2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

I wonder if the Jeffery Epstein sex slave pedofile case that has been breaking news here as of late, which supposedly involves (amongst other high profile politicians) a prince, a Clinton and members of the Bush administration, could possibly help to derail both Hillary Clinton’s and Jeb Bush’s run at the presidency.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Don't forget Rand Paul.

Rand Paul may run in the GOP primaries, but he does not stand a chance against Jeb Bush, Romney, and Christie, being way too far right wing. Neither does Ted Cruz have a running chance.

20Cent wrote: »

Prediction:

Elizabeth Warren V's Romney.

Warren to win.

Elizabeth Warren would certainly be a more interesting candidate than Hilliary, but she cannot beat the Clinton Machine in the Democrat primaries. If by some stroke of fate she did win the primary, I do not foresee her beating Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie in the general presidentials, given her left wing platform.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Rand Paul may run in the GOP primaries, but he does not stand a chance against Jeb Bush, Romney, and Christie, being way too far right wing. Neither does Ted Cruz have a running chance.

Of the GOP contenders, Chris Christie is the most moderate Republican (definitely not far right wing), Jeb Bush & Mitt Romney are ideologically about equals - being just right of center (which is what the GOP usually nominates), and Rand Paul is the most conservative. I wouldn’t count Rand Paul out yet as he does have a substantial donor base and network, and I believe he has a better chance than Christie in the Republican run.

Although I do see Christie being the best chance at pulling in a substantial number of Independent votes and some Democrat votes now that it appears with the team Hillary is building that she looks to be little more than an Obama third term. And I don’t know if all the millions of wage flat liners will stand for a continuation of Obama’s policies.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Rand Paul is the most conservative. I wouldn’t count Rand Paul out yet as he does have a substantial donor base and network, and I believe he has a better chance than Christie in the Republican run.

Once again I believe Rand Paul is too conservative to win the GOP base in the primary, and if by some chance he did, he would not defeat the Clinton Machine in the generals because he would not get enough Independents and Dem cross-overs to win.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again I believe Rand Paul is too conservative to win the GOP base in the primary, and if by some chance he did, he would not defeat the Clinton Machine in the generals because he would not get enough Independents and Dem cross-overs to win.

As I recall the same thing was said about a young upstart, single term Senator from Illinois, who challenged Hillary in the 2008 Democrat primary. Of course she has now brought his team onboard, so perhaps you’re correct.

But haven’t the people in modern US history voted a president from a different party into office after 8 years of lackluster leadership by a party?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

But haven’t the people in modern US history voted a president from a different party into office after 8 years of lackluster leadership by a party?

Apart from electing George HW Bush after Reagan and George W Bush after a stellar Clinton.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Apart from electing George HW Bush after Reagan and George W Bush after a stellar Clinton.

IMO George HW Bush got in because of Ronald Reagan’s improving economy and the decline of the USSR, but he only got one term. Hasn't happened since.

George W Bush belonged to a different party than Bill Clinton.

Flippin

The problem for the GOP is that it is now effectively split. True conservatives (not the 'far right' that the media likes to paint them out to be) won't turn out to vote for an establishment name like Bush, Romney or Christie. And the establishment types wouldn't vote for a conservative candidate like Paul or Cruz (even if they had a snowball's chance of winning the primary). Stalemate for the GOP, and the media's darling, Hillary, in prime position (unless Warren does an Obama).

And if Warren wins, yay, more Socialism. Just what the world needs. /sarc

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

But haven’t the people in modern US history voted a president from a different party into office after 8 years of lackluster leadership by a party?

Bill Clinton was an 8-year president. The US economy did well under his administration. Now another Clinton runs for office.

Flippin

Black Swan wrote: »

Bill Clinton was an 8-year president. The US economy did well under his administration. Now another Clinton runs for office.

And he, not Bush, was responsible for sowing the seeds of the latest/current financial crisis. Legislating that banks couldn't sell their mortgages on the secondary market unless a certain percentage of minorities were part of the makeup of those mortgage bundles was the initial rolling of the snowball that we have all felt the effects of.

And if you think familial dynasties (either left, right or right up the khyber) are good for any kind of democracy, then you've been supping from the media kool aid for far too long.

