You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 02:12:42 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 40208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #250 on: October 09, 2015, 10:57:58 AM »
Looks like Boehner is staying on a bit longer.  Poor guy.



He might be there a while. 

A good friend of mine from high school posted something on FB the other day that was meant to be funny....but in a way it's actually kind of sad.  Her entire family have been Republicans as far back as any of them can remember.  Her dad has always been a very proud and very staunch supporter of the party.  They were at a big family and friends get together a couple of weeks ago and she overheard her dad talking to one of his friends.  He was saying that for the first time since he can remember, he and others are now hesitant or almost embarrassed to reveal their party affiliation because of what he refers to the 'nut jobs' in the party.  The hard-line extremists in the party are giving the 'good and honest' Republicans a very bad name. 

I've known that man since I was in middle school, so for him to say he's now hesitant to admit his party affiliation....that's really bad.  :/ 

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #251 on: October 09, 2015, 01:53:14 PM »
Time for a MUSICAL INTERLUDE!!!



(It's technically a roast of ex-Toronto mayor Rob Ford, but most of the song could be directly applicable to national-level elections too.)

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #252 on: October 09, 2015, 04:20:24 PM »
The hard-line extremists in the party are giving the 'good and honest' Republicans a very bad name. 

My understanding is that there are about 40 odd members of something called the Freedom Caucus, that are adamant that the rest of the Republican party follow their lead or else.  The "or else" being shutting down the government, not passing budgets, not allowing anyone to gain enough votes to be Speaker, etc.

The voters who elected these folks into power are likely similar to those supporting the anti-establishment candidates:  e.g., Trump, Carson, Fiorina.  They seem to have quite the voice too, since those three combined account for more than half the total support out there. 

It is a fascinating dynamic to watch in action, if you can avoid thinking about the consequences that may flow from this.


Offline Ebb

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #253 on: October 09, 2015, 04:27:26 PM »
My understanding is that there are about 40 odd members of something called the Freedom Caucus, that are adamant that the rest of the Republican party follow their lead or else.  The "or else" being shutting down the government, not passing budgets, not allowing anyone to gain enough votes to be Speaker, etc.

The voters who elected these folks into power are likely similar to those supporting the anti-establishment candidates:  e.g., Trump, Carson, Fiorina.  They seem to have quite the voice too, since those three combined account for more than half the total support out there. 

It is a fascinating dynamic to watch in action, if you can avoid thinking about the consequences that may flow from this.

You're correct. This article goes into some detail about the Freedom Caucus, what exactly their demands are for a newly elected Speaker of the House, and why those demands would utterly wreck the country.

In short: If you want their support, you have to agree to some positions which are simply untenable. And without their support, you're not going to get elected as Speaker.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/09/3711011/this-document-reveals-why-the-house-of-representatives-is-in-complete-chaos/


Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #254 on: October 09, 2015, 04:45:58 PM »
So what happens if no one is willing to take the job and throw the entire country into a tailspin because of desired 'commitments' of the House Freedom Caucus?

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #255 on: October 09, 2015, 05:01:48 PM »
So what happens if no one is willing to take the job and throw the entire country into a tailspin because of desired 'commitments' of the House Freedom Caucus?

Anarchy in the House, maybe? or a senior justice stepping in as speaker?

(Trigger alert: the clip below contains some violence and may disturb one's feelings)


Online 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 #256 on: October 09, 2015, 06:07:20 PM »
So what happens if no one is willing to take the job and throw the entire country into a tailspin because of desired 'commitments' of the House Freedom Caucus?

We might be less screwed than you think.  While the position of Speaker is actually in the Constitution, it isn't quite as important as it seems.  The major job of House Speaker is to set the legislative agenda of the majority party - so, basically, they decide what their party will try and do while Congress is in session.

The other major responsibility is the line of succession - the Speaker is second in line to become President in case of a crisis of leadership: IE, both the President AND the Vice President would have to be killed in order for the Speaker to need to take over.  To date, only four Presidential assassinations have succeeded, and the last one was JFK, over 50 years ago.  The latest Vice Presidential assassination to succeed happened a hundred years ago during the Taft administration.

You're not likely to succeed at killing both without extensive planning and being better than the Secret Service.

On top of all that, there isn't actually anything in the Constitution that requires the Speaker to be an active Congressman.  It's merely been tradition that a Representative has always served as Speaker, and tradition can be broken.

My question is why is the majority to be elected Speaker so BIG?  There are 247 Republicans in the House, and the article provided notes that there must be 218 Republicans to confirm his installment.  That's an 88% majority!  Bigger positions than that call for only 2/3rds!  (Which here would be only 165.)

Perhaps the House will try and change the rules for Speaker election before Boehner departs?  I can't see any other way for the changeover to happen without the 'Freedomites' causing a total disintegration.

EDIT: I forgot, there is one option that the Republicans who run haven't seem to have considered.  Which is kinda weird, because they do it to us every damn day.  FUCKING LIE.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 06:09:53 PM by ReijiTabibito »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #257 on: October 09, 2015, 07:27:32 PM »
My question is why is the majority to be elected Speaker so BIG?  There are 247 Republicans in the House, and the article provided notes that there must be 218 Republicans to confirm his installment.

The speaker is elected from the total number of Representatives.  There are 435 of those folks.  A simple majority is needed to win.  Hence, 218 "guarantees" a win.

The Freedom Caucus needs to be careful pushing too hard.  There are 188 Democrats.  So if 30 moderate Republicans, folks who are not vulnerable to a primary challenge, decide to cooperate with the Democrats to choose a new Speaker, they can have their way and simply ignore the Freedom Caucus.


Online 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 #258 on: October 09, 2015, 07:37:36 PM »
That makes a lot more sense, now.  Or rather, what could happen (and probably should) is that the House Speaker would get the endorsement of all the House Republicans minus the Freedomites, plus the handful of Dems that are needed to fill out the list, to elect the Speaker.  The Democrats have just as much to lose by not electing a Speaker as all the non-crazy Repubs.

Frankly, they need to learn their bullshit isn't going to fly in Washington.  Not anymore.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #259 on: October 09, 2015, 07:40:58 PM »
Sadly, bipartisan has been a 4-letter word in Congress for a long time.

Online 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 #260 on: October 09, 2015, 07:50:48 PM »
I think the Democrats are self-enlightened enough to realize that the choices here range from Mildly Bad to Skull On A Red Button.  Yes, they will be supporting someone who will try and stymie them at every turn and accomplish goals that run contrary to theirs.

But it's a lot better than letting 40 people destroy a nation from within.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #261 on: October 09, 2015, 08:00:30 PM »
I think the Democrats are self-enlightened enough to realize that the choices here range from Mildly Bad to Skull On A Red Button.  Yes, they will be supporting someone who will try and stymie them at every turn and accomplish goals that run contrary to theirs.

But it's a lot better than letting 40 people destroy a nation from within.

But it also requires that the less-extreme Republicans make the offer in the first place, which they are just as unlikely to do even if the Democrats are smart enough to accept it.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #262 on: October 10, 2015, 01:32:14 AM »
We might be less screwed than you think.  While the position of Speaker is actually in the Constitution, it isn't quite as important as it seems.  The major job of House Speaker is to set the legislative agenda of the majority party - so, basically, they decide what their party will try and do while Congress is in session.
As far as I know the role of the speaker is a lot more important than that. As I understand it, the Speaker appoints all members of select committees; he decides what committee will consider a bill when it is introduced; the Speaker selects the majority of the Committee on Rules. The last is perhaps the most important, because that committee has a very strong influence on how legislation is debated, how many ammendments can be made to a bill, and a bunch of other procedural decisions that can greatly influence how a bill is passed.

The Speaker may have only a limited constitutional role, but when it comes to his role in House procedures, including very much the debating and passing of new laws, I think he is far more important than most people realize.

Edit: Might be of interest to a few people: Lengthy, but interesting article about the Freedom Caucus in Rolling Stone
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 01:40:47 AM by Cassandra LeMay »

Online 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 #263 on: October 10, 2015, 09:04:59 AM »
Edit: Might be of interest to a few people: Lengthy, but interesting article about the Freedom Caucus in Rolling Stone

The article makes the Freedom Caucus sound a lot more reasonable than they actually are in reality (at least initially) - they're just Republicans who serve the people that elected them, rather than the forces of K Street and the corporations and their SuperPACs. If they were just that, honest red-blood representatives who are interested in helping the people that elected them rather than the lobbyists, then there wouldn't be a problem.

The problem, quite simply, is that they're willing to embrace entirely destructive ends in order to accomplish their goals.  Debt default.  Government shut down.  Anyone with an ounce of political sense should realize that these are not valid ways to go about getting what you want done.  Which, if you read the article, it sounds like a good number of the Freedomites are - like the guy who has a PhD in PoliSci.  That tells me they know this will hurt the country - they just don't care.  They're not idiots, they're sociopaths.  'Doesn't matter, had X.'  To borrow the phrase.  Doesn't matter that thousands of families will starve because they don't get their food stamps this month, had Planned Parenthood defunded.  Doesn't matter that the country got its credit downgraded again, had the Iran deal nixed.

The article provides a unique insight, I think, into what will become of the Freedomites seeming-death-grip over the Republican party: they will actually start working with the Democrats again, because they're realizing that if Boehner is leaving, and nobody wants to replace him, then the Freedomites will unravel anything that they want to accomplish.  And if they work with the Dems, then that means that they will get input into the legislation the Republicans want.  Maybe it's bad now, but if this whole crisis forces bipartisanship to be workable again until the Freedomites are gone, then I'd call that a win.

There is, uh, there is one other thing.[/Columbo] 

This whole mess, over the Freedomites?  The Republicans themselves are pretty much responsible for it.  There isn't much difference in the speech between your average Republican and your Freedomite.  The difference is that the Freedomites are true believers, whereas your average Republican just says it to get elected and then will dump the promises made once in office.  Remove Obamacare.  The Iran deal is a disaster.  Stop SNAP, there are no hungry children in America, just deadbeat parents who want big screen TVs.  They've been saying things like this  - small-government, socially conservative - things for quite a while.  Both sides.  The difference is that the Freedomites refuse to back down, but your average Republican will.  I'm not saying that if the Freedomites destroy the right, I would be happy for it, but if it did...

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #264 on: October 10, 2015, 06:51:37 PM »
Things aren't looking good for the Bengahzi Committee...

Clinton must be smiling ear to ear right now.

Offline Mikem

  • *Cancer Survivor*
  • Permabanned
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: In the damp and dreary Pacific Northwest
  • Gender: Male
  • No labels. I'm a Man and that's all that I am.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #265 on: October 11, 2015, 02:48:39 AM »
I chose Sanders because he's the most promising right now, but honestly I don't fully know who I'll vote for. I wanted to go for Hilary cause she has experience in Politics and, of course is a Woman. I wanted to be a part of that historical milestone. But I've heard many things about her. Don't know if they're true or just a smear campaign, but now I'm uncertain.

It would be interesting having a Socialist in office though.

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 #266 on: October 11, 2015, 08:26:45 AM »
Speaking as a woman, there's more to it than just making an historic milestone.  The candidate has to be right for the job.  When I voted for President the last two times around, it wasn't because of making history - it was because I felt I was making the best choice I could.  The Republicans have put a couple of women on their tickets in the last couple elections, and I wouldn't have wanted any of them within a heartbeat of the Presidency (Palin, Bachman), much less in the Oval Office itself (Fiorina).  You're likely to have several opportunities to vote a new President into office.  Vote for the person who you think will do the job.

Offline KalebHyde

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #267 on: October 11, 2015, 09:21:22 AM »
The one good thing about this thread is the lack of positive support for Clinton.  I know people will vote for her because the Dem establishment tells them to or she is the wife of America's first rapist-in-chief, but nothing about her or her record inspires anyone.  Sanders, though I disagree with, is at least honest and offers a clear decision on the future direction of the country.

On the Republican side, I first off want to say good riddance to Boehner.  Some suggest that Republican voters should just accept being lied to and continue to back leaders who make promises they don't intend to keep.  I wonder why Democrats are so content to do just that.  How's that wage gap under Obama going?  Does anyone really believe a woman who is totally beholden to Wall Street and foreign donations to her charity will actually do anything for the poor?  That is as much of a joke as Boehner's spray tan.

That is why I am happy to see Sanders success and why I support Fiorina and/or Carson for president.  Both are honest people, not Washington politicians, while Trump is a sideshow barker just waiting to make a mistake which the biased media will no doubt pounce upon.  Democrats are allowed to increase spying on Americans while unlawfully hiding their own correspondence yet every word spoken by Republicans is twisted and scrutinized.  If the time is right for the first female president, then Fiorina is a far better choice than Clinton merely for Clinton's pure dishonest nature.  Orientation aside, however, Fiorina and Carson have been extremely impressive during the debates even under Trump's blowhard shadow.  If he ever gets out of the way, I would love to see the debates for President between Fiorina or Carson and Sanders once Clinton is forced out of the race, jail or not.

Offline Mikem

  • *Cancer Survivor*
  • Permabanned
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: In the damp and dreary Pacific Northwest
  • Gender: Male
  • No labels. I'm a Man and that's all that I am.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #268 on: October 11, 2015, 05:54:01 PM »
I know people will vote for her because the Dem establishment tells them to or she is the wife of America's first rapist-in-chief,

And that was leaked into the media. Just imagine what kind of stuff went down in office from earlier Presidents.

There's also one other that I'll consider voting for. (again). Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate who ran last time. Only got 1% of the vote but I was part of that 1%. His organization is currently working on suing the commission in order to allow him to take part in the Presidential Debate, and if that happens he'll get the necessary exposure to really bump up his chances this time around.

"Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative." I like that.

Offline Lord Mayerling

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #269 on: October 11, 2015, 07:27:51 PM »
We might be less screwed than you think.  While the position of Speaker is actually in the Constitution, it isn't quite as important as it seems.  The major job of House Speaker is to set the legislative agenda of the majority party - so, basically, they decide what their party will try and do while Congress is in session.

This is what is actually causing the current situation. The Speaker sets the pace for legislation in the House. The Speaker chooses what bills come to the floor and when, and how they are debated and amended. Nothing comes to the floor that the Speaker doesn't want to come to the floor, including bills passed by the Senate. Thus, the Speaker effectively controls the passage all legislation under their watch. It's an immensely powerful position. Like most positions set forth in the Constitution, the power of the position is much greater in practice than its establishment sets forth.

The Freedom Caucus is now holding the position hostage because its legislation isn't coming to the floor in the form or at the pace it would like. It wants a Speaker that will forward the Freedom Caucus agenda at the expense of any other interest. The Caucus holds a lot of power because without it, the Republican party (the establishment wing) loses its majority numbers in the House. In effect, this would shut the government down without having to deal with the media storm of formally shutting the government down over a specific piece of legislation because the bills passed by the House would likely die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President, and bills passed by the Senate would never come to the House floor for a vote.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #270 on: October 11, 2015, 07:39:41 PM »
That is why I am happy to see Sanders success and why I support Fiorina and/or Carson for president.  Both are honest people,

Carly Fiorina is a far inferior candidate to Trump.

If she makes it to the general election her actions at Hewlett-Packard will massacre the Republican party. At the absolute worst possible time, too.

Pretty sure the establishment knows it, too.

Online 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 #271 on: October 11, 2015, 07:48:56 PM »
This is what is actually causing the current situation. The Speaker sets the pace for legislation in the House. The Speaker chooses what bills come to the floor and when, and how they are debated and amended. Nothing comes to the floor that the Speaker doesn't want to come to the floor, including bills passed by the Senate. Thus, the Speaker effectively controls the passage all legislation under their watch. It's an immensely powerful position. Like most positions set forth in the Constitution, the power of the position is much greater in practice than its establishment sets forth.

I will note that it is rather hard to estimate the overall value of a position simply based on a line of text than seeing it done.  But thank you for the clarification.  Knowing that the Speaker basically gets to decide what is voted on when does significantly enhance the prestige of the office, rather than simply seeing it as I had before.  Though, doesn't that make the Speaker technically more powerful than the President when it comes to legislation?  The President can veto a piece of passed legislation, but the Speaker gets to decide what gets send to the POTUS in the first place.  In a scenario such as this, where President and Congress' majority are opposing parties, the Speaker can decide to send bills that they know would be rejected by the President, and thus have little legislation passed during their time in office.

The Freedom Caucus is now holding the position hostage because its legislation isn't coming to the floor in the form or at the pace it would like. It wants a Speaker that will forward the Freedom Caucus agenda at the expense of any other interest. The Caucus holds a lot of power because without it, the Republican party (the establishment wing) loses its majority numbers in the House. In effect, this would shut the government down without having to deal with the media storm of formally shutting the government down over a specific piece of legislation because the bills passed by the House would likely die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President, and bills passed by the Senate would never come to the House floor for a vote.

Isn't that basically akin to saying: "Help us dismantle the government or we'll dismantle the government"?  (Albeit one is in a much more uproarious and violent manner)

Not really seeing much reason to cooperate there...which is maybe the incentive needed to the Republicans to start cooperating with the Democrats again.

That is why I am happy to see Sanders success and why I support Fiorina and/or Carson for president. 

Carly Fiorina is a far inferior candidate to Trump.

If she makes it to the general election her actions at Hewlett-Packard will massacre the Republican party. At the absolute worst possible time, too.

Pretty sure the establishment knows it, too.

Carson also doesn't have the political know-how to be an effective President.  He was on an interview the other day and was asked about how to handle the debt ceiling issue, and his answer was far more lackluster than anything, and demonstrated that he doesn't understand the national debt, how it works, or such matters.

It also doesn't help that he is a walking gaffe machine.  And one worse than Joe Biden.

Offline Lord Mayerling

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #272 on: October 11, 2015, 08:14:24 PM »
I will note that it is rather hard to estimate the overall value of a position simply based on a line of text than seeing it done.  But thank you for the clarification.  Knowing that the Speaker basically gets to decide what is voted on when does significantly enhance the prestige of the office, rather than simply seeing it as I had before.  Though, doesn't that make the Speaker technically more powerful than the President when it comes to legislation?  The President can veto a piece of passed legislation, but the Speaker gets to decide what gets send to the POTUS in the first place.  In a scenario such as this, where President and Congress' majority are opposing parties, the Speaker can decide to send bills that they know would be rejected by the President, and thus have little legislation passed during their time in office.

Yes, and this is intended, as Congress is the Legislative Branch of the US Government, and the POTUS is the Executive Branch. Note the President cannot submit bills to Congress, but must originate from the Congress itself. What you're saying about what legislation gets passed is accurate. Most major legislation only passes when the same party is in power in both branches...the Civil Rights Act, the New Deal, the Affordable Care Act, etc.


Isn't that basically akin to saying: "Help us dismantle the government or we'll dismantle the government"?  (Albeit one is in a much more uproarious and violent manner)

Dismantle? No. Slow it to a stop? Absolutely.

Not really seeing much reason to cooperate there...which is maybe the incentive needed to the Republicans to start cooperating with the Democrats again.

That's not at all likely, as the ideological agendas of both parties are becoming both more extreme and more hard-line. Personally, I think it's more likely a new centrist political party will slowly emerge and evolve as the two current parties further diverge. This has happened before in  US politics, when the Whig party went extinct in the mid-19th century.

The demographics of the US also support this possibility. America's youngest voters are more socially liberal than any previous generation. Most Americans also generally don't like taxes or one-size-fits-all Government benefits, so there is some support for immigration control and smaller government from a fiscal point of view. I think a political party that supports liberal social ideas like legal abortion and marriage equality and conservative fiscal policies that keep unemployment low and taxes low by means-testing entitlements could find some traction with voters over the next few decades.

Online 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 #273 on: October 11, 2015, 08:39:30 PM »
Yes, and this is intended, as Congress is the Legislative Branch of the US Government, and the POTUS is the Executive Branch. Note the President cannot submit bills to Congress, but must originate from the Congress itself. What you're saying about what legislation gets passed is accurate. Most major legislation only passes when the same party is in power in both branches...the Civil Rights Act, the New Deal, the Affordable Care Act, etc.

I understand that the phrase 'most powerful man in the world' isn't 100% correct about the President, but while it is critical that each branch does their job - it is critical that each branch does their job.  Congress submitting only bills to the POTUS that they know will be vetoed is just as irresponsible as a President coming out and declaring that any bill submitted to him by the opposing party will be vetoed.  Partisan politics cannot carry the day.  In the end, government must function.  This is why I have a bit of a Berserk Button over people saying Obama never got anything done.  He never got anything done because the Republicans didn't want him doing anything.  To quote Senate Leader McConnell: "Our top priority is to deny President Obama a second term."  Obstructionism if ever I heard it.

Dismantle? No. Slow it to a stop? Absolutely.

In the end, is there really all that much difference?  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest of the Freedomites started chanting 'states rights,' with their stance on reducing the size of the national government.  And I seem to recall...something...that happened when a bunch of states started prioritizing states rights over the welfare of people...what was it?

That's not at all likely, as the ideological agendas of both parties are becoming both more extreme and more hard-line. Personally, I think it's more likely a new centrist political party will slowly emerge and evolve as the two current parties further diverge. This has happened before in  US politics, when the Whig party went extinct in the mid-19th century.

And were replaced, eventually, by the Republicans.  Which would make it historically ironic if the Republicans were also replaced that way.


The demographics of the US also support this possibility. America's youngest voters are more socially liberal than any previous generation. Most Americans also generally don't like taxes or one-size-fits-all Government benefits, so there is some support for immigration control and smaller government from a fiscal point of view. I think a political party that supports liberal social ideas like legal abortion and marriage equality and conservative fiscal policies that keep unemployment low and taxes low by means-testing entitlements could find some traction with voters over the next few decades.

That's nothing new.  Every generation has been more socially liberal than the previous, because generally speaking, the behavior of social conservatives over the course of American history has pretty much been...not good.  (I don't really have a better phrase in mind ATM)

Funny thing, Americans not liking taxes.  We kind of need those to do all the stuff people say we should be doing.  Reminds me of a study I heard about where people said that the government should spend more on social programs...and reduce taxes.  That's like saying "I want a new car, but the dealer better not ask me to pay for it."  The overall line of logic of it is why we borrow so heavily from other countries now, and part of the contribution to our growing debt.  I do agree the current tax setup in the US is ridiculous, and needs some much-necessary overhauling.

Furthermore, are there places where the government has overreached its authority?  Sure.  As a teacher, I loathe all the education initiatives that have happened in the last dozen years, because none of them have actually served to make education better.  It's done things!  Oh, it's done things.  But I'm of the opinion that things like RTTT and NCLB have done far more harm than good to the American schoolscape.  There are some places where I think government can be reduced - but equally there are places where I think government presence needs to be enhanced.  (The ATF being unable to effectively do the F part of its job one of them)

In the end, we are in agreement.  There'll be a centrist group of individuals - a set of pragmatists whose loyalty is to a functioning government and seeing the country healthy and well - who will rise to replace one or BOTH parties (though I suspect the Democrats will weather the storm better).

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 #274 on: October 11, 2015, 08:45:56 PM »
Furthermore, are there places where the government has overreached its authority?  Sure.  As a teacher, I loathe all the education initiatives that have happened in the last dozen years, because none of them have actually served to make education better.  It's done things!  Oh, it's done things.  But I'm of the opinion that things like RTTT and NCLB have done far more harm than good to the American schoolscape. 

I'm probably in full agreement with you, but I don't recognize the RTTT abbreviation?