The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]

[Cycle]

I'm pretty sure there's a limit there. If I were to vote a white supremacist into office because I believed that all nonwhites, gays, jews, etc. need to be exterminated I'm pretty sure you'd have an obligation to belittle and put down my views and beliefs.

The issue is one of civility.  You said:  "Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that any sensible person would let into the white house." 

I happen to think Webb is fine.  And I can live with Clinton.  That means, in your words, I am "not sensible."  That's not how one engages in a "respectful discussion of a disagreement." 

You like Bernie.  Great.  Say how much you like Bernie.  And attack Webb and Clinton if you want.  But why is it necessary to use language that could be considered an attack on an E member who wants to vote differently from you?

[Mithlomwen]

The issue is one of civility.  You said:  "Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that any sensible person would let into the white house."

That's not how one engages in a "respectful discussion of a disagreement." 

You like Bernie.  Great.  Say how much you like Bernie.  And attack Webb and Clinton if you want.  But why is it necessary to use language that could be considered an attack on an E member who wants to vote differently from you?

That's it exactly. 

[kylie]

     I do think it's a pretty fine line or fuzzy area to pin down, though. I suppose you can say characterize policies not voters, but at some level, certain trends (and often certain demographic blocs) do actually feed outcomes that have horrendous consequences in many of our eyes.

     To some of us, the current level of gun violence in America is rather mystifying or even medieval in its logic. To others, it's just a barely mentionable side effect of other rights where "protection" is somehow of higher priority. Is this a political culture one can maintain without anarchy, where some rather extreme views can be aired?  Sure it is, but then so are Nigeria and North Korea each in their own way. Their actions make plenty of sense to quite a few people there (terrified and indoctrinated and over-regulated in using appropriate words as they may be), but many people in the US would say it defies "common sense" and civility to do much approaching them. And a few might say, maintaining the current power of the US gun culture already does approach adopting such relative disregard for both life and civil discourse, too.

     The actors can be rational or (take Kim Davis) quite honest, even somewhat logical inasmuch as people ever are --  the political culture can allow all sorts of choices -- and yet, some choices still have patently earthshattering consequences beyond the pale for many observers. If all one has to say is, oh you called me unreasonable for choosing that, that's a personal attack?  Where does that get us.

     I think for all the highbrow talk about culture, the substantial point here is 'sensible' could mean generally honest and rational, or it could mean making a sound analytical choice when we all start (for the sake of the sort of ideal argument where people actually commiunicate or convince?) with some shared moral compass.  Sure people may get offended if they only think about the first interpretation, but logically the word doesn't have to be read as a personal attack.  People couldreact the same way to anyone saying a given choice in the world is foolish, questionable, or unreasonable -- but this has to end someplace if we"re to get on with this thread. Perhaps we could simply assume a little less malice before tne details are aired, rather than making too many grammar rules to keep up with?

[Cassandra LeMay]

If all one has to say is, oh you called me unreasonable for choosing that, that's a personal attack?  Where does that get us.

In my opinion that gets us to the point where we call a spade a spade and a personal attack a personal attack.

If someone wants to call another person unreasonable that remains a personal attack, unless and until it is followed by "...and here is why: ...".

[kylie]

     It seems to me that around here, we call policies unreasonable quite a lot -- and people generally don't jump to considering that a personal attack. But this is extending it to, if one characterizes a vague or generalized group of people as somehow lacking without saying <what> (which or how many reasons will be required exactly? Probably varies with who the mods like/agree with...), then they will be assumed by default to be mounting personal attacks against any of those who feel like objecting.

    ... Or is the issue more the particular usage of  "sensibility." Which would make much more sense to me if it were the issue. I just think the conclusion is opening this unnecessary can of worms. One could simply ask for some "assuming what" to have a real argument about -- or ignore it as pretty darn vague and insubstantial, or offer some substance to raise the discourse if one has the interest.  Or, we can do it your way and I may say, "That's a personal attack on all Isis members" next time anyone says their policies are abhorrent or ill-considered or whatever. Sounds ridiculous, perhaps? But I don't see this sort of picking as something that will play very consistently, nor is it easy to keep up with too many rulings on particular words.

[Caehlim]

In my personal opinion, debating Elliquiy policy is a little derailing for this thread. If a member of staff is acting as a moderator and requests a behaviour stop to maintain the site rules, arguing against it is not really relevant to the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates.

[Cycle]

Kylie, there is a difference between attacking Ben Carson and attacking E members who like/dislike Ben Carson.  The former is okay.  The latter is not.  That's always been a part of how PROC works as far as I know.

But I agree with Caehlim.  If you want to debate what the rules of debating are on E, I'd suggest you contact the Staff and ask them for clarification.

[Cycle]

So 3.0 decided to embrace his family name.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Friday embraced his last name more than he has at any point in his presidential campaign to date -- saying he is a Bush, and that's why he'd be a good leader on foreign policy.

W. T. F.

Dude, you really want to do this?  Because you're going to get shredded.  Bush?  Foreign policy?  Anyone remember this crap?

Keep digging, 3.0.  I'll be more than happy to keep handing you shovels.

[Merah]

But it's his TURN... George already got to drive daddy's truck, now he should be able to too!

So what if big brother ran over a few pedestrians? Jeb doesn't see anything wrong with that, and it's his turn now, goddamnit.

[TheGlyphstone]

Now I can't help but picture Jeb being voice by Anthony Daniels...

"Greetings - I am Bush 3.0, human-nutjob relations. This is my companion, Trump-Two-Dee-Two."

[Merah]

Maybe it's like Windows. You weather the bad versions and hope to God they give you your Start Menu (somewhat-free democracy) back in the next one.

Of course, you could switch to a Mac (socialism) but you're worried that would be just too damn expensive for your budget! And you're not sure you're savvy enough to be able to run Linux (libertarianism) properly.

[Oniya]

Now I can't help but picture Jeb being voice by Anthony Daniels...

"Greetings - I am Bush 3.0, human-nutjob relations. This is my companion, Trump-Two-Dee-Two."

Well, they did have to bleep out everything R2 said...

[gaggedLouise]

So 3.0 decided to embrace his family name.

W. T. F.

Dude, you really want to do this?  Because you're going to get shredded.  Bush?  Foreign policy?  Anyone remember this crap?

It does sound a bit like Napoleon III saying, roughly: "I'm a Bonaparte, gentlemen, and that's why I am going to lead you to greatness again."  :D

[Oniya]

Except that actually seems to have worked out for him - at least until 1870.  ;)

[Cycle]

The Donald has claimed his second victim:  Scott Walker, he-who-loves-unions-everywhere, has announced he's dropping.

Keep going big guy.  Keep going!

[Oniya]

The Donald has claimed his second victim:  Scott Walker, he-who-loves-unions-everywhere, has announced he's dropping.

Keep going big guy.  Keep going!

Of course, this means that y'all in Wisconsin still have to vote him out of the Governor's office.  Sorry about that.  I'd help if I could.

[Blythe]

The Donald has claimed his second victim:  Scott Walker, he-who-loves-unions-everywhere, has announced he's dropping.

Keep going big guy.  Keep going!

Have updated OP--thank you, Cycle!  :-)

[Oniya]

Nothing official yet, but looks like Jindal, Pataki, and Paul are next on the chopping block.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/jindal_pataki_to_drop_presiden.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Euron Greyjoy]

Warning: This isn't aimed at any particular user or users. This is just my opinion on Bernie Sanders being considered a serious candidate, when people tell me Trump isn't one. By continuing on you agree to a possibility in getting your views challenged and a sore rump.

Sanders 2016? You can't be serious can you? Wait you are? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Bernie Sanders is that kid in high school that promised no homework and free ice cream if he was elected class president. Sanders wants to spend eighteen trillion dollars (when we already have a 21 trillion dollar deficit) on expanding federal government programs (medicaid, care, social security), making college tuition free (Oh god yes I want to pay for someones gender studies degree please), and fixing America's declining infrastructure (something I actually agree with, but I think people on welfare who can work who choose not to should force to join a civilian conservation corp.). To give muh free shit, he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy which is no surprise. Just don't be surprised when you lose your job or work less hours, when companies have to cut back on spending #FeeltheBern. http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Speaking of losing jobs and hours, Sanders supports a higher minimum wage. With a higher cost of operation, businesses will look for a means to make it up somewhere. While no, most prices won't go up in most businesses, but they sure will in the fast food industry. I'd argue for bringing back American factory jobs, which Trump supports as they actually paid a living wage. Unlike Sanders who was a politician since the 70s, Trump is an actual outsider. Sure Trump may not be a policy guy, but he has until the election to get there. Not to mention if he scores Cruz or Carson as VP he'll be right as rain.  Unlike the cuckservatives  (Rubio, Bush (for fuck sake the man spoke Spanish in his announcement and while on campaign)), Paul, and etc) Trump is tough on immigration and bad trade deals that send American jobs overseas (NAFTA and TPA). Perhaps the  biggest plus for Trump over Sanders is the fact he didn't get cucked twice by "protesters", having to give them the stage as he stood in the corner. In other words you can't thump, stump, jump, or trump the Trump.

[Oniya]

I'm just going to let an expert respond to that.

4 Reasons Why The Wall Street Journal’s Attack on Bernie is Bogus

[Euron Greyjoy]

That's still 15 trillion dollars when we're close to a 21 trillion deficit. Also we spend more on education than most countries, but our education is shit. It can't be because teacher unions protecting bad teachers. I get it Democrats are desperate for a candidate after Hillary's countless scandals, but you guys would be better off with siding with Biden if you stayed with Democrat party. 

[ReijiTabibito]

Sanders leads in both NH and in IA right at this moment.  Not Hilary, not any of the other guys.  Him.  Yeah, okay, you might say that that won't last, because the initial frontrunner is never the guy that actually goes all the distance, but this is a 5-6 candidate field, not the Republicans where you have half the eligible persons to run doing so.

And who said that that kid in high school who made promises about ice cream and homework wasn't capable of fulfilling his promises?  They just never got elected because people have been trained to never take candidates like that seriously.  Sanders hasn't even promised he will solve all of our problems, but the problems he sees in America today, he's got a plan, and he's told us what that plan is.

Like that 'free college tuition' thing.  His plan?  Tax Wall Street, the guys who have already made it, very modestly (we're not talking the 90% days, which were some of the best days economically the country had), have them give back to the society that helped place them where they are.  It's not an unreasonable thing for them to do.  In Bernie's plan, the average working American won't have to pay a DIME into this plan, because your average working American doesn't make millions on Wall Street every year.

Fast Food Industry

As for the fast food industry raising prices?  Good!  We eat too much fast food anyways, that's half the reason the country is slowly getting fatter and fatter by the year.  You can pretty much make what the fast food industry makes today in your own home - burritos, burgers, pizza, all of it - the only catch is that we would rather not spend the time.  In the end, when you buy out food (even for the local sit-downs you have around), that's what you're paying for.  The convenience.  Not having to make it yourself.  Not having to get the ingredients and look up the recipe and make it yourself.  You are paying someone else to do that.

And while people will pay for convenience, people also want to live.  I can have a cheeseburger, some fries, and a Coke at home for somewhere around...say $5.  $3 for the burger, and a buck each for the fries and the Coke.  I go to McD's and buy it, it costs $7 for the same amount of food.  It's more expensive, but I pay it because I would rather spend the $2 than make it myself.  If I go to McD's and I have to pay $12 for what I can make for $5 at my house, a rational person will say 'fuck that' and go make their damn burger and fries themselves.

Cheap, plentiful, easily-accessed food.  It's why we have climbing obesity rates.  Take away one part of that and you have weakened the fast food industry.  They don't want that.  A business' goal is to make money, because that is their lifeblood.  If they raise prices, then people will buy less of their product.  Which means they'll have fewer customers, less revenue, and that pattern can easily turn into a death spiral for a company.

National Debt

As for the deficit, we're not talking about piling on all that $15 trillion all at the same time.  Plus, if you look at it mathematically, Sanders is far from the worst candidate.  If we're at $21 trillion, and Sanders' programs would add on an additional $15 trillion, that's an increase of about 70%.

Compare that to Bush Jr, whose debt increase was 101%.  Dub-ya  doub-led our national debt in just eight years.  And for all the flack that Barrack Obama gets about how his programs increased debt, his debt increase over his two terms was about 53% - it's not Clinton numbers (debt under Bill increased 32%), but it's certainly damn better than any of the "modern" Republicans.

And as a note, it's not a crime for the national debt to increase.  The national debt will increase just by breathing, because of inflation and rising costs of goods and services.  The important number (hopefully Oniya or Veks can chime in with a helpful note) is how much the national debt is in comparison to GDP.  If our economy gets bigger, then our debt can get bigger because we have more GDP.  It's similar to how the military budget can increase, even after it's been cut.

Education

Education?  Education is shit for two reasons.  1: educational corporations like Pearson are trying to make a buck off the problems we have in our system rather than actually fix the damn problem - why do you think they come up with a new version of whatever test every few years?  New tests, new standards, all developed by them, equals more money.  2: we insist the problem is with the school, the teacher, the classroom, and would rather tear down the current system brick by brick rather than admit that we (and when I say we here I mean the average person involved in education who is not a professional) are a portion of the problem ourselves.

You can learn without a teacher.  It's damn hard, but you can teach yourself things.  But you can't learn if you're not willing to be a student.  You want to get rid of bad teachers?  Fine.  Let's get rid of bad students, too.  Let's get rid of those guys that don't want to spend time in school and would rather sit on their couch playing PSwhatever or down with their friends shooting hoops than learn about how long division is going to affect your life.  Let's get rid of those guys with attitude problems and chips on their shoulders who think the world owes them because they grew up without a mother or a father or in the care of their grandparents or insert social situation here.  Let's get rid of those guys who have failed math for the last 6 years of school but insist that they don't need it because when they get to be the next big music star or sportsman they'll have a business manager they pay to handle all of that.

Teachers can only go so far.  They can do only so many things to make their subjects interesting and relevant to their students. At some point, the student has to engage, he has to get up and say "I'm going to school to learn and to make something of myself."  Not "I'm going to school because I have to."  People aren't generally motivated to do something when they feel they have to.  They procrastinate.  They dodge.  They do anything else first.  Because people have become accustomed to 'education for everyone' here in the US.  "You have to take me, it's the law, and I have to be here, but you can't make me care."  Attitude.  It can destroy the willingness to learn more surely than the worst teacher.

Back to Trump.  Trump has no plan.  He has no platform.  And all I'm hearing from his is "when I get there, I'll handle it."  That's not good enough for a President.  How are you going to build that 1900 mile wall?  How are you going to bring this factory jobs back to the US?  How are you going to handle the eventual fuckery that is the United States Congress and the K Street lobbyists?  On one thing you and I agree.  Trump is running on Trump.  The fact that he's managing to successfully do so just shows how far the average voter has fallen in the last 50 years.  In 1965, a Trump would never have made it.  Even the third party candidates in their elections had platforms (see George Wallace)!  Because in those days people paid attention to problems and issues.  Today people pay attention to fucking Snookie.

[Euron Greyjoy]

>Implying Sanders will win the nominee. Implying Trump won't get most of if not all the voters from the former candidates.

You're joking right? Are you trying to tell me a bunch of entitled high schoolers wouldn't vote for the gibs me dat president? People been trained to vote huh? Sounds like you're just upset there's no ministry of truth yet.

<Implying the rich ever paid 90% taxes. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808 I bet you believe the New Deal ended the great depression too. Are you trying to say they don't deserve the millions they make due to their jobs actually being worth millions if not billions?

Whoa whoa whoa. Slow you're roll, comrade. I thought you were a populist, a defender of the poor? Today's families have either two working parents or single parent. Not every family has time to cook and with the cost of groceries on the rise, they'll have a hard affording it.

It's kinda hard to lay out your platform, when you have only so little time during the debates of ten people. As the pool gets smaller he'll have more time to outline his beliefs. Seeing how we as a nation voted for Bush and Obama twice, stranger things can happen.

Something tells me when his policies fail and they would, he'd throw more money at it.That's what one just war and one questionable war gets you. I'm glad to see that you think the government can spend  more than it makes, when it doesn't work the opposite way.


Right it's all because of dem ebil corporations and has nothing to do with bad teachers or teacher unions.

For those who didn't get what I mean't when I said Sanders got cucked this is what I meant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjt56Tdhhqk

[Merah]

A populist movement is only the natural response to big money blatantly seizing power in our democracy, as it has more and more in recent years. People aren't following Sanders because he's promising them 'free stuff', they're following him because he is standing up to undue corporate influence in what is supposed to be a democracy OF THE PEOPLE.

Oh and btw, trickle-down economics is a bald-faced lie. It has been said that there are two types of Republicans, Euron, billionaires and suckers. Which one are you? (Sorry to get personal, but you certainly crossed that line a long time ago)

[Euron Greyjoy]

I could say the same about a nationalist movement seizing the power back from global corporations. Are you sure about that? Free college and health care sound like gib me dat policies.

>Implying I support trickle down economics.

>Implying I'm a Republican.