USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[MPH]

Out of interest what business experience does Sanders has?

Has he ever ran a company or more importantly been in charge of a budget?

 

 

 

He's never even had a bill thats been passed either...

[Guest MattP]

He's never even had a bill thats been passed either...

 

I saw that on an internet meme but didn't believe it.

[leicsmac]

I saw that on an internet meme but didn't believe it.

 

It's not true either.

 

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-loser-meme/

 

"during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted.."

 

Interesting factoid just beneath too: "only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted..."  Didn't know it was so few.

[MPH]

It's not true either.

 

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-loser-meme/

 

"during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted.."

 

Interesting factoid just beneath too: "only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted..."  Didn't know it was so few.

 

 

Fair enough! 3. But two of them were to name USPS facilities!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you have to give him credit for the cost of living adbjustment for veterans.... But still.... 25 years in Congress and thats it?!?

[FireFox]

If a supreme court justice isn't appointed by the general election, that could have huge effects I think, not only on the presidential election but on Senate too. I'd imagine a much larger turnout, not sure that would benefit either side though.

[MPH]

If a supreme court justice isn't appointed by the general election, that could have huge effects I think, not only on the presidential election but on Senate too. I'd imagine a much larger turnout, not sure that would benefit either side though.

 

 

Its a tough call, really... It's not like the democrats can complain too much if the republican lead house rejected Obama's nomination... They all do it when they feel they have the political power balance in the Senate...

 

The senate is probably the most up to date example of the current political persuasion of the U.S people as a whole, so they have every right to reject, through a democratic vote, A nomination. Both sides have that right and both sides have exercised that right in the past..

[FireFox]

Its a tough call, really... It's not like the democrats can complain too much if the republican lead house rejected Obama's nomination... They all do it when they feel they have the political power balance in the Senate...

The senate is probably the most up to date example of the current political persuasion of the U.S people as a whole, so they have every right to reject, through a democratic vote, A nomination. Both sides have that right and both sides have exercised that right in the past..

Yes. But if they, as they say they will, reject any nomination from Obama, thinking they can have a Republican president 's nomination to approve next year, then that might backfire on them.

What if Bernie is elected? Will they reject for another 4 years? What if they get voted out and the Dems control the Senate next year, and then they do the same thing to a Repubs nomination?

This whole thing also will be used as a political tool against one another in the election.

The (current elected) Senate has a duty to fill the spot. They might not agree 100% with his nomination(s), but he is the current elected president who's duty it is to nominate someone. If they can't find a compromise, then it just shows the failure of our political system.

Personally, I hate our system over here. These 3 branches of government are supposed to have "checks and balances" on each other. But with only 2 political parties, all it does is add to the bureaucracy and make it impossible for things to be accomplished.

[MPH]

Yes. But if they, as they say they will, reject any nomination from Obama, thinking they can have a Republican president 's nomination to approve next year, then that might backfire on them.

What if Bernie is elected? Will they reject for another 4 years? What if they get voted out and the Dems control the Senate next year, and then they do the same thing to a Repubs nomination?

This whole thing also will be used as a political tool against one another in the election.

The (current elected) Senate has a duty to fill the spot. They might not agree 100% with his nomination(s), but he is the current elected president who's duty it is to nominate someone. If they can't find a compromise, then it just shows the failure of our political system.

Personally, I hate our system over here. These 3 branches of government are supposed to have "checks and balances" on each other. But with only 2 political parties, all it does is add to the bureaucracy and make it impossible for things to be accomplished.

Well the likelihood of course is that whoever is elected as president will also control the senate as a third of senators are voted in on election night, I think. So I guess they feel confident of a republican win....

And really I think the obligation really is for the president to nominate someone who represents the will of the people and if the senate are able to reject a nomination then it clearly isn't someone the people want. President Obama ( and any other president for that matter) would do well to remember that... The president ( or any world leader for that matter) isn't there to represent themselves.

[leicsmac]

Its a tough call, really... It's not like the democrats can complain too much if the republican lead house rejected Obama's nomination... They all do it when they feel they have the political power balance in the Senate...

