2016 Election
#121
Re: 2016 Election
Any attempt to compare the Republican and Democratic parties of today to those of any previous era and assume they are the same is also doomed to failure. They are not your daddy's parties so to speak.
#122
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: 2016 Election
It's disconcerting that you have to point out something that is so obvious.
#123
Re: 2016 Election
Meh. Lighten up, all I said was you were talking crap about East Germany. I won't claim resposibility for what others said of course, and I won't pretend I was paying that much attention to it either.
Water off a duck's back and all that.
This, I know and it is why I got a little excited when Sanders said he was running for nomination. He strikes me as someone who genuinely does want reform, who does want to replace the ACA with a sensible single-payer system, who wants to improve infrastructure and create jobs. Most importantly for me, he seems to be the only candidate thus far who will vocally criticize the 'billionaire class' that has had a stranglehold on US politics for years, holding the country back beyond belief.
I'd like Elizabeth Warren to put her name forward too, to be honest. What I want isn't necessarily President Sanders but for enough progressive voices to speak up so the Democratic mainstream takes notice.
"Nutter" Republicans refers to the current crop. Eisenhower was a fine president, who had many common sense ideas and policies and quite honestly I'd be happy to vote for someone like him. Nixon had his moments, too. Christ, even the Dubya looks sane compared to the likes of Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz
Water off a duck's back and all that.
This, I know and it is why I got a little excited when Sanders said he was running for nomination. He strikes me as someone who genuinely does want reform, who does want to replace the ACA with a sensible single-payer system, who wants to improve infrastructure and create jobs. Most importantly for me, he seems to be the only candidate thus far who will vocally criticize the 'billionaire class' that has had a stranglehold on US politics for years, holding the country back beyond belief.
I'd like Elizabeth Warren to put her name forward too, to be honest. What I want isn't necessarily President Sanders but for enough progressive voices to speak up so the Democratic mainstream takes notice.
"Nutter" Republicans refers to the current crop. Eisenhower was a fine president, who had many common sense ideas and policies and quite honestly I'd be happy to vote for someone like him. Nixon had his moments, too. Christ, even the Dubya looks sane compared to the likes of Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz
I'm hoping that that crude poseur, C. Clinton, falls on her arse and that Elizabeth Warren goes on to win the nomination. Maybe then my fans here will be forced to slide the Democrat Party back slightly left of the Tories, if not also Labour. Fat chance of that happening.
Sorry about mentioning the DDR. It's a fixation of mine. When I was in Army Intel in Germany back in the '60s I spent more than two years studying everything known about the DDR organs of state security and their relationship with and funding of two West German organizations: the Easter March of Atomic Weapons Opponents and the German Peace Union. At that time the DDR was no laughing matter.
Last edited by FlaviusAetius; May 1st 2015 at 2:38 pm.
#124
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: 2016 Election
At the rate its going, may just write in a name on the ballot. I don't think I can vote for Clinton.
#125
Re: 2016 Election
Times change. Daddy, hell, JFK, wouldn't recognize today's Democrat Party.
#126
Re: 2016 Election
Carly Fiorina - ruined HP, probably attack dog to go after Clinton without being called sexist.
Ben Carson - known idiot, opens mouth and inserts foot on regular basis.
Ben Carson - known idiot, opens mouth and inserts foot on regular basis.
#127
Re: 2016 Election
Should be a walk in the park then. That comment about Ms. Fiorina, not sexist? A comment like that would work for Hillary. See, it only runs in one direction. [Explanation: If you point out that Fiorina ruined HP and call her an "attack dog," that's not sexist. If you say Hillary screwed up Benghazi and its aftermath, and the Russian reset, etc, etc., that's sexist.] Just saying. Call it "Democrat Privilege" similar to "White Privilege."
Last edited by FlaviusAetius; May 4th 2015 at 7:21 am.
#128
Re: 2016 Election
Should be a walk in the park then. That comment about Ms. Fiorina, not sexist? A comment like that would work for Hillary. See, it only runs in one direction. [Explanation: If you point out that Fiorina ruined HP and call her an "attack dog," that's not sexist. If you say Hillary screwed up Benghazi and its aftermath, and the Russian reset, etc, etc., that's sexist.] Just saying. Call it "Democrat Privilege" similar to "White Privilege."
Could it be seen as sexist? Perhaps, but I don't think she is seen as a realistic candidate.
#129
Re: 2016 Election
The only other time she ran was for a California Senate seat five years ago and she lost that. At least the other republican candidates managed to get elected to something! (Even if they do have the odd screw loose).
#130
Re: 2016 Election
I agree. Best case for her is the VP (Sarah Palin) slot where she is sicc'd on Hillary, like an attack dog.
#131
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: 2016 Election
A few commentators are speculating that she's doing it for publicity for a forthcoming book.
The only other time she ran was for a California Senate seat five years ago and she lost that. At least the other republican candidates managed to get elected to something! (Even if they do have the odd screw loose).
The only other time she ran was for a California Senate seat five years ago and she lost that. At least the other republican candidates managed to get elected to something! (Even if they do have the odd screw loose).
Republican + incumbent democrat senators = no a good chance. Especially against Boxer.
Feinstein and Boxer have been unbeatable during their terms.
If Fiorina had been serious, she should have run for a state office, better chance at election to the state assembly or senate if she could find a republican friendly region to run in.
#133
Re: 2016 Election
My guess is that the field narrows to Jeb, Scott, Marco and Ted. Two governors, two senators. VP slot to either Ben Carson or Fiorina. On the other side, Hillary and maybe O'Malley or Webb in the VP slot. I don't think she'd risk Sanders.
Odds that the Republicans win the Presidency - slightly better than even- and the Senate no better than even money. If they don't hold the Senate, nothing will get done with Chuckie in charge. We'd do better with a parliamentary system.
Odds that the Republicans win the Presidency - slightly better than even- and the Senate no better than even money. If they don't hold the Senate, nothing will get done with Chuckie in charge. We'd do better with a parliamentary system.
#134
Re: 2016 Election
I like how everyone announces ahead of time that they are going to announce their run for presidency. I guess that announcing your announcement doesn't count.
#135
Re: 2016 Election
Heard something interesting about that on npr this morning. A lot of it has to do with fund raising rules. Take Jeb for example. He hasn't announced yet but everyone expects him to eventually. Meanwhile because he is not a candidate, the rules don't apply and he can do direct fund raising (of which he is doing rather well at by all accounts) and coordinating with his super PAC. As soon as he announces, he must be completely hands off with the PAC and all the disclosure rules come into play too. The pre-announcement is like a last rallying call to make donations before disclosure.