US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2134

On July 27 2015 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


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.

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.

On July 27 2015 12:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:


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 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:

SuperPAC's have demolished the need for party money. What is helpful from the party is the network you gain.

On July 27 2015 12:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:

When it comes actual election time, would that many SuperPACs actually support independents?

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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.