2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Like electing yet another member of the Bush Dynasty or Clinton Machine, both Jeb Bush and Hilliary Clinton "career politicians" that are BOTH boring and unimaginative?

Yup. We do seem to like our royalty also... must be in the DNA, leftover from those colonial days.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Yup. We do seem to like our royalty also... must be in the DNA, leftover from those colonial days.

By mentioning DNA, I would assume that you were just using a figure of speech, which, by the way, would not necessarily be very complementary towards either Bush or Clinton. The Royals of bygone monarchies apparently had a problem with intermarrying historically a bit too much to keep "divine" blood lines "pure," with offspring that sometimes suffered biologically from such practices (as did their subjects).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

By mentioning DNA, I would assume that you were just using a figure of speech, which, by the way, would not necessarily be very complementary towards either Bush or Clinton. The Royals of bygone monarchies apparently had a problem with intermarrying historically a bit too much to keep "divine" blood lines "pure," with offspring that sometimes suffered biologically from such practices (as did their subjects).

Yes, I was using it as a figure of speech.

(And dang, I should have looked over and seen you are also now a mod for Anthropology, and expected a bleeding multi-facetted attack )

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

No thank you. Elizabeth Warren is dangerously wrong on just about everything. (Including her heritage. )

Plus... We elected a 1 term Senator the last time, and look how horrible THAT turned out!

Like what? She's pretty adamant that Wall St. holds too much influence in Washington, that there's not nearly enough banking regulations and restraints on major banks, and that the same stuff which caused the crash in 2008 is still happening today.

All of these things have been echoed by many other experts and economic academics, not that she needs their approval considering that Harvard thought she was smart enough to teach their students.

And if the 'heritage' incident is the worst mistake/lie she's ever told, then you might aswell nominate her for person of the year, because I guarantee you anyone else in Washington has done sh*ttier things than that.

I really don't understand your last point either. You don't like 'career politicians', yet you've a problem when a person has only served 1 term in Washington because, coincidentally, the current President who you seem to have problems with, also served 1 term. That has to be the most ridiculous reason I have ever seen for not wanting someone elected, and is completely contradictory.

FatherTed

Amerika wrote: »

No thank you. Elizabeth Warren is dangerously wrong on just about everything. (Including her heritage. )

Plus... We elected a 1 term Senator the last time, and look how horrible THAT turned out!

I'd be very happy with Warren. Probably after Hillary has finished her term. As for the 1 term Senator currently who is president, he's been great and has achieved a lot considering the shyte he's has to put up with.

Manach

Black Swan wrote: »

By mentioning DNA, I would assume that you were just using a figure of speech, which, by the way, would not necessarily be very complementary towards either Bush or Clinton. The Royals of bygone monarchies apparently had a problem with intermarrying historically a bit too much to keep "divine" blood lines "pure," with offspring that sometimes suffered biologically from such practices (as did their subjects).

In defence of the Divine right and Kings, old boy, the Hapsburgs along with their chins managed sereval centuries of fairly goof rule (as per author Anthony Wheatcroft). So if ever the colonies ever do repent their ways there always are alternatives

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

In defence of the Divine right and Kings, old boy, the Hapsburgs along with their chins managed sereval centuries of fairly goof rule [...]

Good rule? Goofy rule? Not thinking of Pedro the Cruel's lithp, are you? Those allegations were never proved!

Brian?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Like what? She's pretty adamant that Wall St. holds too much influence in Washington, that there's not nearly enough banking regulations and restraints on major banks, and that the same stuff which caused the crash in 2008 is still happening today.

All of these things have been echoed by many other experts and economic academics, not that she needs their approval considering that Harvard thought she was smart enough to teach their students.

And if the 'heritage' incident is the worst mistake/lie she's ever told, then you might aswell nominate her for person of the year, because I guarantee you anyone else in Washington has done sh*ttier things than that.

I really don't understand your last point either. You don't like 'career politicians', yet you've a problem when a person has only served 1 term in Washington because, coincidentally, the current President who you seem to have problems with, also served 1 term. That has to be the most ridiculous reason I have ever seen for not wanting someone elected, and is completely contradictory.

It's fairly straight forward really. Amerika has problems with career politicians and new politicians, except for Republicans.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

No thank you. Elizabeth Warren is dangerously wrong on just about everything. (Including her heritage. )

Plus... We elected a 1 term Senator the last time, and look how horrible THAT turned out!

Saying Warren is wrong on just about everything is a very large throwaway statement. What ideas or policies do you think she is so wrong on specifically?



Personally I think Warren's hard stance particular with Wall Street as an example is very positive. I feel we do need to break up the big banks. I also agree with her that banks need to go back to being just that banks and investment companies need to be just that seperate investment companies. Wall Street and the big bank conglomerations have clearly shown they cannot behave in a manner that benefits the whole country rather then just those on Wall Street.




Personally I am not a fan of Obama as clearly you are not either but thats a pretty broad throwaway comment as well. For me I do not agree with his continuing wars and especially his ultra invasive spying and domestic security policies plus his failure to cut back on militray spending as examples.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Plus... We elected a 1 term Senator the last time, and look how horrible THAT turned out!

In fairness, no matter whom had been elected 2008, Democrat Obama or Republican McCain, they would have had an extraordinarily difficult presidency to manage. The GW Bush administration handed-off a Great Recessionary economy where millions of homeowner mortgages had failed, Federal deficit had doubled, the Dow had lost over half its value from 14K to less than 7K, the biggest bank failure in US history occurred (Washington Mutual), rife with over-speculative and risky (Bush appointed SEC chair Cox) deregulated major investment bank failures (Bear Stearns, etc.), unwatched Bush issued bailout monies were used to throw elaborate Santa Barbara parties (AIG $400K with $20K+ massages, etc.), US unemployment was double-digit, and the extraordinary and wasteful tax expenditures and diplomatic failures associated with the 2 longest wars in US history.

"Mission accomplished" GWB... Now they want to elect another Bush? :eek:

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps she thinks people are sick and tired of electing career politicians... and we'll finally wise up and give someone a chance with executive experience who’s message and drive would move the country forward instead of backward.

That is a fair point. Even here people are bemoaning the inevitable Bush vs Clinton fight for the White House. Yet, then when an outsider raises their hand they are shot down as inexperienced as they have not won an election before......

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

karma_

jank wrote: »

That is a fair point. Even here people are bemoaning the inevitable Bush vs Clinton fight for the White House. Yet, then when an outsider raises their hand they are shot down as inexperienced as they have not won an election before......

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Only if the alternative is to elect a former CEO who was an abject failure, in the hope she would not miraculously be an abject failure as president.

Manach

Sadly CEOs have not the business model, outside Ponzi schemes, of using other people's money to fund their endeavours. That is the domain of career polticians.

Black Swan

Another Bush? Before checking the box, pushing the button, or whatever they will do to elect the 2016 president, voters should review the conduct of the 2000 GE in Florida under the governorship of Jeb Bush that gave his brother GW Bush the presidency.

Hanging chads:



Butterfly ballot:

Fr Tod Umptious

Black Swan wrote: »

Another Bush? Before checking the box, pushing the button, or whatever they will do to elect the 2016 president, voters should review the conduct of the 2000 GE in Florida under the governorship of Jeb Bush that gave his brother GW Bush the presidency.

Hanging chads:



Butterfly ballot:

Jeb Bush immediately recused himself from any official role in the recount.

If you want to look for conspiracy theories about his influence in the count I'm sure you'll find some.

Black Swan

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Jeb Bush immediately recused himself from any official role in the recount.

It was too late by the time he recused himself. The election had already occurred and the damage had been done.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If you want to look for conspiracy theories about his influence in the count I'm sure you'll find some.

Who claimed CT? Incompetence is not CT. Jeb Bush is running for president essentially upon this record as Florida's governor. The conduct of the 2000 Florida GE was a complete and utter fiasco, exhibiting the incompetence of the Jeb Bush led state administration in the planning, coordination, execution, and scandalous aftermath.

ebbsy

Either way lets hope the Republicans can dredge up a competitive candidate this time, as opposed to the last two. Really awful.

Black Swan

ebbsy wrote: »

Either way lets hope the Republicans can dredge up a competitive candidate this time, as opposed to the last two. Really awful.

Today it looks like Jeb Bush (R) vs Hillary Clinton (D) unfortunately. Then again, GE November 2016 is still distant.

Fr Tod Umptious

Black Swan wrote: »

Today it looks like Jeb Bush (R) vs Hillary Clinton (D) unfortunately. Then again, GE November 2016 is still distant.

What about the Governor from WI, Walker is it ?

How credible is he if he runs ?

ebbsy

Black Swan wrote: »

Today it looks like Jeb Bush (R) vs Hillary Clinton (D) unfortunately. Then again, GE November 2016 is still distant.

I would have to agree with that. Does Clinton have anybody standing in her way ?

Fr Tod Umptious

ebbsy wrote: »

I would have to agree with that. Does Clinton have anybody standing in her way ?

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren perhaps.

Warren is further to the left than Obama (American left I should add) and Biden is a dodderhy old fool.

So not a whole pile of choice that side of the aisle.

The Black Oil

Caught a Meet the Press interview with Paul earlier. Felt like softball drivel.

Black Swan

ebbsy wrote: »

Does Clinton have anybody standing in her way ?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren perhaps.

Warren has already announced that she would not run in 2016, and I seriously doubt that Biden would run against the Clinton Machine. So unless a dark horse appears by January 2016, it looks like a Hilliary Democrat nomination today.

Laois_Man

Biden will try to run against Clinton but he hasn't really got a hope. He never will have a hope if he hasn't got one after 8 years VP

The other Democratic front runners like O'Malley, and Cuomo will steer clear of this one for fear of making enemies with an eye on 2020 - a bit like the Clintons in 2008 hoping their own party would lose but trying to appear supportive but really staying out of the way and knowing that by November 2020, Hillary Clinton will be 73 and may not run again anyway

On the Republican side, Jeb Bush I don't think will get it. I think it's between Walker and Rubio although I'd love it if they actually went for Sarah Palin.....just for the comedy effect!

ebbsy

Laois_Man wrote: »

Biden will try to run against Clinton but he hasn't really got a hope. He never will have a hope if he hasn't got one after 8 years VP

The other Democratic front runners like O'Malley, and Cuomo will steer clear of this one for fear of making enemies with an eye on 2020 - a bit like the Clintons in 2008 hoping their own party would lose but trying to appear supportive but really staying out of the way and knowing that by November 2020, Hillary Clinton will be 73 and may not run again anyway

On the Republican side, Jeb Bush I don't think will get it. I think it's between Walker and Rubio although I'd love it if they actually went for Sarah Palin.....just for the comedy effect!

Do you remember her speech where the screen she was reading from packed it in, and she had to wing it ?

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren perhaps.

Warren is further to the left than Obama (American left I should add) and Biden is a dodderhy old fool.

So not a whole pile of choice that side of the aisle.

Joe Biden is no ones fool. He's gaff prone, but he's not stupid.

Thargor

Biden wont run will he?

Brian?

Laois_Man wrote: »

Biden will try to run against Clinton but he hasn't really got a hope. He never will have a hope if he hasn't got one after 8 years VP

The other Democratic front runners like O'Malley, and Cuomo will steer clear of this one for fear of making enemies with an eye on 2020 - a bit like the Clintons in 2008 hoping their own party would lose but trying to appear supportive but really staying out of the way and knowing that by November 2020, Hillary Clinton will be 73 and may not run again anyway

On the Republican side, Jeb Bush I don't think will get it. I think it's between Walker and Rubio although I'd love it if they actually went for Sarah Palin.....just for the comedy effect!

Rubio or Walker? No chance. It'll be Jeb with one of Cruz, Paul or Nikki Haley as a running mate.

Brian?

Thargor wrote: »

Biden wont run will he?

Probably not. He's endorsed Clinton many times. Pity really, he'd be entertaining.

Manach

Focusing on Mrs. Clinton's tenure during her term with Obama will have talking points either way. On the narrow area of Internet and Freedom of information on the plus side (sourcing from reading books/article by Lessig, Grenwald, Harris etc.) Clinton is to be commended for championing the open model of networks and the support for tools to allow dissidents abroad to use the internet without fear of authoritarian regimes. On the other hand (which admittedly could be a plus in some camps) she was part of a government that systematically pursued information gathering to then unprecedented levels and jailed in record numbers people who were alleged to have talked to the press about state security. Thus a complex and competent person, but not easy to define.