2016 Presidental Election

Don't really care, because the current election climate has made it possible for a majority of Americans to not care about the issues that affect them, allowing a minority of voters to dictate government policy which is determined by the amount of donations brought to the campaign by the  real heroes, job creators. I mean look at what happened during the midterms. Despite the low approval ratings of Congress, the few who bothered to vote made it possible for the same idiots to remain in power. It'll be the same in 2015, 2016, 2020, etc.

Nobody's going to vote third party, even if they consistently have a waayy more coherent economic plan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate Hilary Clinton an amount that would take too long to fully express in words, but I would vote for her if that little wretch Lindsay Graham came out of the closet and ran for President.

 
I really don't understand the enthusiasm for Romney that it got to a point where people even mentioned getting disowned for voting the other way. And then the autopsy. What the heck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can hope Romney is out, but since when can you trust what a politician says? :D

Clinton v Bush... ugh.

Can we just let computers run the government yet?
 
I've been expecting Billary v. Chris Christie in the final hoedown.  Seems like not a week goes by that he's in the middle of some controversy, which would usually hurt others but it's almost as if he thrives on it.

Wouldn't be surprised if it's Clinton v Bush again though.

 
eLefAdEr said:
I've been expecting Billary v. Chris Christie in the final hoedown. Seems like not a week goes by that he's in the middle of some controversy, which would usually hurt others but it's almost as if he thrives on it.

Wouldn't be surprised if it's Clinton v Bush again though.
Click to expand...
I would pretty much say either of those are a worst case scenario.

If either of those elections happen, I'm moving back to the Country of Texas.

 
There will never be a Republican president ever again unless the Republican candidate becomes something that is not Republican. They will still clean up in midterms for a couple more decades I think.

 
I disagree with that but will say that they continue to produce less than stellar candidates.  It also hurts them that most of their candidates tend to not have any sort of backbone when it comes to hard to sell positions.

 
Republican candidates suck.

I am not at all a Liberal, but at least Elizabeth Warren stands for something. Republicans will probably nominate Jeb "The Shitty One" Bush, and the Democrats could push her.

I'm not saying I agree with her ideas, but at least she has some. It's so much better than recycling the "I'm gonna repeal Obamacare, now gimme a Hell Yeah!" shit that we keep hearing.

I'm not a fan of Obamacare either, but every damn candidate says the exact same thing, like a bunch of broken records. Say "I'm going to fix Obamacare by doing this" and it's gonna be an easier package to sell.

I'll break it down this way:

If McCain got elected, we would have McCainCare. Romney would have gotten us Romneycare.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats are that they are like car salesman. Each one is selling the exact same car, but showing different features. One talks about power, the other fuel economy. One says fully loaded, the other says every available option. It's the same damn thing, and it doesn't matter. The New World Order is going to put the candidate that they think we will buy this shit from better in power anyways.

 
Rebels is on the money again. I really don't get the "Your idea is shit! But I don't have one..." form of politicking that the Republican party has basically been doing for 8 years. The notion of just "undoing" Obama and putting things back the way they were isn't good enough to win a majority vote. You have to tell people why your ideas are better.

Seriously, if Republicans want any shot at the Presidency, approach the campaign like a chess match or a basketball game or something. Who the hell cares what your opponent is bringing to the table. Make sure that what you're bringing is better. You're not going to win a game with name calling and belittling somebody. Bring your freaking A game and convince the country that you're smarter than your opposition.

But again, it really doesn't matter who's in charge when this is the bullshit behind the curtain.

11054500_10153121155185520_872275165182842780_n.jpg


Who in the hell do you think is going to listen to you when Thad Cochran is sitting there thinking "Motherfucker...I've been in this chair most of your life." These people are the reason America is where it is today. The idea that some person leasing a giant white house for 4-8 years has much impact is damn silly.

 
Republicans basically are approaching these elections like a chess problem. Haven't you paid attention to the crap they pulled on the local level? Judges have to be elected? Pour money into those campaigns. Make sure the poors don't vote? Force voter ID laws, and demoralize the middle class with the Union busting. As long as job creators are satisfied, the rest of the American people can go fuck themselves. Voter Apathy is rather high. I think people forget that the President doesn't write the laws and passes them, and this is what the Republicans are banking on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu said:
Who in the hell do you think is going to listen to you when Thad Cochran is sitting there thinking "Motherfucker...I've been in this chair most of your life." These people are the reason America is where it is today. The idea that some person leasing a giant white house for 4-8 years has much impact is damn silly.
Click to expand...
I'm always torn when it comes to term limits.

On one hand, they sound great and I don't really see much downside.

On the other hand, I really, really don't like the idea of We The People being told that we cannot vote for a candidate that we believe will do the best job.

It's a hard one for me to get behind based on that alone - but it's not something that would turn me off supporting someone who I otherwise like.
 
Congress passing the amendment to term limit the president was mainly just surliness that Roosevelt broke the tradition of only serving two terms because that's what Washington did.

I'm generally opposed to term limits.  If you don't like a guy*, that's what elections are for.  If you think he does a great job (or better than the other guy at least) then I think you should be able to vote for him. 

 
Yeah...but all of that is assuming that people are voting for the right reasons. And sure, we can always use the argument that people have the "freedom" to vote for whatever reason they want. "I'm 'Merican. It's my God given right to not vote for any candidate who has green eyes." That doesn't make it smart...or not a mockery of the entire reason the election process was created.

I'm not saying term limits would solve all problems...but uprooting a tree that has been there almost half a century isn't exactly easy. The amount of corporate connections and backing that person has had time to make is unreal. Cochran probably still owes people favors from 1995.

 
n8rockerasu said:
Yeah...but all of that is assuming that people are voting for the right reasons. And sure, we can always use the argument that people have the "freedom" to vote for whatever reason they want. "I'm 'Merican. It's my God given right to not vote for any candidate who has green eyes." That doesn't make it smart...or not a mockery of the entire reason the election process was created.

I'm not saying term limits would solve all problems...but uprooting a tree that has been there almost half a century isn't exactly easy. The amount of corporate connections and backing that person has had time to make is unreal. Cochran probably still owes people favors from 1995.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Couldn't agree more. Term limits are DESPERATELY needed. It will help take money out of politics, and let fresh, new faces have a chance. People often are voting on legacy and name, and when you've been pandering to the electorate and working with lobbyists for 40yrs, you had your chance. Get out of the way now, go on your 100k speaking tours, and GTFO. American Politics are completely broken. We need a viable third party, term limits, and I'd love to see campaign contributions be taxable, with the tax raised being required to pay down the national debt.

 
People get too comfortable and no matter how horrible someone is they have a better chance of winning then losing.

Look at Texas, do you honestly want Rick Perry to be around for close to 20 years???

People are stupid, and unless they are forced to change people won't change, habit is a bad thing and when elected officials become a habit, they need to go.

A look at Israel is also a good reason why we need to have term limits.

 
Every country forces their citizens to sign up for some sort of selective services.

Maybe this country would be better off instead of forcing people to sign up to possibly go to war, we all force people to serve 1-2 years in government.

Maybe this will give people a better understanding that freedom is for everyone and not to be taken lightly and given to so few people in positions of authority. 

All governments are inherently evil and unless government is open to everyone, we all are living under a illusion for freedom.  Governments have never been build around giving, it is always build around taking.  Whether its your monies, or currently the big news these days you LIVES

 
The way I see it, you can have a guy in office for 50 years who takes bribes or you can have the guy elected last fall taking bribes - the problem isn't with the length of service, it's with how easy it is to A) "Corrupt" a public official, B) actually be a corrupt official, C) Get away with it without getting caught, D) get off with minimal repercussions when you are caught.

Term limits won't solve any of that - and that is what needs to be addressed first.
 
UncleBob said:
The way I see it, you can have a guy in office for 50 years who takes bribes or you can have the guy elected last fall taking bribes - the problem isn't with the length of service, it's with how easy it is to A) "Corrupt" a public official, B) actually be a corrupt official, C) Get away with it without getting caught, D) get off with minimal repercussions when you are caught.

Term limits won't solve any of that - and that is what needs to be addressed first.
Click to expand...
The part where I DO think term limits will help is the lobbyists will need to build new relationships with congressmen far more frequently, and maybe they turn a few off in their presentation. The refresh gives us a chance to get someone better, worse, or the same. But at least lobbyists will have to work harder, decide if it's still worth it to dump so much money into elections, sway policy, and keep maintaining the status quo.