Black Swan

Flippin wrote: »

And he, not Bush, was responsible for sowing the seeds of the latest/current financial crisis. Legislating that banks couldn't sell their mortgages on the secondary market unless a certain percentage of minorities were part of the makeup of those mortgage bundles was the initial rolling of the snowball that we have all felt the effects of.

"Legislating" cannot be done by US presidents, only the US Congress can do "legislating," and during the 2nd term of Bill Clinton, the US Congress had been controlled by the Republicans. Ever heard of the Contract with America?

Flippin wrote: »

And if you think familial dynasties (either left, right or right up the khyber) are good for any kind of democracy, then you've been supping from the media kool aid for far too long.

Never said that family dynasties were good for the US political system. Matter of fact, I started an OP on the US Politics forum that was critical of such dynasties. Furthermore, I believe that the 2-party US political system is dysfunctional, including its party family dynasties, and agree with the cautions of John Adams:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Flippin

Black Swan wrote: »

"Legislating" cannot be done by US presidents, only the US Congress can do "legislating," and during the 2nd term of Bill Clinton, the US Congress had been controlled by the Republicans. Ever heard of the Contract with America?

Never said that family dynasties were good for the US political system. Matter of fact, I started an OP on the US Politics forum that was critical of such dynasties. Furthermore, I believe that the 2-party US political system is dysfunctional, including its party family dynasties, and agree with the cautions of John Adams:

Thank you, I'm fully aware of the U.S. political system. I never inferred (at least not meant to) that Billy-boy himself, solely, legislated the law. It was his administration at the time. In much the same way it was Bush's when the Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 and, by popular decree, Bush has been held solely responsible for the crisis. They (all politicians) are all culpable in my opinion. It was you though who said:

Bill Clinton was an 8-year president. The US economy did well under his administration. Now another Clinton runs for office.

Perhaps I'm misreading it, but it sounds like you're advocating another Clinton based on a false narrative of the media's Golden Child.

Just to make it clear where I stand. There's only one person who gains when a politician is elected (of whatever stripe) - that's the politician him/herself.

The Piper always gets paid, and it's you and I that pay him.

Black Swan

Flippin wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misreading it, but it sounds like you're advocating another Clinton based on a false narrative of the media's Golden Child.

No. You obviously have neither read or understood few of my posts regarding the Hilliary Clinton 2016 candidacy, both recently, and over the past
couple of years. For example (01 October 2014 post #15 this thread):

Black Swan wrote: »

I find Hillary Clinton (Democrat) a complete bore, and Sarah Palin (Republican) was an embarrassment.

In summary, I find the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans dysfunctional, unimaginative, and boring, including Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie. Odds are one of these above 4 (excluding Palin) will win the 2016 presidency: a sad commentary on US leadership.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

In summary, I find the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans dysfunctional, unimaginative, and boring, including Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie. Odds are one of these above 4 (excluding Palin) will win the 2016 presidency: a sad commentary on US leadership.

Although not my preference, I think Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush would make fine presidents. Both have executive experience and a history of dealing with the opposition party to achieve positive results. They wouldn’t pander to the hard Left or the hard Right. And they're the best chance this country has of reducing the polarization that has gripped our nation for decades.

So who do you think could make a good US President?

Flippin

Black Swan wrote: »

No. You obviously have neither read or understood few of my posts regarding the Hilliary Clinton 2016 candidacy, both recently, and over the past
couple of years. For example (01 October 2014 post #15 this thread):

Ah, sorry. I haven't read any of your 26k+ posts. I didn't realise there'd be homework when I signed up.

Black Swan wrote: »

In summary, I find the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans dysfunctional, unimaginative, and boring, including Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie. Odds are one of these above 4 (excluding Palin) will win the 2016 presidency: a sad commentary on US leadership.

I agree, but I must point out something about Palin. She wasn't an embarrassment as you stated earlier - she was made out to be an embarrassment by a very well-oiled political and media machine.

Go up to the next 100 politically savvy people you know and ask them two questions: Which US politician said that the island of Guam would tip over if any more service personnel were to be stationed there (said in all seriousness). You'll be met with stoney silence.

Ask the same 100 people which US politician said 'I can see Russia from my house'. They'll roll their eyes toward the sky, start smiling and say 'Sarah Palin'.

Go to YouTube and look up 'Hank Johnson Guam'. He's a Democrat - so he gets a pass. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, never said any such thing about Russia. She said Russia can be seen from a part of Alaska. Quite true, but there was a narrative to push, and they pushed it with great success. Such is the power of the media.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Although not my preference, I think Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush would make fine presidents. Both have executive experience and a history of dealing with the opposition party to achieve positive results. They wouldn’t pander to the hard Left or the hard Right. And they're the best chance this country has of reducing the polarization that has gripped our nation for decades.

So who do you think could make a good US President?

Romney did exactly that in the primaries for 2012, he swung hard right on everything to win the nomination. He constantly flip flopped on issues, how could he be trusted as a POTUS?

Black Swan

Flippin wrote: »

Ah, sorry. I haven't read any of your 26k+ posts. I didn't realise there'd be homework when I signed up.

You didn't have to read my 26k+ posts. All you had to do is read this thread you are currently posting in (#15).

Flippin wrote: »

I must point out something about Palin. She wasn't an embarrassment as you stated earlier...

• Palin quit halfway through her 1st term as Alaska Governor in 2009. Why?
• Gov Palin was being investigated by a bi-partisan Alaska legislative committee (8 Republicans and 4 Democrats) during 2008-2009. Why?
• When running for VP in 2008, Palin spent $150,000 USD of donor monies on clothing and accessories ($75,000 in one day at one Neiman-Marcus store).
• Gov Palin 1st favoured the expenditure of federal highway funds to build "The Bridge to Nowhere," but then reversed her position. Why?
• There are many other reasons why Palin was not qualified to hold the 2nd highest US office, but the above are all Palin embarrassments.

Flippin

If the first item on your list was your strongest point, that's a pretty weak argument you've got going on there. You realise she was on the VP ticket in 2008? In other words, *before* she resigned. Anyway, from what I understand, the barrage of lawsuits filed against her office by vested interests was hampering her position. Not that I, nor you, have any idea of the real reason of course.

Now, go off and do the exact same analysis for every other single politician running for office on both sides of the fence. I bet you find all sorts of things to suit your viewpoint. You could start with Joe Biden, and then do Obama.

I look forward to your report.

Black Swan

Flippin wrote: »

If the first item on your list was your strongest point, that's a pretty weak argument you've got going on there. You realise she was on the VP ticket in 2008? In other words, *before* she resigned.

Palin didn't quit governor to run for VP (nor did McCain quit the Senate to run for President). The general election ended November 2008. She quit governor months later and half-way through 2009. Why?

The Alaskan legislative bi-partisan committee investigation of her activities as governor ended at the time she quit in 2009. Why?

Connect the dots.

Flippin

I now see why you have 26k+ posts.

You and I can both cherry-pick factoids to support our veiwpoints. For example, from Time magazine (hardly a right-friendly rag) on the reasons she quit:

"Between her husband's income and her own salary, Sarah Palin is by no means poor. But the Palins have had to spend more than $500,000 to deal with the 15 ethics complaints filed against Palin by various outside groups in the past eight months. Palin has been exonerated in all cases, but Alaskan law states that she has to use her own money to defend herself. More cases were expected, which could've become expensive with four kids (and a grandchild) still living at home."

But the truth of the matter is I have no idea, neither do you, and frankly I don't care.

My original point was that you called Palin an embarrassment. You subjected her to a level of inspection that you have so far refused to do with any other politician - at least in the context of this current discussion (I'm still waiting for your reports). Should you do the same for the other politicians, you'd probably come to the same conclusion - they're all embarrassments.

Palin was subjected to a level of scrutiny that, quite frankly, I wish the media would do to all politicians but it was her burden alone. The cost of being female, non-establishment and right-wing. But your claiming she was an embarrassment is either a refelection of your misogynistic tendencies, biasedness or ignorance.

I'll take door number two.

20Cent

John McCain was losing the female and right wing vote. He needed someone reasonably young, a good talker and female. Palin was selected and joined the ticket. They quickly realised she had very little world knowledge and was prone to making gaffs. Having experts train her in world affairs seemed futile and she showed little interest in debating. Instead against McCains wished Palin started a dirty fight, the "take our country back" and focused on making Obama seem like an "other" not one of us. Serious racial undertones to it.
Palin has been an embarrassment since.

