109 replies to this topic

[Ghux]

 

I think Jeb will run, and if Jeb runs I don't think Mitt will.

Paul Ryan is a legislator and an animal of the House... if Scott Walker runs, which I think he will... Ryan will not run.

I like Rand Paul alot. He has a problem... if he runs he has to give up his Senate seat. I think he will run, but he'll have trouble.

He has a strong Libertarian streak and many of the base are afraid of pulling the plug on influence of the world stage.

Chris Cristie should have run in 2012 when we needed him. I think his time has passed and he'll be easily painted as a bully.

Ted Cruz is too Tea Party for the general... he's a lawyer and can't shake that "win at all cost" attitude, but I love his conviction.

Rick Perry will run again but will have trouble shaking off his horrible performance in 2012 debates. Governors make the best Presidents, so they always have an advantage with Republicans. Perry should not have run in 2012.

Rick Santorum will run again but that's a loser from the gun... his entire platform is social conservative and that can't win anymore.

Ben Carson will test the water, but he has no political or governing experience and the guys above, will kill him with it.

Watch out for my Governor here in Nevada... Brian Sandoval won re-election last night with 71% of the vote. A former Federal Judge, he is hispanic, very likeable, brilliant, and a great Republican. He would be a good President... but unknown so far.

 

Brian Sandoval looks like a decent guy, but don't you think being pro-choice and the first Republican governor to have expanded Medicaid under the ACA will doom him in the primaries?

 

But if he makes it past the primaries, he'll probably be hugely popular with the middle.

 

Also, the more you run, the less likely you are to succeed, so being unknown would also help, provided he has good campaign staff.

[Icewolf]

See, this is what I see as a major problem with US politics. 

 

Here in the UK, our next General Election is on May the 7th this year, so a little over 4 months away. We are literally just starting to see the starting guns fired in the election races. Real campaigning will probably start in 4 or 5 weeks time. 

 

This is the first and only national election for 5 years, and will decide every single MP in the country for the following 5 years. 

 

Compared to the USA, were you have literally only just had your mid-term election, 2 years after the last presidential election finished (and realistically your mid-term campaigns started only one year after that election), and you are already jostling for an election that will be in 2 years time. 

 

How on earth can you govern a country when it is constantly in election mode, meaning that every single issue must be treated as an election issue and hunted for any advantage it gives over the other side? 

[Lysistrata]

See, this is what I see as a major problem with US politics. 

 

Here in the UK, our next General Election is on May the 7th this year, so a little over 4 months away. We are literally just starting to see the starting guns fired in the election races. Real campaigning will probably start in 4 or 5 weeks time. 

 

This is the first and only national election for 5 years, and will decide every single MP in the country for the following 5 years. 

 

Compared to the USA, were you have literally only just had your mid-term election, 2 years after the last presidential election finished (and realistically your mid-term campaigns started only one year after that election), and you are already jostling for an election that will be in 2 years time. 

 

How on earth can you govern a country when it is constantly in election mode, meaning that every single issue must be treated as an election issue and hunted for any advantage it gives over the other side? 

Yes, I understand completely. We like having the ability to correct mistakes. Okay we just elected a Progressive President... and super majorities in both houses of Congress... oh shit! Two years of government expansion, incumbering regulations, global warming hysteria, socialist healthcare reform, tax increases, and liberal power grab... big mistake, so we flip the House of Reps and stop it cold. Our constant election cycles attempt to keep things under control, and power in check. The problem this creates is that it slows everything down, and quite often... nothing gets done.

[Icewolf]

I get that point but there are other things that could be done other than just adjusting the election cycle. For example, no one could run a campaign for 24 months if you had effective campaign spending limits in place (for example). 

[Lysistrata]

I get that point but there are other things that could be done other than just adjusting the election cycle. For example, no one could run a campaign for 24 months if you had effective campaign spending limits in place (for example). 

Oh god. Campaign finance... what a mess. Really when you strip away all the bullshit spin, and get down to the source, campaign finance is all about Democrats wanting to use every dollar they can grab and restrict every dollar Republicans can grab. I get the problem that money can create in elections, but I have no problem with good people building enough support to make a difference. I believe it would be a positive to criminalize misleading the public, and flat out lies, in campaign advertising. Maybe even prohibit negative advertising... you run an ad, it's about yourself and your accomplishments... not about the annonymous source that claims your opponent called a maid the "N" word 10 years ago. It's all garbage and there is no clean way to fix it.

[Shahenshah]

Lys, what would be your opinion about lobby money? Do you feel the lobby and corporate money affects a politicians priorities?

Should there be a limit to how much lobbies and corporates can fund? Limit the big money in DC?

[Lysistrata]

Hey Shah, Thanks for reminding me to go nominate you for Brain Boffin.

 

Lobbyists are probably the most misunderstood and maligned characters in Washingtion. Lobbyists are the product of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prevents Congress from creating any law that restricts "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Anytime I call my Congressman and yell at him/her about their upcoming vote on any piece of legislation... I'm acting as a lobbyist. If you really want to make things happen on an issue that changes something big, that really affects a lot of lives, a group can hire professional lobbyists to represent your cause in Washington DC. This is where things can get out of hand.

 

Perfect example is my Senator, Harry Reid. Harry is more wealthy than you can imagine. Strange how rich you can get when you receive a paycheck of a public servants salary all your life. It's like being a cop all your life, but you retire to Beverly Hills. It doesn't make any sense, and if you can follow the money you would find all the "gifts" from... you guessed it... lobbyists. It's not possible to stop the lobbyists because it's in the Constitution. So you have to try to stop the money, bribes, and gifts. This gets hard when you're investigating powerful people that control the investigating people, and they don't want to be investigated.

 

Here's another thing that really pisses me off... Do you know insider trading is legal for Congress? Yeah, try to wrap your head around this one... A Senator knows what legislation is gonna pass that has crazy effects on the stockmarket. They can use that information to buy or sell stocks that they know are rising or falling... for their own personal gain. Anyone else would go to jail for this. Priceless.

 

Simple answer to your question up there? is YES!

[Shahenshah]

Hmm I recall making a post here.

Regarding insider trading, butbisnt media like Jas pretty much figured out if a bill is going to pass or fail? The market then absorbs that information? Or am I missing something.

So all in all you have to be quite rich to win the elections?

And why isn't there more than two mainstream parties? Do you feel people are increasingly disenfranchised by both of the current parties?

I am huge fan of American politics, I find the whole election season to be quite fascinating, also, boo how republicans .

[Lysistrata]

There is so much hypocrisy in American politics in regard to how much money a candidate has made in their life. People see rich people as "not one of us", but wealth is a measure of success, and who wants to elect a failure? I don't mind when a candidate is rich... I do mind when they try to lie about it. "When we left the White House, we were dead broke. We had a hard time paying the mortgages on houses and college tuition..." Yeah, you guys know what I mean... lies.

 

We have a lot of political parties, but two are yes... mainstream. This comes from the fact that nobody wants to support a loser, and nobody wants a President that does not receive at least close to 51% support from the voters. Ross Perot in '92 captured 20% of the vote as the Reform Party. He did not receive a single delegate from the Electoral College, causing George H.W. Bush to lose the election. Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote, and I didn't like that at all. Just an example of what can happen.

[Shahenshah]

Nice jab at Clintons.


My concern is that top 1-3% govern and top 1-3% keep getting richer, while everyone else keeps getting screwed.

I personally find it absurd that the tax payers had to pay for the 2008 collapse, which was more or less a huge ponzi scheme by the 1-3%.

I do not mind the rich, I strive to be one myself, why the hell not :-), but I do mind if I have to pay via economic externalities for the shens of the super rich.

Edited by Shahenshah, 09 January 2015 - 12:59 PM.

[Lysistrata]

Nice jab at Clintons.


My concern is that top 1-3% govern and top 1-3% keep getting richer, while everyone else keeps getting screwed.

I personally find it absurd that the tax payers had to pay for the 2008 collapse, which was more or less a huge ponzi scheme by the 1-3%.

I do not mind the rich, I strive to be one myself, why the hell not :-), but I do mind if I have to pay via economic externalities for the shens of the super rich.

Wow Shah... we agree 100%

 

I think where we would differ would be how to fix the problem. Democrats, or better I should say Progressives, want to just steal the money from the rich and redistribute the money through "economic programs". Republicans want to open up the markets and make everyone, or at least more people, rich. Shutting down wealth is not the answer... creating more wealth is. The recent veto threat from Obama on the 40 hour work week is Progressives wanting to control how much money people can earn... it's criminal.

 

To clarify something... I thought Bill Clinton did a good job as President. At least he worked well with a Republican controlled Congress. He should have controlled his libido much better, but look at his wife, explains alot. Hillary is not Bill, and this is where things will go off the rails. Bill was an old school southern Democrat... Hillary is an Alinsky Progressive. Big difference.

[onbekende]

always fun to see an "american dream" enthousiast.

[Shahenshah]

I lost you on the alinsky reference.

Haha Betsy, lol, well at least they don't take a year to form a government .

I get the feeling democrats are much more united, the continuum of ideological differences isn't as wide as say the republucans. Eitherway, the problem I see with Republicans and democrates both is no real hard reforms in line, two examples from someone way outside the box.

You'd have to be a debt slave if youre ever going to get a degree from ivy league schools, its criminal, its so damn expensive, same for medical schools, that in turn inflate the whole system with more expenses. I've actually have had the experience in a consultancy role with US medical insurance system. Its so damn expensive, day light robbery, if you're out of the system, you're fucked, and there are plenty of ways to get fucked even if yore in the system, fucking medicare was a nightmare to deal with. Man, its just ridiculous how expensive stuff is over there even for some common non high tech stuff.

There's no talk of hard hitting reforms for education or medical industry and to make it more accessible to the middle class. The financial regulations reforms were a joke, thanks to the lobbies. What's interesting is all the crooks from wall street end up taking the positions that make abd drive financial policies in white house, these guys should be behind bars.

None of the parties IMO are aiming for real hard hitting reforms. It just appears to be a political discourse over petty details, none of which go far enough anyway.

That's what I feel from outside.

Edited by Shahenshah, 09 January 2015 - 09:10 PM.

[onbekende]

Haha Betsy, lol, well at least they don't take a year to form a government .
 

oi I resent that, it wasn't a year, it was over 1 and a half years!

[Lysistrata]

"I lost you on the alinsky reference."

 

Saul Alinsky? Author of "Rules for Radicals"? Hillary wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky... knew him and loved the man.

[Lysistrata]

Okay it looks like Mitt will be running. All bets are off now.

Mitt can raise as much money as Bush, he's already vetted, and every issue Obama lied about Romney has been right about.

 

It's a new ballgame folks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-to-gop-donors-i-want-to-be-president/2015/01/09/ce5f821a-9848-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

[TheWanderer]

Was Jeb the clear favourite before this? You think Republicans will be receptive to him after his past campaigns?

[Lysistrata]

Yes and Yes. Jeb has a good chance with his support among hispanics. Just the thought of a third Bush makes me think "dynasty", and I think better of this country than the only family that can lead it are Bush's. Romney lost in 2012, but Nixon lost in 1960 and came back to win, so losing an election never means you can't win. Every poll since has shown that given a do over, Romney would win now.

 

It will be a very crowded field, but I can't get myself to believe the second tier candidates can beat these two. I hope Romney knows now that he has to be himself always. When he tries to be Average Joe it just comes off so fake. He's such an Eagle Scout Goodie Two Shoes, and anytime he tries to step out of his mold it looks too forced.

 

If he creates a clear Conservative contrast to Jeb... like apposing Common Core ect., he will be fine.

[TheWanderer]

In regards to Romney, that's exactly how it looked from over here. He came across as playing a role he didn't fit into, and subsequently appeared disingenuous and unrelatable.

[Ghux]

Yeah, even if Romney secures the nomination, there's no chance he'll win the general election. He alienated too many people last time around.