2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan · 03-11-2015 9:54pm

The polls seem to be bouncing back-and-forth giving either Trump or Carson 1st or 2nd place so say Republican voters, and way way ahead of the remaining GOP candidates. Neither Trump or Carson have experience in politics or having served as a Republican high office holder, yet both are running for the highest GOP nomination and office in the nation. What message does this send to the Republican party and its leadership?

Amerika · 03-11-2015 10:22pm

It’s obvious the other Democratic candidates are not in it to win it, and refuse to go after Hillary and her weaknesses. So she will have a lot to answer to in the general election, that the media can’t ignore because the GOP sure as hell won’t. She’ll obviously have to deal with her aversion to the truth as brought out in the Benghazi investigation, and her big problems with her handling of top secret and classified information on her private server and changing stories. But add to that 5 other scandals that the media is currently ignoring but will be brought out in the general election of which they won’t be able to ignore forever... The Clinton Foundation scandal, the Uranium Sale scandal, her Younger Brother scandal, her Son-In-Law scandal, and her Health Issues scandal.

Black Swan · 03-11-2015 10:39pm

On the contrary Amerika, as it would seem thus far that Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a serious run for the Democrat presidential primary. The BIG DIFFERENCE between the Sanders campaign, as compared with the Hillary Clinton campaign (and the Republican candidates campaigns) is that Sanders is attempting to run a CLEAN non-mud-slinging campaign. Attempting to run a clean campaign is very appealing to independents, many Dems, and potentially cross-over Republicans. It's brilliant!

The Randy Riverbeast · 03-11-2015 10:47pm

Good, they can complain about Hilary all they want but considering that she is one of their biggest competitors I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Instead they can focus on their actual policies, if you want a president that's good at talking **** about other people then Trump is there. Otherwise you are just voting for the guy who isnt as bad as the others.

Amerika · 03-11-2015 10:49pm

I disagree. Backing her in the Email scandal during the last debate, which is a legitimate issue relating to her paranoia, integrity, decision process on national security matters, and propensity for lying to the American people, shows us he isn’t serious. He'll say what he wants for awhile on the campaign trail, hopefully get Clinton move a little to the Left, and go back to the Senate where he is most happiest.

Permabear · 03-11-2015 10:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Amerika · 03-11-2015 10:53pm

Most of the democrats WILL cover their ears and say nah-nah-nah as the scandals mount and her policies run short, but independents will listen and learn, and it’s them that will decide this election.

Black Swan · 03-11-2015 11:10pm

Only anecdotal and not empirically based, but ALL my friends agree with Sanders comment during the Dem debate about the Hillary Clinton emails: "The American people are sick of hearing about your damn emails!" If the GOP keeps dragging this out for another 12 months up to the November 2016 presidential elections, it will backfire and draw voters way from whomever they nominate. If the GOP loses the independent voters in significant numbers, they will LOSE the 2016 election for president.

Furthermore, it's no longer news, and news (not "olds") gives the media ratings, and ratings draw advertisers. The media is a business 1st, and everything else a distant 2nd.

The Republican-led special congressional investigation into Benghazi (and Hillary emails) has gone on longer now than the investigation into the attack on Pearl Harbor (that started WWII for USA), WaterGate (that resulted in the conviction of Vice President Agnew and the resignation of President Nixon), and the relatively recent national disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Many independents are becoming aware of this and it's not resulting in a favourable impression of the GOP. It's looking more like Republican partisan politics the longer it drags out.

Black Swan · 03-11-2015 11:22pm

This "struggling to distinguish themselves in such a large field" exemplifies the lack of clear Republican party leadership or direction for the nation, and is not giving the GOP a favourable impression among voters, especially the largest group of independent voters that are not registered to either Republicans or Democrats.

This is the flip-side that gives a bad feel for Hillary Clinton among independents methinks too; plus it's boring to have no race to the Dem presidential nomination finish line for Americans.

Manach · 03-11-2015 11:27pm

My hand is down. But this is unfortunate news. From general consensus and my own reading of his works, he is one of finest legal analysts especially in term of IT privacy and campaign cash reform that his run could have highlighted these issues.

Permabear · 03-11-2015 11:37pm

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 04-11-2015 12:30am

Certainly a weakness, when the party is seen to almost be contradicting itself. And isn't that true? How do Republicans stop themselves from legislating against things they don't want under that big tent of theirs? At least the Tea Party made a half-hearted attempted to try and distinguish themselves from the GOP, for about 15 minutes. The loss of the tent shelter scared them back into line apparently.

