2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

. And if you haven’t noticed Obama’s failure as president gave the House, and then the Senate, (all of Congress) back to the GOP.

LOL What is the GOP led congress approval rating atm 10-20% yeah they are doing a great job. Obama is in the mid 40% so he is at least twice as good at his job than the GOP in congress.

Overheal

Fiorina's canned answers kept going at "Republicans and Democrats alike" not sure how that strategy will play out for her. Trying to steal votes from Hillary? Not likely though. I also thought one of her responses was tragically funny:

"We will put [5000?] troops in Germany to show 'that we stand with our allies.'"

I don't think it has to be quite that literal..

A lot of the candidates made good points on a range of issues, but nothing from which has made me think "that person needs to be president" just things like "I wouldn't mind if they were on the budget committee" (Rand). Also Trump (or anyone) going against the TPP kinda surprised me, I want to see more discussion on that issue.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

That makes 2. More than I expected. I wasn’t aware of it and missed it. I’ve looked on cable TV for a replay but haven’t found it... yet.

Will you be watching the GOP debate tonight? Probably the best and most informative GOP debate will be on display tonight on the Fox Business Network. Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo and Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker will be on point, fair, challenging and won’t let the candidates get away anything. We'll see some tough questions about economic policy, nothing about a comic book candidacy, and far from some softball debates the Democrats are accustomed to. So, if you want a to see a circus put on for ratings, I’d suggest you skip this debate. But if you want to see a real debate on economic policy where the candidates better come prepared, then this is the one to catch.

I’m not fond of FBN not including Chris Cristie in the debate. I thought for sure his little bump in the polls would have gotten him on stage. Won’t be voting for him but would have liked hearing what he had to say on economic policy.

You just cannot help yourself with the snide comments about who watched or didn't watch the last Democratic debate.


As for last nights Republican debate yes I did see it.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Surely you jest. Hillary’s policies will drive more businesses out of the country, will raise the unemployment rate, will cause a decrease in middle class average wages, will cause the government to become even bigger, will increase taxes, will cause higher deficits through increased spending, increase entitlements without any way to pay for them, decrease our international standing, and fail to address the debt and it’s growing required interest payments. The majority of her plans will be an Obama third term. And if you haven’t noticed Obama’s failure as president gave the House, and then the Senate, (all of Congress) back to the GOP.

A lot of nostradamus like predictions there. A bit ironic too to bring up the house and the senate who are even more disliked by the majority of Americans then the President is given their pathetic approval rating in the low to mid teens. Another example of how broken, corrupt and dysfunctional the American political system is and very much at the core of why so many have given up on the system and turnout at elections is so low and embarrassing for a country that claims to be a democracy.

lochderg

Amerika wrote: »

Surely you jest. Hillary’s policies will drive more businesses out of the country, will raise the unemployment rate, will cause a decrease in middle class average wages, will cause the government to become even bigger, will increase taxes, will cause higher deficits through increased spending, increase entitlements without any way to pay for them, decrease our international standing, and fail to address the debt and it’s growing required interest payments. The majority of her plans will be an Obama third term. And if you haven’t noticed Obama’s failure as president gave the House, and then the Senate, (all of Congress) back to the GOP.

sorry-but who was at the helm at when the world crashed? -or is my glass half empty again/

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

Apparently the wifi password for the media at the debate was stophillary. Lol

True.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/11/10/GOP-debate-Reporters-must-type-Stop-Hillary-as-WiFi-password/5801447174725/

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/664098026999439360

Amerika

lochderg wrote: »

sorry-but who was at the helm at when the world crashed? -or is my glass half empty again/

I'd say a Democratic controlled Congress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

I'd say a Democratic controlled Congress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

If that's the case would you lay blame for what you have said here on numerous occasions that for the last 7 years they have been the worst disaster politically and economically for America (since the War of Independence) on the GOP congress since they have been in complete control in both houses for most of it.

The way you shift the goal posts Amerika all the time, "Its like trying to mind mice at a crossroad"

So whats it to be ?? Is it Congress that runs the country or is it POTUS or does it depend on which way the wind is blowing today

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

The majority of her plans will be an Obama third term.

You're more optimistic than I. But your lips to the non-existent deity's ear! Given the alternatives, can only be an outcome to be devoutly wished.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Ryan also did well going back to his Libertarian roots.

A candidate who's so stridently anti-abortion that he's sponsored legislation to try to establish zygotic personhood. That's federal legislation, mind. So much for "states' rights" as even a fig-leaf. And is campaigning in front of aircraft carriers. That he can be in any way thought of as "the libertarian candidate" speaks to just how authoritarian the Republican median is, these days. Or indeed, what a movable feast "libertarianism" is in the first place.

