2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:09 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Thesh wrote:That said, I'd be happiest with Trump vs Sanders.


Personally, although I see the appeal of hoping for a presumably easy-to-defeat candidate such as Trump going up against a personal favorite, I can't do it.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a political optimist, but I sincerely hope that both Republican and Democrats nominate candidates that are principled, respectable and capable, even if I happen to disagree with one's views more than another. I want a true fight between the best both sides got to offer.

Probably not gonna happen, but I can dream.

When has that not happened? Bush v Gore?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:30 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Mambrino wrote:
Vahir wrote:
dg61 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You are joking right? That's not how the Mid-East works.

I'll agree that yes, it'd be better if we went off oil. For many reasons. But the Mid-East would NOT be improved if we did.


Uh, are you familiar with the concept of "Dutch Disease" in economics and political science? It is very well established that economies centered on resource extraction are prone to serious structural distortions and that it tends to produce serious political issues as well by encouraging e.g. rentier capitalism and excessive cronyism, as well as serious internal conflicts over allocating resource wealth and using it primarily to prop up the regime by throwing around money and not e.g. on infrastructure. I don't think there's much reason to doubt that many of the middle east's problems are related to oil economies although some aren't.


Lots of first world countries have economies centered around resource extraction without being in the state that the middle east is. Norway, Canada, Australia, parts of the United States...


I think just blaming feature extraction is too much a simplification, yes. Norway was a functioning democracy before they found oil (and same probably goes for US and Canada, too). Moreover (I'm not a historian specified on Canadian economic history, though, this is more of an impression), while Canada had lumber before oil, and that counts as 'resource extraction' as well, it wasn't exactly "instant black, liquid cash from ground". Economy based extracting valuable resources allows the local (esp. if not-very-democratic) government continue and keep on being "not getting much better as society" as before. "Selling the stuff under ground / above the ground worth money quickly and cheaply for weapons now in order to stay in power today" (instead of building your own methods to extract the stuff and utilize it) is very traditional warlord modus operandi and probably predates the steam.


Well, Canada has certainly had experience with the Dutch Disease, IMHO, though perhaps not as severely as the Middle East (though, to be fair, neither did the Netherlands, for which the disease is named). If you look in particular at Canada's major oil-producing province, Alberta, you will find that the province features a lot of the same problems noted above--government propped up heavily by resource revenues rather than taxes, major corruption problems and cronyism, etc. The provincial Conservative government there for ~40 years consecutively, only being thrown out just recently (and not coincidentally) around the time of the recent slump in oil prices. The country itself is rather more diversified because of its size and federated governments, though the country's fortunes, especially in recent years, have been governed to a some extent by oil prices--Canada's dollar has lost about 25% relative to the US dollar in the last year, and the drop in oil prices has pushed the country into mild recession.

Somewhat off-topic, but I don't think any of you know what 'Dutch Disease' means. Allow me to quote wikipedia:
In economics, the Dutch disease is the apparent relationship between the increase in the economic development of a specific sector (for example natural resources) and a decline in other sector (like the manufacturing sector or agriculture). The mechanism is that as revenues increase in the growing sector (or inflows of foreign aid), the given nation's currency will become stronger (appreciate) compared to that of other nations (manifest in an exchange rate). This results in the nation's other exports becoming more expensive for other countries to buy, and imports becoming cheaper, making those sectors less competitive.

While it most often refers to natural resource discovery, it can also refer to "any development that results in a large inflow of foreign currency, including a sharp surge in natural resource prices, foreign assistance, and foreign direct investment".[1]

The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of the large Groningen natural gas field in 1959.[2]

Corruption and cronyism have nothing to do with the Dutch disease. Economic collapse due to being dependent on a single resource also has nothing to do with it.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:24 am UTC

Wait, so Dutch Disease could be prevented by, say, joining a multi-national currency?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:43 pm UTC

Maybe the reference to Dutch Disease was meant to be a reference to the resource curse?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:Perhaps I'm a bit of a political optimist, but I sincerely hope that both Republican and Democrats nominate candidates that are principled, respectable and capable, even if I happen to disagree with one's views more than another. I want a true fight between the best both sides got to offer.

When has that not happened? Bush v Gore?

I’d say 2000 should’ve been McCain v Gore, and 2004 should’ve been Dean v <incumbent>
wee free kings

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:10 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Thesh wrote:That said, I'd be happiest with Trump vs Sanders.


Personally, although I see the appeal of hoping for a presumably easy-to-defeat candidate such as Trump going up against a personal favorite, I can't do it.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a political optimist, but I sincerely hope that both Republican and Democrats nominate candidates that are principled, respectable and capable, even if I happen to disagree with one's views more than another. I want a true fight between the best both sides got to offer.

Probably not gonna happen, but I can dream.


Yeah, I probably disagree with Sanders on policy issues more, but you gotta at least give the guy props for being genuine. Hillary, I see as more of the politician. Better odds of winning, sure. But I'm not sure she's the principled one here. Even if Sanders is wrong, he seems honorable about it, yknow?

I would likewise enjoy the idea of some such person on each side. Trump is not that person at all.

Though I admit the idea of him actually winning the presidency is entertaining to ponder in a morbidly curious fashion.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

What's wrong with the big three GOP guys for this season?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:What's wrong with the big three GOP guys for this season?


Less that Trump, but that's kinda faint praise.

Assuming you mean Bush, Rubio and Walker, I'll run through 'em.

Walker: Would be happier to have someone who would just ignore the abortion issue entirely. It's not changing for real, there's more useful stuff to work on. This isn't huge, he's less focused on this than hyper-religious sorts, but it's not a plus, yknow? Also, I read him as a little anti-immigrant. Also, the whole anti-gay marriage thing. If those three didn't exist, he'd actually be a pretty decent candidate. It's always the social issues that seem to be a downer for traditionalist republican sorts. Sure, if you like the military a little more or less, I can work with that, but...just let the gay marriage stuff go already.

Rubio: Kind of the same as Walker, really. Exact instances aren't *exactly* the same, but it's pretty close overall. Also points off for being a little pig-headed on global warming. Don't get me wrong, he might be right on the whole "viable fixes are expensive thing", sure. I buy that. But it comes across as more denial at every level, rather than reasoned doubt. That's irksome. So, I might rank him somewhat lower than Walker.

Bush: Jesus, the main three are basically clones, when you think about it. The variety on positions to choose between isn't great. He's probably less overt about dumb stuff than the other two, but it's still there, and there's the fun empire connotations of a third Bush being prez.

Still, in the end, all three of the main contenders basically have the same flaws, and are fairly replacable. So, that's kind of unexciting.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:49 pm UTC

I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:55 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?


It's not my primary concern with him. If it was the only thing, I'm sure I'd get over it. But it's that in addition to more of the same. He doesn't actually stand out on merit, IMO, and I like the idea of leadership at least vaguely representing the populace. Sure, if you're idealistic, the best of the populace, rather than a cross section...but that's not what happens. And a political dynasty makes that particularly clear.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:58 pm UTC

Wait, so Dutch Disease could be prevented by, say, joining a multi-national currency?

Spoiler:
Not directly, no. The currency is the channel through which the problem usually shows up, because the currency area tends to coincide with a strongly interconnected economic region. If the currency area is much larger, then the same effect shows up as high local prices (and wages) relative to the rest of the currency area. With the same knock-on effect, local businesses aimed at export find themselves priced out of the market. Out of foreign markets because of their high costs, out of the local markets because they have to compete with imports that are now relatively cheap in local terms. So you get the counterintuitive result that a resource boom can cause significant unemployment.


I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?

Even if you're not worried about their competency, they surely are a worrying symptom? Apparently, the Bushes (and presumably some mates of them) can repeatedly push one of their own to governorships, the presidency or at least reasonably close to it. It implies a lot of influence and power behind the scenes. That power won't be limited to pushing candidates.

And while the Bush-clique might be brazen enough to make their influence visible, there are likely others with similar influence but less need to be public. In that sense, the prevalence of Bushes gives a little bit of insight into the power structures behind democracy.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:38 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?


Mainly it's just strongly suggestive of people being pushed into positions of power based on their family name rather than any sort of competence. I don't thing most people are adverse to a qualified candidate getting elected when their dad, brother, or spouse was already president; I think most are adverse to the idea that candidates might be getting elected because their dad, brother, or spouse was already president.

I actually believe Jeb would be a better president than his brother was. I don't agree with him on every issue, but he seems qualified. He's done a decent job as governor, and he seems capable of doing more. That isn't an endorsement - he isn't my first choice - but it wouldn't bother me, even though I wasn't a fan of his brother. I'd vote for him, though maybe not with much enthusiasm.

On the other hand, I am very adverse to the idea of Hillary Clinton as president. She was mostly inert as a Senator, she was a terrible Secretary of State, and she has (in my opinion) some very serious ethical problems. Frankly, the only thing she has going for her is her last name; she would be (again, my opinion) the epitome of a "dynastic" choice. If it matters, I actually liked Bill Clinton. He too had (has?) some serious ethical problems, but he was very effective when he needed to be.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:18 am UTC

Honestly, I'm not going to be giving much credence to the Republican field if all they do is Hillary-bash the entire primary (especially just jokes like last night). I mean, I get it's quite a popular thing to do, but it's a pretty cheap way to run a campaign. Now, targeted, informed critiques of your prospective opponent's platform... sure. Perfectly reasonable. Just getting up and spouting vagueness about what a liar and a horrible person and wrong and etc. etc. she is.. not gonna work. It's an easy way to gain cheap points while conveniently avoiding presenting any ideas of your own.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby curtis95112 » Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:22 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?


It's a priori very unlikely that in a country of 300 million people, three of the most competent people would be from the same family.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:31 pm UTC

It's not a good sign, but the 300 million doesn't say much. It's not like 'competency as a president' is a genetic condition that gets randomly distributed over the country.

For example, the competency of a 'president' is really the competency of a wider team. Formal staff, informal advisors. A lot of the people surrounding Bush the second were already on the staff of Bush the first, with relations going back decades earlier even than the presidency itself. Just by being part of that same circle of relations, Jeb Bush already has a headstart over almost everyone in that 300 million. How many people could assemble a presidential staff that is both deeply experienced, and also mostly personally well-known?

Another example: career guidance. What knowledge and experience prepares you best for the presidency? Out of that 300 million, nearly everyone will follow a path through life that does not prepare them or the presidency, while Jeb was guided from an early age on by people who knew what they were doing. Think about leadership: at what age do people normally learn to deal with subordinates? With the press? With politicians, or other powerful people? If you are prepped in such matters from childhood on, you will be genuinely better at them than nearly everyone else.

Tl,dr: aristocrats get unfair advantages, but some of those advantages are genuine preparations for positions of power.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:23 am UTC

And sometimes you get people like George w Bush. Don't we have statistical data that shows dynasties in business perform worse than non dynastic corporations? What makes politicians immune to that?

That said, Jebn Bush is a fine candidate on par with Walker, who doesn't have a dynasty. That says a lot about jeb, at least he's good enough.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:08 am UTC

Jeb Bush is a decent candidate. I think he's prepared himself. Frankly, the anti-'dynasty' backlash is big enough that honestly, I'm not so sure it's totally an advantage for him.


For some reason I think I'm leaning toward John Kasich in the GOP field. I still have to learn all their positions, but the man seems like a reasonable enough guy to me, even if I disagree with him on a lot of issues.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:And sometimes you get people like George w Bush. Don't we have statistical data that shows dynasties in business perform worse than non dynastic corporations? What makes politicians immune to that?

That said, Jebn Bush is a fine candidate on par with Walker, who doesn't have a dynasty. That says a lot about jeb, at least he's good enough.


George W was not nearly as dumb as people claim he was. His entire persona was crafted to appeal to the American public. A Connecticut Yankee with an Ivy League education; the whole Texan accent is so obviously fake it's practically an insult.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:09 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Vahir wrote:I don't see why people are so adverse to political dynasties. Sure, we shouldn't favor a candidate because of their name, but we shouldn't ignore them because of it, either. As long as they're competent, what's the issue?


Mainly it's just strongly suggestive of people being pushed into positions of power based on their family name rather than any sort of competence. I don't thing most people are adverse to a qualified candidate getting elected when their dad, brother, or spouse was already president; I think most are adverse to the idea that candidates might be getting elected because their dad, brother, or spouse was already president.


I think it's deeply improbable that we would randomly have three presidents within my lifespan from the same family by chance. So, I have to assume that some cause is at play here, selecting for family.

Now, maybe you could say that they all happened to learn the same skills, but...there's a lot of political families out there. A purely skill based argument would require some sort of fairly unique mastery to pull off three presidencies in such a short time. I just don't see that. Sure, the Bushes seem decently politically adept, but not in any particularly unique way. So, that just doesn't work. You end up staring at the logical conclusion that it's a result of family ties, rather than anything else.

Even if we just compare families with political history, it seems like there is a dynastic influence.

I'll grant that, as a candidate, he doesn't seem overtly worse than the other front runners, but I find myself profoundly apathetic about a great many candidates in general. I suspect this apathy is what is turning people to Trump, as at least he's different. This doesn't really excuse his terribleness, but it sort of explains the popularity of it.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:13 pm UTC

I'll start off with my opinions, which I am fairly certain nobody else here agrees with, just to get them out of the way. Like I said, you probably disagree, and I really don't need to hear any insults to my intelligence or whatever. I stand by my opinions. Anyway, I believe George W. Bush is a great man, like his father, and was a great President, better than his father. To paraphrase Shakespeare (apparently!), he had greatness thrust upon him. I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.

OK, that being said, I find it bothering that JEB is obviously trying to distance himself from his brother's legacy. Both with the logo and when he said during the debate that going into Iraq was wrong. I mean yeah, George W. Bush was wildly unpopular by the end of his second term. So politically I understand it. But it seems like a bit of a dick move to me.

What movie am I thinking of, Dave, maybe? Or The American President? Somebody gives the President (or possibly somebody running for President) that, rather than distancing themselves from an acquaintance who was in a financial scandal or something, that he should say they were a friend, or if the press asks if they were friends to say, no, we were close friends. Give them nothing to look in to, just embrace it. (The movie then jump-cut to the President saying just that in a speech IIRC.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Newt
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Newt » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:14 pm UTC

Clear and present danger, perhaps?

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:17 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I'll start off with my opinions, which I am fairly certain nobody else here agrees with, just to get them out of the way. Like I said, you probably disagree, and I really don't need to hear any insults to my intelligence or whatever. I stand by my opinions. Anyway, I believe George W. Bush is a great man, like his father, and was a great President, better than his father. To paraphrase Shakespeare (apparently!), he had greatness thrust upon him. I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.

OK, that being said, I find it bothering that JEB is obviously trying to distance himself from his brother's legacy. Both with the logo and when he said during the debate that going into Iraq was wrong. I mean yeah, George W. Bush was wildly unpopular by the end of his second term. So politically I understand it. But it seems like a bit of a dick move to me.

What movie am I thinking of, Dave, maybe? Or The American President? Somebody gives the President (or possibly somebody running for President) that, rather than distancing themselves from an acquaintance who was in a financial scandal or something, that he should say they were a friend, or if the press asks if they were friends to say, no, we were close friends. Give them nothing to look in to, just embrace it. (The movie then jump-cut to the President saying just that in a speech IIRC.)


Its clear and present danger.

W was an idiot to go to war in Iraq. You're an idiot to support him. I feel that had to be said.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:13 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:W was an idiot to go to war in Iraq. You're an idiot to support him. I feel that had to be said.

You're quite wrong, Bush was a brilliant president. He hugely increased the wealth of the people he cares about. The war in Iraq probably earned the military industry hundreds of billions, and was a huge boost to the oil industry too. But not only this, he introduced huge tax cuts for the rich, managed to get rid of a few pesky laws. He did very well on making sure no progress was made at all on climate change. Perhaps best of all he managed to further divide the country, deepening political divides.

I'm pretty sure his masters are very happy with the Bush presidency.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 10, 2015 11:58 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:W was an idiot to go to war in Iraq. You're an idiot to support him. I feel that had to be said.

You're quite wrong, Bush was a brilliant president. He hugely increased the wealth of the people he cares about. The war in Iraq probably earned the military industry hundreds of billions, and was a huge boost to the oil industry too. But not only this, he introduced huge tax cuts for the rich, managed to get rid of a few pesky laws. He did very well on making sure no progress was made at all on climate change. Perhaps best of all he managed to further divide the country, deepening political divides.

I'm pretty sure his masters are very happy with the Bush presidency.


All good points. But if he has made republicans unelectable as president for 16yrs? What then? I mean, that might not be the case, but 12 years after the decision, and years after his presidency, "What did you think of going into Iraq?" is still a question at least his brother has to answer, and probably the candidate whenever that is sorted out. By becoming basically completely reviled (with an approval rate of 22%) and failing to make any headway on immigration, the republicans might be doomed to the wilderness for a long time. The only reason they control congress is because they only need 45% of the vote to win a majority. In the so called wave of 2014 they got 52%. More a ripple, imo.