K-9

Flippin wrote: »

I now see why you have 26k+ posts.

Mod:
How many, or indeed how few, posts anybody has isn't part of the discussion.

But your claiming she was an embarrassment is either a refelection of your misogynistic tendencies, biasedness or ignorance.

Attack the post, not the poster please.

jank

Flippin wrote: »

Ask the same 100 people which US politician said 'I can see Russia from my house'. They'll roll their eyes toward the sky, start smiling and say 'Sarah Palin'.

Go to YouTube and look up 'Hank Johnson Guam'. He's a Democrat - so he gets a pass. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, never said any such thing about Russia. She said Russia can be seen from a part of Alaska. Quite true, but there was a narrative to push, and they pushed it with great success. Such is the power of the media.

This is a valid point. I meet a pair of Americans who were very nice but mentioned the above about Sarah Palin, when I know for a fact that they were quoting SNL and not Sarah Palin. The media is very powerful and if you are different and don't conform to the accepted norm, you will be torn apart.

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

This is a valid point. I meet a pair of Americans who were very nice but mentioned the above about Sarah Palin, when I know for a fact that they were quoting SNL and not Sarah Palin. The media is very powerful and if you are different and don't conform to the accepted norm, you will be torn apart.

Regardless of the actual quote it wasn't an appropriate answer to a question about her foreign policy credentials.

jank

True, but it is correct to mention why so many people know about it is because of SNL. It is an illustration of the power of the media to project their own type of reality which is then taken as actual reality. Case in point, the person whom I knew that mentioned it was a High School Teacher.

eire4

jank wrote: »

True, but it is correct to mention why so many people know about it is because of SNL. It is an illustration of the power of the media to project their own type of reality which is then taken as actual reality. Case in point, the person whom I knew that mentioned it was a High School Teacher.

It is a valid point talking about the power of the media. The example of Fox News is a classic example. They very clearly have an overall agenda and narrative they promote regardless of the fact that in reality they are thus a propaganda outlet rather then a legit news outlet.

Black Swan

Unfortunately running for US president before the media and public is like a beauty contest. You have to have the walk, talk, and look that projects a presidential image. PR companies, political consultants, and advertisers make a fortune every 4 years fashioning presidential images. Odds are that Democrat Hilliary Clinton and whomever wins the GOP nomination will need a billion dollars each to run against each other in 2016. What is huge waste of monies for a public media reality show!

Given that Sarah Palin showed poorly in 2008, I doubt that she can raise the necessary donor funds to make a serious run for the 2016 GOP nomination and presidency.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

Romney did exactly that in the primaries for 2012, he swung hard right on everything to win the nomination. He constantly flip flopped on issues, how could he be trusted as a POTUS?

I would say Jeb Bush has no need to pander to the hard right either given his record in Florida as governor there puts him in that corner already.

Thargor

Flippin wrote: »

Ah, sorry. I haven't read any of your 26k+ posts. I didn't realise there'd be homework when I signed up.



I agree, but I must point out something about Palin. She wasn't an embarrassment as you stated earlier - she was made out to be an embarrassment by a very well-oiled political and media machine.

Go up to the next 100 politically savvy people you know and ask them two questions: Which US politician said that the island of Guam would tip over if any more service personnel were to be stationed there (said in all seriousness). You'll be met with stoney silence.

Ask the same 100 people which US politician said 'I can see Russia from my house'. They'll roll their eyes toward the sky, start smiling and say 'Sarah Palin'.

Go to YouTube and look up 'Hank Johnson Guam'. He's a Democrat - so he gets a pass. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, never said any such thing about Russia. She said Russia can be seen from a part of Alaska. Quite true, but there was a narrative to push, and they pushed it with great success. Such is the power of the media.

Sorry but if you were defending pretty much any other politician Id agree but have you actually looked at the content she produces herself? The woman is an utter moron, no redeeming features whatsoever.

Brian?

eire4 wrote: »

I would say Jeb Bush has no need to pander to the hard right either given his record in Florida as governor there puts him in that corner already.

I agree, Jeb has the hard right already in his back pocket. Jeb ticks all the boxes for a GOP candidate, I've been predicting he'll get the nomination since 2012. The only part of the GOP he doesn't have squared away are the libertarians, Rand Paul might put up a fight for a few primaries and then fade away.