2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

The Black Oil

Me too.

Had a listen to a recent On Point episode today. One of the guests felt that the Bush name was still radioactive. Interesting, too, that the party has never nominated someone who hasn't won all 3 SC, IA or NH - if I heard that correctly. Takes a while to whittle things down, but once some of them start flagging we'll have a better idea of the field.

Brian?

billy few mates wrote: »

I just wondered how you could be so universally unpopular in one large swathe of the country and still expect to win....

Because only the swing states really decide the election. She won't even campaign in the deep red states.

billy few mates

That's democracy for you...

Brian?

billy few mates wrote: »

That's democracy for you...

What's this in relation to?

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

I believe the only person associated in many minds with the word "clown" right now is Joe Biden.

Not running, and plenty of room for more than one pair of comically oversized shoes.

And even though I like Fiorina, I don't believe she would be the top choice for POTUS, I'm just saying she appears to be better qualified for the job over Hillary Clinton.

And I'm saying there's no such appearance whatsoever. It's just a tissue-thin talking point. No-one would seriously attempt to arg-- oh wait Palin was "more qualified" than Obama, no?

Big red clown car.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

But the results of the previous elections that gave control of the House to the GOP and to a lesser extent the Senate indicates that we might be witnessing

Gerrymandering on a massively corrupt scale?

a shift of power.

Oh. Well, who knows. Is there nothing to be said for another lurch to the right? The last several have gone so well. Hang on, no, I mean "disastrously".

And luckily we still have states rights and why abuse of executive authority should be challenged at every level.

Don't see why this would be either lucky, or pertinent.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Don't see why this would be either lucky, or pertinent.

Think about it. You only need 270 electoral votes to win. Democrat states of CA-55, NY-31, PA-21, MI-17, WI-10, IL-21, IA-7, MN-10, OR-7, WA-11, MA-12, CT-7, NJ-15, MD-10, VA-13 and usually FL-27 will get you to 274. Hardly representative of the country. If FL would go GOP, then the Dems have their tried and true other states of VT, NH, RI, DE, DC, NM and HI to fall back on and get 26 which still gets the win.

So a President will cater to the states that put him/her into office. States rights, and the Senate in particular which is 2 per state, can gain some leverage over abuse of executive action.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The Republicans are united in their hatred of her. They'll smear her with as much sh*t as possible and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she loses.

Most Republicans are opposed to Democrats, not Hilliary Clinton in particular; e.g., Party of No. The same could be said of Democrats being opposed to Republicans. It's bipartisan political conflict and mud slinging, nothing more, which US founder John Adams warned Americans about.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well if stories keep coming out where she looks like she's hiding stuff, dark clouds could begin to form over her and she might lose a lot of trust from potential voters.

Hilliary Clinton used private email as Secretary of State, as did Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin while both were governors, but Hilliary Clinton is a Democrat, and that makes a difference to Republicans.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Bush is the frontrunner for the GOP at the moment, and I just can't see him shaking off the stain from his brother's presidency.

Once again, the American voter has a short memory, and they have almost forgotten the Great Recession and 2-longest war disasters associated with the brother GW Bush administration. They have certainly forgotten that daddy George H.W. Bush was only a 1-term president, defeated for good reasons.

Amerika wrote: »

It does seem to be somewhat representative of much of the country not associated with urban areas, or the northeast and west coast.

The South is now more diverse than in its historic Civil War and post-Civil War past, so to make broad sweeping statements today are problematic at best. A 50 state-by-state comparison would be a bit more useful, although with caution.

Hannibal

Hillary will be 69 at the time of the election. If elected she will be the second oldest ever to be inaugurated after Ronald Reagan.

She never bothered me until she gloated on live tv about the savage murder of Col. Gaddafi, I thought that was an indication of her true character.

Still be very odd to see a former president in Bill Clinton hanging around as the first gent (i presume).

A lot of the Republican candidates seem like ultra right wing bible bashing neo-cons to me. It's strange that when looking at them all, Jeb Bush seems the most sane.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

Most Republicans are opposed to Democrats, not Hilliary Clinton in particular; e.g., Party of No. The same could be said of Democrats being opposed to Republicans. It's bipartisan political conflict and mud slinging, nothing more, which US founder John Adams warned Americans about.

Hilliary Clinton used private email as Secretary of State, as did Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin while both were governors, but Hilliary Clinton is a Democrat, and that makes a difference to Republicans.

