2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Pirian]

Since BG switched over to https, you need to use https when trying to post images on the board including using https in your sig.

Ahhhhhh right right, thanks

[dasva]

I'm kind of a mind that if the lawmakers are doing their jobs properly there would just naturally be less of a need to make as many laws as well they got made. And note the general downtrend. So not sure I'd use absolute number of bills passed is really the best indicator of productivity or divisiveness as the number should at least go down on it's own to point anyways as new problems will still require new solutions and people will always invent problems to fix in order to justify their positions

[Sho]

CNN debate dropping in 3hrs, starting with the kiddie table. It is to be said, that is this the last appeal for a couple of the candidates to do well, including Paul, Huckabee, Pataki & Santorum all of which their teams are all on life support (esp Rand Paul, if he doesn't do well he will almost certainly drop out of the race before or just after Iowa). Kasich & Fiorina have to make moves, and Christie will almost certainly have to attack Trump. If Carson talks, he'll almost certain drop even lower, so expect him to pray that he doesn't get any tough questions at all.

Trump will come out unscathed, and it will be a circle jerk between Bush, Rubio & Trump to attack Cruz, who, despite being a masterful debater, has a weak national/foreign policy & is the current leader in the Iowa polls. Expect all of the GOP candidates to dance around any gun policy questions and maintain the mental illness slant. It won't be a Kumbaya debate either where they cover each other -- if no one makes any significant moves now, they won't have a chance at rising in the polls much before voting begins.

Current prediction is that Cruz, Trump & Rubio will come out on top and at least 4-5 candidates will be culled post debate.

Must see TV -- it should top or exceed the last CNN debate, which is already the highest watched political debate in the history of television.

[Serra]

Good 'ole fashioned rage watch tonight, hoorah~

[Quicklet]

I'm kind of a mind that if the lawmakers are doing their jobs properly there would just naturally be less of a need to make as many laws as well they got made. And note the general downtrend. So not sure I'd use absolute number of bills passed is really the best indicator of productivity or divisiveness as the number should at least go down on it's own to point anyways as new problems will still require new solutions and people will always invent problems to fix in order to justify their positions

I can understand the reasoning behind that argument, but without empirical data to back it up I'm disinclined to put a lot of weight into that logic. That chart alone can't tell us that definitively because we're missing many other variables, but even noting a few downward plateaus in the late 60s and the mid 90s, the last two Congresses have been anomalously low and it's primarily attributable to deep opposition between the Republicans in Congress and Obama. The world is not a static place -- conditions change, technology changes, public opinion changes. Many laws are not permanent laws and must be renewed, particularly when it comes to funding and budgetary laws. There's nothing to suggest that if Democrats held the House+Senate now or if Republicans win the presidency that those numbers wouldn't spike back up significantly.

CNN debate dropping in 3hrs, starting with the kiddie table. It is to be said, that is this the last appeal for a couple of the candidates to do well, including Paul, Huckabee, Pataki & Santorum all of which their teams are all on life support (esp Rand Paul, if he doesn't do well he will almost certainly drop out of the race before or just after Iowa). Kasich & Fiorina have to make moves, and Christie will almost certainly have to attack Trump. If Carson talks, he'll almost certain drop even lower, so expect him to pray that he doesn't get any tough questions at all.

I hope it's more interesting than the last few debates, but I have low expectations. I'm expecting lots of Obama blame and not a lot of differentiation between the candidates on stage. Maybe Christie and Trump will go after Cruz for being weak on security. Cruz will deflect it onto Obama or the Washington cartel and talk about how he's not going to reciprocate attacks on him. Fiorina will go on a rant about how Hillary Clinton let people die in Benghazi and only she has the unique ability as a woman to take Hillary on in the general. Expect the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" to be uttered a lot. Cruz will make an opening or closing remark while awkwardly staring straight into the camera as he talks. The "fun" question of the night will be to ask the candidates which Star Wars character they are most like.

[dasva]

I can understand the reasoning behind that argument, but without empirical data to back it up I'm disinclined to put a lot of weight into that logic. That chart alone can't tell us that definitively because we're missing many other variables, but even noting a few downward plateaus in the late 60s and the mid 90s, the last two Congresses have been anomalously low and it's primarily attributable to deep opposition between the Republicans in Congress and Obama. The world is not a static place -- conditions change, technology changes, public opinion changes. Many laws are not permanent laws and must be renewed, particularly when it comes to funding and budgetary laws. There's nothing to suggest that if Democrats held the House+Senate now or if Republicans win the presidency that those numbers wouldn't spike back up significantly.

I wasn't really trying to say that was only thing just it was another factor so you can't really make a flat out statement of divisiveness or productivity. Like you said too many variables to draw distinct conclusions. Already mentioned times change just that there should be some decrease until we get to some kind of plateau of just keeping up with the times. And honestly needing a new federal bill which could contain who knows how many changes to laws each day seems a bit much for maintaining the status quo. Though part of why it's that high is we've dug ourselves into by making so many laws to begin with that we have more that need to be changed or updated

[Quicklet]

It's fairly easy to make the argument that the low productivity of the past two Congresses in relation to previous Congresses is due to divisiveness and opposition. We can do this because there are many statements made in the past ~5 years to back up this assertion.

It's not easy to argue that there is some magic number of bills passed per Congress that is optimal for society, nor is there any indication whether or not we are above, at, or below such a magic number if it were to exist.

[Tyrath]

What time is the main show?

[Quicklet]

Scheduled to start at 8:30 Eastern

[Tyrath]

I'm gonna miss the opening few mins but get on chat bitches.

[Sho]

Is on nao!

[Kachiko]

Oh, CNN, you so crazy, constantly saying the Republican Party is the party of racialism and seclusion, all because one presidential candidate blowhard is twisting your nads, for all the coverage he can get.

[Sol-Blackguy]

You know you're party is in deep shit when Jeb Bush is getting pissed off.

Sent from my C6530N using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

Oh, CNN, you so crazy, constantly saying the Republican Party is the party of racialism and seclusion, all because one presidential candidate blowhard is twisting your nads, for all the coverage he can get.

And carries over 30% of the party's votes with his racist, seclusionist ideology.

waitaminute!

[Sho]

You know you're party is in deep shit when Jeb Bush is getting pissed off.

Sent from my C6530N using Tapatalk

^

[Kachiko]

I would say that you fundamentally lack the understanding of why people want to vote for him., and honestly, the media plays right into his hands by foaming at his comments, just like he wants them to, because he recognizes that lack of understanding. People don't want to vote for him because he says 'ban all Muslim's', they want to vote for him because he's willing to actually do something about the people that want to kill us, vs the current administration, that is completely incapable and unwilling to address the issue. As long as you're willing to brand their reasons for supporting Trump as racist and secessionist, then you miss-understand the reason for the support, and why Trump says it. Hell, he's even said the reason why he does it; it's The Art of the Deal; people that understand that realize he's not going to do that; it's his starting point, because if you stagger your opponent, with the unthinkable, they'll easily succumb to something far more reasonable, even if it's much more then what they'd have originally agreed to.

The American people are exhausted of hearing about the problems with radical Islamic terrorism. They are exhausted of the administration saying that anti-Muslim backlash is the greater of the two evils, especially when only 16.9% of 2013 hate crimes (latest numbers we have, I believe) are labeled as religious hate crimes, and only 13.7% are against Muslims. You know what the largest religious hate crimes are against? It's against Jews, at 60.3% of religious hate crimes, and yet I here absolutely nothing, from him, about the dangers of anti-Semitic backlash. It's total and complete BS to respond with Anti-Muslim fears when incredibly little is going on in that arena; and yes, it's to be condemned when it actually happens. Perspective is the issue here.

Sure, I don't want Donald Trump either, but as long as you're not able to recognize what is is he's doing, you're not going to be able to defeat him, and that goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

[notorious bum]

Hahaha the closet racists are feeling really emboldened and feisty these days. We've all seen this movie before, McCarthy was much better at it.

[Kachiko]

And carries over 30% of the party's votes with his racist, seclusionist ideology.

waitaminute!

I forgot to add that this also means that 70% aren't voting for him, currently. Doesn't sound like a majority to moi.

[Fiye]

Source (Pewresearch.org)

So would you say a muslims support Isis based off this graph?

Spoiler: show

Because I've heard people all over my fucking facebook feed say that using this graph.

[Sho]

I would say that you fundamentally lack the understanding of why people want to vote for him., and honestly, the media plays right into his hands by foaming at his comments, just like he wants them to, because he recognizes that lack of understanding. People don't want to vote for him because he says 'ban all Muslim's', they want to vote for him because he's willing to actually do something about the people that want to kill us, vs the current administration, that is completely incapable and unwilling to address the issue. As long as you're willing to brand their reasons for supporting Trump as racist and secessionist, then you miss-understand the reason for the support, and why Trump says it. Hell, he's even said the reason why he does it; it's The Art of the Deal; people that understand that realize he's not going to do that; it's his starting point, because if you stagger your opponent, with the unthinkable, they'll easily succumb to something far more reasonable, even if it's much more then what they'd have originally agreed to.

The American people are exhausted of hearing about the problems with radical Islamic terrorism. They are exhausted of the administration saying that anti-Muslim backlash is the greater of the two evils, especially when only 16.9% of 2013 hate crimes (latest numbers we have, I believe) are labeled as religious hate crimes, and only 13.7% are against Muslims. You know what the largest religious hate crimes are against? It's against Jews, at 60.3% of religious hate crimes, and yet I here absolutely nothing, from him, about the dangers of anti-Semitic backlash. It's total and complete BS to respond with Anti-Muslim fears when incredibly little is going on in that arena; and yes, it's to be condemned when it actually happens. Perspective is the issue here.

Sure, I don't want Donald Trump either, but as long as you're not able to recognize what is is he's doing, you're not going to be able to defeat him, and that goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

It's not hard to see why Donald Trump is so bombastic. Trump's faults lie in him saying a whole lot of nothing when it comes to be time to talk real politics at a debate and not using spectacle to goad the media for soundbites. Again, for the 5th time he's shied away from any real responses, and again he will get away relatively unscathed. He was interesting for about the first 2 months into his candidacy, but now he's just revving up the BS he's saying to see how far he can go pushing an agenda of fear.

The *real* problem is that Donald Trump courts many racists, secessionists and bigots, and yet does not denounce any of them when they act out at his rallies (or at all). Compound this with the fact that a good deal of people who are in league with Trump cannot make the differentiation between Islamic radicals and just normal people of Islam, due to being intolerant, ignorant, or both. You can use the strawman argument for Jewish backlash if you want, but it's not part of the discussion and instead a distraction -- we are talking about Islamic terrorism and the backlash that people Islam gets because of it. This is the perspective that the GOP currently wants to hold onto.