2016 Election Thread

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Same here, really. While I utterly despise Cruz, I don't like Clinton, either.

 

I'm really tired of Douche vs. Turd Sandwich elections.

 

Keep voting the lesser of two evils, and that's all you'll ever get.  These types of elections will go away when enough people say screw it and vote for a 3rd party candidate.  The other two will get their acts together quickly or quickly become as relevant as the Federalist party.

[USMCTwin]

 

So you don't care that he flat-out lied during a debate and preaches small government while gladly taking a huge pile of cash from the government for his own business.

 

Nice politicking you got there.

 

So you don't care what Matt Bevin says or does, provided the "correct" news source doesn't cover it. Got it.

 

As to him being a liar you are saying he's indiscernible from Clinton and Obama?  Got it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's surreal. There's no other way to put it, really. It's as if the GOP base is trolling the rest of the country in some kind of Kaufman-esque prank.

 

Nobody in their right mind would honestly believe Carson is a legitimate presidential candidate. The same goes for Trump.

 

While I intensely dislike guys like Cruz, at least I can dig really deep and see why someone might think he's a good candidate.

 

You apparently haven't met my parents.  I took one look at his platform and that was good enough for me to say no.  My dad thinks Carson is the savior of the world.

 

Trump will be fun to watch for the trainwreck that will at some point unfold, though I'm rather surprised it hasn't happened yet.  If he keeps it going for another year, he's your next President... then we get 4 years of trainwreck..

[Mike Sixel]

 

Keep voting the lesser of two evils, and that's all you'll ever get.  These types of elections will go away when enough people say screw it and vote for a 3rd party candidate.  The other two will get their acts together quickly or quickly become as relevant as the Federalist party.

 

We tried that in the 80s (or was it 90s), it's only gotten worse.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As to him being a liar you are saying he's indiscernible from Clinton and Obama?  Got it.

Ah, yes. The classic "I won't deny the guy's a liar but will instead point out other people lie as well" argument.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well, what do you prefer? A politician who literally said that women fantasize about being raped but changes his mind as soon as he needs to present a better image to his female audience, or, as you so eloquently put it, a gay marriage "BOO!" and then a rainbow ****ing flag campaign logo?

 

At least you know Hillary's always going to be on the majority's side. Vote her in and you get what you want (or at least what you asked for). And I can assure you, she's not just pretending to be on the LGBT side to get their votes. As you guys have been saying over and over in various other threads, people can change their ideas for the better concerning SSM.

 

And you know what? Bernie didn't even change his mind. He just got his office to claim that it was a "dumb attempt at a dark satire." Dumb? I'll say! That would be like saying in response to rape victims having abortions, "Make them marry their aggressor instead." Dumb, right? Worse than dumb; it's ****ing insane. And I have a hard time believing it was satirical anyway since everything else he said was dead serious.

 

I'll take Hillary over Sanders any day.

If Hillary was only inconsistent about her views on SSM, I wouldn't have so many issues with her. She plays to the crowd. I know what Sanders stands for, even if I disagree with some of his views and think others are downright silly.

 

I don't really know what Hillary Clinton stands for as a person. That's a problem for me. You may not feel the same and that's fine.

 

And this isn't even bringing up the huge problem I have with the idea of four of our last five presidents having the last name Bush or Clinton.

 

While the right yammers on about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, I find it puzzling so few have a problem with this idea. I suspect the Founding Fathers would be mortified to see America willingly fall under the spell of dynastic rule.

[Willihammer]

I don't understand people who voted Republican in the 90s and early 00s and are still so wedded to the party. Its not the same party these days.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't understand people who voted Republican in the 90s and early 00s and are still so wedded to the party. Its not the same party these days.

 

i'm not sure the dems are either, though......and I'm not sure the same people are voting the same way.

[Willihammer]

 

i'm not sure the dems are either, though......and I'm not sure the same people are voting the same way.

I think the R party misses Bill Buckley and the intellectual rigor he brought to it. Today the R party is scared and takes a knee jerk position on a lot of things.

 

I'm curious how you think the D party has changed?

[formerly33]

 

....

 

And this isn't even bringing up the huge problem I have with the idea of four of our last five presidents having the last name Bush or Clinton.

 

While the right yammers on about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, I find it puzzling so few have a problem with this idea. I suspect the Founding Fathers would be mortified to see America willingly fall under the spell of dynastic rule.

At least it's willingly. If a Bush or a Clinton is the best candidate, so be it. If a Bush or a Clinton decides that the Bushes or Clintons are going to be the best candidates for the next 200 years...no. Just no.

[drjim]

I read all this and I generally think we get exactly the candidates that we deserve. I would go even further and say that the last two elections have included, with the massive exception of Sarah Palin, perfectly acceptable candidates. 5 out of 6 ain't bad...

 

On another point, saying that you don't understand how a political party you don't support could nominate someone you don't agree with seems to answer its own question.

[USMCTwin]

 

Ah, yes. The classic "I won't deny the guy's a liar but will instead point out other people lie as well" argument.

 

I just find it humorous when the left fakes outrage over crap their politicians do also.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I just find it humorous when the left fakes outrage over crap their politicians do also.

 

Like deleting emails?

[mikecgrimes]

 

So you don't care that he flat-out lied during a debate and preaches small government while gladly taking a huge pile of cash from the government for his own business.

 

Nice politicking you got there.

 

So you don't care what Matt Bevin says or does, provided the "correct" news source doesn't cover it. Got it.

 

No I don't care about the conclusions of a Jon Stewart wannabe.  Sorry that I didn't conclude he lied, given the media today's leap to declare things that clearly are not lies as lies I'm not even willing to give John Oliver a click.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No I don't care about the conclusions of a Jon Stewart wannabe.  Sorry that I didn't conclude he lied, given the media today's leap to declare things that clearly are not lies as lies I'm not even willing to give John Oliver a click.

 

So draw your own conclusions.  You want some other links on how he bailed out his company with government money?

 

Not everything someone says that you don't like is a lie.  Though that sort of preposterous thinking is central to the Tea Party.

[mikecgrimes]

 

So you don't care that he flat-out lied during a debate and preaches small government while gladly taking a huge pile of cash from the government for his own business.

 

Nice politicking you got there.

 

So you don't care what Matt Bevin says or does, provided the "correct" news source doesn't cover it. Got it.

 

To some extent yes.  Listen it's not 2024 yet so Matt Bevin isn't being investigated in full by me.  If there is a reason I should not bother being a fan of Bevin give me some insight beyond the conclusions of John Oliver.  Quick question was the Oliver report before or after the election and if before how much reporting did he do on the credibility of bevins Democrat opponent? 

[mikecgrimes]

 

So draw your own conclusions.  You want some other links on how he bailed out his company with government money?

 

Not everything someone says that you don't like is a lie.  Though that sort of preposterous thinking is central to the Tea Party.

 

I've drawn no conclusions other then that John Oliver isn't worth a single thought from me.  I think very little of NBC ABC and not much more of CBS, but give me an actual journalist over John Oliver.  The fact that rather then giving the link to a real report we link John Oliver says a lot.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I've drawn no conclusions other then that John Oliver isn't worth a single thought from me.  I think very little of NBC ABC and not much more of CBS, but give me an actual journalist over John Oliver.  The fact that rather then giving the link to a real report we link John Oliver says a lot.

 

Because John Oliver is funny.  And because, and let's be honest, you probably wouldn't believe it if I took it straight from the Bible.

 

Here the (I'm sure super liberal) Courant is on the story.

 

[USMCTwin]

Like deleting emails?

For sure both parties play that game. I was just pointing out how disingenuous it is.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Because John Oliver is funny.  And because, and let's be honest, you probably wouldn't believe it if I took it straight from the Bible.

 

Here the (I'm sure super liberal) Courant is on the story.

 

Perfectly fair story, not every bit of news requires a hack spin.  As for whats funny, some people are funny, others are prop comics who don't even know what the word funny means.  Carrot Top and John Oliver have a lot in common.

[TheLeviathan]

John Oliver is hilarous and one of the few people going after many things that need it.  That includes Obama's aggressive drone strikes, abusive mega churches, mistreatment of veterans, civil forfeiture (the government just taking your stuff), Dr. Oz and a host of other things.

 

You should consider going outside your bubble a bit on it, not everything has to be a horrible lefty spin.  Oliver is taking on all the taboos.  Whether you find him funny or not isn't as important as the issues he's raising.

 

Like how your beloved millionaire Kentucky governor soaked the tax payers for money because he declined to have insurance.  How much more anti-Tea Party principles can it get?

[DaveW]

I agree about that, but defaulting to Clinton is a bitter pill to swallow with it.

I'm not the biggest Clinton fan, but I am curious on why you dislike her so much, she basically has the same policies as Biden.

[DaveW]

If Hillary was only inconsistent about her views on SSM, I wouldn't have so many issues with her. She plays to the crowd. I know what Sanders stands for, even if I disagree with some of his views and think others are downright silly.