On the Presidential side, it would be fun if the President and VP were required to be the winner of the election, and the candidate they beat. Olllld school style. Those would make for some interesting State of the Unions! :D

 
n8rockerasu said:
I'm not saying term limits would solve all problems...but uprooting a tree that has been there almost half a century isn't exactly easy. The amount of corporate connections and backing that person has had time to make is unreal. Cochran probably still owes people favors from 1995.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that tree didn't start 50 years old. Someone in a single office for fifty years has either won election eight times or twenty-five separate times, depending on the chamber. If you've successfully made the case for re-election 8/25 times then perhaps it should take an exceptional candidate to knock you out.

The flip side to the "too comfortable and corrupt" angle is that, if I know I'm forced out of office in four years anyway, why not cash in while I'm there? Not as though I'll have to answer to the voters; I just need to keep it above-board enough to keep the feds off me.

 
Maybe the Greeks were right when they created the idea of a lottery to pick politicians out of a stable of citizens. America forces all men to register for the Selective Service, and using those records (also applying it for women) surely some rather random politicians that more or less represents the will of the people. Of course, fat cat politicians gotta be cozy with job creators, Ted Cruz to Harry Reid.

 
I think a large part of my position is that I don't have an issue with "professional" politicians.  There's value to staying in the job long enough to get skilled at it.  Knowledge of other laws, knowledge of procedure, conferences, etc.  I don't think that a constant churn of new faces who don't know where the bathrooms are is really a benefit.

New people every few years just means that the people who WILL be responsible for running the show will be their professional staffs, hired and re-hired each term within the party structure as the elected faces come and go.  The people who know how the machine works and what goes where and how to write legislation.  Arguably, they do most of the work now but making the Congressmen temporary figureheads won't make that any better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
I think a large part of my position is that I don't have an issue with "professional" politicians. There's value to staying in the job long enough to get skilled at it. Knowledge of other laws, knowledge of procedure, conferences, etc. I don't think that a constant churn of new faces who don't know where the bathrooms are is really a benefit.

New people every few years just means that the people who WILL be responsible for running the show will be their professional staffs, hired and re-hired each term within the party structure as the elected faces come and go. The people who know how the machine works and what goes where and how to write legislation. Arguably, they do most of the work now but making the Congressmen temporary figureheads won't make that any better.
Click to expand...
So much of this. There's not a thing here I disgree with. (oh, and those staff members/advisors? those positions would end up being filled with former congresscritters anyway)

Greater and more defined terminology for what the criteria for "corruption" is. Harsh - HARSH- penalties for those who partake in "corruption" (both politician and "donor"). Let's address the issue head-on instead of trying to loophole around it.
 
UncleBob said:
The way I see it, you can have a guy in office for 50 years who takes bribes or you can have the guy elected last fall taking bribes - the problem isn't with the length of service, it's with how easy it is to A) "Corrupt" a public official, B) actually be a corrupt official, C) Get away with it without getting caught, D) get off with minimal repercussions when you are caught.

Term limits won't solve any of that - and that is what needs to be addressed first.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't disagree with that...but I guess the thought is rather than openly inviting it, at least make it a little harder to manipulate. That's what I mean that it might not be an ultimate solution. But should at least be one facet to limiting the opportunity of being in someone's pocket. It just feels like the alternative is a "Why bother? What's the use?" approach. And again...if we're at that point, then stick a fork in this country and our alleged "freedoms".

 
Syntax and UncleBob make good points. I think it's a little exaggerated to assume that we'd be switching from Congressmen in their 70s to Congressmen in their 20s though. They shouldn't be completely inexperienced, but they shouldn't be out of touch with the modern world either.

I guess the bigger point to attack with corruption then would probably be spending limits on campaigns...or making things taxable like was mentioned. I mean, it seems kind of silly that most professional sports recognize salary caps as being necessary to keep things fair, but politics is like "fuck that noise!" lol. Makes you wonder what type of person you're voting for if they're afraid of a fair fight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the issue would be that while you might be making it slightly harder to manipulate, you're making it less transparent and harder to catch. Instead of having to bribe that long-term congressman who's face is in every election ad, now you're bribing some long-term aid who no one knows (and, of course, the elected official disavows any knowledge of the illegal activity that the staffer he carried over from the previous administration was involved in).
 
