2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:What's this, are you a closet Trump supporter?

Trump has a core of diehard voters(30%) who will stick with him regardless. But he also has a shell of bandwagoners who can easily be scared off via attacks. During the new Hampshire debates, Trump fell down to his core supporters after he was roundly criticized. That's not a big effect, but it's not useless either.


Not particularly. But trying to come to terms with likely outcomes. I do feel pretty confident that he'll be worse on domestic issues. He'll make loud, angry noises, and maybe bomb a few countries with crappy militaries, but...that's not actually that strange. Par for the course, really, past the bluster.


The President's power on the domestic scene is much more limited than foreign affairs though, especially if Congress and the Senate don't want to work with him. If they're able to pass veto-proof legislation and nobody is willing to advance his policy ideas as legislation, they can basically cut him out of the process entirely.

cphite
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
cphite wrote:
I don't disagree with what he's saying at all... but HOLY SHIT the hypocrisy. Just four years ago, when Trump endorsed him, Romney was praising Trump so hard it was embarrassing to watch, for being such a wonderful businessman and role model and leader and so on and so forth...

This is one of the reasons why so many people are utterly sick of these assholes. For him to stand there and with a straight face say exactly the opposite of what he said four years ago... Trump is the SAME FUCKING ASSHOLE he was four years ago. He hasn't changed. His temperament hasn't changed, his business practices haven't changed - the only difference is that he's no longer in a position to help Mit move forward.

And yeah, I know... that's the game. That's politics. But it's also a huge part of the reason why a lot of people are so utterly fucking tired of these jackholes that someone like Trump seems like a reasonable option.


I'll disagree there. 4 years ago, Trump was simply claiming Obama was a Muslim and that his Birth Certificate was from Kenya.


But that wasn't the extent of what Romney talked about.

Four years ago, Romney declared that it was the honor of a lifetime to even be standing next to Trump; he went on and on about what a great businessman Trump was, what a great man he was. Now we're to understand that all of that has changed? Now Trump is a fraud, a con artist, a fake? A failure at business? Seriously - look for the speech Romney made four years ago and the speech he made just now, and compare the two, and reconcile that he's talking about the same person.

That's what I'm talking about. It absolutely reeks of hypocrisy. It presents Mit Romney as nothing less than a liar, lying for the GOP establishment. Which ironically confirms the thing that has actually driven a lot of Trump supporters to be Trump supporters - the notion that the GOP establishment is completely full of shit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10636
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:What's this, are you a closet Trump supporter?

Trump has a core of diehard voters(30%) who will stick with him regardless. But he also has a shell of bandwagoners who can easily be scared off via attacks. During the new Hampshire debates, Trump fell down to his core supporters after he was roundly criticized. That's not a big effect, but it's not useless either.


Not particularly. But trying to come to terms with likely outcomes. I do feel pretty confident that he'll be worse on domestic issues. He'll make loud, angry noises, and maybe bomb a few countries with crappy militaries, but...that's not actually that strange. Par for the course, really, past the bluster.


The President's power on the domestic scene is much more limited than foreign affairs though, especially if Congress and the Senate don't want to work with him. If they're able to pass veto-proof legislation and nobody is willing to advance his policy ideas as legislation, they can basically cut him out of the process entirely.


Somewhat. Congress declares war, and Senate ratifies treaties, so foreign affairs are still subject to significant limits.

The veto-proof majority would be a way to make him fairly irrelevant, but...I'm just not confident that's a serious thing to consider. Republicans and Democrats are...fractious. They are unlikely to work together, even to spite Trump. The Republicans are also suffering internal dissession, and Trump is unlikely to heal that. So, the likely result is simple gridlock.

I don't think Trump is very good at bringing gridlock to an end. I think he'll be...demanding. Not able to accept a loss, really, even if it's the long term smart play. You can see it in debates, even minor tidbits that are obviously not worthy of debate, if they're even vaguely interpretable as a barb at Trump, he HAS to challenge it.

Given that the government can literally shut down due to such events, if they go on long enough, it might be kind of a clusterfuck for four years.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

I had no personal qualms against Donald Trump until he:

1. Supported banning Muslims from our country
2. Supported the Muslim database
3. Started calling protesters "Mexicans" if they disagreed with him
4. Started ejecting black people for no reason from his rallies

I dunno what else to say. People change over the years, and Trump has changed for the worse. The Birther controversy was cute: idiotic, powerless, cute. Ya know what I mean? But now Trump actually is an issue, he is actively harming America. Trump wasn't publicly holding any dangerous views in 2012, as far as I was aware of.

