|
![[image loading]](http://newsinsideout.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1.2016-election-marijuana.jpg)
As majority of the world knows, in 2016 US of A will be holding an election for its 45th President. As a resident within the US, my concerns for this up coming election is fairly simple and direct towards both parties (or maybe even a third party if the Tea Party does get enough votes for a candidate), it's whether this election could actually be taken seriously with the "popular" candidates being who they are.
On the Republican side, we see a plethora of contenders putting themselves in the position to run for president, just to name some of the more + Show Spoiler +, "well known", candidates:
Celebrity Millionair Businessman, Donald Trump
+ Show Spoiler +
Son and Brother of two former Presidents, Jeb Bush
+ Show Spoiler +
Canadia-Born, Ted Cruz (Canada, soon to be 51st State of US? #hype)
+ Show Spoiler +
[Yes, I understand Ted Cruz should be declined because he was not born in United States. However, he has yet to be pulled out of the competition; which is odd, seeing how much republicans obsessed over Obama "not being an American", even though Hawaii is a state, meanwhile Cruz is a confirmed "non-American".]
Not to strip any of the candidates' competency before even taking position in the oval office (assuming they will win), I feel that the republican candidates are running off of pre-built momentum. For example 2 of the three candidates listed above have some sorts of reputation with the American public. Trump had his Celebrity Apprentice on air for a couple of years and his own Comedy Central roast, not to mention his giant skyscraper "Trump"; it's obvious why I'm listing Jeb Bush, but Ted Cruz had his fair share of 15-seconds of fame as well. For example, Ted Cruz's views on abortions and claiming to fame with his "Lost Generation" ideals of the President Obama's agenda.
On the Democrats side, we also have a couple of candidates that could be questionable; but again, not to prejudge them on their performance before becoming Commander in Chief, there are a couple of significant candidates in the running:
Former First Lady, Hillary Clinton
+ Show Spoiler +
[If Hillary becomes President, does that make Bill a first... man? gentleman? lady?]
Vice President, Joe Biden [Publicly Showed Interest]
+ Show Spoiler +
Former Vice President, Multiple Presidential Candidate, Al Gore
[Media speculated interested, but declined by reliable sources]
+ Show Spoiler +
Within the Democrat's corner, we see ties with former and current presidents as well. First and foremost, 2012 presidential runner-up candidate for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton will be appearing the in the spotlight once again. My concern with her would whether her votes come from women for the pure sake of feminism, or rather for her politics. Many have argued that President Obama's votes were majority non-white voters, and even from those voters that have a history of omitting their chances to vote. Furthermore, we have current vice president, Joe Biden, showing interest in running for presidency. During Obama;s two terms, I have rarely seen any positive comments towards Joe Biden as a vice president. The stereotype behind his vice-presidency revolves around his creepiness, and also his tendency to just be on the sidelines and allow President Obama to do what he wishes.
Now, I'm not a political science major, nor am I qualified to speak on these issues I found in depth; however, just the sheer number of candidates that have interesting backgrounds to them seems appealing and warrants some attention, in my opinion. Of course, this post is not to be taken with the absolute concern, I just wanted to see what the opinions are from other people on this issue.
|
|
|
On May 15 2015 06:29 Barrin wrote:
Bernie Sanders definitely deserves to be mentioned. Helping the middle class seems to be the basis of his platform. One thing he keeps bringing up is the need to get money out of politics and how the "billionaire class" has too much more influence than normal people. While other candidates have a lot of corporations supporting them, Sanders has a lot of grassroots support from the "working class".
I'm not sure yet, but I'm definitely leaning towards Sanders.
BTW I learned recently that if you're going to be 18+ during the General Election, you can vote in the Primaries even if you're just 17.
Well for his politics, it seems very generic. Seems like something every candidate promises: help the middle class, promise to raise awareness to the middle class struggles and ordeals. Criticizing the 1% for most of what's wrong in the US. Little do the people actually realize, the rich will always get richer and the poor will stay poor. The middle class wants to be rich, but can't due to societal circumstances, at the same time the 1% keeps them down by increasing the gap and minimizing space between middle class and poverty: keeping the middle class scared with threats from the rising population of poverty.
|
I'll make some tier lists since that's a thing:
Democratic Side:
Overwhelming frontrunner tier: Hillary Clinton
Running, but extremely unlikely to win tier: Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb
Probably won't run but could do decently if they did tier: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren
Almost certainly won't run, why is he in the OP tier: Al Gore
Republican Side:
Real shot at the nomination tier: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio
Much less likely but still possible tier: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry
Running but almost definitely won't win tier: Carly Fiorina
Running as a publicity stunt so shouldn't be in the OP tier: Donald Trump
Best site to follow for US election stuff is http://fivethirtyeight.com/ , best site for new polls is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
|
On May 15 2015 06:50 Advantageous wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 06:29 Barrin wrote:
Bernie Sanders definitely deserves to be mentioned. Helping the middle class seems to be the basis of his platform. One thing he keeps bringing up is the need to get money out of politics and how the "billionaire class" has too much more influence than normal people. While other candidates have a lot of corporations supporting them, Sanders has a lot of grassroots support from the "working class".
I'm not sure yet, but I'm definitely leaning towards Sanders.
BTW I learned recently that if you're going to be 18+ during the General Election, you can vote in the Primaries even if you're just 17. Well for his politics, it seems very generic. Seems like something every candidate promises: help the middle class, promise to raise awareness to the middle class struggles and ordeals. Criticizing the 1% for most of what's wrong in the US. Little do the people actually realize, the rich will always get richer and the poor will stay poor. The middle class wants to be rich, but can't due to societal circumstances, at the same time the 1% keeps them down by increasing the gap and minimizing space between middle class and poverty: keeping the middle class scared with threats from the rising population of poverty.
"Generic politics"? Really, I view him as the complete opposite. Refusing to raise money through a Super PAC, condemning Citizens United, focusing on creating jobs through green infrastructure, making college more affordable (somewhat generic, but still better than anything we've gotten from Clinton), and basically showing that he's one of the most liberal candidates. I don't agree with all of his stances, but the vast majority of his policies are ones that I agree with.
A lot of people listed in the OP are basically not even viable candidates. I don't see anyone but Hillary winning the democratic nomination, and the Republicans are basically a tossup atm. Bush and Rubio are the two front runners, with Walker being third.
|
As a Canadian, I intend to vote for Bernie Sanders.
I can't vote - you're all fucked. Good luck.
|
Damn I miss Ron Paul. Remember when everyone was typing and chanting Ron Paul Revolution?? Those were the days  . Rand Paul just isn't the same. I WANT RON PAUL BACK!
|
On May 17 2015 02:08 radscorpion9 wrote:Damn I miss Ron Paul. Remember when everyone was typing and chanting Ron Paul Revolution?? Those were the days . Rand Paul just isn't the same. I WANT RON PAUL BACK!
Why would you want Ron Paul, most of the kids were hyped up because he wanted to legalize marijuana or some such, but other than that he was kind of a nutter with unreasonable libertarian ideals that sounded nice if you're into that kind of stuff but were completely inapplicable. The gold standard stuff was ridiculous, I mean the sum of the world's gold is half the US's GDP. Also, you'd wouldn't think a "libertarian" would be strongly pro-life. Hell he even said something to the effect that in his career he never saw a case of a woman's life being threatened by her pregnancy or something like that.
My problem with Ron Paul and people like him is mostly their dogmatic belief in the free market. While it's hard to deny that unregulated markets strive, you also can't deny the wild swings, as well as the fact that markets left loose will favor the "winners" and create a huge fucking bunch of losers who'll get exploited.