 

The senate is probably the most up to date example of the current political persuasion of the U.S people as a whole, so they have every right to reject, through a democratic vote, A nomination. Both sides have that right and both sides have exercised that right in the past..

 

I disagree. Senate and House votes are so marred by voter apathy and gerrymandering that they don't mean all that much in terms of being representative.

 

And in any case, this particular Senate has a recent history of being obstructive purely for ideological purposes rather than out of any respect for the political process. This judge fiasco is just one more example of that. When the longest time it has take a Supreme Court judge to be nominated and affirmed in the past is 200 days (with one notable exception), the fact that the Republican-controlled Senate want to make this one last over 400 days (most likely) speaks of obstructionism above all else.

[MPH]

I disagree. Senate and House votes are so marred by voter apathy and gerrymandering that they don't mean all that much in terms of being representative.

 

And in any case, this particular Senate has a recent history of being obstructive purely for ideological purposes rather than out of any respect for the political process. This judge fiasco is just one more example of that. When the longest time it has take a Supreme Court judge to be nominated and affirmed in the past is 200 days (with one notable exception), the fact that the Republican-controlled Senate want to make this one last over 400 days (most likely) speaks of obstructionism above all else.

they are doing absolutely nothing different to what democratic controlled senates have done so you can't make the current guys out to be the bad guys...

There are senator votes every 2 years.. Of course it's a more current reflection of public opinion

[leicsmac]

they are doing absolutely nothing different to what democratic controlled senates have done so you can't make the current guys out to be the bad guys...

There are senator votes every 2 years.. Of course it's a more current reflection of public opinion

 

I think stalling a Supreme Court judge affirmation for more than double the time of the previous record is a special kind of obstructionism not seen before, yes?

 

But broadly speaking, yes, there seems to be a lot of petty BS like this that both parties partake in.

 

Regarding the Senate votes...if there was as much fanfare and enthusiasm and so turnout regarding them as there were the Presidential elections I would agree with you. But there isn't, and that means it's less representative of public opinion, current or otherwise. The Republicans control the Senate because thy have a hardcore of voters who vote every chance they get and believe that every election matters - and I applaud them for the organisation. But that doesn't mean such views are representative of the overall majority of American voters.

[Guest MattP]

Trump absolutely murdering his rivals in Nevada, he's got it sewn up.

 

I really really hope this ends up as Trump v Sanders, it probably ends in total disaster for the World whoever wins that but what an age to live in.

[Guest MattP]

Here's an article from Roger Boyes saying far more eloquently than I could about the disaster of Obama regarding Syria.

 

The president is at fault for letting Putin become the winner in the accelerating Syrian disaster

 

The great grey fox Zbig Brzezinski has Barack Obama dead to rights. “He doesn’t strategise,” says Jimmy Carter’s former security guru. “He sermonises.” As the revolt against Bashar al-Assad enters its sixth year, the price of the president’s preference for moral imperatives over effective military action is now clear to all: Obama has lost Syria. He has invited presidential historians to the White House for dinner: they should tell him that the desertion of the Syrians, and not the Iranian nuclear deal or the withdrawal from Afghan battlefields, will go down as his legacy.

 

After Nato’s intervention to stop Serbian atrocities back in 1999, independent Kosovo built a huge statue in honour of Bill Clinton. That’s never going to happen in poor battered Aleppo. Pro-western rebels have been denied their supply line to Syria’s second city where in 1516 the Ottoman Turks established their dominion. Five hundred years on it is being wrecked not just by shelling but by the primacy of the White House’s determination to avoid risk.

 

Little wonder that Vladimir Putin smelt opportunity in Syria. The chances of an open confrontation on Syrian terrain with the present Obama administration were minimal and the Russian leader was free to announce “Bombs away!” in support of his client dictator. In the first week of February, according to the defence ministry in Moscow, Russian warplanes hit 875 targets. Most of them had little to do with the ostensible purpose of the Russian mission, namely squashing Islamic State. What is going on at the moment is a Russian blitzkrieg aimed at anyone who could cause Assad problems, and we are its hapless spectators.

 

Obama opened the gate for this chilling Russian campaign that makes a peace settlement all but impossible. The beginning of Obama’s confusion became clear in the Arab uprisings of 2011 when he was faced with the choice of backing dictators who were for the most part long-standing US allies or the young, unpredictable rebels. Obama hesitated, plumped for the people but failed to work out how this could translate into a policy of peaceful transition. He should have read Alexander Herzen’s treatise on the failed 1848 revolutions. “What is frightening,” wrote the Russian thinker, “is that the departing world leaves behind it not an heir but a pregnant widow.” Before there could be a shift to a new order, there would first be chaos and desolation.

 

The Pregnant Widow Syndrome was evident when the US, Britain and France intervened in Libya to try unsuccessfully to steer the anti-Gaddafi rebellion towards a stable pro-western government. It was this brush with reality — and a disgraceful vote in the British parliament — that persuaded Obama not to launch punitive strikes against Assad after he had plainly used chemical weapons to poison his own people. To threaten action and then not to follow through (Putin had slyly offered him a way out) put an end to any credible US or British policy on Syria. Putin has been waiting for another occasion to exploit this weakness, and has now found one.

 

The western retreat began at this moment; a tragicomedy of errors began. It proved impossible to train trustworthy rebels; opposition leaders squabbled. Even the Syrian Kurds, our best on-the-ground fighters against Isis, are beginning to think that throwing their hats in with the Russians is better than aligning with the West, which is so beholden to Turkey, the Kurds’ arch enemy.

 

It is a shambles. Putin always enjoyed the advantage in this situation because his aim is straightforward: to secure the status quo, keep the old Syria intact and expand Russia’s influence in the Middle East. Even he is vulnerable, though. Russia is indispensable to the survival of Assad; it cannot contemplate scaling down its activities because Assad would tumble. That traps Russia and we should be ensuring that political and financial costs increase for the Kremlin. We have failed to do that. And we could exploit the manifest differences between Russia and its current ally Iran; Obama, however, does not want to rock the boat.

 

It is decision time for the US president. The war is growing and accelerating. Turkey warns it may have to go in to stop the Syrian Kurds building their own state on the Turkish border. The Saudis say they are ready to send in ground troops. Both are thus challenging Obama to come up with a deeper commitment to Syria, to take the military lead. A US-led Arab assault force on Raqqa perhaps? It’s improbable but it is a choice. The alternative is more likely: that Obama leads the West into accepting the Russian premise that Assad should not only stay but be left alone until Isis is driven out of Syria. The White House can argue that this is the only way of averting a major East-West bust-up, of a slide towards World War Three.

 

That, however, would be a surrender. It would give Assad a motive for continuing his covert dealings with Isis. And it would make a nonsense out of Obama’s sermonising: in what moral spectrum can Assad be construed to be the Lesser Evil?

Perhaps Obama imagined he could see out his presidency with a wobbly ceasefire, with the end of today’s 18 starvation sieges. The idea to be passed on to his successor is that Syria is a humanitarian rather than a political catastrophe. That won’t wash with historians and it certainly won’t impress Russia and its friends.

 

The simple fact is that Putin by the use of brute force is being allowed to change the shape of the world. How shaming is that?

[Guest]

Trump absolutely murdering his rivals in Nevada, he's got it sewn up.

 

I really really hope this ends up as Trump v Sanders, it probably ends in total disaster for the World whoever wins that but what an age to live in.

 

It would be interesting.

 

Of course they could go all cuddly puppy after being elected.

[Guest MattP]

It would be interesting.

 

Of course they could go all cuddly puppy after being elected.

 

Likely imo.

[leicsmac]

Still think it's too early to tell regarding the nominations, could easily be Kasich v Hillary as Bernie v Trump. It's going to be an interesting few months.

Interesting article re Obama and the middle East too there Matt, reminds me a lot of what Garry Kasparov (a man I respect hugely) has been saying as much as he can.

[SMX11]

Kasich doesn't have the money for a long campaign. I imagine he will drop out after SC.

Between Cruz and Trump and maybe Rubio/Bush (unlikely)

[leicsmac]

Kasich doesn't have the money for a long campaign. I imagine he will drop out after SC.

Between Cruz and Trump and maybe Rubio/Bush (unlikely)

 

Will the RNC establishment allow it to come to a straight dust-up between Trump and Cruz? They must at least consider the idea that it's suicidal to put either of them up against Hillary in November? They simply can't corral enough of the minority voters in the swing states compared to her, I don't think.

 

Or have the RNC establishment simply been overridden this time?

[MPH]

I think stalling a Supreme Court judge affirmation for more than double the time of the previous record is a special kind of obstructionism not seen before, yes?

 

But broadly speaking, yes, there seems to be a lot of petty BS like this that both parties partake in.

 

Regarding the Senate votes...if there was as much fanfare and enthusiasm and so turnout regarding them as there were the Presidential elections I would agree with you. But there isn't, and that means it's less representative of public opinion, current or otherwise. The Republicans control the Senate because thy have a hardcore of voters who vote every chance they get and believe that every election matters - and I applaud them for the organisation. But that doesn't mean such views are representative of the overall majority of American voters.

 

 

 

No/ I think the only thing that limited the previous case of 200 days was the events, not the senate.

[SMX11]

Will the RNC establishment allow it to come to a straight dust-up between Trump and Cruz? They must at least consider the idea that it's suicidal to put either of them up against Hillary in November? They simply can't corral enough of the minority voters in the swing states compared to her, I don't think.

Or have the RNC establishment simply been overridden this time?

I think you overestimate the popularity of Clinton. She won't get as much as the ethnic vote as Obama did.

Rubio seems to be the favoured establishment nomination but he has been exposed as being too inexperienced imo. Bush is burning his money and polling low.

Cruz is my favoured candidate but I can see him putting off some of the electorate, however, he is likely to gain a lot more of the conservatives/psuedo libertarian voters that would likely stay at home or vote for a third party.

[leicsmac]

I think you overestimate the popularity of Clinton. She won't get as much as the ethnic vote as Obama did.

Rubio seems to be the favoured establishment nomination but he has been exposed as being too inexperienced imo. Bush is burning his money and polling low.

Cruz is my favoured candidate but I can see him putting off some of the electorate, however, he is likely to gain a lot more of the conservatives/psuedo libertarian voters that would likely stay at home or vote for a third party.

 

I'm sure she won't, but I'm equally sure she'll collect more than either Trump or Cruz given their platforms. I agree that Cruz could well pull in a lot of flying voters, but I'm not sure he'd be able to do it in the critical swing states.

 

Take Florida, for instance. I think that any Repub candidate bar Rubio or Jeb loses Florida, and in all honesty if they don't win Florida they likely don't win the election as they would then need Ohio and one other pretty pivotal large swing state to make up the gap.

 

But who knows?

 

Edit: Though Cruz might be a hit with the Cuban exile demographic that's pretty key in Florida so he might have a chance there, but would they like his Southern Baptist angle?

[Detroit Blues]

I read an article yesterday about the neo-conservative movement in the Republican Party, and I think it articulates the fear I have in electing a republican candidate. It's a good, albeit lengthy article about why we went into Iraq in the first place, and what ideology still lingers in the Republican party. 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives

 

"These candidates, in how they discuss hostile nations such as Iran, Russia, and Syria, do not sound so different from the neoconservatives of the 1990s. You hear this in their belief in the power and virtue of unilateral American force, in the need to express hegemonic American dominance over the Middle East, and in the apparently earnest fear that any challenge to American power, no matter how slight, is just the start of a potentially global unraveling.

 

You see it in Marco Rubio's highly ideological but analytically groundless belief that dismantling the Iran nuclear deal and adopting a policy of maximal belligerence toward Tehran would advance freedom and peace in the Middle East.

 

This is not to say that neoconservative candidates are secretly plotting, or would necessarily execute, another war in the Middle East — although it is concerning to see them so focused on Iran as an implacable and grave threat that can only be addressed by subjugating the regime or bringing about its downfall.

 

It is concerning to see Rubio advocating forceful regime change in Syria and hiring a foreign policy adviser who advocates it in Iran, all along similar high-minded ideological lines as the neoconservative obsession with Iraq 20 years ago. It is worrying to hear hawks like Sen. Tom Cotton, embraced by neoconservative luminaries, explicitly advocate that the US abandon the nuclear deal to instead force regime change or even launch military strikes."

 

 

Even the democratic candidates don't inspire me to have much confidence.

 

Clinton's persona seems disingenuous and her ties to Wall St. and big business are concerning. She was paid $650,000 by Goldman Sachs to give some speeches. The same Goldman Sachs that sold America down the river during the 2008 financial collapse. What are the odds that, if elected, she holds them accountable? She was on the board for Walmart. What are the odds she raises the minimum wage that they pay their employees, or tries to improve their workers rights? 

 

I don't doubt that she couldn't handle the job, but she seems like she would be a very shrewd and authoritarian ruler. Her campaign is all about saying the nice things that she has to say to get elected, and then she'll do whatever the hell she wants. She clearly believes she is above the law from her practice of storing and distributing classified emails on her private server. What are the odds that she'll act as though bound by the constitution when it comes to the use of her presidential power? How do we know that she'll protect our constitutional rights?

 

At best she's a pro-choice republican. She was anti gay marriage in 90's. She voted to support the war in Iraq that spent trillions of American tax dollars, killed thousands of American troops and destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Not to mention that it gave rise to ISIS which causes hundreds of thousands more to flee Syria, Iraq, etc. 

 

Sander's is an idealistic candidate. He seems genuine, and he doesn't seem to be compromised by special interest groups or party politics.. If he were to be elected, he could make a lot of changes in the political bureaucracy, and place regulations on the financial industry. But I'm unconvinced that he could garner enough moderate support to win a general election, or get his idealistic policies passed by congress.

 

Even if he gets elected, he's 74 years old. Due to his advanced age, I doubt he'd be able to be president for 2 terms, meaning his lofty goals of transforming the country would need to be done in just 4 years. It was like pulling teeth to get the Affordable Healthcare Act passed (Obamacare), how long do you think it would take to get a single payer healthcare system or fully subsidize the cost of public education?  What, if anything, could he get done in just 4 years? When Obama was elected, there was a very real sense that the world would change, and for the better. But after his 8 years as president, it seems more likely that the president is changed more by the political system than the system is changed by him. 

[MPH]

I think you overestimate the popularity of Clinton. She won't get as much as the ethnic vote as Obama did.

Rubio seems to be the favoured establishment nomination but he has been exposed as being too inexperienced imo. Bush is burning his money and polling low.

Cruz is my favoured candidate but I can see him putting off some of the electorate, however, he is likely to gain a lot more of the conservatives/psuedo libertarian voters that would likely stay at home or vote for a third party.

 

 

 

 

I think the perfect election contest for the Republicans would be Sanders vs Rubio. With Sanders being a socialist far left candidate and Rubio ( in my opinion) having a better grip on immigration he is likely to appeal more to some undecided and some centralists,. At least more so than Cruz; Like Cruz, he could also appeal to some Hispanic voters but unlike cruze he is happy for  some of the current 10 million illegal/ undocumented immigrants to stay and that will be a huge thing in trying to pry away some of the Hispanic votes from the Democrats..

 

 

Now don't get me wrong. i'm against illegal immigration - it cost me thousands of dollars to go through the process legally to move to the states, but they would do well to remember that some of these 'illegal' immigrants came here as children, or were even born here. Some of them don't have a home or family to go back to. There is one young lady in my church for example, she was born here and doesnt speak a lick of Spanish... and has no documentation explaining where she came from ( Mexico). So where would they send her to?\

 

 

 

They would also do well to remember who Modern day America was founded by( immigrants!)  and the whole concept of the American dream....

[Freesolo]

Why Is Trump so angry? He is seriously not level headed.

[Sharpe's Fox]

who even takes Trump seriously he is fake as shit and will say anything to get on the news that night. Surely people have realised he is trying to be the troll king as much as president?