Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Discuss news and opinions with regards to the 2016 Election.

Oh good, now I have a place to post my GOP debate bingo cards.

I wish Carly Fiorina would be on the main stage. :/

Sadly I don't think any of the people with a chance of winning are going to do the things I really want them to (in this case: dismantling the "security" systems for spying on American citizens, massively toning down military spending and foreign aid to countries like Israel, reforming the education system)

Oh boy, we'll have to make 10 of these threads throughout 2015 and 2016. I'm definitely going to volunteer next year.

OP, are you sure you want this thread to be in Serious Debate? Most general threads go into, well, General.

Well, in theory, this section is supposed to be free of off-topic shitposts, which I have a feel all political threads outside this board suffer from

The first GOP debate will be this Thursday. Here's the current estimated canditates who'll appear based on recent polling data. Perry, Jindal (Louisiana governor), Santorum, Fiorina ( former HP CEO), Pataki (former New York governor), and Graham are currently out and, if those polling numbers hold true, will appear in an earlier separate debate.

At this time, the DNC hasn't announced when the Democratic debates will be, but there will be six of them, with the first one happening either later this month or in September.

Poll numbers (Top 5):
GOP
>Trump 20%
>Walker 14%
>Bush 12%
>Rubio 07%
>Huckabee 06%

Democrat
>Clinton 58%
>Sanders 12%
>Biden 12%
>Webb 02%
>O'Malley 01%

Sau ces.

Reading the list of repub candidates:
Governor, Governor, Governor, Senator, Governor, Senator, Senator, Governor, real-estate magnate, Governor, Senator, Surgeon

I can't believe people are seriously considering having a friggen "real-estate magnate" run the country over so many other experienced politicians. Just because hes a wealthy businessman doesn't mean he can manage the economy better. He's filed for bankruptcy how many times?

At least Santorum definitely won't make it. Fuck that guy. We certainly don't need someone who's only concern in the oval office is how many gays are having sex. Perry can fuck off too.

I predict a republican victory simply because Obama did two terms and doing two terms fucks everything up for your party and yourself so GG Democracts. Most people I talk to seem to hate Hillary with unending fury so I'm just looking at the republicans for now and which ones I hate the least. Right now I'm finding Rand Paul to be the least intolerable. How about you guys?

"Experienced politicians"

Have you seen the voting record for some of those experienced politicians who have held a seat for six years and showed up for all of 100 sessions?

Take Obama, for example, who literally accomplished nothing as a senator.

PS nearly every company that was not started in the 1920s has filed for ch11 bankruptcy. It is REALLY common and doesn't mean you're actually bankrupt, it's a way of restructuring your debt.

Rand Paul has no chance in the primaries. I'm pulling for a Walker/Rubio ticket.

I think Rand and Bush are the least intolerable, at least the ones I know of. Of course me being me I'd go for Bernie (if I could even vote) but he's pretty unlikely. I do hope somehow though enough people throw support his way and magically he'll be a viable candidate, but since his title has "socialist" that won't happen for at least another century. I have similar views towards jarbox at least when it comes to what he mentioned such as less military, more privacy, and more infrastructure which from what I've heard Bernie offered, at least with the privacy and infrastructure which are two really big things he pushes. I'm not very politically literate though (even though I'd like to be, working on it) so I don't know his exact view on the military or probably heard and forgot.

Also, bringing up Trump, how does he actually have any support? Before he was a candidate even though he constantly teased it all anyone did was laugh at the dude and now he's rallying this huge support? I don't think he'd really win still but wow the polls and also just hearsay of what people think are shocking to me. He's like Sarah Palin tier dumb (them again she got plenty of support). Anyone know what he even has to offer that isn't two faced or hasn't been disproved with fact checkers on the spot? I'd posit the idea that it might be due to extremist viewpoints. Statistically, voluntary opinion taking, and by nature voting and political polls are voluntary, extremists who feel strongly about a very far viewpoint are more likely to respond or vote skewing the results. So the normal people stay out due to toxic indifference and the wackos who like Trump are left to decide. It's just my speculation though.

For the love of god bernie sanders needs to be president.

{ Before he was a candidate even though he constantly teased it all anyone did was laugh at the dude and now he’s rallying this huge support? }

Polls are weekly (if that, most of them are five days) and extremely reactionary. Trump is going around shouting a lot of things that people who are sick of politicians want to hear. If he can't describe legitimate plans that can realistically be brought in front of Congress for their consideration, he wont have much support left after a few debates.

I checked the link, your percentage for Sanders is down 6% from what it actually is on your linked data

Whichever candidate pulls away from CISPA and TPP-style works is good in my book.

Hillary can enjoy the new black mark on her record for supporting the latter and then backpedaling.

Honestly, I feel like the GOP will take it this time around. I don't know why, but I feel like Hilary is the most likely to be the democrat canidate, but I also feel like she won't win against one of the more moderate republican canidates. The only other democrat that stands out to me is Bernie, but between the stigma of socialism and the lack of corporate backing, he doesn't seem to be a likely canidate.

And honestly, this worries me a little. I mean, with a republican president, house, and senate, plus four "enthusiastic" (and one moderate) republicans on the supreme court, not to mention the growing Anti-Western-liberalism mindsets growing more common in Russia and in some African countries, and last but not least, the recent reactionary backlash online against third-wave-feminism, sometimes I wonder if I'm the crazy one. I'm just glad the timing for same-sex marriage was so serendipitious; who knows how much longer it may have taken if the elections happened two years sooner.

Also, I really hope a hard-nosed republican doesn't become president. It's bad enough that Ted Cruz is in charge of NASA.

"Also, I really hope a hard-nosed republican doesn’t become president."

Fuck, I'm really right there with you. Not just for those actual four years, though that would surely be shit. But I've noticed more and more that the authoritarian far left wing is gaining considerable popularity, and has been over the last few years thanks to everyone's favorite double-edged sword, the internet. And I just have this theory in my mind that if we have to suffer through a Bush-eque presidency, with the obscene amount of anything-vaguely-resembling-republican hatred that it would stir up, they're going to have a serious opportunity to push a candidate through that'll make Bernie Sanders look like Ronald Reagan.

Maybe that's just my paranoia talking, though.

I don't think we want a Ronald Reagan again, either.

We need competent Republicans, if we get them.

Can't arson the Carson.

Sigh. I have never felt this jaded about a presidential election. There's only one or two candidates I can support and they are long-shots. Republicans are herping derps on the Trump sideshow and it was entertaining for a while, but now it's just depressing. Meanwhile, the Democrat front runner is someone I learned to dislike twenty years ago and her closest competitor is a man I wouldn't trust to make me a sandwich. It's hard for me to imagine the next president will be anyone but some unqualified asshole, same as it's been for decades.

Thinking about it, I really just want a boring president. The last few have been, to put it charitably, divisive. For the last sixteen years, the presidency has been a parade of far-reaching decisions which piss off one half of the country or the other. It's a fantasy, but I kind of just want a president who will sit around and do nothing. I just…I think I'm going to ignore this one for a while.

Trump brings the banter.

I'm not entirely sure who I want to vote for yet, all I know is I really don't want Clinton in office. Are we decades late from having a female president? Yes, but god dammit we need a female candidate that isn't Clinton

Maybe you just have internalized misogyny?

I'd be willing to vote for a Republican so long as he/she's not a "Give all the power to corporations" person, but seeing how many candidates lie about their positions, I am a little too untrusting of any of them. It looks like Trump is leading atm (Oh dear god, why?) so I am just calling it now and saying all hope is lost.

{ I’d be willing to vote for a Republican so long as he/she’s not a “Give all the power to corporations” person, }

So… Trump.

lmao. You all realize he's saying all the moderate things that regular people who are tired of politicians want to hear, right? That's why they're stuck on his immigration comments, it's literally the only "offensive" thing he's said thus far. If he debates well and can actually back up what he's saying he plans to do, I have no problem giving him a legitimate chance. He's got enough of his own money to ignore the big businesses lobbyists who are funding every other politicians' campaign.

Well for one: I don't trust a single thing he says. To be honest, I don't really trust what most of the candidates say. I vote less on promises and more on track record.
Two: I expect a business man president to pass laws that help business men. Even if he doesn't know that's all he's going to help.
Three: Even if he legitimately is against giving powers to corporations, I not voting for Trump after all the shitshows he's hosted the past few years.
Four: I don't believe being a business man is good experience for a political career.

Fun Fact: Trump supported Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008 and donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

"… it's literally the only 'offensive' thing he's said thus far."

Are you sure about that?

^ well the McCain thing was pretty bad but Trump and McCain have not liked each other for a lot longer than Trump's political run. I'm talking about politically offensive, not personally.

Supporting waterboarding is not offensive, I support waterboarding terrorists as well, Obama should be in jail for trying to ban the practice (but he should be in jail for a lot of the things he's done).

& releasing Graham's phone number was the greatest thing I've ever seen. The guy made public statements about what an asshole Trump is, claiming he wants nothing to do with him, but he'd been phoning the Donald up to beg for political donations all the same. Action → Consequence.

---

Scott Walker is pretty much the only candidate with any legitimate record at all, on the GOP side. Most of them have done nothing beside turn up for the bare minimum number of votes needed to keep their seat.

Your expectations and assumptions are based on…? He doesn't have a voting record so how can you expect him to side with big business over the people when his whole campaign so far has revolved around giving America back to its people?

I don't believe a guy who spent all of three years in Congress doing nothing is good experience for a political career either, but look who's President.

Bit early to be dismissing anybody tbh. We haven't even had a debate.

Well, that's the problem I have, I don't believe what Trump says, and the fact that he is a big business man is what makes me worry about him supporting big business. I'm not saying for sure that's what he's going to do, but I feel the chance is too great. Like I said, right now, Trumps words and campaign mean nothing to me, his track record does. And whenever Trumps name comes up in the news or on the internet happenings, the words "controversy" or "Asshole" are always short to follow. I always believe that if you want to know what a person is like, the person in question is the last person you ask. To me, it sounds like Trump is just saying what he thinks the American people want to here to become president, which is what a lot of candidates do. Like I said, I don't vote based on campaigns, I vote based on past actions and ideals.

Supporting waterboarding is not offensive, I support waterboarding terrorists as well, Obama should be in jail for trying to ban the practice

Because trying to ban torture is criminal! Horrible! Unforgivable!

W E W

E

W

Yeah, banning a method that has actually stopped terrorism because you're concerned about the ethics behind torturing the terrorists responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths is unforgivable.

---

So who are you going to support, since every single other candidate has an actual voting history and we can clearly see they have all supported/do still support big business? On both sides. Both parties. There is not a single politician in this world who hasn't accepted donations from corporate lobbyists…. except Trump.

Yeah, banning a method that has actually stopped terrorism because you’re concerned about the ethics behind torturing the terrorists responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths is unforgivable.

For one thing, it is unconstitutional, a factor that you were quite quick to whine about when it applied to the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage.

Another thing is that you're fudging a lot of numbers. No single terrorist caused hundreds of thousands of deaths; to get that total you would have to add up terrorism across the world for many years. Furthermore, allowing waterboarding would only stop a small fraction of those deaths from occurring in the first place.

Foreign terrorists are not protected under the Constitution, I wish you bleeding hearts would stop pretending our laws apply to the world in general.

The Iran-funded Syrian government has caused over 200,000 civilian deaths alone. Terrorists don't act on their own, why should I treat terrorists as individuals when all of their actions serve one purpose? Waterboarding has led to information that has allowed to us kill top terrorist leadership, what's your source stating the practice has only prevented a "small fraction" of deaths?

You're getting horribly off-topic now, Jarbsy, I'd hate for you to get suspended~

Foreign terrorists are not protected under the Constitution, I wish you bleeding hearts would stop pretending our laws apply to the world in general.

Our laws don't apply to the world, but they sure do apply to people in our custody.

The Iran-funded Syrian government has caused over 200,000 civilian deaths alone.

We're talking about terrorists, not governments, no?

Terrorists don’t act on their own, why should I treat terrorists as individuals when all of their actions serve one purpose? Waterboarding has led to information that has allowed to us kill top terrorist leadership, what’s your source stating the practice has only prevented a “small fraction” of deaths?

If terrorists are most threatening as a group, then why is the information gained from torture regarded as being so valuable? Al Queda didn't magically disappear when Osama Bin Laden was killed, and killing the terrorist leadership isn't going to stop all those people who blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad every day.

