2016 Election Thread

[Mike Sixel]

Apparently, outlawing the F word is part of what Republicans are doing. FREEDOM!

 

It boggles the mind how many laws restricting freedom this party that wants to send young men and women all over the world "protecting freedom" passes.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah, maybe Rubio. Paul is the right equivalent of Sanders. Decent ideas (with some bad mixed in), strong principles, completely unelectable.

 

I wonder if his stand against government invasion of privacy and his stand on over criminilization don't change that a bit.

[formerly33]

As much as I don't want kids to hear the f-word, things like this just can't be handled at a political level. To me, it's a lot like bringing religion into politics. Of course freedom of religion means that everyone has the freedom to worship in whichever way they choose, but I wish that the Republican party would stop trying to cram the news that they're the "religious" party down everybody's throats while at the same time arguing that we have freedom of religion, etc. etc. Freedom of religion also means that people have the freedom to be atheist, and supposing you are a Christian Scott Walker, that doesn't mean that you're in God's favor and therefore you or one of your fellow Christian Republican candidates deserves the election. So stop acting like it.

 

But in my opinion, this is like the least of our worries ... and that's why I think it should be dropped. I'm tired of the way the two parties like to banter back and forth about personal things, meanwhile forgetting the big picture and ignoring what's in the people's best interests. This isn't a game. Politicians (not all, of course - I hope - but most) need to stop being so self-centered.

 

And when it comes to the things that do matter, I won't even go there. Both parties are screwed. I don't agree with the Republicans, and I don't agree with the Democrats. I used to think that I'd vote as soon as I turned 18, but now I'm not so sure. I don't find the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils" remarkably appealing, so I'm probably going to stay out of that. I know people who tell me in so many words that as an adult it's my duty to vote for the freedom of others, but what freedom does voting for either party bring? In my opinion, part of my freedom as an American citizen is the ability to refuse to vote now that I'm 18.

[Mike Sixel]

Governor Perry called the racist shooting of 9 black people "an accident". Did that gain him votes, or cost him votes?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Governor Perry called the racist shooting of 9 black people "an accident". Did that gain him votes, or cost him votes?

 

Neither because his voting block doesn't really care?

[PseudoSABR]

 

I used to think that I'd vote as soon as I turned 18, but now I'm not so sure. I don't find the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils" remarkably appealing, so I'm probably going to stay out of that. I know people who tell me in so many words that as an adult it's my duty to vote for the freedom of others, but what freedom does voting for either party bring? In my opinion, part of my freedom as an American citizen is the ability to refuse to vote now that I'm 18.

Go vote.  There's more than just the presidency on the ballot.  Cynicism is healthy, but an outright boycott of the political process does nothing to change the political process. (Almost half of eligible voters don't vote, historically).  Criticism always rings more true coming from those who partake than those who don't.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Apparently, outlawing the F word is part of what Republicans are doing. FREEDOM!

 

It boggles the mind how many laws restricting freedom this party that wants to send young men and women all over the world "protecting freedom" passes.....

 

It boggles my mind that people don't realize that both parties do this.  Both parties have no problems selling out American freedoms while simultaneously asking our soldiers to risk their life for some stupid cause... and you I both know it has nothing to do with freedom but furthering someone else's selfish interests.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

As much as I don't want kids to hear the f-word, things like this just can't be handled at a political level. To me, it's a lot like bringing religion into politics. Of course freedom of religion means that everyone has the freedom to worship in whichever way they choose, but I wish that the Republican party would stop trying to cram the news that they're the "religious" party down everybody's throats while at the same time arguing that we have freedom of religion, etc. etc. Freedom of religion also means that people have the freedom to be atheist, and supposing you are a Christian Scott Walker, that doesn't mean that you're in God's favor and therefore you or one of your fellow Christian Republican candidates deserves the election. So stop acting like it.

 

But in my opinion, this is like the least of our worries ... and that's why I think it should be dropped. I'm tired of the way the two parties like to banter back and forth about personal things, meanwhile forgetting the big picture and ignoring what's in the people's best interests. This isn't a game. Politicians (not all, of course - I hope - but most) need to stop being so self-centered.

 

And when it comes to the things that do matter, I won't even go there. Both parties are screwed. I don't agree with the Republicans, and I don't agree with the Democrats. I used to think that I'd vote as soon as I turned 18, but now I'm not so sure. I don't find the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils" remarkably appealing, so I'm probably going to stay out of that. I know people who tell me in so many words that as an adult it's my duty to vote for the freedom of others, but what freedom does voting for either party bring? In my opinion, part of my freedom as an American citizen is the ability to refuse to vote now that I'm 18.

 

It's not an accident.  It panders to their base.  Most of which I find rather reprehensible (on both sides of he aisle).  That said, don't vote the lesser of two evils, as all you get is evil.  But do vote.  There's plenty of good options out there.  They just aren't Republican or Democrat. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

It boggles my mind that people don't realize that both parties do this.  Both parties have no problems selling out American freedoms while simultaneously asking our soldiers to risk their life for some stupid cause... and you I both know it has nothing to do with freedom but furthering someone else's selfish interests.

 

of course both parties do this.....which does it more? Which is opposed to marriage equality? Which wants to literally outlaw the F word in public? Which wants to ban abortion, even if the mother's life is in danger? Are you saying that one is not worse at this than the other?

[TheLeviathan]

On social freedoms I'd say it is for sure the Republicans.  On a host of economic and policy freedoms it has been stupidity from the Dems that has hurt us.  I guess it just depends which issues you value most.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

On social freedoms I'd say it is for sure the Republicans.  On a host of economic and policy freedoms it has been stupidity from the Dems that has hurt us.  I guess it just depends which issues you value most.

I agree... to an extent.

 

I used to vote Republican but once they turned on fiscal issues, I stopped listening. Sure, the modern GOP is slightly more fiscally conservative than the Democrats but the gap has shrunk to the point that the two parties are almost indistinguishable. What the Democrats favor in social programs, the Republicans nearly make up with insane defense spending and moronic tax cuts for those who need it the least.

 

It's a false equivalency, in my opinion:

 

Social freedoms: Democrats >>>>>> Republicans

 

Fiscal responsibility: Republicans > Democrats

 

And that's why I've reluctantly turned blue in recent years. The GOP isn't strong enough in some areas to compensate for their enormous deficiencies in others.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree... to an extent.

 

 

If you put a gun to my head I'd sooner vote Democrat, I agree.  But personally I value fiscal sanity more than social issues (I think social issues end up working themselves out for the most part), so I'll never totally get behind the Dems.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If you put a gun to my head I'd sooner vote Democrat, I agree.  But personally I value fiscal sanity more than social issues (I think social issues end up working themselves out for the most part), so I'll never totally get behind the Dems.

I used to refer to myself as "fiscally conservative". A few years back, I realized how that term didn't align with my personal outlook so now I refer to myself as "fiscally responsible".

 

I worry less about money spent and now focus on deficit/surplus.

 

And neither party is even a little bit fiscally responsible so I lean toward the party that doesn't insult my social opinions. It's not a perfect solution but at least I don't feel like an ******* in the voting booth. That counts for something, I guess.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm much more worried about social issues than fiscallness. Not even close. Money w/o basic freedoms and good education systems is useless. Having been an employee of the Republicans, and met many of their strategists, I can assure you that dumbing down the education system was/is 100% part of their strategy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I used to refer to myself as "fiscally conservative". A few years back, I realized how that term didn't align with my personal outlook so now I refer to myself as "fiscally responsible".

 

 

For me it's also important to consider what they'd ideally accomplish.  I don't even agree in principle with what Democrats/liberals want to accomplish fiscally.  But the Republicans are wolves in sheeps clothing - they're every bit as bad but they hide it with rhetoric.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm much more worried about social issues than fiscallness. Not even close. Money w/o basic freedoms and good education systems is useless. Having been an employee of the Republicans, and met many of their strategists, I can assure you that dumbing down the education system was/is 100% part of their strategy.

 

I don't consider education a social issue.  Republicans are ass-backwards on education and the Democrats are in the pocket of a union.  So neither of them are doing us much good in that respect.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

For me it's also important to consider what they'd ideally accomplish.  I don't even agree in principle with what Democrats/liberals want to accomplish fiscally.  But the Republicans are wolves in sheeps clothing - they're every bit as bad but they hide it with rhetoric.

And that makes it even worse, at least in my opinion it does. In a little over a decade, I've gone from voting Republican to shaking my head at their statements to openly despising the party.

 

A big reason - maybe the biggest reason - for that shift is their descent into misleading rhetoric and demagoguery as their primary methodology to win elections.

 

Both parties ramp up the rhetoric but the GOP has turned it into the driving force behind their ideology. Can't win the climate debate? Defund NASA's earth sciences division. Can't win the net neutrality argument? Attempt to defund the FCC so they can't enforce their entirely legal policy, even though the public is overwhelmingly in favor of that policy. Don't talk about the issues, spew distracting phrases (Obamacare for the Internet!) to enrage your constituency. And then there's ObamaCare itself, which has been so grossly misrepresented that it's hard to wrap your head around the amount of misinformation (not to mention the absurdity of the 55+ votes to repeal it, though they knew failure was a given).

 

It's not factually correct to say "one party is good, the other is evil" but given the past decade of listening to the GOP, I think it's pretty fair to say "one party is questionable, the other is evil". I can tolerate dissenting opinion but in my eyes, it's downright evil to intentionally manipulate things like voter laws and funding because you can't win on even ground. That's the time you change your opinions, not work to remove the competition from the debate. Decent people change their opinion when faced with overwhelming evidence that they're wrong. Bad people try to change the rules.

[stringer bell]

Unlike Brock, I've never been a Republican leaner. However, back in the day, I could and would vote for a Republican candidate if he was clearly superior to the alternative. The platform and practice of today's Republican party make that impossible for me. I will vote for the Democrat in the next presidential election, because a Republican "trifecta" of Federal officeholders scares the bejabbers out of me.

 

Republican "fiscal responsibility" starts with the wealthy getting theirs and everyone else paying for it. It has resulted in today's supposed good economic times where the middle class is shrinking and opportunity exists for fewer people.

[Hrbowski]

It is interesting how a lot of people on here used to be Republicans, but are no longer. I can certainly see why, I get pretty sick of them too, especially Scott Walker. I have been fascinated by politics since I was eight years old, and was a devout Democrat, but during the 2012 elections I became an un affiliated conservative, to the surprise of my parents.

 

As most of you know, I like Ted Cruz, but Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are quickly gaining on him, I certainly don't want a career politician, I would prefer something fresh, even if it was a Democrat, and in my opinion, one of the reasons why Obama hasn't been as bad as Republicans make him out to be is because he was fresh, and not someone we had been well aware of for a long time.

[Willihammer]

My folks like Bobby Jindal. What's the knock on him? He doesn't seem to be considered a legit candidate this time.

[Hrbowski]

 

My folks like Bobby Jindal. What's the knock on him? He doesn't seem to be considered a legit candidate this time.

Hasn't got much publicity recently, and his state has suffered from the falling oil prices, plus Republicans think he spends too much. I prefer him more than any other governor in the race, but it doesn't seem he has much of a chance.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My folks like Bobby Jindal. What's the knock on him? He doesn't seem to be considered a legit candidate this time.

 

Had a god awful response to the State of the Union a few years back, I know that.

[PseudoSABR]

The problem for many of the leading conservative candidates is that they really don't have the poise or gravitas that especially conservative-leaning voters expect of their President.   Jindal, Rubio, and even Jeb fall here.   The ones that do demonstrate confidence have their own eyesores--from hubris to controversy--that mar their presidential mystique.  Cruz, Christie, Walker, Santorum, Trump etc. fall here.  Then you have a guy like Paul Rand who might be nationally viable if it weren't for the fact that he's out of step with the Tea Party, and really post-Reagan conservatism in general.  

