2016 Presidential Candidate

[Gin1984]

Listened to Hanity today

Well there's your problem.

If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.

If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?

The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue.  Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter.  His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen.  That fact, alone, is enough.  There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth.   Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that.  McCain was born in Panama.  Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed.  Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently.  It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.

IANAL

When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that

John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.

Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...

Because they would have lost support from their base by doing so.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Listened to Hanity today

Well there's your problem.

If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.

If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?

The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue.  Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter.  His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen.  That fact, alone, is enough.  There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth.   Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that.  McCain was born in Panama.  Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed.  Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently.  It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.

IANAL

When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that

John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.

Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...

Because they would have lost support from their base by doing so.

Not to mention that it was unnecessary, given that Obama was born in Hawaii, and they all freaking know that, whether they'll admit it or not.

[matchewed]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....

[Gin1984]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....

I am watching this over and over, giggling.  Thank you for amusing me.

[matchewed]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....

I am watching this over and over, giggling.  Thank you for amusing me.

:)

[forummm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html

It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.

Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).

[Bob W]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

.   Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama.  He states he was born in Hawaii.  While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents,  neither north or south.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii   People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America.   People think all sorts if things about Obama,  like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend.  Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.

Bob, that is a willful misreading of the question and replies. The text of the question asked is

(Republicans) Do you think Barack Obama
was born in the United States?

The follow up questions indicate that the persons polled have a factual misunderstanding of the president. We can argue about if the poll is representative/accurate, but let's at least keep it on track. Here's the info on how the poll was conducted:

Public Policy Polling surveyed 572 usual Republi
can primary voters and 545 usual Democratic
primary voters from August 28
th
 to 30th. The margin of error
for the Republicans is +/-4.1% and
for the Democrats it’s +/-4.2%. 80% of partic
ipants responded via the phone, while 20% of
respondents who did not have landlines c
onducted the survey over the internet.

Yeah,  I didn't read the link but you stated "Obama born in America"  and Hawaii is not located in the Americas.   It is a sad point for me that most people who are US citizens fail to realize that their country is the USA and that America is not a country.   It is a common error. 

It matters not for him as his mama was clearly a US citizen at the time of his birth.   

[Bob W]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html

It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.

Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).

You know repeating over and over again that Republicans are anymore racists than Democrats has grown as old as the PC bullshit.   Please check your data.   You can start with looking at the numbers on black people's racism vs. white people. 

Trump is married and has been married to immigrants.  So he is obviously not anti immigrant.  Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists.   This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped. 

You might also take a look at the Republican field --  A New York Democrat, a man who appears to be black,  a woman and two people who claim Hispanic origins are in the thick of it.  These are people apparently appealing to that evil Republican base.   The Democrat field remains an all old white folks thing.   Go figure. 

Having a reasonable border policy and enforcement does not a racist make.   Of course all the Republicans have sworn allegiance to Israel and are climate change deniers.     

At a ground level report of my camping trip this weekend I was interested to find that both couples we camped with were early Trump supporters.   Yep,  college educated,  hard working,  smart folks.    They weren't the least bit offended by his honesty and lack of PC finesse.   Of course we also told dirty jokes,  drank beer (in Trump Koozies) and generally had a great time.   

And by the way,  Trump has only been in this a few months.   I think you will see over the next 14 months a cleaner media image.  As the discussion unfolds,  you may also see the Democrats becoming more realistic and in touch with the voters on immigration and moving towards actually enforcing the law and securing the border.

[GuitarStv]

Trump is married and has been married to immigrants.  So he is obviously not anti immigrant.  Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists.   This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped. 

Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists.  If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.

If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.

[Chris22]

Trump is married and has been married to immigrants.  So he is obviously not anti immigrant.  Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists.   This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped. 

Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists.  If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.

If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.

How is what Trump is saying that different than the "culture of rape" crowd that claims every male college student or frat brother is a rapist just waiting to pounce?  In both cases there are numerous anecdotes to "prove" the case, but the case is still statistically wrong.

[KittyCat]

Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists.  If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.

If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.

Well, somebody's doing the raping. (his words)

[Bob W]

I believe this is the Trump quote being referred to --   

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people"

He has also said we will have a big golden door for Mexican immigrants to apply legally.   He has also said that a country without borders is not a country.  He stands by his quote because it is entirely accurate.   