It is only hypocrisy for Mitt Romney if you somehow imagine that Trump in 2012 is somehow the same person as Trump in 2016. For one thing: Trump in 2012 was a joke. Trump in 2016 is most likely going to be the Republican nominee, and has way too high a chance of actually getting the presidency right now.

Its no less hypocritical than Trump giving $100,000+ to Clinton's Presidential Campaign in 2008. Trump is utterly full of shit, and the only way I can think of fighting the guy is with shit-flinging right back at his face.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10636
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Trump is utterly full of shit, and the only way I can think of fighting the guy is with shit-flinging right back at his face.


And that is why he'll win.

You can't fix him by tossing shit at him. You fix him by actually being a better candidate. If you had someone like...like Carson, but without the crazy, he could do it without a problem. That kind of genuine honesty beats chest thumping in the long run.

Sadly, Carson had all the crazy.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:02 pm UTC

Kasich is still going the "better candidate" route, while Rubio is going for shit-flinging. Cruz is somewhere in between.

Lets be frank, "trying to be the better candidate" hasn't worked in the 6 months between August and now. Time for good old shit-flinging. You want to believe that America is better than this, but they really aren't. Also, Rubio is an absentee Senator former Tea Party darling who has lost the support of his own base. His base wants to see the mudslinging, that's why they moved over to Trump.

Look, people like Trump because he's slinging more shit at everyone else than they are throwing at him. There have been very few negative ads against Trump, while Trump's entire strategy can be summed up as "Lying Cruz and Little Marco Rubio". For whatever damn, insane reason, people see the shit-flinging from Trump as a sign that he's a good leader and wants to tackle the establishment. Instead of seeing him as a cowardly jackass, who distracts from the fact that he has no knowledge on any issue whatsoever by simply slinging another insult.

So fight fire with fire. Republicans have tried for months to try and "be better" or "stand above Trump". Hint: it didn't work for Jeb. It didn't work for Bobby Jindal. It didn't work for anybody. The thing that IS working is just slinging insults. Hell, Marco Rubio just won his first state, probably because of his shift in strategy.

And if you want to see if sitting around, trying to "be better" and "be above the crowd" using a strictly positive message is going to work, then continue to watch Kasich. Yes, I find this impressive from Kasich. Apparently no one else does.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:24 pm UTC

I'm rooting for Kasich, not that I have any say in the matter. Guy seems positively sane.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:26 pm UTC

SDK wrote:I'm rooting for Kasich, not that I have any say in the matter. Guy seems positively sane.

Na, I'm rooting for jeb. He'll have the last laugh.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:29 pm UTC

SDK wrote:I'm rooting for Kasich, not that I have any say in the matter. Guy seems positively sane.


Ditto. I'm rooting for him (and if Kasich is still running when my late-late state has a primary, I'll probably vote for him). But I'm not liking his odds.

Between "Ban all Muslims" (Trump), crazy religious wing-nut (Cruz), absentee Senator who was elected as a Tea Party darling who then said "Immigration" then lost all political will to actually do anything anymore in the Senate (Rubio), and the last Governor on stage (Kasich)...

Yeah. It really isn't a hard choice at all. Its not even policy (I disagree with Kasich on a number of issues), but he's workable.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10636
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:34 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Kasich is still going the "better candidate" route, while Rubio is going for shit-flinging. Cruz is somewhere in between.


The problem is that none of them are credible and/or they have other issues.

You can't just wake up one morning and decide to be honest, credible, and well liked. You have to build it slowly, and, most of the time, this is a very difficult thing to do in politics. The fact that Cruz isn't spouting crap right NOW doesn't make me actually trust him.

Kasich has always been a bit more long shot, but if he could get over the momentum hump, he could maybe take on Trump. Best shot of the current contenders, anyway. But right now, it's the Trump and Crubio show.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Kasich is still going the "better candidate" route, while Rubio is going for shit-flinging. Cruz is somewhere in between.


The problem is that none of them are credible and/or they have other issues.

You can't just wake up one morning and decide to be honest, credible, and well liked. You have to build it slowly, and, most of the time, this is a very difficult thing to do in politics. The fact that Cruz isn't spouting crap right NOW doesn't make me actually trust him.

Kasich has always been a bit more long shot, but if he could get over the momentum hump, he could maybe take on Trump. Best shot of the current contenders, anyway. But right now, it's the Trump and Crubio show.


Sure, and if you're trying to "not get Trump Elected", then your #1 goal is to simply throw as much shit at Trump as possible, ideally with as many people doing so simultaneously.

The time has come and gone for "being a better candidate". This is March, the primaries from a historical point of view have been decided by now with exception of Bill Clinton in 1992. The last stand should have happened in January or February. There's nothing left to do aside from throw shit at Trump and hope that people wake up finally (just a little bit), and then a brokered convention happens.

That's it. The delegate math shows that basically only Trump has a shot at the 1236 delegates needed to seal the nomination... maybe Cruz. But even Rubio's time to shine is gone, aside from "preventing the Donald from having votes". Its probably why Kasich is still in, purely to take Ohio away from Trump.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:38 pm UTC

It's on days like this I love being a Democrat. If Hillary gets indicted I may feel worse then. But right now I just get all giggly thinking about it. If, in the end people are foolish enough to make him President, well, that's the price you pay for one man one vote.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:It's on days like this I love being a Democrat. If Hillary gets indicted I may feel worse then. But right now I just get all giggly thinking about it. If, in the end people are foolish enough to make him President, well, that's the price you pay for one man one vote.

If my worst enemy offered me a roulette game where I win if it lands on black or red BUT the loser dies in a nuclear explosion, I wouldn't be eager to play that game. Even if I'm heavily favored to win, the risks are very high and there's fallout even if I win.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3866
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:It's on days like this I love being a Democrat. If Hillary gets indicted I may feel worse then. But right now I just get all giggly thinking about it. If, in the end people are foolish enough to make him President, well, that's the price you pay for one man one vote.

If my worst enemy offered me a roulette game where I win if it lands on black or red BUT the loser dies in a nuclear explosion, I wouldn't be eager to play that game. Even if I'm heavily favored to win, the risks are very high and there's fallout even if I win.


I was thinking along the lines of being stuck in a boat with some people playing with dynamite. Even if I'm not the one playing with the dynamite "giggly" is not exactly the reaction I would have, even if the boat was big enough I could avoid the explosion. It will blows up the boat.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

SDK wrote:I'm rooting for Kasich, not that I have any say in the matter. Guy seems positively sane.


As long as you're okay with nobody getting an abortion, pretty much ever.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:17 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
SDK wrote:I'm rooting for Kasich, not that I have any say in the matter. Guy seems positively sane.


As long as you're okay with nobody getting an abortion, pretty much ever.


Unless you're planning on voting for Trump, I don't see how this is relevant. And by "voting for Trump", I mean voting for Trump in 2000, not 2012 or 2016 Trump who has morphed into pro-life for the purposes of winning this election. On the books, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all pro-life, as it is the standard Republican stance.

In any case, I'm actually pro-life, but that isn't here or there. And this is one of those issues I've grown tired about talking about. But its probably best if this were known. There are plenty of issues that I disagree with Kasich, the one that troubles me is that he's the most hawkish of the Republicans, supporting ground troops in Syria and Libya. Kasich drops the top-tier tax rate to 28%, and I'm personally for more progressive tax systems. I would agree with Rubio's 35% top-tier tax rate more so, but his 15% tax rate on the poorest Americans raises taxes on those who need the money most (currently 0%). Kasich is pro-energy (read: pro-coal for those who aren't "in the know"), and those are just a few of the things that I can think off the top of my head.

Kasich is a relatively standard Republican honestly. I've learned to put up with these issues. But hey, I don't agree with anybody on anything. So other attributes of the candidate are more important to me: Actual experience (Obama was a little bit light with just one Senate term, but Trump has 0 experience what-so-ever. I can't stand for that), not being fucking crazy, a history of bipartisanship... that sort of thing. All the Governors (Christie, Jeb, and Kasich) more or less qualified instantly, by nature of being forced to work with the other side in their respective states. (Although I didn't really like Christie. Maybe Christie is a Bridge too far :lol: :lol: :lol: ).
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:56 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If my worst enemy offered me a roulette game where I win if it lands on black or red BUT the loser dies in a nuclear explosion, I wouldn't be eager to play that game. Even if I'm heavily favored to win, the risks are very high and there's fallout even if I win.
That's your fear speaking, not your good sense. You've been in that boat, in exactly that situation, since you've been born. You kind of want to live in a democracy, but one with no risk. The Donald, however screwy is limited by the process. Moving Washington is like try to move an aircraft carrier by pulling on the anchor chain. You need lots of help just to lift the chain. And I'm pretty sure the Donald's mantra, as he stands in front of his mirror is, there can be only one. Other than his appointees Washington is much the same between Presidents. What is scary is how people react to him.

Look at the Democratic Convention of 1968. Humphrey won without ever winning a primary. Chicago came apart at the seams. Can you imagine a brokered convention that elects someone other than the front runner? Cleavland might just get burned to the ground. If he can win in a general election that is at least marginally honest than we are both fucked, and what we think about it has very little to do about it. And lest you think I'm the only one who feels that way.

GOP crackup has Democrats in stitches

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:26 pm UTC

And the primary system was still in its infancy back then. My predictions are: If Hillary gets indicted and the convention picks (a presumably second-place) Bernie, the party may still do pretty well. If, instead, the convention picks Biden, Bernie's supporters will feel severely disaffected (regardless of what Bernie says) and it will be very bad for the party's electoral prospects. And if the GOP nominates anyone other than Trump after Trump receives a majority, or maybe even a plurality of votes in the primaries, it will be the end of the GOP as we know it.
Last edited by Lazar on Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:30 pm UTC

Man, you just have a thing for Hillary in handcuffs, don't you? If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election. Then it doesn't matter.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Man, you just have a thing for Hillary in handcuffs, don't you? If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election. Then it doesn't matter.


Loretta Lynch probably has that power, but not Obama. Just FYI. At best, Obama can advise Loretta Lynch, but the cabinet heads are approved by Congress and are (somewhat) independent for a reason: the American system keeps a lot of power away from the President for situations like this.

I guess Obama can pardon Hilary after-the-fact. But that wouldn't be very pretty. EDIT: Another thing is that Obama can fire Loretta Lynch unilaterally, but he'd have to get a new nomination in through Congress. I don't think the Republicans would let him do that.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:50 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6169
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:40 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election.
You mean... abdicate? He is the president. It is his job.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Man, you just have a thing for Hillary in handcuffs, don't you? If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election. Then it doesn't matter.

No, then it turns from "a possible millstone around the neck depending on how damning the evidence is and how readily the Republicans exploit it" to "an absolute godsend to the Republicans who can now point to the Democrat administration openly obstructing justice for the party's political convenience." It'd be suicide. The best thing Hillary's campaign can hope for if the JD does decide to go after her is that they don't make a strong enough case and the whole thing quietly falls off the radar; having the President step in to say "hey, let's put off worrying about potential felony charges against this woman until after you've voted her, m'kay?" is basically the diametric opposite of that.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:04 pm UTC

Comprehensive analysis of Bernie's tax plan.

The proposal would raise taxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would
face the biggest increases, both in dollar amount and as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan
would raise tax burdens by an average of nearly $9,000, thereby lowering average after-tax
income by 12.4 percent. However, the highest-income taxpayers (the top 0.1 percent, or those
with income over $3.7 million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average increase in tax
burdens of more than $3 million in 2017, nearly 45 percent of their $6.9 million average after-tax
income. Households in the middle quintile of the income distribution would see an average tax
increase of almost $4,700, or 8.5 percent of their average after-tax income. Those in the bottom
quintile would experience smaller tax increases, averaging $165, or 1.3 percent of their average
after-tax income
.


Remarkably, bottom-thru-middle quintile accounts for 84% of the entire population.

cphite
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Man, you just have a thing for Hillary in handcuffs, don't you? If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election. Then it doesn't matter.


Loretta Lynch probably has that power, but not Obama. Just FYI. At best, Obama can advise Loretta Lynch, but the cabinet heads are approved by Congress and are independent for a reason: the American system keeps a lot of power away from the President for situations like this.


You are technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but realistically, Obama - or any president - has an enormous amount of pull over the AG and every other cabinet head. He doesn't have the power to force an action (or inaction) but he definitely has a ton of influence.

I guess Obama can pardon Hilary after-the-fact. But that wouldn't be very pretty.


You can wager that a large number of FBI starting at the top would resign in protest - which would be ugly. You can also bet on some major discontent and possible resignations in the intelligence community.

I doubt Obama would go that route. His image and legacy are too important to him, and I don't think he likes her that much.

My guess is that they're taking this long because they're looking for a slam dunk. If an indictment occurs, they want it to be so damning that she's forced to leave the race immediately, either clearing the way for Bernie or possibly Biden. The last thing they want is months and months of her being the front runner under indictment. Right now she can still run under the illusion that this is all just a witch hunt and nothing of substance. Once it becomes an actual indictment, the whole dynamic changes.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:24 pm UTC



Thanks for this. I don't think I'm against higher taxes per se, but the fact that Bernie has spent all that extra money already without addressing the deficit is extremely worrying to me. Bernie raises capital gains tax from 15% to 54% and then spends all of it on new programs.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:26 pm UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:31 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:


Thanks for this. I don't think I'm against higher taxes per se, but the fact that Bernie has spent all that extra money already without addressing the deficit is extremely worrying to me. Bernie raises capital gains tax from 15% to 54% and then spends all of it on new programs.

Fix the engine before worrying about how much gas is in the tank.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ijuin » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Man, you just have a thing for Hillary in handcuffs, don't you? If they really cared, Obama would delay justice department until after the election. Then it doesn't matter.


Loretta Lynch probably has that power, but not Obama. Just FYI. At best, Obama can advise Loretta Lynch, but the cabinet heads are approved by Congress and are (somewhat) independent for a reason: the American system keeps a lot of power away from the President for situations like this.


Excellent point. The whole separation-of-powers and checks-and-balances thing was to prevent the executive from making their own rules and to limit the damage that a "rogue" President could do. This will also keep a hypothetical President Trump from being able to go completely round-the-bend--if he offends both parties sufficiently (and I do not see the Democratic Party supporting him on anything that the Republicans oppose except possibly via "If they're against it, we're for it" bizarro logic), then Congress can stop him, even impeach him if he is actually putting national security at risk.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:And the primary system was still in its infancy back then. My predictions are: If Hillary gets indicted and the convention picks (a presumably second-place) Bernie, the party may still do pretty well. If, instead, the convention picks Biden, Bernie's supporters will feel severely disaffected (regardless of what Bernie says) and it will be very bad for the party's electoral prospects. And if the GOP nominates anyone other than Trump after Trump receives a majority, or maybe even a plurality of votes in the primaries, it will be the end of the GOP as we know it.
My prediction is she won't be. Whatever would cause Justice to indict her would have to be damning to take out a Presidential front runner. And to this point there isn't any indication of that. And the longer it goes that worse it will be. And if the Justice people aren't Angels and don't have halos, it will be seen as political. All the more so if they indict and she gets acquitted.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Somerville, MA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby doogly » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

And part of the tax raise in his plan is the single payer health care. So if, for low income folks, your taxes go up but your premiums go down, you are not seeing a net increase in costs, even if you see a net increase in tax burden.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:49 pm UTC

Here's a link for those of you too young to remember the president firing a special prosecutor, and the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States resigning in protest. (Okay, technically, I don't remember it either, because I was in kindergarten. I do remember my dad watching the news about the Watergate scandal every evening, when my sisters and I wanted to fly kites in the park.) Anyway:

The Saturday Night Massacre

Check out the bit about the Supreme Court appointment deal with Robert Bork for agreeing to be Nixon's new Attorney General. Nixon couldn't deliver on that promise, so Reagan tried to do so much later (in 1987). I do remember Bork's Supreme Court nomination being rejected by the Senate; by then I was a freshman in college.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:52 pm UTC

Question for all you Hillary indictment lovers, if torture and false pretenses to start a war isn't an indictable offense, why would Hillary Clinton be indicted? I'm just gonna say it again, Hillary getting indicted has the about the same chance of Bernie getting the nomination. Actually it's the exact same chance since that's the only way Bernie will win. I feel you guys are grasping at straws here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... oters.html
Let's take a stroll through Trump country. Where everyone is a loser, and uneducated to boot.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:55 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Question for all you Hillary indictment lovers, if torture and false pretenses to start a war isn't an indictable offense, why would Hillary Clinton be indicted?


FYI: the Hillary talk in this thread so far has been coming from Democrats / Bernie supporters.

We Republicans are too distracted at the terrible show that just happened this week. You democrats deal with your issue while we try and figure out what to do about Trump.

sardia wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/04/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html
Let's take a stroll through Trump country. Where everyone is a loser, and uneducated to boot.


Well that's just backwards. Ultimately, rural areas with lower-education are still Americans at heart, and their concerns are just as valid as anybody else's. Part of the problem is that current Republicans have not been able to open a dialogue with them (and yes, Trump loves the poorly educated). Unless Republicans can work to address their concerns, there won't be any hope for the party to come together and put a reasonable candidate on stage.

I mean, Trump is truly winning across the board, with exception of Evangelicals in certain states IIRC. I don't think you can characterize the "typical Trump supporter" aside from the fact that they're pissed at the government and want change.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:11 am UTC

sardia wrote:Question for all you Hillary indictment lovers, if torture and false pretenses to start a war isn't an indictable offense, why would Hillary Clinton be indicted?

Um, because she held a post with significant involvement in national-security issues and did something of questionable legality with sensitive information, and the people whose job it is to prosecute that sort of thing are trying to determine whether it was actually illegal or not?

Seriously, you keep trying to frame this as a political, us-vs.-them issue. It's not; it's a criminal investigation that people are trying to make political hay out of.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:41 am UTC

sardia wrote:Question for all you Hillary indictment lovers, if torture and false pretenses to start a war isn't an indictable offense, why would Hillary Clinton be indicted? I'm just gonna say it again, Hillary getting indicted has the about the same chance of Bernie getting the nomination. Actually it's the exact same chance since that's the only way Bernie will win. I feel you guys are grasping at straws here.
Don't tell me, tell the FBI and Justice. And Trump wasn't going to be competitive for the Republican nomination either.
ObsessoMom wrote:Here's a link for those of you too young to remember the president firing a special prosecutor, and the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States resigning in protest. (Okay, technically, I don't remember it either, because I was in kindergarten.
I remember it unfortunately. It was ugly and was the point in time when people stuck a fork in Nixon and said he was done.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5895
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:50 am UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... candidate/

To reiterate my point from a week or two ago, it does seem that Kasich staying in the race seriously hurt Rubik's chances, costing him has many as 91 delegates.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 3:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-happen-if-marco-rubio-and-john-kasich-were-one-candidate/

To reiterate my point from a week or two ago, it does seem that Kasich staying in the race seriously hurt Rubik's chances, costing him has many as 91 delegates.

But, now that Kasich hasn't left, Rubio needs him to stay in so that Kasich can deny Ohio to Trump, or so the plan goes.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5895
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

I'd argue he needs to drop out after Ohio no matter what; Kasich might prevent Trump from taking Ohio, but beyond that he could be hurting Rubio in establishment friendly territories in close races with Trump. Although I don't think that taking Ohio from Trump will be enough. Take a look at fivethirtyeight's targets. There are 66 delegates at stake in Ohio - if Trump loses Ohio, but otherwise receives exactly his target in other states, he'll only be down 25 delegates for the nomination; however, Trump has been running 14% above his target until now. Even if he loses Ohio, he only needs to go 3% above the Targets given from here on out to win.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

The difference is now the majority of Republicans are beginning to actually run negative ads against the guy.

There has been a shift in strategy, and still 20% to 30% of voters make their choice the day-of the primary (or election). Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich have benefits: Kasich is a mostly positive republican with Gubernatorial experience, by any "classic" decision making process, he's the best candidate right now. Cruz has the strong support of evangelicals (even if it has been weakened by Trump's negative ads). Rubio does actually gather energy that Kasich cannot, and can capture the "settle for me" voters by default.

In any case, I am simply discounting the polls. After all, Nate Silver / 538 blog has been claiming that Trump's attack-heavy media-seeking strategy wasn't going to work... until you know, the polls proved otherwise. Nate Silver is just as much of a armchair general at this point as everyone else, albet with a bit more knowledge about polls.

Polls aren't everything however. Lets see what the big money and anti-Trump Super PACs bring in. They only started up this past week, and furthermore, Donald Trump has insulted the conservative elite once again by refusing to attend CPAC 2016. While the conservative elite are clearly much weaker than they used to be, I wouldn't count them out. They still control the airwaves, they have all the donors, and they're ready to bring Donald's negatives to light.

At least, for now.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6111
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:03 pm UTC

Cruz is on a war path in Kansas and Maine. Too early to draw any conclusions but Cruz must be smiling.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez, Dauric and 28 guests