And frankly, in terms of American power, I would say it definitely waned under his stewardship.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:03 am UTC

I think you are too quick to dismiss the power of old rich white dudes and their so called demise. Democrats are gutted because of the Congressional (and state) losses. Where do you think the next Obama and Hillary are gonna come from? If you're against dynasties, then your party has to win state and Congressional seats. We're losing tons of easy and competitive seats because the old guard is dying/retiring. That's no way to build a long term coalition if you're coalition is headed by old geezers.

iamspen
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:50 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:All good points. But if he has made republicans unelectable as president for 16yrs? What then? I mean, that might not be the case, but 12 years after the decision, and years after his presidency, "What did you think of going into Iraq?" is still a question at least his brother has to answer, and probably the candidate whenever that is sorted out. By becoming basically completely reviled (with an approval rate of 22%) and failing to make any headway on immigration, the republicans might be doomed to the wilderness for a long time. The only reason they control congress is because they only need 45% of the vote to win a majority. In the so called wave of 2014 they got 52%. More a ripple, imo.

And frankly, in terms of American power, I would say it definitely waned under his stewardship.


I think it's a mistake to think that the Republican party particularly cares whether or not they control the Presidency. They're in a situation now where they control the very nature of American political discussion, and the Democrats, for whatever reason, refuse to stop playing by the rules set by their counterparts. I mean, you have a Republican party that can consistently and repeatedly deny hard science, deny statistics, deny obvious patterns and trends, impose austerity on a population when it isn't even a requirement, and impose religious values on populations at local and regional levels under the guise of religious freedom despite the obvious falsehood of such a claim, and as far as they can see, they can still consider Congressional control a lock nearly indefinitely, and the majority of state legislatures certainly aren't turning blue any time soon, either. Bush set the Republicans up nicely enough that they don't need the Presidency for a good long while.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:All good points. But if he has made republicans unelectable as president for 16yrs? What then? I mean, that might not be the case, but 12 years after the decision, and years after his presidency, "What did you think of going into Iraq?" is still a question at least his brother has to answer, and probably the candidate whenever that is sorted out. By becoming basically completely reviled (with an approval rate of 22%) and failing to make any headway on immigration, the republicans might be doomed to the wilderness for a long time. The only reason they control congress is because they only need 45% of the vote to win a majority. In the so called wave of 2014 they got 52%. More a ripple, imo.

And frankly, in terms of American power, I would say it definitely waned under his stewardship.


Congressional approval rates are a funny thing. People routinely hate congress. But nobody votes for "congress". They vote for their local congressperson. And approval rates for THAT are much higher. Incumbents for congress/senate have a significant advantage. So, overall approval rate of congress as a body is of somewhat limited use.

One of the reasons they have so much power is that they've taken over rather a lot of state houses, etc. State power is biased heavily in favor of the Republicans at present, so that gives them a good base to work from. Hell, this even affects the spread of candidates running for president. They just have a broader field to draw from.

I *slightly* favor republicans to win this presidency for a variety of reasons....but I hope to god it isn't Trump. I mean, sure, it'd be entertaining, but...not in a good way.

However, power definitely isn't just in the presidency, and I sometimes think the media focus disproportionately on the presidency as the big race. There's a lot of power in other positions as well.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JoshuaZ » Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:33 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:Back on topic... I think Joe Biden will be the Dem nominee. He will announce his run in September and get Obama's backing which will be big. Obama is a lot more popular than Hillary and the email/foundation stuff is not looking good.

On the Republican side I am hoping for Rand. His numbers are low right now but I think the debates will help him as he's probably the best debater aside from maybe Ted Cruz.


What probability do you estimate that Biden will be the eventual nominee?

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:45 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:Its clear and present danger.

Ahh, thanks! That was really starting to bug me.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:47 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I'll start off with my opinions, which I am fairly certain nobody else here agrees with, just to get them out of the way. Like I said, you probably disagree, and I really don't need to hear any insults to my intelligence or whatever. I stand by my opinions. Anyway, I believe George W. Bush is a great man, like his father, and was a great President, better than his father. To paraphrase Shakespeare (apparently!), he had greatness thrust upon him. I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.


George W. Bush was a weak president.

He certainly isn't the idiot that a lot of his critics like to paint him as, and he isn't a terrible person. He's actually a very decent person. But he made some horrible decisions, in large part because he allowed people to push him into horrible decisions. The invasion of Iraq is a prime example. Even if there had been weapons of mass destruction, the problem is that there was no clear goal to the entire campaign.

