Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738993 times)

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« on: November 16, 2015, 05:19:54 PM »
These are my personal thoughts attempting to make a legitimate criticism about each of the presidential candidates left on the stage. Feel free to address my criticisms and tell me why I am wrong, or add your own.

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton: Age (68) which could lead to some health issues. Her cozy relationship with Wall-Street may be a liability in the primaries, which seems to be a major rift between her and Sanders. The e-mail "scandal" may turn something up that actually damages her politically. Her last name (people don't want a "Dynasty").

Bernie Sanders: Age (74) which could lead to some health issues. Identifying as a Democratic Socialist. When asked at the debate what the tax rate would have to be on wealthy American's to fund the programs he wants to implement he said " it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent". Not having a Super Pac, or receiving large donations could be a problem further down the road. He is also attempting to become commander in chief of the military which he deemed himself a conscientious objector when it came to personally serving.

Martin O'Malley: Name recognition, with only 4 debates left (one on a Saturday, and one on a Sunday of a long weekend) he does not have much more opportunity to get his name out there on the national stage.

Republicans:

Jeb Bush: Family name along with poor debate performances thus far. In general I think he comes off as awkward and is out shined by many in the current field. I think he is going to have major money issues moving forward and will eventually have to concede.

Ben Carson: While he is hot in the polls currently I think his lack of political knowledge in setting up a ground game or field operations in the primary states is going to hurt him. He has also made some strange comments, I am sure more are to come. However, he did a good job brushing it off in the last debate.

Chris Christie: His personality may have been strong prior to the race, but Donald Trump's ascent to the top of the polls essentially edges him out as the candidate that says what is directly on his mind. In addition the "bridgegate" scandal and his acceptance of Obama's federal help during the Hurricane hurt his standing as a conservative.

Ted Cruz: His main following is made up of the very far right. While that certainly will fly in a few of the primary states, when it comes to a general election you need someone that can "pivot" themselves as a more centrist candidate. He also has a terrible track record of "reaching across the aisle" with his main accomplishments being stopping legislation from happening.

Carly Fiorina: Her business record keeps coming back up, along with two lackluster debates.

Jim Gilmore: Who?

Lindsey Graham: Presents himself as a hawk amongst hawks in the GOP field, I don't think I have heard him talk about anything policy-wise besides going to war.

Mike Huckabee: This is incredibly biased and not substantive but I have an image seared into my head of this fat jolly man jumping across the fox tv screen trying to be "hip" playing a guitar. He says some very strange things at times, overall I do not believe he is very presidential.

Bobby Jindal: No need to explain.

John Kasich: While he is very centrist and could appeal to a larger base of moderates, it is the die hards that come out to vote in the primaries. I think this will destroy his candidacy.

George Pataki: Name recognition and current polling trends.

Rand Paul: His appeal is stretched between a few candidates that are outshining him. His attempt to re-brand the republican party as more libertarian and "isolationist" will be his downfall.

Marco Rubio: His personal finances, if he cannot handle his own... how can he be expected to handle the country as a whole?

Donald Trump: His comments about shutting mosques down, building a giant wall and kicking every illegal immigrant out, etc. Also in general just being a huge asshole.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 05:59:01 PM by trailrated »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7351
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2015, 07:32:59 PM »
I would add to Sanders that he is weak in foreign policy knowledge.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2015, 08:27:19 AM »
Reasonable overview.  Below are some of my feels: 

I'm probably a Hillary voter, but I am not a fan of her age (although an older woman is less likely to have health issues or die than an older man) or her political dynasty and vibe of political slimy-ness.  BUT I also firmly believe that all presidential candidates except perhaps Bernie are slimeballs, so I try to give her a pass on that. 

I honestly thought Jeb! would do well and get the R nod.  His lackluster performance was not what I expected.  He seems slightly more sane than some R's on immigration.

Cruz I think has a chance to come in and take far right votes from the two I refer to as the crazies:  Trump and Carson.

My money is on Cruz or Rubio getting the R nod after Carson and Trump do something completely bonkers and conk out.

Kasich is my governor.  I don't care for him, and wouldn't want him to be Prez, but he is seeming much more sane than the other R's.  Which is not appealing to the far right.  I think if he gets kicked down to the kiddie table for the next debate it will be over for him.  It also seriously annoys me (and this goes for all the candidates who are currently in office) that he has not stepped foot in OH more than a couple days lately.  He isn't doing the job he was elected for, he hasn't been for months, and he won't be until he drops out or is elected.  GRRRR. 

Christie seems like a slimeball, see bridgegate, but again they are all slimeballs, some just hide it better than others.  My guess is he is out soon.

Rand Paul seems sane in some ways (military) but I don't know much about him other than a vague feeling of unease.  Like he is crazy but good at hiding it. 

Thegoblinchief

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2015, 08:58:00 AM »
No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2015, 09:04:45 AM »
No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?


I know for a fact I'm getting increasingly cynical, but I also agree it's a pathetic field...

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2015, 09:19:15 AM »
Yea, I can't believe anyone in the GOP would ever give a Bush another shot.  Even if you love him and his politics, there's just the reality you have to face.  For 16 years everything that's gone wrong has been blamed on Bush, that's just an unstoppable PR momentum.  Cut the losses and move on.

John Kasich really has come off well in the debates, I haven't looked into his claims regarding Ohio's finances yet, but some Ohioans are coming to Thanksgiving dinner so I'll quiz them on it, see if it's really his doing or some oil/gas boom like Trump claimed.

It all matters naught, if Hillary gets the nomination she wins the general, which is a sorry state of affairs, but we could probably do worse.  Just be prepared for her to lose her shit on national TV when someone asks her what Bill thinks about something.  Democrats have lost their mind.  All those wonderful women in that party and you seriously support this person?  I just don't understand it.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2015, 09:19:21 AM »
No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?


I know for a fact I'm getting increasingly cynical, but I also agree it's a pathetic field...

Agree.  I attribute it to no sane person wanting to spend 2 year campaigning, sucking up to Super PAC's, etc.  So you end up with the crazies and the slimeballs. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 09:40:41 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?

Thegoblinchief

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2015, 09:43:12 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?

No fucking idea. We still have a YEAR to go to the actual general election. And the pre-primary season gets longer and longer each cycle.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2015, 09:49:32 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..." 

It's kind of like saying "oh my god, I live three miles from work!  how could i ever bike there?  It's so long!"

Agree that the US election cycle is waaaaaay too long, but 11 weeks hardly seemed long enough. Just my opinion...

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2015, 10:07:45 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?

Because the news cycle doesn't perpetuate itself. Or maybe it's because it does... I'm not sure anymore.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2015, 10:08:52 AM »
Kasich is my governor.  He *looks* good on paper and on the TV screen.  However, from my observations, he doesn't stand up for anything, just going with the flow trying to move up the ranks.  It's an effective practice, but I have no respect for it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2015, 10:19:58 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..." 

It's kind of like saying "oh my god, I live three miles from work!  how could i ever bike there?  It's so long!"

Agree that the US election cycle is waaaaaay too long, but 11 weeks hardly seemed long enough. Just my opinion...

11 weeks felt kinda long to me to be honest . . .

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 10:47:59 AM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..." 

It's kind of like saying "oh my god, I live three miles from work!  how could i ever bike there?  It's so long!"

Agree that the US election cycle is waaaaaay too long, but 11 weeks hardly seemed long enough. Just my opinion...

11 weeks felt kinda long to me to be honest . . .
Yeah, well... we both have perception bias on this one.  I came to Canada after the 2012 US elections and have that to compare the recent Canadian elections to. Your experience was likely the previous Canadian federal elections, which were...what... 6-8 weeks long?

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2015, 11:37:18 AM »
Yea, I can't believe anyone in the GOP would ever give a Bush another shot.  Even if you love him and his politics, there's just the reality you have to face.  For 16 years everything that's gone wrong has been blamed on Bush, that's just an unstoppable PR momentum.  Cut the losses and move on.

John Kasich really has come off well in the debates, I haven't looked into his claims regarding Ohio's finances yet, but some Ohioans are coming to Thanksgiving dinner so I'll quiz them on it, see if it's really his doing or some oil/gas boom like Trump claimed.

It all matters naught, if Hillary gets the nomination she wins the general, which is a sorry state of affairs, but we could probably do worse.  Just be prepared for her to lose her shit on national TV when someone asks her what Bill thinks about something.  Democrats have lost their mind.  All those wonderful women in that party and you seriously support this person?  I just don't understand it.

Unfortunately, John Kasich will be playing the Jon Huntsman role in 2016 - experienced, practical moderate who doesn't have a prayer of surviving the far-right voting patterns of the Republican primary.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2015, 12:17:22 PM »
John Kasich really has come off well in the debates

Really? Every time I've seen him in the debates he's come off as a whiny, old man. Especially this last one. He was more annoying than anything.

I really do think there's something to the Hillary e-mail scandal, but I get the feeling she's going to be protected until after the elections. If any actual charges come down prior to the election, I would be very surprised. The DNC really looks to be doing what they can to prop her up (few debates on low ratings nights for example).

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2015, 12:31:01 PM »
John Kasich really has come off well in the debates

Really? Every time I've seen him in the debates he's come off as a whiny, old man. Especially this last one. He was more annoying than anything.

I assume they mean more moderate and practical with a grasp of the real world, especially against people like Trump, Cruz, and Carson. (this is coming from a Republican).

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2015, 04:16:30 PM »
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2015, 05:33:06 PM »
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.
His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2015, 07:38:52 PM »
Kasich was my favorite candidate before the debates, and he did really good the first debate. Every debate since then he's said exactly the same thing, he also doesn't know how to interrupt people or take interruptions, which hurts his debate performances. It annoys me that originally he said he'd reduce the military budget and also that he wouldn't insult others running for the nomination. He put out his 8 year plan that shows the military budget rising, and also has started insulting others running for the nomination. I agree that Donald trump is an asshole that should NEVER be president, but he's insulted others as well, and regardless of whether or not it's true, you shouldn't go back on your word. Yes all candidates are huge liars but that doesn't make lying okay.

Of all the presidential candidates I would prefer Rand Paul to win. He wants to greatly reduce spending, including military spending, which is great as we are HUGELY overspending. The only major issue I have with him is that he wants to put out a 15% flat tax, I'm not against a flat tax, but I think if we have a flat tax it needs to be more, I think an adjustable flat tax from 20-40% with some deductions is more realistic, accompanied with a budget amendment that doesn't let us overspend.

My complaints with the parties as a whole as well as some of the candidates,

Democrats - Want to increase spending, increase government regulations(decrease freedoms), Obamacare sucks, want more gun control(which I suppose goes with increase government regulations), generally think wind power is a better option than nuclear, and want to raise the minimum wage too much (which will likely increase unemployment rate)

Republicans - Generally don't care about the environment or don't believe that there is a chance that we are ruining our planet, want to reduce the freedom of gay people and not let them get married, want to reduce the freedoms of womens right to choose whether or not she wants an abortion and also want to stop funding planned parenthood which helps many people(and not for the correct reason to reduce spending, but instead because they want to reduce abortions) and want to increase military spending

Sanders - Socialist that wants to greatly increase spending and decrease our freedoms(socialist countries have less freedom than capitalist countries)

Clinton - It seems everything she does is for political expediency, I'm guessing there isn't anything she wouldn't do if it would help her become president, regardless of whether or not it's good for the country or against her morals(if she has any).

Rubio - He can't even handle his own finances, he shouldn't be president. He got millions from his book, blew it all, and had to start withdrawing from his 401k as well as pay the early withdrawal fee.

Cruz - WAY to far to the right for my tastes

Carson - Unqualified, not only because he has little to no political experience, but also because he doesn't know enough about things presidents should know about, in an interview he said he'll start learning more and if he becomes president he'll learn everything before he's inaugurated. However that's not good enough for me.

Trump - Unqualified asshole

Fiorina - Unqualified, what she uses as her only reason that she can run the country is her business savvy, however she was a shitty CEO who hurt the company more than she helped it.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2015, 12:45:43 AM »
Marco Rubio: His personal finances, if he cannot handle his own... how can he be expected to handle the country as a whole?

Rubio went on record opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest and the mother's life in danger. This is not a popular position among women as a whole, who are half the electorate.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2015, 06:34:29 AM »
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.
His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?

He looks like Kenneth from _30 Rock_.


ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2015, 06:58:33 AM »
Hillary Clinton has supported the foreign policy of the last two presidents, which has seen the United States participate in the destruction of Iraq, Yemen, and Libya and failed nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(I don't have a problem with the initial invasion of Afghanistan.)

If you see a role for the United States in countering Russia, Iran, China, and the Islamic State on the world stage, any effort she has participated in has been a complete failure. Not only does the failed foreign policy of the establishment weaken the United States and kill Americans, it kills thousands of foreigners without accomplishing anything at all.

She has no credibility has a competent executive, and there is no imaginable reason for the bathroom email server besides criminality.

None of the Republicans have any appeal for me either. I had high hopes for Rand Paul but that hasn't worked out.

I hope the Libertarian party gets ballot access in Pennsylvania.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2015, 12:23:00 PM »
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7351
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2015, 12:35:50 PM »
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .

Yeah, for a while now I've bee forcing myself to push away any thoughts of history repeating itself on that front as irrational, but lately... It's getting a little harder to avoid,

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2015, 02:29:52 PM »
Just a few additions:

On the Repub side there are still too many potentials to guess who will get the nom:

-Jeb Bush: though his campaign is hurting I wouldn't count him out as a familiar name will likely get a lot of votes from those who can't stand Trump.

-Trump: His run this time is really good timing and it seems like he actually has some good people setting up his campaign. His far right approach to immigration, though it makes him sound like an asshole, is a huge reason for his initial popularity. Also he projects strength which I think will be important given the current geopolitical climate.

-John Kasich: The only guy on the right that I actually would consider voting for. I actually do think more fiscal conservative policies could work, as long as we can get a more centrist Republican candidate like this that isn't such a blow hard on some of the rights more asinine social views. Though in the interest of ever making it past a primary his political team should consider making him seem a lot more conservative in the primaries like his opponents.

-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has. She lost last time around to Obama much for I think the reason the OP described, people didn't want a dynasty. I think that this may not be that much of an issue this time around as there are no Obama like candidates running against her. She is familiar, she is the establishment, and I think she projects more testosterone than Obama or any other dem candidate this time around. She is also probably the best match up against Trump because I am willing to bet at some point, if they have to debate, that Trump will say something extremely sexist. I would kind of like Bill Clinton to be our first Gentleman.

-Bernie: Probably the only candidate, trying to offer a unique platform, that has traction. I don't think he will beat Hillary, I want to support him. He is making some important points and will actually push back against some of the wall street corruption. I would also like to see further major health care reform in the direction of a single payer system.

With leaders like Putin throwing their weight around, and the recent Paris attacks, I think this is likely an election where people on both sides will gravitate towards candidates that consistently appear strong and unapologetic. The two strongest candidates on both sides in this regard are very clearly Trump and Hillary.


beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2015, 03:22:09 PM »
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.
His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?

He looks like Kenneth from _30 Rock_.



And to bring those two concepts together:


Conjou

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Location: Wherever I want to be
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2015, 03:35:53 PM »
I wish we could give candidates about a month and free public airwaves to explain their positions, debate, and then let people vote. Too much money and time devoted to getting elected Pres, then waiting through the two year congressional elections that starts as soon as one party gets into the White House, and then the focus on Pres. re-election. Then maybe lame duck or brinksmanship for the rest of the time. Exasperating. Absurd. Sorry, not to the specific OP--thrown off track by the incredibly good question from Guitarstv. Feels like the point is to wear us down so we'll be willing to elect anyone just to make it all stop ;)


beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2015, 03:43:32 PM »
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet?  Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?

Conjou's comment reminded me that I wanted to post a serious response to this question.

U.S. presidential election campaigns are longer than parliamentary election campaigns because individual voters select the candidates first, then decide among the candidates that make the ballot.  There are positives and negatives associated with this system, but it's certainly more democratic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2015, 06:05:19 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2015, 07:30:03 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

I think the critical difference is that here in Canada the Prime Minister acts at times like a member of the legislature and at times like the head of state/exuctive branch.    He sits in the house of commons, votes and decides which legislation gets 'tabled' or 'shelved' (to use the Canadian/British terminology).  The US President does none of those things (although in the very rare cases of a tie he/she may instruct the Vice President to cast the deciding vote on a bill in the Senate, but this hasn't been done in a decade).   In that sense, Justin Trudeau acts more like Paul Ryan than Barrack Obama. However, he's also the Canadian head of state when dealing with foreign leaders (ignoring the Governor General and the Queen). 

In terms of voting, in the United States there is a distinct election for the President, and an election for the members of the House and the Senate.  In the sense we quite often have a President who is different from the majority party.  You can vote for your local House and state Senate rep, and vote for a completely different party for President. 

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2015, 08:15:54 AM »
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .

Yeah, for a while now I've bee forcing myself to push away any thoughts of history repeating itself on that front as irrational, but lately... It's getting a little harder to avoid,

This is genuinely frightening and shocking, even in light of Trump's already outrageous rhetorical track record.  Trump's remarks to Yahoo News earlier in the week could have, at least, been chalked up to obfuscation on his part -- undoubtedly, when asked by the reporter if his proposed "unthinkable" security measures would include requiring "registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion," he should have responded with "of course not," but at least he did not say "yes."  According to the Yahoo News report, this is how he responded:

"'We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,' Trump said when presented with the idea. 'We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.'"

But now he has gone farther and is clearly, affirmatively advocating for exactly that proposal:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

It's scary enough knowing that society always possesses some members who hold these types of views, but I am truly shocked, horrified and embarrassed for our nation to see that a leading candidate for the presidency of the country is espousing them.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2015, 08:30:13 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.

In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2015, 08:57:09 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.

In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.
Um... sorta, not really. 
In the Canadian system the party in power decides when the next election will be (within a given time frame).  The ruling party will frequently try to call an election when they feel they have a strong position and/or could pick up more seats during an election.
A party leader stepping down doesn't change things; in fact a party leader can step down and a new leader can be chosen without an election.  Then again, a US President resigning doesn't trigger an election either (Nixon). Technically the Governor General (the Queen's representative) has to approve the party's choice for Prime Minister, but in today's democracy it's almost unthinkable that the GG would object/use this power.

In the US system we vote for the President every four years. Technically citizens vote for the electoral college, but with a few random examples the members of the electoral college follow the popular vote for that state.  Every member of the US House is up for election every two years, and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years (6 year terms, staggered to minimize the number of 'frosh' members).  Unlike the Canadian elections, one can accurately predict when the next 10+ US elections will be.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2015, 09:02:38 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.

In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.
Um... sorta, not really. 
In the Canadian system the party in power decides when the next election will be (within a given time frame).  The ruling party will frequently try to call an election when they feel they have a strong position and/or could pick up more seats during an election.
A party leader stepping down doesn't change things; in fact a party leader can step down and a new leader can be chosen without an election.  Then again, a US President resigning doesn't trigger an election either (Nixon). Technically the Governor General (the Queen's representative) has to approve the party's choice for Prime Minister, but in today's democracy it's almost unthinkable that the GG would object/use this power.

How does this mesh with GuitarStv's point that individual voters select party leaders?

Quote
In the US system we vote for the President every four years. Technically citizens vote for the electoral college, but with a few random examples the members of the electoral college follow the popular vote for that state.  Every member of the US House is up for election every two years, and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years (6 year terms, staggered to minimize the number of 'frosh' members).  Unlike the Canadian elections, one can accurately predict when the next 10+ US elections will be.

Yes, I know the US system.  I was only talking about Presidential elections since that was the subject of conversation.

Edit: And, moreover, you completely missed the point of this series of posts, which is how each country selects the candidate for Prime Minister / President, not how that individual is elected, let alone how the rest of the government is elected.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 09:08:12 AM by beltim »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2015, 10:13:27 AM »
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada.  Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP.  Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.

In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.
Um... sorta, not really. 
In the Canadian system the party in power decides when the next election will be (within a given time frame).  The ruling party will frequently try to call an election when they feel they have a strong position and/or could pick up more seats during an election.
A party leader stepping down doesn't change things; in fact a party leader can step down and a new leader can be chosen without an election.  Then again, a US President resigning doesn't trigger an election either (Nixon). Technically the Governor General (the Queen's representative) has to approve the party's choice for Prime Minister, but in today's democracy it's almost unthinkable that the GG would object/use this power.

How does this mesh with GuitarStv's point that individual voters select party leaders?

Quote
In the US system we vote for the President every four years. Technically citizens vote for the electoral college, but with a few random examples the members of the electoral college follow the popular vote for that state.  Every member of the US House is up for election every two years, and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years (6 year terms, staggered to minimize the number of 'frosh' members).  Unlike the Canadian elections, one can accurately predict when the next 10+ US elections will be.

Yes, I know the US system.  I was only talking about Presidential elections since that was the subject of conversation.

Edit: And, moreover, you completely missed the point of this series of posts, which is how each country selects the candidate for Prime Minister / President, not how that individual is elected, let alone how the rest of the government is elected.
My post wasn't intended to be inflammatory, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way.  I was just trying to highlight a few of the differences based on GuitarStv's earlier post and your follow up.
The difference I most wanted to highlight from GuitarStv's post was that in Canada you vote for directly for your local MP (equivalent to House and Senate Leaders) and the party with the most MPs selects the Prime Minister.  That's a sharp contrast from the US, where you vote for both your district's legislators AND the president, and these are separate votes.  Regarding how the primaries work, it varies from state to state but you often can vote for just one party.

I wasn't implying that you don't understand the US system.  I was just trying to clarify the differences for anyone following along.  The one error I saw in your post was about how the Canadian system works ( there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.).  A leadership votes for a new prime minster whenever the party with the most seats changes or he/she steps down.  There are no term limits, and the party in power calls the next election which decides who has the most seats in Parliament. 
Unlike the US system, there isn't the equivalent of the US primary system.  The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.  It's not a selection process like we currently have for the GOP/Dem party candidate.  The reason why brings us back full circle - in Canada we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, so the method which he/she is chosen is fundamentally different than the US.
Does that make it any clearer?


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2015, 10:22:40 AM »
Quote
The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.

Trudeau was voted into place by his party long before the federal election took place.  Each member of his party got one vote.  He was selected from a group of six other potential candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election).  Is that not how the primaries in the US work?

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2015, 10:23:58 AM »
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .

Yeah, for a while now I've bee forcing myself to push away any thoughts of history repeating itself on that front as irrational, but lately... It's getting a little harder to avoid,

This is genuinely frightening and shocking, even in light of Trump's already outrageous rhetorical track record.  Trump's remarks to Yahoo News earlier in the week could have, at least, been chalked up to obfuscation on his part -- undoubtedly, when asked by the reporter if his proposed "unthinkable" security measures would include requiring "registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion," he should have responded with "of course not," but at least he did not say "yes."  According to the Yahoo News report, this is how he responded:

"'We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,' Trump said when presented with the idea. 'We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.'"

But now he has gone farther and is clearly, affirmatively advocating for exactly that proposal:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

It's scary enough knowing that society always possesses some members who hold these types of views, but I am truly shocked, horrified and embarrassed for our nation to see that a leading candidate for the presidency of the country is espousing them.

Legitimate criticism of Trump: He is showing that he is a bigoted, fascist piece of shit. As far as I'm concerned he is the type of person that is part of the problem with the world, not the solution. If he ends up the nominee, I will devote time on a campaign to make sure he loses. He should not even be a county clerk.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2015, 10:32:30 AM »
My post wasn't intended to be inflammatory, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way.  I was just trying to highlight a few of the differences based on GuitarStv's earlier post and your follow up.

I didn't take your post as inflammatory - I just didn't see the relevance of your post, as GuitarStv and I were talking about primary elections for the President (and then the selection of the leader of Canada's political parties), and you were talking about the general election for the entire Legislative and Executive branches.

Quote
The difference I most wanted to highlight from GuitarStv's post was that in Canada you vote for directly for your local MP (equivalent to House and Senate Leaders) and the party with the most MPs selects the Prime Minister.  That's a sharp contrast from the US, where you vote for both your district's legislators AND the president, and these are separate votes. 

Right, this is a standard parliamentary system and there's no confusion here.

Quote
I wasn't implying that you don't understand the US system.  I was just trying to clarify the differences for anyone following along.  The one error I saw in your post was about how the Canadian system works ( there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.).  A leadership votes for a new prime minster whenever the party with the most seats changes or he/she steps down.  There are no term limits, and the party in power calls the next election which decides who has the most seats in Parliament. 
Unlike the US system, there isn't the equivalent of the US primary system.  The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.  It's not a selection process like we currently have for the GOP/Dem party candidate.  The reason why brings us back full circle - in Canada we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, so the method which he/she is chosen is fundamentally different than the US.
Does that make it any clearer?

This is actually how I thought the Canadian system worked - that the political party chooses its own leader prior to any elections.  But this is contrary to what GuitarStv said:
Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign,

Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?).  We just dick around less getting to the results.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what GuitarStv meant by "individual voters" selecting party leaders – I thought he meant the general population, not a relatively small number of party members – it seems like you two are in disagreement about how Canada's party leaders are chosen.

Or, perhaps I used the wrong word choice when I was talking about "leadership vote?"  I meant to only refer to the heads of parties (and therefore who would become Prime Minister if their party received a legislative majority), not election of MPs.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2015, 10:38:47 AM »
Quote
The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.

Trudeau was voted into place by his party long before the federal election took place.  Each member of his party got one vote.  He was selected from a group of six other potential candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election).  Is that not how the primaries in the US work?

Only 100,000 people people voted?  That's more than an order of magnitude different than in the US, even after accounting for population differences.  In 2008, for example, about 35 million people voted in Democratic primaries and about 15 million voted in Republican primaries.

I see in another article from your linked one that only about 300,000 people were eligible to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada leader.  Why is that number so low?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2015, 11:07:55 AM »
We're an apathetic bunch.  Plus, it costs 10$ a year to be a Liberal Party member.  Fuuuck that noise.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2015, 11:13:30 AM »
We're an apathetic bunch.  Plus, it costs 10$ a year to be a Liberal Party member.  Fuuuck that noise.

Interesting.  Also, it's worth pointing out here that about 1/3 of US States have an "open primary" which means that they can vote in any one party's primary election.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2015, 11:32:59 AM »
We're an apathetic bunch.  Plus, it costs 10$ a year to be a Liberal Party member.  Fuuuck that noise.

Interesting.  Also, it's worth pointing out here that about 1/3 of US States have an "open primary" which means that they can vote in any one party's primary election.

Weird.  I'd be inclined to vote for the worst candidate for the party I dislike to try and sabotage his/her chances.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2015, 11:38:10 AM »
After seeing the embarrassing reactionary response regarding the Syrian refugees I will be voting against every Republican on the ballot.

You can't live in a place of such incredible largess and not help in this situation.  If we took them all in and a small handful turned out to be terrorists, and that handful reached out and hurt us, it would be tragic.  The hypothetical attack.  Turning them all away IS tragic, it isn't hypothetical.  No amount of potential future badness justifies current badness, two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight evil with evil.

I have never been more ashamed of my country.

Thegoblinchief

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2015, 11:48:01 AM »
After seeing the embarrassing reactionary response regarding the Syrian refugees I will be voting against every Republican on the ballot.

You can't live in a place of such incredible largess and not help in this situation.  If we took them all in and a small handful turned out to be terrorists, and that handful reached out and hurt us, it would be tragic.  The hypothetical attack.  Turning them all away IS tragic, it isn't hypothetical.  No amount of potential future badness justifies current badness, two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight evil with evil.

I have never been more ashamed of my country.

Agreed 100%

I even mostly supported my state's very controversial modification of public Union power, but am ashamed Gov Walker has come out refusing to allow Syrian refugees.

Quite a few friends on FB have been posting articles along the lines of "ISIS wants us to block refugees" and I can't agree more.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7351
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2015, 11:48:37 AM »
After seeing the embarrassing reactionary response regarding the Syrian refugees I will be voting against every Republican on the ballot.

You can't live in a place of such incredible largess and not help in this situation.  If we took them all in and a small handful turned out to be terrorists, and that handful reached out and hurt us, it would be tragic.  The hypothetical attack.  Turning them all away IS tragic, it isn't hypothetical.  No amount of potential future badness justifies current badness, two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight evil with evil.

I have never been more ashamed of my country.

No kidding.  It is absolutely unconscionable. Our nation has been taken over by fear and cowardice. 

Mika M

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Springfield, VA
  • FIRE stars in my eyes
    • The Lazy Frugal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2015, 11:49:14 AM »
I try to be an thoughtful and independent swing voter but it's starting to look like I'll probably go left next year.

So far out of the GOP I actually do like Lindsey Graham. True he should talk about more than Syria although since the Paris attacks his hawkishness seems less crazy... I would argue that it definitely can't just be our troops on the ground but that's a whole 'nother discussion... I like his stance on immigration, but it's more welcoming and less xenophobic-sounding than the other candidates which may be partly why he skitters along at the bottom of the polls. I also don't mind Chris Christie but he polls pretty low as well.

Definitely don't think I could vote for Cruz or Bush. Rubio seems like the biggest possibility for an establishment-candidate but not too keen on him, either.

Bernie's doing well for such an idealist but not sure how he'd manage juggling the assortment of opinions in Congress. Hillary may end up being the best candidate although she's your usual, deeply embedded into big money special interests establishment candidate. Martin O'Malley appeared on Morning Joe today and was actually sounding pretty solid. But like Graham and Christie he'd probably need a serious influx of advertising cash for his little campaign race car to catch up to the others.

The nice thing about Virginia is that you no longer have to be a registered party member to vote in the primaries (on March 1st), so everyday non-affiliated voters can participate in selecting prez candidates... Although you can only use that option to vote for one party's primary. So think I'll keep an eye on things through the winter and try to decide which party I'll help out.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2015, 11:53:23 AM »
And now there's this: a literal fascist is leading in the GOP race.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/donald-trump-would-support-registry-for-muslim-american-1743504288

Don't worry, Donald Trump is already in "good" fascist company these days with Marco Rubio making an excellent veep (or vice versa with a Trump-Rubio or Rubio-Trump ticket): Marco Rubio's Yom Kippur fundraiser held at Nazi memorabilia collector's mansion

Truly a match made in Gehenna.

Remember Christians, support for Rubio's brand of Conservative Christianity "defending the family" also literally involves endorsing anti-semitism, just for starters.

The GOP's platform the past few years has made me highly uncomfortable, but this is just madness. The worst part is, some of the believers I've heard over the years worried we're slipping into an early Weimar Republic state are now the very same people supporting the very candidates most verbally championing policies and positions that echo the rise of one of the ugliest, most hateful dictators in all of human history... and this reality and its consequences chill me to the bone.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 12:02:27 PM by I.P. Daley »

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2015, 12:10:56 PM »
Weird.  I'd be inclined to vote for the worst candidate for the party I dislike to try and sabotage his/her chances.

That happened in one of my local races; the incumbent, who had switch from Democratic to Republican registration in order to unseat his predecessor, was wiped out in the Republican Primary by a far-right Tea Party type. That challenger was heavily funded by the teacher's union and other traditionally Democratic donors who wanted to make sure the Republicans ran someone with no chance in the general election.