As for my source, it's the CIA's very own report on the subject. From an USA Today article on the subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/

None of the candidates have made any statement at all on waterboarding, the issue is not current or relevant to the 2016 elections.

---

How do you report ppl to the mods for derailing threads?
I thought we were cracking down on this~

PS { http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/ } is not a report from the CIA, it's a highly controversial report from the Democrat-led committee that was assigned to inspect the CIA's interrogation methods. The CIA itself said that waterboarding was the sole reason that we obtained the information used to find bin Laden.

Governments are terrorists when they're funding terrorist activity, and foreign suspects in federal custody are still not granted the Constitutional rights used to protect citizens, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Demore v. Kim.

"You’re getting horribly off-topic now, Jarbsy, I’d hate for you to get suspended."

Actually, the discussion taking place is about a highly controversial political issue, which one of the most prominent presidential candidates at this time made a very notable statement about. So no, no he's not.

PM a mod then make a thread to discuss the topic that was derailing

I already did~

The thread isn't even a day old and we're already derailing? Come on guys, cut it out

@Lisa & Jarbox

If you wish to continue on your seperate topic, please create a new thread or continue the discussion privately. First one who keeps it up after this will receive a warning.

---

Will move this thread to General given how it's been going so far.

Which in return I guess makes the topic on-topic so far……..

I still don't see what the big deal is over Trump. He's peaking way, way too early to have any measurable impact. It's Herman Cain and Rick Perry all over again. He'll do something stupid on Thursday ("oops"), or will just slowly lose momentum as other candidates start peaking. It's the same primary stuff that happened in 2012.

Butterscotch of Death said:

Most people I talk to seem to hate Hillary with unending fury so I’m just looking at the republicans for now and which ones I hate the least

I don't think that'll much matter. It's never about voting for your candidate, it's about voting against the other party's candidate. I don't think either party's electorate's been truly happy with their candidate in decades. It's all about the lesser of two evils and who can smooze with the donors and party bigwigs the most. As long as the person has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they'll get the votes.

How about you guys?

I, too, think Paul's the best one there is and will be voting for him in the Michigan primaries… if he's still running by then.

MadDoc The Peacock Hugger said:

For the love of god bernie sanders needs to be president.

itsnothappening.jpeg

As nice as he appeals to the "anti-1%" side of the Dems, he's pro-immigration control, pro-guns, and pro-Israel. I don't see the the Dems falling in line for that. If he was more libertarian and less government control, he'd actually make a great Republican candidate.

Ę̭͍̪p̠̞̍ͪy͎̹ͅc̱͔͗̍ W̼̯͉̐͞y̛̦̦nͧͪ̍ said:

…your percentage for Sanders is down 6%…

Whoops, guess I got crossed up with the Biden percentage. I'd update it if it weren't for that edit time limit.

lisalombs said:

So… Trump.

I think Trump would make for a horrible President. He's way too abrasive for international diplomacy and has a really bad financial track record. Whatever honesty or freshness he might bring is canceled out by him being a douche. I'm honestly considering protest voting for the Libertarians if he's the candidate. I don't care if it might cost the conservative majority in SCOTUS, I think he'd make that bad of a President.

I, too, think Paul’s the best one there is and will be voting for him in the Michigan primaries… if he’s still running by then.

I recall his stance on foreign affairs (especially the middle east) being disappointingly interventionist compared to Ron Paul's. Has that changed?

Hello I am the typical Bernie Sanders supporter, please send reasons my way why I shouldn't be supporting him. Everything that flows from his lips is gold and everything he does is an act of the divine. Please give reasons why I should think otherwise.

Sarcasm or earnest?

@Lisa

Have you seen the voting record for some of those experienced politicians who have held a seat for six years and showed up for all of 100 sessions?

Well at least they've actually been in the business of politics. Surely that counts for something. The only political experience I know Trump has is simply yelling in retarded internet debates over his Twitter account

Anyone that stays up until 4am arguing with people on the internet about obamacare probably has as much political proficiency as Trump does. Hell, Lisa. You are probably a better politician than Trump. You argue just as strongly and you're less of an asshole about it. That's saying a lot

Maybe I'm bias. Maybe I'm just projecting my deep seated loathing of his personal attitude and character. Maybe Trump wouldn't be that bad in the office and can run country like he can run a business? Who knows. But I still despise him for his behavior. If he wasn't such a pompous vocal asshole that has proven to have a very sour attitude, one the entire world openly mocks, not one I would want representing a country…maybe I'd be more trusting like you are. Right now I think that even if he can make a good national leader, he doesn't deserve it. There are other less blowhard people that can run the country just as well, who don't soapbox on twitter over Obama's birth certificate

---

@Farm Zombie

It’s a fantasy, but I kind of just want a president who will sit around and do nothing. I just…I think I’m going to ignore this one for a while.

