Yep, it is kind of crazy. I mean, Bush was arguably the most moderate of them, and he is George W Bush's brother and agrees with his decisions. Rubio as you said was a Tea Party favorite and is now establishment's candidate. It is crazy on what direction Lincoln's party has gone.Don't forget Rubio was a Tea Party favorite...this is how far the GOP has fallen, Rubio is now the establishment candidate
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Off the usual topic but worth posting anyway
Would've been in her 50s during civil rights! Amazing.
Would've been in her 50s during civil rights! Amazing.
Saw that on the news, she seems like a great character.
I wonder if they lose again (and it seems likely, I think even Sanders could beat any of their candidates) will they come back in 2020 more moderate, or even more extreme!? The strategy was to be moderate this time, but their electorate just won't go for it. So in a sense the party strategists/heads aren't really in much control.
Last edited:
Yep, it is strange. I thought that they were fed up of Bush, and despite that Republicans hate Obama, the economy has improved considerably during his spell. So, I thought that the electorate would want this time someone who is nearer the centre, not crazy demagogues.
You guys do release that Rubio beats Clinton hands down in all the latest polls.
have seen that....must be just the age difference...
It doesn't mean anything now, where there are all those possible combinations, and Sanders fans temporarily hate Clinton.
And of course, polls in national level means a giant zero. Polls should be made only on those states which the voting can go either way, and then count the delegates from them.
Saying that, I have been saying for a year or so that Rubio can beat Hillary and he is the most dangerous from all Republican candidates. Still hoping that Trump (or even Cruz) win the nomination, cause they will be surely beaten in the main election.
I did not, thanks for pointing that out. Think Big-O would get out to campaign for her in the later stages? Think it would be effective?
He should still be popular enough among Democrats to bring out some voters.
The trouble with those polls is they deal with hypothetical matchups of candidates who may or may not face each other and among voters who may or may not vote in November. They're not particularly credible for those reasons.
So a good super tuesday and she is home and hosed
Well bar impeachment or screwing some intern
Yes, are you trying to make a point or are you asking if that's the case?
It's a bit of an unfair characterization I think, it's not like she's solely relying on the super delegates to win. Fact of the matter is she holds sway with minorities who make up a big portion of the Democratic base and that will be reflected in states that are more diverse rather than 90% white, liberal IA, NH. I think by the time the NY primary concludes in April she will have enough delegates, excluding super delegates count, to win the nomination but her detractors will still say that she only get there because of the perceived advantage of super delegates.
This woman won the popular vote against Obama in 08, but the rule of the Dems caucuses and primaries is that if you can't make inroads with minorities, particularly AA, you are screwed.
I hope you're not refetencing my post, I never said she was relying solely on superdelegates to win. I just don't like the idea that superdelegates can vote any way they want without regard to the will of the people. They usually don't do that as it would be very bad publicity but the fact that they could seems undemocratic.
This means nothing in terms of a US presidential election, ultimately those people living in the so called swing states will decide who becomes president. If you live in the bigger states like California, NY, Texas, you vote doesn't matter.
Hopefully not everyone thinks like that. No one will vote.
btw Trump can win in the Rust belt where there are more blue color voters. It won't be easy. But he could. If that happens, he has a path to the Presidency.
Could someone explain to me why everyone likes Bernies Sanders? The more I read about him, the more I roll my eyes. Raising taxes on the rich, making college free, making the minimum wage 15 all don't sound like good ideas to me.
I don't wanna be that guy who is against whom everyone finds good but surely there must be something appealing about him?
And also, why does everyone hate Hillary?
I don't wanna be that guy who is against whom everyone finds good but surely there must be something appealing about him?
And also, why does everyone hate Hillary?
Because he wants to make public college free, raise the minimum wage to $15 and raise taxes on the rich. (well, the main reason is he wants to reform the political system so it can't be bought with large donations)
Hilary is America's David Cameron, a careerist mascarading as a pragmatist. You're not voting for policies or ideals as much as her getting to be President for a while.
I struggle to think of any democracy wherein elected officials and party elders don't have a big say in choosing their leader. When you think about it that way, endorsements and super delegates are just that. In an idealworld everyone's vote should count the same but it's not the case so it's pointless to single out the US for this.
In 'Nam, we are allowed to vote, but the process is the candidates are presumptively chosen and, I shit you not, this happened in 2010, we got handed out a printed list of the candidates and most choose one or another based on how good their photo looks. Count yourself lucky
So he'll be in the awkward situation of "hey I won as the honest man who didn't buy the system with this system but I'm going to change it so ... you know people like me can win" if he wins?
It just seems like you value different things when compared to Sanders supporters as those are a few of the things that many like about him. Personally I like him most because he seems honest and is not controlled by special interests. I think many are gravitating towards anti establishment candidates like Sanders and Trump because of the corruption within our political system that has resulted in some really backwards policies that are not in the interests of the common citizen.
Why would he phrase it from the sarcastic perspective of someone who rolls their eyes at him? He'll say "The American people have given me a mandate to reform the political system so it meets their needs not those of the monied few"
That would make sense. I guess the whole "reform" thing turns me off. I don't want to go into detail but if I - someone from a relatively not so rich family - can climb up the ladder, take student loans to get my degree and then pay off my loans with a job I see no excuse for the rest.
It bothers me that I'll have to pay for someone's women studies degree or that people serving fries are paid $15 and hour. The latter is just ridiculous. You go to other parts of the world and doctors don't make that much per hour.
EDIT: Hillary to me seems like the most balanced politician. She seems like someone who can get stuff done and play the whole politics game.
I struggle to think of any democracy wherein elected officials and party elders don't have a big say in choosing their leader. When you think about it that way, endorsements and super delegates are just that. In an idealworld everyone's vote should count the same but it's not the case so it's pointless to single out the US for this.
In 'Nam, we are allowed to vote, but the process is the candidates are presumptively chosen and, I shit you not, this happened in 2010, we got handed out a printed list of the candidates and most choose one or another based on how good their photo looks. Count yourself lucky
Fair enough
that's horrendous! With that being said I still can't help but hope our system becomes more balanced and money becomes less of a driver with regards to the legitimacy of a candidate. Not to say our system is the worst, it's not, but it is still far too corrupt to be an honest representation of the common citizen.There's only so much space on the ladder.
$15 dollars isn't much relative to the wealth of the country and historical wages in America. People have to do the jobs that are available and those jobs should pay enough to live a decent life. That Doctors elsewhere get paid less is irrelevant to America's domestic policies.
Well, everyone kind of would like to be Prez (or am I the only one?). And isn't pragmatism usually a characteristic of careerists, because they think defensive and long term (about their careers)?
One reason I think more of the candidate than policies, and can actually vote for a centrist career politician that doesn't really stand for anything is this: I don't think governing, and especially the Presidency, is so much about what the politician wants to do, but even more about all the things that are going to happen in these 4 years that no one now expects, are not a part of anyone's policy proposals or talking points. The situations where it won't be about ideals, but rather about being effective or not. That's when I want the person in charge to be rational, open-minded, aware of the existing thought/writing about decision-making under uncertainty, intelligent, and to have a good team.
I don't want to argue because quite honestly I don't have an opinion on this. I read both sides of the story and both kind of make sense. Besides, I find some American's definition of a "decent life" a bit lavish.
Maybe you're right and not everyone can climb the ladder but I guess everyone forms their opinions based on experience. If I could climb to the corporate world from minimum wage my opinion will just be shaped a different way.
Yeah fair enough, I disagree with your views but I see where you are coming from. I also paid my way through school with loans and working while earning my degree. I now have a good paying job and will be able to pay off my 30k of debt off fairly easily.
With all that being said I hold a firm belief that if someone is capable they should have the option of education and it should not put them in tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Societies that have higher average education rates tend to be happier and more productive, I want that for my country.
The minimum wage increase would actually stimulate our economy as the info someone (I think Nobby) posted a page or two ago stated. 15/hr really isn't that much, I've lived on less and made do but I really don't think people in such a rich and developed country should have to settle for so little when you take into account the profits that these companies bring in yearly.
Last edited:
I'd hate to have even 1% the responsibility or fame of an American president. I sometimes struggle with the attention at small birthday dinners, having billions of people say I'm amazing or more likely the scourge of the planet would basically be my own personal hell. I'm sure millions of people would love to do it, and equally sure they'd have the kind of panic attack visible from space.
Even on that count, Bernie has had fairly sound judgement historically. I struggle to think of any time he's been on the wrong side of an event or history. with Hilary I'd be scared of her fecking whole sections of society over because one of her pollsters told her it'll get her re-elected.
I can see why you'd think that, but you have to remember the film & TV version of America is wildly different to the life most of them live.
Yourself and shamans seem to have done the good thing for yourselves, took the loans and are on track to pay them off. But think that given the incentives (cost of loan and time vs. higher wages in the future) you both made good decisions regarding where and what to study. In the same incentive structure, a lot of kids are making bad decisions, piling up much more than 30k debt to go to a more expensive school but to get less marketable degrees. If you make it so that college is free, can you imagine how many kids will go study these useless degrees, spend 4 years of their lives and the state's money?
"Societies that have higher average education rates tend to be happier and more productive". Absolutely, long-term this is the main thing a society can do to be developed. Plus democratic government and good infrastructure, this is the path to further development. But this higher education has to be productive. The world can use english literature and art history majors, but only so many. It can use a lot more engineers, nurses, doctors, or even welders, electricians, etc. If free college leads to an imbalance of the makeup of specialties in society, it won't be the expected outcome of "higher average education".
To be fair though, liberal arts degrees tend to be much cheaper than business, medicine, engineering degrees, etc... If colleges are free, I don't think the make up will change much, you just give more people the chance to study.
Having said that, as someone who is working his ass off to pay for college, I think college shouldn't be free, it just need to be much cheaper and the students are offered more flexibility in their loans, grants and incentives. 10k/year seems reasonable for a 4 years degree, imo.
Having said that, as someone who is working his ass off to pay for college, I think college shouldn't be free, it just need to be much cheaper and the students are offered more flexibility in their loans, grants and incentives. 10k/year seems reasonable for a 4 years degree, imo.
I completely agree that the degrees need to be useful. I don't want to sponsor lifelong students (the kind that keep studying and don't become contributing members of societies) here and I'm not arguing that education should be completely free, I think there is a happy middle ground (about 10% of what the average uni education costs now imo) to be found. All of the burden for decreasing that cost does not fall on the taxpayer either, a portion of it lies with cutting bloated university salaries, sports programs, and generally eliminating waste within the university processes.
Edit: cost of uni education would probably be more fair and realistic at about 25-30% of what it is right now. 10% might be a bit low and possiby unsustainable.
Last edited:
I know I am going to get jumped on for this, but could not resist.
The Brits and the Europeans on here love Bernie Sanders because they are all products of the "Welfare State". They are used to having their hands out, they have never experienced anything else Sanders wants to give everything free of charge, not seeming to realise you never really appreciate anything unless you have worked for it.
Hilary dosen't come off very well, she seems phoney. In practically every other country she would be a centralist or a moderate Tory, which she was for most of her political career. Now she is tripping over herself to be more left than Sanders.
Get off my lawn!
Education is a huge time sink, even if it were "free" monetarily (which I'm not advocating) it still wouldn't be free. This statement is in reply to your insinuation that people would not appreciate education if it were free of charge.
Do you think healthcare should not be free? Should people have to earn their cancer treatment or their insulin shots to manage the diabetes they were born with?
Polls out today:
Massachusetts GOP - Trump +34
Massachusetts Dem - Tie
North Carolina GOP - Trump +18
North Carolina Dem - Clinton +15
North Carolina GOP - Trump +9
North Carolina Dem - Clinton +10
Michigan GOP - Trump +18
Michigan Dem - Clinton +13
Illinois GOP - Trump +13
Illinois Dem - Clinton +19
Think there's a pattern there somewhere.
Massachusetts GOP - Trump +34
Massachusetts Dem - Tie
North Carolina GOP - Trump +18
North Carolina Dem - Clinton +15
North Carolina GOP - Trump +9
North Carolina Dem - Clinton +10
Michigan GOP - Trump +18
Michigan Dem - Clinton +13
Illinois GOP - Trump +13
Illinois Dem - Clinton +19
Think there's a pattern there somewhere.
Us bastards, not having to pay for our damn healthcare! What an entitled lot we are!
Were these conducted before or after Bush dropping out?
- Status