lwien
Well-Known Member
Who here says not to try? Gotta first get the ball rolling, right?
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Who here says not to try? Gotta first get the ball rolling, right?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I have never been a huge fan of his and would not feel very good about voting for him, but he would be a better choice than either Trump or Cruz. Or any of the other republicans running for that matter. And he ran the largest city in America for 12 years so I know he can do the job at least domestically. He is too connected to the financial community for my tastes, obviously, but we haven't a lot of options. And he will self fund his campaign so he will have no financial limitations in running.
I've said this before, if the Repubs run Trump and the Dems run Bernie, and Bloomberg wants to be president, he would be crazy not to run. There is soooo much room between them that there will be a LOT of votes headed his way.
There have been many things I have disagreed with him on, but he is a social liberal. If we have to have a billionaire for president I would sure rather it be him.
howie105
Well-Known Member
I agree completely but I am very curious what Bloomberg has to say. He apparently thinks he is very special so it makes me curious. Maybe the Illuminati is finally going to reveal themselves to settle the current political scores with us workers and serfs. If we peasants agree to be ruled by the wealthy 1/10th of 1% overlords for health care, food, and the survival of the honeybees they won't take away the rest of our jobs as fast. Oh, we will get to vape all the herb we want, almost forgot the most important one.
Bloomburg has a certain amount of party influence in NY and threatening to or actually running is a good way to optimize the brokerage of that influence. Of course he could be thinking of a run because it would be the best thing he could do for the country, or not.
TelFiRE
Well-Known Member
Note, I don't care who wins the democratic primary. I don't like either of the likely options, nor do I like anyone on the other side any better.
But it strikes me as odd that the prevailing argument seems to be that Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans. That really seems objectively false. Bernie has a far, far, FAR higher potential in a general election. Hillary has far too many people who absolutely would not vote for her, and not nearly enough people who would get excited about her. Very few people who don't regularly vote would vote for Hillary, whereas many many many non-voters would get out the vote for Bernie. Almost everyone who would vote for Hillary would also vote for Bernie, but almost none of Bernie's supporters would vote for Hillary. Their net electability ratings aren't even remotely close to each other, Bernie blows her out of the water.
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary020816.pdf
But it strikes me as odd that the prevailing argument seems to be that Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans. That really seems objectively false. Bernie has a far, far, FAR higher potential in a general election. Hillary has far too many people who absolutely would not vote for her, and not nearly enough people who would get excited about her. Very few people who don't regularly vote would vote for Hillary, whereas many many many non-voters would get out the vote for Bernie. Almost everyone who would vote for Hillary would also vote for Bernie, but almost none of Bernie's supporters would vote for Hillary. Their net electability ratings aren't even remotely close to each other, Bernie blows her out of the water.
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary020816.pdf
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
These are not nice people. It is fun to watch them rip the bejeezus out of each other, though.
Last edited:
It wasn't pot. 'Cause I know pot. I do a lot of pot to be honest. I don't act like that on pot. Well, maybe the droopy eyelids a little...
lwien
Well-Known Member
It wasn't pot. 'Cause I know pot. I do a lot of pot to be honest. I don't act like that on pot. Well, maybe the droopy eyelids a little...
He's a doctor. He's been hoarding Ludes since the mid '80's.
Which reminds, saw a recent interview with Grace Slick. Boy, has she aged. Anyway, the commentator asked her if she still takes acid and she replied, "No, but I'd be all over some 714's if they were still available." and when the commentary said "714's???" I just broke out in this big grin....
Fun days those were.
Last edited:
Adobewan
Well-Known Member
Promises they won't keep, no way to deliver on their promises,.. how are these traits exclusive to Sanders? What you're attributing to Sanders applies to all of them, Hillary included.
I've read posts here that state Bernie will achieve none of his goals due to gridlock. Again, does this not apply to Hillary as well. The truth is whomever the Republicans might lose to will face their unrelenting blockade
Regarding the gridlock, did Obama achieve any of his goals during his two terms? If you say yes, then I ask why Bernie would not be able to achieve as much as Obama, who may be the most hated President in the eyes of the Republicans, when faced with that same gridlock.