 

I don't really know what Hillary Clinton stands for as a person. That's a problem for me. You may not feel the same and that's fine.

 

And this isn't even bringing up the huge problem I have with the idea of four of our last five presidents having the last name Bush or Clinton.

 

While the right yammers on about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, I find it puzzling so few have a problem with this idea. I suspect the Founding Fathers would be mortified to see America willingly fall under the spell of dynastic rule.

My problem with having 4 of the last 5 presidents as bushes or clintons is the fact that two of them were Bush and the country suffered quite a bit under them (history will not be kind to pappa or W) Billy Clinton however was a great president, so I don't see why Hilary can't be the same (especially with the momentum of Obamas 2nd term)

[DaveW]

Perfectly fair story, not every bit of news requires a hack spin. As for whats funny, some people are funny, others are prop comics who don't even know what the word funny means. Carrot Top and John Oliver have a lot in common.

You can dislike John Oliver all you want, but comparing him to Carrot Top is like comparing Nick Puntos skill set to Miguel Sanos skill set.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not the biggest Clinton fan, but I am curious on why you dislike her so much, she basically has the same policies as Biden.

 

I think the criticism that she has no real positions is valid.  She basically stumps for whatever she thinks will get her money and elected.

 

So she's a husk of a politician as far as I can tell.

[formerly33]

 

I think the criticism that she has no real positions is valid.  She basically stumps for whatever she thinks will get her money and elected.

 

So she's a husk of a politician as far as I can tell.

IMO that should be the definition of the word "politician." Maybe Clinton just doesn't know how (or bother) to disguise it as well as the rest.

 

And for those who dislike her because she's a liar, this is all I have to say:

 

[stringer bell]

I just finished reading through this thread for the first time in weeks. Here is what I think: While Trump and Carson have led in the polling, we all know it won't last. The most viable candidate to win is Rubio--he's from a key state, he's good on the stump and the generational difference between Clinton and him favors the younger candidate. I think the last two candidates standing will be Cruz and Rubio. If Republicans want to make a statement they pick Cruz and lose the general election, if they want to have a chance a year from now they choose Rubio. Personally, I would abhor Republicans running both the executive and legislative branch, but they have a real chance because voters see changing the party in the White House as changing the direction of the country and most of us want to see a change of direction. Again, personally, I would like to see a legislative change.

 

I am amazed how fast our nation's perception of two social issues has changed--gay marriage and marijuana legalization--and it makes most liberals and Democrats look like political weathervanes, changing positions on those issues. I suspect they previously wouldn't have felt safe backing SSM and legal pot, but seeing that it was acceptable to a majority of voters, they now take these positions, which fit a liberal profile. Hillary is Exhibit A. 

 

Clinton looks like the certain nominee to me. She has some assets--she is smart, experienced, has access to lots of money, and before things become politicized, she was lauded as a good Senator and Secretary of State. She doesn't excite people the way both Obama and her husband did, but she probably won't have to. She would bring the novelty of being the first female to head a major party ticket and a coalition of left-leaners, non-whites and economically disadvantaged might be enough to win the White House. Also included in her coalition would be people like me who believe the Republican party has gone off the rails and has a platform full of really bad ideas on both social issues (especially) and domestic issues. Bill Clinton might be the wild card in the next election. I think on balance his record and his popularity help Hillary.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Also included in her coalition would be people like me who believe the Republican party has gone off the rails and has a platform full of really bad ideas on both social issues (especially) and domestic issues

I think that coalition is more sizable than you let on.  The question is whether those people actually go to vote.  

 

My worry is that the economy continues to recover, and the voting populace goes into a complacent slumber. 

[Badsmerf]

voters see changing the party in the White House as changing the direction of the country and most of us want to see a change of direction.

Why do voters want to change direction of the country? The economy is doing well more people have equal rights than ever, our international relationships are improving... I just don't see the contempt the gop is trying to portray. This isn't 2008, and we all remember what brought us to that point. That asinine rhetoric is exhibit z of the inability of that party to comprehend what is happening. Rand Paul is the only one that is actually taking about the things that are relevant for this party, but since he is not a party favorite he is being shuffled aside (he is kinda an ass to).

[biggentleben]

Polls reported today (without link, but I'm working on where these were taken from):

 

Minnesota:
Trump: 26
Carson: 19
Rubio: 16
Cruz: 4

Minnesota, H2H:
Carson 50, Clinton 41
Rubio 47, Clinton 41
Trump 45, Clinton 42
Clinton 46, Cruz 41
Fiorina 45, Clinton 41