2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

I don't think we are at the point, yet, where people really abandon the party. "doing the same thing" is kind of the tenant of conservatism (that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you get my point).

 

Heres why Trump would put me over the edge.  It appears this wasn't a year when Bush or Kasich was going to win.  At worst we were going to get Rubio.  The first Republican debate last summer was exciting because we had so many options that we could be satisfied with.  Bush getting the nomination is my way of thinking losing, Trump getting the nomination is my way of thinking being stolen from.  If the process brought us to that point that would be awful but to see so many party loyalist show anything resembling support for Trump before he wins a single state is disgusting.

[DaveW]

OK but watch as I dismantle your reasoning effortlessly:

 

Clinton- botox face

Bush- wrong last name

Kasich- pansy

Christie- someone's cartoon parody of a New Jerseyan. Also too fat.

Christie is to fat, that is a terrible role model for the nation. It is not ok to be 400 pounds (unless you are some insane in shape O lineman), it's a drain on everyone's health care costs eventually.

[Craig Arko]

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota would like to nominate Madame Toussauds wax figure of John Fitzgerald Kennedy for the Office of President of the United States.

[Shane Wahl]

It's weird to hear some of this. Sanders is literally the only anti-war candidate involved. And you peeps question his foreign policy? Wow.

[mikecgrimes]

Looks like the Trump thing was a dud even to the media who thinks he can do no wrong.  As for the debate it looks like Cruz had a few misplays while Rubio was on his game.  Now Iowa decides.  My final prediction Cruz 32 Rubio 25 Bush 14 Trump 11.  I expect great turnout with Trump lagging behind the vote totals of Santorum and Romney in 2012.

[Squirrel]

 

It's weird to hear some of this. Sanders is literally the only anti-war candidate involved. And you peeps question his foreign policy? Wow.

Seriously? That's all you think there is to foreign policy is that he voted against the Iraq War way back when? Really? Wow.

[DaveW]

 

Seriously? That's all you think there is to foreign policy is that he voted against the Iraq War way back when? Really? Wow.

Yeah, I have a hard time blaming anyone for voting on the Iraq War back in the day, Bush and co basically fed congress a **** salad and told them Sadam was building WMD's and was going to send everyone back to the stone age, plus things were pretty shaky after 9/11 and all that jazz. I have a hard time blaming anyone who voted for the war since they had no real reason to know that their pres, VP etc were feeding them **** sandwiches on this data. Bernie playing the "i told you so" card is annoying and cheap pandering.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't know, there were plenty of people who didn't believe the lies being told....being right about that shows strength of character, imo. 

[DaveW]

Congress-members are supposed to vote based on the wishes of their constitutes, are people really trying to bash Hilary Clinton a senator from freaking New York (9/11) for believing what the POTUS and co were saying and voting yes on the war?

Once again, people are looking really, really hard for something that doesn't exist when it comes to Hilary.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Congress-members are supposed to vote based on the wishes of their constitutes, are people really trying to bash Hilary Clinton a senator from freaking New York (9/11) for believing what the POTUS and co were saying and voting yes on the war?

Once again, people are looking really, really hard for something that doesn't exist when it comes to Hilary.

 

No, they are NOT supposed to vote based on the wishes of their constituents. They are to listen to them, but they are supposed to be more knowledgeable on the issues, and vote the best way, even if it isn't the popular way.

 

I'm not looking hard at all. That was a stupid war. Many of us knew it at the time. 

 

I see no place in my posts where I am bashing Clinton, I am praising Sanders. Those, btw, are independent activities. I can say that the a certain actress is beautiful, that says nothing about my wife at all.

[nicksaviking]

 

Not sure why you all wouldn't like Sanders as a President. I mean I get the difference between Senate and the Executive here, but what really is the issue?

 

Alas, I am going to be ranting against the "lesser evil" crowd for the rest of 2016.

 

His entire agenda would be dead in the water. He'll never be able to get moderate Democrats to back his ideas. It would be four years of inaction which will only help refuel the ultra-rightwingers and give them a legit shot at winning in 2020.

 

Clinton may be boring and a bit troublesome, but if a more moderate candidate such as her wins the nomination, someone who has political clout and some name brand appeal (and for some, the appeal of being the first woman president) the November election is going to be a landslide in her favor as enough Republicans will too embarrassed and uninterested in voting for a sociopathic nut job who will try to reset social issues back 60 years. If Clinton is the nominee, the tea-party is going to implode if Trump or Cruz wins the nomination. They'll carry about ten states, mostly small ones, and the Republican party will finally have to concede that what they're doing now will never work.

 

I'll gladly take a Democrat who isn't my first (or second, or third) choice if it finally brings the Republican party back into the realm of sanity. And frankly, I think a lot of Republicans feel the same. They'd like to return to concentrating on conservative economic issues, not conservative social issues.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's weird to hear some of this. Sanders is literally the only anti-war candidate involved. And you peeps question his foreign policy? Wow.

 

Yeesh, that is a might flat club you are whacking the foreign policy argument with.

 

I don't think Bernie Sanders can do diplomacy.  Bernie Sanders yells what he thinks and you either agree or you don't.  There isn't a lot of nuance to the guy.  Diplomacy is built on nuance and negotiation.

[Mike Sixel]

When has the party ever really been conservative on cost issues? Congress likes to spend money, even the tea party guys and gals. No one has the fortitude to tax and not spend, to pay, for, example, a war. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I don't understand all the hate towards Hildawg, she is basically a clone of what Biden would be running on if he ran for Prez, which is more or less what Obama has been working towards.

I get that she can be a bit flip floppy at times (I don't see this as a huge issue personally) and the whole e-mail scandal (IMO not a big deal), plus she doesn't have that "charisma" factor that Bill and Obama had, but other than that I think she will be a damn fine president.

 

Um no...  That woman is as crooked as they come.  The email scandal is a big deal, and in my opinion it's a slap in the face to people who handle classified data. I would be in jail for what Hillary did there, and so would most of the DoD.  She gets away with it b/c she's Hillary.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Zero Foreign Policy.
I disagree with him raising taxes on basically everyone, and I disagree with his health care and college plans.

 

I think his domestic policy hurts too.  If he got a quarter of what he wanted, the national debt would double in four years.  That's going to be a real problem as people tend to resist tax increases and you can only print so much money before the entire system collapses on itself. 

 

Sad thing really is that the Dems are acting like the Republicans back in 2008, forcing bad candidates on the people and rolling out the red carpet for Trump.  They'd almost be better off unifying behind Rand Paul or something like that. 

 

Me thinks this is going to be another Gary Johnson year for me personally.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

If it's just this election then the Gerrymandering would make it useless, but if we lose all faith with the Republican party then we will never be back.  I wish the party would just stab him in the back by suspending the rules at the convention if he earns the nomination, but it's a lose lose situation.

 

I'm not sure about that, but technically, it's the delegates who nominate the guy, and I could see something there.  I ran as a delegate 4 years ago to help the Ron Paul campaign, but let's be clear, my faith in the Reps went about a year into Bush's first term, as did a lot of Reps... They of course just don't show up.. that's wrong too, but the Reps have gone out of their way to chase away their Libertarian minded base as all they are is a different form of big government.  They did this to themselves.  Their collapse (hopefully sooner than later) might be the best thing that could happen to this country assuming something decent rises out of the ashes.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's weird to hear some of this. Sanders is literally the only anti-war candidate involved. And you peeps question his foreign policy? Wow.

 

Rand Paul says Hi... and he's far more fiscally responsible too.

[Craig Arko]

I'm good with Bernie, as I've said before. I also acknowledge that I lean quite a bit further to the port side than most of you folks.

[nicksaviking]

I'm good with Bernie, as I've said before. I also acknowledge that I lean quite a bit further to the port side than most of you folks.

As do I, but at this point, my number one goal would be to keep Cruz and Trump out of the White House even if the compromise is that Clinto is the nom. Frankly, I wish Elizabeth Warren was an option.

[TheLeviathan]

I got a good chuckle.

[Squirrel]

As do I, but at this point, my number one goal would be to keep Cruz and Trump out of the White House even if the compromise is that Clinto is the nom. Frankly, I wish Elizabeth Warren was an option.

If Warren were a candidate I'd be all in on her. But she needs more experience and we need her where she is.

[PseudoSABR]

 

If Warren were a candidate I'd be all in on her. But she needs more experience and we need her where she is.

I love Warren, but she's not exactly a Spring chicken.  Let's remember how much experience Obama had when he got elected.

 

I think Warren's window is the next election cycle or not at all.

[Squirrel]

 

I love Warren, but she's not exactly a Spring chicken.  Let's remember how much experience Obama had when he got elected.

 

I think Warren's window is the next election cycle or not at all.

And it showed. He had way too much idealism and naivete, imo.

[nicksaviking]

I love Warren, but she's not exactly a Spring chicken.  Let's remember how much experience Obama had when he got elected.

 

I think Warren's window is the next election cycle or not at all.

She would probably be a good match for O'Malley as a running mate. He's, um, got a good shot I'm sure.

[PseudoSABR]

 

And it showed. He had way too much idealism and naivete, imo.

Not saying you're wrong, but maybe that won the day.  The knock on Hillary is her pragmatism and her willingness to carve out consensus in favor of championing liberal values. 

 

What we really want is someone who is wiling to change the system and process of governance, not gain a proclivity for it--but I fear, that is what we often end up settling for.

[PseudoSABR]

 

She would probably be a good match for O'Malley as a running mate. He's, um, got a good shot I'm sure.

In 2020? She's a natural match with Bernie, as he'll double down on the anti-Wall St. campaign, for sure.  (No way he'd lurch to the center with a VP pick).  I'd love to see a Trump/Palin v. Bernie/Warren general election.  Let's see whose base value survive scrutiny.

[Squirrel]

Not saying you're wrong, but maybe that won the day.  The knock on Hillary is her pragmatism and her willingness to carve out consensus in favor of championing liberal values. 

 

What we really want is someone who is wiling to change the system and process of governance, not gain a proclivity for it--but I fear, that is what we often end up settling for.

Then start by changing the make up of Congress. It's fine to vote idealistically, it's everyone's right to choose who they want. But Congress as it currently is is NOT going to let Sanders do a dang thing.

[Squirrel]

In 2020? She's a natural match with Bernie, as he'll double down on the anti-Wall St. campaign, for sure.  (No way he'd lurch to the center with a VP pick).  I'd love to see a Trump/Palin v. Bernie/Warren general election.  Let's see whose base value survive scrutiny.

No she's not, and I wish people would quit saying this. She is way more presidential than he is, by far. She should not be relegated to anyone's second. And, frankly, if Bernie does win the nod, he's going to need someone from a big-vote state who isn't in the same realm of liberal that he is. He will need someone more moderate to complement and balance him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not sure about that, but technically, it's the delegates who nominate the guy, and I could see something there. I ran as a delegate 4 years ago to help the Ron Paul campaign, but let's be clear, my faith in the Reps went about a year into Bush's first term, as did a lot of Reps... They of course just don't show up.. that's wrong too, but the Reps have gone out of their way to chase away their Libertarian minded base as all they are is a different form of big government. They did this to themselves. Their collapse (hopefully sooner than later) might be the best thing that could happen to this country assuming something decent rises out of the ashes.

I've been saying the same thing for years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd love to see a Trump/Palin v. Bernie/Warren general election. Let's see whose base value survive scrutiny.

I hope that doesn't happen but damn, that'd be a spectacle.