2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh boy, hear you´ve got a vintage family man of the modern Republican party. Old, white and entitled. I bet he´s attracted mightily to that angry, anti empathy, anti science, bigoted, sexist, racist, anti government, anti environment, fox news and talk radio listenin,´ military lovin,´ gun totin´ political party . . . but look how lovely he looks with his wonderful family.

Robert Bates. He probably spouts generic hatred of big government, except of course when it´s big government armed and in military clobber, and then he´ll even pay to do it´s bidding. He was the Oklahoman wealthy businessman, wannabe cop, who got to pay his way to play po-lice-man at age 73, and then the poor ol´ boy mistook his taser for a gun and killed an already subdued bad guy black man. Check out this interview of this guy. It all seems to be about him and his cancer, in what was the "second worst" thing he´s been victim too. This has got to be one of the creepiest thing John Oliver has ever highlighted about `Murica.

 
Eboue said:
Don't you find it worrying that the president can unilaterally declare American citizens to be enemy combatants and then kill them? You may agree with who this president kills today but what about the next president? What about the next conflict? What if president Rubio wants to kill a populist leader in a country where we support a brutal dictator for strategic purposes? What if a president wants to kill environmental activists who are blocking the acquisition of fossil fuels that make our economy run? What if the next Kissinger just wants regime change in some third world country unlucky enough to be in our way?
Click to expand...

Of course I care and I'm a proponent of rigorous processes and checklists that should be followed before a strike is authorized. Unfortunately, and people often forget, that this is a war, and no military campaign is going to not have its share of people who die because they are round combatants.
 
Raoul said:
Of course I care and I'm a proponent of rigorous processes and checklists that should be followed before a strike is authorized. Unfortunately, and people often forget, that this is a war, and no military campaign is going to not have its share of people who die because they are round combatants.
Click to expand...

I think that's a poor justification. For one, no war has actually been declared. More importantly, you can apply that logic to other situations and it won't hold up. For example:

Police should be able to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion and search anyone without probable cause. It would reduce the drug problem massively. This is a war on drugs and unfortunately no war can be conducted without innocent people being stopped and searched.
 
Eboue said:
I think that's a poor justification. For one, no war has actually been declared. More importantly, you can apply that logic to other situations and it won't hold up. For example:

Police should be able to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion and search anyone without probable cause. It would reduce the drug problem massively. This is a war on drugs and unfortunately no war can be conducted without innocent people being stopped and searched.
Click to expand...

Police matters inside the US are a different situation. Externally, whether we like or not, its still a war even if there may not be a congressional declaration.
 
Raoul said:
Police matters inside the US are a different situation. Externally, whether we like or not, its still a war even if there may not be a congressional declaration.
Click to expand...

Do you think that maybe since this idea of "war" has become very subjective since there is no official, legal congressional declaration of war and whatnot, that it would be fair game for us to start looking more closely at the official definition of "terrorism" that so many Americans and Europeans stick to so stringently in their self righteous justifications and definitions of themselves and their actions?
 
Nobby style said:
Do you think that maybe since this idea of "war" has become very subjective since there is no official, legal congressional declaration of war and whatnot, that it would be fair game for us to start looking more closely at the official definition of "terrorism" that so many Americans and Europeans stick to so stringently in their self righteous justifications and definitions of themselves and their actions?
Click to expand...

I think there should be a rigorous debate about what constitutes war in the present. The older processes and definitions seem increasingly antiquated to where the legal standards that govern them seem to restrict politicians (Presidents) from taking action in a timely manner. We need newer standards and definitions that incorporate things like asymmetrical wars (terrorism), hybrid conflicts (Russia/Ukraine) etc, that allow policy makers to act quickly and effectively without excessive bureaucratic processes that bog things down.
 
Eboue said:
Why is that relevant? How many Americans cared about the civil rights of Dred Scott or Emmett Till?
Click to expand...

It becomes more relevant when the security of American citizens is at play. Bringing up the civil rights marches is obviously completely unrelated to this.
 
Raoul said:
It becomes more relevant when the security of American citizens is at play. Bringing up the civil rights marches is obviously completely unrelated to this.
Click to expand...

It's the principle that matters. Civil rights are not subject to popular opinion. The principle applies irrespective of president and political climate. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment can remove the right of American citizens to due process.

The government asserting "bad stuff will happen" is not a justification for violating civil rights as has been held throughout the court system since the constitution itself.
 
Eboue said:
It's the principle that matters. Civil rights are not subject to popular opinion. The principle applies irrespective of president and political climate. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment can remove the right of American citizens to due process.

The government asserting "bad stuff will happen" is not a justification for violating civil rights as has been held throughout the court system since the constitution itself.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from. Maybe there needs to be a revision in the laws to where external enemy combatants who spend their lives plotting to kill US citizens no longer enjoy the rights of citizenship and civil rights.
 
Raoul said:
I see where you're coming from. Maybe there needs to be a revision in the laws to where external enemy combatants who spend their lives plotting to kill US citizens no longer enjoy the rights of citizenship and civil rights.
Click to expand...