Does that mean you plan on not voting? You know the rules buddy.

But seriously. In this situation I'd just vote for the next closest independent. It may as well be not voting as far as polls go, but at least it's voting for something other than red or blue to put your mind at ease. If you are going to throw your vote away, better to throw it at the losers so at least that shows up in the polls and you'd be showing America that one more person is sick of red and blues bullshit. If enough people did that…

---

Maybe you just have internalized misogyny?

>accusing one of our female users and top feminists for internalized misogyny

Hohohoho….Msgr…you are a riot

---

@Colonial

Sarcasm or earnest?

Probably earnest. Looking at Bernies profile on Wikipedia, he does seem pretty legit and I can see why Epic would support him wholeheartedly.

I think he's looking for reasons not to like him, just so he knows Sanders isn't too good to be true.

Other than Sanders being a 'Democratic socialist' which means he's a COMMUNIST PIGDOG (j/k) I really don't see much to dislike about the guy. When Sanders wiki page isn't immediately dominated with a negative opinion on same sex marriage, that's a good sign. Even then, there's a footnote at the bottom that states hes supportive of gay rights. So yea.

Why are the Democrats touting Hillary and not this guy?

Hillary over Bernie: Fear of crucifixion if they were caught voting against a woman (despite her incompetence and unpleasantness)?

The main reason is that many Democratic strategists fear that making Sanders the candidate would be equivalent to ceding moderate voters to Bush, Walker, or Rubio (I'm assuming here that Trump, bless his heart, fails to capture the nomination). A Clinton nomination would greatly disappoint progressives, but she would still be able to snap up both the (unenthusiastic) "better of two evils" votes of the Left and still compete for the center vote against moderate Republicans.

Another major problem faced by Sanders is that he is virtually unknown among African-Americans, a solid blue demographic. The most plausible reason for this seems to be that he hails from Vermont, an overwhelmingly white state.

Finally, Sanders' financial backers are mostly unions, who tend to have little to give. Clinton is supported by numerous banks, law firms, and corporations. Sanders would get absolutely BTFO on the media front in an election fight against comparatively well-financed Republicans, especially since his social-democratic economic policies would likely drive current Clinton backers over to the GOP side if she is taken out of the race.

Where exactly are you getting this "voting against a woman" thing from? Sounds like you're hyping up an unpopular fringe view.

EDIT: also, in the future, if the post that you're quoting is a particularly long one, please simply indicate the person to whom you are replying (@BSOD, for example) rather than quoting the entire post.

I wouldn't be so sure about Hillary if I were all of you, the Democrats are freaking the fuck out over all her scandals that, while the media may do a fine job covering up for the typical voter, are rapidly escalating in front of the politisphere. Most people agree that there will at least be a Justice Department investigation, if not a criminal investigation, into the mountain of classified information she and her office sent over their personal emails instead of their secured government emails.

{ “I don’t see how the Justice Department would be able to avoid at least investigating this,” said Kevin Carroll, a former CIA officer and secrecy lawyer in Washington. “What Petraeus did was really small in comparison, because there was no exposure of any information to any foreign intelligence services.”

“In contrast,” said Mr. Carroll, “it’s certain that foreign intelligence services had access to the stuff on Hillary Clinton’s email.”

“Information put on her home-cooked server and then sent around to other accounts is a very, very serious counterintelligence breach, and they’re going to have to have a really substantial look at the damage that’s been done to every agency that’s had its intelligence compromised,” he said. }

Petraeus pleaded guilty to improperly handling hard-copy binders of classified military files and sharing them with his side ho and the guy who was writing his biography, if you don't remember.

A lot of Dems are getting behind Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, assuming Biden really doesn't want to run (even though he keeps talking about it like he is but has made no formal moves to enter the race).