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Unless there is something solid in the content of her emails, it will more of a reading her the riot act and closing loopholes privately. IMHO. Do you think her 22 emails will be screened in time? Some of the open argument hinges on what is considered technically classified and where the nuances of classified material lie. There are well defined categories. Like say TOP SECRET, etc. and a SOS's memo can refine or change where that line is to an extent. Under Bush, Rumsfeld was always sending out memos constantly going over language and definitions and policy.I laughed a great deal tonight. Thank you GOP!
Former Obama intel official: Hillary Clinton should drop out
Hillary has been very naughty. The woman just does not have the judgement or character to be a president of any nation. She does very dumb things.
So everybody is on the same page.How often this kind of necessary clarification under say Hillary Clinton's watch or on some sort of average under other administrations I'm more curious about.
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Bernie proposes giant, radical changes. Hillary proposes incremental changes. Which do you think have a better chance of making it through the legislative process given the likely makeup of Congress under the new prez? Why is this so hard to understand? Tweaking Obamacare has some chance of success but single-payer probably none.
howie105
Well-Known Member
Because folks want it all to be better soon and its not the way it works. The behemoth which is the ship of state turns like iceberg and peoples desire for change turns like a boogie board.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I agree with Bernie that we ought to have a single-payer medical care system. The problem is an awful lot of people are adamantly opposed to it. They occupy about half the positions of power in the country. So until some of that opposition fades we are going to have to tweak Obamacare and eventually get some sort of public option... This is the nitty-gritty situation on the ground; not what it should be but that's what it is. Bernie comes along with good ideas many of us agree with; the thing is they are not do-able in the next 4 years. The job is to be president for the next 4 years.
Sure we can elect a forward-looking visionary like Bernie and then he will sit stymied in the White House unable to enact his agenda. Or we can go with a technocrat with more limited immediate goals who is well prepared for the sort of struggles we can expect in Congress the next 4 years.
If a democrat, the next president is going to have to be an incrementalist because of all the opposition in congress. That's the reality and no amount of hope and good will can wish that away. Given that, we might as well elect the candidate with incrementalist strategies and plans, rather than the guy with radical plans which, realistically, aren't going to come off at this time.
Sure we can elect a forward-looking visionary like Bernie and then he will sit stymied in the White House unable to enact his agenda. Or we can go with a technocrat with more limited immediate goals who is well prepared for the sort of struggles we can expect in Congress the next 4 years.
If a democrat, the next president is going to have to be an incrementalist because of all the opposition in congress. That's the reality and no amount of hope and good will can wish that away. Given that, we might as well elect the candidate with incrementalist strategies and plans, rather than the guy with radical plans which, realistically, aren't going to come off at this time.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
If Bernie becomes the next president then a message is sent. If the republicans, or anyone else, wants to deny the contents of that message it won't be any different than it has been for the last two terms. Looking back I would still vote for Obama even knowing the gridlock and contentiousness involved.
I can't deny how hard it will be to turn Bernie's message into something concrete. It may not happen during his term(s) but.....I want that message heard and I want the power of the presidency to be the volume button because you gotta start somewhere.
I'm not giving up and I'm not giving in on the message and goals I prefer simply because....it's too hard and won't happen too soon.
I won't go into all the progress that wouldn't have been made in this country if all the naysayers had their way or if the time-frame for making something happen were limited to a presidential term. The reason I won't list them all is because I'm not sure we have enough disk space.
I'm not going to allow the fear of what might happen if Bernie wins the primary stop me from voting for him. I'm not going to allow the fear of the possible gridlock to stop me from voting for him after the primary. I'm simply not allowing fear to stop me from voting for the candidate who best speaks to my values.
I can't deny how hard it will be to turn Bernie's message into something concrete. It may not happen during his term(s) but.....I want that message heard and I want the power of the presidency to be the volume button because you gotta start somewhere.
I'm not giving up and I'm not giving in on the message and goals I prefer simply because....it's too hard and won't happen too soon.
I won't go into all the progress that wouldn't have been made in this country if all the naysayers had their way or if the time-frame for making something happen were limited to a presidential term. The reason I won't list them all is because I'm not sure we have enough disk space.
I'm not going to allow the fear of what might happen if Bernie wins the primary stop me from voting for him. I'm not going to allow the fear of the possible gridlock to stop me from voting for him after the primary. I'm simply not allowing fear to stop me from voting for the candidate who best speaks to my values.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I gotta say, I absolutely LOVE that...
Thanks Pipes.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
If Bernie Sanders is elected I'm not delusional he probably won't get everything he is hoping for. He will be sowing the seeds for generations to come. It might be something that we may have 10 - 15 years down the road. Something that will be waiting for my children and grandchildren some day. Something that I can experience before my life is over. There will be gridlock no matter who the democratic president is.
I never thought I would see legal cannabis in my state. Anything is possible.
I never thought I would see legal cannabis in my state. Anything is possible.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I think using your vote to 'send a message' is a pretty crude use of your vote. It's exactly what Trump voters are doing. Damn the consequences, I'm sending a message. There is a whiff in bernie's case of self-righteously voting for the right man for the wrong decade. He is running to be president over a country that does not exist yet. The 'political revolution' he talks about has yet to take place and in the meantime I have to live in the country we have actually got and would be happy with some Obama-style incremental progress.If Bernie becomes the next president then a message is sent. If the republicans, or anyone else, wants to deny the contents of that message it won't be any different than it has been for the last two terms. Looking back I would still vote for Obama even knowing the gridlock and contentiousness involved.
I can't deny how hard it will be to turn Bernie's message into something concrete. It may not happen during his term(s) but.....I want that message heard and I want the power of the presidency to be the volume button because you gotta start somewhere.
I'm not giving up and I'm not giving in on the message and goals I prefer simply because....it's too hard and won't happen too soon.
I won't go into all the progress that wouldn't have been made in this country if all the naysayers had their way or if the time-frame for making something happen were limited to a presidential term. The reason I won't list them all is because I'm not sure we have enough disk space.
I'm not going to allow the fear of what might happen if Bernie wins the primary stop me from voting for him. I'm not going to allow the fear of the possible gridlock to stop me from voting for him after the primary. I'm simply not allowing fear to stop me from voting for the candidate who best speaks to my values.
Typically in politics sowing the seeds for 15 years down the line means losing. Like Goldwater, who lost big time but set the scene for Reagan.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I disagree with you. Sowing the seeds for something to come about further down the road is not losing. Not if he becomes president. He will only be a one term president because of his age more than likely. Hopefully Elizabeth Warren will be waiting in the wings.
Edit
We saw The Donald almost lose it last night. They needed to rattle him a little more.
I disagree if that message is heard loud and clear.
It seems like if it comes down to Trump vs Bernie, than the country has sent a clear message, IMO.
"Fuck the same old status quo."
Gunky
Well-Known Member
You say Bernie won't get everything he is hoping for. Name a Bernie Sanders policy that could be enacted.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
My sentiments exactly
.. And also to @His_Highness@Gunky made a well thought out argument on why he's voting for Clinton in his last post and I agree with his logic... That is if you're looking for the best candidate to achieve short term results. My focus is on what we can achieve in the long run through empowering the people to rise up and fight for their best interest and to eventually achieve greater social and economic justice. And yes, a lot of Bernie's agenda will be fought with enormous opposition from the republican controlled congress, but you start the conversation of change and rally the people to get on board with it. It's much harder for congress to vote down legislation if the polls show that the majority of the people are in favor of it. Moreover, I'm of the opinion that society is drifting to the left politically...particularly when it comes to social issues (especially the Mellennials). I think the make up of congress will shift democratic over the next 4 to 6 years.. If that happens, Bernie's so called radical revolution may not be so radical after all, in fact, it could be the new mainstream
Last edited: