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

binaryhermit
04-10-2015, 02:09 AM
I'm thinking Rand Paul will win the 2016 Kentucky Derpy

GulDukat
04-11-2015, 09:10 PM
Hillary will announce that she is running tomorrow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-announce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html?_r=0

GulDukat
04-12-2015, 12:23 PM
Why Hillary Clinton Is Probably Going to Win the 2016 ElectionBy Jonathan Chait (http://nymag.com/author/Jonathan%20Chait/)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html?mid=facebook_nymag

GulDukat
04-12-2015, 03:21 PM
She's officially in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uY7gLZDmn4
Not a lot of substance, but it looks great.

elevenism
04-12-2015, 06:11 PM
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.
i'm with you.
Surely...SURELY Hillary won't get the nod.
I don't think she can win the election. I really don't.
I'm a die hard democrat and i don't trust her. If i'm concerned, what about people who are less committed to the party?

GulDukat
04-12-2015, 06:40 PM
I'm not saying that she will be the next president, but as of right now she is the most likely person to win in 2016.

GulDukat
04-12-2015, 07:13 PM
I just donated $100.00 dollars to Hillary's campaign and feel pretty damn good about it.

allegro
04-13-2015, 12:35 AM
I'm going with Jill Stein again (http://www.jill2016.com/)

elevenism
04-13-2015, 03:43 AM
I just donated $100.00 dollars to Hillary's campaign and feel pretty damn good about it.
hey man, as long as you're on the left, i'm not mad at you.
there are good things about hillary...one of my favorites is that bill comes with her.
i'm just scared she's not electable. i'm scared she'll get torn apart in the general.
but maybe she can draw out a record number of women, you know? i was reading in the comments of that article you posted, and there are REPUBLICAN women who would like to vote for her.
allegro ...ahhh, Jill Stein. If only we lived in a country with real political parties instead of, well, you know, the illusion of a choice at all.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 05:19 AM
hey man, as long as you're on the left, i'm not mad at you.
there are good things about hillary...one of my favorites is that bill comes with her.
i'm just scared she's not electable. i'm scared she'll get torn apart in the general.
but maybe she can draw out a record number of women, you know? i was reading in the comments of that article you posted, and there are REPUBLICAN women who would like to vote for her.
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) ...ahhh, Jill Stein. If only we lived in a country with real political parties instead of, well, you know, the illusion of a choice at all.
I think that she is electable. If she had been the nominee in 2008 she probably would be the President right now.

heavenly_bearded
04-13-2015, 09:50 AM
I can't stand seeing her videos with the gay interracial couples. And her videos of the african american children. If you care so much about the people of the USA, how about taking a step towards legalizing marijuana? You say that you won't support it because there has not been enough research... Direct some of the funds from this failed war on drugs to the research that could potentially save thousands of lives and give a better quality of life instead of continuing to enforce this failed attempt at controlling other people's lives with fear.

Tear down a few prisons, build a few schools. Oh wait, you don't make any $ for the government doing that...

She'll get elected. Not because she will be a good president or holds good values. Because we just had a black president and everyone thinks we need more diversity.

aggroculture
04-13-2015, 11:40 AM
I don't think she will get elected, and I think it's the dems way of handing this one to the repubs.
The way I see it Hillary is almost universally loathed, except by old white women. That demographic is not going to get her elected.
People on the left see her for the insider hack she is, and people on the right hate her.
Obama's message was that he was something new (he wasn't really). What can Hill's message be? A return to the golden age of the 90s? Please.

A fb friend recently posted that the Clintons' last gift will be president Jeb Bush.
Or perhaps it will be president Ted Cruz?

This confidence of the inevitability of President Hillary will cause the dems to not even try this time, and thus lose the election.

That's my 2c: then I again I was confident the US would never re-elect Dubya, and they did...so what the fuck do I know.

Deepvoid
04-13-2015, 12:12 PM
Marco Rubio is the next GOP candidate to make an announcement. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/politics/election-2016-marco-rubio-presidential-campaign/)

"I feel uniquely qualified to not just make that argument, but to outline the policies that we need to have in order to achieve it."

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 02:06 PM
i'm with you.
Surely...SURELY Hillary won't get the nod.
I don't think she can win the election. I really don't.
I'm a die hard democrat and i don't trust her. If i'm concerned, what about people who are less committed to the party?
Dude, If Hillary was nominated, almost every single voting democrat is going to vote for her over because of that D next to her name, even if she happens to be more republican than the person with the R next to their name.

allegro
04-13-2015, 02:26 PM
Dude, If Hillary was nominated, almost every single voting democrat is going to vote for her over because of that D next to her name, even if she happens to be more republican than the person with the R next to their name.

There are FAR more Is, now, than Rs and Ds (Is, of course, swing both ways or any way they want) and that's the biggest thing the Rs and Ds should be worrying about but the R and D Parties are too stupid.


That's my 2c: then I again I was confident the US would never re-elect Dubya, and they did...so what the fuck do I know.
That was only because of 9/11 and the US rarely switches leaders when they're in the throes of unbridled ridiculous nationalism and patriotism. Plus, John Kerry came across as a wimp and was Swiftboated.

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 03:06 PM
There are FAR more Is, now, than Rs and Ds (Is, of course, swing both ways or any way they want) and that's the biggest thing the Rs and Ds should be worrying about but the Rs and Ds are too stupid.

That's true. hrmm... this could be kinda awesome. Last cycle it was the R's fighting for the tea party & libertarian vote. If we have R's and D's fighting for all the I's, this could actually produce some interesting results. Candidates that don't have their heads so far up their own party's ass, for example. Hopefully it gets better than Hillary stepping far into republican land.

allegro
04-13-2015, 03:12 PM
That's true. hrmm... this could be kinda awesome. Last cycle it was the R's fighting for the tea party & libertarian vote. If we have R's and D's fighting for all the I's, this could actually produce some interesting results. Candidates that don't have their heads so far up their own party's ass, for example. Hopefully it gets better than Hillary stepping far into republican land.
Dunno, so far we have Ted Cruz wanting to "take back America" or whatever stupid fucking conservative religious right-wing crap he's selling which OBVIOUSLY isn't considering the Is so he's smoking crack.

And Jiz Bush is pretending to be a Moderate but he scares the conservative Independents with his love for Common Core and his views on immigration, and he scares the Moderate Independents with ALL KINDS OF HIS STUPID CONSERVATIVE SHIT. And Hillary Clinton just does shit Hillary's way and never seems to follow any Rules and that just smells like Watergate or something and she's just a right-leaning Moderate and isn't Progressive in any way, shape or form. She'll be signing all kinds of crazy conservative legislature just like her husband while smiling and waiving (Defense of Marriage Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, blah blah blah).

This is just WAY too fucking early. There still could be a "Barack Obama" waiting in the wings. Hell, there could be a Michelle Obama waiting in the wings.

aggroculture
04-13-2015, 03:20 PM
I really hope there's some movement on the Dem front, and a more progressive candidate steps forward.
Hillary for president to me sounds like an admission of defeat. Progressives will not believe in her, and without them, I see a Republican victory.
In a way, this is a good moment to try to push the Democrats a little further to the left. Why would this not be worth a try?

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 03:22 PM
Dunno, so far we have Ted Cruz wanting to "take back America" or whatever stupid fucking conservative religious right-wing crap he's selling which OBVIOUSLY isn't considering the Is so he's smoking crack.

And Jiz Bush is pretending to be a Moderate but he scares the conservative Independents with his love for Common Core and his views on immigration, and he scares the Moderate Independents with ALL KINDS OF HIS STUPID CONSERVATIVE SHIT. And Hillary Clinton just does shit Hillary's way and never seems to follow any Rules and that just smells like Watergate or something and she's just a right-leaning Moderate and isn't Progressive in any way, shape or form. She'll be signing all kinds of crazy conservative legislature just like her husband while smiling and waiving (Defense of Marriage Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, blah blah blah).

I fucking hate the "take murica back" dipshits. And since he represents the the Tea Party favorite, those morons need to read this shit: http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/12/libertarians-must-get-history-right


And you left off Rand Paul, which actually does represent some of the interesting situations that could come out of trying to pull for the I's. He has some massively left reaching views that Hillary can't hope to beat. If only we could get some Dems to mirror this... we could at least have some very interesting presidential debates for the public to hear.




This is just WAY too fucking early. There still could be a "Barack Obama" waiting in the wings. Hell, there could be a Michelle Obama waiting in the wings.
Absolutely. Gotta start building hopes nice and high very early though. That way they get torn down and we all get to be cynical assholes for the next 4 years :)

allegro
04-13-2015, 03:26 PM
Rand Paul said some REALLY STUPID SHIT about vaccinations so he's a stupid fucking douche, plus he's wishy-washy. AND HE'S FUCKING TEA PARTY, TOO!!! HE WANTED THE FUCKING SEQUESTER! MY HUSBAND WORKED FOR WEEKS WITH NO PAY BECAUSE OF ASSHOLES LIKE HIM.

I'm thinking somebody more like Julian Castro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAOjpWVJ3y8

allegro
04-13-2015, 03:43 PM
Hillary for president to me sounds like an admission of defeat. Progressives will not believe in her

I actually know a few senior citizen Progressives right now who have been on the Hillary-for-Prez bandwagon since she was Secy of State. One big reason may be that they're Jews and she is a big friend to Israel and seen as really "understanding" Israel.

I just don't give a fuck. I lived there in D.C., saw how that City operates, and I just don't give a fuck. This is all just smoke and mirrors. I don't even know if I'll follow any of this shit. The KARDASHIANS are closer to "REALITY" than these idiots in D.C.

elevenism
04-13-2015, 03:55 PM
I really hope there's some movement on the Dem front, and a more progressive candidate steps forward.
Hillary for president to me sounds like an admission of defeat. Progressives will not believe in her, and without them, I see a Republican victory.
In a way, this is a good moment to try to push the Democrats a little further to the left. Why would this not be worth a try?

I agree, aggroculture . These are my sentiments PRECISELY.

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 04:45 PM
Rand Paul said some REALLY STUPID SHIT about vaccinations so he's a stupid fucking douche, plus he's wishy-washy. AND HE'S FUCKING TEA PARTY, TOO!!! HE WANTED THE FUCKING SEQUESTER! MY HUSBAND WORKED FOR WEEKS WITH NO PAY BECAUSE OF ASSHOLES LIKE HIM.

I'm thinking somebody more like Julian Castro:


So what? He pushes people left on the big topics that actually matter: NSA overreach, Police militarization, Drug war, foreign policy, etc. You telling me you don't want that voice in the presidential debates because he voiced a debatable comment about vaccines? And good luck finding republicans who werent happy about the sequester.

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 04:59 PM
Also, nobody posted the SNL bit about the Hillary announcement? Really!?! cmon!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdNYXMQoy8

allegro
04-13-2015, 05:02 PM
So what? He pushes people left on the big topics that actually matter: NSA overreach, Police militarization, Drug war, foreign policy, etc. You telling me you don't want that voice in the presidential debates because he voiced a debatable comment about vaccines? And good luck finding republicans who werent happy about the sequester.
He INTRODUCED the sequester bill. It was HIS FUCKING IDEA. His finance ideas are just fucking stupid. He ain't pushing anybody Left. Everybody in his Tea Party is far Right. Plus, he's Pro-Life.

Regarding those other topics: The PRESIDENT, alone, can't do SHIT about any of them. ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

Oh, and there were LOTS of Republicans in the Senate who were very unhappy about the sequester. It's those moron Tea Party Rs in the House (and the idiot moderate Rs afraid of them and the Koch bros) that brought on THAT shit.

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

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 05:09 PM
Oh come on. Even Al Sharpton was siding with Rand and saying that Hillary needs to step up her game on civil rights to keep up. (RE: ferguson).

allegro
04-13-2015, 05:13 PM
Oh come on. Even Al Sharpton was siding with Rand and saying that Hillary needs to step up her game on civil rights to keep up. (RE: ferguson).

Rand Paul was the equivalent of Al Sharpton at the moment: opportunistic. It doesn't mean he would (or could) actually DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

There was a BLACK GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE at the time and HE sent the DOJ to do something about it. But 100s of years of racism and police brutality don't get overturned overnight. The fucking U.S. Supreme Court has sided with cops. That isn't something a PRESIDENT can SUDDENLY UNDO.

Congress immediately passed a law that started actually keeping track of deaths by cops. The DOJ has been involved in trying to DO something about this. Rand Paul was just pulling a "Jesse Jackson."

Hillary actually has a long history re civil and human rights (http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm).

AND THEN THERE'S BERNIE SANDERS (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-in-selma-says-civil-rights-struggle-continues)

DigitalChaos
04-13-2015, 05:59 PM
On your sequester thing: 1- im not telling you to VOTE for him. I'm saying that his stance will be valuable during the debates and vetting of various candidates in both parties. 2 - power of the purse is for congress, not the president. So writing him off as a president over a power of the purse action seems... odd.


Rand Paul was the equivalent of Al Sharpton at the moment: opportunistic. It doesn't mean he would (or could) actually DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
...
Rand Paul was just pulling a "Jesse Jackson."

how about some examples of actions:
example1: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/booker_teams_up_with_rand_paul_on_bill_to_change_c riminal_justice_system.html (REDEEM Act, sealing and expungement of non-violent criminal records)
example2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Safety_Valve_Act_of_2013 (Justice Safety Valve Act, bypassing minimum sentencing)
example3: http://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-paul-introduces-civil-rights-voting-restoration-act (Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act, restore voting rights for all non-violent felons)
example4: http://www.dailypaul.com/323082/rand-paul-introduces-reset-act-to-address-drug-sentencing-disparities-and-ensure-drugs-are-weighed-fairly (RESET Act, possession reclassification and crack vs coke disparity fix.)
example5: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/27/rand-paul-reintroduces-bill-aimed-at-cur (FAIR Act, civil forfeiture)

Hillary's "history" doesn't really look all that attractive in comparison, from the perspective of what can happen in the future.

And this is just one topic. What about NSA? What about Wall Street? Immigration? etc? Are we just going to forget that these were "big issues" that everyone wanted handled?

allegro
04-13-2015, 06:33 PM
On your sequester thing: 1- im not telling you to VOTE for him. I'm saying that his stance will be valuable during the debates and vetting of various candidates in both parties. 2 - power of the purse is for congress, not the president. So writing him off as a president over a power of the purse action seems... odd.
It's not ODD, he's a fucking goofball. My husband worked for NO PAY for nearly two weeks because of Rand Paul, so my not liking him over that isn't "ODD" at all. Not in the least. The sequester was a DUMB fucking idea. Period. I don't care if the guy has the cure for fucking cancer, there is no way to reconcile that BONEHEAD and RECKLESS fucking move. ZERO.