Nowhere has he inferred race as many fools here do by assuming Mexican citizens are all of a single race origin.  In fact the term Hispanic is not a race based term and refers to country of origin and even includes Portuguese speaking people.

You know,  just because a person hates Republicans doesn't make them a bad person but hating a whole group of people does kinda strike of a racist type attitude.  And I say this as someone who doesn't agree with the Republican agenda. 

You can disagree and argue for open borders but you would be wrong and you would be on the wrong side of this issue as the Democrats are quickly learning. 

By the time the big dance starts Trump will have finessed and nuanced his statements to appeal to the PC crowd.   He will be heavily courting union voters and the Democrat disenfranchised black voters.     And when his running mate is a person of Hispanic origin from Florida what will you say then?   

It could be a watershed moment in US politics where we elect our first non party or big money sponsored person in my lifetime.   

[forummm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html

It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.

Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).

You know repeating over and over again that Republicans are anymore racists than Democrats has grown as old as the PC bullshit.   Please check your data.   You can start with looking at the numbers on black people's racism vs. white people. 

Trump is married and has been married to immigrants.  So he is obviously not anti immigrant.  Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists.   This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped. 

You might also take a look at the Republican field --  A New York Democrat, a man who appears to be black,  a woman and two people who claim Hispanic origins are in the thick of it.  These are people apparently appealing to that evil Republican base.   The Democrat field remains an all old white folks thing.   Go figure. 

Having a reasonable border policy and enforcement does not a racist make.   Of course all the Republicans have sworn allegiance to Israel and are climate change deniers.     

At a ground level report of my camping trip this weekend I was interested to find that both couples we camped with were early Trump supporters.   Yep,  college educated,  hard working,  smart folks.    They weren't the least bit offended by his honesty and lack of PC finesse.   Of course we also told dirty jokes,  drank beer (in Trump Koozies) and generally had a great time.   

And by the way,  Trump has only been in this a few months.   I think you will see over the next 14 months a cleaner media image.  As the discussion unfolds,  you may also see the Democrats becoming more realistic and in touch with the voters on immigration and moving towards actually enforcing the law and securing the border.

It seems like you didn't even read what I wrote and just reacted emotionally. Where did I compare racism amongst the political parties? This was only about the specific actions of 2 candidates (out of 127 on that side). Now, one of them happens to be leading by a lot. But that's because of more than just the one issue.

[Gin1984]

Trump is married and has been married to immigrants.  So he is obviously not anti immigrant.  Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists.   This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped. 

Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists.  If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.

If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.

How is what Trump is saying that different than the "culture of rape" crowd that claims every male college student or frat brother is a rapist just waiting to pounce?  In both cases there are numerous anecdotes to "prove" the case, but the case is still statistically wrong.

That is a completely incorrect mischaracterization of those who speak of rape culture.  Men are more likely to be raped that be a rapist however, given that rapists are rarely punished those few rapists are responsible for quite a few rapes.  The statistics show that college rapists (have not be charged but by their own statements have raped) have raped on average of about six times each.  Keep in mind not all of these rapists are seniors so the number is artificially low.
So basically, thanks for the strawman.

[Bob W]

Thanks to someone on this thread I was referred to the Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius where he has several very insightful posts into the genius of Trumps hypnotic marketing message.

Apparently Scott is an expert on hypnosis and even incorporates these theories into his comics. 

His comment on Trump's Mexican Rapist statement are fascinating.  Apparently this was a well thought out gambit by Trump and subliminally empowered him with women and the only candidate speaking out against rape of women in any party. 

After reading Scotts analysis of Trumps success I am convinced that Trump is a master of hypnotic language as well as a master negotiator.   

Trumps latest polls shows 50% of his support comes from women and that 25% comes from minorities including people of color. 

I read another commentary on Trump that indicated as a voting population we are in a post racial paradigm shift.   Makes sense as many of the Republicans leading are either Latinos,  black or married to immigrants.  Democrats not so much.   They appear wedded to the racist politics of the past. 

The other point in that article was that blacks are very open to Trump,  especially working class folks as his message of jobs for US citizen first resonates.  Another interesting point was that all job creation since 09 for females in the US has been to immigrants,  either legal or illegal.  So net no new jobs for nonimmigrant working women since 09.  Sad really.  Of course we continue with a huge unemployment and underemployment problem that real people who don't follow the 5.5% unemployment reports can tell you about. 

I think our experiment with NAFTA and other trade agreements can now be chalked up as a great success for the very rich and the capitol class but as a complete failure for everyone else in the US.   It did not empower our country and bring us up but instead is steadfastly lowering our country to the level of third world countries. 

Sanders knows this ---- Trump knows this.   The others might know this but really can't do anything about it as they are completely beholden to the donor class and multinational corporations. 

If you are left leaning or right leaning I hope you take this into consideration.   I sincerely hope that the final election is a Sanders  Trump fight where real issues that effect working citizens will be addressed.    Immigration solutions,  trade agreements,  minimum wage,  and improving the lot of the unmonied should be priorities. 

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

[zoltani]

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Except for his own special interests you mean?

[MoonShadow]

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Except for his own special interests you mean?

Except for his own self-interests, yes.  That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.

[sol]

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Except for his own special interests you mean?

Except for his own self-interests, yes.  That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.

Unavoidable, maybe, not not normally a problem with candidates who don't have multibillion dollar business deals and a lifelong devotion to corporate greed.

Other candidates are sometimes pressured to cave to the evils of capitalism, but they're not usually themselves a physical incarnation of the evils of capitalism.

Electing Trump to get money out of politics is like electing Jack Abramoff to get lobbying out of politics.  This is not progress, people.

[Gin1984]

Thanks to someone on this thread I was referred to the Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius where he has several very insightful posts into the genius of Trumps hypnotic marketing message.

Apparently Scott is an expert on hypnosis and even incorporates these theories into his comics. 

His comment on Trump's Mexican Rapist statement are fascinating.  Apparently this was a well thought out gambit by Trump and subliminally empowered him with women and the only candidate speaking out against rape of women in any party. 

After reading Scotts analysis of Trumps success I am convinced that Trump is a master of hypnotic language as well as a master negotiator.   

Trumps latest polls shows 50% of his support comes from women and that 25% comes from minorities including people of color. 

I read another commentary on Trump that indicated as a voting population we are in a post racial paradigm shift.   Makes sense as many of the Republicans leading are either Latinos,  black or married to immigrants.  Democrats not so much.   They appear wedded to the racist politics of the past. 

The other point in that article was that blacks are very open to Trump,  especially working class folks as his message of jobs for US citizen first resonates.  Another interesting point was that all job creation since 09 for females in the US has been to immigrants,  either legal or illegal.  So net no new jobs for nonimmigrant working women since 09. Sad really.  Of course we continue with a huge unemployment and underemployment problem that real people who don't follow the 5.5% unemployment reports can tell you about. 

I think our experiment with NAFTA and other trade agreements can now be chalked up as a great success for the very rich and the capitol class but as a complete failure for everyone else in the US.   It did not empower our country and bring us up but instead is steadfastly lowering our country to the level of third world countries. 

Sanders knows this ---- Trump knows this.   The others might know this but really can't do anything about it as they are completely beholden to the donor class and multinational corporations. 

If you are left leaning or right leaning I hope you take this into consideration.   I sincerely hope that the final election is a Sanders  Trump fight where real issues that effect working citizens will be addressed.    Immigration solutions,  trade agreements,  minimum wage,  and improving the lot of the unmonied should be priorities. 

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Where did you see this, I did not.
I don't dislike Trump for being a blow hard.  I dislike him for being an incompetent, asshole rapist who thinks money is the only thing that matters (for men, women get money and youth/beauty).

[forummm]

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Except for his own special interests you mean?

Except for his own self-interests, yes.  That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.

Everyone is influenced by the interests of their peers. It unavoidably shapes how you perceive the world and what's important in it. Trump's peers throughout his whole life are nothing like 99.9% of the rest of us. He will naturally be focused on the issues of the rich and powerful. Not that this is too different from most presidents. But he doesn't even have the benefit of being poor as a kid to help him have the opportunity to know what life is like for most of us.

Electing Trump to get money out of politics is like electing Jack Abramoff to get lobbying out of politics.  This is not progress, people.

Agree. I do find it interesting that he's actually raising the issue of how everyone else running against him is bought and paid for (sometimes by him). That's something that needs more honesty about it. But he's also not the solution to this problem.

[zoltani]

Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:

"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."

Which candidate does that describe?

[KittyCat]

Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:

"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."

Which candidate does that describe?

Chris Christie?

[MoonShadow]

Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard,  shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit.   He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests.   That means a helluvalot.   

Except for his own special interests you mean?

Except for his own self-interests, yes.  That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.

Unavoidable, maybe, not not normally a problem with candidates who don't have multibillion dollar business deals and a lifelong devotion to corporate greed.

Other candidates are sometimes pressured to cave to the evils of capitalism, but they're not usually themselves a physical incarnation of the evils of capitalism.

Perhaps not, but this is more perception than reality.  Many of them very well could be in private, and that is almost certainly the case with Clinton.  At least when Trump brags about buying his own competition, one can assume that he is probably not lying.  I think a lot of Trump polling reflects that image; that Trump is the only one actually saying what he believes.  That makes it easy to disagree with him, but also easy to respect him for his honesty amongst a peer group that history has taught the American public cannot be trusted to talk straight.

[forummm]

Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:

"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."

Which candidate does that describe?

Chris Christie?

I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.

[KittyCat]

Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:

"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."

Which candidate does that describe?

Chris Christie?

I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.

Oh, no doubt; I barely remembered that he existed, much less running (I guess that's the Trump factor kicking in). I only remembered because of the word "bullying". Christie has been eclipsed by Trump.

[Kris]

Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:

"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."

Which candidate does that describe?

Chris Christie?

I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.

Oh, no doubt; I barely remembered that he existed, much less running (I guess that's the Trump factor kicking in). I only remembered because of the word "bullying". Christie has been eclipsed by Trump.

Speaking of barely remembering he existed, Rick Perry just pulled out.

I hope those glasses didn't cost very much.

[zoltani]

Rick Perry just pulled out.

haha, as he always should, for the good of the nation.

[Kris]

Rick Perry just pulled out.

haha, as he always should, for the good of the nation.

Yup, I had to phrase it like that.

I imagine what he said to his female partner, upon forgetting to pull out:

"Oops..."

[zoltani]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

[forummm]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

[KittyCat]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I do not like McCain at all, but even I agree with that statement. I guess we'll see how well the candidates polish before the primaries.

[Jeremy E.]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

[forummm]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

[Welshrabbit]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

[Jeremy E.]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

[forummm]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.

I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.

I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.

[Welshrabbit]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

People like Bernie because he speaks about putting the American worker first (as opposed to outsourcing or using illegal immigrants for labor), holding those on Wall Street accountable for their often unethical behavior, and getting money out of politics. I don't agree with him on everything, and it would be absolute gridlock on many issues with a Republican congress if he were elected. It doesn't matter because he won't be.

Joe Biden may be a better candidate then Hillary, but I don't see him capturing many of the swing voters who are necessary to win an election. Again, I don't think he can win a general election.

People like me don't like Bush because we don't see any difference between him and his brother in terms of policy. I also think the fact that he has raised over $100 million for his campaign and we are more than a year away from the election is obscene.  He is another status quo/bought and paid for candidate (like Hillary), and people are tired of their politicians being in the pockets of wealthy donors.

Also...we aren't a Monarchy for crying out loud. The fact that it may come down to two candidates who are from the immediate families of former Presidents should really bother anyone who believes in Democracy.

[Jeremy E.]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.

I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.

I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.

Socialist Sanders wants a huge raise in minimum wage, free 4 year college, he supports obamacare, etc. I find that to be extremely socialist. However I've lived in the United States my entire life, so I don't have a lot of points of reference.

It also annoys me that he wants to ban all handguns and most rifles, I'm pretty sure even if he was president, he'd have little chance of accomplishing it, but it still annoys me.

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want an extreme increase in national debt, I don't want Socialist Sanders.

[Welshrabbit]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.

I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.

I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.

I don't disagree but there is a VERY good chance that one of those mockable ones may be the next POTUS.

I would love for Sanders to get elected, I really would. I fail to see how an old white Jewish man will capture the minority vote and/or the independent vote. The fact that we like him does not make him electable.

The server thing is a big deal to anyone who has ever held a clearance of any kind. The deletion of the emails from the server (even if innocuous) would be a fireable and possibly jailable offense to anyone in the Intel community whose last name was not Clinton/Bush, etc. The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.  On a more abstract level, it shows how the political class operates without rules and regulations like the rest of us. I think that personally angers me more than the reckless nature of the entire thing. I'm all for calling out phony scandals i.e. the whole Lewinsky thing, but this is no phony scandal and will not just go away.

[forummm]

Rick Perry Said:

"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.

The party is in good hands, fucking LOL

"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.

I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.

I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc

From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.

I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.

Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.

I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.

The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.

I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.

I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.

Socialist Sanders wants a huge raise in minimum wage, free 4 year college, he supports obamacare, etc. I find that to be extremely socialist. However I've lived in the United States my entire life, so I don't have a lot of points of reference.

It also annoys me that he wants to ban all handguns and most rifles, I'm pretty sure even if he was president, he'd have little chance of accomplishing it, but it still annoys me.

I don't want higher taxes, I don't want an extreme increase in national debt, I don't want Socialist Sanders.

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

[Jeremy E.]

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.

[midweststache]

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.

I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)

[forummm]

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.

I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)

Executives and legislatures love to take credit for things that happened mostly because the economy improved (and they mostly have no effect on the economy). What happened was that Ohio's economy got better because 2011 budget estimates (using 2010 data to make the projections) was when we were just coming out of the Great Recession and the economy has grown nationwide a lot which increases revenues. The same thing happened in many states. Jeb! likes to take credit for the Florida economy when he was governor but he just happened to be fortunate to be governor during a giant housing bubble and to leave office just before it popped. The balanced budget of the late 90s also was a result of a huge stock market bubble pumping in more tax revenue.

[Jeremy E.]

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.

I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)

Executives and legislatures love to take credit for things that happened mostly because the economy improved (and they mostly have no effect on the economy). What happened was that Ohio's economy got better because 2011 budget estimates (using 2010 data to make the projections) was when we were just coming out of the Great Recession and the economy has grown nationwide a lot which increases revenues. The same thing happened in many states. Jeb! likes to take credit for the Florida economy when he was governor but he just happened to be fortunate to be governor during a giant housing bubble and to leave office just before it popped. The balanced budget of the late 90s also was a result of a huge stock market bubble pumping in more tax revenue.

Was the Economy good when Kasich balanced the budget during the 90s? Sure, but that was the only time it's been balanced since the 60's, there have been other times when we had a great economy where the budget didn't get balanced. Was the economy good from 2010-2014? Sure, but his state outperformed most other states in the same economy, while making more tax cuts than any other state.

[Jeremy E.]

Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.

He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.

If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.

Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.

I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)

He brought 350,000 jobs to Ohio which helped a ton, he also reduced the budgets of some programs. There may be other variables too, I'm not sure.

[Jeremy E.]

The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.

[forummm]

The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.

It was the same trend for the nation during those same years. Ohio was nothing special.

He brought 350,000 jobs to Ohio which helped a ton

No, it was a national trend in the national economy and unemployment dropped (another way of saying that employment increased) dramatically nationwide.

Was the Economy good when Kasich balanced the budget during the 90s? Sure, but that was the only time it's been balanced since the 60's, there have been other times when we had a great economy where the budget didn't get balanced. Was the economy good from 2010-2014? Sure, but his state outperformed most other states in the same economy, while making more tax cuts than any other state.

The stock market was literally triple the valuation it had had on average throughout history at the end of the 90s. That's the reason for the balanced budget--huge revenues. And the Ohio economy improved about the same as the rest of the nation. Governors really have almost no influence on an economy. They really can just do stuff to destroy it (like in Kansas). Kasich might be a great governor, but these things are not evidence of that.

[forummm]

I would love for Sanders to get elected, I really would. I fail to see how an old white Jewish man will capture the minority vote and/or the independent vote. The fact that we like him does not make him electable.

I used to think that no one would vote for the black guy. But once people get to know someone and like them they set aside labels somewhat. Even if it's a "he's not like the rest of them" kind of thinking. I think anti-black prejudice is much stronger than antisemitic sentiment.

[forummm]

The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.

Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[Jeremy E.]

The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.

Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.