Overheal

"But Al, Al, listen - that is too important an issue to leave to the states. The federal government must defend life. God bless america!"

alaimacerc

Brian? wrote: »

Having said that, she is still a more desirable candidate than any of the GOP gang because of her liberal stance on social issues. Hilary should be more desirable to the libertarians as well, she's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Or is she too heavy on the crony capitalism for libertarians?

No, she's too heavy on the "meaningful economic role for the state of any kind" aspect. Self-identifying Libertarians care considerably more about economic issues than social ones.

Rand Paul's running as, in his own words, a fiscal conservative. Which is to say (in mine!) that he'd like the votes of people who perceive the state as doing things not in their direct economic self-interest, which it should instead do less, and give them a nice big tax cut instead.

alaimacerc

Overheal wrote: »

"But Al, Al, listen - that is too important an issue to leave to the states. The federal government must defend life. God bless america!"

Strategically, of course, he broadly would like to leave it to the states. And then criminalize the heck out of abortion at state level, where possible. But tactically, that'd be seen as "soft" on the issue for Primary purposes. So file it along with the aircraft carrier. One side's "sure, isn't that what you have to do to get elected" is the other's "fatally compromised". All depending on which it is one wishes to give a pass to.

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

If that's the case would you lay blame for what you have said here on numerous occasions that for the last 7 years they have been the worst disaster politically and economically for America (since the War of Independence) on the GOP congress since they have been in complete control in both houses for most of it.

The way you shift the goal posts Amerika all the time, "Its like trying to mind mice at a crossroad"

So whats it to be ?? Is it Congress that runs the country or is it POTUS or does it depend on which way the wind is blowing today

Congress can't do much when Obama threatens to veto just about everything coming out of the Republican controlled congress, and they can't get enough votes from the Democrats to override a veto.

Did the crash happen on GWB’s watch… yes, although I put the crash primarily on a Democratic controlled Congress, but Bush is culpable for not trying harder to get Congress to recognize what was coming down the road. But blame depends on the situation. As examples... I blame Bush primarily for the 2003 Iraq war. ISIS on Obama. I give equal credit to both Clinton and Congress for working together and passing welfare reform. Both Obama and Congress (although no Republican voted for it) get blame for the monstrosity that is ObamaCare. Failure to have budgets for many years on Congress. Massive increases in US dept on Obama and Congress. And if the illegal travesty on immigration goes through it will squarely be on Obama as he did it by Executive Order.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

A candidate who's so stridently anti-abortion that he's sponsored legislation to try to establish zygotic personhood. That's federal legislation, mind. So much for "states' rights" as even a fig-leaf. And is campaigning in front of aircraft carriers. That he can be in any way thought of as "the libertarian candidate" speaks to just how authoritarian the Republican median is, these days. Or indeed, what a movable feast "libertarianism" is in the first place.

Perhaps he's learned from Obama that Executive Orders now overrides just about all laws, at least in the short term and when you have a politically loyal Attorney General.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Congress can't do much when Obama threatens to veto just about everything coming out of the Republican controlled congress, and they can't get enough votes from the Democrats to override a veto.

Did the crash happen on GWB’s watch… yes, although I put the crash primarily on a Democratic controlled Congress, but Bush is culpable for not trying harder to get Congress to recognize what was coming down the road. But blame depends on the situation. As examples... I blame Bush primarily for the 2003 Iraq war. ISIS on Obama. I give equal credit to both Clinton and Congress for working together and passing welfare reform. Both Obama and Congress (although no Republican voted for it) get blame for the monstrosity that is ObamaCare. Failure to have budgets for many years on Congress. Massive increases in US dept on Obama and Congress. And if the illegal travesty on immigration goes through it will squarely be on Obama as he did it by Executive Order.

Do you know how many Vetos Obama has used versus his predecessors?

Amerika

lochderg wrote: »

sorry-but who was at the helm at when the world crashed? -or is my glass half empty again/

When did someone become responsible for the world?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Do you know how many Vetos Obama has used versus his predecessors?

Well, there wouldn’t be many vetoes when his party controlled Congress. And wouldn’t it just be a waste of time for Congress to submit legislation to the president when he already declared ahead of time that he would veto a bill, and Congress wouldn’t have enough votes to overcome the veto?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Well, there wouldn’t be many vetoes when his party controlled Congress. And wouldn’t it just be a waste of time for Congress to submit legislation to the president when he already declared ahead of time that he would veto a bill, and Congress wouldn’t have enough votes to overcome the veto?

That's a fairly hollow excuse. The democrats did it when GWB was president. The answer you don't want to give is 5. That's total vetos, 5.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
]

The lowest number of total vetos since Warren Harding. Yet Obama is painted as an obstructionist.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

That's a fairly hollow excuse. The democrats did it when GWB was president. The answer you don't want to give is 5. That's total vetos, 5.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
]

The lowest number of total vetos since Warren Harding. Yet Obama is painted as an obstructionist.

Personally, I think GWB was a sell out... trading non-vetoes for Democratic support on the Iraq war at the time.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Well, there wouldn’t be many vetoes when his party controlled Congress. And wouldn’t it just be a waste of time for Congress to submit legislation to the president when he already declared ahead of time that he would veto a bill, and Congress wouldn’t have enough votes to overcome the veto?

Remind me again how many times congress/the senate tried to pass some type of Stop Obamacare Act?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps he's learned from Obama that Executive Orders now overrides just about all laws, at least in the short term and when you have a politically loyal Attorney General.

It's uncertain why anyone makes an issue of executive orders issued by Obama when compared to former presidents, given that Obama's average per year is the lowest of presidents since Grover Cleveland-I many presidents and years ago.

Effective 20 September 2015 Obama had issued 219 executive orders for an average of 33 per year, while GW Bush issued 291 for an average of 36 per year, and Ronald Reagan issued 381 for average of 48 per year. Obama might catch Bush, but it's very unlikely that he will catch Reagan before leaving office.

Of course none of these former presidents will match FDR with 3,721 executive orders for an average of 307 per year. If anyone wants to suggest executive order abuse, they should challenge FDR's yearly average, not way behind Obama. To do otherwise just appears to be partisan polemics.

Should the Republican and Democrat 2016 candidates be asked a question about their anticipated use of executive orders in the next debate?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

It's uncertain why anyone makes an issue of executive orders issued by Obama when compared to former presidents, given that Obama's average per year is the lowest of presidents since Grover Cleveland-I many presidents and years ago.

Effective 20 September 2015 Obama had issued 219 executive orders for an average of 33 per year, while GW Bush issued 291 for an average of 36 per year, and Ronald Reagan issued 381 for average of 48 per year. Obama might catch Bush, but it's very unlikely that he will catch Reagan before leaving office.

Of course none of these former presidents will match FDR with 3,721 executive orders for an average of 307 per year. If anyone wants to suggest executive order abuse, they should challenge FDR's yearly average, not way behind Obama. To do otherwise just appears to be partisan polemics.

Quantity is not the issue, but rather the legality, significance and consequence. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive the responsibility to enforce them. Obama’s use of Executive Orders is sometimes writing or rewriting laws. The president's unilateral suspension of statutes should be considered illegal. While the president does have discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion to change them.

Should the Republican and Democrat 2016 candidates be asked a question about their anticipated use of executive orders in the next debate?

That would be a great idea. Of course we know from recent history some would lie.

I'd give the constitutional scholar and "F."

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Quantity is not the issue, but rather the legality, significance and consequence. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive the responsibility to enforce them. Obama’s use of Executive Orders is sometimes writing or rewriting laws. The president's unilateral suspension of statutes should be considered illegal. While the president does have discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion to change them.

Numbers are objective and do count, while interpretation is subjective and all too often influenced by individual value judgments. None of us are value-free in our subjective observations (see Max Weber in Economy and Society).

Has there been a question in the last few debates by Democrats or Republicans about their proposed use of executive orders if elected 2016? I don't recall one.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Numbers are objective and do count, while interpretation is subjective and all too often influenced by individual value judgments. None of us are value-free in our subjective observations (see Max Weber in Economy and Society).

Has there been a question in the last few debates by Democrats or Republicans about their proposed use of executive orders if elected 2016? I don't recall one.

Yes numbers are objective, but misuse can be quite dangerous. The way Obama uses Executive Orders has grave consequences for the future, because if they are not shot down they set precedence, and could give the Executive Branch too much power and render Congress impotent. Who here thinks the misuse and overreach of Executive Orders will stop with President Obama, or will they be utilized to the same extent by future presidents?

I saw all the debates except for the Democratic MSNBC debate. I don’t recall a question on Executive Orders being brought up either. It would make a great Facebook question for the next debate, though.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Remind me again how many times congress/the senate tried to pass some type of Stop Obamacare Act?