 

I don't think any of them have a chance.  If Hillary gets the nomination--even though she's something of American royalty and totally over exposed--we shouldn't diminish the fervor created by the first likely woman president, and frankly, rightfully-so.   I think the Republicans begin to get wind of such a political and cultural environment and gravitate towards nominating Rubio, to win the identity war, who would lose by Bob Doyle proportions. 

[TheLeviathan]

I generally agree that most of these guys don't stand a chance against Clinton, but Rubio and Bush offer some hope in their ability to carry Florida.  It's just that pivotal of a state to win.

 

The problem I have with projecting this election is that this group of candidates may really drive a lot of people away from voting at all just out of disdain for the options.  It's hard to predict who will be hurt worse by that.

[drjim]

I'll concur that Rubio and Bush are really the only two viable Republican candidates (as much as I'd like to see Paul make some real noise). And there is no second Democrat.

[DaveW]

Hilary vs Bush

 

Meh

 

[Badsmerf]

Leave it to a political thread to take me out of a posting hiatus. I don't care to post about baseball much anymore. The forum is bland and devoid of any snark outside of game threads. Pass.

 

Politics, especially the current political political structure, is much more interesting. I'm very much on the same boat as Brock. I can't support a party that lies through their teeth and outwardly promotes self proclaimed superiority.

 

I vote libertarian. I voted for a dead candidate in the Iowa Senate race instead of joni earnst because i detest her. Sure, my vote didn't make a difference in the outcome, but it still counted.

 

Unfortunately, millions of people choose between two manufactured candidates instead of legitimate third party contenders. For some reason they are deemed inappropriate, insuperior, unelectable.. Ect. The climate is changing in the general populace. My generation doesn't identify either party. Picking between two evils has become the status quo, but at some point i believe the cracks will be exploited.

 

We need big changes. The unrest in poverty stricken communities, the expanding gap in net worth, over populated prisons, humiliating foreign relationships, expanding national debt... Some issues have changed over the years, but the absolute lack of solutions hasn't.

 

Later in life I'm hoping to get into politics, hopefully with an emerging party that starts solving problems instead of blaming them on someone.

[drjim]

 

Leave it to a political thread to take me out of a posting hiatus. I don't care to post about baseball much anymore. The forum is bland and devoid of any snark outside of game threads. Pass.
 

 

Yeah, I like the ball talk, but a little too much seriousness and a little too much martyr complex when someone tries to make a joke. One person's snark is another person's abomination and blandness reigns.

[drjim]

 

Leave it to a political thread to take me out of a posting hiatus. I don't care to post about baseball much anymore. The forum is bland and devoid of any snark outside of game threads. Pass.

Politics, especially the current political political structure, is much more interesting. I'm very much on the same boat as Brock. I can't support a party that lies through their teeth and outwardly promotes self proclaimed superiority.

I vote libertarian. I voted for a dead candidate in the Iowa Senate race instead of joni earnst because i detest her. Sure, my vote didn't make a difference in the outcome, but it still counted.

Unfortunately, millions of people choose between two manufactured candidates instead of legitimate third party contenders. For some reason they are deemed inappropriate, insuperior, unelectable.. Ect. The climate is changing in the general populace. My generation doesn't identify either party. Picking between two evils has become the status quo, but at some point i believe the cracks will be exploited.

We need big changes. The unrest in poverty stricken communities, the expanding gap in net worth, over populated prisons, humiliating foreign relationships, expanding national debt... Some issues have changed over the years, but the absolute lack of solutions hasn't.

Later in life I'm hoping to get into politics, hopefully with an emerging party that starts solving problems instead of blaming them on someone.

 

I'm not holding my breath for a new party, but I am thinking that there might be a handful of issues where the marginalized from each party can force some solutions - bank bailouts, military adventurism, etc.

 

In my mind the solutions on a lot of issues aren't that hard to craft, but they are hard to break through entrenched interests. That is kind of the story of US political history - things take much longer than they should be they eventually break through and quick.

[Mike Sixel]

What is more likely, a real third party, or revolution? Because I see violence and revolution as likely in the next generation or so.