I think the issue would be that while you might be making it slightly harder to manipulate, you're making it less transparent and harder to catch. Instead of having to bribe that long-term congressman who's face is in every election ad, now you're bribing some long-term aid who no one knows (and, of course, the elected official disavows any knowledge of the illegal activity that the staffer he carried over from the previous administration was involved in).
 
I think the issue would be that while you might be making it slightly harder to manipulate, you're making it less transparent and harder to catch. Instead of having to bribe that long-term congressman who's face is in every election ad, now you're bribing some long-term aid who no one knows (and, of course, the elected official disavows any knowledge of the illegal activity that the staffer he carried over from the previous administration was involved in).
 
n8rockerasu said:
Syntax and UncleBob make good points. I think it's a little exaggerated to assume that we'd be switching from Congressmen in their 70s to Congressmen in their 20s though. They shouldn't be completely inexperienced, but they shouldn't be out of touch with the modern world either.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of their age, really. It's just a reality that if you term limit a House rep to two terms, then you will never have a House rep (including committee chairs and Speaker of the House) with more than four years experience. I think that's more of a bad thing than a good thing. How close they are to getting the senior discount at Denny's is secondary.

 
Syntax Error said:
It's not a question of their age, really. It's just a reality that if you term limit a House rep to two terms, then you will never have a House rep (including committee chairs and Speaker of the House) with more than four years experience. I think that's more of a bad thing than a good thing. How close they are to getting the senior discount at Denny's is secondary.
Click to expand...
You don't think a middle ground between two terms and infinity would be reasonable?
 
Depends on the middle ground.  "Two terms" seems to be the usual self-imposed limit when candidate start making those pledges so that was my starting point.

Anyway, this isn't any particular passion of mine so someone arguing in favor of term limits will bring more to the table than I will.  I just don't agree that they're beneficial.

 
Perhaps some kind of mixed term limit is possible. Two is just arbitrary, and for reasons Syntax Error and others pointed out, that creates tremendous volatility in the House. So perhaps maximum four consecutive terms or ten terms in total?

Two is fine for the Senate. Maybe three, I'm not wedded to a particular number.

I wholly agree that the problem with term limits is that it presents an arbitrary cutoff point where we might lose some people who otherwise are amazing public servants. Since we've had precisely zero of those in two centuries plus (hey, man, I love Bernie Sanders and really dug Dennis Kucinich, it's not like I would *insist* upon their right to exist in congress in perpetuity).

Oh, that reminds me - I would take congressional district boundary making out of the hands of federal and state congress altogether. I'm not 100% sold on who I *would* have evaluate it, but I'm just as fucking sick of gerrymandering as I am of the lack of term limits. Moreso, likely.

 
berzirk said:
The part where I DO think term limits will help is the lobbyists will need to build new relationships with congressmen far more frequently, and maybe they turn a few off in their presentation. The refresh gives us a chance to get someone better, worse, or the same. But at least lobbyists will have to work harder, decide if it's still worth it to dump so much money into elections, sway policy, and keep maintaining the status quo.

On the Presidential side, it would be fun if the President and VP were required to be the winner of the election, and the candidate they beat. Olllld school style. Those would make for some interesting State of the Unions! :D
Click to expand...
Not really how it works, at least in states like California. The professional politicians are still around, just now in un-elected advisory positions to incoming freshmen. If they aren't in advisory position, they become the lobbyists for corporation, non-profits, or think tanks. Honestly the only thing term limits do is put unskilled legislators against a well oiled and financed machine most don't have any hope of understanding before they are whisked off to their second and last election. Then they just grab whatever cash/jobs/favor they can on the way out. Then the process continues again for the next group.

mykevermin said:
Perhaps some kind of mixed term limit is possible. Two is just arbitrary, and for reasons Syntax Error and others pointed out, that creates tremendous volatility in the House. So perhaps maximum four consecutive terms or ten terms in total?

Two is fine for the Senate. Maybe three, I'm not wedded to a particular number.

I wholly agree that the problem with term limits is that it presents an arbitrary cutoff point where we might lose some people who otherwise are amazing public servants. Since we've had precisely zero of those in two centuries plus (hey, man, I love Bernie Sanders and really dug Dennis Kucinich, it's not like I would *insist* upon their right to exist in congress in perpetuity).

Oh, that reminds me - I would take congressional district boundary making out of the hands of federal and state congress altogether. I'm not 100% sold on who I *would* have evaluate it, but I'm just as fucking sick of gerrymandering as I am of the lack of term limits. Moreso, likely.
Click to expand...
It only took Putin about 10 years to undermine the Duma. I kind of feel that Term limits wont stop anything you mention in your post. If they put good legislation at a disadvantage, if they are too long a skilled person/group can get out from under any system.


And to keep this election lighthearted: Rand Paul as a comic book.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting really really sick of the media acting like Clinton is inevitable and no one else even deserves to run against her. The same talking heads will sit and talk about Rubio or Bush's qualifications and then laugh at the thought of an equally qualified Democrat trying to get into the race. It is just disgusting that she has basically been anointed by the left and center media. I think the issue is not that no one is qualified, its that no one is EXCITING. Look at the way they reacted to Elizabeth Warren. She was the one person they acted like could rise up and challenge Hillary and might actually have a shot and they did the same thing with Obama as he gained steam. They like these two because they are big exciting game changing personalities that they can latch on to. Meanwhile someone like Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders who are FAR more qualified are brushed off as laughable candidates. Joe Biden is treated like the ultimate laugh because his odd ball traits have been so exaggerated by the media they see him as a buffoon.  Yet lets be honest Biden is probably more qualified than most people on either side running and he is one of the only people I would believe REALLY cares about the average American.

It just makes me angry that the media seems to be the ultimate decider in this day and age for who is even allowed to run for President. I  swear if Clinton gets the nomination unopposed I am rocking a a bumper sticker that says its impossible to understand the media with Hillary Clintons dick in their mouth.

 
MSI Magus said:
Getting really really sick of the media acting like Clinton is inevitable and no one else even deserves to run against her. The same talking heads will sit and talk about Rubio or Bush's qualifications and then laugh at the thought of an equally qualified Democrat trying to get into the race. It is just disgusting that she has basically been anointed by the left and center media. I think the issue is not that no one is qualified, its that no one is EXCITING. Look at the way they reacted to Elizabeth Warren. She was the one person they acted like could rise up and challenge Hillary and might actually have a shot and they did the same thing with Obama as he gained steam. They like these two because they are big exciting game changing personalities that they can latch on to. Meanwhile someone like Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders who are FAR more qualified are brushed off as laughable candidates. Joe Biden is treated like the ultimate laugh because his odd ball traits have been so exaggerated by the media they see him as a buffoon. Yet lets be honest Biden is probably more qualified than most people on either side running and he is one of the only people I would believe REALLY cares about the average American.

It just makes me angry that the media seems to be the ultimate decider in this day and age for who is even allowed to run for President. I swear if Clinton gets the nomination unopposed I am rocking a a bumper sticker that says its impossible to understand the media with Hillary Clintons dick in their mouth.
Click to expand...
I mean, is it that unexpected? This has been brewing for over 15 years since Clinton was in office. The only thing that sidetracked her was Obama's unexpected gravitas building to the 2008 election. Now that he's out of the way the expectation has returned, it's inevitable.

As much as people like to say they like change, they don't. The last 3 presidents have been double termers. If it hadn't been for OG Bush's fumbling we would have been having double termers for over 30 years.

It's more than just her being a woman, people just want to see "Clinton" in the White House again.
 
Wait wait wait.

Elizabeth Warren is less qualified than O'Malley?

Help me understand that.

I'd also ask about Clinton, but that's such a preposterously false on the surface comparison I'm still a bit stunned you made it. I'd rather see the closer comparison - O'Malley and Warren.

 
The thing about O'Malley is that he has practically no name recognition.  Something like 10% of voters have even heard of him.  He also has no framework for a national apparatus to run a campaign.  So to compare him to Clinton who is very well known and has a machine at her disposal, it doesn't take media bias to make Clinton the probable favorite.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top