Quite a bit, but how many actual bills on the matter reached the president's desk? I recall one. Talking with industry experts, the Democrats should hope the Republicans get ObamaCare repealed now, as it has become an abject failure, with much lower enrollment numbers than promised, skyrocketing premiums, and the refusal of our government to let us know how much they have had to subsidize providers because of losses. The medical insurance carrier in my state (Blue Shield) dropped everyone, EVERYONE, from their current ObamaCare plans this year, me included, when they couldn’t get their enormous rate increases approved. Expectations are mounting ObamaCare will fail by 2017 if major changes aren’t made immediately.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Yes numbers are objective, but misuse can be quite dangerous. The way Obama uses Executive Orders has grave consequences for the future, because if they are not shot down they set precedence, and could give the Executive Branch too much power and render Congress impotent. Who here thinks the misuse and overreach of Executive Orders will stop with President Obama, or will they be utilized to the same extent by future presidents?

Executive orders are part of the check-and-balances of the 3-branch US political system, and Obama has issued the least in decades of any president (EO average per year). Any of his EOs can be challenged by either the congressional branch (now controlled by Republicans) through legislation, or the US Supreme Court. That's why the worst thing that can happen is to have 1-party control of 2-branches (presidency and congress), along with eventual stacking of the Supreme Court, eliminating the 3-branch check-and-balance system of government. Of course, both the Democrats and Republicans want 1-party control so they can EO or legislate or court rule with extreme bias in favour of their narrow interests without opposing branch challenge.

Amerika wrote: »

I saw all the debates except for the Democratic MSNBC debate. I don’t recall a question on Executive Orders being brought up either. It would make a great Facebook question for the next debate, though.

Why don't you propose it for debate by both parties on their respective Facebook accounts? If so, I would recommend that you not be too partial by attacking Obama, rather just pose the question to 2016 candidates. I don't have (nor want) a Facebook account, or I would. Who knows, you might be heard?

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Quite a bit, but how many actual bills on the matter reached the president's desk? I recall one. Talking with industry experts, the Democrats should hope the Republicans get ObamaCare repealed now, as it has become an abject failure, with much lower enrollment numbers than promised, skyrocketing premiums, and the refusal of our government to let us know how much they have had to subsidize providers because of losses. The medical insurance carrier in my state (Blue Shield) dropped everyone, EVERYONE, from their current ObamaCare plans this year, me included, when they couldn’t get their enormous rate increases approved. Expectations are mounting ObamaCare will fail by 2017 if major changes aren’t made immediately.

I've worked for two insurance companies. Profits soared after Obamacare was introduced. Everybody got their full bonuses paid. Then there was a year when the flu shot was useless and they needed a new batch...more $$. ObamaCare will not fail. It might be twisted and molded into whatever the big money interests prefer but it's here to stay. (Unless Sanders gets elected) Why would insurance companies want to revoke something which is effectively forcing everybody to buy insurance....

Obamacare is not social medicine. It's a machine to print money

The other great one, I always hear people raving about are the ObamaPhones....People will question why somebody that doesn't work deserves a phone that they are paying for without asking the big question.. Who's profiting off this?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Executive orders are part of the check-and-balances of the 3-branch US political system, and Obama has issued the least in decades of any president (EO average per year). Any of his EOs can be challenged by either the congressional branch (now controlled by Republicans) through legislation, or the US Supreme Court. That's why the worst thing that can happen is to have 1-party control of 2-branches (presidency and congress), along with eventual stacking of the Supreme Court, eliminating the 3-branch check-and-balance system of government. Of course, both the Democrats and Republicans want 1-party control so they can EO or legislate or court rule with extreme bias in favour of their narrow interests without opposing branch challenge.

But that is exactly what is happening now. Polarity in Congress makes it ineffective without the ability to overcome a presidential veto, overreach of the presidential powers, and a SCOTUS filled with ideologues more interested in progressing party politics than adhering to law.

Why don't you propose it for debate by both parties on their respective Facebook accounts? If so, I would recommend that you not be too partial by attacking Obama, rather just pose the question to 2016 candidates. I don't have (nor want) a Facebook account, or I would. Who knows, you might be heard?

I also don't do Facebook. And my better half's ideologies make me look like a liberal by comparison, so an unbiased question is out of the question.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

But that is exactly what is happening now. Polarity in Congress makes it ineffective without the ability to overcome a presidential veto, overreach of the presidential powers, and a SCOTUS filled with ideologues more interested in progressing party politics than adhering to law.

Are you suggesting that the Republican controlled US Senate and US House are ineffective in regards to their check-and-balance of the Executive? That seems incredible, and does not speak well for the controlling Republican office holders.