I understand the idea that promoting business is good to an extent, but to outright deny the virtues of a reasonably equitable society is madness. And they're not willing to admit that. More net wealth sounds good but it comes with exploitation, crime, as well as other social ills like disproportionate gaps in the life expectancy of the poor versus the rich and high infantile mortality in poor uneducated families which might work their asses off but since they were born in a losing social class they would have had to work 10x harder than anybody else to dig their way out of the gutters.
It all seems shortsighted to me, especially now that the US needs to accept that it's a declining power (in relative terms, because it's actually the rest of the world catching up), and it's not just the debt that is becoming allegedly problematic, but also the rising social tension.
And for fuck's sake he called global warming a hoax. At this point, that is completely ridiculous.
Edit: I suppose I brought up a bunch of highly debatable topics in a thread that has nothing to do with it x_x
|
Democratic Side:
Overwhelming frontrunner tier: Hillary Clinton
Running, but very unlikely to win tier: Bernie Sanders,
Running, but would need the other candidates to spontaneously combust to win: Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb
Probably won't run but could do decently if they did tier: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren
Almost certainly won't run, why is he in the OP tier: Al Gore
Republican Side:
Real shot at the nomination tier: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio
Much less likely but still possible tier: Rand Paul,
Running but almost definitely won't win tier: Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry
'Not' Running as community service for comedians covering the elections: Donald Trump
That would be my slight amendment to the list. The best soundbites will mostly come from the ones that wont win, but there will be gold a plenty in those debates.
|
On May 15 2015 06:50 Advantageous wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 06:29 Barrin wrote:
Bernie Sanders definitely deserves to be mentioned. Helping the middle class seems to be the basis of his platform. One thing he keeps bringing up is the need to get money out of politics and how the "billionaire class" has too much more influence than normal people. While other candidates have a lot of corporations supporting them, Sanders has a lot of grassroots support from the "working class".
I'm not sure yet, but I'm definitely leaning towards Sanders.
BTW I learned recently that if you're going to be 18+ during the General Election, you can vote in the Primaries even if you're just 17. Well for his politics, it seems very generic. Seems like something every candidate promises: help the middle class, promise to raise awareness to the middle class struggles and ordeals. Criticizing the 1% for most of what's wrong in the US. Little do the people actually realize, the rich will always get richer and the poor will stay poor. The middle class wants to be rich, but can't due to societal circumstances, at the same time the 1% keeps them down by increasing the gap and minimizing space between middle class and poverty: keeping the middle class scared with threats from the rising population of poverty.
Any politician in the US who willingly accepts the label of "socialist" in the US cannot be said to be "generic."
|
[Yes, I understand Ted Cruz should be declined because he was not born in United States. However, he has yet to be pulled out of the competition; which is odd, seeing how much republicans obsessed over Obama "not being an American", even though Hawaii is a state, meanwhile Cruz is a confirmed "non-American".]
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada
This link explains that "natural born citizen" does not necessarily mean born in the United States, according to most legal experts. George Romney was born in Mexico, Barry Goldwater was born in a US Territory, and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. All those men ran for president. That being said, Ted Cruz is a moron and the thing stopping him from becoming president isn't his place of birth. It's that no one outside of the far-right evangelical block will vote for him.
|
I find it odd that you're concerned about how seriously the US public will take this next election when your initial posts demonstrates that very same lack of care. You're inexplicably missing like half of the major candidates, and your decision to highlight some of the republicans that you did (like Trump) betrays what this thread is really about.
|
On May 20 2015 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
I find it odd that you're concerned about how seriously the US public will take this next election when your initial posts demonstrates that very same lack of care. You're inexplicably missing like half of the major candidates, and your decision to highlight some of the republicans that you did (like Trump) betrays what this thread is really about.
Trump is polling better than Fiorina and several other candidates. He's within the margin of error from Ted Cruz. You can't blame him for republicans taking Trump seriously.
|
On May 20 2015 04:14 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +[Yes, I understand Ted Cruz should be declined because he was not born in United States. However, he has yet to be pulled out of the competition; which is odd, seeing how much republicans obsessed over Obama "not being an American", even though Hawaii is a state, meanwhile Cruz is a confirmed "non-American".] http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canadaThis link explains that "natural born citizen" does not necessarily mean born in the United States, according to most legal experts. George Romney was born in Mexico, Barry Goldwater was born in a US Territory, and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. All those men ran for president. That being said, Ted Cruz is a moron and the thing stopping him from becoming president isn't his place of birth. It's that no one outside of the far-right evangelical block will vote for him.
