2016 Presidential Election

[allegro]

I know absolutely nothing about this guy. A quick read through that article and I'm guessing his pro-life stance is his personal views and not his policy, or at least his policy would be irrelevant because of the federal control?

Federal control has been meaningless considering that abortion has been made pretty close to illegal or so humiliating that women don't have them or can't have them in their state and nobody sues and there is no "Federal Abortion Police" that enforces Roe v. Wade. Donkeys will fly before I *ever* vote for a Pro-Life candidate from any team.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here

When / if any Party's candidate is elected President or Governor, they are still powerless without the House and Senate, on the State level or the Federal level. BALANCE OF POWER was deliberately written into the State and Federal Constitutions. Without term limits on some of these jackasses, lots will stay the same.

[DigitalChaos]

^ well yeah but like... this is the presidential election thread.
I agree that state reps are pretty fucking important too. We just went through a bunch of Dems acting like they just voted in a king for president only to be heavily roadblocked because they failed to do the same thing for their state elections.

[DigitalChaos]

In other news, Commission on Presidential Debates considers ditching their 15% requirement.

http://benswann.com/commission-on-pr...ty-candidates/

[Deepvoid]

Rand Paul just introduced a resolution to nullify the new net neutrality rules.

[DigitalChaos]

Rand Paul just introduced a resolution to nullify the new net neutrality rules.

the new net neutrality laws are dumb as shit and I don't know why anyone supports them. It's like back when ACA was passed. Everyone was praising it for being able to do all this magic shit that wasn't even in the law.... except the ACA actually did a lot more than the net neutrality bullshit. All the "we need net neutrality because ____" justifications go completely untouched by this law.

[Deepvoid]

Bernie Sanders is running for President.

Looks like he's running as a Democrat and therefore, is the first to challenge Hilary for the nomination.

[sentient02970]

As much as I love Bernie's passion and desire for the everyday working American, here in VT he's made it very tough for big companies to feel welcome enough to even consider opening up shop or expanding. He's more of the "small scale" economies realm of corporate growth. I'm not real sure that creates the amount of jobs he's looking to fill. We'll see I guess. Best of luck to him.

[GulDukat]

My thoughts:

I love Bernie Sanders and agree with him on most, if not all issues. That said, I'm with Clinton. Even if Bernie could win the nomination (a long shot), he'd be a hard sell to the American pubic, as he'd be painted as a pinko and conducting in "class warfare," a term used against anyone who dare address income inequality. Even if, by some miracle, he were president, how would he ever be able to get anything done with the current GOP in congress?

Still, although he won't be the next president, at least he will be a voice to talk about important things, like income inequality.

[allegro]

Even if, by some miracle, [Sanders] were president, how would he ever be able to get anything done with the current GOP in congress?

And you think that Hillary is going to be successful in negotiating with the Tea Party? Seriously?

NOTHING is going to get done in this country until the GOP gets rid of those Tea Party assholes and the Dems get rid of those old-school lifetimers. The whole fucking Congress needs a reboot with people who are willing to negotiate and compromise and listen to their constituents.

[GulDukat]

And you think that Hillary is going to be successful in negotiating with the Tea Party? Seriously?

NOTHING is going to get done in this country until the GOP gets rid of those Tea Party assholes and the Dems get rid of those old-school lifetimers. The whole fucking Congress needs a reboot with people who are willing to negotiate and compromise and listen to their constituents.

Yes, I do think that Hillary would be a more effective president. Love Sanders, but frankly, he's too much of a good man to ever be a good president. Hillary can be ruthless detached and cold-blooded, and sometimes that's not a bad quality for a leader.

[allegro]

Yes, I do think that Hillary would be a more effective president. Love Sanders, but frankly, he's too much of a good man to ever be a good president. Hillary can be ruthless detached and cold-blooded, and sometimes that's not a bad quality for a leader.

But they won't negotiate with somebody like that. They won't negotiate with Obama. A President can't get SHIT done without Congress, he/she NEEDS them. So being "ruthless and detached" doesn't serve a leader well when he/she needs the approval of Congress. That's been Obama's biggest problem.

Bill Clinton was much better at negotiation; maybe TOO good (we ended up with total SHIT like DOMA and the RFRA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act).

[GulDukat]

But they won't negotiate with somebody like that. They won't negotiate with Obama. A President can't get SHIT done without Congress, he/she NEEDS them. So being "ruthless and detached" doesn't serve a leader well when he/she needs the approval of Congress. That's been Obama's biggest problem.

Bill Clinton was much better at negotiation; maybe TOO good (we ended up with total SHIT like DOMA and the RFRA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act).

Hillary was first lady of AK, first lady of the United States, a U.S. senator and served as Secretary of State--very few, if any, of the other possible candidate have that much experience. When Obama came to office he had only been in the Senate for a few years. Hillary knows how things work and how to get things done; plus she has Bill Clinton, the greatest politician of his generation by her side. Besides, with Hillary at the top of the ticket the Democrats might be able to win back one or both houses--so maybe things won't be so bad with congress if Hillary is sworn in.

[allegro]

Hillary was first lady of AK, first lady of the United States, a U.S. senator and served as Secretary of State--very few, if any, of the other possible candidate have that much experience. When Obama came to office he had only been in the Senate for a few years. Hillary knows how things work and how to get things done; plus she has Bill Clinton, the greatest politician of his generation by her side. Besides, with Hillary at the top of the ticket the Democrats might be able to win back one or both houses--so maybe things won't be so bad with congress if Hillary is sworn in.

Being First Lady doesn't teach you much of anything in politics. You aren't furthering your above "ruthless and detached" argument with your above statement. If Hillary knows how to get things done, then she knows that being "ruthless and detached" won't get shit done; she learned that from her husband, who was never either but Obama has been known to be both and its been his Achilles' Heel. Even Bill Clinton has been rumored to dislike Obama because of those traits. One other thing that Bill had is that he's a Rhodes scholar and one of the most brilliant Presidents we've ever had; staff members say he could complete a NY Times crossword while listening to them brief him on daily matters, AT THE SAME TIME, and do both really well. I voted for Bill both times, back when I was a hardline Democrat. And being a Governor of a State doesn't necessarily prepare you for being President (zero international relations) but being on Arsenio Hall playing the sax was enough to win over the voters so that he wouldn't be "Hillbilly Carter Number 2" in the minds of Americans. People scoffed at an Actor who was in a movie co-starring with a chimp called "Bedtime for Bonzo" becoming President but that moron won TWO TERMS and now he's been canonized. Go figure.

[GulDukat]

Being First Lady doesn't teach you much of anything in politics. You aren't furthering your above "ruthless and detached" argument with your above statement. If Hillary knows how to get things done, then she knows that being "ruthless and detached" won't get shit done; she learned that from her husband, who was never either but Obama has been known to be both and its been his Achilles' Heel. Even Bill Clinton has been rumored to dislike Obama because of those traits. One other thing that Bill had is that he's a Rhodes scholar and one of the most brilliant Presidents we've ever had; staff members say he could complete a NY Times crossword while listening to them brief him on daily matters, AT THE SAME TIME, and do both really well. I voted for Bill both times, back when I was a hardline Democrat. And being a Governor of a State doesn't necessarily prepare you for being President (zero international relations) but being on Arsenio Hall playing the sax was enough to win over the voters so that he wouldn't be "Hillbilly Carter Number 2" in the minds of Americans.

I absolutely think that serving as First Lady can teach one the ins-and-outs of what the Presidency is all about--how to negotiate, make backroom deals, how to arm-twist, etc. It wouldn't matter for someone like Nancy Reagan or Pat Nixon who is just sort of along for the ride and to pose for pictures, but for someone who was a true partner like Hillary was to Bill, those eight years are something she can add to her resume. I also think that Eleanor Roosevelt would have been a great president, if the times were different and a woman could have been elected in the 1940's-1950's.

And I would say that Bill Clinton was pretty ruthless and detached when he did things like his Defense of Marriage Act in order to help him win reelection in 1996 or his administration's sanctions against Iraq which resulted in the deaths of thousands.

http://www.thenation.com/article/har...iraq-sanctions

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/ma...SANCTIONS.html

[allegro]

those eight years are something she can add to her resume

So she was there in the Oval Office all the time when Monica was hanging around? Hillary was no Eleanor Roosevelt, dude. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

And I would say that Bill Clinton was pretty ruthless and detached when he did things like his Defense of Marriage Act

That was just typical Clinton, he now claims he didn't realize the damage he was doing at the time, but now admits he was "hung up about gay marriage" but only relatively recently changed his mind.

[Dra508]

The whole fucking Congress needs a reboot with people who are willing to negotiate and compromise and listen to their constituents.

We need to bring Tip O'Neill back from the dead!!

Ok, poor taste, but that dude was a POLI-TICIAN. He knew how to politik and get shit done.

And Lincoln too.

[GulDukat]

So she was there in the Oval Office all the time when Monica was hanging around? Hillary was no Eleanor Roosevelt, dude. Not by any stretch of the imagination.


That was just typical Clinton, he now claims he didn't realize the damage he was doing at the time, but now admits he was "hung up about gay marriage" but only relatively recently changed his mind.

So you would negate eight years of experience because Clinton lied about an affair?

As for DOMA, Clinton was wrong and did what was politically expedient.

[allegro]

So you would negate eight years of experience because Clinton lied about an affair?

No, I don't blame Bill Clinton at all for that. For the record, I have a print-out of the entire Starr Report in my basement, 6 inches thick, and I read the ENTIRE THING back then, every single word, which I doubt most Americans did, and I thought (and still think) what Ken Starr did was completely deplorable, and illegal; what he did to Monica Lewinsky was horrible and should have sent Starr and most of those FBI assholes to prison. Bill and Hill led two separate lives. Which happens to marriages. Nobody is at fault. It happens. But she wasn't Bill's Right Hand Man in the White House. Nope. You're wrong. That ain't on her Presidential Candidate Resume.

As far as DOMA, Bill did what was in his heart at the time and admits that now. From the above NY Times article:

The schism widened when Mr. Clinton’s campaign broadcast ads on Christian radio in 15 states boasting that he had signed the Defense of Marriage Act. But most gay voters still voted for him, according to polls. His support for employment nondiscrimination legislation, AIDS financing and removing limits on security clearances for gay civilians outweighed what at the time seemed a more theoretical issue.

“People screamed as loud as they could inside the building and outside right up until the minute he signed it, and then when he signed it everybody moved on,” said Richard Socarides, then Mr. Clinton’s White House adviser on gay and lesbian issues.

In his second term, Mr. Clinton became the first president to address the Human Rights Campaign, and he nominated James Hormel as the first openly gay ambassador. “He stood up for me when he really didn’t have to,” Mr. Hormel said last week.

Mr. Clinton did not back off the marriage law. As late as 2004, when 11 states put measures against same-sex marriage on the ballot, Mr. Clinton privately advised John Kerry to endorse a constitutional ban, according to Newsweek’s history of the campaign. Matt McKenna, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, called that account “completely false.”

Over time, though, Mr. Clinton heard again and again from gay friends. “In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful,” said Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic strategist. “It makes him uncomfortable that something he’s responsible for has caused so much pain to so many people he genuinely cares about.”

By 2009, times had changed and so had polls. After a speech, Mr. Clinton said he had changed his mind. He called Mr. Socarides that afternoon. “I think I’ve come out for same-sex marriage,” Mr. Clinton said.

When few noticed, Mr. Socarides found another way to call attention to it by suggesting to Anderson Cooper of CNN that he ask about it during a forthcoming interview. Then without mentioning his own role, Mr. Socarides e-mailed Mr. Clinton’s top aide and suggested that he make sure the former president was prepared to talk about same-sex marriage because Mr. Cooper might ask.

“I realized that I was, you know, over 60 years old,” Mr. Clinton told Mr. Cooper. “I grew up in a different time. And I was hung up about the word. And I had all these gay friends. I had all these gay couple friends. And I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.”

Bill wasn't a bigtime liberal when he was President, like it or not; he wasn't. The last bigtime liberal President we had was NIXON.

Obama only relatively recently switched to an okay stance as far as same-sex marriage.

[DigitalChaos]

And you think that Hillary is going to be successful in negotiating with the Tea Party? Seriously?

NOTHING is going to get done in this country until the GOP gets rid of those Tea Party assholes and the Dems get rid of those old-school lifetimers. The whole fucking Congress needs a reboot with people who are willing to negotiate and compromise and listen to their constituents.

...unless we get another Republican president. Considering how rare it is for a party to be elected again after holding a double-term, it's worth discussing what things look like if we get another GOP president for 4 years.

For starters, Congress has a good chance of swinging back to the Dems if we get a GOP pres. But, that wouldn't happen right away and we will have to deal with the results of GOP domination in congress and pres.

[DigitalChaos]

Well shit.
Here is an interesting breakdown of people who identify as Libertarian according to almost 5k in a new Reuters poll:
19% of all Americans
32% in the 18-29yo range
12% in the 60yo+

22% of Democrats
18% of Republicans
25% of Independents

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/19...ify-as-liberta


Lots more interesting info in the full poll. I love that the younger generations are going independent.

[GulDukat]

No, I don't blame Bill Clinton at all for that. For the record, I have a print-out of the entire Starr Report in my basement, 6 inches thick, and I read the ENTIRE THING back then, every single word, which I doubt most Americans did, and I thought (and still think) what Ken Starr did was completely deplorable, and illegal; what he did to Monica Lewinsky was horrible and should have sent Starr and most of those FBI assholes to prison. Bill and Hill led two separate lives. Which happens to marriages. Nobody is at fault. It happens. But she wasn't Bill's Right Hand Man in the White House. Nope. You're wrong. That ain't on her Presidential Candidate Resume.

As far as DOMA, Bill did what was in his heart at the time and admits that now. From the above NY Times article:



Bill wasn't a bigtime liberal when he was President, like it or not; he wasn't. The last bigtime liberal President we had was NIXON.

Obama only relatively recently switched to an okay stance as far as same-sex marriage.

Well, I think that you're wrong. She was a true partner. In fact she helped him write his speech to the nation when he had to admit his affair. And I also read the Starr Report--the complete report was included in The Boston Globe. I think her serving as First Lady gave her valuable insight and can count as experience--you feel otherwise. I'm not going to argue with you.

As for DOMA--he did it to win over independents and moderates, as it was an election year. Gay marriage was at the forefront of the culture war and a wedge issue and the Clinton campaign wanted to court more voters--it's that simple.

[allegro]

Not to nitpick but, as I said, the Starr report when printed out was nearly 6 inches thick.

DOMA was something he says he BELIEVED at the time. He ADMITS that. He has since changed his mind, but it was a different time back then.

Whatever, Bill isn't running again. And I'm putting this thread on ignore.

[GulDukat]

Sanders raises 1.5 million in 24 hours:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politi...s-fundraising/

[DigitalChaos]

Sanders raises 1.5 million in 24 hours:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politi...s-fundraising/

You guys are going to learn all about the Ron Paul experience, and that's a good thing. Just wait until the Dem party starts attacking Sanders, or the media starts trying to suppress him, or various electoral laws get tweaked to hurt him.

[Wretchedest]

This is like an Obama Ron Paul hybrid. He talks like Obama talked and hes got that Ron Paul vibe and buzz. I think hes extremely more realistic than Paul. Hes playing to he right party, he isnt super weird, he doesnt have extreme ideology.

There is disappoinment being set up here. Disappointments. Obama style disappointment if he gets the win. A president is still a slave to the political game, the congressional stand offs. Like many before him, should he win, his tune will change while in office. I guarantee it.


He stands a realistic chance of beating Hilary, but thisnt the kind of assertive, outspoken charisma that wins presidencies and in an election, that completely matters. Hillary DOES have that, she has the brand recognition, and should he win the nom, it might cost dems the entire game. He is the reds hest chance of winning, absolutely, theyve been waiting for this one. They arw still a gaggle of absolute fucktards though so i think he can beat them too.

I still think based on that Id rather have Hilary, in a vote against republicans. Id rather have Mothra crush my city, than Godzilla. Slim difference, but thats the reality of it, i think.

[GulDukat]

You guys are going to learn all about the Ron Paul experience, and that's a good thing. Just wait until the Dem party starts attacking Sanders, or the media starts trying to suppress him, or various electoral laws get tweaked to hurt him.

He's not going to be the next president, but it's good that he's in the race. During the debates with Hillary (and an other Democrat) he will talk about issues that matter to the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

[Deepvoid]

Bernie would be 75 if elected. Isn't that kinda old? McCain was 71 when he ran and people were raising his age as an issue, especially with Palin as his VP.

[Jinsai]

You guys are going to learn all about the Ron Paul experience

I remember the Ron Paul Experience



Pretty sure I'm glad it's over.

[elevenism]

i was just thinking the same thing a couple of hours ago, @DigitalChaos .

Sanders is like a left wing ron paul.

There's not a snowball's chance in hell of Sanders winning the nomination.
But i'm all for him. I agree with his ideas and i also think he's got balls of steel for calling himself a "democratic SOCIALIST."

I would call myself a democratic socialist.

And even though he won't win, at least his voice will be heard, just like Paul's was.

(and by the way, as far to the left as i am, i thought that ron paul's ideas were a HELL of a lot better and more interesting than anyone else's had been in a long, long time)

[DigitalChaos]

He stands a realistic chance of beating Hilary, but thisnt the kind of assertive, outspoken charisma that wins presidencies and in an election, that completely matters.

I still think based on that Id rather have Hilary, in a vote against republicans. Id rather have Mothra crush my city, than Godzilla. Slim difference, but thats the reality of it, i think.

It's incredibly rare for a party to retain presidential control after 2 terms with the same person. This is the perfect time to stand up for what you want instead of falling in line with what you are given. And why fall in line? For a slightly better chance at getting a candidate who is marginally different from the candidate you supposedly dislike enough to sacrifice your ideals?

Don't be short sighted. A Dem loss because of Bernie would likely result in candidates much closer to Bernie being propped up for the next cycles (congress fist, then presidential). This is what happened with the Tea Party. Hell, that already sounds better being that Hillary would likely freeze Congress into its current GOP majority.