2016 American Presidential Campaign

[Kittycat5]

Why do people on the left not give dr Ben Carson even a thought? Seems a bit odd I'd hate to say if he wins the primary there will be a lot of what happened with Obama only flipped around. Republicans will accuse dems as being racist for attacking him on the issues just like what happened with Obama. It will be a circus regardless IMO

I like some of what he says, but feel he will cave to the base and Congress. Thats the problem with Republcans for the most part.

 

[nuttynutskin]

it looks like America will get president it deserves.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[jammin83]

Yeah^

Man, I think I just might sit this one out, then I can't blame myself for the ensuing shit storm. I don't think the dems can win this year and I'm not sure I'd want them too, the republicans this year seem worse than ever. Just don't fucking know man. Don't fucking know.

What did you guys think of the drug talk? Christie was sickening as usual. Gonna shut down CO's recreational mj. Carlie gave a sad story without really stating what she would do but insisted we need to do 'something'. Paul did better than people give him credit for, but is Rand after all. Bush admitted he smoked the reefer with pride but still has his beef with it.

Seems like:

 

[alasdairm]

What's that supposed to mean?

he's paraphrasing joseph de maistre.

alasdair

 

[Cliffy78]

Yeah^

Man, I think I just might sit this one out, then I can't blame myself for the ensuing shit storm. I don't think the dems can win this year and I'm not sure I'd want them too, the republicans this year seem worse than ever. Just don't fucking know man. Don't fucking know.

What did you guys think of the drug talk? Christie was sickening as usual. Gonna shut down CO's recreational mj. Carlie gave a sad story without really stating what she would do but insisted we need to do 'something'. Paul did better than people give him credit for, but is Rand after all. Bush admitted he smoked the reefer with pride but still has his beef with it.

Seems like:

Haaaaaaaa!!! I forgot about that South Park, perfect!!!

 

[socko]

he's paraphrasing joseph de maistre.

alasdair

Yes - it's cool that you know that. In a democracy, the people have the power and the responsibility to elect a good government. I was responding mostly to herbavore's post.

Instead of living up to the responsibility of electing a good government, people only think of their own short term interests and fantasies (which is the reason the 99.9% (including the working poor) worship the 0.1% as she said ).

 

[Phil.McKeer]

Each day that passes sees Bernie Sanders edge closer and closer to the lead in the Democratic race. I predict that Sanders, against all former odds, will clinch the nomination at the Democratic primary, and of course will absolutely trounce any Republican regardless of whom the GOP nominates as their presidential candidate (none of these Republicans stand a chance of winning against ANY Democrat - none).

I predict he will be elected by a large landslide victory, explicitly producing a mandate for a national movement aimed at making major changes in the structure and function of our government. We may be on the cusp of a second rebirth of American liberty (the real kind, not the right wing kind where "liberty" means corporations and monied interests can molest and steal from you and yours as they wish with absolute impunity).

This is my little fantasy, but I predict that it is not only possible, but increasingly probable.

Sorry to everyone who fantasizes about having a corporatist, racist, fascist oligarch as their POTUS.

 

[ArCi]

Boy, are you in for a surprise

 

[herbavore]

Each day that passes sees Bernie Sanders edge closer and closer to the lead in the Democratic race. I predict that Sanders, against all former odds, will clinch the nomination at the Democratic primary, and of course will absolutely trounce any Republican regardless of whom the GOP nominates as their presidential candidate (none of these Republicans stand a chance of winning against ANY Democrat - none).

I predict he will be elected by a large landslide victory, explicitly producing a mandate for a national movement aimed at making major changes in the structure and function of our government. We may be on the cusp of a second rebirth of American liberty (the real kind, not the right wing kind where "liberty" means corporations and monied interests can molest and steal from you and yours as they wish with absolute impunity).

This is my little fantasy, but I predict that it is not only possible, but increasingly probable.

Sorry to everyone who fantasizes about having a corporatist, racist, fascist oligarch as their POTUS.

I want your fantasy, Phil. Both as a fantasy and as a reality. I'm such a pessimist that I can't even have the damn fantasy.

 

[spacejunk]

I sure hope you're right, phil!

 

[socko]

Sanders would be a better choice. The big democratic candidate is too divisive, universally repugnant, evil (I hope I'm not being sexist by saying that, but she does and has always come across as having the morals of 'Circe Lanister' from Game of Thrones or just Hitler's twin sister), and has too many problems.

As I have warned the world many times before, I fear that if Clinton is nominated, the world will see Trump or another 8 years of Bush. Bush III in this case. Even among Democrats and "independents", she is too divisive a character. Many voters will flock to the Green Party or whatever third party has the least repulsive alternate candidate. Taht will ruin the Democrats' hopes for winning the election. I try over and over to warn people of this disgraceful future scenario. I hope I don't have to come back here in 2 years and say "I told you so." Heed my warning.

If you doubt me, look at what nominating Al Gore gave the world - Bush II and everythign he unleashed. And I was warning Democrats way back then that nominating him would have that very result. Like Hilary Cliton, he was too polarizing and divisive. The world would have been a better place if people had listened to my warning and followed my advice. You all have been warned.

In comparison, too bad Shirley Chisholm isn't running. I think she would be the best candidate.

 

[Droppersneck]

Wow socko and I are on the same page. Never thought I would see the day ?

 

[spacejunk]

^ you're voting for Bernie now? Good for you, son.

 

[Droppersneck]

I do not disagree with everything he says. But being a social democrat I just couldn't get all gung Ho about him. I'd certainly take him over Hilary. I'd vote for him over bush, but probably not trump or Carson. Unfortunately when you are completely unbiased it makes choosing a candidate not very clear cut. When you factor in how much power the president actually has you can get a little more liberal with your choice. I think trump would be awesome if he promised to limit his interactions with foreign leaders and leave that to appointed officials. The way interest rates have been is yet another sign of the lagging economy. Unfortunately liberal policies that mainly encompass higher taxes rarely grow the economy this is what conservatives are good for ime

 

[Bardeaux]

I do not disagree with everything he says. But being a social democrat I just couldn't get all gung Ho about him.

Why? It's just a label. Also, you have to factor in the other two branches of government as well when you imagine what a person's presidency would look like.

I'm having a really hard time digesting the idea that people are taking Trump seriously as a real world candidate for the real United States president. It sounds more like a skit on SNL or something, it's entirely surreal to me. Is Kanye going to be taken this seriously in 2020? If the only thing that makes him a viable candidate is his wealth, then let's get Bill Gates in there instead. He's got much more money than Trump, ergo, he must know much more about the economy and politics. And he hasn't filed for bankruptcy 4 times.

"Ya fired Obama. Hey Putin, ya fat and stupid, just sign the missile arrangement, ya idiot. I haven't read it, but have been told it's very good."

I might go all Limbaugh and say I'll move to Costa Rica if Trump wins. (But actually go)

 

[Droppersneck]

Yes trump is unpolished and his vocabulary and off color comments make people cringe. People are more or less taking him seriously bc he may be our only chance ever to not have a bought establishment candidate. Tbf Atlantic cities casinos were all going under so he used the laws to his advantage. At the end of the day you have a uncouth bombastic incredible business man essentially.
I can't get on with Bernie bc you know his stance on the second amendment and the danger of his potential executive orders. Also he wants to tax tax tax and while I don't give a shit about rich people getting taxes there is no question the middle class will take a hit though well intentioned. The problem is I do not believe in his thought process with matters of the economy in general. His heart is in the right place though.

 

[socko]

Limiting the 2nd amendment would be political suicide. Don't worry about it.

As for the economy, socialist European countries have lower taxes in many cases once you account for the endless hidden and other taxes the us has - state, local, fica,fifa, fifi, si, Medicare, medicaid, medicrap, property, sales... these same European countries have better social programs.

As you said, congress would limit his power.

In other ways, he would be good because he has little baggage, is not universally loathed, and would show the masses a differerent way of looking at things.

Yes trump is unpolished and his vocabulary and off color comments make people cringe. People are more or less taking him seriously bc he may be our only chance ever to not have a bought establishment candidate. Tbf Atlantic cities casinos were all going under so he used the laws to his advantage. At the end of the day you have a uncouth bombastic incredible business man essentially.
I can't get on with Bernie bc you know his stance on the second amendment and the danger of his potential executive orders. Also he wants to tax tax tax and while I don't give a shit about rich people getting taxes there is no question the middle class will take a hit though well intentioned. The problem is I do not believe in his thought process with matters of the economy in general. His heart is in the right place though.

 

[alasdairm]

Unfortunately liberal policies that mainly encompass higher taxes rarely grow the economy this is what conservatives are good for ime

that sounds like the opinion of a republican parrot rather than a unbiased, free-thinker.

of course, i doubt you'll listen to what i have to say or give it any credence but even a cursory examination of some facts (and i know how much you love facts) suggests that you're just plain wrong and parroting mainstream, right-wing fallacies.

from: Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

There are several ways one can go about determining which party's policies tend to perform better economically. One option is to look at what economists say. Another is to look at how the economy has performed during times when one party has had more power and compare that to how the economy has performed in the same place during times when the other party has had more power. A third way is to look at how the economy performs in places where one party tends to have more power compared to how the economy performs in places where the other party has more power. All three approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but by weighing all three, one can potentially get a pretty decisive answer.
...
In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points
...
The success of the Democratic states seems to play out across the board, even beyond the economic realm, as is evidenced by the consistently stronger performance of the Democratic states in terms of standard of living. In fact, even lifespans differ dramatically between red and blue states.

It seems clear that liberal policies are performing better at the state level across the board. I posted some ideas about why Democratic states are doing so much better economically earlier, but for our purposes here all that matters is that they are in fact doing so much better.
...
No matter how one looks at the data- by relying on the findings of economists, by looking at state level or looking a federal data, and no matter which economic measure one looks at, the answer is the same: Democratic policies are performing better. And not just a little better- drastically better.

i encourage you to read the whole article with an open mind, droppers. there are even some pretty pictures for you to look at.

from fortune magazine (hardly a bastion of left-leaning politics):

In a paper released Tuesday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson dig into data stretching back to World War II to measure the magnitude of the gap in economic performance during Democratic and Republican administrations and to discover the reasons behind it.

They found that the gap in economic performance was, “startlingly large.” They write:

“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

(my emphasis)

alasdair

 

[Bardeaux]

Yes trump is unpolished and his vocabulary and off color comments make people cringe.

IE- He's about as tactful as a drunken frat boy. An excellent diplomat he'll make, I'm sure.

People are more or less taking him seriously bc he may be our only chance ever to not have a bought establishment candidate.

Are you serious? He's wealthier than all of the candidates combined and has been using this wealth as a political weapon for decades. He is the bought and paid for establishment embodied. Even if he weren't running, I couldn't think of a better example. George Soros, maybe? The Kochs?

At the end of the day you have a uncouth bombastic incredible business man essentially.

Indeed. Not a public servant or commander in chief.

I can't get on with Bernie bc you know his stance on the second amendment and the danger of his potential executive orders.

What is his stance on the second amendment?

NSFW:

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.

Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. A YES vote would:
Prohibit individuals from filing a qualified civil liability action
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Dismiss of all civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition

Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit liability lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and dealers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The bill would also block these actions from being brought up against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist. This includes civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.

He's a mixed bag. But is much less worried about gun control than his democrat colleagues.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Yes - it's cool that you know that. In a democracy, the people have the power and the responsibility to elect a good government. I was responding mostly to herbavore's post.

Instead of living up to the responsibility of electing a good government, people only think of their own short term interests and fantasies (which is the reason the 99.9% (including the working poor) worship the 0.1% as she said ).

It's not a democracy anymore tho, it's a fucking game show.