Rules regarding the "war on drugs" are gradually being repealed or changed due to PUBLIC DEMAND. If the public hadn't DEMANDED it, it would have never happened. No, we will NEVER see the full legalization of all drugs, ever. Ever. But, look how many states now have legal medical marijuana or even legal recreational marijuana, even though it's still Federally illegal. Eventually, once a good amount of states have adopted the same or similar legislation, we will see Federal legislation. But, you can blame fucking St. Reagan for that other shit. And there are Federal laws on the books regarding sentencing that even JUDGES hate but to which they have to adhere and that nobody can change very easily. You do more time for possession of LSD than most people do for MURDER, because of Federal drug laws. It's stupid. But, Federal prisons aren't nearly as crowded as local prisons. And, this isn't a big ELECTION issue; maybe to YOU it is, but it's not to most voters.

Regarding Crack vs. Coke sentencing, Rand Paul is kinda late to the party (http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/fair-sentencing-act-memo.pdf).

And, OH GEE LOOKEE HERE DICK DURBIN FROM ILLINOIS (http://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-and-lee-introduce-smarter-sentencing-act)!!!!

Face it, NO REPUBLICAN will ever be President again until they take IMMIGRATION REFORM seriously. It is THE biggest issue right now, because of the HUGE AND GROWING population of Hispanic voters.

Rand Paul's solution? "BORDER SECURITY" and to secure the borders. Oh really? Oh, that's a really fucking new idea, there, Rand. Just ducky. Maybe we can build, like, a Great Wall of China, but in America! and ELECTRIFY the fucker! But it will have to be HUGE! And put one up by CANADA, too! And along all of our OCEANS and on BEACHES! Don't let ANY OF THOSE SPICKS IN FROM MEXICO!!

Jeez, maybe if we made it EASIER to apply to come in, like, fill out some paperwork and pay a small fee, MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T BE RUNNING ACROSS THE BORDER AND RISKING THEIR LIVES? Ya think?

Nah. Oh, wait, Rand doesn't have any borders in Kentucky. He just has a bunch of people on Disability and on oxygen in those motorized wheelchairs.

And they all want to get rid of "Entitlement" spending because they're fucking stupid and don't realize that means them.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 06:35 PM
I don't think she will get elected, and I think it's the dems way of handing this one to the repubs.
The way I see it Hillary is almost universally loathed, except by old white women. That demographic is not going to get her elected.
People on the left see her for the insider hack she is, and people on the right hate her.
Obama's message was that he was something new (he wasn't really). What can Hill's message be? A return to the golden age of the 90s? Please.

A fb friend recently posted that the Clintons' last gift will be president Jeb Bush.
Or perhaps it will be president Ted Cruz?

This confidence of the inevitability of President Hillary will cause the dems to not even try this time, and thus lose the election.

That's my 2c: then I again I was confident the US would never re-elect Dubya, and they did...so what the fuck do I know.
Universally loathed?

48% approve
46.2 disapprove

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

ETA- Progressives. They will jump on board in the end, considering the alternative.

Watching Rubio's announcement that he's running for president. Nice mix of Warren-esque populism and standard Republican boilerplate cliches. He doesn't look old enough to shave.

allegro
04-13-2015, 06:57 PM
snuffpo stuff

egad, dude, please, if we want to seriously discuss elections, could we PLEASE not link HUFFPO? gack.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 06:59 PM
egad, dude, please, if we want to seriously discuss elections, could we PLEASE not link HUFFPO? gack.

That number combines tracking from 243 polls from 30 pollsters. I'd say it's pretty reliable.

allegro
04-13-2015, 07:03 PM
That number combines polls tracking 243 polls from 30 pollsters. I'd say it's pretty reliable.

I still don't trust them.

But, as YOU SAID IN THIS THREAD ABOUT 8 RESPONSES AGO, it's WAY too early for polls.

Look, I like Hillary on a basic level. She's female, a feminist, SHE GREW UP ABOUT 8 MILES FROM HERE, she's intelligent, highly-educated, she mostly made a pretty damned good Secretary of State, etc. But, she's the old regime. It's like Joe Biden running again. She has the same foot-in-mouth problem as Joe, too.

It's just way too fucking early in the game to get into any of this. It's like people are addicted to elections and have nothing better to do. "Oh, wow, another election, I can't hardly wait!"

I'm just glad the fucking Rahm vs. Chuy election is finally over.

Regarding Progressives: They don't control Presidential elections. Obviously. The Moderates have controlled the last two Presidential elections. Probably more, actually.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 07:14 PM
I still don't trust them.

But, as YOU SAID IN THIS THREAD ABOUT 8 RESPONSES AGO, it's WAY too early for polls.

Look, I like Hillary on a basic level. She's female, a feminist, SHE GREW UP ABOUT 8 MILES FROM HERE, she's intelligent, highly-educated, she mostly made a pretty damned good Secretary of State, etc. But, she's the old regime. It's like Joe Biden running again. She has the same foot-in-mouth problem as Joe, too.

It's just way too fucking early in the game to get into any of this.

I agree that polls right now are pretty meaningless--when they match up contenders. You stated that Hillary was "universally loathed," and that's just not true; there is data to back up that that's not true. Whatever you may think of Huffington Post, that 48% approval rating average is legitimate. It's not a matter of their opinion, it's based on data from nearly 250 polls.

allegro
04-13-2015, 07:20 PM
I agree that polls right now are pretty meaningless--when they match up contenders. You stated that Hillary was "universally loathed," and that's just not true; there is data to back up that that's not true. Whatever you may think of Huffington Post, that 48% approval rating average is legitimate. It's not a matter of their opinion, it's based on data from nearly 250 polls.
Au contraire, I did not state any such thing. Back the fuck up and calm down and go back and read through your quotes, there, cowboy.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 07:22 PM
Au contraire, I did not state any such thing. Back the fuck up and calm down and go back and read through your quotes, there, cowboy.

I confused you with aggroculture. My apologies.

allegro
04-13-2015, 07:26 PM
The bottom line is, as somebody who worked in Marketing and Advertising for many years and conducted market research and polls: Polls aren't totally representative of the PUBLIC or of VOTERS. They're just not. The poll people would love for you to BELIEVE that, but it's just not true. It's not the same as, say, market research for a product where I put 20 people in a room and have them try a new gelatin product and 80% of them tell me it tastes terrible and we go back to the drawing board. There are simply too many variables for these polls to be reliable as a representative of the American voting public.

And, the bottom line is that we end up with whomever wins in the early primaries, and that's the shitty part. Howard Dean may have made a good Democratic candidate but he had some bad PR early on and blew the primary out the gate because of the Iowa Caucus. The whole primary system is flawed. And these polls don't fucking help, that's for sure.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 07:35 PM
The bottom line is, as somebody who worked in Marketing and Advertising for many years and conducted market research and polls: Polls aren't totally representative of the PUBLIC or of VOTERS. They're just not. The poll people would love for you to BELIEVE that, but it's just not true. It's not the same as, say, market research for a product where I put 20 people in a room and have them try a new gelatin product and 80% of them tell me it tastes terrible and we go back to the drawing board. There are simply too many variables for these polls to be reliable as a representative of the American voting public.

And, the bottom line is that we end up with whomever wins in the early primaries, and that's the shitty part. Howard Dean may have made a good Democratic candidate but he had some bad PR early on and blew the primary out the gate. The whole primary system is flawed. And these polls don't fucking help, that's for sure.

Yes, but looking at polls, Hillary's numbers aren't terrible. Some have her under 50% and some have her over--overall the average is over 50%. From that data, from nearly 250 polls, from many, many different sources, one can make a deduction, and that is Hillary starts off with about half the electorate willing to vote for her. Any objective analyst will look at her numbers and say that she has at least a 50/50 chance of winning the 2016 election.

allegro
04-13-2015, 07:52 PM
Yes, but looking at polls, Hillary's numbers aren't terrible. Some have her under 50% and some have her over--overall the average is over 50%. From that data, from nearly 250 polls, from many, many different sources, one can make a deduction, and that is Hillary starts off with about half the electorate willing to vote for her. Any objective analyst will look at her numbers and say that she has at least a 50/50 chance of winning the 2016 election.
No, her numbers aren't terrible according to that analysis. But, again, go REALLY LOOK at those polls. Each one has no more than 1,000 people polled. The Economists links the PDFs they used for their polls, GO READ ONE HERE (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/biwuw36tjk/econToplines.pdf), this one in particular has this:

http://i.imgur.com/2hJhf3X.png

So you'd have to analyze each individual poll's data and consider its data sample. Instead, we simply choose to "believe" the published results because we're too lazy to analyze the data ourselves or consider the size or sources of the data samples (some are the Internet).

Looking further at that particular poll, above, you can pretty much determine the audience of the poll:

http://i.imgur.com/YUyCC6o.png
http://i.imgur.com/gImUcFi.png

So, it's pretty easy to see how simple it is to slant a poll, or use a group of polls to show pretty much nothing.

Edit: For the record, I do not personally believe that Hillary is "universally loathed." I think, actually, that Obama's hope and change campaign got us actually hoping for change which, unfortunately, can't happen when Congress and the populace and the hopey changee pres post-election ain't onboard. I think we expect too much from Presidents and we all forget our 7th grade Civics Class lessons. And have we had a really GREAT president since Lincoln? Anyway, if Hill was nominated, I might actually vote for her; too early to know. Depends on if Stein runs. I'm more likely to vote for Stein, though, if she runs.

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 08:31 PM
We can at least agree that we don't know who will be the 45th President of the United States?

allegro
04-13-2015, 08:47 PM
We can at least agree that we don't know who will be the 45th President of the United States?

I will bet cash money it ain't gonna be Ted Cruz, LOL

GulDukat
04-13-2015, 10:42 PM
I will bet cash money it ain't gonna be Ted Cruz, LOL
God help us.

Dra508
04-14-2015, 01:19 AM
Wow guys, I know it's early but I'm loving all the chatter here. As much as I hate the fact that this is going to be a long slog listening to the noise before I get to stick my vote into a ballot box, I do like your chatter so stay calm and carry on....


One opine I got: independents- you're all a bunch of fucking liars saying your independent. The vast majority of ya'll ride the vote of one party so those votes that really do swing is a whole lot smaller sliver of the pie.

I don't see one single Repub that a viable candidate to beat Clinton. I don't want to anoint her and I hope the party and she don't strut around acting like she's anointed because that just pisses the shit out of voters and that sliver of swing Indies will tell her to fuck off by voting for Jeb Bush.

Actually, Krugman, who's an arrogant prick in his own right, said it best for me:
http://nyti.ms/1NwLP0B

We've all made our decision already. Can we just take a leap 18 months into the future, like right now please ?

DigitalChaos
04-14-2015, 01:52 AM
The bottom line is, as somebody who worked in Marketing and Advertising for many years and conducted market research and polls: Polls aren't totally representative of the PUBLIC or of VOTERS. They're just not.
that's why we need some Nate Silver data in here. Remember that guy? The stats geek who almost perfectly predicted the voting results for every state when Obama won?


http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/

edit: "There Are Few Libertarians. But Many Americans Have Libertarian Views." oh boy...





http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/


"Finally we can look at what the polls say right now. If you’re going to do this, you should take the polls with whole tablespoons full of salt. And it’s probably best to look at the favorability ratings for each candidate rather than head-to-head polls, since favorability polls allow voters to say they don’t know enough about the candidates to have formulated an opinion. (Head-to-head polls taken this far out from the election will tend to favor candidates like Clinton with strong name recognition, by contrast.)"

allegro
04-14-2015, 03:20 AM
Wow guys, I know it's early but I'm loving all the chatter here. As much as I hate the fact that this is going to be a long slog listening to the noise before I get to stick my vote into a ballot box, I do like your chatter so stay calm and carry on....


One opine I got: independents- you're all a bunch of fucking liars saying your independent. The vast majority of ya'll ride the vote of one party so those votes that really do swing is a whole lot smaller sliver of the pie.

I don't see one single Repub that a viable candidate to beat Clinton. I don't want to anoint her and I hope the party and she don't strut around acting like she's anointed because that just pisses the shit out of voters and that sliver of swing Indies will tell her to fuck off by voting for Jeb Bush.

Actually, Krugman, who's an arrogant prick in his own right, said it best for me:
http://nyti.ms/1NwLP0B

We've all made our decision already. Can we just take a leap 18 months into the future, like right now please ?

I'm not a fucking liar, LOL, I've voted for Republicans. Mark Kirk is my man. (Well except I think he was one of the recent Iran traitor morons.)

I used to like Chris Christie before that whole Bridgegate thing. He seemed to handle himself well, bipartisanly, after Sandy.

Otherwise I still love Bernie Sanders.

Jinsai
04-14-2015, 03:53 AM
I'm not a fucking liar, LOL, I've voted for Republicans. Mark Kirk is my man. (Well except I think he was one of the recent Iran traitor morons.)

I used to like Chris Christie before that whole Bridgegate thing. He seemed to handle himself well, bipartisanly, after Sandy.

Otherwise I still love Bernie Sanders.

i think the main point is that there's a lot of Rush Limbaugh listeners who like to self-identify as "independent" because they think it sounds good, and they like the idea that their opinion matters.

I don't even know if I'm going to vote this time. It's dynasty nepotism. How insane is it, in a country of 300,000,000 people, the "best" candidates are directly related by blood or marriage to people who have already been president? That's absolutely insane when you think too much about it.

if the bush family pulls off a hat trick here, I just give up. At that point, it's just psychologically damaging to follow this stuff anymore, and I might as well bow down before my blue blooded overlords.

GulDukat
04-14-2015, 04:11 AM
This article in yesterday's NTY pretty much sums up why I vote Democrat and always will:

It Takes a Party
Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So Hillary Clinton is officially running, to nobody’s surprise. And you know what’s coming: endless attempts to psychoanalyze the candidate, endless attempts to read significance into what she says or doesn’t say about President Obama, endless thumb-sucking about her “positioning” on this or that issue.

Please pay no attention. Personality-based political analysis is always a dubious venture — in my experience, pundits are terrible judges of character. Those old enough to remember the 2000 election may also remember how we were assured that George W. Bush was a nice, affable fellow who would pursue moderate, bipartisan policies.

In any case, there has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.

For example, any Democrat would, if elected, seek to maintain the basic U.S. social insurance programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — in essentially their current form, while also preserving and extending the Affordable Care Act. Any Republican would seek to destroy Obamacare, make deep cuts in Medicaid, and probably try to convert Medicare into a voucher system.

Any Democrat would retain the tax hikes on high-income Americans that went into effect in 2013, and possibly seek more. Any Republican would try to cut taxes on the wealthy — House Republicans plan to vote next week to repeal the estate tax — while slashing programs that aid low-income families.

Any Democrat would try to preserve the 2010 financial reform, which has recently been looking much more effective than critics suggested. Any Republican would seek to roll it back, eliminating both consumer protection and the extra regulation applied to large, “systemically important” financial institutions.

And any Democrat would try to move forward on climate policy, through executive action if necessary, while any Republican — whether or not he is an outright climate-science denialist — would block efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right — and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.

Now, some people won’t want to acknowledge that the choices in the 2016 election are as stark as I’ve asserted. Political commentators who specialize in covering personalities rather than issues will balk at the assertion that their alleged area of expertise matters not at all. Self-proclaimed centrists will look for a middle ground that doesn’t actually exist. And as a result, we’ll hear many assertions that the candidates don’t really mean what they say. There will, however, be an asymmetry in the way this supposed gap between rhetoric and real views is presented.

On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that she’ll be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.

On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case we’d be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesn’t believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice — sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesn’t really mean it, and he’d be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.

As you can probably tell, I’m dreading the next 18 months, which will be full of sound bites and fury, signifying nothing. O.K., I guess we might learn a few things — Where will Ms. Clinton come out on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership? How much influence will Republican Fed-bashers exert? — but the differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it’s hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided even now, or be induced to change his or her mind between now and the election.

One thing is for sure: American voters will be getting a real choice. May the best party win.

allegro
04-14-2015, 10:43 AM
I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican for PRESIDENT but there ARE a few other choices, other than R and D (like Sanders and Stein).

Jinsai, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh but people who are Is are NOT Rs. In Rush's audience's case, they're probably Tea Party assholes because the Rs aren't far enough Right for them.

And I'm with Bernie Sanders the Socialist because the Ds aren't far enough Left for me, LOL.

re that above article: If you compare Clinton's environmental stance to Stein's, Clinton looks like a Republican in comparison.

I no longer feel that my vote toward an Independent or a Third Party is a "wasted" vote; instead, I feel like it's MY vote.

Dra508
04-14-2015, 09:46 PM
I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican for PRESIDENT but there ARE a few other choices, other than R and D so if the vote was today, you'd vote D.


I no longer feel that my vote toward an Independent or a Third Party is a "wasted" vote; instead, I feel like it's MY vote.

Now, you sound like my mother who voted for Jesse Jackson in'88. [emoji57]

allegro
04-14-2015, 10:11 PM
so if the vote was today, you'd vote D.

Well, no, the vote can't be today, it's too early. If Bernie goes in as an I, I might vote I, or I might go G with Jill Stein if she decides to run. Not all the hats are in the ring, yet.

GulDukat
04-14-2015, 10:48 PM
No, her numbers aren't terrible according to that analysis. But, again, go REALLY LOOK at those polls. Each one has no more than 1,000 people polled. The Economists links the PDFs they used for their polls, GO READ ONE HERE (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/biwuw36tjk/econToplines.pdf), this one in particular has this:

http://i.imgur.com/2hJhf3X.png

So you'd have to analyze each individual poll's data and consider its data sample. Instead, we simply choose to "believe" the published results because we're too lazy to analyze the data ourselves or consider the size or sources of the data samples (some are the Internet).

Looking further at that particular poll, above, you can pretty much determine the audience of the poll:

http://i.imgur.com/YUyCC6o.png
http://i.imgur.com/gImUcFi.png

So, it's pretty easy to see how simple it is to slant a poll, or use a group of polls to show pretty much nothing.

Edit: For the record, I do not personally believe that Hillary is "universally loathed." I think, actually, that Obama's hope and change campaign got us actually hoping for change which, unfortunately, can't happen when Congress and the populace and the hopey changee pres post-election ain't onboard. I think we expect too much from Presidents and we all forget our 7th grade Civics Class lessons. And have we had a really GREAT president since Lincoln? Anyway, if Hill was nominated, I might actually vote for her; too early to know. Depends on if Stein runs. I'm more likely to vote for Stein, though, if she runs.
Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton has been part of national American politics since 1992, nearly 25 years. The other candidates aren't nearly as well known with the public. So it makes sense that she would be a more polarizing figure, with stronger negatives, as well as people who support her. The winner, ether a D or an R is only going to get about 51% to 53% of the popular vote anyway.

DigitalChaos
04-15-2015, 12:43 AM
One opine I got: independents- you're all a bunch of fucking liars saying your independent. The vast majority of ya'll ride the vote of one party so those votes that really do swing is a whole lot smaller sliver of the pie.

hey fuck you! So far, I have never voted R or D for the presidential election. Now, for primaries and local politics? I have voted all over the place. The only real pattern is that I tend to vote anti-incumbent in a lot of situations. My political donations go to whoever is getting shit done that I believe in (usually protecting individual freedoms/rights). As such, my inbox is filled with solicitations across most political flavors.

Dra508
04-15-2015, 01:08 AM
Well, no, the vote can't be today, it's too early. If Bernie goes in as an I, I might vote I, or I might go G with Jill Stein if she decides to run. Not all the hats are in the ring, yet.

The question was time sensitive for sure. If the vote happened today, pretend it's a run off, you'd vote for Hilary, wouldn't you?

Or maybe you are one of those very few swing votes...You too DigitalChaos. I still submit that human behavior shows people don't change their mind from the get-go.

DigitalChaos
04-15-2015, 01:42 AM
You are right. ETS members who discuss politics just happens to be a shitty representation of the actual voters out there.

thevoid99
04-15-2015, 02:02 AM
And this is why I don't ever do politics. It's just too complicated and confusing at times. My dad favors the Democrats but my sister tends to be conservative. I haven't voted since 2000 and nothing is going to change that unless there's a third party that actually has the balls to want to make a difference.

Wolfkiller
04-15-2015, 03:06 AM
Why don't they do voting like those battle of the bands grudge matches? One on one until only two are left for final showdown! That way independents could stand a chance instead of people playing it safe and voting for the mainstream lesser of two evils lest the bad guy wins etc

Baphomette
04-15-2015, 03:10 AM
Think I'm going to vote for the first candidate with a decent looking logo.

Dra508
04-15-2015, 03:02 PM
^^^^^ seriously, according to some of my graphic design friends, Hilary's logo is shite.


Here might be another of this rare breed called swing voters:

http://youtu.be/tNfo0o7ay7A

DigitalChaos
04-15-2015, 04:16 PM
Or maybe you are one of those very few swing votes...You too @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598).
Being a swing vote in California is quote possibly one of the most useless things, from the perspective of national politics. But there is a hell of a lot more an individual can do that loosens the grip of power. It's becoming easier and easier to keep several steps ahead of these assholes. The more it happens, the less power they have.

DigitalChaos
04-15-2015, 04:19 PM
As shitty as Bush was, this country was much more energized in fighting government overreach during his presidency. Maybe we need a good villain to get the citizens engaged again.

littlemonkey613
04-15-2015, 06:19 PM
In California it def makes more sense to vote 3rd party as long as its polling super blue. I tried last time but Obama got that swag pull lmao

littlemonkey613
04-15-2015, 06:20 PM
wtf ets

*ten characters ugh sorry

GulDukat
04-15-2015, 09:27 PM
Watching Berine Sanders on Rachel Maddow right now. Love the guy.

allegro
04-15-2015, 11:02 PM
Watching Bernie Sanders on Rachel Maddow right now. Love the guy.

Oh CRAP I missed it, I was out watching the Hawks game.

Dra508
04-16-2015, 08:33 PM
Being a swing vote in California is quote possibly one of the most useless things, from the perspective of national politics. But there is a hell of a lot more an individual can do that loosens the grip of power. It's becoming easier and easier to keep several steps ahead of these assholes. The more it happens, the less power they have.

Like in Texas, I'll be spitting in the wind, but I'm going to vote dam it. Haven't missed a presidential election since hruajjdm5)/&

DigitalChaos
04-16-2015, 08:39 PM
Like it Texas, I'll be spitting in the wind, but I'm going to vote dam it. Haven't missed a presidential election since hruajjdm5)/&

Isn't TX way closer to purple compared to CA? I had a friend move over there for a year to help make exactly that happen.

Dra508
04-16-2015, 11:47 PM
Isn't TX way closer to purple compared to CA? I had a friend move over there for a year to help make exactly that happen.

That's what they say, but I think it's farther off then this election.

DigitalChaos
04-21-2015, 04:10 PM
Bernie Sanders goes full "DEY TERK ER JERBS" while pushing against trade deals.

"Americans should not be forced to compete against desperately poor workers throughout the world."


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-labor-leaders-to-protest-disastrous-trade-deal


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

GulDukat
04-23-2015, 07:46 AM
Remember this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PulUKsICY9o
I wonder if we will be seeing more of him?

elevenism
04-24-2015, 10:36 AM
Like in Texas, I'll be spitting in the wind, but I'm going to vote dam it. Haven't missed a presidential election since hruajjdm5)/&
it sucks, Dra508 .
I've been planning to vote when i got off work on more than one occasion, only to find out that the enemy had already won the state by the time i got home.

That being said, as far as the popular vote goes, dallas county voted dem in 08 and '12 if i'm not mistaken.

As far as Texas being "purple," oddly enough, texas was a staunch blue state not all that long ago, but turned red. It's something people tend to forget.
Racism and the civil rights bill caused people to switch to the gop. Adding to the problem was an influx of wealthy republican leaning people moving here during the 70s and early eighties who obviously brought their political ideologies with them. There were even politicians who switched sides. Phil Gramm was a dem until the mid eighties. And believe it or not, Rick fucking Perry was a democrat until 1990! I would imagine that these guys changed sides because they wanted to be elected again.
I think that the final nail in the texas democrat's coffin has come in the form of the extremely polarizing political divide between left and right that has slowly but surely taken hold. There used to be conservative democrats and liberal republicans.

Now that i think about it, texas wasn't all the way red even in the early nineties...we elected Anne Richards when i was in middle school.

I hope it turns blue again. But the republicans have the fake "family values" bullshit going for them now, the abortion thing, gay rights, and millions of ignorant rural folk who think that the GOP is "filled with the holy spirit." Sigh. I don't see it happening.

DigitalChaos
04-24-2015, 03:47 PM
As far as Texas being "purple," oddly enough, texas was a staunch blue state not all that long ago, but turned red. It's something people tend to forget.
They may forget, but it's also irrelevant because it's not representative of what we have today. The democrat party is responsible for some of the most racist bullshit in our history (not that they still aren't but it's in much less obvious ways now). The republicans started modern gun control via the republican idol, Reagan. They are all a bunch of opportunist cunts who will change their stance depending on whatever gets them votes.

That's one of the reasons I like the libertarians. They have always held their view of strong individual liberty (ignoring the co-opting attempts). example: Since the Libertarian Party formed in 1971, they were supportive of marriage equality. What was the Democratic party doing then? They took the "progressive" stance of saying "well, maybe we shouldn't jail the gays." :rolleyes:

Baphomette
04-25-2015, 12:29 AM
Bernie Sanders goes full "DEY TERK ER JERBS" while pushing against trade deals.Makes sense since people in the US will respond more favorably to that sentiment than to "we need to stop pillaging underdeveloped countries."

Jinsai
04-25-2015, 03:23 PM
That's one of the reasons I like the libertarians. They have always held their view of strong individual liberty (ignoring the co-opting attempts).

They have a strong stance of avoiding issues that do not personally affect them, and their motto is "fend for yourself." This is a political stance that works out really well for you if you're already benefiting from the established institution where everything's already working out for you.


example: Since the Libertarian Party formed in 1971, they were supportive of marriage equality.
They're primarily supportive of the government having nothing to do with marriage. This ideological mindset just so happens to support (sort of) the cause of gay marriage, so libertarians like to give themselves a gold star for progressiveness there, but it's really just a pat on the back for their own indifference on the issue. They don't give a fuck.


What was the Democratic party doing then? They took the "progressive" stance of saying "well, maybe we shouldn't jail the gays." :rolleyes:

I don't know, maybe they were busy being an actual party that people voted for. It's easy to claim all these high minded ideals, but until there's a legitimate candidate that is pushing them into law, it's just a stepping stone to that point.

DigitalChaos
04-25-2015, 07:37 PM
They have a strong stance of avoiding issues that do not personally affect them, and their motto is "fend for yourself." This is a political stance that works out really well for you if you're already benefiting from the established institution where everything's already working out for you.


They're primarily supportive of the government having nothing to do with marriage. This ideological mindset just so happens to support (sort of) the cause of gay marriage, so libertarians like to give themselves a gold star for progressiveness there, but it's really just a pat on the back for their own indifference on the issue. They don't give a fuck.

You are super uninformed. Here is some info:

- the Libertarian Party's first presidential candidate (1972) was openly gay. He was also the first openly gay candidate to ever run for president.

- in 1975, a gay rights caucus was created in the party

- they have been very clearly against unequal laws based on race, gender, sexuality, or any other defining attribute.

- in the 80's they were promoting the following:


*Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and solicitation, whether gay or straight.
*Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages.
*An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
*An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the sexual preferences of individuals.
*Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors, lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
*Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
*Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
*Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for denying the right of adoption.
*Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government service, including particularly membership in the armed forces.
*End the usage of zoning and loitering laws to harass gay people and gay-owned businesses.
*Equal treatment for gay immigrants.
*End government sanctioned closing of gay bathhouses.


Totally indifference! /s




I don't know, maybe they were busy being an actual party that people voted for. It's easy to claim all these high minded ideals, but until there's a legitimate candidate that is pushing them into law, it's just a stepping stone to that point.

That's a cute way of saying "having no ideology and vote whoring." Shit like DOMA happen with that populist bullshit. And somehow this DOESNT qualify as "a political stance that works out really well for you if you're already benefiting from the established institution where everything's already working out for you" .... Ooook. Yeah, fucking smooth sailing for the minorities when you go chasing after the majority of the votes! /s



But hey, the Dems finally added marriage equality to their platform like a year or two ago... Almost half a century late, but that's *progressive* and the best choice for minorities who don't want to be discriminated against.

Jinsai
04-25-2015, 07:52 PM
You are super uninformed. Here is some info:

- the Libertarian Party's first presidential candidate (1972) was openly gay. He was also the first openly gay candidate to ever run for president.

Yes, I also have access to wikipedia, and I've heard this before.

He never had a realistic chance of winning, and he knew that.

Meanwhile, you're pointing to the "democratic party and what they were doing about teh gay stuff" back then in a dismissive way... Never mind that openly homosexual democrats were breaking ground by being ELECTED to positions in public office in the 70s.

You know as well as anyone does though that political parties change over time, and they are defined by their electability. The people who founded the libertarian movement have for the most part jumped ship, and the Tea Party is taking control. Elections, and the candidates who WIN (or at least have a realistic chance of winning) define the party, or that party is just an amorphous idea. It's easy for a small group of people to espouse open-minded concepts, it's another thing to take that concept and turn it into a real platform.

You see what the real libertarian platform is becoming, I just don't think you want to admit it. The socially progressive aspects are going to fall to the wayside while the party slowly morphs into the next electable version of neo-conservatism.
The sad truth is that without the Tea Party, the libertarian movement is still a stalled grass roots movement. If they define themselves clearly with aspects that alienate socially conservative voters, they will never, ever win. This is why the current shining stars of the libertarian party are saying what they're saying, and shrewdly shying away from stuff that will make the guy with the tea-bags attached to his hat grumble.

DigitalChaos
04-25-2015, 07:59 PM
Yes, I also have access to wikipedia, and I've heard this before.

He never had a realistic chance of winning, and he knew that.

Meanwhile, you're pointing to the "democratic party and what they were doing about teh gay stuff" back then in a dismissive way... Never mind that openly homosexual democrats were breaking ground by being ELECTED to positions in public office in the 70s.

You know as well as anyone does though that political parties change over time, and they are defined by their electability. The people who founded the libertarian movement have for the most part jumped ship, and the Tea Party is taking control. Elections, and the candidates who WIN (or at least have a realistic chance of winning) define the party, or that party is just an amorphous idea. It's easy for a small group of people to espouse open-minded concepts, it's another thing to take that concept and turn it into a real platform.

You see what the real libertarian platform is becoming, I just don't think you want to admit it.

Tea party has fuck all to do with the Libertarian Party (big L). They attempt to wear the libertarian (little l) label in very selective ways.

Your "what it takes to win" angle is some incredible denialism if you don't see yourself committing the very wrongs you are wrongly accusing libertarians of. "Indifference that just happens to overlap" vs vote whoring that occasionally benefits minorities. Shit's gross dude.

Jinsai
04-25-2015, 08:09 PM
Tea party has fuck all to do with the Libertarian Party (big L). They attempt to wear the libertarian (little l) label in very selective ways.

Your "what it takes to win" angle is some incredible denialism if you don't see yourself committing the very wrongs you are wrongly accusing libertarians of. "Indifference that just happens to overlap" vs vote whoring that occasionally benefits minorities. Shit's gross dude.

No, it isn't gross, it's realistic, and libertarians handing out colorful flyers at gay rights parades is pandering for votes too. You only have ideas like "Big L" and "little l" because there's no clear captains steering the ship. When we see a realistic candidate identified as libertarian enter the running in an upcoming election, we'll have a clearer definition of what the "libertarian party" really is at this point, and whether or not the "big L" needs to rename itself.

I would like to think you're right, but I think the reality is that when this platform is elevated to the point where it becomes a realistic possibility, you're not going to like what it's become. If the candidate fails to live up to your standards, it would be equally "gross" to vote for that.

And I would take a guess, the first real self-identified libertarian to have a real chance at the presidency is going to be Rand Paul, and that's gross.

But pointing to civil rights failures in the Democratic party's past is about as fair and accurate as calling them the pro-slavery party, and that's the kind of luxury you only have when your party distinction has no provable track record.

allegro
04-26-2015, 10:46 PM
Libertarian Chad Grimm ran for Governor in Illinois in 2014 and he was Pro-Life (http://ivn.us/2014/09/29/ill-libertarian-chad-grimm-sway-gop-voters-governors-race/). Lots of Libertarians (capital L) have come out as Pro-Life. That's socially conservative, not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. Like, wtf is this? (http://www.libertariansforlife.org/). But the LP Chair says this (https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-chair-not-pro-life-or-pro-choice-but-individual-choice-0).

Ultimately, any organized "party" is full of shit because the party platform doesn't control all of its members and the President, alone, doesn't control ANYTHING except maybe his/her office decor.

DigitalChaos
04-27-2015, 02:36 PM
No, it isn't gross, it's realistic,

"dear gay people - discrimination is realistic, deal with it. Maybe in half a century it will get better."




we'll have a clearer definition of what the "libertarian party" really is at this point, and whether or not the "big L" needs to rename itself.

You don't have to wait. Last election it was Gary Johnson. There is a decent chance itll be him again.



I would like to think you're right, but I think the reality is that when this platform is elevated to the point where it becomes a realistic possibility

If you go back and read what I said, I like the party because they haven't changed over the decades. Their chances at pulling a presidential seat were not what I was happy about. Also, any 3rd party's chance is not really a statement about them, but a statement about the electoral system we have AND the complete fuck-ups we have for voters (very few vote in the primaries, for example).





And I would take a guess, the first real self-identified libertarian to have a real chance at the presidency is going to be Rand Paul, and that's gross.

Not true. He does not identify as libertarian. He has certain libertarian positions. Hell, so did Obama when he was running. Rand probably has the most libertarian positions of current viable candidates, but he has plenty of positions that deviate.

DigitalChaos
04-27-2015, 02:50 PM
Libertarian Chad Grimm ran for Governor in Illinois in 2014 and he was Pro-Life (http://ivn.us/2014/09/29/ill-libertarian-chad-grimm-sway-gop-voters-governors-race/). Lots of Libertarians (capital L) have come out as Pro-Life. That's socially conservative, not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. Like, wtf is this? (http://www.libertariansforlife.org/). But the LP Chair says this (https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-chair-not-pro-life-or-pro-choice-but-individual-choice-0).

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? Either way, the pro-life thing is something that tends to cause a heavy divide in libertarian discussions. I don't agree with it, but from a philosophical angle, it can be justified. Like they said in the article, nothing should be a crime unless someone is being hurt (or their rights being infringed). The lack of physical harm requirement is almost always the top requirement when you have situations with competing rights. An unborn child tends to be more protected than some inanimate property of the mother, especially when other people are involved in potentially harming the unborn child. So, it becomes easy to justify the pro-life angle from the "don't harm people" requirement. But like I said, I disagree with it.

The Libertarian Party (big L) stance is that it should be up to the individual. That'd be "pro-choice" by any definition.



Ultimately, any organized "party" is full of shit because the party platform doesn't control all of its members and the President, alone, doesn't control ANYTHING except maybe his/her office decor.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here other than viability as presidential candidate? If so... Libertarian candidate pulled in 3x what the Green party pulled in :P They have had pretty decent success at state and local levels though.

allegro
04-27-2015, 03:34 PM
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
04-27-2015, 04:23 PM
^ 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
04-27-2015, 04:23 PM
In other news, Commission on Presidential Debates considers ditching their 15% requirement.

http://benswann.com/commission-on-presidential-debates-considers-ditching-15-rule-for-third-party-candidates/

Deepvoid
04-29-2015, 02:19 PM
Rand Paul just introduced a resolution to nullify the new net neutrality rules (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/senator-rand-paul-moves-to-nullify-new-net-neutrality-rules/comments/#disqus).

DigitalChaos
04-29-2015, 04:20 PM
Rand Paul just introduced a resolution to nullify the new net neutrality rules (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/senator-rand-paul-moves-to-nullify-new-net-neutrality-rules/comments/#disqus).
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
04-30-2015, 10:21 AM
Bernie Sanders is running for President. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/)

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

sentient02970
04-30-2015, 11:13 AM
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
04-30-2015, 11:46 AM
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
04-30-2015, 12:57 PM
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
04-30-2015, 01:03 PM
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
04-30-2015, 01:09 PM
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
04-30-2015, 01:21 PM
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
04-30-2015, 01:48 PM
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
04-30-2015, 01:59 PM
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/hard-look-iraq-sanctions

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

allegro
04-30-2015, 04:15 PM
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/politics/bill-clintons-decision-and-regret-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html?_r=0)" but only relatively recently changed his mind.

Dra508
04-30-2015, 05:37 PM
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
04-30-2015, 09:50 PM
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/politics/bill-clintons-decision-and-regret-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html?_r=0)" 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
04-30-2015, 10:21 PM
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
05-01-2015, 12:02 AM
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
05-01-2015, 12:15 AM
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-of-americans-self-identify-as-liberta


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

GulDukat
05-01-2015, 06:48 AM
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
05-01-2015, 08:48 AM
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
05-01-2015, 07:00 PM
Sanders raises 1.5 million in 24 hours:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising/

DigitalChaos
05-01-2015, 09:28 PM
Sanders raises 1.5 million in 24 hours:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/bernie-sanders-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
05-02-2015, 12:15 AM
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
05-02-2015, 06:26 AM
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
05-02-2015, 09:47 AM
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
05-02-2015, 08:11 PM
You guys are going to learn all about the Ron Paul experience

I remember the Ron Paul Experience

http://i.imgur.com/aVOSkIC.gif

Pretty sure I'm glad it's over.

elevenism
05-03-2015, 08:22 AM
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
05-03-2015, 12:43 PM
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.

Dra508
05-03-2015, 11:48 PM
Ben Carson is throwing his hat in. Ya'll remember him? He's undergone media training so maybe he wont stick his foot in his mouth, maybe.

aggroculture
05-04-2015, 09:53 AM
It's incredibly rare for a party to retain presidential control after 2 terms with the same person.

To me this is why the Dems are pushing Hillary: they believe they won't win, so are backing a candidate who won't win. Similar thing happened with John Kerry: they didn't think they would win "during a war" (like the US is never not at war), so they pushed a half-baked candidate, who really didn't seem like he gave a shit whether he won the presidency or not. This thing of Dems coming across like they're OK with not winning is very annoying.

GulDukat
05-10-2015, 08:14 AM
To me this is why the Dems are pushing Hillary: they believe they won't win, so are backing a candidate who won't win. Similar thing happened with John Kerry: they didn't think they would win "during a war" (like the US is never not at war), so they pushed a half-baked candidate, who really didn't seem like he gave a shit whether he won the presidency or not. This thing of Dems coming across like they're OK with not winning is very annoying.
A majority of Democrats, voters, insiders and strategists think that winning 2016 is hopeless so they are pushing a candidate (Clinton) whom they know won't win?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html
As of now, and this is just a snapshot in time, Clinton is beating every possible Republican candidate. The election is a year and a half away and anything can happen, but as of right now Clinton could very well win the election. She has as good (or better) a chance than anyone else.

Baphomette
05-10-2015, 07:11 PM
Sanders raises 1.5 million in 24 hours:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising/
If Bernie's camp unveils a kick-ass logo, he gets my vote.

DigitalChaos
05-11-2015, 02:39 PM
To me this is why the Dems are pushing Hillary: they believe they won't win, so are backing a candidate who won't win. Similar thing happened with John Kerry: they didn't think they would win "during a war" (like the US is never not at war), so they pushed a half-baked candidate, who really didn't seem like he gave a shit whether he won the presidency or not. This thing of Dems coming across like they're OK with not winning is very annoying.
But, what is the strategy here? What is the purpose? Why spend so much time and money if the plan is to lose?

Jinsai
05-11-2015, 04:01 PM
For a slightly better chance at getting a candidate who is marginally different from the candidate you supposedly dislike enough to sacrifice your ideals?

Before we get too high and mighty here, do we even have a vague idea who she is going to be running against? Why don't we wait to see who the alternative is before we insist that s/he is "only marginally different."

DigitalChaos
05-12-2015, 01:51 PM
Penn Jillette watches the campaign videos for Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinions/jillette-presidential-candidate-videos/index.html
The whole thing is a fun read, but this is the summary:


[based on the videos] .. Bernie would have my vote wrapped up. I'm shocked by that. I've always just dismissed him as not my kind of nut. But checking my heart, it seems I'd rather have ideas that I disagree with then no ideas at all. He doesn't look like he's selling peanut butter or douche. He doesn't sound like he's selling a Marvel comics movie. He seems like he wants to talk about how we should govern ourselves and he knows we can disagree without being evil.

If these candidates are my only choices (and they are not!), I would vote for Bernie if for no other reason than he didn't offer me hope, and he didn't make me feel that if I voted for him, I would win something. He made me feel like we should talk about government.

elevenism
05-13-2015, 02:20 PM
Jeb Bush said he would have invaded iraq KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW.

Palm meets face.

littlemonkey613
05-13-2015, 04:31 PM
I have never been so excited for TV as much as I am for this GOP primary. Yall. That list.

Deepvoid
05-13-2015, 06:16 PM
It looks like John Bolton will make an announcement whether he'll run for President. (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/john-bolton-ambassador-united-nations-president-2016-117912.html)

For those who are dying to witness WIII I guess.

**Edit**

Bolton is not running after all.

GulDukat
05-14-2015, 09:31 AM
Hillary Clinton's election to lose

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/the-medias-real-role-in-206766.html

GulDukat
05-14-2015, 11:50 AM
One thing is for sure, we will never have another president who will order pants as hilariously as LBJ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR_myjOr0OU

GulDukat
05-14-2015, 04:21 PM
O’Malley, eyeing the presidency, plans May 30 announcement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/omalley-eyeing-the-presidency-plans-may-30-announcement/

GulDukat
05-19-2015, 03:04 PM
Hillary Clinton May Not Need a Second Chance to Make a First Impression
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-may-not-need-a-second-chance-to-make-a-first-impression.html?_r=0

DigitalChaos
05-20-2015, 11:07 PM
Fox News has started suppressing Rand Paul. I wonder if it will get as bad as when they did it to his father. Seems Bush is Fox's chosen candidate.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/fox-news-hiding-rand-paul-with-their-polls/

elevenism
05-20-2015, 11:57 PM
Fox News has started suppressing Rand Paul. I wonder if it will get as bad as when they did it to his father. Seems Bush is Fox's chosen candidate.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/fox-news-hiding-rand-paul-with-their-polls/

on the cool?

sigh.

i'm a commie pinko left wing bleeding heart liberal democrat, but the Pauls DEFINITELY have the best ideas and the highest degree of honesty and integrity on the right side of things.

They don't want paul, they don't want sanders, they don't want anyone who actually wants to change SHIT.

the president will continue with "business as usual," whoever it is.

Same old shit. give us a false illusion of choice with divisive but ultimately minor issues while having the exact same stance on the big, serious shit.

I don't think we will ever see any true change in government in our lifetimes.

DigitalChaos
05-21-2015, 12:03 AM
Yeah. Rand is doing his filibuster(esqe) thing right now on the patriot act renewal. There are so few congressmen willing to strongly fight the NSA. The media doesn't like them. Wyden is there too. I'm sad that Sanders or Warren didn't participate. At least Sanders has a consistent voting record on that topic though.

DigitalChaos
05-21-2015, 12:16 AM
How fucking awesome would a Sanders vs Paul election be though? That would restore a lot of faith in the system.

I know... But I can dream :)

elevenism
05-21-2015, 04:36 AM
How fucking awesome would a Sanders vs Paul election be though? That would restore a lot of faith in the system.

I know... But I can dream :)
that would be So. Fucking. Awesome.

littlemonkey613
05-21-2015, 08:29 PM
How fucking awesome would a Sanders vs Paul election be though? That would restore a lot of faith in the system.

I know... But I can dream :)

Do you think Paul would go back to his ideals in the general election? I've been very disappointed in his willingness to join the batshit clowncar but I understand I guess given the circus of the GOP primaries.

DigitalChaos
05-22-2015, 03:22 PM
Do you think Paul would go back to his ideals in the general election? I've been very disappointed in his willingness to join the batshit clowncar but I understand I guess given the circus of the GOP primaries.

My gut says probably. If you look at what he is actually saying, it's mostly rephrasing geared toward whatever audience he is in front of. The media turns it into something he never actually said though ex: the vaccine thing where he was branded an anti-vax nut even though he never said such a thing. To me, it's clear he is willing to play the game to get the support he needs to win the primary. The deck is pretty stacked against him there, so he has to go pretty hard. It's not like he is outright lying, like the shit Obama seems to have done while campaigning, but he is choosing very specific phrasing in an attempt to get a wider base of people to "get" his approach to government.

The big question would be how he stands up if he gets elected president. There seems to be a difference in what you say to get elected, your actual ideals/intent (what we are questioning here), and then what happens to those ideals after you gain power. I think the only way to even get a hint there is to look at the candidates voting record.

Deepvoid
05-22-2015, 09:14 PM
Is this the end for Mike Huckabee? (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/22/3662192/mike-huckabee-makes-excuses-duggar-family-hiding-years-hiding-sexual-abuse/)

In support of the Duggar family:

"Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, 'inexcusable,' but that doesn’t mean 'unforgivable.' [...]that being a minor means that one’s judgement is not mature."

Gay people should burn in hell but hey.. if you molest your sisters, well you're just kinda immature.

DigitalChaos
05-23-2015, 01:27 PM
So, Rand Paul is up there again doing his Filibuster-esque thing against the Patriot Act. During this, we have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voting YES for cloture. This is pretty fucked up unless the absolutely know that there are enough votes to kill the renewal. Cloture kills extended debate and the kind of delays that Rand Paul is doing. I was pretty shocked to see Sanders do this, considering his consistent voting against the patriot act.

allegro
05-24-2015, 04:10 PM
So, Rand Paul is up there again doing his Filibuster-esque thing against the Patriot Act. During this, we have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voting YES for cloture. This is pretty fucked up unless the absolutely know that there are enough votes to kill the renewal. Cloture kills extended debate and the kind of delays that Rand Paul is doing. I was pretty shocked to see Sanders do this, considering his consistent voting against the patriot act.

I think you are kinda confused about what is going on (http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/) and need to need to study up some more (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/23/1387159/-Senate-Blocks-Renewal-of-Patriot-Act-Provisions).




Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1357 )

Measure Title: A bill to extend authority relating to roving surveillance, access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 until July 31, 2015, and for other purposes.

NAYs ---54
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gardner (R-CO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 05:50 PM
I think you are kinda confused about what is going on (http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/) and need to need to study up some more (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/23/1387159/-Senate-Blocks-Renewal-of-Patriot-Act-Provisions).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00194

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2048 )

Measure Title: A bill to reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes.

Paul (R-KY), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 05:51 PM
I'm on phone, so I hope that was the the right one.

allegro
05-24-2015, 07:14 PM
The link I posted above explains everything (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/23/1387159/-Senate-Blocks-Renewal-of-Patriot-Act-Provisions), first up was what you linked, second up was what I quoted.


Last night, after a series of votes related to amendments and final passage of the Trade Promotion Authority, the Senate moved on to consider NSA-related legislation.

First up was the USA FREEDOM Act, the watered-down surveillance reform bill that passed the House last week. Civil libertarian groups have largely been mixed on the bill, viewing it as a step forward but one that does not go nearly far enough. When the bill passed the House 338 to 88, the opposition consisted mainly of those who though the reforms did not go far enough, as they explained in a letter earlier this week.

In the Senate, the opposition mainly consisted of those who thought the reforms went too far.

The vote on cloture was 57 to 42, 3 short of the 60 vote threshold (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00194).

45 out of the 46 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, the sole exception being Angus King (I-ME) (who didn't think it was pro-surveillance enough).

They were joined by 12 Republicans:

Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Jim Lankford (R-OK)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

Only one Republican voted against it for not going far enough: Rand Paul (R-KY). The other 40 Republican NO votes are senators who have often been vocal in their support of surveillance.

After the USA FREEDOM Act failed to reach cloture, Mitch McConnell invoked cloture for a two-month extension of the sections of the Patriot Act that are about to expire.

That vote failed 45 to 54 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00195).

Only two Democrats voted for cloture: Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Ten Republicans joined Democrats in blocking cloture:

Michael Crapo
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted NO for procedural reasons, that is, in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future.

After the cloture vote failed, McConnell asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill to extend the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act through June 8. Rand Paul objected.

He then asked for June 5. Again, a senator objected.

He then asked for June 3. Martin Heinrich objected.

He then asked for June 2. Rand Paul objected again.

McConnell decided to make senators come back on May 31, the day the provisions will expire.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 08:06 PM
The link I posted above explains everything (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/23/1387159/-Senate-Blocks-Renewal-of-Patriot-Act-Provisions), first up was what you linked, second up was what I quoted.
Right, but the USA FREEDOM Act contained an extension to much of the surveillance that expires in a few days. Correct? (whether or not it goes far enough is irrelevant to the point I was getting at, but I personally believe it doesn't go far enough).

So, let's pretend the USA FREEDOM ACT's cloture vote passed (what Sanders voted for). No more endless debate is allowed and they have to vote on the Act. Then pretend that the Act itself passes. That's it. We are done. The spying gets extended with slight "reform." There is no need for the other extension proposals that came immediately after. This is why I was upset with Sanders & Warren.


Luckily, cloture didn't happen and it forced them into the sequence that unfolded resulting in Senate going home without any solution for extending the PATRIOT ACT. The chances of the PATRIOT ACT actually expiring are much higher now.

allegro
05-24-2015, 08:09 PM
Right, but the USA FREEDOM Act contained an extension to much of the surveillance that expires in a few days. Correct?

No, it reformed it (http://www.wired.com/2015/05/senate-fails-end-nsa-bulk-spying-votes-usa-freedom-act/) but the vote failed so the Patriot Act currently stands as-is unless it expires which it hasn't the last two times and the conservative Repugs have control so it may not expire, again.

Sanders and all those others voted for the greatly reformed and controlled version so that those sections of the Patriot Act would go away, in essence, because they knew it's likely that the Patriot Act will get extended with all these conservative pro-surveillance Republicans still on board. It's a board game move, basically. They all have to vote again now. And you're still going to have those 40 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Independent (not Bernie) who will vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act in the Senate.

As linked above, Bernie has made his feelings about the NSA really clear (http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/) but it appears that he believes this was a compromise.


The law expires at the end of this month, and Congress already has begun to debate how to revise and improve the law. We should give intelligence and law enforcement authorities the strong tools they need to investigate suspected terrorists, but the law also must contain strong safeguards to protect our civil liberties. Under legislation I have proposed, intelligence and law enforcement authorities would be required to establish a reasonable suspicion, based on specific information, in order to secure court approval to monitor business records related to a specific terrorism suspect. In renewing the surveillance law, Congress also should reassert its proper role overseeing how intelligence agencies use, or abuse, the law that our intelligence community has operated in a way that even they knew the American public and Congress would not approve.

We should strike a balance that weighs the need to be vigilant and aggressive in protecting the American people from the very real danger of terrorist attacks without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free country.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 08:26 PM
No, it reformed it (http://www.wired.com/2015/05/senate-fails-end-nsa-bulk-spying-votes-usa-freedom-act/)

That reform comes with an extension, last I checked.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/usa-freedom-act-clears-house-committee-nsa-surveillance
As amended, the USA Freedom Act would push back the expiration of Section 215 to the end of 2017. The current expiration is 1 June 2015. Some legislators are already whispering that allowing Section 215 to expire wholesale in 2015 is a preferable reform.


So unless that changed, exactly what I described above is accurate. The only thing left to debate is whether the USA FREEDOM Act did enough and debating whether it is better than a complete expiration.. I'd say that letting it expire is MUCH better than the weak reform.

allegro
05-24-2015, 08:28 PM
The only thing left to debate is whether the USA FREEDOM Act did enough and debating whether it is better than a complete expiration.

How could the "extended" provisions of the Patriot Act and the provisions a new USA Freedom Act exist at the same time if they contradict each other? That makes zero legal sense, of course.

The sunset clause refers to the new Act, which is linked, here and expires on December 31, 2017 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361). That's not an "extension" of the current Act, it's a sunset clause on the new Act (amending the prior sunset clauses, not extending).

Pretty much all Acts of Congress of these types have sunset clauses. A two-year sunset clause is pretty short, actually.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the new Act failed in the Senate and now everybody has to vote on extending the Patriot Act in full which has passed the last several times.

Look, I wish they'd get rid of the entire fucking Patriot Act but we are living in a military police state and 9/11 took away any hope of freedom of privacy in this country.

binaryhermit
05-24-2015, 10:23 PM
Call me cynical, but let's say that the expiring provisions of the orwellian-named Patriot Act were allowed to expire.
What makes you think the intelligence community would stop their overreaching BS?

EDIT: Also, LOL, Mike Crapo

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 10:24 PM
How could the "extended" provisions of the Patriot Act and the provisions a new USA Freedom Act exist at the same time if they contradict each other? That makes zero legal sense, of course.

The sunset clause refers to the new Act, which is linked, here and expires on December 31, 2017 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361). That's not an "extension" of the current Act, it's a sunset clause on the new Act (amending the prior sunset clauses, not extending).

Pretty much all Acts of Congress of these types have sunset clauses. A two-year sunset clause is pretty short, actually.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the new Act failed in the Senate and now everybody has to vote on extending the Patriot Act in full which has passed the last several times.

Look, I wish they'd get rid of the entire fucking Patriot Act but we are living in a military police state and 9/11 took away any hope of freedom of privacy in this country.

Well, functionally, USA FREEDOM Act just modifies Section 215. It doesn't eliminate it. So we would have gotten another 2.5 years this modified version instead of just completely letting the whole damn thing expire.


It was primarily being sold as eliminating the bulk spying, but it doesn't actually do this now that it was diluted. They intentionally modified the wording to be much more vague. Even the original co-sponsors say so:
"This is not the bill that was reported out of the judiciary bill unanimously," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee who was a co-sponsor of the initial version of the bill. "The result is a bill that will actually not end bulk collection, regrettably. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/22/nsa-reform-bill-passes-house-despite-loss-of-support-from-privacy-advocates/)"
And there are plenty of other issues with the proposed "reform"


But yea... shit didn't pass (good!) so it doesn't matter. My complaint wasn't even about the bill itself, but in how some of the vocal anti-NSA senators voted. That's why I posted about it in the presidential election thread. NSA spying is an incredibly important topic and I want to closely look at how potential candidates are approaching it.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2015, 10:46 PM
Call me cynical, but let's say that the expiring provisions of the orwellian-named Patriot Act were allowed to expire.
What makes you think the intelligence community would stop their overreaching BS?

So, there are other things besides Section 215 that allow this crap... but let's pretend ALL of them are eliminated. Maybe even go as far as also explicitly outlawing domestic spying and dragnet data collection. 1 - They would have a hard time maintaining these programs without funding. 2 - Also, it would be hard to find people willing to do things that are explicitly illegal. Govt employees of all forms do not want to risk their jobs, or in some cases their lives. All of the leadership believes that what they are currently doing is legally supported. It's hard to get away with doing blatantly illegal shit, especially something that would require so many people to operate.

But in terms of what is happening right now... well, if June 1 hits and there is no extension for Section 215.. They would probably start suspending SOME of their spy programs... if something like Section 702 doesn't cover them. The fact that there are actually secret interpretations of laws makes it really fucked up and pretty difficult to know exactly how it would pan out though.

allegro
05-24-2015, 10:53 PM
Well, functionally, USA FREEDOM Act just modifies Section 215. It doesn't eliminate it. So we would have gotten another 2.5 years this modified version instead of just completely letting the whole damn thing expire.


It was primarily being sold as eliminating the bulk spying, but it doesn't actually do this now that it was diluted. They intentionally modified the wording to be much more vague. Even the original co-sponsors say so:
"This is not the bill that was reported out of the judiciary bill unanimously," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee who was a co-sponsor of the initial version of the bill. "The result is a bill that will actually not end bulk collection, regrettably. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/22/nsa-reform-bill-passes-house-despite-loss-of-support-from-privacy-advocates/)"
And there are plenty of other issues with the proposed "reform"


But yea... shit didn't pass (good!) so it doesn't matter. My complaint wasn't even about the bill itself, but in how some of the vocal anti-NSA senators voted. That's why I posted about it in the presidential election thread. NSA spying is an incredibly important topic and I want to closely look at how potential candidates are approaching it.

I doubt those conservative Republicans are going to allow it to expire. And most of Paul's fellow Republican Senators will make sure of that. So the choices aren't "let it expire or new Act," it's probably "Patriot Act extended or that Act that just failed."

Because otherwise ... ISIS.

DigitalChaos
05-25-2015, 02:18 AM
I doubt those conservative Republicans are going to allow it to expire. And most of Paul's fellow Republican Senators will make sure of that. So the choices aren't "let it expire or new Act," it's probably "Patriot Act extended or that Act that just failed."

Because otherwise ... ISIS.

Yup. At least we don't have to wait very long to see how it plays out though. I'd love to see the NSA version of a govt shutdown. It's funny how almost none of the supporters of that shutdown want to see it happen to the NSA.

allegro
05-25-2015, 10:10 AM
Yup. At least we don't have to wait very long to see how it plays out though. I'd love to see the NSA version of a govt shutdown. It's funny how almost none of the supporters of that shutdown want to see it happen to the NSA.

Ted Cruz was on the anti-NSA list, oddly enough.

elevenism
05-25-2015, 10:36 AM
allegro i thought you were putting this thread on ignore...and unplugging from the internet, for that matter :p

allegro
05-25-2015, 11:21 AM
allegro i thought you were putting this thread on ignore...and unplugging from the internet, for that matter :p

Thanks for reminding me ...

elevenism
05-25-2015, 11:43 AM
Thanks for reminding me ...
i was really unhappy about you going off the grid anyway.
im really glad you didnt

DigitalChaos
05-25-2015, 07:45 PM
Thinking more on "would the NSA *really* shut down?" topic... Another angle is the most believable conspiracy approach: we shut it down for a bit and wait for some terror attack that lets the govt blame the anti-NSA people. And yes, it wouldn't be hard to imagine it being one of the self-manufactured incidents that keep happening.

DigitalChaos
05-26-2015, 01:30 PM
Thanks for reminding me ...
god damn it elevenism

Deepvoid
05-27-2015, 12:02 PM
Add Rick Santorum to the growing GOP potential candidates.

7 individuals have officially announced their candidacy.
8 others will most likely join that list.

My question, how do you have debates with 15 candidates? It's going to be chaotic!

GulDukat
05-27-2015, 07:16 PM
Could Sanders beat Clinton?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/can-bernie-sanders-take-down-hillary-452031043878?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

GulDukat
05-28-2015, 09:46 AM
You know how people say that Bernie Sanders is "too far to the left," a "socialist," etc. Well, look who the American people elected FOUR times. Just listen to what FDR was proposing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI

Khrz
05-28-2015, 09:57 AM
Man, decades of Red Scare really damaged the US political rethoric... Although Europe isn't really one to judge, since on the other hand we're extremely wary of nationalim and patriotic pride...

allegro
05-28-2015, 01:17 PM
Man, decades of Red Scare really damaged the US political rethoric... Although Europe isn't really one to judge, since on the other hand we're extremely wary of nationalim and patriotic pride...

It isn't Red Scare, it's wealth and huge tax cuts on the wealthy that occurred since the 50s and each time anybody mentions bringing the old tax system back, the wealthy scream "SOCIALISM" in order to protect their relatively new low tax rates. "Redistribution of wealth" isn't taken kindly when people are greedy and want to keep every.single.penny for themselves and don't want to pay one cent in taxes. Hell, when Kennedy wanted Medicare (then known as "Kennedy Care") they were calling him a Commie because nobody wanted to pay for it. Americans like getting all kinds of free shit, they just don't like paying for anything. They're too stupid to see that the public school system, transportation, libraries, parks, roads, etc etc etc are all "socialism" in some way or another, and they don't want to pay for any of that shit, either. They don't want to pay for anything.

When they need a handout from the government, they're right there in line; unemployment, disability, social security, food stamps, FEMA, flood insurance, whatever is out there, they'll snap it up, and then bitch about the OTHER people getting it, but never themselves.

See this (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/27/the_medias_sickening_sanders_double_standard_how_t he_socialist_brings_out_their_true_colors/). (Here's more like the reality (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare).)

Bernie Sanders CALLS HIMSELF a "Democratic Socialist."

Khrz
05-28-2015, 01:35 PM
Well socialism is still the scarecrow everyone brandishes to oppose those changes though, even though nobody seems to know what socialism could possibly entail (proof being in the fact that the mere word seems to compel everyone to duck under the table) ? Isn't that related to years of opposition to the USSR in any way ?
Genuine question really, I'm intrigued and ignorant in the matter, from the other end of the atlantic ocean it does looks like that, but from such a distance you only see the very large objects, and none of the significant details...

allegro
05-28-2015, 01:43 PM
Well socialism is still the scarecrow everyone brandishes to oppose those changes though, even though nobody seems to know what socialism could possibly entail (proof being in the fact that the mere word seems to compel everyone to duck under the table) ? Isn't that related to years of opposition to the USSR in any way ?
Genuine question really, I'm intrigued and ignorant in the matter, from the other end of the atlantic ocean it does looks like that, but from such a distance you only see the very large objects, and none of the significant details...

Most Americans don't even know the DEFINITION of socialism (or communism). It's a word that's thrown around in an ignorant manner. They don't remember shit about the McCarthy Era or weren't even ALIVE. Honestly, people barely remember the fall of the USSR, barely remember communist Russia or East Germany. We have a LOT of Poles here in Chicago and people around me in Chicago seem surprised that Polish people used to be required to speak Russian. Because they've already forgotten that Poland was part of the Soviet Union. We have short memories.

I used to live in a City called Hamtramck in Detroit that was predominantly Polish and I had a cartoon t-shirt with Lech Walesa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa) in jail holding a little flag that said "Solidarność" Now, I doubt anybody would know who the fuck he is.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02718/lech-walesa_2718570b.jpg

Of course, this county's biggest defense against the USSR was ORGANIZED LABOR. Communism didn't stand a chance in this country. It wasn't a "threat" here at all because of strong organized labor unions.

The fear of socialism, here, really, is "sharing the wealth." Americans don't like to share. They like to earn a bunch of money and not share it. Sure, there are a LOT of very generous Americans, but it's sad that we've grown to be a country full of assholes who don't want to pay taxes because it will go to that other guy who doesn't deserve any of our money. Your kid wants to go to college? Pay for it, just like we did. Your kid hungry? Go feed your own fucking kid, not my problem. That's the "fear of socialism" -- it's the fear of "having to give up our money to take care of the other people."

We'd rather have 6 bigscreen HDTVs than contribute toward feeding the hungry. Our money goes toward us. Them's the rules.

Socialism is mostly defined as "making us pay for shit or deducting money from our pay." It is not associated with the USSR, at all; it's associated with the wallet.

Right up until the time we need the money, then we expect a bunch of wallets to be open. We're a hypocritical bunch.

We are given examples like Denmark where they have all these happy shiny highly-educated people and a non-existent homeless rate, but they pay a lot of taxes (socialism). WHAT? THEY PAY A LOT OF TAXES??? FUCK THAT SHIT!!! WE'D RATHER HAVE STUDENT LOANS UNTIL WE DIE, HOMELESS PEOPLE, UNEDUCATED PEOPLE, GHETTOS AND DRUG GANGS!!! FUCK THOSE SOCIALISTS!!

And they have "National Healthcare" which we are told means they have to wait MONTHS to see a doctor. (We forget that we have to wait months to see a specialist in this country, too. And, rural and low-income urban areas don't have any doctors at all.)

Now, on the other hand, it doesn't help that we have a government that isn't very good at spending money. They're good at collecting it, but it's like handing whiskey and car keys to a 14-year-old. I can give you about 1,000 links to real-life true stories of our government spending $10,000 on a toilet in a park, etc. etc. Our government is really good at spending without looking at what they're spending. Which is why Americans don't trust the government to spend, and would rather just spend money on themselves. But Americans tend to spend money like drunk Sailors out on shore leave. Which is why we have so many senior citizens who didn't save money who are relying primarily on Social Security and who need food stamps and food banks for food. This problem isn't expected to get any better, either.

binaryhermit
05-28-2015, 07:40 PM
I'm mildly intrigued by Pataki.
But he has no shot.

littlemonkey613
05-30-2015, 12:25 AM
Add Rick Santorum to the growing GOP potential candidates.

7 individuals have officially announced their candidacy.
8 others will most likely join that list.

My question, how do you have debates with 15 candidates? It's going to be chaotic!

Its going to be spectacular.

GulDukat
05-30-2015, 06:46 AM
Great segments from the Daily Show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/jon-stewart-donald-trump_n_7466874.html?ir=Entertainment&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000024

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/l7uzqg/democalypse-2016---bernie-sanders-kicks-off-his-presidential-campaign

DigitalChaos
05-30-2015, 01:53 PM
Rand Paul on the daily show, this week, was pretty awesome too. They basically double-teamed on the GOP due to their hypocrisy.

Deepvoid
06-02-2015, 12:48 PM
Huckabee won, hands-down, the citation of the week award. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-huckabee-transgender-shower-girls)

“Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,”
“I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today."

Between defending Duggar and wanting to go back in time to channel his inner woman just to shower with girls, one could argue that this guy is a legit perv.

allegro
06-02-2015, 01:46 PM
Huckabee won, hands-down, the citation of the week award. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-huckabee-transgender-shower-girls)

“Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,”
“I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today."

Between defending Duggar and wanting to go back in time to channel his inner woman just to shower with girls, one could argue that this guy is a legit perv.
Huckabee is just an ignorant right-wing religious ass.

This is from January of 2014 (http://m.thenation.com/blog/178064-mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today):


"I think it's time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don't have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That's not a war on them, it's a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let's take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.

He also said this: “[America has to import so many workers because] for the last 35 years we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce.”

AND LET US NOT FORGET THIS! (http://gawker.com/5936386/mike-huckabee-would-like-to-remind-you-that-rape-has-created-some-extraordinary-people)

Deepvoid
06-02-2015, 02:11 PM
Thank you for those. This guy is truly unbelievable. Still have 17 months to go. There will be many more gems coming from him.

DigitalChaos
06-02-2015, 06:26 PM
Cenk Uygur recaps the awesome senate debate from this weekend and ties it into the primaries.


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

Dra508
06-02-2015, 07:32 PM
Add Rick Santorum to the growing GOP potential candidates.

7 individuals have officially announced their candidacy.
8 others will most likely join that list.

My question, how do you have debates with 15 candidates? It's going to be chaotic!


Its going to be spectacular.

I thought I read they were going to limit the number of folks in the debate based on how they are polling. Who's poll? Please don't let it be folks news.

Beyond being comical, the number of people throwing their hat in, it's all about money. All those fucktards are in now, they'll bow out later, so they can brand themselves "former presidential candidate" and start collecting redunklous speaking fees and book contracts.

This one showed up in my newsfeed this morning. I don't think it sounds like Ted Cruz, but I actually haven't listened to the dude talk a lot - honestly.

http://www.thestatelyharold.com/#!Exclusive-Ted-Cruz-calls-Obama-an-Nword-in-secret-audio-recording/cmbz/556c8bde0cf2312d7962f040

cynicmuse
06-03-2015, 03:19 AM
Add Rick Santorum to the growing GOP potential candidates.

7 individuals have officially announced their candidacy.
8 others will most likely join that list.

My question, how do you have debates with 15 candidates? It's going to be chaotic!
For the first debate on Fox News, they'll take the top 10 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/02/whos-in-and-whos-out-in-the-first-republican-debate/) based upon the previous 5 national polls. However, narrowing the field to 10 people from 15 won't prevent the train wreck.

Deepvoid
06-04-2015, 09:58 AM
This guy just announced he's running.

https://youtu.be/MyMosJdIfdo

Dra508
06-04-2015, 02:43 PM
^^^ Does that make 16? That's got to be some kind of record.

Deepvoid
06-08-2015, 01:13 PM
^^^ Does that make 16? That's got to be some kind of record.

According to this list (http://2016.republican-candidates.org/#Declared-Republican-Candidates), there are actually 20 official candidates to date.
Add 6 others labeled as "exploratory". I think you can remove Trump out of those 6.

icecream
06-08-2015, 11:35 PM
Lindsey Graham has a very hitable face. I want to see Rick Perry clock him in the primaries.

GulDukat
06-09-2015, 09:21 PM
Just saw Lincoln Chafee on Rachel Maddow and was very impressed. Before he became a Democrat, he was the only Republican to vote against the 2003 Iraq War. He's unlikely to win the Democratic nomination, but I do like him.

onthewall2983
06-14-2015, 01:44 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHebCS7WoAECikY.png:large

Dra508
06-15-2015, 06:40 PM
Got stuck watching the talking heads on CNN gabbing before Jeb! announced. It's clear that Jeb! is looking to distance himself from his brother, but not his Dad. A talking point I heard two or three times in the course of 20 minutes was "Jeb's an introvert". I feel like I've been pre-loaded. Don't expect Jeb! to do well in the debates.

october_midnight
06-16-2015, 11:44 AM
If Donald Trump becomes president, I'm leaving the planet.

sentient02970
06-16-2015, 01:43 PM
Lindsey Graham has a very hitable face. I want to see Rick Perry clock him in the primaries.

Yeah he's a hell of a shot too. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/14/1393247/-Sen-Lindsey-Graham-Pretend-Shoots-Sen-Bernie-Sanders-with-Shotgun?detail=email#)

icecream
06-16-2015, 03:21 PM
Yeah he's a hell of a shot too. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/14/1393247/-Sen-Lindsey-Graham-Pretend-Shoots-Sen-Bernie-Sanders-with-Shotgun?detail=email#)

That's kinda fucked. Imagine if Obama did that with an opponent's face. Fox News would go apeshit.

october_midnight
06-16-2015, 05:01 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHpdwfsVEAAJYH_.png

Deepvoid
06-17-2015, 03:31 PM
I want Trump in every GOP debates.

Mark you calendars. August 6 is the first debate.

elevenism
06-18-2015, 12:16 PM
Can someone explain to me why The Donald is running?

SURELY he understands that he will only take votes away from more serious candidates in the primary.
Also, his "campaign" tactics are like something from a fucking circus act, and his "ideas" will damage the GOP in general.
SURELY he knows all this.

Is he a closet liberal? Is he secretly being paid by dems to make a mockery of the gop?

Or does he just want attention and flat-out not give a fuck?

Khrz
06-18-2015, 12:30 PM
Or is he there for the money and publicity, and to make sure (willingly or not) that all the other republican candidates will look level-headed, compassionate and educated in comparison, while distracting the democrats and their supporters ?
The louder he speaks, the more attention he gets, the less the other republican candidates will be contradicted or ridiculed. The guy's an inflatable tank. Huge presence, great menace, neatly deflated folded once the election's over.

elevenism
06-19-2015, 12:52 AM
that's a damn interesting theory, Khrz

GulDukat
06-20-2015, 09:53 AM
Does anyone else think that it's odd that Jeb Bush's official webpage doesn't mention his last name in the url?
https://jeb2016.com/?lang=en

It's Jeb! in 2016, not Jeb Bush in 2016.

Dra508
06-21-2015, 02:53 PM
Does anyone else think that it's odd that Jeb Bush's official webpage doesn't mention his last name in the url?
https://jeb2016.com/?lang=en

It's Jeb! in 2016, not Jeb Bush in 2016.

It's called Branding and probably the smartest thing he's done. That and repeating the "I'm an introvert" mantra. Save him during the debates when he sounds wonky. He'll avoid most Rick Perry style blunders, not look batshit insane like Cruz and have a gram more charisma than Romney he could hold on until the convention. That's my theory. He's even put a stake in the ground to grab the independents, and northern republicans (Ohio anyone) reminding us that he got rid of the confederate flag in Florida.

aggroculture
06-21-2015, 03:29 PM
Can someone explain to me why The Donald is running?

SURELY he understands that he will only take votes away from more serious candidates in the primary.
Also, his "campaign" tactics are like something from a fucking circus act, and his "ideas" will damage the GOP in general.
SURELY he knows all this.

Is he a closet liberal? Is he secretly being paid by dems to make a mockery of the gop?

Or does he just want attention and flat-out not give a fuck?

Why does anyone run? It looks nice on the CV (Former Presidential Candidate), raises your profile on a national level giving you an opportunity to get your ideas out there, and ultimately translates into lot$$$a money

elevenism
06-21-2015, 05:33 PM
so aggroculture , i guess you are saying that i am looking at the whole thing the wrong way.

i just kind of assumed that these guys were all hard core partisan folk, but i can certainly see what you mean.

DigitalChaos
06-21-2015, 08:06 PM
Does anyone else think that it's odd that Jeb Bush's official webpage doesn't mention his last name in the url?
https://jeb2016.com/?lang=en

It's Jeb! in 2016, not Jeb Bush in 2016.

RIP in peace

jeb = John Ellis Bush

DigitalChaos
06-21-2015, 08:08 PM
That and repeating the "I'm an introvert" mantra. Save him during the debates when he sounds wonky. He'll avoid most Rick Perry style blunders, not look batshit insane like .

Wait what? I don't think I've even heard this guy's voice... But I'd be curious what an introvert presidential candidate acts like.

Dra508
06-22-2015, 06:26 PM
Wait what? I don't think I've even heard this guy's voice... But I'd be curious what an introvert presidential candidate acts like.

Like this.
http://youtu.be/pb84crlH2Xs

I can't decide if he's more like his mom or his dad. He is definitely doesn't seem outwardly like his brother. I'm way more like one of my brothers then the other so I don't doubt this strategy/spin. I suspect the dem machine will start up some pr on some his past policies that the middle and left will not like.

GulDukat
06-22-2015, 08:35 PM
Election is almost a year-and-a-half away, but Clinton is in good shape, as of now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wsjnbc-national-poll-shows-clinton-crushing-all-rivals-119307.html

DigitalChaos
06-23-2015, 06:16 PM
Can someone explain what the fuck Sanders is talking about here? I get that socialists have some... creative... understanding of economics, but I can usually try and understand their justifications. Not so here...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102694365

Bold is what I am asking about, but I'm including the full context.

HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?


SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you're broke. How do you retire if you have less than $10,000, and you don't have much in the way of Social Security?

allegro
06-23-2015, 08:14 PM
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right?"

It was a rhetorical point.

We don't NEED the choice of 23 deodorants when most countries hardly use any (see this (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/27/are-americans-too-obsessed-with-cleanliness/why-do-americans-cherish-cleanliess-look-to-war-and-advertising)). It's overmass marketing, overcapitalism, at the needless expense of the environment, that benefits no one except the top 1% while children in this country go without food. It's lack of perspective.

It's the concept of the bigger picture. The concept of looking at our fellow man, and not just at the bottom line. Marketing puts out 20 deodorants to see what sells when maybe they should just stick with what minimally works and pay their fair share of taxes.

23 deodorants and 18 different pair of sneakers isn't "economic growth;" it's economic bloat and economic waste and environmental waste that doesn't lead to growth here in the U.S., only growth (and more environmental problems) in China.

Deepvoid
06-23-2015, 11:09 PM
Trump is polling second in N.H. behind Bush.

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 12:12 AM
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right?"

It was a rhetorical point.

We don't NEED the choice of 23 deodorants when most countries hardly use any (see this (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/27/are-americans-too-obsessed-with-cleanliness/why-do-americans-cherish-cleanliess-look-to-war-and-advertising)). It's overmass marketing, overcapitalism, at the needless expense of the environment, that benefits no one while children in this country go without food. It's lack of perspective.

It's the concept of the bigger picture. The concept of looking at our fellow man, and not just at the bottom line. Marketing puts out 20 deodorants to see what sells when maybe they should stick just minimally with what works and pay their fair share of taxes.

23 deodorants and 18 different pair of sneakers isn't "economic growth," it's economic bloat and economic waste and environmental waste that doesn't lead to growth here in the U.S., only growth in China.

So you are saying that large product options were not intended to be viewed as a part of the cause for children going hungry... but more so "This system makes luxury, but it's fucking pointless if it also produces starving children"


It really seemed like he was connecting the two as if the choice somehow causes the starving children. Like, if we only had 1 choice in deodorant we would somehow have more resources for the starving children.

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 12:12 AM
http://i.imgur.com/38ep16C.png

allegro
06-24-2015, 05:15 AM
So you are saying that large product options were not intended to be viewed as a part of the cause for children going hungry... but more so "This system makes luxury, but it's fucking pointless if it also produces starving children"

It really seemed like he was connecting the two as if the choice somehow causes the starving children. Like, if we only had 1 choice in deodorant we would somehow have more resources for the starving children.
Choice is conducted by the consumer, and the consumer is the middle class and that's not a part of his argument. He was asked about economic growth, and was implying that bloat is not economic growth and that kind of economic growth is not as important as a more equitable distibution of income (the other part of the question).

Ugh. Never mind.

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 10:22 AM
Choice is conducted by the consumer, and the consumer is the middle class and that's not a part of his argument. He was asked about economic growth, and was implying that bloat is not economic growth and that kind of economic growth is not as important as a more equitable distibution of income (the other part of the question).

Ugh. Never mind.

I wasn't saying that it came down to what the consumer chose. I was taking about availability of choice, as that pertains to what I bolded.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if his intent was what you describe or how many interpreted it... I think Sanders completely fails to understand wealth generation and other topics of how capitalism works. Not a good sign if a person wants to change a system. The availability of choice also tends to come with reduction in price due to competition. That IS something beneficial to those with little resources.

Dra508
06-24-2015, 10:58 AM
Trump is polling second in N.H. behind Bush.

New Hampsters don't really pay attention. I bet they couldn't tell you that Sanders is the senator from the state a couple miles to the west of them. :P*

*i understand that many regions of this fine country like to have cross border smack talk. I'm just stirring the pot since I was a Masshole.**

**Masshole- what people from New Hampshire call people from Massachusetts.


Heard Bobby Jindal is jumping in. This is getting a bit comically. I'll eat my words later, but it would be nice if the GOP leadership could rein in the peeps and get organized a tiny tiny bit.

allegro
06-24-2015, 02:16 PM
The availability of choice also tends to come with reduction in price due to competition. That IS something beneficial to those with little resources.

No, you are misunderstanding. The choice is ALL PRODUCED BY THE SAME TWO FUCKING COMPANIES.

Did you ever take a college-level marketing class?

See this (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194809/leading-us-deodorant-brands-in-2013-based-on-sales/).

Now see this (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194808/share-of-us-deodorant-sales-in-2013-by-vendor/).

Procter & Gamble and Unilever pretty much control the entire market, with the same top 8 products. The rest is bullshit R&D waste or a write-off. (And they hide a shitload of money in the Caymans so they don't have to pay lots of taxes.)

Until relatively recently, General Motors had nine different product lines in the United States and produced different products within each of those nine product lines, in affect COMPETING WITH ITSELF in addition to other car companies: Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, GMC, Oldsmobile, GMC, Hummer and Saturn. It finally cut loose Pontiac, Hummer, Oldsmobile and Saturn.

Meanwhile, Honda has two product lines with two separate target audiences (Acura being the more luxury target): Honda and Acura.

You can guess why GM was sinking and needed a loan, and Honda DIDN'T.

This is about making the top 1% (Wall Street, not you) pay fucking taxes, which they DID under Eisenhower (that crazy Socialist).

The bottom line is that you focused on one sentence in that entire Q&A instead of the answer within the context of the entire Q&A because you have the reading retention ability of a 5-year-old, especially if it doesn't fit into your own agenda.

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 02:30 PM
No, you are misunderstanding. The choice is ALL PRODUCED BY THE SAME TWO FUCKING COMPANIES.

Did you ever take a college-level marketing class?

See this (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194809/leading-us-deodorant-brands-in-2013-based-on-sales/).

Now see this (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194808/share-of-us-deodorant-sales-in-2013-by-vendor/).

Proctor & Gamble and Unilever pretty much control the entire market, with the same top 8 products. The rest is bullshit R&D waste. (And they hide a shitload of money in the Caymans so they don't have to pay lots of taxes.)

Until relatively recently, General Motors had nine different product lines in the United States and produced different products within each of those nine product lines, in affect COMPETING WITH ITSELF in addition to other car companies: Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, GMC, Oldsmobile, GMC, Hummer and Saturn. It finally cut loose Pontiac, Hummer, Oldsmobile and Saturn.

Meanwhile, Honda has two product lines with two separate target audiences (Acura being the more luxury target): Honda and Acura.

You can guess why GM was sinking and needed a loan, and Honda DIDN'T.

This is about making the top 1% (Wall Street, not you) pay fucking taxes, which they DID under Eisenhower (that crazy Socialist).

Sure, some of the big companies produce quite a few of the options. Still, your second link shows at least 10 different companies. That's competition. Is it evenly balanced? No, it rarely is. And I'm pretty sure Sanders was using deodorant as a symbol to represent all areas of consumer markets that provide lots of options with little moral utility (in his perspective). His reply still reeks of a high schooler who just learned about socialism and started railing against "the evil rich" without taking time to understand how the existing system works.

allegro
06-24-2015, 02:37 PM
You're nit-picking one sentence that was off-the-cuff as an example of PROCTER & GAMBLE (that shelters money in the Caymans). Bernie Sanders being compared to a "high schooler" is just stupid. He knows how the system works, YOU don't know how the system works.

elevenism
06-24-2015, 02:48 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

this quiz was pretty in depth and shows you which candidates you side with most percentage wise.
You politicos should try it out!
i got 98% Bernie Sanders, 84% Hillary, and oddly enough, 62% Huckabee.
it also shows your party affiliation. i got 96% democrat, 95% green, 85% socialist.

here's how it says that it works.

You guys try it out and share your results!

Our algorithm matches you to candidate’s answers based on the following metrics:
Similarity: Is your stance on this issue similar to the candidate’s stance? If so, how similar is it?
Importance: How important is this issue to you? If you forgot to select the importance of an issue, you can go back and update your answers (https://secure.isidewith.com/political-quiz).
Conviction: How committed to this issue is the candidate and how likely are they to follow through on a campaign promise?

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 03:02 PM
You're nit-picking one sentence that was off-the-cuff as an example of PROCTER & GAMBLE (that shelters money in the Caymans). Bernie Sanders being compared to a "high schooler" is just stupid. He knows how the system works, YOU don't know how the system works.

Look, he is clearly arguing from some sort of redistribution of wealth for THE CHILDREN. But doing so will not change the market forces that lead to the current state of the deodorant market. Holding up the deodorant market as a representation of the bourgeois moral failings just seems ridiculous. It's actually hard to believe that was his intent when you put the sentence in context with his entire answer. Ultimately, there are better ways to construct his point that aren't as detrimental to him actually succeeding as a viable candidate.


Take down big deodorant! :P

allegro
06-24-2015, 03:11 PM
Look, he is clearly arguing from some sort of redistribution of wealth for THE CHILDREN. But doing so will not change the market forces that lead to the current state of the deodorant market. Holding up the deodorant market as a representation of the bourgeois moral failings just seems ridiculous. It's actually hard to believe that was his intent when you put the sentence in context with his entire answer. Ultimately, there are better ways to construct his point that aren't as detrimental to him actually succeeding as a viable candidate.


Take down big deodorant! :P

He's not talking about deodorant, specifically, he only cited a few products within the scope of the overall discussion of corporate taxes and economic growth and wealth distribution. He also talks about the elderly, Social Security, etc. But I'm not taking your bait anymore.

DigitalChaos
06-24-2015, 03:36 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

this quiz was pretty in depth and shows you which candidates you side with most percentage wise.
You politicos should try it out!
i got 98% Bernie Sanders, 84% Hillary, and oddly enough, 62% Huckabee.
it also shows your party affiliation. i got 96% democrat, 95% green, 85% socialist.

here's how it says that it works.

You guys try it out and share your results!

Our algorithm matches you to candidate’s answers based on the following metrics:
Similarity: Is your stance on this issue similar to the candidate’s stance? If so, how similar is it?
Importance: How important is this issue to you? If you forgot to select the importance of an issue, you can go back and update your answers (https://secure.isidewith.com/political-quiz).
Conviction: How committed to this issue is the candidate and how likely are they to follow through on a campaign promise?





http://i.imgur.com/ZnPI62W.jpg


I'll have to take it again and be less specific about my views.

allegro
06-24-2015, 04:44 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

this quiz was pretty in depth and shows you which candidates you side with most percentage wise.
You politicos should try it out!
i got 98% Bernie Sanders, 84% Hillary, and oddly enough, 62% Huckabee.

I side with Bernie Sanders on 98% of issues in the 2016 Presidential election. I side with Hillary Clinton on 93%. I side with Rand Paul on 28%. I side with Ted Cruz on 3%.

I got 100% Democratic, 100% Green, 98% Socialist, 61% Libertarian, 12% Republican (hahahaha).

elevenism
06-24-2015, 07:02 PM
Hey allegro , that means you and i side with each other on at least 96% of the issues, considering we are both 2% off from bernie.

Great minds think alike.

allegro
06-24-2015, 08:00 PM
Hey allegro , that means you and i side with each other on at least 96% of the issues, considering we are both 2% off from bernie.

Great minds think alike.

Leftist tree-hugging pinko commies :p

Baphomette
06-24-2015, 08:27 PM
Bernie 97%, Hilary 86% and who the hell is Martin O'Malley? Apparently, I side with 70% of his platform.

Sarah K
06-24-2015, 09:15 PM
Goddamn it if the Hillary marriage equality ad didn't make me cry like a little baby.

IT WORKED EXACTLY AS INTENDED AND I HATE IT

thevoid99
06-24-2015, 10:25 PM
Shit... I'm 99% Bernie Sanders.... at least it's not Hilary, Bush, or Donald.

elevenism
06-25-2015, 03:47 AM
holy shit, me, allegro , Miss Baphomette , and thevoid99 are all about the same.

BTW, O'Malley was my number 3 as well, at about 70%

i just included huckabee at 62 because it tripped me out.

cynicmuse
06-25-2015, 07:01 AM
Heard Bobby Jindal is jumping in. This is getting a bit comically. I'll eat my words later, but it would be nice if the GOP leadership could rein in the peeps and get organized a tiny tiny bit.

Thanks to Jindal's political aspirations, he's been screwing (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bobby-jindal-announces-bid-for-president.html) over Louisiana's budget for years. He wanted the legislature to pass a religious freedom bill similar to Indiana's. It didn't pass, so he issued an executive order instead, pissing off (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/louisiana.governor.draws.ibms.ire.for.issuing.reli gious.freedom.order/56854.htm) IBM. He'd have had a far better chance if he'd properly dealt with the budget issues. Historically, only 3 candidates have won (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major-party_United_States_presidential_candidates_who_lo st_their_home_or_resident_state) the presidential election while losing their home state, and he'd definitely lose Louisiana.

I don't think that Republicans have any incentive to limit the field; the party is still fractured between the social/religious conservatives, the Tea Party fanatics, and everybody else. The candidates themselves have no incentive not to run. For example, Huckabee, Santorum, and Trump all have no shot of winning, but they can use a presidential run for personal gain and/or to shore up their careers as talking heads. Some combination of Huckabee, Santorum, and Paul will endorse the final nominee and they will get political capital in doing so as well. If the Republican gets trounced again, they might actually try to consolidate come 2020. It will also be interesting to see if they learned anything from ORCA's failure (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html) and actually use technology effectively this time around.

The NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-candidates.html) has a nice listing of everybody who is running, thinking about running, or not running.

orestes
06-25-2015, 07:29 AM
My home state has a long history of bad governors but Jindal takes the cake in recent history.

Sarah K
06-25-2015, 09:21 AM
Mine was:

Bernie Sanders - 98%
Hillary Clinton - 90%
Martin O'Malley(?) - 77%
Mike Huckabee - 34%
Rand Paul - 28%
Chris Christie - 27%
Jeb Bush - 23%
Scott Walker - 15%
Lindsey Graham - 13%
Ben Carson - 13%
Carly Fiorina - 11%
Rick Perry - 11%
Marco Rubio - 7%
Rick Santorum - 7%
Ted Cruz - 7%

theruiner
06-25-2015, 09:41 AM
^^

Heh. I got 95% Bernie Sanders. Quelle surprise.

Dra508
06-25-2015, 04:07 PM
Martin O'Malley was Gov of Maryland and Mayor of Baltimore. The later probably killing his chance of being heard without someone stepping on him about how apparently terrible that city has it.



I think I might run for president. I could make some good coin after I don't win.

elevenism
06-26-2015, 12:30 AM
jesus h christ. Ok, so theruiner and Sarah K , welcome to the club.

allegro
06-26-2015, 12:54 AM
jesus h christ. Ok, so theruiner and Sarah K , welcome to the club.

Dude, LOL, it's ETS, this is no surprise.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2015, 01:24 PM
With the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, the Dems just lost a huge chunk of their platform's draw. This will be interesting. This further pushes Hillary into failure. They are really going to need candidates with substance instead of her vapid bullshit.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2015, 01:36 PM
Actually, I take that back. Hillary didn't believe in a constitutional right to gay marriage until ~2 weeks ago. She is even worse than I thought.

edit: 2 MONTHS ago.

Dra508
06-26-2015, 06:46 PM
Actually, I take that back. Hillary didn't believe in a constitutional right to gay marriage until ~2 weeks ago. She is even worse than I thought.

I'm pretty sure Obama was pretty loud about his support on '08 either.

Between this and The Obamacare ruling, this does help the Repubs to change the focus of the campaign. They can say they don't agree, but now it's not really their problem.

This is sorta awesome:

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/853330071423785/

avesjohn
06-26-2015, 07:58 PM
On that political survey, I side with Bernie Sanders 96%, Hilary Clinton 86% and Martin O'Malley 75%.

allegro
06-26-2015, 08:36 PM
I'm pretty sure Obama was pretty loud about his support on '08 either.
Yeah, Obama was against gay marriage in '08.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2015, 09:05 PM
Between this and The Obamacare ruling, this does help the Repubs to change the focus of the campaign.

It's currently a bit of a win for GOP candidates, but it could turn into a win for Dem voters if their candidates bring something to the table to replace these things.

Any bets on what that might be? If there isn't anything pretty obvious, there is going to be quite a lot of fighting to control the rhetoric on elevating a new topic(s).

DigitalChaos
06-26-2015, 09:27 PM
Ok, one last one about Hillary. This woman has no goddamned shame in co-opting something she had absolutely nothing to do with.


Again, she did not support the constitutional right to same sex marriage until 2 months ago (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/day-history-hillary-clinton-discovers-constitutional-right-same-sex-marriage_920321.html).




http://i.imgur.com/I8EYENR.png

Deepvoid
06-26-2015, 09:47 PM
Got 94% Bernie. Wish him luck but the truth is, I don't see him beat Clinton in the primaries.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2015, 10:08 PM
holy shit
It's not too hard to have a candidate that appeals to a wide range of voters, especially with a test like this. It seems a bit flawed. Anyway, I took the test again without being overly specific and I got:


President:
Rand Paul 77%
Bernie Sanders 76%
...
Carly Fiorina 27%


Party:
Libertarians: 93%
Green Party: 82%
Democrats: 76%
Republicans: 54%

Jinsai
06-27-2015, 12:47 AM
Got 94% Bernie. Wish him luck but the truth is, I don't see him beat Clinton in the primaries.

Yep, and that's how this electoral system works.

I would love to take Bernie over Hillary, and I'll push for it until she ultimately wins the primaries (which she almost certainly will). If he is no longer a real option, I move on to vote for the candidate I like the most out of the options on the ballot.

DigitalChaos
06-27-2015, 02:23 AM
f he is no longer a real option, I move on to vote for the candidate I like the most out of the options on the ballot.

You mean you'll end up voting against the candidate you dislike the most. You don't strike me as a 3rd part voter even if they line up with you way more than someone like Hillary.

THAT'S how our electoral system works.

elevenism
06-27-2015, 04:03 AM
Dude, LOL, it's ETS, this is no surprise.

it doesn't surprise me that we all get sanders,
what trips me out is the sanders-clinton-o'malley in that order part, and also how high the percentages are.

edit: also, @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , you have to remember where i'm from.

i always assumed that at least a good percentage of the people i knew thought like i did.

but with the advent of social media, i've started to realize that a good solid 90% of EVERYONE IVE EVER MET is pretty fucking right wing.
This includes long haired rock musicians, mexican graffiti artists, you name it.

So when a bunch of people i talk to turn out to be not just left, but HARD left, like i am, it's VERY surprising and exciting.

Texas is really, really fucking strange. Don't get me wrong, i LOVE it. It's in my blood. I'm like at least 5th generation.
But for some reason, people here tend to be republicans by default. (these days anyway. when i was in middle school we had anne richards, but that was 20 years ago.

Jinsai
06-27-2015, 04:26 AM
You mean you'll end up voting against the candidate you dislike the most. You don't strike me as a 3rd part voter even if they line up with you way more than someone like Hillary.

What the hell?


THAT'S how our electoral system works.

I guess?

allegro
06-27-2015, 10:08 AM
elevenism, ETS has always been the a REALLY LIBERAL forum. If it wasn't, I would not be here. And those top 3 candidate orders are the top three most liberal candidates. Except O'Malley is getting a lot of shit for the Baltimore police. That's just math. Now, they have added some questions and this is what I got:

http://i.imgur.com/Y02lr4Z.jpg


When you look deeper at Martin O'Malley (choose "COMPARE ANSWERS"), you get this:

"We could not determine Martin O'Malley’s stance on this issue"

There was a lot of that for Chris Christie, too.

elevenism
06-27-2015, 11:53 AM
i want my wife and mother to take that quiz.
my mother thought she was a republican because her parents were. Her father was a texas land and cattle man, so that's kinda how that works, you know?
But she has REALLY liberal viewpoints.
And with my wife, i'm just curious.
She's never been really political like i am. She strikes me as pretty damn liberal though, otherwise we wouldn't be married.

Jinsai
06-29-2015, 05:37 AM
i always assumed that at least a good percentage of the people i knew thought like i did.

I assumed that the majority of my friends were on the right side of history in general on social issues, but this supreme court ruling has really pulled some ignorance out of people I didn't know were harboring it. People that I thought were level-headed and logical people have suddenly revealed that they believe the recent ruling is the work of Satan. It's been... interesting.

I took the survey. I polled at 92% Bernie, 87% Hillary.

allegro
06-29-2015, 07:43 PM
Moved from General Headlines because this guy is THE WORST fucking Admin on the fucking planet as far as drift is concerned:


The rest are seriously insane. I agree.

I'm not sure if you think [Rand Paul] is moderate, but his positions on most topics put him pretty far left of most of the Democrats.
Dealing with police militarization, dealing with mass incarceration (which he has pointed out is the new Jim Crow), dealing with the drug war, dealing with NSA domestic spying, ... even his flat tax proposal is attractive to those on the left (flat, but only applies to family income after 50k, yet keeps things like Earned Income Tax Credit and mortgage deductions... all these things very favorable to the poor).
He's way right as far as immigration, abortion, decreasing Medicaid and entitlement (cough) programs, and - really - immigration is going to be a BIG DEAL for this election and that's why the Republicans are pulling out Jeb.

Jeb's also Green (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/how-jeb-bush-s-environmental-record-could-hurt-him-in-2016-20150310). (Well, greener than most Republicans.)

DigitalChaos
06-29-2015, 09:19 PM
Moved from General Headlines because this guy is THE WORST fucking Admin on the fucking planet as far as drift is concerned:


lololol
I honestly thought that WAS the election thread. When I'm using mobile, i just click on activity notifications and dont notice the thread title.
That whole chunk (last 6-7posts) should be moved over here.

GulDukat
06-30-2015, 09:04 AM
Christie will make his announcement today. Yay.

GulDukat
06-30-2015, 03:17 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-a-more-liberal-democratic-fund-raising-landscape.html?_r=0

Very good read on the changing donor base of both parties.

cynicmuse
06-30-2015, 03:55 PM
Christie will make his announcement today. Yay.
I don't get why he's running. NJ hates (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/politics/a-tough-state-for-chris-christie-to-win-could-be-new-jersey.html) him; governors are typically doomed if they can't win their own state (Bobby Jindal has similar issues). He didn't hold up his end of the pension deal. He's somewhat tainted with the bridge scandal. His donors have deserted him for other candidates.

GulDukat
06-30-2015, 04:05 PM
I don't get why he's running. NJ hates (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/politics/a-tough-state-for-chris-christie-to-win-could-be-new-jersey.html) him; governors are typically doomed if they can't win their own state (Bobby Jindal has similar issues). He didn't hold up his end of the pension deal. He's somewhat tainted with the bridge scandal. His donors have deserted him for other candidates.
I agree that it's going to be an uphill battle for him and that he isn't likely to be his party's nominee. That said, people wrote off John McCain in the fall of 2007 and his campaign was in turmoil, and he obviously recovered. Honestly, I have no clue who will be the Republican nominee. I'm guessing it's going to be Bush, but who knows?

Mantra
07-01-2015, 12:52 AM
It's hard to imagine Christie overcoming the bridge controversy. the democrats will bring it up every chance they get and it'll probably be used in every tv commercial. I just don't see the republican party taking the risk on him with that kind of obvious blemish in his history, especially not when there are 800 other alternative Republican candidates.

GulDukat
07-01-2015, 06:13 AM
It's hard to imagine Christie overcoming the bridge controversy. the democrats will bring it up every chance they get and it'll probably be used in every tv commercial. I just don't see the republican party taking the risk on him with that kind of obvious blemish in his history, especially not when there are 800 other alternative Republican candidates.
Christie is such a phony. Mr. "I'm going to tell it like it is, no bullshit" let his underlings close down a bridge for payback and then lied about it, or was so aloof didn't know about it. What kind of President would he be?

allegro
07-01-2015, 11:16 AM
Christie is such a phony. Mr. "I'm going to tell it like it is, no bullshit" let his underlings close down a bridge for payback and then lied about it, or was so aloof didn't know about it. What kind of President would he be?
Heh, like every other President in history. I think the rest of the country doesn't remember or know about the bridge thing that much (or don't care) but they remember that whole Hurricane Sandy thing favorably and Christie is hoping that will help him.

GulDukat
07-01-2015, 08:27 PM
8/6 is the first Republican debate--should be interesting with Trump there.

sweeterthan
07-01-2015, 08:51 PM
There's no way Christie wasn't involved in bridge gate. There's too much cover up to believe otherwise.

Mantra
07-02-2015, 12:28 AM
I think the rest of the country doesn't remember or know about the bridge thing that much (or don't care) but they remember that whole Hurricane Sandy thing favorably and Christie is hoping that will help him.

Well yeah, the general public may not remember it much right now, but if Christie were to actually succeed in the primaries, they'd all sure as hell get a big reminder. Presidential elections have a way of dragging up every tiny little detail of a candidates history and making it a huge fucking deal (Kerry's swiftboat bullshit, Obama's Bill Ayers shit, etc). There's literally zero chance that the bridge scandal wouldn't become a major focal point of Christie's campaign.

allegro
07-02-2015, 01:06 AM
Well yeah, the general public may not remember it much right now, but if Christie were to actually succeed in the primaries, they'd all sure as hell get a big reminder. Presidential elections have a way of dragging up every tiny little detail of a candidates history and making it a huge fucking deal (Kerry's swiftboat bullshit, Obama's Bill Ayers shit, etc). There's literally zero chance that the bridge scandal wouldn't become a major focal point of Christie's campaign.
Yup, and the Repugs are gonna continue to rake Hillary over the coals for Benghazi and her email account. The public has to decide if it cares. (Like I said, people might care more about Christie after Sandy than Christie and a bridge scandal; fucking Marion Barry was re-elected). Kerry lost not because of the Swiftboat but because Kerry was boring and didn't give a powerful enough response to the Swiftboat accusations. Christie doesn't stand a chance next to Jeb, anyway. Jeb's budget is way bigger.