Trial in absentia -- wouldn't be great or anything, but would be a hell of a lot better than what currently happens (so long as it wasn't a secret court).
 
The Republican field looks long on quantity, short on quality. Is this a good election strategy for the party, or should they be looking for a clear front runner to emerge sooner than the primaries next year so that he(?) can start to rival Clinton in the public eye and the polls?
 
Gannicus said:
That's madness. The top 10% of federal income tax filers already pay 68% of total income tax revenues collected by the federal government. I'm good with slightly raising the already progressive tax rates for the top earners but we have to include cuts in benefits as part of any grand bargain to get our fiscal house in order. Just as the far right are insane by insisting that new or higher taxes are off the table, the far left is just as insane by insisting that all spending cuts are off the table.
Click to expand...

The top 10% hold 80% of the wealth. That's 68% of taxes for 80% of wealth. Everyone else chips in 32% of taxes for 20% of wealth. Note the disparity. The top 10% also buy elections and politicians while the rest of the nation get fecked up the ass.
 
Eboue said:
This hasn't actually happened.
Click to expand...

Spending cuts with respect to entitlements, sure it has. With respect to military spending cuts and some small discretionary items, Dems are more than willing to have a conversation.
 
MrMarcello said:
The top 10% hold 80% of the wealth. That's 68% of taxes for 80% of wealth. Everyone else chips in 32% of taxes for 20% of wealth. Note the disparity. The top 10% also buy elections and politicians while the rest of the nation get fecked up the ass.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. My point is that the rich have bought and own BOTH political parties, not just one or the other. I do not believe my previous statements on this obvious point are ambiguous.
 
Gannicus said:
Spending cuts with respect to entitlements, sure it has. With respect to military spending cuts and some small discretionary items, Dems are more than willing to have a conversation.
Click to expand...
I´ve always thought the military, military industrial complex and the pentagon were the biggest entitlements there are. Conservative entitlements
 
surf said:
The Republican field looks long on quantity, short on quality. Is this a good election strategy for the party, or should they be looking for a clear front runner to emerge sooner than the primaries next year so that he(?) can start to rival Clinton in the public eye and the polls?
Click to expand...

The Democratic field can't be described as a "field" in any recognizable sense of the word. The "field" consists of one person. How "democratic" is that, that Democrats have no choice whatsoever in who their party's nominee will be? Elizabeth Warren will be frozen out the running, allowing Hillary's coronation to proceed, as long planned.

The Rep field, which it is -- at least 8 or 9 somewhat serious candidates -- consists mostly of wackjobs IMHO. Cruz and Paul have argued against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which should be an automatic disqualifier from ever holding public office (not literally, but you know what I mean). Santorum is a Catholic ayatollah. Huckabee is joke. The less said about Donald Trump, the better.

The only serious candidates in the race are Bush, Rubio and Walker. Whatever one thinks of their politics, they are no less qualified than Obama was when he announced he was running for potus sometime in 2007.

It will be one of those three. The smart money says Bush but Rubio is not to be dismissed. Walker could dig out the improbable win if Bush and Rubio bludgeon each other to death.

Kasich is a serious public servant but he doesn't have the personal chops to win primaries in key states. Expect him to end up on on the ticket as the Rep veep.
 
Gannicus said:
The Democratic field can't be described as a "field" in any recognizable sense of the word. The "field" consists of one person. How "democratic" is that, that Democrats have no choice whatsoever in who their party's nominee will be? Elizabeth Warren will be frozen out the running, allowing Hillary's coronation to proceed, as long planned.

The Rep field, which it is -- at least 8 or 9 somewhat serious candidates -- consists mostly of wackjobs IMHO. Cruz and Paul have argued against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which should be an automatic disqualifier from ever holding public office (not literally, but you know what I mean). Santorum is a Catholic ayatollah. Huckabee is joke. The less said about Donald Trump, the better.

The only serious candidates in the race are Bush, Rubio and Walker. Whatever one thinks of their politics, they are no less qualified than Obama was when he announced he was running for potus sometime in 2007.

It will be one of those three. The smart money says Bush but Rubio is not to be dismissed. Walker could dig out the improbable win if Bush and Rubio bludgeon each other to death.

Kasich is a serious public servant but he doesn't have the personal chops to win primaries in key states. Expect him to end up on on the ticket as the Rep veep.
Click to expand...

Its no less Democratic than if more people were running. No one is stopping anyone from participating.
 
Nobby style said:
I´ve always thought the military, military industrial complex and the pentagon were the biggest entitlements there are. Conservative entitlements
Click to expand...

In truth, military spending is a bipartisan disease that a Republican potus first warned about but was ignored by his two Dem successors.

And Dems are right there with Reps first in line to demand military spending for their home bases or a new destroyer that their home town corporation wants to build.

The real, massive cost drivers in our federal spending are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. About 2/3 of federal spending is "mandatory" -- driven by statutory requirements, ie, entitlements. 30% is discretionary spending and about half of that is military spending. So that's about 15% of the federal budget is spent on "the military". If we cut that by half, let's say (never gonna happen), we're making a dent in budget spending but really not much more than that.

Still, we would do well to cut back on military boondoggles that not even the Pentagon wants to spend the money on. In any event, the real wars we need to worry about are with China and Russia, in cyberspace. That's not a particularly expensive part of our overall military spending, but it can't be avoided.
 
Raoul said:
Its no less Democratic than if more people were running. No one is stopping anyone from participating.
Click to expand...

So it's ok if one candidate clears the field or potential challengers? We're seeing this too in California for the US Senate seat that Boxer is giving up. The Dem party establishment has warned other Dems not to challenge Kamala Harris, our Attorney General. It is her seat, so we are being told.

Not particularly "democratic", is it?
 
Gannicus said:
So it's ok if one candidate clears the field or potential challengers? We're seeing this too in California for the US Senate seat that Boxer is giving up. The Dem party establishment has warned other Dems not to challenge Kamala Harris, our Attorney General. It is her seat, so we are being told.

Not particularly "democratic", is it?
Click to expand...

In Hillary's case it would be futile for anyone to mount a challenge since she has full establishment backing. That's not stopping anyone from participating if they choose to though. As we saw in 08, Hillary being the anointed one doesn't necessarily mean she will be the nominee - although in the case of 16, her odds are much better.
 
Raoul said:
In Hillary's case it would be futile for anyone to mount a challenge since she has full establishment backing. That's not stopping anyone from participating if they choose to though. As we saw in 08, Hillary being the anointed one doesn't necessarily mean she will be the nominee - although in the case of 16, her odds are much better.
Click to expand...

I would say that while Obama wasn't the favorite to win the nomination in 2008 he was always going to be a Democratic candidate for president at some point in his career. He was the future but the surprise was that he showed up a lot sooner than maybe most expected. I don't see any potential Democratic candidate in the current field that has the same characteristics to challenge Hillary.
 
sport2793 said:
I would say that while Obama wasn't the favorite to win the nomination in 2008 he was always going to be a Democratic candidate for president at some point in his career. He was the future but the surprise was that he came a lot sooner than maybe most expected.
Click to expand...

This is why I feel Hillary will be a bit vulnerable to Marco Rubio. He's young, well spoken (at least by GOP standards), Latino, and can project himself as a new generation against Hillary, who is pushing 70. For her sake, I hope she comes out swinging compared to 08, where she was a bit lax.
 
Raoul said:
This is why I feel Hillary will be a bit vulnerable to Marco Rubio. He's young, well spoken (at least by GOP standards), Latino, and can project himself as a new generation against Hillary, who is pushing 70. For her sake, I hope she comes out swinging compared to 08, where she was a bit lax.
Click to expand...

I think if Rubio refines his politics a bit, especially with regards to Latinos, then he will be formidable. The chances of that happening however are very slim due to a crowded Republican primary. Rubio will have to start on the far right since as a Latino he will have to convince the social conservative base that he can represent them. It's easy to think that you can always find your way back to the center in the general election but with a moderate candidate like Hillary, who will establish firm foundations in the center, even Rubio will find it hard to dislodge her.
 
He's got a point. I've seen a lot of leaders look old and knackered at the end of their tenures, but Obama makes the presidency look like just an ordinary part-time job.
 
712 said:
He's got a point. I've seen a lot of leaders look old and knackered at the end of their tenures, but Obama makes the presidency look like just an ordinary part-time job.
Click to expand...

Definitely. The upside of being young-ish and quite fit when elected to such a job.
 
Still can't believe he did one of those right before the raid on Bin Laden. I think he went and watched whilst still in his tux.
 
712 said:
He's got a point. I've seen a lot of leaders look old and knackered at the end of their tenures, but Obama makes the presidency look like just an ordinary part-time job.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough a few of us were chatting recently and we all agreed the presidency has taken its toll on him.
 
Not really the right thread but it will be interesting to see how people view Obama's presidency when he leaves. Could easily be argued that he's been both good and disappointing at the same time.
 
I think his foreign policy will be both praised and criticised. The nuclear agreement with Iran and the Cuba policy will be praised. Inability to do anything of note in the Middle East during his time will be unfavourably seen.
 
Nikhil said:
I think his foreign policy will be both praised and criticised. The nuclear agreement with Iran and the Cuba policy will be praised. Inability to do anything of note in the Middle East during his time will be unfavourably seen.
Click to expand...

Not sure what he could've done in the Middle East to be honest. His policy has always been to deescalate militarily from the region.
 
Eboue said:
I think that's a poor justification. For one, no war has actually been declared. More importantly, you can apply that logic to other situations and it won't hold up. For example:

Police should be able to stop anyone without reasonable suspicion and search anyone without probable cause. It would reduce the drug problem massively. This is a war on drugs and unfortunately no war can be conducted without innocent people being stopped and searched.
Click to expand...

That just seems like common sense to me. It's no big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.