You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 03:46:22 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]  (Read 40258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thumper

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2015, 01:41:01 PM »
I'll form my opinion as we go on through the year. But I'm not terribly disappointed by him so far.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2015, 03:25:42 PM »
From looking at the very first article with referenced quotes from him I can say absofrigginglutely NO

I ask but one thing then:

Do you intend to vote?  (Assuming that you are eligible to do so.)

If you do - regardless of your choice of candidate - then I tip my hat to you and say may the best person win.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2015, 03:47:23 PM »
Is it too late to add a poll option to this thread?  ;)


Online BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2015, 03:53:16 PM »
Is it too late to add a poll option to this thread?  ;)

It's not too late to add a poll option--can add a poll at any time.

But....so many poll options...  :o

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2015, 04:12:05 PM »
But....so many poll options...  :o

You can be like FOX and just take the top 10 polling candidates...  ;D


Online BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2015, 04:47:15 PM »
I have added a poll! You should also be able to change your vote if you need to--I put that in because the field of candidates is still fluctuating, a lot of big debates haven't happened yet, etc. Cast my vote already based on the person I'm most likely to vote for at this point in time. ^^

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2015, 05:22:55 PM »
Nice!  Thanks, Sherlock.  :-)


Offline Far eyes

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2015, 08:22:32 AM »
You can be like FOX

*Shudders* i feel dirty just from thinking about that, you should never be like Fox in fact being like Fox should be against the site terms  :P

Offline Thumper

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2015, 10:49:39 PM »
As should CNN and msmbc.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2015, 12:01:00 PM »
As should CNN and msmbc.

That might cause a paradox.  If FOX is the right, MSNBC is the left, and CNN is the middle, then we'd end up...  nowhere?  XD


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2015, 12:12:21 PM »
I think getting all of one's news from one specific source is problematic.  MSNBC has recently killed off three very popular shows for daring to question the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a trade agreement very similar to NAFTA (and we saw how well that one worked for US jobs).  A variety of sources - including non-Rupert Murdoch sources - is highly beneficial.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2015, 08:05:45 PM »
Good point, Oniya.

FOX has listed the 10 candidates that get to participate in the main debate on Thursday:
  • Donald Trump
  • Jeb Bush
  • Scott Walker
  • Mike Huckabee
  • Ben Carson
  • Ted Cruz
  • Marco Rubio
  • Rand Paul
  • Chris Christie
  • John Kasich

Offline Thumper

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2015, 08:55:04 PM »
That might cause a paradox.  If FOX is the right, MSNBC is the left, and CNN is the middle, then we'd end up...  nowhere?  XD

Getting any kind of accurate reporting from mainstream media anymore is impossible. You have to go to other sources.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2015, 09:13:02 PM »
I think getting all of one's news from one specific source is problematic.  MSNBC has recently killed off three very popular shows for daring to question the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a trade agreement very similar to NAFTA (and we saw how well that one worked for US jobs).  A variety of sources - including non-Rupert Murdoch sources - is highly beneficial.

Getting news in general is a difficult proposition when you are talking about the major cable networks.  A number of the shows on MSNBC and FOX aren't news at all, but news commentary, which is people telling you what you should think about the news  at its worst, and at its best it's just talking heads discussing their own opinions on it (but at least they have the decency not to command you to think like they do).

Even when you get to the actual news shows, and ones that aren't trying to pass themselves off as one, you end up with the Sex & Violence conundrum.  Well, that and no-talent celebrities like the Kardashians and whatever chapter is going on in the Lohan Saga.  The problem with this is simple - news networks are trying to get higher ratings, which means more people watching, which means the subject material has to be more interesting - more entertaining - than whatever sitcom or L&O ripoff or angsty drama (or all of them at once!) is currently also occupying the timeslot.  Which means Sex & Violence, since that's what TV shows can do.

Couple that with a declining interest in being informed (which coincides with a rising interest in being entertained), due to various factors, and you've got largely the state of the newsworld today.

The solution to this is incredibly simple, but won't stand a chance to be implemented.

EDIT: I will say, you can get news through TV sources, but that's more from programs like LAst Week Tonight or TDS - basically shows that exist to poke fun at the news rather than actually report on it.  Jon Stewart noted that it was not good that programs like his were being considered 'media watchdogs,' because as he put it: "We're not really watchdogs.  We're more like dogs that lick each other's balls."
« Last Edit: August 04, 2015, 09:15:11 PM by ReijiTabibito »

Online Dashenka

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2015, 03:55:20 AM »
I can't vote, obviously. But something that strikes me, after having seen some of the (mostly Republican) candidates on youtube and other websites, is that most of them seem to talk about war.

Jon Paul got a standing applause when he said the US shouldn't be at war in Syria, but in Iran. I believe it was Romney last elections who said the US had to be back to controlling the world, by force if needed and Jeb Bush defended the war on terror his brother (I think) started. Donald Trump (I know) spoke about building a wall on the Mexican border and calling all of the Mexicans rapists and criminals.

I understand it's the US elections and what the rest of the world thinks about your government isn't really all that important as long as they do a good job for the US but should that really come at a cost of a) the already damaged reputation of the US (which Obama is doing a really good job to repair by the way), especially after all the NSA/CIA and God knows who else have been listening in on everybody in the world. B) the stability and peace in the world and c) risking more wars on US soil.

Basically what I'm trying to say or ask, is why do people in the US agree with these things? Why for example, does Jon Paul get so much applause when he is suggesting going to war with Iran? Is war really built in the American society so much that presidential candidates use this to win elections?

Without deviating from the topic too much and risking a lot of negativity around me but the Republican candidates are so opposed to what Putin is doing for, in and with Russia but their campaigns evolve around basically the same. The rich getting richer, the poor, poorer and the world around them a little bit worse off every day.


Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2015, 06:41:04 AM »
     It's rather more of a Republican Party thing, that they tend to put forward these candidates who frame the world as America versus whatever great evil they may imagine, however real or otherwise.  They have long claimed that their selling point was "keeping America strong" and not being personally weak or open to the sorts of moral complexity (which they want people to read as weakness) which Obama or say, John Kerry were seen -- and further beyond reality, painted -- as having.  Also if you look back at the Obama campaign against Bush W, it was a great selling point for Obama that he didn't fully support the Iraq war (particularly the initial moves, after which it becomes harder to deny funding) and that he was going to make some effort to wind things up quickly. 

      There are some segments of the population which buy these things from the neocons and their more centrist, but often overlapping enough friends in the Republican establishment.  But I suspect more vote for the hawkish candidates because they are concerned about other quite defensive  issues where "strength" and "tradition" can rile up people feeling lost in the changes of the last few decades (particularly immigration, race and gender policies, and economic policy).  This is true even though the Repubs are also and separately, ironically, very clear that they favor the rich getting richer rather than the common worker, cause who else "creates" productivity so they say.   

      In the US, when it became clear that the Iraq war wasn't going well, that WMD weren't being found, and to some extent when it kept arising that it was probable the early reports of WMD were based on shoddy claims...  Then, the media became more critical of the war and public opinion certainly swung against Bush (definitely him personally, and I believe somewhat against the war, compared to earlier on).  Now by comparison, I think many Americans would ask whenever mainstream Russian media would be allowed to report on Russian troops in the Ukraine or to offer serious arguments against Putin, or does he not have a solid history of controlling the media one way or another.  It is true that the US media (and others in the Washington establishment) might have done a better job of questioning the motives for the Iraq invasion in the first place (a few people did and the government attacked them viciously over "national security" law).  But I think there is still quite some difference here, compared to the Russian situation.
   
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 06:52:44 AM by kylie »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2015, 01:21:08 PM »
More people on the ground agree with this guy.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2015, 01:42:09 PM »
Basically what I'm trying to say or ask, is why do people in the US agree with these things? Why for example, does Jon Paul get so much applause when he is suggesting going to war with Iran? Is war really built in the American society so much that presidential candidates use this to win elections?

Kylie covered a lot of the main points I would have raised.  Really, the important thing is to remember that not everyone in the US thinks the same way.  Sure, there are some folks who advocate for military solutions and hold an "if the U.S. does it, the rest of the world is sure to follow" belief.  But I suspect, the majority actually do not. 

There are plenty of folks--aside from just President Obama--who prefer to use diplomacy.  Unfortunately, most of them don't get as much media time, so you often just don't see them.


Online Dashenka

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2015, 01:59:58 PM »
I think it's safe to say, that for those reasons mentioned, most of the rest of the world (with the possible exception of Israel) would prefer a Democrat president of the US.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2015, 10:21:38 PM »
So, I just watched the debate.  Overall, I found it mildly entertaining.  My personal observations:
  • Trump wasn't as flashy as I hoped.
  • Walker and Christie did better than I expected.
  • Paul seemed whiny.
  • Bush was really boring.  He also seemed very insecure.
In the end though, I didn't see anything that would change my vote one way or the other.


Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2015, 10:39:17 PM »
Trump wasn't as flashy as I hoped.

Trump's main advantages are going to come out in the media circus that surrounds an election.  As has been noted on the thread, that's where his wheelhouse is.  The debates, he's going to be a bit more toned down because he wants the nomination, and you can't get that necessarily by being all the way out there.  Remember Gingrich from the last election.

Walker and Christie did better than I expected.

They did, because they're actually in current positions of leadership, being active governors of states at the time.  Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, as Huckabee was for Arkansas, but that was 8 years ago when they both left office.  Walker and Christie are in office now.

Paul seemed whiny.

Rand Paul is the libertarian end of things.  His deal, from my vantage point, is that he actually believes the 'less government is better' spiel he's speaking, in contrast to the Republicans, who basically want government to be hands-off where they want it to be, and incredibly intrusive elsewhere.

Bush was really boring.  He also seemed very insecure.

If I was Bush III, or W's brother, and just having the Bush legacy following me around, I would be a bit insecure myself.  Jeb needs to prove that he's not his brother or his dad, and that he's not going to make the same mistakes they made, if he wants the office.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2015, 10:42:38 PM »
Walker and Christie are in office now.

And doing a craptastic job of it, according to my friends in both of their home states.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2015, 10:48:44 PM »
And doing a craptastic job of it, according to my friends in both of their home states.

Yes, but expect a Christie vs Bush ad to play up Christie's recent experience vs Bush being out of office for a while.

My experience in the job field has been that even if you're going a shit job, people will take you over someone who might've done better with the same experience, but has been 'out of the game' for a while.  It's a question I've seen asked in job interviews:  "Your last major job was 5 years ago.  What have you been doing since then?"

...you moocher, is usually the undertone.

Online HannibalBarca

  • Defiant General of Hopeless Causes * Henry Rollins for President campaigner * Mako-phile * Uncle Iroh in shades * Disciple of Dr. Cornel West *
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: At large, am tall. "People keep asking if I'm back. Yeah...I'm thinking I'm back."
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2015, 06:04:05 AM »
Quote
Without deviating from the topic too much and risking a lot of negativity around me but the Republican candidates are so opposed to what Putin is doing for, in and with Russia but their campaigns evolve around basically the same. The rich getting richer, the poor, poorer and the world around them a little bit worse off every day.

The dichotomy in the United States of two parties isn't the normal thing for Europe, true.  One has to look at the foundations of the US to understand some of the thinking here that comes off as so weird to other nations.  Overall, I'd say Liberals, which are found in the Democratic party and other third parties, are similar to parties in Europe.  Even the Tories in the UK, are more like the Democrats in the United States.

The US was founded, largely, by two incoming groups of people:

1) Those seeking religious freedom.
2) Those seeking economic freedom.

The first group, unfortunately, was not seeking universal religious freedom.  Most of them were various Protestant groups persecuted by state-sanctioned religions.  Once they reached the shores of America, they had no problem persecuting other religions that entered their sphere of influence.  This hypocrisy of religion continues in many ways today in the US.

The second group was not just gold-seekers and tobacco growers.  There were many from the lower economic classes of Europe who were able to own their own land for the first time.  Unfortunately, some came with visions of grandeur, and eventually, effective feudalism was set up in the Southern states in the form of antebellum slavery and the plantation system.  Even worse than feudalism, slavery kept the poor white population in check as well...the rich whites kept the threat up that if blacks were freed, the poor whites might sink below them.  This concept of pitting two poorer groups against one another continues to this day in the US in the form of various efforts by wealthy conservatives to keep working-class whites pitted against minorities.

The descendants and inheritors of these two groups are, respectively, the evangelical Christian movement, and big-business conservatives.  When Ronald Reagan allied them in 1980, it gave the Republican party a significant advantage.  Unfortunately, in the long run, it has been apparent to everyone (but the evangelicals) that the evangelicals were merely used for their votes by the Republicans.  In the mid 2000s, the Republicans controlled the White House, both halves of the Congress, and had a majority on the Supreme Court--and did absolutely nothing to advance the desires of the evangelicals, such as banning abortion, or bringing prayer back to public schools.

Aside from the evangelicals and moneyed interests, there is a third significant group among the conservatives, the Tea Party.  This seems to be a segment of the white population distressed with their shrinking percentage of the US population, and their consequently threatened white privilege.  Conservatives favor the status quo, and the increase in percentage of the non-white population of the country has them seriously alarmed.  After decades (two centuries, really) of consistently minimizing, threatening, and harming black and brown people in the US, it should come as no surprise that most non-white citizens vote Democratic.  Changing demographics point to an eventual loss of majority status for whites in the US, and with it will come a near-insurmountable election problem for Republicans.  Basically...they made their bed, and now they have to sleep in it. 

However, instead of admitting years of error and faulty reasoning and political chicanery, the Republican party has effectively doubled down on their rhetoric.  Donald Trump is merely acting as a voice for millions of frightened, stubborn conservatives who cannot accept inevitable change occurring to their country.  And, regardless of how hard they dig their heels in and refuse to budge, the march of time grinds inexorably to the Left as far as social and cultural norms are concerned.  Younger generations are more tolerant of ethnic and gender differences, less religious, and more interested in socialist-based government.  The Republican party is the party of older, whiter, male-er Americans, and as time goes by, their numbers are naturally shrinking from simple mortality.

This downturn and collapse of their base and power is causing a tremendous amount of angst and fear among Conservatives.  Along with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which basically allowed unlimited campaign financing by wealthy interests, these various conservative interests have now all got money behind them from the wealthy powers that be.  This means that any politician with designs on the Presidency need merely find a rich donor, and the White House could possibly be theirs.

Now, as opposed to those two original groups, the religious and economic freedom seekers, whose spiritual descendants are the modern Republican party, the Democrats are formed primarily of descendants of marginalized groups--ethnic minorities, non-religious, union members, LGBTQ citizens, and a majority of women...as well as whites of more egalitarian modes of thought and belief.  I suppose you're pretty much guaranteed to be a Democrat if you're, say, a black lesbian atheist teacher.  This didn't have to be the case, but...at this time in history, Republicans have pretty much painted themselves into a corner using a bucket of white paint.

Online HannibalBarca

  • Defiant General of Hopeless Causes * Henry Rollins for President campaigner * Mako-phile * Uncle Iroh in shades * Disciple of Dr. Cornel West *
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: At large, am tall. "People keep asking if I'm back. Yeah...I'm thinking I'm back."
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2015, 06:07:46 AM »
Quote
Yes, but expect a Christie vs Bush ad to play up Christie's recent experience vs Bush being out of office for a while.

The problem with that is, Christie being in office has actually been worse for him, considering all the awful crap he's done in the past several years.  The same is true for Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker.  All three of them have tanked in the polls in their own states.  If their own constituents hate them, how are they going to drum up any support from national voters in the general election?

Nah, bring on Trump vs Sanders.  Two candidates who aren't afraid to honestly describe their beliefs.  I've been waiting for an unvarnished matchup between true Conservative and true Liberal politics, without the milquetoast crap.