|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 27 2015 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 03:40 Millitron wrote:On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay? When he wins the election. Mitt Romney was a joke too. I think the larger issue is if Romney was a joke, and the lead person this election is also a joke, does that not reflect on the party as being dominated by joke candidates (and people who support them). Wouldn't the comparisons to people like Cain or Bachmann leading the polls too just further push the idea that the majority of the republican party is by extension also "a joke"? Not to mention the hesitance to admit evolution as fact literally makes most of the republican candidates jokes to the rest of the world (and most of the country). The last nominee the Republicans have liked hasn't run for decades. What does it say about a party that can't choose among themselves someone who they don't then turn around and call a joke or mindfully avoid mentioning. This is well catalyzed by republican responses to the question: Who is the best living current/former president? That all came off harsh toward republicans but If Sanders wasn't having success I would have a similar critique for Democrats. though more focused on corporatization of candidates and not representing the bases opinion. Democrats seem to be getting their ish together (provided Bernie makes it) whereas the republicans seem like they are on a spiral of self-immolation. I think it all goes back to the Religious Right being terrible for the party, and the nature of modern elections. It's pretty hard to get Conservative talking points across in a little soundbite without just resorting to religion and tradition. Take the whole gay marriage thing. There were real criticisms about the way it was handled that weren't just "God hates gays". But Constitutional discussions are rather dry and don't do much for the ratings of the news networks, and even if they did air them, most people aren't educated well enough on the Constitution to follow the arguments anyways. So instead, we get talking heads who are against gay marriage because Leviticus said so.
The problem with soundbites being short doesn't affect the left as much because their real positions ARE the soundbites. Their positions really are short enough to fit in a 10 second audio clip. So Republicans have to use their air-time to appeal to someone, and as we discussed, the secular conservative arguments don't work on TV, so they resort to appealing to the Religious Right, which is an ever-smaller subset of the entire country.
|
Anyone can run in the main elections assuming they can meet the requirements to be put on the ballot in at least one state. Belonging to the Democrat or Republican parties are not a part of those requirements. The primaries are used by each party to simulate a national election while also extending the vetting process to determine who from their own party is the most viable candidate. The party then puts its efforts including a ton of money and automatic votes behind their one candidate. Candidates that lose in the primaries are welcome to run in the main election, but are discouraged from doing so by their party because it would split the party's power and hand the election to the other party.
So when you say that "Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of." is not accurate at all. Any of the losing primary candidates may still run as independents or with a 3rd party. They just usually accept that they won't win and defer to the judgment of their party.
|
On July 27 2015 12:11 RenSC2 wrote: Anyone can run in the main elections assuming they can meet the requirements to be put on the ballot in at least one state. Belonging to the Democrat or Republican parties are not a part of those requirements. The primaries are used by each party to simulate a national election while also extending the vetting process to determine who from their own party is the most viable candidate. The party then puts its efforts including a ton of money and automatic votes behind their one candidate. Candidates that lose in the primaries are welcome to run in the main election, but are discouraged from doing so by their party because it would split the party's power and hand the election to the other party.
So when you say that "Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of." is not accurate at all. Any of the losing primary candidates may still run as independents or with a 3rd party. They just usually accept that they won't win and defer to the judgment of their party.
And because they can't compete without the giant financial backing that the two parties receive.
Which is what I said in my first post, that the system exists to be money funnels to two people.
|
On July 27 2015 12:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 12:11 RenSC2 wrote: Anyone can run in the main elections assuming they can meet the requirements to be put on the ballot in at least one state. Belonging to the Democrat or Republican parties are not a part of those requirements. The primaries are used by each party to simulate a national election while also extending the vetting process to determine who from their own party is the most viable candidate. The party then puts its efforts including a ton of money and automatic votes behind their one candidate. Candidates that lose in the primaries are welcome to run in the main election, but are discouraged from doing so by their party because it would split the party's power and hand the election to the other party.
So when you say that "Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of." is not accurate at all. Any of the losing primary candidates may still run as independents or with a 3rd party. They just usually accept that they won't win and defer to the judgment of their party. And because they can't compete without the giant financial backing that the two parties receive. Which is what I said in my first post, that the system exists to be money funnels to two people. SuperPAC's have demolished the need for party money. What is helpful from the party is the network you gain.
|
On July 27 2015 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 12:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 27 2015 12:11 RenSC2 wrote: Anyone can run in the main elections assuming they can meet the requirements to be put on the ballot in at least one state. Belonging to the Democrat or Republican parties are not a part of those requirements. The primaries are used by each party to simulate a national election while also extending the vetting process to determine who from their own party is the most viable candidate. The party then puts its efforts including a ton of money and automatic votes behind their one candidate. Candidates that lose in the primaries are welcome to run in the main election, but are discouraged from doing so by their party because it would split the party's power and hand the election to the other party.
So when you say that "Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of." is not accurate at all. Any of the losing primary candidates may still run as independents or with a 3rd party. They just usually accept that they won't win and defer to the judgment of their party. And because they can't compete without the giant financial backing that the two parties receive. Which is what I said in my first post, that the system exists to be money funnels to two people. SuperPAC's have demolished the need for party money. What is helpful from the party is the network you gain. When it comes actual election time, would that many SuperPACs actually support independents?
|
On July 27 2015 12:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2015 12:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 27 2015 12:11 RenSC2 wrote: Anyone can run in the main elections assuming they can meet the requirements to be put on the ballot in at least one state. Belonging to the Democrat or Republican parties are not a part of those requirements. The primaries are used by each party to simulate a national election while also extending the vetting process to determine who from their own party is the most viable candidate. The party then puts its efforts including a ton of money and automatic votes behind their one candidate. Candidates that lose in the primaries are welcome to run in the main election, but are discouraged from doing so by their party because it would split the party's power and hand the election to the other party.
So when you say that "Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of." is not accurate at all. Any of the losing primary candidates may still run as independents or with a 3rd party. They just usually accept that they won't win and defer to the judgment of their party. And because they can't compete without the giant financial backing that the two parties receive. Which is what I said in my first post, that the system exists to be money funnels to two people. SuperPAC's have demolished the need for party money. What is helpful from the party is the network you gain. When it comes actual election time, would that many SuperPACs actually support independents?
They are pretty new so it's hard to say for sure, but if it was Hillary vs Jeb anyone outside of all the insider deals they were cutting would be all over it.
Campaign contributions are more practically investments than they are donations. Anyone who thinks people don't get favors in exchange for those investments isn't paying attention. Most of the favors don't violate any letter of the law but most certainly violate it's spirit.
If you're in true competition/opposition with a company who will be getting favors from one of those candidates it makes sense to pool with others who are in similar situations to find and support someone (or several) who would put you on better ground for competing with those companies.
|
I don't even understand the system you are trying to go for Wolf. Do you just want anyone to be able to run and its just 10, 20, 30 people on the ballot in November and whoever gets the highest % is the president? Automatic runoff? Do people list their options 1-30?
At the very least, you need an open primary some 6 or so months before the election, with automatic runoff that narrows the candidates down to a manageable number, followed by the general with another automatic runoff. Otherwise you have a system that just rewards the parties that are best at quashing their "Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump" quickly. And also rewards the people who are best at hiding their inadequacies during boring debates that provide very little speaking time to each candidate.
|
On July 27 2015 14:08 cLutZ wrote: I don't even understand the system you are trying to go for Wolf. Do you just want anyone to be able to run and its just 10, 20, 30 people on the ballot in November and whoever gets the highest % is the president? Automatic runoff? Do people list their options 1-30?
At the very least, you need an open primary some 6 or so months before the election, with automatic runoff that narrows the candidates down to a manageable number, followed by the general with another automatic runoff. Otherwise you have a system that just rewards the parties that are best at quashing their "Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump" quickly. And also rewards the people who are best at hiding their inadequacies during boring debates that provide very little speaking time to each candidate. From the sound of it, you already can have 30 people running for President, they just don't, because most have a realistic appraisal of their chances (and their means to do so).
Isn't this the first time you've even had 20+ people in the primaries? And I'm pretty sure most of those Republicans are only trying because the Republican candidates have no front-runner amongst themselves.
|
On July 27 2015 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote: The last nominee the Republicans have liked hasn't run for decades.
What does it say about a party that can't choose among themselves someone who they don't then turn around and call a joke or mindfully avoid mentioning.
It says they are an increasingly fractured coalition. The Tea Party nativist/anti-intellectual/anti-government crowd, the liberal economic business crowd, neoconservative hawks, straight-up libertarians, and the social conservative crowd have always been uneasy bedfellows.
And more and more issues, from military intervention to gay marriage to immigration to policing and so on have exposed deep divisions that were always just below the surface. Huckabee and Santorum are from one Republican party, Cruz and Trump and from another, and Bush, Rubio, and Kasich from another. And they are all (well, except Trump) trying to appeal to the whole coalition, if with limited success.
Now, recently the Bush/Rubio/Kasich wing has generally dominated, but Dubya was closer to Huckabee/Santorum, and the failure of McCain/Romney puts strain on that wing. Walker is probably the best positioned candidate to appeal to the Cruz and Santorum wings while obviously originating in the Bush wing, since he is so much more noticeably "Tea Party" on a lot of issues than is Bush or Rubio.
|
Whenever someone claims the Tea Party is any of those things, you can zone out for the rest of the post. Anti-government should be the easiest one to see through. It's a common attack that's more in line with caricature than reality, unless, of course, being for any less government than the amount you prefer is the same thing as "anti-government."
And lumping Cruz with Trump, please. That being said, I would agree that Walker is best poised to try to bring in different parts. I could certainly live with a Walker run in the general, to say the least.
|
Maybe I've just gotten used to Tony Abbot being my Prime minister but I don't think Trump is making a massive fool out of this election more then others are. The occasional pants on head stupid quote that comes out of his mouth, and the endless need to assure the people listening to him that he is, infact, quite wealthy are in my opinion balanced out by saying a lot of things I agree with, such as pointing out that becoming a foreign diplomat is now a cushy job for the friends/relatives of those elected rather then the actual job it should be.
Every time I see a free trade agreement get passed in the west I can't help but feel the west continuously gets the shitty end of the deal, which I feel is almost entirely due to the west not negotiating from a position of strength (which, lets be real, in this current world should be almost 100% of the time), not using people who are good at making deals, and going up against someone that is both good at what they do, and almost doesn't care what the west thinks about them.
Having said that, his comments on super Pac's being an excellent source of corruption are probably inarguable, but I'm not entirely convinced that means he won't do the same things.
In short, I don't really know what I think, and I need more time to the rest of the candidates. That said I do not want Clinton or Bush to get elected in for fairly obvious reasons.
|
super PACs are dumb; I remember the Colbert report stuff on them, and if even a third of the stuff they had that lawyer cover was correct, it's still ridiculous.
|
It constantly confuses me how disinterested americans are in the obvious and legal corruption in their system. You have companies and billionaires giving your politicians millions of dollars, legally. Do you really think they get nothing in return? It amazes me that that is legal.
|
I think it's fairly obvious why it's legal, no matter how disgusting it might be.
|
|
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has announced goals for increasing US reliance on renewable energy, pledging to have more than half a billion solar panels installed nationwide within four years of taking office.
Clinton, the front-runner for her party’s 2016 presidential nomination, also pledged on her website on Sunday that the United States would generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in the country within 10 years of taking office.
