college, my friend.

Swykk
01-15-2015, 08:37 PM
Illinois, for example, is well known for its corrupt politicians, the majority of which are democrats.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:38 PM
Ohhhhhh, don't be too sure about that. Not if you're thinking "the Left" are Democrats.

There are plenty of Dems serving prison sentences right now. ALL Democrats are taking lobbyist's and Corporations' dollars right now, millions and millions of dollars, just like the right. There really isn't a whole hell of of a lot of difference between Democrats and Republicans right now, because Democrats ain't "the Left." Not by a fucking longshot, not in your wildest dreams.

unfortunately, i know that you are absolutely right.

that's why when you said "damned two party system," i kind of hinted that we don't even have that anymore.

But i mean ostensibly...on paper...left wing IDEALS, not in practice.

I'm a leftist for the sake of doing the most good for the most people. Borderline fucking marxist.

(i wasn't exactly serious about the xanax thing. honestly, i just woke up and my wife is probably wondering why i'm still out here online and not kicking it with her)

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:39 PM
In my opinion, the origin of this country's economic troubles (among other shitty politics), began with Reagan. Yes, fuck trickle down. It was the first step toward us becoming the oligarchy we are today.

Amen to that, brother. Now if the rest of the country would just wake the fuck up and stop worshiping Reagan's dead bullshit. When he exited, he was mostly hated. He had a TERRIBLE approval rating. Give him a bunch of years after he was shot, then he got Alzheimer's, then he died, they canonize him. What the fuck.

Swykk
01-15-2015, 08:41 PM
This is well tread ground and all but his funeral lasted F O R E V E R.

allegro
01-15-2015, 08:41 PM
unfortunately, i know that you are absolutely right.

that's why when you said "damned two party system," i kind of hinted that we don't even have that anymore.

But i mean ostensibly...on paper...left wing IDEALS, not in practice.

I'm a leftist for the sake of doing the most good for the most people. Borderline fucking marxist.

(i wasn't exactly serious about the xanax thing. honestly, i just woke up and my wife is probably wondering why i'm still out here online and not kicking it with her)

I hear ya, the whole system is fucked, and I don't think there's a whole lot we can do about it, really.

And people are blaming the SCOTUS decision (Citizens United) but I don't think that's the problem. You see, contributing to a campaign STILL CAN'T BUY VOTES. Joe Millionaire can pump $300 Billion into a campaign AND STILL LOSE (which we've seen happen). The campaign dollars ain't the whole problem (although, I'd LOVE to see a BAN on TV campaign advertisements ... BAN 'EM. WE NEVER USED TO HAVE THEM, JUST GET RID OF THEM, THAT'S WHAT REALLY COSTS MONEY, ANYWAY, and then the little guy with no money can win, like David Brat winning fucking ERIC CANTOR'S seat. Brat raised $200,000 but spent $120,000 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/11/cantor_loses_to_tea_party_candidate_in_va_upset_12 2936.html), vs. the $5.4 Million that Cantor raised. LOL LOL LOL).

The LOBBYISTS are the REAL problem.

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:47 PM
I hear ya, the whole system is fucked, and I don't think there's a whole lot we can do about it, really.


The LOBBYISTS are the REAL problem.
amen. and no, there is nothing we can do about it. that's why i get into "america ISN'T so fucking great" arguments now and then.
There is no way out of this, ever.

http://i.imgur.com/jUUla3n.jpg

elevenism
01-15-2015, 08:51 PM
BUT...i STILL love politics.

It's a lot like pro wrestling to me.

Jinsai
01-15-2015, 09:00 PM
whenever I see the Tea Party discussed, I feel the need to bring up this very good write up rant by Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928)

elevenism
01-15-2015, 09:07 PM
whenever I see the Tea Party discussed, I feel the need to bring up this very good write up rant by Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928)

Yup.

okay i have to go kick it with my woman.
this thread is going to be fun for the next 22 months i think.

allegro
01-15-2015, 10:44 PM
whenever I see the Tea Party discussed, I feel the need to bring up this very good write up rant by Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928)

Wow, that is a good rant, thanks. Ugh, depressing.

DigitalChaos
01-15-2015, 11:30 PM
Altruism is my goal, more so than putting god first.

Capitalism is inherently fucking evil, and i agree that socialism doesn't work because of human nature.

Humans are always the problem with systems where you centralize power. Until we decide to implement one of those systems and let machines operate it, it will stay this way. What makes capitalism inherently evil? All you are doing is letting private entities control trade instead of letting a much smaller subset of humans do it. The more you centralize power, the more you open up the opportunity for corruption and abuse. The bigger that target is, the more people will fight to have that power.

The decentralization of power is key. Then, if you can setup a system where the consequences of one's actions are not shielded, you can dramatically reduce the "evils" that you want to avoid.


You also have to realize how dated the ideas of socialism and communism are starting to become. Marx wanted the means of production to be owned by everyone, not just a few. The means of production were insanely expensive back then. It's now 2015 and technology is opening the doors for everyone to have access to the means of production. The most developed is the means to produce media (written, music, photo, video, etc) and mass-distribute it. We are also starting to see this bleed into physical object production (3D printer, desktop lathes, etc) and even monetary systems (crypto currency). Everything is moving in this direction. Marx would have LOVED this. It's all early stage, but my point is this: all of those who are currently in a position of centralize power are trying VERY hard to control and restrict this technology.

Khrz
01-15-2015, 11:42 PM
The decentralization of power is key. Then, if you can setup a system where the consequences of one's actions are not shielded, you can dramatically reduce the "evils" that you want to avoid.

There have been fascinating experiments on decentralized/isolated economy. A city having its own inner currency, in parallel with the national one for instance, allows a bigger and faster economic growth apparently. That's how old european cities of a few thousands inhabitants could afford the enormous costs of a cathedral for example. That budget was completely independent from the kingdom economy.

DigitalChaos
01-15-2015, 11:50 PM
There have been fascinating experiments on decentralized/isolated economy. A city having its own inner currency, in parallel with the national one for instance, allows a bigger and faster economic growth apparently. That's how old european cities of a few thousands inhabitants could afford the enormous costs of a cathedral for example. That budget was completely independent from the kingdom economy.

You have any specific ones you can list? I love these kinds of things. It sounds about right though, and much like a foundational component that lead to Classical Liberalism (aka: what liberalism was in the 1700's).

Some of the downsides of the historical experiments are going to be in a lack of common currency for trading with "outsiders." Only now have we managed to find a solution that allows for a global common currency and monetary system what is completely devoid of a centralized controller. It's a solution derived through some clever math. It has so much potential that all kinds of new systems are being adopted to use it. Things like replacements to central record keeping (house deeds, car titles, all forms of contracts, etc). Those that currently hold the centralized power are not going to let it go easily...

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 12:17 AM
REAL Libertarians are guys like Rand Paul, also a Republican, but I don't think he likes Rand at ALL.
He is pretty far from libertarian, but significantly more libertarian leaning than any main party candidate.


Ron Paul is his father, right?
I watched the republican debates last year (yes, i am THAT into politics around election season,) and thought that Ron Paul had the most interesting ideas.
Do they share the same ideology?


There is a bunch of overlap, but Rand has a lot more main stream GOP things about him. It actually pisses off many of the libertarians who were libertarian before "tea party" existed. He basically compromises and plays party politics a lot more. As a result, it makes him much more popular than his father was.... so I guess that's what it takes.


You know what is crazy though? Rand Paul is heavily to the left of most Democrats when it comes to things like War, Drugs, NSA spying, Wall Street, etc. Imagine him running in a general election. Imagine how awkward that would be for the Democratic candidate during debates. It would have a good chance of pushing everyone much more to the left on these topics.

RhettButler
01-16-2015, 06:21 AM
Rand Paul also was in favor of cutting off people's long term unemployment because it "discouraged them from looking for work." Having been unemployed and spent months anxious and depressed, looking for work every day, I can tell you first hand just how important my unemployment insurance was. Now that I am back in the workforce, I am more than happy having my tax dollars go to help people who are laid off and in a slump. That's one key philosophical difference between the two parties--one believes that government has a role in helping people and one does not. If it were up to the GOP, every bit of the New Deal would be abolished. I'll never vote Republican.

elevenism
01-16-2015, 07:17 AM
Humans are always the problem with systems where you centralize power. Until we decide to implement one of those systems and let machines operate it, it will stay this way. What makes capitalism inherently evil? All you are doing is letting private entities control trade instead of letting a much smaller subset of humans do it. The more you centralize power, the more you open up the opportunity for corruption and abuse. The bigger that target is, the more people will fight to have that power.

The decentralization of power is key. Then, if you can setup a system where the consequences of one's actions are not shielded, you can dramatically reduce the "evils" that you want to avoid.


Holy shit, you just dropped some knowledge on me. :)
That's all i'm going to say without getting too far into it.

Also, i wanted to make something clear, especially to @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) . I don't want you to think i'm crazier than you already do ;)
I don't think that the right is controlled by lucifer and the left is filled with the holy spirit (imagine all of that said in an ignorant redneck voice.)

And when i call myself a christian, it's...okay, you know how there's theistic satanism and philosophical satanism? Well i guess come pretty close to being a philosophical christian, if there is such a thing. It's not that i have a personal relationship with jesus because he died for my sins and so therefore i follow his teachings. It's not John 3:16 for me, it's Matthew 5 6 and 7. It's that i agree with the teachings of jesus (those teaching especially, the sermon on the mount teachings,) and strive to believe the rest.
I don't think god is a "person." I don't know if satan exists. I DO believe in God, but i damn sure don't think that the world is 6000 years old, etc. And the only way i know for sure that Christ was crucified, or even existed for that matter, is through the idea that it may have happened, had to have happened, in some dimension. Also, i have this strange notion that all stories are true to a degree once they become part of the collective consciousness.
A lot of christians would probably say that i'm NOT a christian, but i claim it. I claim it because i strive to live my life according to the sermon on the mount, NOT because i'm sure about the resurrection or think that there's gonna be a rapture.

So it's not so much good and evil. It's that, for me, left wing ideals are morally right. Right wing ideals are morally wrong. That's what i feel in my heart.

I REALLY didn't want you to think that i meant that GAWD is on the side of the dems and SAYTON is controlling the right.
Am i making sense here?

Deepvoid
01-16-2015, 08:48 AM
Re McCain: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-john-mccain-was-a-citizen-at-birth

Re George Romney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibil ity

Note that only ONE of Ted Cruz' parents (his mother) is a natural-born U.S. Citizen. His father was born in Cuba. (BOTH of George Romney's and John McCain's parents were natural-born U.S. Citizens.)

No one appears to be challenging his potential candidacy. Maybe the situation will evolve when he actually makes a formal announcement.
Do you believe it will be challenged?

allegro
01-16-2015, 10:06 AM
No one appears to be challenging his potential candidacy. Maybe the situation will evolve when he actually makes a formal announcement.
Do you believe it will be challenged?
I believe so, yes. It's the law, people don't just make this shit up. He has to be properly cleared before he gets anywhere near winning a primary. We haven't even gotten to Iowa yet, it's way too early.

allegro
01-16-2015, 10:13 AM
He is pretty far from libertarian, but significantly more libertarian leaning than any main party candidate.

There is a bunch of overlap, but Rand has a lot more main stream GOP things about him. It actually pisses off many of the libertarians who were libertarian before "tea party" existed. He basically compromises and plays party politics a lot more. As a result, it makes him much more popular than his father was.... so I guess that's what it takes.

You know what is crazy though? Rand Paul is heavily to the left of most Democrats when it comes to things like War, Drugs, NSA spying, Wall Street, etc. Imagine him running in a general election. Imagine how awkward that would be for the Democratic candidate during debates. It would have a good chance of pushing everyone much more to the left on these topics.

Rand Paul USED to be more libertarian, until he pretty much sold his soul. Like they all do. Although I'm not fond of Libertarians, anyway.

allegro
01-16-2015, 10:22 AM
Rand Paul also was in favor of cutting off people's long term unemployment because it "discouraged them from looking for work." Having been unemployed and spent months anxious and depressed, looking for work every day, I can tell you first hand just how important my unemployment insurance was. Now that I am back in the workforce, I am more than happy having my tax dollars go to help people who are laid off and in a slump. That's one key philosophical difference between the two parties--one believes that government has a role in helping people and one does not. If it were up to the GOP, every bit of the New Deal would be abolished. I'll never vote Republican.

That's typical Tea Party shit, not Republican (although I don't think Libertarians love unemployment much, either). Typical Republicans aren't against unemployment during tough economic times, but the Tea Party had control. Who knows what will happen, now. I'd hoped they'd all be gone by now, but Americans are selfish morons.

All this anti-"entitlement" shit is coming from Tea Party assholes. Fine, get rid of Medicare and disability and watch their voters all scream and holler.

Ugh, truthfully, I'm probably going to completely unplug during this election.

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 10:54 AM
Rand Paul also was in favor of cutting off people's long term unemployment because it "discouraged them from looking for work." Having been unemployed and spent months anxious and depressed, looking for work every day, I can tell you first hand just how important my unemployment insurance was.

When the snopes of politics says otherwise, you might want to reevaluate: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-longer-people-get-unemployment-insu/


Even ignoring that, if unemployment benefits means more to you than making progress on foreign policy, drug war, NSA spying, Wall Street, etc.... You sound like a ridiculous single-issue voter or, more likely, just someone who finds any reason to justify voting based on party.

Dra508
01-16-2015, 02:04 PM
I am shocked, not one mention of Rick Perry or Chris Christie!

I would have never thought that there would be so many looking to throw their hat in on the Repub side. It'll certainly be interesting - each trying to look more moderate than the next guy. Jeb Bush apparently has moderated a lot of his stances on issues since he first tried to run for office in Florida. Dam if I can sort through all the noise of the last week on him to find the article I read that put it rather succinctly.

The National Democratic Party should pay attention to history and not anoint Hilary with no other Dem to compete with her in the primaries. That was a serious failure of theirs when they anointed a woman to run for Senate in Massachusetts to replace dead Ted Kennedy. She unfortunately, just didn't have the charisma or political wherewithal to win big. That's how Scott Brown became senator for a day or two. Same woman couldn't win the Governorship a couple of years later. Voters do like choices, good choices, choices that make you have to think. Or am I giving 'Mericans too much credit?
@RhettButler (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3921) Just curious, where are you located?

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 02:10 PM
Rand Paul USED to be more libertarian, until he pretty much sold his soul. Like they all do. Although I'm not fond of Libertarians, anyway.
It's true. I used to be pretty against the thought of voting for Rand Paul. I'm not exactly FOR him, but I am no longer writing it off. I realized that being interested in saint making or witch hunting doesn't really do anything productive (even though this is the popular way to approach candidates). I'd rather look at who is going to produce the best progressive step toward what I want to see. I don't remember any recent candidates who wanted to actually reel back on war-based foreign policy, war on drugs, NSA spying, AND Wall Street. If a Dem is willing to do it, show me! Those USED to be Dem positions. WTF happened?


Also, Justin Amash is my favorite active congressman.


edit: To quote Jeffrey Tucker: "To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Paul’s various heresies, you can save your bandwidth. I’m not interested in saint making or witch burning. ... I really don’t care who or what makes a contribution to this end or how it comes about, so long as it is ethical and it actually achieves the aim of human liberation, the mother of all progress, order, and higher civilization.

allegro
01-16-2015, 02:56 PM
TIME Newsmaker Interview: Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton (http://time.com/13328/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016/)

Ron Paul World, Meet Bernie Sanders (http://theassailedteacher.com/2012/01/05/ron-paul-world-meet-bernie-sanders/)

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 05:26 PM
Sanders is an Independent, not a Dem. Dems have completely lost their way and hide it behind "but the republicans"

RhettButler
01-16-2015, 05:28 PM
When the snopes of politics says otherwise, you might want to reevaluate: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-longer-people-get-unemployment-insu/


Even ignoring that, if unemployment benefits means more to you than making progress on foreign policy, drug war, NSA spying, Wall Street, etc.... You sound like a ridiculous single-issue voter or, more likely, just someone who finds any reason to justify voting based on party.
That article does not condone ending benefits.

And unemployment benefits, so-called "drug wars," NSA, Wall Street, etc. are not mutually exclusive issues.

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 05:58 PM
That article does not condone ending benefits.

And unemployment benefits, so-called "drug wars," NSA, Wall Street, etc. are not mutually exclusive issues.

I'm a fan of safety nets. Pragmatism matters though.

And correct, they aren't exclusive. My point is that you respond to a list of awesome positions that no Democrat candidate has with a complaint about a comparatively small topic to justify your partisan vote. This is exactly how the average voter thinks and it is what is why we have this bullshit set of options in front of us.

RhettButler
01-16-2015, 06:06 PM
I'm a fan of safety nets. Pragmatism matters though.

And correct, they aren't exclusive. My point is that you respond to a list of awesome positions that no Democrat candidate has with a complaint about a comparatively small topic to justify your partisan vote. This is exactly how the average voter thinks and it is what is why we have this bullshit set of options in front of us.
It's pretty simple--one party is on the side of people like me and wants to do things like protect social security, Medicare/Medicaid, the AFC, reproduction rights, etc. and the other party is openly hostile to those things. So it's not about one topic at all.

DigitalChaos
01-16-2015, 06:08 PM
It's pretty simple--one party is on the side of people like me

It's amazing that in 2015 people actually believe this.

RhettButler
01-16-2015, 06:17 PM
Because it's true. Or it might be more accurate to say that it's in my own self-interest to vote for one party and not the other.

allegro
01-16-2015, 06:29 PM
Sanders is an Independent, not a Dem. Dems have completely lost their way and hide it behind "but the republicans"

I have no fear of publicly showing my love of Bernie Sanders. :-P

RhettButler
01-16-2015, 06:39 PM
Sanders is an Independent, not a Dem. Dems have completely lost their way and hide it behind "but the republicans"
He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

allegro
01-16-2015, 07:13 PM
Because he has no other choice?

I voted for Bruce Rauner for IL Governor. As an Independent, I swing both ways.

Dra508
01-16-2015, 07:57 PM
It's amazing that in 2015 people actually believe this.

People do this. It's human nature. Someone might like several issues that a politician is positioned on, but if they are on an opposing side of one non-starter, the person is likely to not vote for them. Pro-life/Pro Abortion being a big one I think.

elevenism
01-16-2015, 08:30 PM
It's amazing that in 2015 people actually believe this.

it's like what i said about pro wrestling, you know?
i don't REALLY believe it....but if you can't suspend your disbelief a little then it becomes pointless.

sure, i will go vote the straight democratic ticket.

as far as what i REALLY believe about our government...it's sinister enough that i don't even like talking about it.

RhettButler
01-17-2015, 08:25 AM
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-republicans-romney-20150117-story.html

Mitt's 2016 plan.

ambergris
01-17-2015, 08:56 AM
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-republicans-romney-20150117-story.html

Mitt's 2016 plan.

Income equality and poverty? But I thought the poor deserved it because they are all moochers and will never vote for Mitt anyway.

RhettButler
01-17-2015, 08:58 AM
People do this. It's human nature. Someone might like several issues that a politician is positioned on, but if they are on an opposing side of one non-starter, the person is likely to not vote for them. Pro-life/Pro Abortion being a big one I think.
And that's a pretty big issue. We are one SCJ away from Roe v. Wade being overturned.

allegro
01-17-2015, 09:12 AM
Nope. They"re not going to do that. They're not even going to HEAR that.

allegro
01-17-2015, 09:20 AM
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-republicans-romney-20150117-story.html

Mitt's 2016 plan.

Wow Scott Walker is for-sure running, interesting.

RhettButler
01-17-2015, 09:21 AM
Nope. They"re not going to do that. They're not even going to HEAR that.

I wouldn't be so sure:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-ginsburg-should-resign-20140316

A great deal turns on who picks Ginsburg's successor. There are, for example, four likely votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade on the current court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. If a Republican president selects Ginsburg's replacement, that justice easily could be the fifth vote needed to allow the government to prohibit all abortions.

allegro
01-17-2015, 09:28 AM
I wouldn't be so sure:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/15/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-ginsburg-should-resign-20140316

A great deal turns on who picks Ginsburg's successor. There are, for example, four likely votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade on the current court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. If a Republican president selects Ginsburg's replacement, that justice easily could be the fifth vote needed to allow the government to prohibit all abortions.
I don't care what the LA Times says; the current SCOTUS has already issued Opinions affirming it that included the alleged right-wing justices. (The only asshole who totally hates Roe is Scalia.) The SCOTUS doesn't just up and reverse other SCOTUS decisions willy-nilly, that's not how the SCOTUS works.

RhettButler
01-17-2015, 09:31 AM
I don't care what the LA Times says; the current SCOTUS has already issued Opinions affirming it that included the alleged right-wing justices.
Well, hopefully it won't come a fifth conservative Justice.

allegro
01-17-2015, 09:53 AM
Well, hopefully it won't come a fifth conservative Justice.

No, we have enough asshole SCJs already.

This really good article shows how we've ALREADY lost our right to choose, due to the fucked-up Fed court system. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/04/2919111/supreme-court-roe-wade-exists/

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 12:33 PM
oh man, watching Walker run is going to be beautiful. He has created a record in WI that can be used against his bullshit "pro small business" and "regulation hurts" lines. Ex: him jacking up regulation on craft brewing to make it much harder to operate a business there (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/10/239780/wisconsin-craft-beer/).

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 04:08 PM
People do this. It's human nature. Someone might like several issues that a politician is positioned on, but if they are on an opposing side of one non-starter, the person is likely to not vote for them. Pro-life/Pro Abortion being a big one I think.
aaaand it's exactly why we basically have a single party pretending to be two. The republican primary candidates had more diversity/separation between each other than Obama and Romney had. But hey, that letter next to their name!


it's like what i said about pro wrestling, you know?
i don't REALLY believe it....but if you can't suspend your disbelief a little then it becomes pointless.

pro wrestling is a very accurate comparison to what is going on, but the suspension of disbelief is only appropriate in wrestling.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012


http://i.imgur.com/idR2A5T.jpg

"This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions."

yet people cling to the "but one of the parties cares about me!" concept

And this is why I get happy when people, like @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), start talking about people like Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, etc. It's a large step in a different direction than the bullshit we keep being served.

Dra508
01-17-2015, 04:59 PM
People do this. It's human nature. Someone might like several issues that a politician is positioned on, but if they are on an opposing side of one non-starter, the person is likely to not vote for them. Pro-life/Pro Abortion being a big one I think.


aaaand it's exactly why we basically have a single party pretending to be two. The republican primary candidates had more diversity/separation between each other than Obama and Romney had. But hey, that letter next to their name!

Sorry, I'm missing the correlation. If voters tend to decide right before they pull the lever and it's often a single issue that throws their vote one way or the other, how does that make it look like the U.S. democratic system is looking like a single party?

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 05:11 PM
Sorry, I'm missing the correlation. If voters tend to decide right before they pull the lever and it's often a single issue that throws their vote one way or the other, how does that make it look like the U.S. democratic system is looking like a single party?

Well, first, there is a difference between wedge issues (what you are describing) and straight party allegiance (what Rhett is exhibiting). It's not like Rhett would suddenly vote for Rand if Rand changed his stance on long-term unemployment (plus, it wasn't even a stance, just a question of pragmatism). Rhett would simply find another topic to justify not voting for Rand. So, it's not really a wedge issue for Rhett. This was the "witch hunting" vs "saint making" I was referring to earlier.

However, when you have candidates who are so similar (as outlined in my last post) this speaks on both wedge issues and party allegiance. Both have a justification as to why their party is different from the other, even though the reality is a MUCH smaller difference.


edit: cliffs = packaging/labeling vs contents. promises vs results.

Dra508
01-17-2015, 05:24 PM
^^^^ Ok. But they are still two, separate and distinct political party organizations. I'd be curious if the average voter that's registered with one of the two major parties, actually votes across the line ever.

As elevenism said: yellow-dog. :D

RhettButler
01-17-2015, 05:36 PM
^^^^ Ok. But they are still two, separate and distinct political party organizations. I'd be curious if the average voter that's registered with one of the two major parties, actually votes across the line ever.

As @elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) said: yellow-dog. :D
I don't have any stats, but most people vote with their party. Already probably 90 percent of all voters know that they will vote D or R in 2016.

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 05:57 PM
The interesting thing is that over half of millennials consider themselves independent. That's the highest rate since Pew started 25 years ago. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150109-moving-beyond-2-parties.ece

It's good to see. If you remove the self-identity portion, most people have always been independent. There are very few people who align well with the platform provided by the R or D parties. You have to make a lot of compromises to fit into the platform. That's exactly why we have things like Blue Dog Democrats and Tea Party Republicans.

Baphomette
01-17-2015, 09:03 PM
GOP gift-wraps 2016 election for Dems. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/univision-republican_n_6489898.html)

elevenism
01-17-2015, 10:05 PM
GOP gift-wraps 2016 election for Dems. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/univision-republican_n_6489898.html)
that makes my day.

Dra508
01-17-2015, 10:17 PM
GOP gift-wraps 2016 election for Dems. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/univision-republican_n_6489898.html)

Telemundo doesn't have the same reach?

elevenism
01-17-2015, 10:46 PM
@Dra508 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=101) , i can't speak for everyone else, but as far as the two party system being an illusion, it's not that we don't get to choose one or the other, it's that they both have the same agenda.

Both sides support endless war. Both expand the scope and power of the government and take away liberty. Both engage in out of control spending.
Neither gives a damn about the constitution anymore...bush wiped his ass with it, but as much as i hate to say it, obama has too. Neither cares about basic human rights (torture under bush, drone striking obama.)

And both are pretty much owned by lobbyists who cater to big business.

Then they use social and moral issues to create the illusion of choice. Civil liberty issues, like gay rights and abortion...you know, shit that's guaranteed to get people riled up. But these issues are almost invariably small in the grand scheme of things, or things that aren't likely to change one way or the other.


Did you see that flag with the corporate logos on it i posted? That's what it looks like to me. It is a, how you say, a corporate plutocracy. Or oligarchy. Our society is ruled by the wealthiest citizens, or in this case, groups, corporations.



Here are 100 ways Republicans and Democrats are the same. (http://ivn.us/2012/11/06/100-ways-republicans-are-just-like-democrats/)

There are a lot of documentaries that get into this. Some of them are sensationalism and paranoid conspiracy junk, but i think that this one, called Ethos, Ethos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHpVA_fO2zk) is a pretty good one.
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) , what are we supposed to do about it?

Suspension of disbelief is all i can muster. I've watched a good friend of mine who lives in Austin campaign for Ron Paul for a long, long time, but to what end?

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 11:34 PM
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) , what are we supposed to do about it?


1 - Change our electoral system to something that doesn't force us to a 2 party system. People should be able to vote for who the most want, instead of simply voting against the person who the most dislike. This would be huge and there are lots of possible systems that fix this. There is a very popular video that explains the problem with our current system in a very simple way (many of you have probably seen this, if not it's worth a watch):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo


2 - Remove outside money from ANY source in the campaign process. Again, there are lots of existing proposals here, but an example: We can either setup a low cost process (we have internet and public TV) that all candidates must follow and/or ensure that all campaigns are funded equally through a pool of money that comes from taxes. There are some problems with this specific proposal (like a corp/union deciding, on their own, to advertise for a candidate) but this is just one example and nothing is a 100% fix.

DigitalChaos
01-17-2015, 11:48 PM
And if that doesn't sell you on the electoral system issue, take a look at the systems used elsewhere just in this country. They don't use "first past the post" for primaries (they use runoffs). To my knowledge, they also use run-offs when electing their own officers and even for local offices.

Forcing the 2 party system is the major issue with first past the post, but there are plenty of other problems. You always hear people bitching about gerrymandering. First past the post makes gerrymandering very easy to do.

elevenism
01-18-2015, 12:29 AM
1 - Change our electoral system to something that doesn't force us to a 2 party system. People should be able to vote for who the most want, instead of simply voting against the person who the most dislike. This would be huge and there are lots of possible systems that fix this.


2 - Remove outside money from ANY source in the campaign process. Again, there are lots of existing proposals here, but an example: We can either setup a low cost process (we have internet and public TV) that all candidates must follow and/or ensure that all campaigns are funded equally through a pool of money that comes from taxes. There are some problems with this specific proposal (like a corp/union deciding, on their own, to advertise for a candidate) but this is just one example and nothing is a 100% fix.

Those are great ideas and i'm with you all the way.
But i don't know how we can implement them, you know?

Baphomette
01-18-2015, 01:05 AM
Telemundo doesn't have the same reach?No. Univision is like ABC. Telemundo is like the CW.

RhettButler
01-18-2015, 06:10 AM
I'd love for the electoral college do be done away with. Honestly, they could officially elect the next president by going by the popular vote in Florida, Virginia and Ohio and the outcome would be no different than what we have now. Those are among the few states that matter. I live in MA, so my vote is basically useless.

They say every vote counts, or everyone has an equal voice, but that's not true. The popular vote should determine who is elected, and all primaries should be held on the same day too.

elevenism
01-18-2015, 07:36 AM
RhettButler , i feel you.
I don't feel like my vote counts in Texas.
In 2000, i was going to go vote after work, but bush had already won the state.

Jinsai
01-18-2015, 01:51 PM
1 - Change our electoral system to something that doesn't force us to a 2 party system. People should be able to vote for who the most want, instead of simply voting against the person who the most dislike. This would be huge and there are lots of possible systems that fix this. There is a very popular video that explains the problem with our current system in a very simple way (many of you have probably seen this, if not it's worth a watch):

The problem is that this will NEVER happen. You have a much better chance of changing the ideology and priorities of one of your two choices than you do of introducing a completely separate third option. This is why the libertarians are trying to change the republican party into the libertarian party. They will still be called Republicans though. But nobody in power wants to fuck around with the idea of taking the power away from the two-party lock in.

Though, at least you see some democrats arguing for us to do away with the electoral college. If you really want to see this sort of thing happen in your grandchildren's lifetime, that would be step one.

binaryhermit
01-18-2015, 10:25 PM
The electoral college is affirmative action for rednecks.

elevenism
01-19-2015, 06:09 AM
The problem is that this will NEVER happen.

That's kind of what i was getting at when i asked DigitalChaos what we are supposed to do. This country is about MONEY, and it always has been. And good fucking luck changing any part of this plutocracy. Hell, the people with the money are the ones running the country, and they wanna KEEP it!

When i think about trying to go against the system, i feel like THIS.

(We're the mouse)

http://i.imgur.com/vzGosxH.jpg

I don't think much will change in our lifetimes.

But i love political theater. I love the discussion of ideas.

So i will enjoy the race and vote for the good guys, just like i cheered for Hulk Hogan when i was a kid.

RhettButler
01-19-2015, 06:39 AM
Anyone want to guess on what page the winner will be called? I'm guessing page 85.

Dra508
01-19-2015, 08:27 AM
Anyone want to guess on what page the winner will be called? I'm guessing page 85.155.............

Deepvoid
01-19-2015, 09:31 AM
Is there anything preventing the creation of a 3rd party? If not, why has no one tried yet?

DigitalChaos
01-19-2015, 11:59 AM
The problem is that this will NEVER happen. You have a much better chance of changing the ideology and priorities of one of your two choices than you do of introducing a completely separate third option. This is why the libertarians are trying to change the republican party into the libertarian party. They will still be called Republicans though. But nobody in power wants to fuck around with the idea of taking the power away from the two-party lock in.

Though, at least you see some democrats arguing for us to do away with the electoral college. If you really want to see this sort of thing happen in your grandchildren's lifetime, that would be step one.


Well, the issue in changing the electoral system isn't the issue of introducing a 3rd option. Hell, the additional options would come automatically. The issue is getting the electoral system changed. Things happen in this country when A: lots of people want it (ex: marriage equality), or B: someone will profit from it (ex: obamacare).

Being that we have so many people who still think "their" party is the good guy, nowhere near enough people are going to see a benefit to changing the electoral system unless the messaging has some heavy spin on it. I'm not sure if there is an angle on electoral change that allow someone to profit though. (keep in mind, more power = more profit, too).

There are ways for freedom of choice to be profitable... not everything profitable is bad. But I don't know for this specific one. The libertarians picking up portions of the rotting GOP carcass has certainly seen much more traction. Both the democrat and republican parties have been majorly overhauled throughout their history. So, it's not impossible. It's just slow.


edit: So when the fuck are we going to see the Dems get an overhaul, or are they just going to hold the place of Bush-era GOP?

DigitalChaos
01-19-2015, 12:02 PM
Is there anything preventing the creation of a 3rd party? If not, why has no one tried yet?
Plenty of 3rd parties have been created. People vote on them in every election. The issue is electing them. See #1 here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=237801#post237801)
You occasionally see them get elected in the local elections though. Bernie Sanders is one example.

DigitalChaos
01-19-2015, 12:11 PM
Another fucked up thing is that people put too much attention on the election of the president and WAY too little attention on their local reps. The voter turnout is much smaller for local elections. People need to go back to highschool and take Civics 101 and learn how our government works. Idiots always act like we are electing a king who will "change" everything and then tune out of politics until the next presidential election.

If you need any evidence of this, just look at the current situation. Sure, Obama may be president, but the House is sitting at the largest GOP majority in SEVENTY YEARS.

Deepvoid
01-19-2015, 12:34 PM
Plenty of 3rd parties have been created. People vote on them in every election. The issue is electing them. See #1 here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=237801#post237801)
You occasionally see them get elected in the local elections though. Bernie Sanders is one example.

Sanders is an independant. He's not attached to a party per say.

Dra508
01-19-2015, 02:40 PM
Another fucked up thing is that people put too much attention on the election of the president and WAY too little attention on their local reps. The voter turnout is much smaller for local elections. People need to go back to highschool and take Civics 101 and learn how our government works. Idiots always act like we are electing a king who will "change" everything and then tune out of politics until the next presidential election.

If you need any evidence of this, just look at the current situation. Sure, Obama may be president, but the House is sitting at the largest GOP majority in SEVENTY YEARS.

All politics should be local.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local

I miss Tip.

DigitalChaos
01-19-2015, 06:04 PM
Sanders is an independant. He's not attached to a party per say.
anything that isn't part of the major two parties gets counted. There are others though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Repres entatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States

DigitalChaos
01-19-2015, 06:08 PM
All politics should be local.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local

I miss Tip.

I like you. I don't know what your political alignment is, but anyone who deviates from the the shit fed to the mass-media is cool in my book.

Deepvoid
01-20-2015, 08:41 AM
anything that isn't part of the major two parties gets counted. There are others though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Repres entatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States

I get it but couldn't all those "third party" members regroup and form a formal new party. Party X that will partake in debates and what not alongside the R. and the D.

The best example I can give you is here in Quebec, there are multiple parties but it's always been between the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois.
That's until the CAQ was formed ("Coalition Avenir Quebec") and now we literally have elections fought between three parties.
Unfortunately, since we do not have a proportional voting system, we end up with a party who rules as the majority but with only 40% of the electoral votes. So that's not much better.
But my point is that a formal third party was created to challenge the existing two parties that have been governing Quebec for the past 60 years or something like that.

DigitalChaos
01-20-2015, 03:10 PM
I get it but couldn't all those "third party" members regroup and form a formal new party. Party X that will partake in debates and what not alongside the R. and the D.

The best example I can give you is here in Quebec, there are multiple parties but it's always been between the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois.
That's until the CAQ was formed ("Coalition Avenir Quebec") and now we literally have elections fought between three parties.
Unfortunately, since we do not have a proportional voting system, we end up with a party who rules as the majority but with only 40% of the electoral votes. So that's not much better.
But my point is that a formal third party was created to challenge the existing two parties that have been governing Quebec for the past 60 years or something like that.
Oh I see. A coalition of all 3rd parties just to upset the current balance. I'm having trouble seeing it just because of how diverse the various independents/3rd parties are. They all differ a LOT more than the Dems differ from the GOP. You would have to convince people on one extreme side of the spectrum to vote for a candidate on the opposite side of the spectrum... and the only reasoning would be "to break away from the current 2 parties." I guess all the 3rd parties lean heavily away from the authoritarian spectrum (compared to the D and R parties), so maybe that could be common ground. More individual freedom.


I believe Canada suffers from the "first past the post" electoral system too.

Deepvoid
01-20-2015, 03:46 PM
I believe Canada suffers from the "first past the post" electoral system too.

Yes we do.
There need to be a reform in that regard. Quebec has shown some interests but it never materialized into a change in the electoral system.

Anyways, back to the USA and back to Sanders. If he decides to make a run at POTUS, can he do it as an independent?
How does that work exactly?

DigitalChaos
01-20-2015, 05:36 PM
^ good question. I'll look it up and touch on that later if someone doesn't beat me to it.

But first, I must share this....
This neocon hit piece tries to "expose" Rand Paul's social media person because she opposes the bullshit war machine and nationalism that the GOP loves so much. Oh, and because she supports Snowden. No, not the onion....
http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-blogger-give-edward-snowden-the-nobel-peace-prize/

Meanwhile, I'm reading that and very happy we have more people like this getting involved in politics... but hey... the GOP clearly understands what the public really wants!

allegro
01-20-2015, 05:46 PM
Anyways, back to the USA and back to Sanders. If he decides to make a run at POTUS, can he do it as an independent?
How does that work exactly?
George Wallace did it in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#1968_third_party_presidential_run) and got pretty far.


While Wallace carried five Southern states, won almost ten million popular votes and 46 electoral votes, Nixon received 301 electoral votes, more than required to win the election. Wallace remains the last non-Democratic, non-Republican candidate to win any electoral votes by vote of the people.

But Sanders has said that if he runs, he's not sure if he'd run as a Democrat or an Independent (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/09/14/bernie_sanders_may_run_for_president_as_democrat.h tml). <--- See that video as to why.

RhettButler
01-20-2015, 07:46 PM
Really hoping Sanders doesn't run as an independent. We can thank Nader for giving us President Bush.

Dra508
01-20-2015, 09:51 PM
I think Obama might break the Internet tonight.

DigitalChaos
01-20-2015, 10:49 PM
I think Obama might break the Internet tonight.
Was it the joke he made about winning 2 terms or something else? I'm confused as to wtf is happening on the internet after seeing Rand Paul's SOTU response with a decent number of upvotes on /r/politics.

Deepvoid
01-21-2015, 09:45 AM
Was it the joke he made about winning 2 terms or something else? I'm confused as to wtf is happening on the internet after seeing Rand Paul's SOTU response with a decent number of upvotes on /r/politics.

So when asked what he would do about fixing the healthcare system, Rand Paul's response is "Let's try freedom". Really?
That sounds like some fucking genius solution.

Emergency surgery? Can't afford the bill? Freedom baby! Does he imply that you have the liberty of paying your bill or not?
How does that work exactly?

DigitalChaos
01-21-2015, 01:52 PM
So when asked what he would do about fixing the healthcare system, Rand Paul's response is "Let's try freedom". Really?
That sounds like some fucking genius solution.

Emergency surgery? Can't afford the bill? Freedom baby! Does he imply that you have the liberty of paying your bill or not?
How does that work exactly?

That's the filler in between that keeps the GOP interested. I'm preeeeetty sure that isn't why it got attention on the overly Dem /r/politics.


This is what they liked in Rand Paul's SOTU response:

- term limits on congress


- "read bills act" - requires congress wait 1 day for every 20pages of legislation


- congress shall pass no law that exempts congress from the requirements of the bill


- Wants to audit the Pentagon due to military wastes on civilian bureaucracy.


- Politicians should not collect private information without a warrant and probable cause. President created this by executive order, should repeal it immediately.


- both parties seek military intervention without looking at unintended consequences

DigitalChaos
01-21-2015, 02:59 PM
oh, and this one: The President tonight calls for higher taxes. I believe we should do the opposite. I propose we cut everyone’s taxes and we cut spending. Some will ask, “But what of the safety net?” I say: We will not cut one penny from the safety net until we’ve cut every penny from corporate welfare!


How can you NOT agree with that? (unless you benefit from corporate welfare)

allegro
01-21-2015, 06:09 PM
These HUGE corps like Exxon and GE need to be killed. They suck. All the other medium and small businesses are paying up the ass in taxes because they can't afford a whole dept of tax accountants and don't have a shitload of revenue buried in the Caymans; the small and medium businesses are the true job creators. The tax code needs to be ditched and all the foreign write-offs need to go bye-bye. But these politicians are PAID by these Big Corps, so they are NEVER going to hurt them in any way. That's their cash cow.

I wish we could have special elections where the PEOPLE could vote on this stuff because Congress has its hand in the Big Corp cookie jar and can't be trusted to make decisions on our behalf.

I've filed a Small Business tax return on several occasions and it sure as hell pissed me off.

And get rid of that fucking Marriage Penalty and the fucking AMT.

DigitalChaos
01-21-2015, 06:32 PM
If someone is going to completely (or incrementally reach that level) cut corporate welfare, I will vote for them. I don't care what party they are.

allegro
01-21-2015, 06:46 PM
I will send money to any candidate who seriously moves to get rid of this shit:
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/2014/06/08/top-tax-havens-for-us-firms-report-finds/10199525/

Drastically cut the corporate tax rate and eliminate the ability for tax havens.

Dra508
01-21-2015, 09:44 PM
Was it the joke he made about winning 2 terms or something else? I'm confused as to wtf is happening on the internet after seeing Rand Paul's SOTU response with a decent number of upvotes on /r/politics.

Yes, that comment was ad libbed.

Later, Romney weighed in getting onto Facebook and criticizing the speech saying we should simplify the tax code. No duh.

Oh and Mike Huckabee. Sounds like a nice down home preacher man, but shit, God, Guns, Grits, And Gravy? I thought I read he's making so much for books, speaking, and TV that he'd be stupid to run for president. Good. After watching him on The Daily Show I'm frightened that those folks outside " the bubbles" of New York, Washington, and Hollywood believe his drivel.

Deepvoid
01-23-2015, 11:18 AM
Mitt Romney acknowledges that climate change is real and that we're contributing to it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/22/mitt-romney-climate-change-is-real-human-induced-a/)

Rand Paul also voted in favor of a conservative climate amendement. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120829/mitt-romney-rand-paul-make-climate-change-2016-gop-issue)
Rubio and Cruz voted against.

Looks like a sure deal that Climate Change will be debated during the GOP primaries. Should be interesting.

Dra508
01-23-2015, 04:21 PM
Mitt Romney acknowledges that climate change is real and that we're contributing to it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/22/mitt-romney-climate-change-is-real-human-induced-a/)

Rand Paul also voted in favor of a conservative climate amendement. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120829/mitt-romney-rand-paul-make-climate-change-2016-gop-issue)
Rubio and Cruz voted against.

Looks like a sure deal that Climate Change will be debated during the GOP primaries. Should be interesting.This is great if it's a real conversation and not continuing denial or "I'm not a scientist" argument for denying global warming errr climate change.

allegro
01-23-2015, 06:06 PM
Mitt Romney acknowledges that climate change is real and that we're contributing to it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/22/mitt-romney-climate-change-is-real-human-induced-a/)

Well, that's awesome. He needs to get more Republicans on board with this.

RhettButler
01-26-2015, 05:57 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html

Inside Hillary Clinton’s 2016 plan

Good article about Clinton's likely 2016 campaign.

And then Palin might run.

From her latest speech:

Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It's too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That's status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y'know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can't ride ya, America won't be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can't afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/25/sarah-palin-iowa-speech_n_6543762.html

Deepvoid
01-26-2015, 09:14 AM
For cringe-inducing speeches from potential right-wing candidates at the Iowa Freedom Summit head over to http://therightscoop.com/
Starts at bottom of page 1 and it includes Palin, Cruz, Walker, Carson, King as well as attacks on Romney by Trump and Bill O'Brien.

DigitalChaos
01-26-2015, 11:02 AM
For cringe-inducing speeches from potential right-wing candidates at the Iowa Freedom Summit head over to http://therightscoop.com/
Starts at bottom of page 1 and it includes Palin, Cruz, Walker, Carson, King as well as attacks on Romney by Trump and Bill O'Brien.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzD-zqWwWc

WAT

no, seriously... WHAT THE FUCK are the words that are coming out of her mouth? Was she doing slam poetry while drunk and having a stroke at the same time?

Deepvoid
01-26-2015, 11:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzD-zqWwWc

WAT

no, seriously... WHAT THE FUCK are the words that are coming out of her mouth? Was she doing slam poetry while drunk and having a stroke at the same time?

The people comments on The Right Scoop would be fucking hilarious if it they were being sarcastic. However, they are truly supporting Palin, which is kinda sad.
Calling this the best speech they ever heard?

DigitalChaos
01-26-2015, 01:12 PM
The people comments on The Right Scoop would be fucking hilarious if it they were being sarcastic. However, they are truly supporting Palin, which is kinda sad.
Calling this the best speech they ever heard?
oh jesus fucking christ, i didn't even see the comments.
I'm not kidding about the slam/beat poetry thing either. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if she was trying to "reference" that Sam Martin guy who was commissioned by FreedomWorks to do some videos. I actually like his stuff though.
example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyV7r6oqfSY

Louie_Cypher
01-26-2015, 06:26 PM
I find the whole Palin Iowa meltdown hilarious I actually watched it on CSPAN when they showed the crowd even their jaws were agape looking the same way my dog does when I show him a card trick. Here has to be the most bizarre thing she said, from the transcripts. SPEAKING OF BRISTOL, MAYBE YOU HAVE SEEN HER IN THE NEWS RECENTLY. PHOTOS OF HERBERT POSTED. THEY WERE CANDID PHOTOS OF HER, JUST NOTHING ON BUT LEATHER. BEAUTIFUL LEATHER. [INDISCERNIBLE] SHE WAS TRAINED HERE IN IOWA.
-Louie

RhettButler
01-27-2015, 01:18 AM
Anyone see Jon Stewart tonight?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30tGSXNjM1A

Deepvoid
01-27-2015, 08:51 AM
He nailed it as usual!
I seriously cannot stop watching that Palin clip. I have a theory that her brain is so advance that it is us the dumb ones who cannot understand her "dialect".

Sutekh
01-27-2015, 10:42 AM
heard a good bit from a commentator re: Palin

went along the lines of

"she panders to people who feel slighted by the progress of humanity, who need a hero as they slide into oblivion"


booom lol

RhettButler
01-27-2015, 10:47 AM
Well, the good folks at The Boston Herald (Boston's version of The New York Post) think that Palin should run and would Clinton a run for her money:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/01/analysts_say_sarah_palin_has_chops_for_race
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2015/01/adriana_cohen_sarah_palin_is_the_perfect_foil_to_t ake

Sutekh
01-27-2015, 12:30 PM
er... they're idiots

she's a good regional candidate but national... it's the richest country in the world, got some seriously educated conservatives. I think people get a bit narcissistic and want to vote for people they can relate to, rather than an uber brain who can actually do the job

Deepvoid
01-27-2015, 02:20 PM
I don't know what the context was but Huckabee's pig killing and sausage speech was hilarious too. Stewart's reaction was priceless.

But on a more serious note, I believe Huckabee is the most dangerous candidate out there. He's a religious extremist. Nothing good can come out of this.
Mike Huckabee: Chapel Services In Public Schools Will End School Shootings - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-chapel-services-public-schools-will-end-school-shootings#sthash.atOI0jtM.dpuf

allegro
01-27-2015, 02:20 PM
er... they're idiots

she's a good regional candidate but national... it's the richest country in the world, got some seriously educated conservatives. I think people get a bit narcissistic and want to vote for people they can relate to, rather than an uber brain who can actually do the job

first of all, she wouldn't even get the GOP primary nod.

second, she wouldn't survive the first debate. she can't do anything without a teleprompter.

Sutekh
01-27-2015, 02:33 PM
sounds good to me! I just have a hard time forgetting how far bush jnr got

RhettButler
01-27-2015, 02:44 PM
I don't know what the context was but Huckabee's pig killing and sausage speech was hilarious too. Stewart's reaction was priceless.

But on a more serious note, I believe Huckabee is the most dangerous candidate out there. He's a religious extremist. Nothing good can come out of this.
Mike Huckabee: Chapel Services In Public Schools Will End School Shootings - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-chapel-services-public-schools-will-end-school-shootings#sthash.atOI0jtM.dpuf
He's not going to be the nominee. In all likelihood, at the end of the day they're going to go with an establishment-type, most likely Bush or Romney. Scott Walker is another contender:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/upshot/scott-walker-shows-promise-heading-into-2016.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

allegro
01-27-2015, 03:06 PM
sounds good to me! I just have a hard time forgetting how far bush jnr got
He's not a Junior. His dad has different middle initials. And he's a brain surgeon compared to Sarah Palin.

And Scott Walker is a douche (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/11/12680/president-walker-five-things-you-should-know-about-scott-calvin-walker) getting money from the Koch brothers.

DigitalChaos
01-27-2015, 06:07 PM
Democrats need to be careful not to pull a Romney in this election. Their egos are surprisingly strong right now. Lots of acting like every GOP candidate doesn't stand a chance... sometimes dismissing any potential GOP gains as entirely due to gerrymandering/corruption.

Dems generally have issues with voter turnout, and a post Obama world the Dem voter apathy will be pretty fucking high. That, alone, is reason enough to be scared. Add in all the "GOP with a D" (I giggle way to much when applying that label to Hillary) candidates and you have a potential disaster on your hands.

DigitalChaos
01-27-2015, 06:09 PM
Separately, have any of you watched CitizenFour? This should be watched by all voters.
Laura Poitras was awesome and brought a camera to the very first meetings between Snowden and Greenwald. You get to be a fly on the wall during that time. No dramatizations, no re-enactments, etc.

if anyone wants to watch this but is unsure how, please message me!

RhettButler
01-27-2015, 06:41 PM
Democrats need to be careful not to pull a Romney in this election. Their egos are surprisingly strong right now. Lots of acting like every GOP candidate doesn't stand a chance... sometimes dismissing any potential GOP gains as entirely due to gerrymandering/corruption.

Dems generally have issues with voter turnout, and a post Obama world the Dem voter apathy will be pretty fucking high. That, alone, is reason enough to be scared. Add in all the "GOP with a D" (I giggle way to much when applying that label to Hillary) candidates and you have a potential disaster on your hands.
You're right when you say that the Democrats shouldn't take anything for granted. That said, the GOP field is fucking pathetic. I mean, Mitt Romney, again? HE'S the best they can do? And I think Hillary will generate a lot of excitement among Democrats.

DigitalChaos
01-27-2015, 08:06 PM
Sanders is threatening to run as an independent.
Why? Dems are bullshit. Obama is bullshit.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-threatens-to-run-as-independent-says-dems-weak-on-helping-middle-class/article/2559310

Dra508
01-27-2015, 10:06 PM
Sanders is threatening to run as an independent.
Why? Dems are bullshit. Obama is bullshit.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-threatens-to-run-as-independent-says-dems-weak-on-helping-middle-class/article/2559310

It's like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot all over again.

Dam I'm getting old.

Anyone think Sarah Palin took a couple shots or downed a couple pills before that incoherent yak fest ? She's such an attention whore. Both tea and gop need to tell her to go away. She's a fucking distraction. You bethca.

DigitalChaos
01-27-2015, 10:10 PM
I can't wait till Palin goes back into nobody paying attention to her. She is NOT interested in running for anything. This is pure attention whoring. She did it last election cycle too. The attention gets her a lot of money. Book sales, TV spots, etc. It's pretty fucked up that even THIS aspect of our political system is being used as a marketing tool for someone to profit from.

sentient02970
01-28-2015, 07:55 AM
It's like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot all over again.

Dam I'm getting old.

Anyone think Sarah Palin took a couple shots or downed a couple pills before that incoherent yak fest ? She's such an attention whore. Both tea and gop need to tell her to go away. She's a fucking distraction. You bethca.

She is no doubt a pill popper. Also her latest off-prompter bit reminded me of this:
http://youtu.be/Rg3gMEW9x0E

Dra508
01-28-2015, 11:24 AM
I can't wait till Palin goes back into nobody paying attention to her. She is NOT interested in running for anything. This is pure attention whoring. She did it last election cycle too. The attention gets her a lot of money. Book sales, TV spots, etc. It's pretty fucked up that even THIS aspect of our political system is being used as a marketing tool for someone to profit from.Yes. This is painfully obvious. O'Reilly threw Palin under the bus and Palin came out saying that even the supposed conservative media is out to get her and anyone else who stands upto themandempprhgahriing s

;)

Deepvoid
01-28-2015, 03:51 PM
I vote for Phil Davidson for President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd_JAo5cfdg

Sarah K
01-28-2015, 10:24 PM
http://bluenationreview.com/gay-bears-take-jebbushforpresident-com-will-use-lgbt-advocacy/?ref=00893

JebBushForPresident.com was purchased in 2008 and is going to be used to advocate for LGBTQ rights. :)

Deepvoid
01-29-2015, 07:48 AM
Why are Republicans/Conservatives against Common Core?

allegro
01-29-2015, 07:55 AM
Why are Republicans/Conservatives against Common Core?

See this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/05/27/307755798/the-common-core-faq

Deepvoid
01-29-2015, 09:38 AM
See this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/05/27/307755798/the-common-core-faq

Looks like a good idea that needs some tweaks. Why wouldn't anyone want to make sure kids have the same level of comprehension in English and maths?
I saw some people claiming that education should be handled on state level and not federal. Then, wouldn't you have more shit like Mississippi "where education laws require "stressing" abstinence, teachers are prohibited from any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied." (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/01/condoms-sex-ed-video-how-to-put-on-a-sock)

Religion would creep its way back in certain state's public school.
Diploma's "value" wouldn't be the same from state to state.

Is Common Core a big issue for this next election?

Sarah K
01-29-2015, 09:49 AM
Someone has tried to explain a basic Common Core math problem to me, and it just gave me terrible anxiety. I don't even begin to understand it. Not even a little.

Sarah K
01-30-2015, 10:03 AM
BREAKING: Mitt Romney (https://www.facebook.com/mittromney) says he will not run for president, CBS News confirms.

Well, that's unexpected.

Deepvoid
01-30-2015, 11:12 AM
Well, that's unexpected.

" (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-10-54-39)Romney's exit comes after several of his former major donors and a veteran staffer in the early voting state of Iowa defected to support former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush." (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-10-54-39)

Latest FOX poll had Romney at 21% followed by Paul and Huckabee at 11%. Bush was fourth at 10%

RhettButler
01-30-2015, 05:24 PM
I'm actually surprised, I thought he might run.

RhettButler
01-31-2015, 06:21 AM
Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html?_r=0

Deepvoid
02-02-2015, 11:17 AM
Koch brothers will spend $889M in 2016 elections. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-network-announces-889-million-budget-for-next-two-years/22363809/)

Pocket change for some I guess.

Dra508
02-02-2015, 12:21 PM
" (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-10-54-39)Romney's exit comes after several of his former major donors and a veteran staffer in the early voting state of Iowa defected to support former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush." (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-10-54-39)

Latest FOX poll had Romney at 21% followed by Paul and Huckabee at 11%. Bush was fourth at 10%I love how this article implies that the donor and one staff defection helped Romney make the decision not to run. Another article said Romney had decided a week before he announced he wasn't going run. That sounds like this meeting in Boston at his son's hobby-allowance-from-daddy, err, investment firm really was when he decided to not run.

Whatever, we'll all forget in 15 minutes that he even dipped his toe in.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone would take Christie as a serious candidate. I know governor's have done relatively well running for president, but I thought a lot of folks in NJ/NY can't stand him. Is that an indication that the rest of the country would?

RhettButler
02-02-2015, 08:16 PM
Well, first, there is a difference between wedge issues (what you are describing) and straight party allegiance (what Rhett is exhibiting). It's not like Rhett would suddenly vote for Rand if Rand changed his stance on long-term unemployment (plus, it wasn't even a stance, just a question of pragmatism). Rhett would simply find another topic to justify not voting for Rand. So, it's not really a wedge issue for Rhett. This was the "witch hunting" vs "saint making" I was referring to earlier.

However, when you have candidates who are so similar (as outlined in my last post) this speaks on both wedge issues and party allegiance. Both have a justification as to why their party is different from the other, even though the reality is a MUCH smaller difference.


edit: cliffs = packaging/labeling vs contents. promises vs results.
I wouldn't vote for a Republican if I were offered front row tickets to see NIN, an advanced screening of the new James Bond and a blu-ray upgrade of my Star Trek collection. I don't think that Hillary is a saint, but I do know that she will support policies that are in my economic best interests, more so than any Republican, so she has my vote.

Dra508
02-02-2015, 10:18 PM
I saw some people claiming that education should be handled on state level and not federal. Then, wouldn't you have more shit like Mississippi ." [/URL]

Is Common Core a big issue for this next election?

States rights. I'd give it a big 'whatever' but it's become clear to me that ever state is totally different each other and some really thing the federal government shouldn't control anything. I'm pretty sure there are some states would try to secede.. Dumbasses.

I don't know if it'll be a big issue. So hard to tell who drives the agenda and what's talked about these days.

DigitalChaos
02-03-2015, 12:46 PM
I wouldn't vote for a Republican if I were offered front row tickets to see NIN, an advanced screening of the new James Bond and a blu-ray upgrade of my Star Trek collection. I don't think that Hillary is a saint, but I do know that she will support policies that are in my economic best interests, more so than any Republican, so she has my vote.
Dude, I know. You wouldnt vote republican if you had two *identical* candidates with the exception of the Dem having the addition of falling into petulant fits while killing children on TV. You'd still vote Dem. You are the down-the-line party voter.

DigitalChaos
02-03-2015, 12:48 PM
Then again, I said "I will never vote republican in my life" a few years ago. I've never voted republican outside of fucking around in their primaries.

allegro
02-03-2015, 01:25 PM
Then again, I said "I will never vote republican in my life" a few years ago. I've never voted republican outside of fucking around in their primaries.

I've voted for Republican Representatives. I voted for Mark Kirk several times when he was my Representative and I voted for him for Senator. I've voted for a Republican Governor several times. Sure, not nearly as many times as I've voted for Democrats or third parties, but still ... Back until the early-80s, I was a straight Democratic ticket voter (back when you could DO that ... go into a voting booth and pull one lever and leave). But then Democrats went Right and more corrupt, and all bets were off and I canceled my membership. Then I voted for Rod Blagojevich. Twice. Never getting burned like that again. What a sleazy piece of shit.

My biggest issues, personally, are the environment and local issues, and my most important elections are local (Senate, House, Governor). I hate these voters who only show up for Presidential elections and don't even know the name of their own U.S. Representative or Senators.

DigitalChaos
02-03-2015, 02:31 PM
My biggest issues, personally, are the environment and local issues, and my most important elections are local (Senate, House, Governor).
You know, that brings up a good point. As we try to figure out what the "big issues" will be in the election, what are the big issues everyone in this thread would actually like to see?

For me, at a national level:
- NSA overreach and 4th amendment intrusion
- Removing money from politics
- Ending Drug War
- Ending Police militarization (substantial amount would me handled by ending drug war)
- Military budget being way too big and US being way too involved around the world.
- Massive overspending and debt by government (cutting military budget would help a lot here)

I'm definitely missing a few, but that's just what is on my head right now.

For local/state (Bay Area, california), that's a whole different set involving gun rights, too many restrictions on much needed housing growth, failures to scale public resources, and a list of nanny-state bullshit.

RhettButler
02-03-2015, 07:27 PM
Dude, I know. You wouldnt vote republican if you had two *identical* candidates with the exception of the Dem having the addition of falling into petulant fits while killing children on TV. You'd still vote Dem. You are the down-the-line party voter.
Except that will never happen.

RhettButler
02-05-2015, 10:36 AM
Does this bother anyone else?

Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties’ Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

Dra508
02-05-2015, 03:13 PM
Does this bother anyone else?

Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties’ Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0Yes, but do we think that their spending will actually effect change that they are looking for? Is it going to change my vote?

RhettButler
02-05-2015, 03:20 PM
Yes, but do we think that their spending will actually effect change that they are looking for? Is it going to change my vote?
There's a point of no return. So will their near billion dollars matter, on top of the billion Bush's campaign will spend--assuming he's the nominee? Clinton's camp will also spend a billion.

Dra508
02-05-2015, 06:50 PM
It's a huge waste of money eh? Why would the 1% spend so much, for what?

r_k_f
02-06-2015, 10:51 PM
It's not a waste of $ by any means.... It's an investment that will definitely pay in the end if they can get their puppet into office. These people aren't filthy rich by accident, they're rich by bending, breaking and rewriting the laws that only help them make more $..

Deepvoid
02-12-2015, 11:21 AM
This is so much fun. Can't believe there's still over a year left before the election.

Scott Walker on whether he believes in evolution (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/11/1363846/-Does-Scott-Walker-believe-in-evolution-He-s-going-to-punt-on-that-one): "I'm going to punt on that one as well. That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or another."

London moderator, replying to Walker's "punt" on evolution: "No, really? Any British pol right or left would laugh, say of course it's true"

DigitalChaos
02-13-2015, 06:14 PM
Obama is calling for a constitutional amendment that limits the money flowing into campaigns. Interesting.

Ignoring the fact that he is the first major party candidate to turn down federal financing (because it would come with spending limits that "were a disadvantage")... And ignoring the fact that he waited till his 2nd term... I would love to see a proposal for how you can "limit the flow" in a way that doesn't amount to financial gerrymandering.

Baphomette
02-13-2015, 09:31 PM
Can he executive order that into happening? I think it'd be hysterical.

DigitalChaos
02-13-2015, 10:22 PM
Can he executive order that into happening? I think it'd be hysterical.
A Constitutional amendment? No. There is a very explicit path there. There are two ways
1 - Both House and Senate need to pass it with 2/3 majority. Then it goes to each state approval, requiring 3/4 of the states to approve. This is how every amendment has happened in the history of the US.
2 - There is also the possibility for a Constitutional Convention. It has never happened, but I would love to see it actually unfold, regardless of the topic.

So, basically, this needs to have some pretty heavy bi-partisan approval. It would have to be devoid of financial gerrymandering ("corps can't donate but unions can", etc). It will also have to be constructed in a way that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, especially spilling over outside of the campaign world.

RhettButler
02-15-2015, 10:21 AM
2016 Polls Show Clinton Leads in Key States, GOP Field Wide Open

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2016-polls-show-clinton-leads-key-states-gop-field-wide-n306106

Deepvoid
02-18-2015, 09:50 AM
This made me laugh. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/scott-walker-says-he-consults-with-god-but-his-office-cant-provide-documents-to-prove-it/comments/#disqus)
Scott Walker told some bankers that "“[a]ny major decision I’ve made in my life, politics or otherwise, I’ve tried to discern God’s calling on.”"

So one person called him up on his affirmation that he consults God and made an open records request to his office: "Since your terms as Governor, please provide a copy/transcript of all communications with God, the Lord, Christ, Jesus or any other form of deity."

This is the response from Walker's office: "“[p]ursuant to the Public Records Law, we are responding to let you know that this office does not have records responsive to your request.”

So I guess God's comments have been "off the record" this whole time.

RhettButler
02-19-2015, 06:43 AM
So Walker took a pass on answering any questions about evolution--try that during a nationally televised debate with Hillary Clinton and see what happens...

Deepvoid
02-19-2015, 03:41 PM
Some of you were discussing the subject of Constitutional Convention. Three states are now on board. (http://rockrivertimes.com/2014/12/04/illinois-third-state-to-call-for-constitutional-convention-to-overturn-citizens-united/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NArbULjg5UQ

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NArbULjg5UQ)

DigitalChaos
02-25-2015, 03:43 PM
yup.

Glenn Greenwald blasts Hillary Clinton: “The ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption”
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/glenn_greenwald_blasts_hillary_clinton_the_ultimat e_guardian_of_bipartisan_status_quo_corruption/

"That's why the Dem efforts to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination without contest are so depressing. She's the ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption, and no debate will happen if she's the nominee against some standard Romney/Bush-type GOP candidate. Some genuine dissenting force is crucial."

"The key tactic DC uses to make uncomfortable issues disappear is bipartisan consensus. When the leadership of both parties join together - as they so often do, despite the myths to the contrary - those issues disappear from mainstream public debate.
...
The division over this issue (like so many other big ones, such as crony capitalism that owns the country) is much more "insider v. outsider" than "Dem v. GOP". But until there are leaders of one of the two parties willing to dissent on this issue, it will be hard to make it a big political issue."




This was part of the Greenwald/Snowden/Poitras AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/). It's a great read, if you haven't already seen it.

Deepvoid
03-04-2015, 08:02 AM
It's Ben Carson's turn to win the stupidest statement of week.
Potential GOP presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said on CNN Wednesday that homosexuality is “absolutely” a choice because many people “go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay."

End of the story. Carson just found the cure to homosexuality. Close all the prisons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVSQ5kGXMA
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVSQ5kGXMA)

Dra508
03-08-2015, 06:23 PM
It's Ben Carson's turn to win the stupidest statement of week.
Potential GOP presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said on CNN Wednesday that homosexuality is “absolutely” a choice because many people “go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay."

End of the story. Carson just found the cure to homosexuality. Close all the prisons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVSQ5kGXMA
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVSQ5kGXMA)

“If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.”

- Dan Savage

SNL put it best. Carson is no longer a candidate.

Deepvoid
03-09-2015, 08:38 AM
“If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.”