Now, to be fair, the whole "Bush lied people died" theme is a steaming pile of horse mud - the decision to invade was based on intelligence that, while it ultimately turned out to be bad, was accepted as valid by almost everyone in the US government, and in governments around the world. And a lot of the folks (lookin' at you, Hillary) who criticize the decision now, not only supported it at the time but openly advocated for it. But a strong leader would not have gone into a war with no real measurable goal. Even if there had been WMDs in Iraq, the notion of destroying those and defeating Saddam is not a complete strategy. There needs to be an ultimate goal, and unfortunately it seemed to be nothing more than blindly hoping against centuries of history that democracy would take hold.

OK, that being said, I find it bothering that JEB is obviously trying to distance himself from his brother's legacy. Both with the logo and when he said during the debate that going into Iraq was wrong. I mean yeah, George W. Bush was wildly unpopular by the end of his second term. So politically I understand it. But it seems like a bit of a dick move to me.


Sorry, but when you're talking about a war that will cost trillions of dollars, not to mention over a hundred thousand lives, and over a million wounded, misplaced, and otherwise harmed; you don't base your position on whether or not it might hurt your bro's feelings.

Politically speaking, while I don't personally hold George W. Bush in the same contempt as a lot of people do (it's more of a profound disappointment) the reality is that he is political poison. His legacy sucks right now. Maybe, years from now, when the wars and other mistakes are somewhat less fresh in people's minds, opinions might soften.

And if we set politics aside... the war was a fucking disaster. Even if we had found and destroyed vast stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, we left a complete mess. We left a government that didn't have any real support from it's own people; we left an economy and infrastructure in shambles; and we created a massive power vacuum in the region. The fact that the WMD's turned out to be bullshit isn't even the real problem - it's just insult to injury.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:42 am UTC

So Jeb Bush upset Hispanics last week by using the term "Anchor Babies" so this week he clarified he was actually using the term to refer to Asians. Unless he is trying to lose BOTH the Hispanic and Asian vote, I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish.

Yes, I know he is trying to gain traction by attracting the racist vote.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:43 am UTC

Sort of like his own wife and kids?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:29 pm UTC

I'm going to go ahead and make a Prediction for 2016: Carson will take the nomination with 30% of the vote to Trump's 20%, and be massacred by Clinton in the general. Trump will not be able to keep his support, but has too much to lose, and Carson has been staying strong for a while, but without enough attention to throw it away by saying something insane.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:42 pm UTC

Whelp, looks like I'm voting for a Democrat President for the first time in 4 years.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:50 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So Jeb Bush upset Hispanics last week by using the term "Anchor Babies" so this week he clarified he was actually using the term to refer to Asians. Unless he is trying to lose BOTH the Hispanic and Asian vote, I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish.

Yes, I know he is trying to gain traction by attracting the racist vote.


"No seriously, you guys, the anchor for my yacht is only made up of asian children, I checked. Phew, that was close. Nailed it."

Bush, for his background, is not doing well. Trump has more tenacity than I'd like. I don't THINK he'll go the distance, but now I'm starting to contemplate the possibility.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:05 pm UTC

My prediction is that Hillary will keep burying herself in scandals until she cannot possibly election even to city council, and then Biden will come out of nowhere with Obama's endorsement, and face off against Carson (or possibly Trump). At that point, I can't predict any further.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:12 pm UTC

Burying herself? My impression is that the email thing is the first thing where there is actual evidence of wrongdoing, and the rest has all fallen flat, but it's pretty minor stuff. It's pretty clear the media loves the idea of a Clinton scandal, but they have trying to pin something on them for 20 years, and came up with nothing but a blowjob and a privately hosted server.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:14 pm UTC

OK, changing the subject, why would Republican candidates want to repeal the 14th Amendment * when it is the 14th Amendment that clearly makes abortion unconstitutional, if only the justices would just interpret the Constitution literally like they should?

(* - yes, I know it's because of Mexicans that jump the fence to have their babies become Americans)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:25 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:My prediction is that Hillary will keep burying herself in scandals until she cannot possibly election even to city council, and then Biden will come out of nowhere with Obama's endorsement, and face off against Carson (or possibly Trump). At that point, I can't predict any further.


I find it depressing that people are hoping for Gore or Biden. Not inaccurate, mind you, but...a little sad.

Amendment repeal is probably a non-starter in any real sense, I wouldn't worry about it.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:55 pm UTC

If they repeal the 14th amendment, does that mean that anyone who isn't an indigenous native American has to leave the country? Or does it apply to them as well?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests