2016 Election Thread

[PseudoSABR]

 

The GOP has the wrong targets, but I would agree with Willihammer that conservatives tend to have a much better approach to long-term solutions.  A lot of problems we have are from ill-formed short-term decisions by liberals.  

I'd put it this way, conservatives tend to believe given enough time the free-market will fix the decline of the middle class.  Liberals have no such belief, and are willing to experiment with governmental solutions  where the market has failed to provide one - of course some of these ideas (student loans, home loans) are really bad, but I think it's because they try to incorporate private actors and quasi-market conditions.   Universal healthcare, higher education, etc., aren't short-term solutions; even though paying for them might need to be readdressed given the economic conditions change over time.

[Mike Sixel]

I do agree, the GOP thinks that* the free market can fix everything. That is interesting, because even the revered FF did not believe that.....

 

*clearly, we are speaking in generalities here, no group is monolithic in its views.

 

I don't think the free market does things well that are not "optional", are not things we can choose to live without:

 

education

healthcare

pollution prevention

police, fire, water, roads, energy**, military

 

I am sure there are other things too....

 

**see how we keep funding ethanol for no reason, and how hard it is to have small suppliers of energy with solar or other methods, and how the big monopolies there are stopping them, with the help of the GOP......

[Willihammer]

 

Do you disagree with my statement, that that is part of their "plan" to help the poor?

No I don't disagree. I'm not thrilled by the GOP platform atm. I also recognize there are some good ideas mixed in and I would rather entrust the long term health of the country to any one of them before Sanders.

 

I made a mistake connecting long-term and short-term to the parties. I should have said "conservative" and "liberal."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No I don't disagree. I'm not thrilled by the GOP platform atm. I also recognize there are some good ideas mixed in and I would rather entrust the long term health of the country to any one of them before Sanders.

 

I made a mistake connecting long-term and short-term to the parties. I should have said "conservative" and "liberal."

I think part of the problem is that we haven't had a truly conservative voice in this country for a long, long time. The right has been distracted with inane social policy and let fiscal conservatism fall to the wayside (and no, I don't think "obstructionism" is a real form of fiscal conservatism). Fiscal conservatism is about making the government smaller, more agile, and smarter... It's not "let's just stop the government from operating because we don't like it".

[Mike Sixel]

 

No I don't disagree. I'm not thrilled by the GOP platform atm. I also recognize there are some good ideas mixed in and I would rather entrust the long term health of the country to any one of them before Sanders.

 

I made a mistake connecting long-term and short-term to the parties. I should have said "conservative" and "liberal."

 

On that we agree, I like neither party right now all that much.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'd put it this way, conservatives tend to believe given enough time the free-market will fix the decline of the middle class.  Liberals have no such belief, and are willing to experiment with governmental solutions  where the market has failed to provide one - of course some of these ideas (student loans, home loans) are really bad, but I think it's because they try to incorporate private actors and quasi-market conditions.   Universal healthcare, higher education, etc., aren't short-term solutions; even though paying for them might need to be readdressed given the economic conditions change over time.

 

I think part of the problem is that so many "conservatives" aren't conservatives.  It's part of why we so desperately need a surge in libertarianism.  That way we can bury the stupid social issues for good and concentrate on a better atmosphere of making laws.  

 

Namely, that liberals identify the injustices and let libertarians craft the policy.  Too often any change we've had has been dominated by one side of the other and rarely is that a good way to govern.  It's one of the biggest risks with Bernie or any other ideologue.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

So they want everyone to hate him and think he's an idiot?  To the best that I can see, that's what he's accomplished.

 

But please, let me know what he's done.

 

And this is why Democrats will lose this election.  We already have laws, we've had a country that has functioned for nearly 250 years.  We're sick of new laws and new promises that only create more debt and no real solutions.  When Democrats are ready to repeal some laws let us know until then no laws is far greater of an accomplishment then new laws. 

[Craig Arko]

And this is why Democrats will lose this election.  We already have laws, we've had a country that has functioned for nearly 250 years.  We're sick of new laws and new promises that only create more debt and no real solutions.  When Democrats are ready to repeal some laws let us know until then no laws is far greater of an accomplishment then new laws.

 

1929 was particularly successful.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I am shocked, shocked, that you are a denier. How is that even possible given the clear science, the factual data around temperatures, and the overall change in climate, other than just not wanting to believe something and ignoring every piece of evidence that contradicts your view? Mind. Boggling.

 

The question asked since you refused to answer was how long ago was Al Gore's 10 year warning?  The science is anything but clear, but if enough people repeat that phrase I guess it makes it true?  Now we get called deniers which I assume was supposed to be some sort of an insult.  So let me ask you this lets just assume Al Gore's 10 year warning was 10 years off and we really better do something about it now.  What can government do that would actually make a difference, and are Democrats willing to do those things.  What are you willing to do, what are you willing to make me and everybody (and by everybody i actually mean everybody) do?  If we need to save the planet as we continue to hear the science is clear when are Democrats going to start to be willing to try to save the planet.  The science is clear.  Was getting on a computer and typing those insults good for the planet or bad for the planet?  Did it increase or decrease CO2 levels? 

 

If your side lived it instead of talking it I'd actually question my opinion.

[nicksaviking]

 

More like finishing the thought. The question is still the so-called decline of the middle class, aka inequality (unless its not). There are short-term long-term tradeoffs between what the candidates propose. Dems tend to lean towards short-term, R's towards long-term.

 

No way, quite the opposite. Liberals tend to favor short term pain for long term gain, conservatives fight change.

 

Fighting climate change, universal healthcare, increasing taxes on the wealthy, regulating banks and other institutions, putting the hurt on big oil/big pharma/big tobacco/NRA, these are all largely liberal platforms.

 

I'd bet plenty of Republican voters would be OK with short term pain to benefit long term gain, but the deep pocket folks who influence the Republican Party (and to be fair, plenty of Democrats are in the pockets of some of these special interests) are making every attempt possible to steer these discussions in other directions, namely BS arguments that these things are threatening democracy or the free market. They only do this to get every last dime before their time of relevancy is up.

 

Liberals are all about looking forward; it's basic evolution, a subject plenty of conservatives pretend doesn't exist.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And this is why Democrats will lose this election. 

The only way I see the Democrats losing the White House is a Sanders/Rubio general with Rubio finding a way to draw huge numbers of Hispanics to his side. Even then, I think it's probably close.

 

Sanders probably beats Cruz. Sanders definitely beats Trump.

 

Clinton beats everybody. Maybe Rubio has an outside shot if the stars align.

 

The problem with Republicans is that they've corralled 4-5 truly terrible candidates and one mediocre candidate who might be young enough and vibrant enough to draw some traditional Democratic voting blocs across the aisle. Then again, Rubio's policies might keep independents, young people, and people of color away from him so he loses just like the rest. But he probably brings the GOP Florida, which is huge.

 

I know you like Cruz but when/if he hits the national stage and the mud really starts flying, he's going to be crucified because everyone will realize he's eminently unlikeable. Not just a little unlikeable, which can be overcome... But really unlikeable. The guy has the charisma of a basilisk.

 

On top of all that, the GOP has crafted a platform that makes it nigh impossible for them to win most of the large electoral states. Their platform works for state-level and local level elections but it adversely affects them when it comes to a nationwide general. Automatically writing off 130+ electoral votes is a difficult hurdle to overcome. They can't win the west coast, they can't win the NE with the possible exception of PA, they can't win MI, IL, MN, etc. Meanwhile, Democrats have one populated state they cannot win: Texas. The rest of the Dems' unwinnable states are mostly in the 3-9 electoral vote range. The Republicans have to make nearly a clean sweep of the plains states, south, and southwest to even make it close.

[Willihammer]

 

No way, quite the opposite. Liberals tend to favor short term pain for long term gain, conservatives fight change.

 

Fighting climate change, universal healthcare, increasing taxes on the wealthy, regulating banks and other institutions, putting the hurt on big oil/big pharma/big tobacco/NRA, these are all largely liberal platforms.

 

I'd bet plenty of Republican voters would be OK with short term pain to benefit long term gain, but the deep pocket folks who influence the Republican Party (and to be fair, plenty of Democrats are in the pockets of some of these special interests) are making every attempt possible to steer these discussions in other directions, namely BS arguments that these things are threatening democracy or the free market. They only do this to get every last dime before their time of relevancy is up.

 

Liberals are all about looking forward; it's basic evolution, a subject plenty of conservatives pretend doesn't exist.

This is an overstatement. Conservatives are slow to change, but not averse to it. Liberals have come up with good ideas, great ones even, and plenty of crappy ones too that have cost us. Which would be the case If President Bernie accomplished his platform of jacking up the minimum wage, driving away the rich through overtaxation, and making education free while backing out of trade agreements and isolating the United States from China. There would be about 15 minutes of bounty followed by a depression. It would be a disaster.

[Hrbowski]

 

The only way I see the Democrats losing the White House is a Sanders/Rubio general with Rubio finding a way to draw huge numbers of Hispanics to his side. Even then, I think it's probably close.

 

Sanders probably beats Cruz. Sanders definitely beats Trump.

 

Clinton beats everybody. Maybe Rubio has an outside shot if the stars align.

 

The problem with Republicans is that they've corralled 4-5 truly terrible candidates and one mediocre candidate who might be young enough and vibrant enough to draw some traditional Democratic voting blocs across the aisle. Then again, Rubio's policies might keep independents, young people, and people of color away from him so he loses just like the rest. But he probably brings the GOP Florida, which is huge.

 

I know you like Cruz but when/if he hits the national stage and the mud really starts flying, he's going to be crucified because everyone will realize he's eminently unlikeable. Not just a little unlikeable, which can be overcome... But really unlikeable. The guy has the charisma of a basilisk.

 

On top of all that, the GOP has crafted a platform that makes it nigh impossible for them to win most of the large electoral states. Their platform works for state-level and local level elections but it adversely affects them when it comes to a nationwide general. Automatically writing off 130+ electoral votes is a difficult hurdle to overcome. They can't win the west coast, they can't win the NE with the possible exception of PA, they can't win MI, IL, MN, etc. Meanwhile, Democrats have one populated state they cannot win: Texas. The rest of the Dems' unwinnable states are mostly in the 3-9 electoral vote range. The Republicans have to make nearly a clean sweep of the plains states, south, and southwest to even make it close.

Yeah, people who don't like Cruz tend to be socialists and lobbyists, everybody else doesn't hate him more than any of the other candidates from either party.

 

I don't see why people think Clinton will win easily; she has had too many scandals to do that.

[Hrbowski]

 

1929 was particularly successful.

The New Deal did nothing to help, but the war sure did.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah, people who don't like Cruz tend to be socialists and lobbyists, everybody else doesn't hate him more than any of the other candidates from either party.

 

I don't see why people think Clinton will win easily; she has had too many scandals to do that.

 

His own party can barely stand him.  

 

I'm still waiting to hear what he has accomplished as a Senator other than uniting the parties in their disdain for him.

[Craig Arko]

The New Deal did nothing to help, but the war sure did.

Interesting outlook.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, people who don't like Cruz tend to be socialists and lobbyists, everybody else doesn't hate him more than any of the other candidates from either party.

Most people don't hate him because they haven't listened to him speak for more than a few seconds.

 

That's why I said "when/if he hits the national stage and the mud really starts flying, he's going to be crucified because everyone will realize he's eminently unlikeable".

 

The people who know Cruz tend to dislike him (including his own party). There's no reason to expect that ratio to change when more people get to know him.

 

Cruz is an uncharismatic man with a pretty radical platform that doesn't play well with huge swathes of the voting public. He won't win over America's big middle.

 

But hell, as a person who dislikes the current GOP platform and wants them to crash and burn and be forced to rebuild anew, I hope Cruz gets the nomination. It'd be an easy win for liberals and a slap in the face to moderate conservatives.

[Hrbowski]

 

Interesting outlook.

image.jpeg

You obviously didn't understand. What I was saying was that as far as the economy was concerned, we didn't see any substantial growth until Lend-Lease, not that the only good thing that happened in FDR's presidency was that a bunch of young men died, and by the way, they died for our freedom, and if they hadn't we would be ruled by the Third Reich to this day.

[nicksaviking]

This is an overstatement. Conservatives are slow to change, but not averse to it. Liberals have come up with good ideas, great ones even, and plenty of crappy ones too that have cost us. Which would be the case If President Bernie accomplished his platform of jacking up the minimum wage, driving away the rich through overtaxation, and making education free while backing out of trade agreements and isolating the United States from China. There would be about 15 minutes of bounty followed by a depression. It would be a disaster.

Plenty of bad ideas, but we always need new ideas. Some will fail. I don't think Sanders could get anything accomplished, and I don't know that some of his plans have very strong foundations, on the other hand I'd still be willing to try some of them, I'm not afraid of trying something new if the current way isn't working.

 

I'm not sure how over-taxation will drive away the rich though. Where are they going? Even if they left though, that's a short term pain for a long term gain. The void they left will someday be filled by someone who is willing to work within a framework that is better for the country.

[Hrbowski]

 

His own party can barely stand him.  

 

I'm still waiting to hear what he has accomplished as a Senator other than uniting the parties in their disdain for him.

He has accomplished leading the conservative fight against lobbyists and special interest groups. Now, what did Sanders, Clinton, and Obama accomplish in the US Senate?

[nicksaviking]

I don't see why people think Clinton will win easily; she has had too many scandals to do that.

Ha, some scandals. Overblown and escalated by the right to make mountains out of molehills.

 

Besides, the only scandals anyone cares about anymore are sexual in nature. Unless you're in France, than they are celebrated.

[nicksaviking]

He has accomplished leading the conservative fight against lobbyists and special interest groups.

Sure, if Exxon, Goldman Sachs and the NRA stopped lobbying and aren't considered special interests.

[Hrbowski]

 

Ha, some scandals. Overblown and escalated by the right to make mountains out of molehills.

Besides, the only scandals anyone cares about anymore are sexual in nature. Unless you're in France, than they are celebrated.

Whitewater? Benghazi? Emailgate? If you or I sent 22 emails containing highly classified information we would be in jail.*

 

*If we were caught...

[nicksaviking]

Whitewater? Benghazi? Emailgate? If you or I sent 22 emails containing highly classified information we would be in jail.*

 

*If we were caught...

Please disclose the contents of those emails. Clinton wants them disclosed.

 

Molehills.

[Hrbowski]

 

Sure, if Exxon, Goldman Sachs and the NRA stopped lobbying and aren't considered special interests.

I find this whole Goldman Sachs thing being blown out of the water by people who hate it when women get top jobs in the finance world, and will do anything to prevent Heidi Cruz from also becoming the First Lady. By the way, when has he stood up for them in the Senate? Also, Cruz isn't controlled by any of the groups you mentioned.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Whitewater? Benghazi? Emailgate? If you or I sent 22 emails containing highly classified information we would be in jail.*

 

*If we were caught...

For right or wrong, the American public is not going to give a damn about the emails unless something big breaks between now and November. Personally, the fact she did it pisses me off because damn it all, it's her job to know better.

 

And we should just stop saying the word "Benghazi" because seriously.

 

Whitewater was a billion years ago.

[Hrbowski]

 

Please disclose the contents of those emails. Clinton wants them disclosed.

Molehills.

That is because she wants to break the law again...

[mikecgrimes]

 

His own party can barely stand him.  

 

I'm still waiting to hear what he has accomplished as a Senator other than uniting the parties in their disdain for him.

 

Do you need me to say it over and over again?  He didn't vote in favor of bad legislation for the sake of "getting something done".  WE DON'T  WANT ANY NEW LAWS.  WE DON'T NEED ANY NEW LAWS.

[nicksaviking]

That is because she wants to break the law again...

What? It's not her decision.

 

It was stupid, but it was simply using a personal email account meanwhile Fox News is pretending she was CCing Putin and the Ayatollah.

[nicksaviking]

Do you need me to say it over and over again?  He didn't vote in favor of bad legislation for the sake of "getting something done".  WE DON'T  WANT ANY NEW LAWS.  WE DON'T NEED ANY NEW LAWS.

You don't speak for everyone. Not even the majority.