EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1208
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 12 2014 03:04 Sub40APM wrote: Hard to imagine how that civil war will play out since the GOP core voter is so out of touch with what a median American voter would want. Southern, religious, white people might be a steadily shrinking demographic in the country but in the party they dominate completely. For a while, I assumed that more "Romney'ish" GOP people were a silent majority and that the tea party crazies were just really vocal. But as time has gone on, I have met more and more very reasonable seeming people who are totally on board for stuff like abolishing taxes and nonsense like that. The GOP really did manage to not only energize the crazies in their party, but also make some reasonable people crazy in the process. Weird shit. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On August 12 2014 03:38 Livelovedie wrote: I think the Tea Party has shifted the conversation and America to the right though, even more than it was going. For all this talk about communism, the last two democratic presidents have been far from progressive. Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On August 12 2014 04:16 radscorpion9 wrote: Its actually pretty exciting. I'm so curious what the next election is going to look like! Will there even be a moderate like Romney around, or will it be a really crazy debate with a genuine tea partier?? We might have some really funny and "unique" presidential debates coming up. And then we can all watch Fox news when their candidate bombs and they start yelling and throwing things I am really hoping Rand Paul and Rick Perry are front runners for a while maybe even some Bachmann. No doubt there will be some epic clips that will be historically hilarious and staggeringly shocking for generations to come. (Like republicans cheering putting people to death or letting them die in the streets). It'll be boring if Jeb locks it up early and we have another Bush v Clinton election... | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 12 2014 00:06 aksfjh wrote: Clinton isn't the perfect nominee, but we're not likely to find one anyways. She's not going to be as hawkish as the GOP nominee regardless (unless it's Rand, but he would signify an extreme shift in GOP politics anyways). Honestly, the only issue I have with Clinton is the dynastic stigma that comes along with her. I don't want another Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Kennedy, etc. I want somebody new that isn't so far to one side to seem absolute, but there doesn't seem to be a candidate like that on the horizon. What is "absolute" about hillary? She's a Clinton. Even the Wall St Journal had articles and editorials during Clinton's tenure saying how much of a friend to business he was, better than Bush or Reagan. Clinton is only absolute in her cynicism, ruthlessness, and protection of american corporate interests. She's th next incumbent because she is exactly what business wants: a predictable, agreeable ally against populism and democracy. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2014 04:42 IgnE wrote: What is "absolute" about hillary? She's a Clinton. Even the Wall St Journal had articles and editorials during Clinton's tenure saying how much of a friend to business he was, better than Bush or Reagan. Clinton is only absolute in her cynicism, ruthlessness, and protection of american corporate interests. She's th next incumbent because she is exactly what business wants: a predictable, agreeable ally against populism and democracy. I meant that she wasn't, and that all her opponents were. As in, her (current prospective) opponents all have a glaring flaw in some radical issue or is a populist ideologue. Clinton is very moderate politically. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On August 12 2014 04:42 IgnE wrote: What is "absolute" about hillary? She's a Clinton. Even the Wall St Journal had articles and editorials during Clinton's tenure saying how much of a friend to business he was, better than Bush or Reagan. Clinton is only absolute in her cynicism, ruthlessness, and protection of american corporate interests. She's th next incumbent because she is exactly what business wants: a predictable, agreeable ally against populism and democracy. Agreed. The Clintons' will potentially be the least populist democratic presidents since WWII. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 12 2014 04:42 IgnE wrote: What is "absolute" about hillary? She's a Clinton. Even the Wall St Journal had articles and editorials during Clinton's tenure saying how much of a friend to business he was, better than Bush or Reagan. Clinton is only absolute in her cynicism, ruthlessness, and protection of american corporate interests. She's th next incumbent because she is exactly what business wants: a predictable, agreeable ally against populism and democracy. How can you be an ally against democracy if your plan is to win by getting people to vote for you? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 12 2014 05:43 Wolfstan wrote: I am hoping you guys do away with the populist candidates. A pro business leaning president is exactly what the doctor ordered. We could use a pro-business Congress as well. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2014 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: We could use a pro-business Congress as well. A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 12 2014 07:17 aksfjh wrote: A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress... Generally, yes, but not always. The business community was pretty pissed over debt default concerns and the shut down. Most would also like to see the Keystone pipeline approved, crude exports allowed (already done?), greater immigration, better infrastructure, etc. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5013 Posts
Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On August 12 2014 08:49 Introvert wrote: This is another page to bookmark to compare to what actually happens in 2016. Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race. Ill take the other side of that bet. Obama's election engineers seemed to have mastered the art of voter turnout for presidential elections. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 12 2014 06:59 Adreme wrote: How can you be an ally against democracy if your plan is to win by getting people to vote for you? Winning 51% of the vote when less than 60% of the population votes is hardly encouraging. But then a choice between two party-backed candidates captured by industry isn't much of a choice. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2014 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Generally, yes, but not always. The business community was pretty pissed over debt default concerns and the shut down. Most would also like to see the Keystone pipeline approved, crude exports allowed (already done?), greater immigration, better infrastructure, etc. Now that they are doing the bare minimum (no more major debt/budget crises), they are pro-business. That doesn't mean there isn't MORE that could be done to help business, but with the way businesses evolve around regulations and taxes, government doing nothing is a huge boon to (big) business. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On August 12 2014 08:49 Introvert wrote: This is another page to bookmark to compare to what actually happens in 2016. Bush vs Clinton would not only suck, but it'd be incredibly boring. Since we're all in the prediction/prognostication business, I predict a super low turnout, should that be the race. Are we talking about Jeb Bush? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On August 12 2014 07:17 aksfjh wrote: A Congress that does nothing is, by default, a pro-business Congress... ...what...? Small and big businesses want all sorts of regulations passed. Or removed. Or modified. And mind you, the two have very different interests in many ways. Big businesses have no real problem with onerous reporting regulations, whereas small business gets hit disproportionately. In taxation and other issues they also differ. And remember, even "big business" is hardly monolithic. Oil and tech companies tend to have very different visions about what society should look like. | ||
| ||
