US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2268

On September 05 2015 14:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Out of curiosity, would you mind stating the #1 reason why you like Trump, the #1 reason why you like Carson, and the #1 reason why you like Cruz? It could be your favorite quality about them, your favorite position of theirs that you support, etc. I'd like some perspective. Thanks

On September 05 2015 14:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Out of curiosity, would you mind stating the #1 reason why you like Trump, the #1 reason why you like Carson, and the #1 reason why you like Cruz? It could be your favorite quality about them, your favorite position of theirs that you support, etc. I'd like some perspective. Thanks

On September 05 2015 17:08 Cowboy64 wrote:

I'm not him, but I am a registered Republican and those are actually my top-3 picks (though not in that order) so I think I can illuminate somewhat on that question:

Trump: What you see is what you get. Trump is concerned primarily for himself, and he doesn't bullshit much about that. He makes no bones with the fact that he's advanced himself at the cost of others, and that is somewhat refreshing. Let's be honest, every single politician has advanced himself at the expense of others (by definition, since their salary is paid by tax-payers). Where they are all reading from cue-cards and being told what to say or not say by the media and their consultants, Trump doesn't care. He will say what he wants to say and he will double down on it when the media tries to bully him into giving some fake apology.

In all honesty, I think he'd be a mediocre President who is not very conservative at all. I still think he would be infinitely better than anything the Democrats or anyone else is proposing. At least he wants to win.


Carson: He is brilliant, thoughtful, gifted, and has a mindbogglingly amazing back-story. Born to an illiterate black mother in the inner-city, rising up to become the most respected brain-surgeon in the world. Elect-ability is huge here too. He polls extremely well with women and Evangelicals, and polls very decently with everyone else. Attacking the guy is more likely to result in the attacker being shamed than in anything actually hurting Carson. What other candidate can say that they have personally saved the lives of hundreds of children? What other candidate can claim that kind of non-political success? Trump is wealthy, sure, but he inherited from his father. Fiorina is wealthy, but she is nowhere near as accomplished as Carson is.

Basically, Carson is by far the most intelligent person to run in a VERY long time, and he is not bombastic or arrogant, he is simply humble. He is soft-spoken, yes, and that can hurt a candidate in the long run, but I find it endearing. I truly believe he could help begin the process of healing and regeneration in America from the wounds we've sustained over the past 25 years.


Cruz: Forget Trump, forget Sanders, forget Ron Paul... there is simply no person more despised by the Establishment on both parties than Ted Cruz. Democrats hate him and Republicans hate him even more. No one in the academic/media elite wants this guy anywhere near the Presidency and neither do the establishments on either party. He is willing to slam his own party, and he is willing to attack the other party, and damn what the media says about him or his beliefs. That is something missing in most politicians these days, the willingness to take a stand and rise or fall on that stand. Most politicians just read right from the script provided to them by the media. You can't say this, but you can say that. You can say that, but you have to apologize afterward, and bonus points if the apology is obviously forced. You can believe in conservatism, but you have to speak the liberal language. Otherwise MSNBC and CNN will be mad at you. Every politician in the country seems to care more about the "ramifications" of their statements than they are about actually communicating anything.

The only problem with Cruz is ironically his biggest strength: he rubs people the wrong way. He is not afraid to speak his mind and so he turns people off, because he doesn't care about pandering to their sensibilities. His electability is lower than most candidates.


Personally, I would rank them as: Carson, Cruz, Trump, with Trump pretty far behind the other ones. Then again, I think Hillary is a horribly weak candidate who will almost certainly lose against whoever she runs against, so I'm not really taking electability into account here. Otherwise my list would look very different. If I thought this would be a tough election, I'd probably be looking more at Rubio, Walker, Fiorina, and maybe Kasich (blech).

Since it seems like a done deal, I'll do what every other Republican is doing and pick my personal favorite flavor, and I like me some dark chocolate. Carson 2016!

On September 05 2015 17:08 Cowboy64 wrote:
Then again, I think Hillary is a horribly weak candidate who will almost certainly lose against whoever she runs against, so I'm not really taking electability into account here.

On September 05 2015 17:13 Eskendereya wrote:


Well said, but disagree about your order of picks. I think Trump is the guy to get this country back to work (jobs) and I think he would have the biggest impact on the economy which is what we really need. He's a great negotiator. I think Carson/Cruz would do just fine as VP. Just my opinion though.