That's very interesting, never knew there were given cases before this. Thank you for sharing.
|
On May 20 2015 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
I find it odd that you're concerned about how seriously the US public will take this next election when your initial posts demonstrates that very same lack of care. You're inexplicably missing like half of the major candidates, and your decision to highlight some of the republicans that you did (like Trump) betrays what this thread is really about.
What are you getting at? If you can't tell all of the names I've listed are the people the general public actually would react to, and say that they've at least heard of them. I mean c'mon, you honestly believe the US public have even looked up who's running for this? You'll be lucky to find half of them knowing that Al Gore was vice president and Biden being the current vice president. I find it odd that you give so much credit to a nation of ignorant-media followers, when instead of making a comment with sustains, you make an ad hominem even when I've admitted in the post that "I'm not a political science major, nor am I qualified to speak on these issues".
|
On May 21 2015 04:49 Advantageous wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
I find it odd that you're concerned about how seriously the US public will take this next election when your initial posts demonstrates that very same lack of care. You're inexplicably missing like half of the major candidates, and your decision to highlight some of the republicans that you did (like Trump) betrays what this thread is really about. What are you getting at? If you can't tell all of the names I've listed are the people the general public actually would react to, and say that they've at least heard of them. I mean c'mon, you honestly believe the US public have even looked up who's running for this? You'll be lucky to find half of them knowing that Al Gore was vice president and Biden being the current vice president. I find it odd that you give so much credit to a nation of ignorant-media followers, when instead of making a comment with sustains, you make an ad hominem even when I've admitted in the post that "I'm not a political science major, nor am I qualified to speak on these issues".
You left out O'Malley, Rubio, and Walker, which is inexcusable. And no, I did not make an ad hominem attack. I attacked your post. Not you.
|
On May 22 2015 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 04:49 Advantageous wrote:On May 20 2015 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
I find it odd that you're concerned about how seriously the US public will take this next election when your initial posts demonstrates that very same lack of care. You're inexplicably missing like half of the major candidates, and your decision to highlight some of the republicans that you did (like Trump) betrays what this thread is really about. What are you getting at? If you can't tell all of the names I've listed are the people the general public actually would react to, and say that they've at least heard of them. I mean c'mon, you honestly believe the US public have even looked up who's running for this? You'll be lucky to find half of them knowing that Al Gore was vice president and Biden being the current vice president. I find it odd that you give so much credit to a nation of ignorant-media followers, when instead of making a comment with sustains, you make an ad hominem even when I've admitted in the post that "I'm not a political science major, nor am I qualified to speak on these issues". You left out O'Malley, Rubio, and Walker, which is inexcusable. And no, I did not make an ad hominem attack. I attacked your post. Not you.
What is inexcusable? the fact that I don't actually pay a lot of attention to the candidates or the election? I stated that the post wasn't to be taken seriously or should be taken with the absolutely for its contents. I'm merely speaking from the perspective of a general American resident. If you honestly believe that an average American would know who Ted Cruz, Joe Biden, or even Al Gore is then I think you need to take a step back and reevaluate the people in the country you live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media2.giphy.com/media/12bz5greaL6Vzy/giphy.gif)
![[image loading]](https://ishouldbelaughing.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/18.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.politico.com/global/2012/08/120830_ted_cruz_605_ap.gif)
![[image loading]](http://media.giphy.com/media/RDlxad4sL55O8/giphy.gif)
![[image loading]](https://becomingmrsmccully.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/biden.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b6/b6c467261ceebdba2a40a526f01b3731e560534a1c6b8edfd0a6d4a41327bfe2.jpg)
