Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!] (Read 83943 times)

consortium11 · « **Reply #575 on:** January 03, 2016, 02:34:49 AM »

Quote from: ArtVandelay on January 03, 2016, 01:34:28 AM

I think you're correct if you're thinking about sheer power grabbing. Although I will say that you sound a bit dictatorial! Obamacare, and generally his domestic policy, has been the product of a thing I prefer to call democracy. The compromise between the two parties, and the repeated blocking of bills by the Republican majority are all caused by the democratic process.

My point wasn't as to whether it was a good or bad thing that domestic proposals so frequently have to be changed (and often toned down) to get through the houses, it's that people should remember that they so frequently have to be changed (and often toned down) to get through the houses.

To use healthcare as an example again, let's say there's a Democratic candidate who has made a central point of their campaign the introduction of an UK-NHS style universal healthcare system. That's something that a fair number of people in the US like the idea of and it may be enough to get them to support that candidate. But with the Republicans controlling both houses, with them as a block being against such a plan and with Obamacare itself being fairly recent I'd suggest there's absolutely no chance that the candidate... even if (s)he became President... could make that happen. The most they could do is make a few changes to Obamacare. That's why if you want to make changes domestically you can't rely on winning the Presidency alone; you also need to be able to get things through the other apparatuses of power.

That contrasts with foreign policy where the President has far more power to implement what (s)he wants without having to compromise or worry about whether the other party (or members of their own) will support it. It's why foreign policy should be the key part of any assessment of a candidate and why if you're given a choice between someone with a domestic policy you agree but but a foreign policy you don't and someone with a foreign policy you agree with and a domestic policy you don't you should generally hedge towards the one you support the foreign policy positions of; they have a far greater scope to implement that then they do their domestic policies.

ArtVandelay · « **Reply #576 on:** January 03, 2016, 09:09:02 AM »

I see what you mean, although with gerrymandering the house seats are usually anything but contested. Senatorially, for sure. Of course, by my perspective I'm hoping for a Republican to repeal Obamacare and finally allow an income tax break for money spent on health care, so that it will be less on an employer thing and can truly be free-market. And for that, the Republican majority in at least one of the houses would need to be held.

And we're both ignoring the hundred days: in most cases, the president will be allowed to pass most all their laws in the first hundred days in office.

Ironwolf85 · « **Reply #577 on:** January 07, 2016, 12:54:57 AM »

Quote from: ArtVandelay on January 03, 2016, 09:09:02 AM

I see what you mean, although with gerrymandering the house seats are usually anything but contested. Senatorially, for sure. Of course, by my perspective I'm hoping for a Republican to repeal Obamacare and finally allow an income tax break for money spent on health care, so that it will be less on an employer thing and can truly be free-market. And for that, the Republican majority in at least one of the houses would need to be held.

And we're both ignoring the hundred days: in most cases, the president will be allowed to pass most all their laws in the first hundred days in office.

wow, just wow...
Actually I find your stance sort of encouraging. The economic policies you are suggesting, a general return to the lazzie~fare model of capitalistic markets that gave us things like the flesh-trade, child labor, toxic chemicals pumped straight into your river...

On the bright side the abolishment of a minimum wage, the massive loss of income for about 58% of workers, along with the rising prices of consumer goods because the tons of tax dollars that subsidize all of your favorite industries will dissapear, will allow us to compete with china's factory slaves. Well until the massive armed revolt...
Mind you seeing a couple mansions on fire would be satisfying. I'd have to move to canada though, no way I'm raising my kids to be service slaves in a country riven with civil war and riots.

There is one thing you seem to forget, the government is the public, and the public are their government. the regulations must exist and must be properly enforced (looking at you Federal Market Regulators who watched porn on my tax dollars all day and didn't enforce the law.) because business, left to it's own devices, does one thing.
It makes money, as sure as fish swim, and birds fly.

The purpose of captialisim is actually NOT JUST TO MAKE MONEY, it is to harness natural market forces for the betterment of the public.
Adam Smith actually warns against the very same abuses we see companies doing now, and how they destroy both wealth and markets alike.

Seriously... Why are people basing their economic policy on a science-fiction novel by Ann Ryand anyways?

That's like basing your school system on Harry Potter.
Or founding your government based on DUNE.

TheGlyphstone · « **Reply #578 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:21:27 AM »

Quote from: Ironwolf85 on January 07, 2016, 12:54:57 AM

Or founding your government based on DUNE.

If passing bills required public knife-fights between sponsoring legislators, C-SPAN would be a hell of a lot more interesting to watch. I'm in favor of this.

ReijiTabibito · « **Reply #579 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:27:34 AM »

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on January 07, 2016, 09:21:27 AM

If passing bills required public knife-fights between sponsoring legislators, C-SPAN would be a hell of a lot more interesting to watch. I'm in favor of this.

And it would keep Congress from being run by a bunch of old men....plus, you might actually convince people not to make a career out of Congress!

HannibalBarca · « **Reply #580 on:** January 07, 2016, 06:23:14 PM »

Quote

And it would keep Congress from being run by a bunch of old men....plus, you might actually convince people not to make a career out of Congress!

Likely those who did choose it as a career would have much shorter careers, like, say...Roman gladiators.

Now imagine what Rome would be like if the Senators had to battle on the floor like gladiators...

Trieste · « **Reply #581 on:** January 08, 2016, 09:01:18 AM »

Something that people cannot control that can be life and death really shouldn't be left in the hands of the free market. It's essentially extortion (I'll save your dad's life if you give me $50,000 first) and that's unacceptable.

Foreign policy for a president is important, but domestic policy is also important when we have an aging Supreme Court and the next president is likely to be able to appoint the next justices. Executive orders can be undone, laws can be repealed, but SCOTUS justices are there to stay. So heck yeah, I want to know their domestic policies. I want to know their foreign policies. I want to know at what age they got their first B and what sports teams they played on in high school, if I can manage it.

(Please don't take my hyperbole literally. You get my point, I hope.)

gaggedLouise · « **Reply #582 on:** January 08, 2016, 12:23:59 PM »

I'm with you Trieste (even as an onlooker) but what you'll get to hear from Trump or Carson next is more likely "I'm the man who can drink Putin under the table - vote for me!"

Cassandra LeMay · « **Reply #583 on:** January 08, 2016, 01:14:24 PM »

Quote from: gaggedLouise on January 08, 2016, 12:23:59 PM

I'm with you Trieste (even as an onlooker) but what you'll get to hear from Trump or Carson next is more likely "I'm the man who can drink Putin under the table - vote for me!"

Nah. Not Carson. Too biblical Christian to make a virtue out of drinking in any way.

If you want to make a statement like that that's almost silly, but frighteningly close to a possibility in this mad race for the nomination, I think Cruz is the name you are looking for these days.

Oniya · « **Reply #584 on:** January 08, 2016, 01:33:27 PM »

Quote from: gaggedLouise on January 08, 2016, 12:23:59 PM

I'm with you Trieste (even as an onlooker) but what you'll get to hear from Trump or Carson next is more likely "I'm the man who can drink Putin under the table - vote for me!"

Considering the reputed alcohol tolerance of Putin (and indeed most people who know better than to call the Miller products 'beer' without some sort of qualifier), I'd rather like to watch that contest.

gaggedLouise · « **Reply #585 on:** January 08, 2016, 01:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Cassandra LeMay on January 08, 2016, 01:14:24 PM

Nah. Not Carson. Too biblical Christian to make a virtue out of drinking in any way.

If you want to make a statement like that that's almost silly, but frighteningly close to a possibility in this mad race for the nomination, I think Cruz is the name you are looking for these days.

Yes, maybe so.

I love this picture of Ted Cruz - it was taken after he had been filibustering in the Senate. Great composition with the lighted niche in the background like a golden halo, a throng of reporters, and the guy looking like an evangelist out of the Bible. Saw it in a paper at the time, in the late summer of 2013, and copied it to my HD at once.

Mithlomwen · « **Reply #586 on:** January 12, 2016, 08:16:25 AM »

Looks like Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina have been cut from the main GOP debate lineup.

ThePrince · « **Reply #587 on:** January 12, 2016, 12:34:57 PM »

This will probably be the last undercard debate as Santorum, Hucklebee and Fionia are going to drop out after Iowa.

Mithlomwen · « **Reply #588 on:** January 13, 2016, 01:29:28 PM »

Upstate representative John King of York County has filed a resolution stating that GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump is not welcomed in SC.

He says in part:

Quote from: John King

"Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much in South Carolina, but most of us agree that Donald Trump is an embarrassment to our country's political process and stands contrary to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the values of the United States Constitution." said Rep. John King. "Why would we welcome someone to our great state when even our senior Republican U.S. Senator agrees that Donald Trump is nothing more than a modern day George Wallace who preys on people's fears and prejudices. It's time to stand up to this big mouthed bigot once and for all by announcing that he is no longer welcome in the Palmetto State. Last summer, our state came together and brought down a symbol of hatred and bigotry from the state house. It's time to once again come together and tell yet another symbol of hatred and bigotry, Mr. Donald J. Trump, that he is no longer welcome in the great state of South Carolina."

*edited to fix typo

Oniya · « **Reply #589 on:** January 13, 2016, 01:34:16 PM »

I wonder what that extends to - will it affect him once the election is over? Can he travel through SC without stopping on the way to Georgia or Florida, or does he have to fly over/detour around the state?

TheGlyphstone · « **Reply #590 on:** January 13, 2016, 01:38:00 PM »

It's a symbolic gesture, of course. They can't actually (AFAIK) legally bar a specific person from entering the state without an actual court order, so he can totally go cruising through it whenever he wants before or after the election. He just doesnt get any of that famous Southern hospitality while he's there.

ThePrince · « **Reply #591 on:** January 13, 2016, 02:22:35 PM »

It's symbolic and unfortunately Trump is very well liked in South Carolina. He is ahead 11 points in the state poll. It's very likely he will win the SC republican primary at this rate.

consortium11 · « **Reply #592 on:** January 13, 2016, 04:07:37 PM »

Hillary's been attacking Sanders over healthcare reform recently (which seems like a strange angle to take to begin with) and the entire thing seems to have backfired.

Her attack really hasn't been helped by... well... this:

(That's "To Bernie Sanders with thanks for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans...")

gaggedLouise · « **Reply #593 on:** January 14, 2016, 06:04:10 PM »

Apparently Trump is still flogging the idea that Ted Cruz was born a Canadian, not a natural American (and before 1982, Canada was a bit more formally tied in with the UK in constitutional matters) - which would make Cruz ineligible, according to Trump. Looks like a red herring to me. ^_^

consortium11 · « **Reply #594 on:** January 14, 2016, 07:12:04 PM »

Tangentially related bit of trivia; technically the UK can take legal control of Canada at any time it likes. Because Canada's independence was done through statute (British North America Acts, the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Canada Act 1982) rather than treaties all it would take to repeal them and for... in technical legal terms although obviously not in reality... Canada to revert to being a colony is for the UK Parliament to repeal those act, which it has total freedom to do so.

More on topic, it's just Trump playing it for easy, cheap (and generally bad) jokes. The UK connection isn't important and outside of conspiracy theorists being a "natural born citizen" just means that someone has been a citizen from birth (as Cruz was) rather than being "naturalized" later.

Oniya · « **Reply #595 on:** January 14, 2016, 07:17:54 PM »

Trump was right in there with the whole 'birther' movement with Obama's presidency as well.

TheGlyphstone · « **Reply #596 on:** January 16, 2016, 07:37:13 PM »

Interesting. According to this site, WIU's mock election simulations are reporting that Bernie has excellent odds of destroying Hillary in the upcoming election. They've reportedly an extremely accurate predictor, so hopefully this doesn't break their streak.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2636423/bernie-sanders-will-win-the-election-wiu-poll-2016-predictions-socialist-president-lose-to-hillary-clinton/

In-article citation:
http://www.wiu.edu/news/newsrelease.php?release_id=13059

ThePrince · « **Reply #597 on:** January 18, 2016, 12:33:13 AM »

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of unlikely outcomes in that simulation. For example it's highly unlikely that the republican presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate will come from the same state and then loose that state in the general election. Also several states like SC, GA and TN are deeply red states and are not likely to go blue. Rand Paul is not going to change parties and be the liberation vice presidential candidate.

It's possible that these results could happen if one of the republican candidates launches a independent campaign and splits the republican vote. But it doesn't appear this simulation accounts for that possibility. Now it's possible that this outcome might happen and that would be very interesting, but I don't think our current knowledge of the race supports this simulation.

TheGlyphstone · « **Reply #598 on:** January 18, 2016, 09:39:59 AM »

Yeah, it wasn't meant to be a statement of oracular truth. Just that this particular poll/mock election, with a long record of accuracy even in the case of surprise upsets and dark horse victories (they cite Obama and Carter in-article as examples), is predicting a Sanders victory this time around despite the current belief that Clinton is the dominant candidate. More a light-in-the-darkness for Sanders fans than any sort of bubble that needs bursting.

elone · « **Reply #599 on:** January 18, 2016, 09:45:01 PM »

I think that people are sick of the status quo in government, thus Hillary is losing big time with younger voters, who hopefully will buck tradition and show up at the polls. Hillary is a traditional politician with all the baggage that comes with it. Negative ads, PAC money, Wall Street backing, and an attitude that nothing can be fixed. Even thought Bernie is older, he still resonates with the young and the idealists who want more for their money. Hillary lost to Obama for much the same reason.