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: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:02 pm UTC

I disagree. Range Paul is taking positions that are bad for his future. That said, I approved of his attempt to shine w spotlight on our privacy rights even if it's just a vehicle to boost his ambitions. Don't believe me? Check his polls and how the GOP feels about surveillance. The libertarianism's don't have much of a chance

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:35 am UTC

Eh. You never know.

I'm considering voting for Rand in the primaries due to his stance on government surveillance. Massachusetts has semi-open primaries, and if the Democratic race is pretty much sealed up then I'm using my vote to influence the Republican side.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I disagree. Range Paul is taking positions that are bad for his future. That said, I approved of his attempt to shine w spotlight on our privacy rights even if it's just a vehicle to boost his ambitions. Don't believe me? Check his polls and how the GOP feels about surveillance. The libertarianism's don't have much of a chance


Oh, I don't think he's got enough oomph to make the presidency. I don't even particularly agree with him on surveillance topics. But it's helping him now. Enough? Maybe not. But there's an anti-big gov narrative that's attractive to much of the GOP(even if the GOP is as guilty of creating big gov as anyone else), so tactically, I think he's maybe got an angle to at least get some notoriety.

I don't know that he expects to win this time around. First term senators...well, obviously they can win, but generally we bias older. I think he's gathering name recognition, etc for down the road. Trying to be a more moderate version of his dad. Same basic target constituency, but less extreme appearing to the GOP at large.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:55 pm UTC

Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


It seems to me as though an awful lot of people want less US aggression in the middle east and want an end to domestic spying on US citizens.

Rand Paul is the only nominee in either of the two major parties who is serious about those issues.

If those are your major two issues, who else is there for you to vote for in the primary?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:39 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


It seems to me as though an awful lot of people want less US aggression in the middle east and want an end to domestic spying on US citizens.

Rand Paul is the only nominee in either of the two major parties who is serious about those issues.

If those are your major two issues, who else is there for you to vote for in the primary?

Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

"Vote for me, who'll crush terrorists, no matter where they hide. No stone will be left unturned. Cuz if you don't, you're all gonna die. Be afraid. Very afraid. "
~Generic GOP Candidate for president.
How many people would vote against that? Remember, you only need half the country, and scaring them into voting for you isn't against the law. Works even better if there's a bit of truth underlying it. After you elected him, he'll continue to pursue domestic spying except it'll be called "protecting you from terrorists".

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:
sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


It seems to me as though an awful lot of people want less US aggression in the middle east and want an end to domestic spying on US citizens.

Rand Paul is the only nominee in either of the two major parties who is serious about those issues.

If those are your major two issues, who else is there for you to vote for in the primary?

Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

"Vote for me, who'll crush terrorists, no matter where they hide. No stone will be left unturned. Cuz if you don't, you're all gonna die. Be afraid. Very afraid. "
~Generic GOP Candidate for president.
How many people would vote against that? Remember, you only need half the country, and scaring them into voting for you isn't against the law. Works even better if there's a bit of truth underlying it. After you elected him, he'll continue to pursue domestic spying except it'll be called "protecting you from terrorists".


I don't think this is at all accurate. Most people would vote against that, but they're never given a choice. I bet if an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate who was fairly moderate otherwise rose to the fore, they would win (though of course, they would be lambasted by the Republican party for those positions; I still bet they could win). No such candidates are ever run with the support of their own party. Most people don't vote in the primary, and so by the time they get to the actual election you have two candidates that support endless war and domestic spying. People wanted an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate out of Barack Obama, but that was never his position and either he's much further right than his first campaign indicated or he's literally the world's worst negotiator (probably that first one). Unfortunately, Rand Paul's other shitty positions prevent leftists and democrats from voting for him.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

Huh? What did he phrase terribly? Your post seems completely unrelated.
lol everything matters
-Ed

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:27 am UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:People wanted an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate out of Barack Obama, but that was never his position and either he's much further right than his first campaign indicated or he's literally the world's worst negotiator (probably that first one).


Obama did what he said in regards to the war, and I don't think anyone had the right to expect less. He didn't extend our occupation of Iraq longer than the deal that GWB had negotiated, and he doubled down in the "real war" in Afghanistan but ended that too. The only new war that Obama did was Libya, but that was multinational and we only contributed our air force. Remember that this is the first Memorial Day since 2001 where the United States hasn't been at war. The only complaints I hear about our war posture is that we should have gone into Syria before the shit hit the fan.

I think we do have the right to feel that the Global War on Terror should have been unclenched a little bit when Obama took office, and I have no optimism that the next president will unclench during her administration. In the end, I suppose it doesn't surprise me; if I was receiving the national intelligence briefings and knew that I was responsible for responding to threats that ordinary people didn't even suspect, I probably wouldn't be in the mood to take arrows out of my quiver either even if I had naively promised that I would.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:46 am UTC

Tirian wrote:Obama did what he said in regards to the war, and I don't think anyone had the right to expect less. He didn't extend our occupation of Iraq longer than the deal that GWB had negotiated, and he doubled down in the "real war" in Afghanistan but ended that too. The only new war that Obama did was Libya, but that was multinational and we only contributed our air force. Remember that this is the first Memorial Day since 2001 where the United States hasn't been at war. The only complaints I hear about our war posture is that we should have gone into Syria before the shit hit the fan.

I think we do have the right to feel that the Global War on Terror should have been unclenched a little bit when Obama took office, and I have no optimism that the next president will unclench during her administration. In the end, I suppose it doesn't surprise me; if I was receiving the national intelligence briefings and knew that I was responsible for responding to threats that ordinary people didn't even suspect, I probably wouldn't be in the mood to take arrows out of my quiver either even if I had naively promised that I would.


Like I said, many people wanted him to be more anti-war than he was, basically projecting those views onto him. There's also a considerable number of military operations going on that make "not at war" more subjective than is ideal, including in Afghanistan. In the end I think there are people who believe that there ever could be meaningful and legitimate "Global War on Terror" and people who do not; people in the former category can always be convinced through intelligence briefings, and people in the latter category are unlikely to get a major party's nomination for presidency.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:25 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:
sardia wrote:Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

Huh? What did he phrase terribly? Your post seems completely unrelated.

Who the hell would go around bragging they were spying on domestic citizens? They always point out that it's only to look for the really bad guys(which totally somehow makes it ok to spy on domestic citizens) and that it's for our safety. Guess which argument is winning? Even Rand Paul's delay on the Patriot Act only toned down the domestic spying, it didn't change very much. Not much of a victory.

Puppyclaws wrote:
sardia wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:
sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


It seems to me as though an awful lot of people want less US aggression in the middle east and want an end to domestic spying on US citizens.

Rand Paul is the only nominee in either of the two major parties who is serious about those issues.

If those are your major two issues, who else is there for you to vote for in the primary?

Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

"Vote for me, who'll crush terrorists, no matter where they hide. No stone will be left unturned. Cuz if you don't, you're all gonna die. Be afraid. Very afraid. "
~Generic GOP Candidate for president.
How many people would vote against that? Remember, you only need half the country, and scaring them into voting for you isn't against the law. Works even better if there's a bit of truth underlying it. After you elected him, he'll continue to pursue domestic spying except it'll be called "protecting you from terrorists".


I don't think this is at all accurate. Most people would vote against that, but they're never given a choice. I bet if an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate who was fairly moderate otherwise rose to the fore, they would win (though of course, they would be lambasted by the Republican party for those positions; I still bet they could win). No such candidates are ever run with the support of their own party. Most people don't vote in the primary, and so by the time they get to the actual election you have two candidates that support endless war and domestic spying. People wanted an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate out of Barack Obama, but that was never his position and either he's much further right than his first campaign indicated or he's literally the world's worst negotiator (probably that first one). Unfortunately, Rand Paul's other shitty positions prevent leftists and democrats from voting for him.

What's wrong with Rand Paul? Why is he tacking away from his libertarian positions of no war, to a little war is ok? Why is he low rated both in the polls, and in party support he has? Look, there's nothing wrong with being anti-war and pro privacy, but saying it's gonna win you the nomination in EITHER party is a joke.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:53 am UTC

sardia wrote:What's wrong with Rand Paul? Why is he tacking away from his libertarian positions of no war, to a little war is ok? Why is he low rated both in the polls, and in party support he has? Look, there's nothing wrong with being anti-war and pro privacy, but saying it's gonna win you the nomination in EITHER party is a joke.


He's low rated because he has a bunch of shitty, crazy fucking positions (e.g. free market anarchy including the abolition of civil rights protections, eliminating the Department of Education). The people who love anti-war, anti-spying things hate every other position he has-- and the people who love his other positions hate the anti-war, anti-NSA positions. He's not really a great barometer on the topic.

And of course, I made the point that it's not going to win you the nomination, because party nominations are not really decided by an accurate representation of voters; but if a person did get a party nomination with those positions, and moderate positions on most other topics, hands down they would win in a general election.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sam_i_am » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:06 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:
sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


It seems to me as though an awful lot of people want less US aggression in the middle east and want an end to domestic spying on US citizens.

Rand Paul is the only nominee in either of the two major parties who is serious about those issues.

If those are your major two issues, who else is there for you to vote for in the primary?

Your phrasing is terrible, and that's why you don't work for politicians. How they'll actually spin it is

"Vote for me, who'll crush terrorists, no matter where they hide. No stone will be left unturned. Cuz if you don't, you're all gonna die. Be afraid. Very afraid. "
~Generic GOP Candidate for president.
How many people would vote against that? Remember, you only need half the country, and scaring them into voting for you isn't against the law. Works even better if there's a bit of truth underlying it. After you elected him, he'll continue to pursue domestic spying except it'll be called "protecting you from terrorists".


Instead of being a cynic, why don't you actually try to reach just a few of the voters who would vote irrationally out of fear?

Or at the very least stop trying to discourage people who are not cynics. They're the ones trying to make things more sane.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Rand's targeted demographics exclude each other. He's already suffering because conservatives don't trust his libertarians positions, and libertarians think he's a sellout.


That's a normal part of the game for politicians. Gotta hedge to try to pull in both sides. Yes, he is less fervently libertarian than maybe his dad. But he also seems to exude somewhat less crazy. So...not sure that's a net loss. He may not have struck an ideal balance yet, but finding that balance is basically what he has to do. If he wasn't pursuing that, he'd not be relevant at all.

sardia wrote:"Vote for me, who'll crush terrorists, no matter where they hide. No stone will be left unturned. Cuz if you don't, you're all gonna die. Be afraid. Very afraid. "
~Generic GOP Candidate for president.


Sometimes. And sometimes the democratic candidate is campaigning on killing Osama, and republicans are questioning Dem decisions to intervene. No matter WHAT the one side does, the other usually disagrees out of sheer reflex, if nothing else.

In practice, actual actions don't seem ridiculously different. Pretty much everyone is against an extremely hardline no interventions ever policy, but we squabble over which causes are worth it, because most people don't really wish to pay the cost of war. No candidate is going to significantly change the war on terror, IMO. Not even Rand.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:27 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:People wanted an anti-war, anti-Patriot-Act candidate out of Barack Obama, but that was never his position and either he's much further right than his first campaign indicated or he's literally the world's worst negotiator (probably that first one).


Obama did what he said in regards to the war, and I don't think anyone had the right to expect less. He didn't extend our occupation of Iraq longer than the deal that GWB had negotiated,


No... and in the process he abandoned Iraq in a manner that left it completely unable to defend itself. Whether or not the US should have been in Iraq in the first place, the reality is, we went into Iraq. It was our responsibility to leave in a manner that left them reasonably capable of supporting themselves both militarily and economically. We didn't. And the result is that major cities are falling into the hands of one of the most ruthless and barbaric groups in history.

and he doubled down in the "real war" in Afghanistan but ended that too.


Well, he extended it but it's kind of stretch to call what he did "doubling down" - he upped the number of troops for while, but with significantly tighter operational restraints. Also, saying that he ended the war is a bit inaccurate - there is still fighting going on right now. A number of northern towns have fallen in recent weeks. They're already talking about extended the US forces until after 2016.

The only new war that Obama did was Libya, but that was multinational and we only contributed our air force.


Yes, and as a result of our efforts, Libya is a failed state. It's on route to economic collapse, and is essentially under the control of terrorist organizations. Not exactly a "win" in the long term.

Remember that this is the first Memorial Day since 2001 where the United States hasn't been at war. The only complaints I hear about our war posture is that we should have gone into Syria before the shit hit the fan.


That depends on what your definition of "at war" is. We're conducting an air war over Iraq and Syria right now. We've been actively engaging in drone strikes throughout Sudan and Pakistan. We still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

I think we do have the right to feel that the Global War on Terror should have been unclenched a little bit when Obama took office, and I have no optimism that the next president will unclench during her administration. In the end, I suppose it doesn't surprise me; if I was receiving the national intelligence briefings and knew that I was responsible for responding to threats that ordinary people didn't even suspect, I probably wouldn't be in the mood to take arrows out of my quiver either even if I had naively promised that I would.


The problem is not that he has or has not unclenched; the problem is that everything he's done has been half-assed. Everyone in the military was telling him that leaving Iraq the way that we did would result in exactly what is happening right now. We left Iraq in the hands of a barely-trained army that consists of soldiers who have absolutely no confidence in, or loyalty towards, their government. And, we left behind an amazing array of fully operational military gear.

The same is true about Libya. Qaddafi was an asshole, sure, but he was the one thing keeping Libya from devolving into, well, what it is right now. Everyone was saying this; the military, the intelligence community. But we sent in the bombers because Obama needed a bump in his polling numbers.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:23 pm UTC

cphite wrote:No... and in the process he abandoned Iraq in a manner that left it completely unable to defend itself. Whether or not the US should have been in Iraq in the first place, the reality is, we went into Iraq. It was our responsibility to leave in a manner that left them reasonably capable of supporting themselves both militarily and economically. We didn't. And the result is that major cities are falling into the hands of one of the most ruthless and barbaric groups in history.


Iraq had an army when the US left it, a very well equipped one, in fact. A government. A police force. It had everything it needed to be a stable, successful nation. The sectarian policies of Iraq's government are what allowed ISIS to explode like it did. Blaming the US for that kind of screw-up (that happened years after the US pulled out) is ridiculous, especially after the billions the US spent in Iraq, and the billions it would have gone on to spend if it had stayed longer.

In the same vein, a lot of the Obama administrations similar 'failings' are pretty silly, such as Benghazi. If you want to get mad at him for something, have it be for drone strikes and the NSA surveillance program.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:28 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:No... and in the process he abandoned Iraq in a manner that left it completely unable to defend itself. Whether or not the US should have been in Iraq in the first place, the reality is, we went into Iraq. It was our responsibility to leave in a manner that left them reasonably capable of supporting themselves both militarily and economically. We didn't. And the result is that major cities are falling into the hands of one of the most ruthless and barbaric groups in history.


Iraq had an army when the US left it, a very well equipped one, in fact. A government. A police force. It had everything it needed to be a stable, successful nation. The sectarian policies of Iraq's government are what allowed ISIS to explode like it did. Blaming the US for that kind of screw-up (that happened years after the US pulled out) is ridiculous, especially after the billions the US spent in Iraq, and the billions it would have gone on to spend if it had stayed longer.


Equipment is nice, but that isn't everything that an army needs. I agree that yeah, Iraqi policy is part of the cause here, but...it was a really, really predictable cause. Nation-building is hard, and yeah, it's frigging expensive. And sectarian issues had been a thing there for ages. That stuff takes a while a to fix.

This isn't just on Obama, of course. Many, many choices led to that point(including us getting involved to begin with), and surely not all of them were his. But, I agree that he can't really hold up the Iraq example as a very good outcome.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:47 pm UTC

I want to be clear that I am not defending Obama's policies or legacy or national security issues (which should be a topic for another thread), only that they are largely consistent with the priorities he laid out as a candidate in 2008. If there are people who believed that he would be more doveish (and at the very least, the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to have been made up of such people), they were ignoring the evidence.

@Rand Paul: Fox News conducted a poll from May 31 - June 2 (i.e. during the height of Paul's anti-Patriot act quixotism), and found that only 20% of Republican-leaning respondents would not consider voting for him. That's nearly middle-of-the-pack for the field, so it may have been less of a job-killing move than I would have expected.

And Lincoln Chafee evidently didn't think that he was enough of a long shot for securing the Democratic nomination, and used his campaign announcement to call for the United States to adopt the metric system. Which brings to mind three questions: "What?", "Who?", and "Wait, what?"

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Iraq had an army when the US left it, a very well equipped one, in fact. A government. A police force. It had everything it needed to be a stable, successful nation.


They've fled from every major engagement. In Ramadi they outnumbered ISIS by 10-1 and still fled; despite being better armed and in a defensive position.

The problem is that they aren't properly trained, and more importantly, aren't properly motivated. They aren't paid well. They have no confidence in their leadership; either in it's ability to actually lead, or that it won't turn against them based on religious differences. In many ways, it's actually understandable that they don't stay and fight.

Economically they aren't much better off. The people have no confidence in their own government. No industries are willing to move in or even trade openly because of the constant threat of open fighting.

In short, they were absolutely not left with everything they need to be a stable, successful nation - not even close. They were basically abandoned.

The sectarian policies of Iraq's government are what allowed ISIS to explode like it did. Blaming the US for that kind of screw-up (that happened years after the US pulled out) is ridiculous, especially after the billions the US spent in Iraq, and the billions it would have gone on to spend if it had stayed longer.


Yes, it took four whole years for Iraq to go from a supposed "stable" nation, to one that could be overrun by a relatively small number of ragtag fighters using stolen equipment.

In the same vein, a lot of the Obama administrations similar 'failings' are pretty silly, such as Benghazi. If you want to get mad at him for something, have it be for drone strikes and the NSA surveillance program.


I don't blame him (or even Clinton) for Benghazi happening; I blame them for blatantly lying about what happened to protect Obama's re-election campaign.

But yes, his drone program and domestic spying are both cause for alarm. He didn't start either of them, but he's certainly made them worse.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7591
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:13 pm UTC

Cphite, where does your argument lead to with respect to Obama ? You think American troops should have stayed longer in Iraq, I get that. But what does that mean for Obama? Do you mean that he should have campaigned for an extended Iraq war back in 2008? That he should have campaigned for a retreat to win the election, then turned back on that once president? You think someone more hawkish sbould have won that election instead, Clinton or McCain perhaps?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:52 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:I want to be clear that I am not defending Obama's policies or legacy or national security issues (which should be a topic for another thread), only that they are largely consistent with the priorities he laid out as a candidate in 2008. If there are people who believed that he would be more doveish (and at the very least, the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to have been made up of such people), they were ignoring the evidence.


I don't think a more dovish candidate really existed. Not a viable one, anyway. So, by default, the most dovish voters would fall into his camp, despite him not being really very isolationist or anything. I'm not really lobbying for the "obama was a hypocrite" angle so much as I am pointing out that there wasn't actually that big of a range of options here. And...I think there likely won't be again.

I think we're mostly all agreeing here. After all, the whole chain is basically people restating that Obama wasn't an extreme anti-war candidate or anything,

And Lincoln Chafee evidently didn't think that he was enough of a long shot for securing the Democratic nomination, and used his campaign announcement to call for the United States to adopt the metric system. Which brings to mind three questions: "What?", "Who?", and "Wait, what?"


Well, we clearly can't vote for anyone advocating the use of communist measurement. Good ol' 'murrican furlongs per fortnight or bust! :D

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:13 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Cphite, where does your argument lead to with respect to Obama ? You think American troops should have stayed longer in Iraq, I get that. But what does that mean for Obama?


It means that he should have listened to his military leaders, and to the intelligence community. They weren't exactly keeping their opinions secret; they were making it publicly known that they expected this to be the result of leaving Iraq as we did. It means that he failed, both as commander in chief, and as a matter of basic principal, to adequately deal with a situation that the USA created.

Do you mean that he should have campaigned for an extended Iraq war back in 2008?


Not at all. There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with campaigning to end the war and meaning it. However, when the time came to actually withdraw, and it was clear to everyone who was paying attention that total withdrawal would lead to a dangerously unstable Iraq, he should have done the right thing and extended our forces there. Or, better yet, his administration should not have bungled the Status of Forces agreement, which would have left adequate forces in place.

That he should have campaigned for a retreat to win the election, then turned back on that once president?


No; there is nothing wrong with his campaigning on what he intended. The problem is that he didn't adapt to the reality of the situation.

You think someone more hawkish sbould have won that election instead, Clinton or McCain perhaps?


I think someone competent should have won. The man had absolutely no qualifications to be president. No experience in any sort of leadership role, and even after six years shows no aptitude for it. He won because he had a great marketing team, a weak opponent, and a predecessor that was almost equally awful from the opposing party.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:30 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
Instead of being a cynic, why don't you actually try to reach just a few of the voters who would vote irrationally out of fear?

Or at the very least stop trying to discourage people who are not cynics. They're the ones trying to make things more sane.

Look, I'm not a cynic, I'm telling you roughly empirical facts about positions that politicians take. Yes domestic spying is bad. No, nobody brags about domestic spying as a good thing. Instead, they make up shit about what if the terrorists sneak one through cuz we didn't shove cameras up everyone's butthole.
Sadly, your position on domestic spying isn't a make or break issue. It's like gay marriage in that yea in principle you should care, but you got other issues to differentiate yourself on.

As for domestic spying, it's a symptom of a bigger problem, the lack of interest or even complicity of Congress over the executive branch. For god sakes, look at the NSA programs success rate, it's 0%. They caught 0 terrorists. And it's not even 0 out of 2 terrorist attacks either, there were several, and they caught none of them. Think about how crappy this program is, and yet it still receives overwhelming support even from opponents. It's a mistake to think the abuse of power by the executive branch can be solved by policing itself. You need to have Congress and SCOTUS bearing down on them. Scotus is out since it's markedly conservative until one of the conservative justices croaks. Congress is theoretically easier, you should focus your efforts there. It's not as sexy as the presidency, but influencing the rank and file party members can yield dividends even though they're often boring and sleepy affairs. Take the beyond coal movement. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... oal-000002
tldr: A combination of favorable energy prices, EPA regulation, and smart well-funded grassroot groups have shut down dozens of coal plants in an age where coal used to be king.

Tyndmyr, I'm not saying he wasn't trying to find a balance, I'm saying it's not a winning strategy. I think we're in agreement in general about Rand though, not quite sure.

pat35249
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:38 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby pat35249 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:45 am UTC

Yeah,that is the exact opposite lesson of the last two elections.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6799
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:49 am UTC

pat35249 wrote:Yeah,that is the exact opposite lesson of the last two elections.

Unquoted response lacks context. What are you referring to?

On a separate note, Marco Rubio does not know how to control his finances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Those troubles have played out in an unusually public way, leading even some of his supporters to worry. As he rose in politics, he sometimes intermingled personal and political money — using a state Republican Party credit card years ago to pay for a paving project at his home and for travel to a family reunion, and putting his relatives on campaign payrolls.

Other moves seemed simply unwise: A few weeks ago, he disclosed that he had liquidated a $68,000 retirement account, a move that is widely discouraged by financial experts and that probably cost him about $24,000 in taxes and penalties. These were not isolated incidents. A review of the Rubio family’s finances — including many new documents — reveals a series of decisions over the past 15 years that experts called imprudent: significant debts; a penchant to spend heavily on luxury items like the boat and the lease of a $50,000 2015 Audi Q7; a strikingly low savings rate, even when Mr. Rubio was earning large sums; and inattentive accounting that led to years of unpaid local government fees.

Mr. Rubio has acknowledged missteps: using personal credit cards to pay for his campaigns (a bad idea, he said); appointing his wife, Jeanette, as a treasurer of a political action committee (ill advised, he said); and using the party money for the reunion trip (an accident, he said). Mr. Rubio, in his 2012 memoir, “An American Son,” confessed a “lack of bookkeeping skills” and an “imperfect accounting system.”

I don't think he's as bad as Jess Jackson Jr., but maybe a George Bush Lite, but without the millionaire daddy to bail him out?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:57 am UTC

That doesn't seem to be corruption, just poor bookkeeping skills. I kinda sympathize, my own administration is a mess as well.

At first I was going to say such skills are utterly irrelevant for a president. A president sets policy, he doesn't have to do the bookkeeping himself. But after thinking about it a bit more I'm not so sure. The pattern seems to be not listening to his advisors, which is a potentially disastrous character trait for a president.
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

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:35 pm UTC

Largely irrelevant but unflattering news coverage is the first trial that every semi-viable candidate goes through. It means that Rubio is being exposed to actual journalism instead of copy-pasting his speeches and press releases. And if his response is "blah blah blah privacy blah blah blah New York TImes vendetta", it shows that he really hasn't thought about what it would be like to be President of the United States yet.

In its substance, the allegations show that Rubio is a senatorial newbie and is still making rookie political mistakes. I'm much more concerned that he would ignore generations of presidents of both parties and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel if he had the power to, but it's all part of the potential narrative that he will be more suited to the job in eight or twelve years.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:07 pm UTC

This is funny. Obviously biased and probably not "fair and balanced" as they say, but funny nonetheless.
http://www.youngcons.com/who-can-identi ... rco-rubio/
Spoiler:
Maro Rubio's house Image
Hillary Clinton's house Image
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:36 pm UTC

What's obviously biased about it?
lol everything matters
-Ed

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:42 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Largely irrelevant but unflattering news coverage is the first trial that every semi-viable candidate goes through. It means that Rubio is being exposed to actual journalism instead of copy-pasting his speeches and press releases.


Ehhhhhhhhh

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:43 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:What's obviously biased about it?


The website is called "Young conservatives".

Mutex
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:43 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
duckshirt wrote:What's obviously biased about it?


The website is called "Young conservatives".


Seems like Clinton has done rather well for herself, being married to a former president probably helped.

What's their point?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:05 pm UTC

I think their point is that Democrats, since they are all Marxists, are against anyone becoming rich, therefore they should vote for Marco Rubio instead of Hillary Clinton because if they vote for Clinton that makes them hypocrites.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:22 pm UTC

No, they have no problem with being rich, but Hillary has already branded herself as the "Champion of Everyday Americans," despite living a lavish lifestyle the last 30+ years. The speeding ticket thing is funny because Hillary admitted she has not even driven a car in the last 20 years. She deserves that criticism.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:45 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:No, they have no problem with being rich, but Hillary has already branded herself as the "Champion of Everyday Americans,"


When? I mean, other than supporting things like minimum wage increases, I don't see this at all.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:16 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
duckshirt wrote:No, they have no problem with being rich, but Hillary has already branded herself as the "Champion of Everyday Americans,"


When? I mean, other than supporting things like minimum wage increases, I don't see this at all.


From the horse's mouth... https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/stat ... 9321407488

While we're at it, where do you read that Republicans/conservatives think all Democrats are marxists who should not be rich?
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:55 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:While we're at it, where do you read that Republicans/conservatives think all Democrats are marxists who should not be rich?


It's sarcasm, but I mean, it's really really easy to find examples of Republicans calling Democrats "Marxists." I just don't see what their point could possibly be other than "See! Hillary is rich, Rubio is not, therefore you should vote for Rubio if you are poor!"

Anyway, even if she did say that, it doesn't matter at all, because Marco Rubio and the rest of the Republicans are the ones wanting to gut social safety nets and keep minimum wage down, and she is against gutting social safety nets and in favor of raising minimum wage, so compared to the Republicans, she is the "champion of everyday Americans."
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mutex
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:52 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
duckshirt wrote:While we're at it, where do you read that Republicans/conservatives think all Democrats are marxists who should not be rich?


It's sarcasm, but I mean, it's really really easy to find examples of Republicans calling Democrats "Marxists." I just don't see what their point could possibly be other than "See! Hillary is rich, Rubio is not, therefore you should vote for Rubio if you are poor!"

Anyway, even if she did say that, it doesn't matter at all, because Marco Rubio and the rest of the Republicans are the ones wanting to gut social safety nets and keep minimum wage down, and she is against gutting social safety nets and in favor of raising minimum wage, so compared to the Republicans, she is the "champion of everyday Americans."


Exactly, if we were comparing two people with similar policies then we might conclude that Rubio would be more in touch with the common person and therefore more likely to champion them. But if I were American I think I'd go with the person in a mansion who ISN'T trying to cut welfare and minimum wage.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:18 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
duckshirt wrote:No, they have no problem with being rich, but Hillary has already branded herself as the "Champion of Everyday Americans,"


When? I mean, other than supporting things like minimum wage increases, I don't see this at all.


It's a pretty normal branding, even when it's hilariously off base.

Seriously, none of the presidential candidates are everyday Americans. They can't be. A successful candidacy requires a pile of money and connections that are well outside of average. So, this is just a publicity battle, not one of substance.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:25 pm UTC

Quite aside from the monetary requirements to run a campaign, I'm not entirely sure why one would want an "everyday American" to be president. I'd prefer my chief executives to be extraordinary people, personally.

That said, I also don't see how being a "Champion of Everyday Americans" requires one to *be* an "everyday American". Those seem like two entirely different (although not exclusionary) sets to me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests