2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ECO_Mental

Oh I forgot and the double posting........^^^^^^^

ancapailldorcha

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Oh I forgot and the double posting........^^^^^^^

Taken care of.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Obama himself turned out to be far more of a hawk than many expected in terms of national security and foreign policy, so for people wanting a more left wing policy in those areas, that's not exactly a glowing endorsement.

If Bush hadn't pushed the envelope of "batsh!t insane" so much as president, Obama's policies would have been seen as very right wing. NSA surveillance expanded under Obama. Torturers escaped prosecution under Obama. Foreign dictators were supported both diplomatically and financially under Obama. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers during his presidency than literally any other president in the history of the United States.

He's no Republican, but he's certainly no liberal. And Clinton is a lot more right wing than Obama.

I could not agree more. Obama has doubled down on the American war machine never mind his taking the ball and running with it on spying and turning the US into an Orwellian surveilence state. You make a good point about his going after whistleblowers as well.He hasn't done anything to reign in the police. In fact the police all over America have been loading up with military hardware and we have seen how they love an excuse to use it.




I just laugh when I hear Obama being described as a liberal or a socialist. He may be many things but he is neither a liberal nor a socialist to put it mildy.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

More than likely the Republican controlled US Senate will stall appointment nominations by Obama until after January 2017 new president assumption of office. If a Republican president is elected, and the GOP continues to control the Senate, they will then begin to stack the US Supreme Court with justices favourable to the Republican political agenda.

If the Republicans really dig in their heels over this and are able to either block a new supreme court justice until after the election or even come close to that I think that could well backfire on them big time come November.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately this will play right into Clinton supporters' hands, they will start spreading alarmist propaganda that since Bernie is "unelectable", not voting for Clinton in the primary means automatically getting a Republican rigged SCOTUS.

How the fact that according to pretty much every poll, Clinton is actually less electable against the Republican front runners than Sanders, is escaping these people (or perhaps, how they're getting away with deliberately ignoring it when canvassing) is beyond me.

They could try that ploy certainly. But at this point Sanders has established himself enough that I don't see something like that making any in roads. In fact next Saturdays Nevada causus is now according to recent polls a dead heat. Quite surprising really given it was assumed Nevada was a safe easy win for Clinton. If Sanders wins Nevada I think that kind of cheap ploy might actually back fire on her if she tried it given the further momentum a Sanders Nevada win would give him.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

O my goodness. If Obama became a supreme court jutsice I think it would be exploding head time for some on the far right.

eire4

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Voters must show some sign of ID at the polls"



Eh, how is that a problem, John Oliver is such a sanctimonious prig at the best of times, this is just moronic.

Because it is a form of poll tax given the cost involved and how hard it can be for some to get said ID's. If any Republicans really wanted to make this a non issue and were so concerned about voter fraud then simply have the federal government issue ID's valid for voting at the governments expense to all citizens.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

America has many people living in rural areas or poorer areas for example with no DMV's or other facilities anywhere nearby to facilitate the issue of voter ID's.
However if Republicans really wanted to solve this made up issue then simply have the federal government take over and issue voter ID's at government expense to all citizens.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ahh so its all about the states when its convenient to the Republican's voter suppression game which this is really all about.


Again I will say it. If Republicans are really so concerned about voter fraud and the sanctity of America elections then at federal government expense have the federal government issue all citizens a voter ID and be done with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well given this voter fraud is such a tiny fraction of the ovreall votes actually cast then even a small number of people being diadvantaged in this manner is unacceptable.


But again this is about voter suppression not voter fraud. Again if Republicans really want to safeguard the voter process with voter ID's then simply have the federal government at federal government expense issue voter ID's to all citizens.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So what if your drivers license is state issued the simple solution is given some forms of federal identifications are already acceptable which you admit yourself is issue a federal voter ID at government expense to all citizens and problem solved and guess what nobody's disadvantaged so even better. Then nobody has to worry about voter frad or voter suppression anymore.

BOHtox

FAO: OscarBravo and others.

You argue Republicans are trying to pass these laws to disenfranchise Democrat voters, but do you also accept that Democrats are willing to try block these laws to protect Democrat voters? Equally unscrupulous behaviour.

If minorities voted for Republicans would you honestly have the same problems with these laws? Accepting both parties have something to win from these laws it's perhaps best to look at it objectively and say 'upholding the integrity of democracy via voter id is probably a good idea', a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

It's been suggested that last Saturday's Republican debate used the words lie and liar more than in any prior Republican debate. In comparison, I do not remember the words being used in the last Democrat Clinton vs Sanders debate. Did Trump use the combination lying liar when referring to his fellow Republican competitors?

Some may think that all these lying claims between candidates are presidential speech, and well represent the highest office of the United States before American voters and the world?

oscarBravo

BOHtox wrote: »

If minorities voted for Republicans would you honestly have the same problems with these laws?

I have a problem with a partisan legislature attempting to disenfranchise people who are likely to vote for its opposition, no matter who is doing it. It's cynical and undemocratic.

Similarly with gerrymandering. "The DNC would do it if they got a chance" doesn't make it OK; it's cynical and undemocratic no matter who does it.

I accept that there's a perception of widespread voter fraud, but - given that there's no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the perception is engineered to justify the introduction of the laws, which in turn have a more cynical motivation.

eire4

BOHtox wrote: »

FAO: OscarBravo and others.

You argue Republicans are trying to pass these laws to disenfranchise Democrat voters, but do you also accept that Democrats are willing to try block these laws to protect Democrat voters? Equally unscrupulous behaviour.

If minorities voted for Republicans would you honestly have the same problems with these laws? Accepting both parties have something to win from these laws it's perhaps best to look at it objectively and say 'upholding the integrity of democracy via voter id is probably a good idea', a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I am certainly no Democratic supporter. I think both parties are at the heart of the problem that is a system of government that is corrupt and dysfunctional and simply does not work for the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.


When it comes to this issue there is a simple solution and that is at government expense federally issued voter ID's for all citizens. Problem solved. But the reality is the cries of voter fraud are a smoke screen to hide voter supppression efforts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are also aspects of a poll tax being involved where people have to pay to get an ID to allow them to vote plus there are issues with many people who may not have access to a DMV because they don't drive and there is little or no public tansportation etc.


But mostly I have to laugh really as I have posted numerous times about this total fraud of an issue. There is a simple solution a federally issued and paid for voter ID. Like it or not voter fraud is being used as a smoke screen to indulge in voter suppression. So if those who claim to be all about eliminating voter fraud through ID why are you not fully behind this simple solution that ends all arguments and takes care of the so called voter fraud issue.


Quite simply when all citizens turn 17 they are issued with a voter ID card. The government helps if you have any issues with documentation and they pay for it. Cards are available at every post office and every federal building and DMV. Each state can actively seek out the roughly 12% of Americans who do not already have a valid drivers license with even roving mobile ID's to reach hard to get to villages or places that may not have any of the above buildings.


I should add that the Federal election commission has proposed adoption of a national voter ID card.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Reading one of the people who started my interest in history, Victor Davis Hanson, who also writes a political column on the DMV. His home state, California, seems to have such a liberal policy on such ids that even illegal immigrants seem to have little official bother to get these.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

"The DNC would do it if they got a chance" doesn't make it OK;

To me, this sentiment has always been akin to the "well we might be corrupt, but Jaysus have you seen Mexico" or whatever. Very poor deflection which fails to address the substance of the issue.

I'm not well schooled on the voter ID issue, but as I understand it the reason it's being regarded somewhat as an attack on minorities is because of the limited range of acceptable types of ID - for instance, a driver's license is no use to somebody of low income who can't afford a car or motorbike.

If ID is indeed to be required for voting and caucusing (and I have no problem with it in principle), then in my view it should involve a free, state issued voter ID which is automatically issued to everyone (much like the idea of being automatically registered to vote). That way, there's no question of somebody barely having the money to put food on the table for their kids being prevented from voting because they can't afford some poxy $100 "service charge" or whatever that is required to get a passport or other acceptable form of ID. If voting is to be free (which it obviously should be), then there should be no attached hoops to jump through which are not free.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Manach

Clinton's campaign seems to have gone to the dogs, shades of Dean's Rebel yell moment?
"
Hillary Clinton would like a barking dog to fact-check the Republican presidential candidates, so much so that she imitated the animal during a rally in Reno, Nevada on Monday.
" - http://time.com/4225438/hillary-clinton-bark-dog-video/

LuckyLloyd

Yet she's going to beat Sanders in SC by ~20 points.

Lots of fluff on this thread imo. The most fascinating election in my lifetime is playing out daily producing a huge amount of fascinating potential scenarios to feast on; fluid polling numbers and big questions about the future landscape of the parties. And we're talking about the voter rights question again. *Shrugs*

LuckyLloyd

I mean we have:



and then we have Trump buying www.jebbush.com (click it!) after him pissing all over George W's legacy in Saturday's debate and then we have pathetic articles like this about rubiOS:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/marco-rubio-south-carolina-219310

His bruises from New Hampshire have healed — and not simply because of his faith. The 44-year-old senator was indeed humbled by the humiliation he suffered before heading to South Carolina, but his chances of capturing the Republican nomination haven’t completely gone south. Donald Trump sits high atop the polls here, but Rubio is positioned to finish either second or third. A poll Monday night taken entirely after Saturday's debate shows Rubio tied for second with Ted Cruz at 18 percent.

If Rubio simply finishes ahead of Jeb Bush, who is polling a distant fourth or fifth in some surveys, and emerges from this state, always critical to his chances, as the establishment’s comeback kid, it will be because of his campaign’s quick adjustment in the face of adversity — and its unwavering faith in the candidate himself.

Such great political theatre watching the Republican party eat itself.