- Dan Savage

SNL put it best. Carson is no longer a candidate.

Even Glenn Beck says the guy is done.
Bets are open for this week's stupidest comment. Results on Friday.

DigitalChaos
03-09-2015, 04:33 PM
am I the only one who actually understands what he was TRYING to say?

(im paraphrasing here, and I am not agreeing with him. I'm just demonstrating the foundation of the intended logic that seems to have been missed.)
He is saying that the jail situation is one example of why being gay can sometimes be a choice, thus "thwarting" the opposing notion that being gay is NEVER a choice. Instead, everyone interpreted it as him saying that the jail situation is an example of why being gay is ALWAYS a choice.


It's still fucking stupid.

Dra508
03-09-2015, 05:05 PM
am I the only one who actually understands what he was TRYING to say?

(im paraphrasing here, and I am not agreeing with him. I'm just demonstrating the foundation of the intended logic that seems to have been missed.)
He is saying that the jail situation is one example of why being gay can sometimes be a choice, thus "thwarting" the opposing notion that being gay is NEVER a choice. Instead, everyone interpreted it as him saying that the jail situation is an example of why being gay is ALWAYS a choice. In the world we live in today, it doesn't matter what you meant or intended to say, it's how it's perceived.



It's still fucking stupid.Werd.

littlemonkey613
03-09-2015, 06:29 PM
am I the only one who actually understands what he was TRYING to say?

(im paraphrasing here, and I am not agreeing with him. I'm just demonstrating the foundation of the intended logic that seems to have been missed.)
He is saying that the jail situation is one example of why being gay can sometimes be a choice, thus "thwarting" the opposing notion that being gay is NEVER a choice. Instead, everyone interpreted it as him saying that the jail situation is an example of why being gay is ALWAYS a choice.


It's still fucking stupid.

Ya I think its an important distinction to make as I actually know many a people for whom choice does play a major role in their sexuality and sexual orientation identity. But yes obviously this man is a giant turd and his motives aren't to advocate for less stagnate sexualities. lmao You're absolutely right though it is frustrating to see things misunderstood.

RhettButler
03-09-2015, 07:16 PM
Why a Clinton-Bush presidential race fills me with nothing but despair

http://theweek.com/articles/542937/why-clintonbush-presidential-race-fills-nothing-but-despair

RhettButler
03-17-2015, 08:17 AM
GOP hopefuls rush toward starting gates

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-hopefuls-rush-toward-starting-gates-116136.html?cmpid=sf

elevenism
03-17-2015, 01:34 PM
hahaha Dra508 i LOVE dan savage. i ESPECIALLY love what he did to Santorum.

RhettButler
03-22-2015, 05:13 PM
Ted Cruz will announce that he's running for president tomorrow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/ted-cruz-to-announce-on-monday-he-plans-to-run-for-president.html?_r=0

Wretchedest
03-22-2015, 10:44 PM
Great, we can all use a little laughter in our lives.

Deepvoid
03-23-2015, 11:26 AM
You can start laughing right now. Ted Cruz doesn't even own http://www.tedcruz.com/

Dra508
03-23-2015, 10:32 PM
Great, we can all use a little laughter in our lives.
Fortunately, it's pretty unlikely he goes far. Unfortunately, he may be successful in pushing The GOP agenda waaay further to the right.

binaryhermit
03-23-2015, 11:39 PM
Unfortunately, he may be successful in pushing The GOP agenda waaay further to the right.
That might be "fortunately". That would make the Rethuglicans less electable. Unless the Dumbocrats chase after him like they have every other time the GOP went to the right.

RhettButler
03-24-2015, 05:25 AM
http://www.catastrophizer.com/uploads/2/1/7/9/2179458/4893533_orig.jpg

Dra508
03-24-2015, 09:54 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpdXjxqCMAAmhEd.png

Jinsai
03-25-2015, 01:58 AM
"wow, I'm really excited bout Ted Cruz, and I really think he's the best candidate to lead the country."

- nobody

Melancholygrl78
04-01-2015, 02:11 PM
I am afraid, though, I will not be surprised that it will probably be Jeb Bush who wins the next election. It's as predictable as a lifetime movie with a twisted and sinister ending! My intuition tells me that it is all a big joke and has been for a long time. Yet, I will vote again and participate in it all feeling this. Call me the cynic of ETS and there are probably others here, but, I honestly believe that politics are filled with a bunch of actors and actresses up on display to distract everyone. I am just disillusioned, perhaps. I hope I am so wrong for the future of our children. I hope so...

RhettButler
04-02-2015, 07:38 AM
I am afraid, though, I will not be surprised that it will probably be Jeb Bush who wins the next election. It's as predictable as a lifetime movie with a twisted and sinister ending! My intuition tells me that it is all a big joke and has been for a long time. Yet, I will vote again and participate in it all feeling this. Call me the cynic of ETS and there are probably others here, but, I honestly believe that politics are filled with a bunch of actors and actresses up on display to distract everyone. I am just disillusioned, perhaps. I hope I am so wrong for the future of our children. I hope so...

If the Republicans go the same route that they usually go (the establishment's pick) it will be Bush. However, if they go hard right (as Chris Matthews believes they might) and "stick to their principles," they might go with a Cruz (unlikely IMHO) or some other right-winger. They did that in '64 and you see how well that worked out for them.

Melancholygrl78
04-02-2015, 08:17 AM
Romney will probably try to run again, or, OMG, Mike Huckabee....Eek! I am neither Republican nor Democrat though, I am Independent with a mixture of liberal and conservative, even, libertarian values. I also think highly of the Green Party. I think that each party (in an ideal world, of course), can bring something important to the table, but, most of these politicians are like little kids with power. They don't get anything done because all they do is argue.

Career politicians are the ones that I cannot stand. My state has a career politician who has been in office for almost 21 years. A friend and I went to the Christmas parade and he was riding a horse like some kind of knight in shining khakis. I yelled, "Let someone else in office" and he, of course, pretended to not hear me. LOL! I know that the people keep voting him but damn,, he could just step down.

I refuse to treat someone, famous or not, with regard if they are so fake. I really do not have respect for a man who sits on a high horse and tries to seem like some kind of god just because he has held a position in a political office. Big fucking deal. As far as I am concerned, he is a public "servant", in every sense of the word. The constitution should be amended to place limits on these career senators and congressmen. Where is the check or balance in this kind of situation?

I have lost faith in the government, utterly and completely. I keep hoping that it changes and will continue to do so...

RhettButler
04-02-2015, 09:40 AM
Mitt Romney has already ruled out running in 2016. He was thinking about it but his former donors and advisers were defecting to Bush and he saw the writing on the wall.

Melancholygrl78
04-02-2015, 01:02 PM
Mitt Romney has already ruled out running in 2016. He was thinking about it but his former donors and advisers were defecting to Bush and he saw the writing on the wall.

Well that's one good thing! At least he is smart enough to see it unlike countless other politicians out there who walk around oblivious to how much they suck.

RhettButler
04-02-2015, 01:09 PM
Well that's one good thing! At least he is smart enough to see it unlike countless other politicians out there who walk around oblivious to how much they suck.
Some of these guys know that they aren't likely to win the nomination but run to push their party further to the right (or left) and/or to raise their own profile, i.e., Ted Cruz.

Sarah K
04-03-2015, 09:52 AM
Hillary just signed a lease and established HQ in Brooklyn. That means that by law, she has 15 days to make an announcement.

Deepvoid
04-03-2015, 11:02 AM
Hillary just signed a lease and established HQ in Brooklyn. That means that by law, she has 15 days to make an announcement.

The big question remains. Who will run against her?

DigitalChaos
04-04-2015, 01:44 PM
Well that's one good thing! At least he is smart enough to see it unlike countless other politicians out there who walk around oblivious to how much they suck.

A lot of candidates who don't have a chance will run just for the publicity. You can monetize the fuck out of the situation. Books. TV/Radio spots for many years after. Etc. Sarah Palin is one of the most blatant examples.

RhettButler
04-07-2015, 08:18 AM
Rand Paul announces presidential run

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/07/rand-paul-president-2016-announcement/25041783/

DigitalChaos
04-07-2015, 01:40 PM
Rand Paul announces presidential run

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/07/rand-paul-president-2016-announcement/25041783/

This is the first person this cycle that I am even remotely interested in.

aggroculture
04-07-2015, 02:05 PM
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/gallery/2117880/83721784.jpg

Wretchedest
04-07-2015, 04:39 PM
Now we get to watch these two absolute fucktards try to out fucktard each other. Quite a circus we got coming up.

DigitalChaos
04-08-2015, 12:26 PM
bahahaha. neocon warhawks are angry


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYSMN9X_5pY

Deepvoid
04-09-2015, 03:10 PM
Most recent Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184)(no clue whether this is a left or right leaning poll ... enlightened me please) has Clinton trailingin Iowa and Colorado.

Clinton is losing ground to most GOP candidates.
Her latest email scandal seems to be having an effect.

DigitalChaos
04-09-2015, 06:03 PM
Most recent Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184)(no clue whether this is a left or right leaning poll ... enlightened me please) has Clinton trailingin Iowa and Colorado.

Clinton is losing ground to most GOP candidates.
Her latest email scandal seems to be having an effect.
holy shit, well... you can thank the GOP for something! If it means getting a less shitty democrat candidate, thats awesome. This is exactly what I was hoping would happen (people like Paul pushing the Dem to the left). Hillary really is just a shitty republican anyway.

RhettButler
04-10-2015, 12:26 AM
Polls mean nothing this far in advance.