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 December 16 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote: So, how would you guys rank the main Republican candidates in terms of how tough to beat they would be in the general election against Clinton? Without checking polls, I would say (from biggest challenge to lowest challenge):
1. Rubio 2. Cruz 3. Bush 4. Trump 5-6. Christie/Fiorina 7. Paul 8. Carson
I would put Bush ahead of Trump mainly because I don't see Trump as having a realistic chance of gathering enough actual votes in the center come election day, while there would be enough time until then for Bush to work on his re-branding (whether it would be effective or not is another story).
I actually think Rubio + Kasich ticket would be the most dangerous from a Democratic perspective
Rubio/Kasich would be about as exciting as running zombie Bob Dole. Whenever the GOP runs establishment/moderate candidates they always lose. That ticket would instantly alienate like 30% of the party lmao. The GOP is much more fractious than the Democrats. It's the reason why Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls even when he looks and sounds like someone that has the IQ of a school yard bully in 3rd grade. I cringe every time I hear him speak - it's insulting to my intelligence lmao, but hey, he has an IDGAF attitude and that plays with a huge part of the disaffected GOP base.
At this point, the country is pretty much in a spot where the Democrats will probably win most Presidential elections, but get walloped in local and non-Presidential federal elections. Things are just going to get more and more dysfunctional - as all large Empires/States do until it breaks up. I can't wait for that moment - let the USSR-like meltdown commence all ready.
On December 16 2015 18:20 oneofthem wrote: ^less competent than trump
I dunno, I don't think I've ever heard Wegandi say that a billion dollars was a hundred million dollars or that Bill Gates knows how to shut down the internet for ISIS. He doesn't seem like he would constantly simper for the cameras either from his posting style. Already puts him a couple points ahead of Trump in my book.
On December 16 2015 18:20 oneofthem wrote: ^less competent than trump
If by competent you mean exploiting the realities of the bell curve and the lowest denominator with extremely simplistic platitudes, non-sequiturs, and outright ignorance, then no, I'm not more competent than Trump. We've gone from Washington and Jefferson to Grover Cleveland to Calvin Coolidge, to....Donald freaking Trump? It's insulting that he has more than 2% support, let alone 35%+.
The coming elections are very important for the future of the usa. In the coming years china will pass the usa as biggest economy and the balance of power will tip to the east for centurys to come. The new president has to guide the usa through this global transition of power and try to preserve its wealth and maintain as much of is influence. Because the power of the usa is declining relatively the usa can no longer exert its influence by sheer power,instead it will have to try keep its power by cooperating with other countries and exporting it culture and values in cooperation and agreement with other countries. Obama was a great president despite all his huge flaws and the disappointment there is about some of his achievements. He was and still is a very strong leader,not only for americans but more importantly as a symbol and leader of the world as a whole.
None of the current candidates,both democratic and republican comes close to Obama when it comes to this,and it is the qualitys of a person like Obama that are needed to guide America through the coming transition. The strongest candidate and leader,who comes closest to Obama is Clinton,but she has the problem that she is unacceptable for many people in America. The 2nd best democratic candidate is sanders imo, but I don't see him having the power and charisma needed to lead America into the coming difficult years ahead. Rubio is a very smart guy,to slick to my liking and I wouldn't trust him with a dime lol. I don't see him unite the world though,and I don't think he would be a good president for the usa in the long run. Cruz,reminds me of Nixon. not sure why. Far to polarizing,would be a disaster for the usa in the coming transition. Trump is strong candidate and a strong leader,much stronger then most of the other candidates. He could be decent for America coming years by just running it like a business and very pragmatic. The problem is that he is not part of the establishment and that people will try to work against him where ever possible,wich will make it very difficult for him to be a succesfull president and working together as a team will be crucial for America in the coming years! I think he could be a good president if he would be given the change,but that change I fear he will never get.
Clinton trump or sanders. Sanders I feel is a good guy,one of the few "good guys" politics but I don't see him being a strong leader. Could be wrong though,he reminds me a bit of carter. Not as personality but as being a relatively unknown and modest politician compared to some of the more high profile candidates.
On December 16 2015 18:20 oneofthem wrote: ^less competent than trump
If by competent you mean exploiting the realities of the bell curve and the lowest denominator with extremely simplistic platitudes, non-sequiturs, and outright ignorance, then no, I'm not more competent than Trump. We've gone from Washington and Jefferson to Grover Cleveland to Calvin Coolidge, to....Donald freaking Trump? It's insulting that he has more than 2% support, let alone 35%+.
I don't think its insulting, I think there are a plurality of Americans that see the political shenanigans for what they are and refuse to back someone who is truly a democrat or a republican. I mean the Democrat front runner is nothing but power and corruption personified and the Republican field at least is much more diverse with people that aren't politicians, but Trump is the only one that seems to be able to make himself constantly appear to not be a politician. The only way I could see voting for him is if it was him vs Clinton, but I think the plurality is right. The 2 parties are making things worse and voting for their established candidates is only another step into the abyss. I feel the same way about Bernie Sanders (being an outsider) but he didn't come out punching like Trump which has really hurt his chances.
On December 16 2015 21:11 Rassy wrote: Interesing debate.
Clinton trump or sanders. Sanders I feel is a good guy,one of the few "good guys" politics but I don't see him being a strong leader. Could be wrong though,he reminds me a bit of carter. Not as personality but as being a relatively unknown and modest politician compared to some of the more high profile candidates.
I think Bernie would likely fail as president for the same reason Carter failed and that is the democrats in congress might not really be on board with him. Carter is strangely probably the worst presidency and the best post presidency of the last 50 years.
On December 16 2015 21:11 Rassy wrote: Interesing debate.
Clinton trump or sanders. Sanders I feel is a good guy,one of the few "good guys" politics but I don't see him being a strong leader. Could be wrong though,he reminds me a bit of carter. Not as personality but as being a relatively unknown and modest politician compared to some of the more high profile candidates.
I think Bernie would likely fail as president for the same reason Carter failed and that is the democrats in congress might not really be on board with him. Carter is strangely probably the worst presidency and the best post presidency of the last 50 years.
Given the fact that Carter's claim to fame revolved (and still revolves, bless his heart) around foreign policy, I don't think your comparison makes much sense. It was precisely Carter's lack of coherence when it came to domestic policy that made him so presidentially unpopular among both citizenry and fellow politicians. Regardless of one's stance relative to Sanders' platform, he's definitely running a different sort of campaign.
On December 16 2015 18:20 oneofthem wrote: ^less competent than trump
If by competent you mean exploiting the realities of the bell curve and the lowest denominator with extremely simplistic platitudes, non-sequiturs, and outright ignorance, then no, I'm not more competent than Trump. We've gone from Washington and Jefferson to Grover Cleveland to Calvin Coolidge, to....Donald freaking Trump? It's insulting that he has more than 2% support, let alone 35%+.
I don't think its insulting, I think there are a plurality of Americans that see the political shenanigans for what they are and refuse to back someone who is truly a democrat or a republican. I mean the Democrat front runner is nothing but power and corruption personified and the Republican field at least is much more diverse with people that aren't politicians, but Trump is the only one that seems to be able to make himself constantly appear to not be a politician. The only way I could see voting for him is if it was him vs Clinton, but I think the plurality is right. The 2 parties are making things worse and voting for their established candidates is only another step into the abyss. I feel the same way about Bernie Sanders (being an outsider) but he didn't come out punching like Trump which has really hurt his chances.
Is flipping the bird to the establishment really worth voting for someone whose response to "Insulting people won't make you president" boils down to "it's working" and who has shown time and again that he has no idea what he is talking about?
It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Trump's not dragging us away from the establishment, he's just dragging us down into the mud. The establishment will be just as happy with the voters playing in the mud as they were before.
The saddest part about the debate is that the only person who's going to get unambiguously great news coverage (Rand Paul) has 0 chance of beating Trump, so it's a net win for him no matter what.
Trump is pandering to the lowest desires of a frustrated general population who is sick of government doing nothing. The only way he is taking us away from the “establishment” is into an area where government is loathed and seen as something that should be powerless. Rather than being something where we all worth together to do amazing things. Trump is pulling us farther away from what allowed us to build the interstate highways, go to the moon and invent the internet. But the people complain about the "establishment" when they really just want leadership and vision, both things that Trump lacks.
On December 17 2015 00:03 DickMcFanny wrote: Why is Iowa so super important in these elections? Isn't it one of the smaller states?
It is the first state to hold a primary (does NH go at the same time? or follow shortly after?) - momentum can be important, so the results there can have an impact on a campaign.
Granted, I think the last few Republicans who won Iowa Caucus had no real shot at winning the nomination in the long run.
Winning it is free press for the rest of the primary process, which takes a while. And it is the first part of proving viability. If someone can't do well in the first couple of primaries, it limits their ability to continue with the election bid. Its not a bad filtering system, despite what a lot of people say.
Seems like hitting number 2 or 3 is probably the best predictor of success if anything. Romney initially "won" by like 10 against Santorum, but a recount put him behind by like 40 or something IIRC.
The Republican primary is about as diverse as 18th century landowners. Trump is the only non-politician, and his policy views are no different, just exaggerated.
On December 16 2015 23:57 Plansix wrote: Trump is pandering to the lowest desires of a frustrated general population who is sick of government doing nothing. The only way he is taking us away from the “establishment” is into an area where government is loathed and seen as something that should be powerless. Rather than being something where we all worth together to do amazing things. Trump is pulling us farther away from what allowed us to build the interstate highways, go to the moon and invent the internet. But the people complain about the "establishment" when they really just want leadership and vision, both things that Trump lacks.
I think they want the kleptocracy, perpetuation of wedge issues, ongoing foreign invasions/regime toppling/exploitation, lack of integrity and transparency resolved. The establishment is what we were taught the Soviet Union was in the 80s and people are openly discussing that now. Long live Pravda...errr cable news channels.
EPT
