~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[willhud9]

1) Thanks for that as there was some things I did not know on that list

2) Many of things are not being blown up in the people's faces which it needs. It needs publicity. You still have the Deep South in which gays cannot openly being gay without fear of chastisement. I seem to recall the civil rights movement of the 60's having a lot more publicity than the LGBT communities rights.

3) Many of the things on this list are rather inconsequential because they are being ignored.

Again, it adds up to nothing. Case and point I still cannot get married unless I move. Nothing the federal government has done actually fixed the issue, just patched it with duck tape. That's not something to be proud of as what you duck taped still is broken.

[Warren Dew]

I still cannot get married to another man in the state of Virginia. Now true, you can argue federalism, but I say the 14th Amendment trumps federalism in the regards to the state depraving a person of a privilege it bestows upon another. Yet here we are in 2013 and while DOMA was a victory, we still have a long way to go and yet you hear nothing about the issue. President Obama has not made it an issue, and hardly any Democratic congressperson has tried to make it one.

Why don't you want to just accept federalism and fight that battle within Virginia? Seems to me that would be a more realistic approach.

[Loren Michael]

He's the best president since the non-foreign policy aspects of LBJ, and it's not like there's anyone better who's immediately visible.

I'd prefer a cool technocrat academic with no personality, but I don't think that's something that necessarily works well with America's political system.

Surely you are taking a piss right?

1) Drone strikes

2) Signing of infinite detention

3) His "ignorance" of the NSA scandal

4) His cries for war with Syria

Etc. etc. etc.

Is he a bad president? Meh. He is an okay president. Is he the best since LBJ (who I rank as another okay president)? No. Richard Nixon was better than LBJ, minus Watergate.

I have no desire to see Obama again in the White House. I think he hasn't done a great job, he has done enough to get by, but there is so much more he could be doing which he is not.

1) I don't see drone strikes as a major issue. I do see them as a major improvement over previous actions, largely enabled by technology though, rather than a significant shift in policy.

2) Indefinite detention is more of a congressional issue of them handing the executive more and more powers. Obama shares some blame, but this is hardly a make/break issue.

3) All presidents are "ignorant" of the NSA.

4) You mean his part in removing chemical weapons from Syria? You do understand that demanding unilateral concessions without making credible threats isn't a thing that's typically done, right?

Nixon is both underrated and overrated. He did an incredible thing with China, he did unbelievably horrible things in almost all other respects. His treasonous sabotage of the 1968 peace talks in Vietnam for example.

Obama is hardly perfect, I admit! There's a lot more things he could be doing with respect to the war on drugs, for example. The problem is. It's not clear that there's anyone particularly better out here. The foreign policy issues you outline as being negatives I see as either largely neutral or good. I mean, Syria is disarming itself of chem weapons and you're saying that's an Obama policy failure. Weird, man.

[Loren Michael]

More progress on gay rights than in any administration in history and you're ho-humming it. I can understand an activist not being satisfied with anything less than complete and bone-crushing victory, but it's dumb politics to hold it against the people who have to actually craft policy and deal with the opposition.

Calling Syria's WMD disarmament an Obama failure is something I expect to hear from one of the conspiracy crackpots around here. As though Obama was itching to go to war rather than using credible threats to force a dictator to conform to at least one international norm.

[GT2211]

But we won't get that. Aside from DOMA what have the Democratic party done to further gay rights in this country? Nothing.

I don't think its fair to say aside from DOMA as DOMA was a huge step forward for the gay community. DADT was another significant win for the gay community that would not have happened had McCain won instead of Obama. They also expanded the hate crimes act to include sexual orientation under the Matthew Shepard Act

What has the Democratic party done to stem climate change and promote greener initiatives? Nothing.

Okay this isn't fair at all. The stimulus spent quite a bit of money providing credit sources for green energy companies and research. It also spent money on things like paying for weatherization of people's houses to cut down on their energy use. They tried and came up a bit short in passing cap/trade which would've been a major step forward on climate change. So instead they are trying to use the EPA to help curb GHG emissions, which the SCOTUS has announced it will be hearing soon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... -question/

What has the Democratic party done to further decriminalize the ownership of marijuana in this country thus freeing many criminals who are serving unnecessary sentences? Nothing. And the list goes on and on and on. The opposite equivalents can be said about the GOP.

I don't think he should be doing much on marijuana at this point. The political tide is turning and decriminalization has got bipartisan support in some areas. An Obama endorsement would just make it more politically polarized I think. They've been slowly getting out of the way of the states recently with dropping charges against property owners of marijuana dispensaries
http://www.theweedblog.com/obama-admini ... pensaries/

And the DOJ decision to let the state laws stand.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 6721,d.aWM

My candidate for president is someone who would be firm on the issues of individual liberty and economic growth. Someone who looks at the examples from above and is clearly against and not just against, but actively tries to fix those problems. I still cannot get married to another man in the state of Virginia. Now true, you can argue federalism, but I say the 14th Amendment trumps federalism in the regards to the state depraving a person of a privilege it bestows upon another. Yet here we are in 2013 and while DOMA was a victory, we still have a long way to go and yet you hear nothing about the issue. President Obama has not made it an issue, and hardly any Democratic congressperson has tried to make it one.

So I should vote for the lesser of two evils because a third party doesn't stand a chance? So I should vote for a candidate whom I disagree with because he or she is not as bad as the other guy? That is messed up. Why not give the third party candidates a chance. I am not just saying Libertarian, which is I think the biggest third party out there right now. I am also saying allow the others an equal chance as the GOP and Democratic party.

The reality is there are only two viable candidates in most elections. One party is making progress on these issues, albeit at a slower rate than you would like, and the other party is being dragged along kicking and screaming trying to prevent progress and turn things back.

[mrjonno]

Surely the only thing that really matters is that one party controls all parts of government or you will get permanent gridlock

[Loren Michael]

Surely the only thing that really matters is that one party controls all parts of government or you will get permanent gridlock

That occurs when partisanship is high, which happens to be the case these days.

It has an interesting flow over time:

[Teague]

Honestly I am annoyed at my governor's election, which occurs next month. Both primary candidates have been involved in money scandals, one is a hyper conservative, and the other is in the pockets of corporate moneybags. The one candidate I want to win was 1% of the 10% needed from being included in the last debate of the year because that rule definitely is a fair and representative idea. Sure you can run for governor, as long as you are a Republican or Democratic drone and have the financial backing that comes with being one.

Why do I rant about my governor's election? Because it is that very attitude which makes me absolutely abhorrent of the 2016 election. You have a shitty Republican and you have a shitty Democrat. So everyone tells you vote for the lesser of two evils, which is what they tried to pander last election and you know what? The lesser of two evils is still fucking evil. I want a good President. Not someone of Partisan allegiance, not someone who you have to make guesses on where they stand, but someone who when you elect them, when you listen to them on the campaign, you already know where they stand.

Penn Jillette put it perfectly, neither the GOP nor the Democratic party have any theory of governance. You take a Libertarian, or a Progressive, or a Green party, you pretty much look at the third parties and you can name an issue and you will know what that Libertarian, Progressive, Green, Socialist, Nazi, etc. person stands for. There is no bullshit pandering to votes with thinly veiled half truths to beguile the population.

But we won't get that. Aside from DOMA what have the Democratic party done to further gay rights in this country? Nothing. What has the Democratic party done to further the right of a convicted criminal to be taken of death row? Nothing. What has the Democratic party done to stem climate change and promote greener initiatives? Nothing. What has the Democratic party done to counter the NSA and the Patriot Act? Nothing. What has the Democratic party done to further decriminalize the ownership of marijuana in this country thus freeing many criminals who are serving unnecessary sentences? Nothing. And the list goes on and on and on. The opposite equivalents can be said about the GOP.

My candidate for president is someone who would be firm on the issues of individual liberty and economic growth. Someone who looks at the examples from above and is clearly against and not just against, but actively tries to fix those problems. I still cannot get married to another man in the state of Virginia. Now true, you can argue federalism, but I say the 14th Amendment trumps federalism in the regards to the state depraving a person of a privilege it bestows upon another. Yet here we are in 2013 and while DOMA was a victory, we still have a long way to go and yet you hear nothing about the issue. President Obama has not made it an issue, and hardly any Democratic congressperson has tried to make it one.

So I should vote for the lesser of two evils because a third party doesn't stand a chance? So I should vote for a candidate whom I disagree with because he or she is not as bad as the other guy? That is messed up. Why not give the third party candidates a chance. I am not just saying Libertarian, which is I think the biggest third party out there right now. I am also saying allow the others an equal chance as the GOP and Democratic party.

It's the same everywhere! We get told the same thing, vote for the least shitty one - "but they're all shit!" and yet year after year, everyone votes for these cunts and every year, you hear the same old bollocks from everyone "They just get into power and never do what they say they're going to do - they just do what they want"

Ever notice the only time they care for you is when they want your vote - the only time they talk to you. Ever wonder why there isn't a party that comes along that just makes sense? One that tackles the actually issues people are concerned about and progresses our society.

Another effect of big business - stifling democracy for the sake of some numbers in a bank account.

[willhud9]

More progress on gay rights than in any administration in history and you're ho-humming it. I can understand an activist not being satisfied with anything less than complete and bone-crushing victory, but it's dumb politics to hold it against the people who have to actually craft policy and deal with the opposition.

Calling Syria's WMD disarmament an Obama failure is something I expect to hear from one of the conspiracy crackpots around here. As though Obama was itching to go to war rather than using credible threats to force a dictator to conform to at least one international norm.

I was in a pessimistic mood last night. My apologies and of course you are correct on both these counts.

[mrjonno]

That occurs when partisanship is high, which happens to be the case these days.

Countries have changed they just consist of people who have little in common and often despise each other. Democracy is just an alternative to civil war

[FACT-MAN-2]

(major snippage)

So I should vote for the lesser of two evils because a third party doesn't stand a chance? So I should vote for a candidate whom I disagree with because he or she is not as bad as the other guy? That is messed up. Why not give the third party candidates a chance. I am not just saying Libertarian, which is I think the biggest third party out there right now. I am also saying allow the others an equal chance as the GOP and Democratic party.

I don't think we should be surprised if voter turnout plummets to an all tme low in 2016, say around 35 per cent.

That would indicate a huge alienation from the GOP and the D's.

R and D State parties prevent the emergence of viable third party candidates by rigging what it takes to get on the ballot. Nader had to go to court more than a dozen times to get on the ballot when he ran. This isn't going to change any time soon.

[willhud9]

Sadly. I would like to see Green, Socialist, etc. actually have a voice in Congress.

[jaydot]

if voting changed anything it'd get banned. notice how us plebs never get to select candidates. that's all done behind closed doors. the game is rigged. i won't play.

[GT2211]

WONKBLOG: Can Elizabeth Warren knock off Hildog?

An issue-based challenger needs two things to pose a serious threat to a front-runner. One is an issue that differentiates them from the front-runner. The other is for that issue to be foremost in the minds of voters.

In 2008, Barack Obama's challenge to Hillary Clinton was based on Iraq. That worked both because he'd had a different position than Clinton on Iraq, but also because Iraq was a dominant issue in the 2008 election. As such, Obama's insurgent campaign, which focused tightly on Iraq, had a shot.

The problem comes when a challenger runs on an issue that differentiates them from the front-runner but that the voters aren't prioritizing. This is what bedeviled Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign, when the candidate saw space to run against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani as the champion of social conservatism only to find out that Republican primary voters weren't looking for a champion of social conservatism...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... clinton/''

[Steve]

From Alternet: Could Elizabeth Warren Thwart a Clinton Presidency?

November 11, 2013 |


The press seems to have anointed Hillary Clinton as the next Democratic presidential nominee. But Clinton’s ties to the Wall Street wing of the party could prove trouble for her future. Could Elizabeth Warren, the progressive Senator from Massachusetts, thwart what seems to be the inevitable?

That’s the question that New Republic editor Noam Scheiber takes a look at in a blockbuster piece titled, “Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.”

Warren could tap into a growing sense among younger Democratic voters that the time has come to punish Wall Street for its misdeeds and address income inequality. Clinton is decidedly not the candidate to do that.

[FACT-MAN-2]

From Alternet: Could Elizabeth Warren Thwart a Clinton Presidency?

November 11, 2013 |


The press seems to have anointed Hillary Clinton as the next Democratic presidential nominee. But Clinton’s ties to the Wall Street wing of the party could prove trouble for her future. Could Elizabeth Warren, the progressive Senator from Massachusetts, thwart what seems to be the inevitable?

That’s the question that New Republic editor Noam Scheiber takes a look at in a blockbuster piece titled, “Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.”

Warren could tap into a growing sense among younger Democratic voters that the time has come to punish Wall Street for its misdeeds and address income inequality. Clinton is decidedly not the candidate to do that.

I think Warren stands a good chance of derailing HRCs run, assuming she decided to go for it. I've read “Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren” and found it to be an intelligent piece, very well conceived and written, and in-depth (I actually posted it in the Future of the Republican Party thread.

Warren's natural ground is against Wall Street whereas HRC's is with Wall Street and I think D voters are ready to support someoe who goes after the big banks the way Warren has done and continues to do. Warren might even avoid a primary challeneng if her campaign builds up a lot of steam and HRC realizes she's in deep dung and opts to thwart Warren by inviting her to be her running mate and convinces her to do so.

In any case, a Warren candidacy introduces a very interesting and compelling dynamic to the race.

[OlivierK]

I think Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president. But HRC's VP? Not so much. Warren is far too talented to be a good VP.

[willhud9]

Senators and Representatives should not be president. Sorry, but they have zero experience running an executive branch. The best candidate for president is someone who has the knowledge of Warren, but also the experience of say a Governor or hell a CEO, both run executive offices and both understand perfectly how the system works. I hate voting for a politician, I'd rather vote for someone who understands the office with experience and can handle themselves with the bureaucracy, then someone who may have values I agree with but are inexperienced at the job. Being President is not a learn as you go job.

[Steve]

I also see comments on the web that EW had to be pressed hard to run for Senator and there is no way in hell she will tackle President in 2016. Which makes sense to me. I think she is well placed where she is. And I think she is smart enough to know it.

[FACT-MAN-2]

Senators and Representatives should not be president. Sorry, but they have zero experience running an executive branch. The best candidate for president is someone who has the knowledge of Warren, but also the experience of say a Governor or hell a CEO, both run executive offices and both understand perfectly how the system works. I hate voting for a politician, I'd rather vote for someone who understands the office with experience and can handle themselves with the bureaucracy, then someone who may have values I agree with but are inexperienced at the job. Being President is not a learn as you go job.

Well, actually in many ways it is. Nothing really prepares anyone for its full brunt.

Government is not a business. There's an enormous and very fundamental difference between running a business and governing a country. They're just not the same animal.

Few Presidents have come to the office with broad enough experience to do it justice at the outset.

I think what we'd do best with are people who's backgrounds involve a very wide array of different experiences, including stints in the armed forces, in the Congress, in jurisprudence, and in administrations (Cabinet members, chiefs of staff), running the CBO, sitting on some national council or other, running a complicated agency like NASA, or even running a successful business. The more broadly differentiated their experience is, the better, with a good sense of the political landscape and a demonstrated dedication to serving the public interest. This would certainly exclude the past several presidents.

For example, I think our current Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell is far better equipped for that job than was her predecessor, Ken Salazar, who's ony claim to fame was he was from a prominent ranching family in Colorado.

I can think of few people who measure up to these criteria, although there may be a few around that I'm not aware of.