What's hilarious is that the 3 candidates the establishment Republicans and Democrats hate the most are Trump, Carson and Cruz who also seem to be on good terms with one another. In fact, it seems like they are their own little group vs the rest and the know it too.

On September 05 2015 17:13 Eskendereya wrote:


Well said, but disagree about your order of picks. I think Trump is the guy to get this country back to work (jobs) and I think he would have the biggest impact on the economy which is what we really need. He's a great negotiator. I think Carson/Cruz would do just fine as VP. Just my opinion though.

What's hilarious is that the 3 candidates the establishment Republicans and Democrats hate the most are Trump, Carson and Cruz who also seem to be on good terms with one another. In fact, it seems like they are their own little group vs the rest and the know it too.

On September 05 2015 21:03 coverpunch wrote:

We should really talk about this a bit more. Is Hillary a soft candidate? I'm pretty surprised by this statement, frankly.

Sure, Hillary's showing a strange ineptitude in dodging the email server questions, which is in the same vein as Chris Christie unable to shake the bridge thing. Shaking off political bullshit like that is Presidential Politics 101. If she thinks this is bad, one has to shudder at what would happen if she had another Snowden. In retrospect, you have to admire Obama that Snowden was a political baneling bust in the making and he got through it all like MarineKing used to split marines. If he had taken it on the chin, things might have gotten REALLY ugly for him.

But she seems to be doing the right things politically. She's quietly gathering a large coalition of influential Democrats and party bosses on her side and building a warchest. I think something like half of Congressional Democrats have endorsed or are planning to endorse her already. None of the Republican candidates has anywhere near that kind of party support. Sanders has lots of populist support but virtually no national and party support, so he's ultimately getting into a car with no engine or wheels to win this race (i.e. it won't happen unless Hillary crashes herself out of it).

In the end, I'd put it this way: Hillary ain't Bill, but I disagree strongly that she's a "horribly weak candidate" and I think it's actually more likely that she'd beat most of the GOP candidates like a drum. Of course, this is assuming she eventually shakes the email server thing and doesn't find herself instead dogged with more scandals that weigh her down.

On September 05 2015 12:10 Sermokala wrote:

New black panther party. The old one kinda went down a domestic terrorist group and died out.

But in reality the difference is that the white ones want whites to go ahead more at the expense of other races where the minority ones at the least say they want equality with the races. see you can't really justify advancing your race when your in the lead.

On September 06 2015 00:06 cLutZ wrote:

I sort of agree, but think you really failed to mention the reason for all this, and really the premise of her campaign: First Woman President. Without that she is Jeb Bush with scandals. If Obama hung it up after one term, this Hillary would have lost to Romney, himself a mid level candidate.

She can probably win using a similar strategy to the one Mitch McConnell employed in his last election of outspending in the primary and using 'incumbency' to try and wait for a meltdown. It can work, but guys like Rubio, Cruz, and Paul are senators today because its a mediocre strategy.

On September 06 2015 00:24 coverpunch wrote:

A valid point, but I was trying to get at the point that she is a skilled politician, at least the coalition building and deal making parts of the job. I'm surprised at how often this seems to be underrated or overlooked these days, particularly since they were glaring flaws of the Bush and Obama presidencies.

But she does seem to suck at the scandal shaking part of the job, which i addressed, and it seems to be fair to call her a mediocre leader at best. And it is a good point to bring up that her most prominent selling point is playing identity politics rather than substantive policy.

On the other hand, Trump is all policy and everyone outside of his rabid supporters thinks he's crazy or a moron or both.

More seriously, I would deflect by saying it is a bit premature for Hillary to be talking details. She is a known quantity as a center left candidate and it is better for her to tread softly with the nomination basically in hand rather than play the mirror image of the GOP drunken race of lurching to the right to win the nomination and then trying to stumble back to the center to win general support.

“Biden came to the Senate in the 1970s as part of the opposition to the Vietnam War. His main theme over the years has been skepticism over whether force will be effective.

“Clinton grew up as an antiwar liberal, but in terms of foreign policy, she’s of a different generation. In the 1990s, the Bill Clinton years, America was at the height of its power. The lesson Democrats learned then, in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, was that military power works.”