While most conservative Republicans would dislike anything associated with the Democratic party, Hillary is the #1 target of their hatred. She represents everything they dislike; a wealthy, well educated, northeastern liberal.

That may be true, but IIRC didn't Hillary delete 30,000 emails before she released them? There's just something fishy about her and even though I would view her as by far the best declared candidate, I think she's hiding something.

Amerika

Newsflash people... Sarah Palin isn't running. Sorry to disappoint.

c_man

Hannibal wrote: »

Hillary will be 69 at the time of the election. If elected she will be the second oldest ever to be inaugurated after Ronald Reagan.

Interesting point. I remember a lot of people saying how McCain was too old in 2008 (at 72) for the office, somehow I doubt the same heads will be coming out with it this time round.

MightyMandarin

c_man wrote: »

Interesting point. I remember a lot of people saying how McCain was too old in 2008 (at 72) for the office, somehow I doubt the same heads will be coming out with it this time round.

It's all to do with image. No offence to McCain, but he looks and talks like an old man. Hillary looks a lot younger, but also tries to act more youthful and modern.

jank

In other news Rubio has entered the race.

alaimacerc

c_man wrote: »

Interesting point. I remember a lot of people saying how McCain was too old in 2008 (at 72) for the office, somehow I doubt the same heads will be coming out with it this time round.

Well, no. The opposite bunch of partisans will be saying it, instead.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Think about it.

I have a better suggestion. Perhaps make your point in a clear and concise manner in the first place, rather than wandering all over and then implying the failing is on my part.

You only need 270 electoral votes to win. Democrat states of CA-55, NY-31, PA-21, MI-17, WI-10, IL-21, IA-7, MN-10, OR-7, WA-11, MA-12, CT-7, NJ-15, MD-10, VA-13 and usually FL-27 will get you to 274. Hardly representative of the country.

It contains more than half of the population of the country (by elementary electoral college maths). If you're going write off "urban areas, or the northeast and west coast" as somehow not being Real America(TM), I suppose this wouldn't be "representative" of it. For most of us, though, a majority is a majority.

States rights, and the Senate in particular which is 2 per state, can gain some leverage over abuse of executive action.

The composition of the senate is a federal matter, and thus by definition not a "states' right" question at all. Entirely different from the reserved powers or parallel sovereignty. It's motivated by protecting the interests of the smaller states from the larger ones... the connection to supposed (and of course cherrypicked) "abuses of executive authority" is remarkably thin.

The theme here seems to be the usual "Democrat is elected to a branch of government = Tyranny" talking point. Adjourn to asserting that whatever other branch or level of government is heavier on Republicans is somehow inherently more legitimate.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

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

Gaff prone "politically" yes although for me I get the feel with some of these it is more he actually lets the truth of what he believes or thinks slip out sometimes more so then you typically get from politicians.

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

'The South' isn't representative of the entire country, I'd hope that you'd know this by now.

And it's not necessarily her that is hated; anything associated with the word 'Democrat' is hated down there.

Hate is definitely a word I would use in describing a significant part of "southern ideology".

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t know about my “ilk” but I would have to agree with you about the geographical power and electoral votes. But the results of the previous elections that gave control of the House to the GOP and to a lesser extent the Senate indicates that we might be witnessing a shift of power. And luckily we still have states rights and why abuse of executive authority should be challenged at every level.

A shift of power I don't think so more like a loss of faith in the dysfunctional and corrupt 2 party cartel in Washington. Yes the Republicans took control of the senate last November but the turnout was the lowest in over 70 years at just 36%. Hardly a mandate of change from the people. More like a show of distain from the majority of Americans.

As for states rights Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth in that regard. They love states rights when it suits their agenda and have no interest when it doesn't suit their agenda. The current bill to deny the states rights to regulate chemicals still not tested by the EPA is the perfect example. 41 states have laws that allow each state to regulate chemicals until a federal standard is made which can take quite a long time. Yet a new bill is in congress to deny the states the right to do this.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

A shift of power I don't think so more like a loss of faith in the dysfunctional and corrupt 2 party cartel in Washington. Yes the Republicans took control of the senate last November but the turnout was the lowest in over 70 years at just 36%. Hardly a mandate of change from the people. More like a show of distain from the majority of Americans.

I'm sure some here would attribute the Republican takeover of the Senate to corrupt gerrymandering.

As for states rights Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth in that regard. They love states rights when it suits their agenda and have no interest when it doesn't suit their agenda. The current bill to deny the states rights to regulate chemicals still not tested by the EPA is the perfect example. 41 states have laws that allow each state to regulate chemicals until a federal standard is made which can take quite a long time. Yet a new bill is in congress to deny the states the right to do this.

Personally, I think the Republican Congress should shut down the EPA and let the states determine how best to protect their resources. Obama would veto it, of course, but the debate would bring into the public eye the abuses of EPA regulations and their negative effects on industry and consumers.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Hate is definitely a word I would use in describing a significant part of "southern ideology".

Other than hyperbole, what makes you describe it so?

DavidRamsay99

Hillary has been bought and paid for by rich Gulf States who are funneling money into her campaign through the Clinton Foundation while her key handler is Huma Abedin, who is the top agent of the Muslim Brotherhood at the heart of the US political establishment.

Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then surreptitiously deleted their electronic correspondence.

Were Secretary Clinton’s dealings with the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails that she deleted from her now-infamous private email server? We may never know.

There is, nonetheless, some reason for hope. Yes, it is depressing that even as evidence continues to accumulate that Mrs. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.

Republican lawmakers seem for the most part unaware of Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism, or like John McCain, remain stubbornly in denial.

But with the State Department Inspector General’s investigation set in motion, there is at least a possibility something will be discovered about Abedin that will spark the interest of the party whose elected officials now dominate both chambers of Congress.

The exposure of Huma Abedin is vitally important to the national security of the United States.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/clinton-campaign-kicks-off-as-huma-abedin-probe-begins/

MightyMandarin

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Hillary has been bought and paid for by rich Gulf States who are funneling money into her campaign through the Clinton Foundation while her key handler is Huma Abedin, who is the top agent of the Muslim Brotherhood at the heart of the US political establishment.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Other than hyperbole, what makes you describe it so?

No hyperbole at all. The imprint of racism and discrimination.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I'm sure some here would attribute the Republican takeover of the Senate to corrupt gerrymandering.


Personally, I think the Republican Congress should shut down the EPA and let the states determine how best to protect their resources. Obama would veto it, of course, but the debate would bring into the public eye the abuses of EPA regulations and their negative effects on industry and consumers.

And I would agree with those who point to gerrymandering being a factor. There is no doubt that gerrymandering of house districts has been very common and is a blatant example of the corruption and dysfunction which has seen the majority of Americans lose any hope that the current system can actually work for them.


As for the EPA it certainly is standard Republican policy to attack the EPA so not surprised to see you would like to see it done away with. You do make some very broad statements though. Exactly what abuses are your talking about by the EPA that need to be brought into the public eye and exactly what negative effects on industry and consumers are you talking about?

PopePalpatine

eire4 wrote: »

And I would agree with those who point to gerrymandering being a factor. There is no doubt that gerrymandering of house districts has been very common and is a blatant example of the corruption and dysfunction which has seen the majority of Americans lose any hope that the current system can actually work for them.


As for the EPA it certainly is standard Republican policy to attack the EPA so not surprised to see you would like to see it done away with. You do make some very broad statements though. Exactly what abuses are your talking about by the EPA that need to be brought into the public eye and exactly what negative effects on industry and consumers are you talking about?

They won't let the poor oil corporations "DRILL, BABY DRILL"!

alaimacerc

eire4 wrote: »

As for states rights Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth in that regard. They love states rights when it suits their agenda and have no interest when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Though even more insufferable are those that venue-shop from Federal to State level to regulate or ban something, and then have the neck to call it the "libertarian" position. *coughcough* Ron Paul *cough* abortion *coughcoughcough* Sorry, but if it's evil statist interference at one level of government, it's the same at another.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That may be true, but IIRC didn't Hillary delete 30,000 emails before she released them? There's just something fishy about her and even though I would view her as by far the best declared candidate, I think she's hiding something.

Personally, I delete dozens of emails and PMs every day, and over the years thousands of them. Perhaps I should not run for public office?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Personally, I delete dozens of emails and PMs every day, and over the years thousands of them. Perhaps I should not run for public office?

If your job required you to keep emails, then I would be more worried about being fired than a run for public office. If you job required you, by law, to keep the emails and correspondence, then I would be more worried about jail than a run for public office. And if you’re Hillary Clinton... well, I wouldn’t worry about nothin’. It not like she’s one of us mere mortals, now is it?

And regarding Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin using private emails for government business while governors… Correct me if I’m wrong, but their states allowed for such practices, and allowed THEM to decide what to turn over in the end. Quite a bit difference in the rules regarding the US SoS.