The two goals were the first elements of what she said would be a comprehensive climate-change agenda to be announced over the next few months.
Her campaign said the goals would lead to a 700% increase in the nation’s installed solar capacity from current levels, and eventually could generate at least one third of all electricity from renewable sources.
Clinton’s plans also call for extending federal clean energy tax incentives and making them more cost effective both for taxpayers and clean energy producers, her campaign said.
“We’re on the cusp of a new era,” Clinton said in announcing the goals on her website. “We can create a more open, efficient and resilient grid that connects us, empowers us-improves our health and benefits us all.”
Clinton will discuss the proposals in more detail during a campaign stop on Monday at an energy-efficient transit station in Iowa, the state that kicks off the 2016 presidential nominating race in barely six months and is a leading wind energy producer.
Clinton has promised to make the issue of climate change a key pillar of her campaign platform, and the proposals she will discuss on Monday are the first steps toward fleshing out what has mostly been bare-boned climate rhetoric.
Source
|
On July 27 2015 20:14 zlefin wrote: super PACs are dumb; I remember the Colbert report stuff on them, and if even a third of the stuff they had that lawyer cover was correct, it's still ridiculous. The fact that it took AP and NPR over 2 months just to find out exactly where who funded and super PAC and where their home office was shows how stupid the system is. And for the record, the home office was in Florida and it was just a guy ordering the TV ads by phone part time. He didn’t even know who he worked for exactly.
The system is broken because the Super PACs can break laws and commit fraud and it would take investigators months to even bring charges. After that the election would be over and the damage would be done, sapping the political will push for a full investigation.
|
The Senate on Sunday failed to pass an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its first vote on repealing the law since Republicans took control of the Senate in January.
Eight senators did not participate in the weekend vote, leading the measure, an amendment to the highway funding bill, to fail in a 49-43 party line vote, according to Politico.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) may ask the Senate to reconsider the measure to repeal Obamacare on Monday, according to Politico.
The amendment was expected to fail, as the measure needed 60 votes to pass. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced the vote on Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) criticized McConnell for bringing up the measure. He called the amendment an "empty showboat that's a good way to distract from what's going on."
Source
|
On July 27 2015 16:21 Introvert wrote: Whenever someone claims the Tea Party is any of those things, you can zone out for the rest of the post. Anti-government should be the easiest one to see through. It's a common attack that's more in line with caricature than reality, unless, of course, being for any less government than the amount you prefer is the same thing as "anti-government."
And lumping Cruz with Trump, please. That being said, I would agree that Walker is best poised to try to bring in different parts. I could certainly live with a Walker run in the general, to say the least.
Well the Tea Party is kind of a moving target that's a little hard to characterize since it started as an anti-tax movement and has since been adopted as a label by the anti-immigrant blue collar anti-elite crowd. When I say anti-government, yes, I mean wanting to reduce its size and having a suspicion of its activities. It's not all Jade Helm, though that's part of it. But in the English language, you can say "anti-tax" and not mean "thinks all taxation is theft" but rather "thinks we should broadly reduce tax rates."
Trump is obviously a buffoon compared to Cruz, but they're appealing to the same wing of the Republican party. Who do you think the Trump supporters will go to when he flames out? Who's angling for them? Who's studiously avoiding offending them?
|
On July 27 2015 22:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Senate on Sunday failed to pass an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its first vote on repealing the law since Republicans took control of the Senate in January.
Eight senators did not participate in the weekend vote, leading the measure, an amendment to the highway funding bill, to fail in a 49-43 party line vote, according to Politico.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) may ask the Senate to reconsider the measure to repeal Obamacare on Monday, according to Politico.
The amendment was expected to fail, as the measure needed 60 votes to pass. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced the vote on Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) criticized McConnell for bringing up the measure. He called the amendment an "empty showboat that's a good way to distract from what's going on." Source
Wtf, this is still going on??
|
|
|
|