Also when you get down to it, I'm disappointed Hillary is not hurting more from criticism - better chances for Bernie. That said, it means that the GOP isn't concerned with really tearing into Sanders and Hillary is tanking much of their energies, and spending from her own lobby-backed coffers to do it.

Black Swan · 04-11-2015 3:01am

Sounds grand in principle. If you believe in democratic diversity, there may be some merit to what you say; although many may receive mixed messages from a party without a reliable platform, and decide to remain independent rather than register. Why bother, when independents already have democratic diversity without the pressures (get out the vote calls and door visits) and PAC donation solicitations associated with party loyalty?

There are still two parties within the Republicans, the clueless insider GOP candidates campaigning as usual, and the poll leading 2 blustering polemic Trump and Carson outsiders. What is the poll message here between far behind insiders and way ahead outsiders for the Republican party? Ignore it, and maybe it will go away?

Permabear · 04-11-2015 11:20am

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 04-11-2015 1:30pm

What about the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 championed by Republican President Ronald Reagan that threatened to punish states that did not comply by withholding highway funds? You can enlist in the US military and die for your country at age 18, but you cannot have a beer until 21.

Permabear · 04-11-2015 1:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 04-11-2015 2:21pm

Methinks that the Patriot Act championed by Republican President GW Bush and signed into law 26 October 2001 was perhaps the worst threat to a citizen's constitutional rights to privacy in modern times, as well as stripping any protections that a foreign person may have had, all in the interests of national security. The abuses that have occurred since the passage of this Act have been extraordinary, and cannot be written off as an exception, given its pervasive and highly intrusive nature.

November 2016 presidential candidates, be they Republican or Democrat, should reveal their positions on the Patriot Act.

Permabear · 04-11-2015 2:52pm

This post has been deleted.

fearmhor18 · 04-11-2015 5:39pm

rand paul certainly does, suprised how poor his campaign has been

Permabear · 04-11-2015 6:19pm

This post has been deleted.

lochderg · 04-11-2015 6:20pm

eire4 · 04-11-2015 7:19pm

If there is one thing Republicans agree on saying thats they want a smaller federal government. However their actions are very often all about big government. This so called small government party wants to get involved with how a woman makes decisions for her body or what adults do in their bedrooms. This so called small government party supports the denial of collective bargaining rights for public sector employess. They love bloated military budgets. They love the spying and militaization of police and turning of the country into a surveillence state. They crackdown on whistle blowers who expose government misconduct.
Reality is the Republicans love small government when it benefits big corporations such as fighting environment protection or pretty much any regulation on business as well of course as tax cuts for the wealthy. But equally they love big government especially when it involves peoples civil liberties and national security.

Brian? · 04-11-2015 7:45pm

Is that not wee bit hypocritical? Surely you should be donating to the Libertarian party.

BOHtox · 04-11-2015 8:53pm

long-term game? He'll be 60 in 8 years. Much younger than Ron Paul was 4 years ago. Ron ran several times before his campaign eventually gained momentum in 2012

Permabear · 04-11-2015 9:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 05-11-2015 2:05am

What's berning now?

what role does the DEA play in this, especially if you had half the states legalize and the other half keep decriminalisation?

Black Swan · 05-11-2015 2:10am

Sanders version of Federalism: Returning the Maryjane legalisation (or not) to the states.

Overheal · 05-11-2015 2:16am

The bill, 6 pages long with spacing and cover, basically adds the following paragraph to the Controlled Substances act, while otherwise striking all other references to marihuana or cannabinoids from the CSA and cleaning up the resultant typographical errata:

1 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN SHIPPING OR
2 TRANSPORTATION.—This Act shall not apply to mari-
3 huana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or
4 transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever,
5 marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the
6 United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to
7 the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or
8 sistrict of the United States, or place noncontiguous to
9 but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign
10 country into any State, territory, or district of the United
11 States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the juris-
12 diction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any
13 person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold,
14 or in any manner used, either in the original package or
15 otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory,
16 or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous
17 to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
18 ‘‘(b) PENALTY.—Whoever knowingly violates sub-
19 section (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States
20 Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.’’.

As far as I can see this doesn't reflect how the DEA will work with marijuana during the transition period but the more I think about it that's a DEA problem to analyze, the senate dictating how they did their job would be a separation of powers issue.

Black Swan · 05-11-2015 2:48am

Sanders should have eliminated the "PENALTY" subsection, allowing the states to self-legislate, self-regulate, and self-enforce their own MJ laws without federal intervention; i.e., remove the feds (and DEA) from enforcing state-by-state MJ laws completely (including interstate).

ancapailldorcha · 05-11-2015 1:03pm

I've just deleted a few posts. I would ask those posters to read our charter before posting again.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments