2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Churchill]

Why do people say it's hard to know what Hillary really believes? lol.

I don't think it's remotely reasonable to lay Foreign Policy on Bush's feet. The issues of today are those of AQ/ISIS type groups and those existed before Bush was President and will exist long after Obama is gone. There are really only two paths the US can take, neither of which are palatable or possible.

If you are a person who believes these issues can be resolved then you aren't educated in the reality of what happens in the Middle East. While it would be a lot of fun to do a bunch of simultaneous raids on all of their camps, strongholds, and leadership, the end result would be that: Saudi Arabia still has a ton of money, people are still uneducated dirt farmers, Salafist Islam is still what Salafist Islam is, and you just made a ton of martyrs for people 2-3 years from now to be inspired by.

So you present yourself with those two options.

The first being to get yourself out of the region, out of Israel, out of SA, pull everything back and make it so you aren't a target - weather the storm. Eventually the ideology will run its course, the West will pervade the culture enough that you get people educated and out of poverty. The problem of course is that this type of natural reform is not on our lifetime of a timetable and it is not equal among each individual country in the Middle East. Afghanistan is a long ways behind Iraq, who is a long way behind Jordan.

The second being to bring crusades level wrath upon that area of the world until it no longer has the will or population to kill innocent people elsewhere.

Radical Islam is much less like a cancer you can precisely remove, and more like the zombies of Walking Dead where everyone is already a zombie and some trigger activates it.

[Quicklet]

Maroot's response a few posts above you holds the correct answer -- we need someone who's willing to reach across the isle and make concessions to get bills passed. This potentially can come from either side of the isle, but it must happen.

Ideally yes, but we just had an election where Republicans were rewarded for obstructionism and unwillingness to compromise. There's no incentive for them to compromise right now, especially when a significant portion of their base doesn't want compromise. Unless they're willing to moderate some of their positions so that Democrats can work with them, I don't see compromise happening on anything but the most basic things needed to keep the government functional.

[Serra]

Don't forget she's a woman. People act like Obama won on his merits alone, but frankly he got many more votes then not simply because of the color of his skin.

Actually, based on the models that were run before the election, if I remember correctly, he probably got around 5-6% less because of the color of his skin..

[Sho]

You guys we all voting for Rand or what?

Hey man, sometimes I do wonder if I'm a Centrist, Conservative Democrat, Liberal Republican or a Moderate. What's the difference these days anyways.

May as well be Libertarian for the hell of it.

[Ksandra]

Tyven just wants to get paid.

[Salodin]

Actually, based on the models that were run before the election, if I remember correctly, he probably got around 5-6% less because of the color of his skin..

Really? Cause a couple quick Google searches say (from wsj and MIT)he got a very small bump up in white votes, but a large bump up in black and Latino votes compared to Kerry. I didn't read an article on his re-election numbers though, so maybe you're talking about that?

[Sho]

Ideally yes, but we just had an election where Republicans were rewarded for obstructionism and unwillingness to compromise. There's no incentive for them to compromise right now, especially when a significant portion of their base doesn't want compromise. Unless they're willing to moderate some of their positions so that Democrats can work with them, I don't see compromise happening on anything but the most basic things needed to keep the government functional.

That just shows just how radical and out of touch the GOP base has been since 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party. With more of the base already shifting back towards the center (since late 2013, early 2014), we'll start to see more moderate opinions, ideals and rhetoric start to come out during the 2016 elections, especially now that Trump has jazzed up the debate with his own brand of anti-establishment, moderate conservatism. In fact, don't be surprised if and when Bush, Walker, and people of his ilk start to paint the picture that Trump is nothing more than a Republican in name only (which is true of course). However, it does force everyone across the board to start to pander closer to the center to try and siphon from Trump's base to win the primaries.

Aside from this, you already have people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain (little do people know, McCain is actually further to the left than people would believe, he's a moderate on everything but foreign policy -- he will be helping Graham campaign next week) are campaigning pretty hard with a moderate agenda and have been publicly challenging the radical right where they can.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Ideally yes, but we just had an election where Republicans were rewarded for obstructionism and unwillingness to compromise. There's no incentive for them to compromise right now, especially when a significant portion of their base doesn't want compromise. Unless they're willing to moderate some of their positions so that Democrats can work with them, I don't see compromise happening on anything but the most basic things needed to keep the government functional.

Keep in mind, the Dems did the same thing to Bush when they had control of Congress. I by no means deny that Newt & Co. accelerated the issue, and the Republicans deserve their fair share of blame for this, but it's not unilateral.

I will fully grant that Obama gave, but the problem was that he granted, he didn't discuss. When political historians study him, his biggest failure likely won't be his foreign policy (which has been pretty weak), but the fact that he didn't dialogue with Republican leadership. Clinton and Bush both had daily meetings with someone in the leadership of the opposing party, they talked about what their side wanted, what it would take to work together on things-- Bush wasn't really able to get the Republican Congress to work with him, which is HIS biggest failure, not being the actual leader of his party, or at least not a good leader of it.

Obama is a very smart man. Probably too smart for a President's own good, because he sees more of Republican motivations and goals than I think any other Democrat of note. Which meant he has largely tried to "compromise" on behalf of the Republicans without talking to them-- he forgot the cardinal sin of politicians: Thou Shalt Not Ignore Me. I think Obama had the potential to reach out, and actually make compromise happen. I think he had a genuine desire. But his methodology didn't account for the human nature of politics. Time and again, I've heard from Republican leadership that a lot of their resistance to him was because he handed out compromise from above, he never worked with them.

Hillary knows better than Obama on this regard, and unlike Bush, Hillary can keep the Democrats in line and force *them* to compromise, too. I'm not a fan of the directions Hillary would tilt things in that balance, but I would far rather have someone who works with the opposition and moves things slowly-- but unitedly-- in a direction I disapprove of, than someone who moves in jerks and jumps in a direction I approve of unilaterally. I think Jeb could do that (probably not as well as Hillary, but I think he could), and I think Hillary could do that. I don't see anyone else on the field who could right now. And if it comes down to Hillary vs. Walker, I'll be voting D for President for the first time.

[Sho]

Keep in mind, the Dems did the same thing to Bush when they had control of Congress. I by no means deny that Newt & Co. accelerated the issue, and the Republicans deserve their fair share of blame for this, but it's not unilateral.

I will fully grant that Obama gave, but the problem was that he granted, he didn't discuss. When political historians study him, his biggest failure likely won't be his foreign policy (which has been pretty weak), but the fact that he didn't dialogue with Republican leadership. Clinton and Bush both had daily meetings with someone in the leadership of the opposing party, they talked about what their side wanted, what it would take to work together on things-- Bush wasn't really able to get the Republican Congress to work with him, which is HIS biggest failure, not being the actual leader of his party, or at least not a good leader of it.

Obama is a very smart man. Probably too smart for a President's own good, because he sees more of Republican motivations and goals than I think any other Democrat of note. Which meant he has largely tried to "compromise" on behalf of the Republicans without talking to them-- he forgot the cardinal sin of politicians: Thou Shalt Not Ignore Me. I think Obama had the potential to reach out, and actually make compromise happen. I think he had a genuine desire. But his methodology didn't account for the human nature of politics. Time and again, I've heard from Republican leadership that a lot of their resistance to him was because he handed out compromise from above, he never worked with them.

Hillary knows better than Obama on this regard, and unlike Bush, Hillary can keep the Democrats in line and force *them* to compromise, too. I'm not a fan of the directions Hillary would tilt things in that balance, but I would far rather have someone who works with the opposition and moves things slowly-- but unitedly-- in a direction I disapprove of, than someone who moves in jerks and jumps in a direction I approve of unilaterally. I think Jeb could do that (probably not as well as Hillary, but I think he could), and I think Hillary could do that. I don't see anyone else on the field who could right now. And if it comes down to Hillary vs. Walker, I'll be voting D for President for the first time.

I actually believe the problem wasn't that he granted from on high, but that he played the social game wrong on all fronts, right out of the gate of his Presidency. He basically tried to be humane to his opponents by extending an olive branch, a branch that they subsequently taken and stomped on hard. The GOP base never respected him at all, and this was further compounded by the then rising Tea Party movement and agenda.

He didn't get any traction with the the Republican leadership, and lost face and respect with both the Blue Dog Democrats as well as his own base and the people who voted him in at large. He definitely has genuine desire and passion for working for America as POTUS, but he put too much faith in believing that the opposition would compromise at that time. He should have spent more time rallying the troops of his base, making sure that they were solid and behind him. Instead he flopped around much like Ford did with his base.

I agree in that Hilary Clinton would take no prisoners too. Even the Blue Dogs will get behind her and compromise as well, since their values are more aligned with her current ones.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I actually believe the problem wasn't that he granted from on high, but that he played the social game wrong on all fronts, right out of the gate of his Presidency. He basically tried to be humane to his opponents by extending an olive branch, a branch that they subsequently taken and stomped on hard. The GOP base never respected him at all, and this was further compounded by the then rising Tea Party movement and agenda.

He didn't get any traction with the the Republican leadership, and lost face and respect with both the Blue Dog Democrats as well as his own base and the people who voted him in at large. He definitely has genuine desire and passion for working for America as POTUS, but he put too much faith in believing that the opposition would compromise at that time. He should have spent more time rallying the troops of his base, making sure that they were solid and behind him. Instead he flopped around much like Ford did with his base.

I agree in that Hilary Clinton would take no prisoners too. Even the Blue Dogs will get behind her and compromise as well, since their values are more aligned with her current ones.

I'll agree he got no respect, but-- and I think this partly stems from his relative political inexperience-- that came about because he didn't dialogue with them. There was no invitation to talk-- look at what Republican Congressional leaders have said about backroom talks with him. They just didn't happen, and the President has historically been the one to start those talks and to place them. Obama *didn't do that*. Is it petty that form should matter so much? Sure-- I give the Republicans no passes. But while his spirit of compromise was there, his methodology, his actual skill as a politician amidst politicians, was horribly lacking, and it made a bad situation worse. Because you're right: he lost credibility with his base, and he just didn't seem to know /how/ to reach out. It's not that he wasn't willing to, he was just utterly incompetent at it.

And say what you will about the Tea Party, I'll point to the 2006 Congress as a larger accelerant. They were out for revenge on the Republicans, and played Congress as nothing more than their 2008 Presidential bid. Even the areas where Bush was very much on the liberal side-- environmental reforms on automobiles, immigration reform-- they refused to let him get anything good to his name. Republicans took that model, and they absolutely amped it up to higher levels, but this isn't Tea Party Republicans vs. Well Meaning Democrats. This is petty politicians vs. petty politicians. I don't think you have a Congress as messed up on both sides since the Jackson Democrats and the Clay Whigs.

[tyven]

you guys hillary did benghazi so we can either stand with Rand or die alone after the libtards have taken our guns and freed our criminals. Not a sermon just a fact

[6souls]

http://www.cnet.com/news/ted-cruz-ge...as-republican/

Cruz proclaims Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat, draws the ire of Shatner.

[pohibaba]

That's a stupid thing to say anyway as Picard was clearly the better leader.

[notorious bum]

Can't wait for VP Billy Clinton to go around to more disaster-ridden black countries like Haiti and aid the shit out of them while his wife plays chess with China over who gets to claim the most finite resources before our empire implodes over the next deep depression. #SaxophoneBlues

[Salodin]

Trump came out and said he's "very pro-choice". So I guess the trump-wave is over now? Or do we get to see republicans walk in circles seeing if they care more about dead babies or illegal brown people.

[tyven]

Trump also says gov shouldnt make money off college loans. In the past he has supported single payer health care and a one time big ole tax to the rich. Who the hell knows if he actually ever means the shit he says that would appeal to the left

[Marootsoobutsu]

Trump came out and said he's "very pro-choice". So I guess the trump-wave is over now? Or do we get to see republicans walk in circles seeing if they care more about dead babies or illegal brown people.

My strong suspicion? Cultural Christians (ie-- someone who identifies as Christian, because, well, that's what everyone around does) care more about the illegal brown people; those who could actually explain what Christianity is to someone who doesn't know (not talking conversion here, just actually strong knowledge of the faith), care more about abortion.

edit: And for what it's worth, I've been waging a personal campaign amongst Christians I know of both stripes to point out that the Bible says a LOT more about treating immigrants well-- and even welcoming them-- than it does about abortion, homosexuality, or taxes. I know my on those three issues are at odds with most of BG, but I cannot express how frustrating it is to see the Christian Conservative side just trash immigrants. And that personal campaign? Not going incredibly well, but it is, at least in my very local area, gaining some traction. That's also part of why I'm hoping Jeb wins-- he should push that forward strongly. From a Biblical perspective, I can't think of a single issue that Republicans are more blatantly wrong than immigration (though prison reform is probably a close second).

[Andalusian girls]

Trump is such a disaster for the Republican party

http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/...negative-turn/

The Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January. The Democratic Party continues to have mixed ratings (48% favorable, 47% unfavorable).

[kuronosan]

That just shows just how radical and out of touch the GOP base has been since 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party. With more of the base already shifting back towards the center (since late 2013, early 2014), we'll start to see more moderate opinions, ideals and rhetoric start to come out during the 2016 elections, especially now that Trump has jazzed up the debate with his own brand of anti-establishment, moderate conservatism. In fact, don't be surprised if and when Bush, Walker, and people of his ilk start to paint the picture that Trump is nothing more than a Republican in name only (which is true of course). However, it does force everyone across the board to start to pander closer to the center to try and siphon from Trump's base to win the primaries.

Aside from this, you already have people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain (little do people know, McCain is actually further to the left than people would believe, he's a moderate on everything but foreign policy -- he will be helping Graham campaign next week) are campaigning pretty hard with a moderate agenda and have been publicly challenging the radical right where they can.

Which is why I would have voted for McCain if he hadn't been stupid and picked Palin as a running mate.

[Acevalefor]

you guys hillary did benghazi so we can either stand with Rand or die alone after the libtards have taken our guns and freed our criminals. Not a sermon just a fact

This is the mind of your average republican. It is the reason that Hillary will be in for a fight when Jeb is nominated. It will be the 2012 election all over again as far as electoral numbers go. Also, Gerrymandering.