2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Going whole quahog: Chaffee hammers Hillary - WaPo: “Lincoln Chafee, a former U.S. senator and governor from Rhode Island, announced Thursday that he is exploring a run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And unlike other potential Clinton challengers, Chafee appears to be spoiling for a fight. …Chafee did not mince words when he said Clinton's 2002 Senate vote to authorize military action in Iraq should disqualify her from becoming commander in chief. ‘I don't think anybody should be president of the United States that made that mistake,’ Chafee said. ‘It's a huge mistake and we live with broad, broad ramifications today — of instability not only in the Middle East but far beyond and the loss of American credibility. There were no weapons of mass destruction.’ Chafee, who was a Republican at the time, was the only senator from his party to vote against the Iraq war authorization.
 
It's difficult for me to hold accountable the politicians that voted for the Iraq invasion, except for any that were highly connected to the Bush crew. They were all duped by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and crew. And most have regretted that 'yes' vote whether admitted or not.

That Bush crew wanted Iraq from the get go following 9/11, and also didn't take AQ seriously upon settling into the presidency in early 2001. This according to former Bush Jr chief adviser on terrorism, Richard Clarke, who had worked under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton (albeit he's had his own share of controversy and criticism from various sides). Granted, it's which side you believe in this scenario.
 
Isn't it a reasonable law to avoid a democratic dictatorship (guess that's what one would call it) like scenario.

I would love to have such a law in India in relation to our PM.

That is the counter argument, yes. But it is a bad law for two reasons. On principle, it is paternalistic and it ties the hands of the voters. If the voters want to elect someone a third time, they should be allowed to do so. It's undemocratic to say that the Congress in 1947 and the state legislatures in 1951 know better than the voters in 2016. In practice it also creates issues. The Michigan State House limits are 3 two year terms. Which means that the people in leadership positions are almost always in their second term or later. And by their third term, a good number are campaigning for other positions. This makes is much more difficult to build relationships across the aisle and contributes to gridlock.
 
It'll be interesting to see if Hillary Clinton tries to distance herself from the current administration in her campaign or not. Considering she was a part of it, that may be difficult to pull off.

Why on earth would she want to distance herself from Barry?

p040915ps-1206.jpg
 
It'll be interesting to see if Hillary Clinton tries to distance herself from the current administration in her campaign or not. Considering she was a part of it, that may be difficult to pull off.

She probably will on certain issues like foreign policy, as she's known to be more hawkish than him. She - like most candidates - will big her love of Israel, her skepticism of the Iran deal, the need to be more forceful with Putin, and the need be less hasty with Cuba policy - all to get key voting constituents on board.
 
That is the counter argument, yes. But it is a bad law for two reasons. On principle, it is paternalistic and it ties the hands of the voters. If the voters want to elect someone a third time, they should be allowed to do so. It's undemocratic to say that the Congress in 1947 and the state legislatures in 1951 know better than the voters in 2016. In practice it also creates issues. The Michigan State House limits are 3 two year terms. Which means that the people in leadership positions are almost always in their second term or later. And by their third term, a good number are campaigning for other positions. This makes is much more difficult to build relationships across the aisle and contributes to gridlock.

My argument was specific to Presidential elections and not elections in general in US. I also think that having a cap on the number of years a person can get elected to a particular post helps in ensuring that there is always a inflow of new candidates with new and fresh ideas and thoughts on how to take the country forward. This of course may not work as well in the local state level elections, which may have its own set of issues, some of which have been highlighted by you.
 
Why do some of these candidates have such odd names. What sort of name is Rand?

Couple of years ago there was a guy named Newt.
 
It's difficult for me to hold accountable the politicians that voted for the Iraq invasion, except for any that were highly connected to the Bush crew. They were all duped by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and crew. And most have regretted that 'yes' vote whether admitted or not.

That Bush crew wanted Iraq from the get go following 9/11, and also didn't take AQ seriously upon settling into the presidency in early 2001. This according to former Bush Jr chief adviser on terrorism, Richard Clarke, who had worked under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton (albeit he's had his own share of controversy and criticism from various sides). Granted, it's which side you believe in this scenario.

Probably a smart thing since many politicians with nothing to do with Bush voted for it, including Hillary if I recall.
 
I thought it would be Ayn Rand derived, but apparently not according to wiki.

But yeah Gingrich is hard to explain, just generally.
 
Any excuse for this

 
So based on the two most likely outcomes, if in 2020/2024 you look back at the last 5 presidents (starting from 1989), the list will look like either of these two:

Clinton
Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush

Bush
Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush

Good 'ol American presidential democracy.

Democracy is precisely what it is. If those candidates win democratic elections among a crowd of other candidates, then the will of the public should be respected.
 
Democracy is precisely what it is. If those candidates win democratic elections among a crowd of other candidates, then the will of the public should be respected.
You'd have to admit Raoul that there's too much reliance on funding streams for the absurd costs these days as well as the imposed choice of the party elites as to who the final nomination is. That's not to say outsiders can't get through, obviously Obama is a prime example as well as the way in which the Tea Party have been able to get the better of the Republican establishment over the past 8 years or so, but there are certainly reforms that could be made to improve the system that would result in a bit more variation for the good. In a populace of 300m+, having 4 of the last 5 presidents from the same 2 families is fairly unlikely in terms odds unless there's a finger on the scales somewhere.
 
You'd have to admit Raoul that there's too much reliance on funding streams for the absurd costs these days as well as the imposed choice of the party elites as to who the final nomination is. That's not to say outsiders can't get through, obviously Obama is a prime example as well as the way in which the Tea Party have been able to get the better of the Republican establishment over the past 8 years or so, but there are certainly reforms that could be made to improve the system that would result in a bit more variation for the good. In a populace of 300m+, having 4 of the last 5 presidents from the same 2 families is fairly unlikely in terms odds unless there's a finger on the scales somewhere.

Its a two party system and those who rise to the top of their respective parties generally do the best. This stuff about the Bushes and Clintons is a silly narrative that's more so a coincidence than the norm.
 
Democracy is precisely what it is. If those candidates win democratic elections among a crowd of other candidates, then the will of the public should be respected.

A system of rule that is open to a tiny fraction of the population is not very democratic. We know that the process to decide the head of government in the US is one of the least democratic in the democratic world due to the fact that you either have to be super rich yourself or have super rich backers to even stand a chance winning. The fact that in 2024 the likelihood is that every president (bar one) since 1989 will have been either a Bush or a Clinton adds an even more worrying element to the depressing undemocratic nature of the presidency.
 
A system of rule that is open to a tiny fraction of the population is not very democratic. We know that the process to decide the head of government in the US is one of the least democratic in the democratic world due to the fact that you either have to be super rich yourself or have super rich backers to even stand a chance winning. The fact that in 2024 the likelihood is that every president (bar one) since 1989 will have been either a Bush or a Clinton adds an even more worrying element to the depressing undemocratic nature of the presidency.

Except its not open to a tiny fraction of the population, as evidenced by Obama's rise from nowhere to President of the world's most powerful country. Good candidates who are able to communicate their ideas and mobilize their resources generally rise to the top. Those who can't get left behind.
 
Except its not open to a tiny fraction of the population, as evidenced by Obama's rise from nowhere to President of the world's most powerful country. Good candidates who are able to communicate their ideas and mobilize their resources generally rise to the top. Those who can't get left behind.
Obama's the outlier. America has a pretty rigid class system, which she is denial about.
 
Last edited:
Except its not open to a tiny fraction of the population, as evidenced by Obama's rise from nowhere to President of the world's most powerful country. Good candidates who are able to communicate their ideas and mobilize their resources generally rise to the top. Those who can't get left behind.

But the point I am making is that the likelihood is that over a 35 year period (1989-2024), your example will have happened only once. If in 2024 a young kid is looking back at the previous 5 presidents, Obama will be the only exception to the rule of the presidency having been in the hands of two powerful families for perhaps the entire lifespan of that kid's parents or elementary school history teacher.
 
Obama's the outlier. America as a pretty rigid class system, which she is denial about.

He showed that its achievable though. Marco Rubio is another who didn't come from a political family and could wind up President of the United States in less than 18 months. This entire narrative of the Bushes v the Clintons etc is just myopic argument of something that's more so a historical coincidence than the norm.
 
But the point I am making is that the likelihood is that over a 35 year period (1989-2024), your example will have happened only once. If in 2024 a young kid is looking back at the previous 5 presidents, Obama will be the only exception to the rule of the presidency having been in the hands of two powerful families for perhaps the entire lifespan of that kid's parents or elementary school history teacher.

Like i said, its more so a historical coincidence than the norm - an outlier of sorts (Adams being the other for different reasons). All the coverage this is receiving is covering up the fact that there are other viable alternatives to Jeb Bush in Rubio and Walker. Rand Paul is arguably getting a bit of coat tail from his Dad's past attempts but has more or less generated his own buzz.
 
In fairness Bill was actually not the party choice at the time either, he won through the primaries in a way similar to Obama. I think to deny that finance and popularity with party elites aren't big limiting factors though is questionable to say the least. As you yourself said a couple of weeks back, Bush is the choice of the Republican heads and that's why he's likeliest to beat the likes of Rubio.
 
In fairness Bill was actually not the party choice at the time either, he won through the primaries in a way similar to Obama. I think to deny that finance and popularity with party elites aren't big limiting factors though is questionable to say the least. As you yourself said a couple of weeks back, Bush is the choice of the Republican heads and that's why he's likeliest to beat the likes of Rubio.

Financing is definitely an issue, especially after the Supreme Court ruled on it a few years back. That said, there are ways around the financing as Obama proved with his guerrilla paypal campaign in 2007/08
 
Financing is definitely an issue, especially after the Supreme Court ruled on it a few years back. That said, there are ways around the financing as Obama proved with his guerrilla paypal campaign in 2007/08
Definitely true, and the right candidate can certainly overcome the roadblocks. I suppose the trouble is when there isn't that transformative candidate as there hasn't been for the GOP of late or for the Democrats this time round, you'll get the establishment choice by default almost.
 
Obama's the outlier. America has a pretty rigid class system, which she is denial about.

The Bushes and Clintons are the outlier. Truman never graduated college. Wilson never had much money. Grant's father was a tanner. Lincoln was famously born in a one room log cabin. So was Johnson. So was Buchanan. So was Garfield. Nixon got a scholarship to Harvard but had to turn it down to work at his family's grocery store. Eisenhower's father was a railroad mechanic.
 
The Bushes and Clintons are the outlier. Truman never graduated college. Wilson never had much money. Grant's father was a tanner. Lincoln was famously born in a one room log cabin. So was Johnson. So was Buchanan. So was Garfield. Nixon got a scholarship to Harvard but had to turn it down to work at his family's grocery store. Eisenhower's father was a railroad mechanic.
Last 50 years it's about $$$. The American dream is long dead.
 
The Bushes and Clintons are the outlier. Truman never graduated college. Wilson never had much money. Grant's father was a tanner. Lincoln was famously born in a one room log cabin. So was Johnson. So was Buchanan. So was Garfield. Nixon got a scholarship to Harvard but had to turn it down to work at his family's grocery store. Eisenhower's father was a railroad mechanic.

That's a record for a nation to be proud of. It does beg the question 'what went wrong?' though.
 
Hillary reportedly not going to be running away from Obama's record, a good thing in my view - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The "first female president" angle is going to be a strong point for her as well, I think.

It's a nonsense angle though. Hilary's position as someone who is able to run for president is primarily the result of who she married....no intelligent woman should take any meaning away from it in a feminist/female-advancement sense.
 
It's a nonsense angle though. Hilary's position as someone who is able to run for president is primarily the result of who she married....no intelligent woman should take any meaning away from it in a feminist/female-advancement sense.

Not at all. She may have been famous because of who she married as recently as 16 years ago, but she has managed quite a political career herself after Bill left office.
 
Not at all. She may have been famous because of who she married as recently as 16 years ago, but she has managed quite a political career herself after Bill left office.

Yes, her position as the wife of the POTUS did allow her to forge an impressive political career, as often happens. See Mrs Peron and Mrs Kirchner in Argentina, Mrs Sinawatra in Thailand, Mrs Moscoso in Panama and many other former wives of presidents who coincidentally became presidents themselves. Still, none of these women have any relevance to feminism IMO.
 
Yes, her position as the wife of the POTUS did allow her to forge an impressive political career, as often happens. See Mrs Peron and Mrs Kirchner in Argentina, Mrs Sinawatra in Thailand, Mrs Moscoso and many other former wives of presidents who coincidentally became presidents themselves. Still, none of these women have any relevance to feminism IMO.

Nor did I claim Hillary does. She's far more a centrist these days than during Bill's term.
 
Nor did I claim Hillary does. She's far more a centrist these days than during Bill's term.

What I mean is that these women have no relevance to the advancement of ordinary women in politics. Because that is the card Hilary will play, she will try to send the message to women that if she can do it, any woman can do it and that her being made POTUS will signal a new era for women when it comes to their access to positions of high power. Hopefully women will see through it, though.
 
It's a nonsense angle though. Hilary's position as someone who is able to run for president is primarily the result of who she married....no intelligent woman should take any meaning away from it in a feminist/female-advancement sense.
She has a JD from Yale, was a US Senator for 8 years and the Secretary of State for 4. She didn't get those things purely for being married to Bill Clinton. His connections and funding links make it likelier she can succeed of course, but you cannot ascribe her success to her marriage. She's an extremely capable human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.