[Truth Teller]

I'm not sure she'll even get the nomination, let alone win the presidency. After 8 years of Obama, I don't see any Democrat having an easy time in the election. Also, while Benghazi has gone away (for now), the primaries are where the really awful things about candidates come out. Think about how Hillary tried to smear Obama and how Obama smeared everyone else.

Also, you have to understand that Hillary doesn't poll well outside of the traditional Democratic strongholds... and the population is shifting away from those places. For my money... 2016 will be between someone like Martin O'Malley and someone like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.

If you look at her record, then you see how little she actually did. Yeah, she was in the Senate for 8 years. She didn't sponsor any important legislation. Then she was Secretary of State. What did she do? Escalate our tensions with Russia and China, allow Iran to grow ever closer to obtaining an atomic weapon, directly aid terrorist organizations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and put the US in a position where nuclear war with North Korea became a more serious threat than we had ever thought it could've been.

[j r]

The demographic change argument is questionable. Both parties somehow managed to survived all the demographic and social change that has taken place over the past 150 years.

Republicans are in trouble because they are in the midst of an internal civil war between moderates and radicals. The radicals win primaries, but the moderates win state and national elections. It won't go on forever. In the next few years, it will resolve itself one way or the other. Either the Republicans will be mostly the center-right party with Tea Party elements scattered about or it will be a rightwing populist party with a few moderates scattered about. If it's the former, they will survive; if bits the latter, they'll fade an some other party will fill the void.

The idea that women and minorities are somehow inherently incapable of being swayed by the conservative message is just wrong. There are lots of traditional women in this country who do identify as conservative. And there would be more if Republicans stopped saying stupid shit and actually addresses the progressive brand of feminism that Democrats sell. Same with minorities. Tere are lots of minorities that are natural Republicans. Blacks are the most religious ethnic group in America. Hispanics are fairly religious as well and mane are very traditional. And there are lots of middle class minorities who don't like the welfare state. Republicans just haven't learned to speak to these people and can't seem to go a week without saying something spectacularly stupid.

Stop blaming demographics. Blame these idiot candidates and pundits.

[Mentavious]

Does a certain party really make a difference for the average person. Put a blindfold and ear plugs on and tell what major economical changes the last three presidents have made that have made a difference.

[ElJefe]

(01-17-2014 08:07 PM)j r Wrote:  

The idea that women and minorities are somehow inherently incapable of being swayed by the conservative message is just wrong. Tere are lots of minorities that are natural Republicans. Blacks are the most religious ethnic group in America. Hispanics are fairly religious as well and mane are very traditional.

Stop blaming demographics. Blame these idiot candidates and pundits.

1. It is not women. Married women vote with their husbands. Romney won the married vote. 50 years ago, when 85% of adults were married, that would've meant he won just from that.

2. I can see how Blacks might be an approach for the GOP, but only insofar as their problems of low productivity could be alleviated by addressing immigration - legal and illegal.

3. The idea that minorities otherwise are conservative is something I find hard to believe. For instance, they are the most avid users of abortion - something I bet most Conservatives don't know - but most abortions are by minorities and in states like CA or NY (which is why Levitt's book Freakanomics could argue that abortion probably reduced crime). In addition, in attitudes and values and voting behavior minorities are increasingly tribalistic.

This is not to say that they all are, far from it. But this is way things are developing right now.

[Gator]

Quote:

with all of this "oh the republicans are dead, they've got nothing" please explain to me how they control the house then?

It's a matter of issues and electorate. A GOP rep may have to worry about a local plant or local schools or winning a public works project for his area. His views on economic or foreign policy matter far less. In addition, not all GOP (or for that matter Dem) candidates are created equal. Some are more center leaning than others. This is why a Republican like Christie can win the Governorship in a solid blue state like NJ. The issues are weighted differently.

Quote:

Your local Congressman and state politicians have an infinitely larger impact on your actual life than the President.

In theory, they should. But that is not the reality and hasn't been for sometime. The executive branch has gained more and more power over the past 100 years. The Vietnam War was not a formal declaration of war by Congress, as an example. Most states at this point need federal funds to meet their budget. They are far from autonomous and essentially take their cues from the Fed Gov.

Quote:

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

Because they're all war presidents. WW1: Wilson, WW2: FDR, Korea: Truman, Vietnam: LBJ. Not something to be particularly proud of.

[j r]

I don't buy the argument that whites or white men are less tribal than everybody else. The Republicans, or at least the ones winning primaries, have chosen to take an explicitly white populist stance. All the talk about how "we" are losing America and makers vs takers, all the stories on conservative media outlets about the supposed black-on-white crime wave, painting Obama as the affirmative action or food stamp president.

How is that not tribal?

And I'm speaking from experience. For all of my life, I self-identified as a Republican, but in the last few years it's just become too much. The truth is that Romney's economic plan was so similar to Obama's that all he could do was resort to scare tactics. Also, brown people and immigrants don't scare me.

[Sawyer]

(01-17-2014 08:07 PM)j r Wrote:  

Republicans are in trouble because they are in the midst of an internal civil war between moderates and radicals. The radicals win primaries, but the moderates win state and national elections. It won't go on forever. In the next few years, it will resolve itself one way or the other. Either the Republicans will be mostly the center-right party with Tea Party elements scattered about or it will be a rightwing populist party with a few moderates scattered about. If it's the former, they will survive; if bits the latter, they'll fade an some other party will fill the void.

Stop blaming demographics. Blame these idiot candidates and pundits.

The last two elections have proven that moderate republicans cannot win national elections. Therefore, they will be become the latter (a rightwing populist party) or they will disappear. The problem is that the establishment refuses to acknowledge this because it would mean facing the ridicule of the national media, of which they are scared to death.

The Republicans will run a hard right social conservative/non neo-conservative lunatic who goes "full retard" or they will lose.

I do believe that Hilary is unstoppable. I'd be worried but it's really hard to take this madhouse seriously anymore.

[Sawyer]

(01-17-2014 08:35 PM)j r Wrote:  

I don't buy the argument that whites or white men are less tribal than everybody else. The Republicans, or at least the ones winning primaries, have chosen to take an explicitly white populist stance.

Can you give me an explicitly pro-white quote from a successful modern politician?

[j r]

It's true that the executive branch has become more powerful, but that's mostly expressed through foreign policy. Domestically, almost everything the executive branch does has to get approval from Congress.

The US has what's called a program budget. Every program that the executive branch runs is authorized in law and funded through the budget. So if congress passes a budget that says that HUD has to run a $100 million program building parks in cities, then HUD has no choice but to spend $100 million building parks. The president can veto the whole budget, but he can't change that specific budget line.

[Flint]

Serious question to all yanks here: Why do care so much who your President is going to be as if s/he could ruin your personal life?

Here's what I infered from my superficial preoccupations with the US political system (correct me if I'm wrong):

The president is often called "the most powerful man in the world" yet to me he seems to be a lame duck, basically, and not that influential on the domestic level when I compare the office to the constitional role of heads-of-governments in other countries.

Granted, he has his executive orders and can exert a lot of influence in international affairs, questions of war & peace and federal government issues. But even that seems to be severely limited by the US constitution. On the other hand, Congress is fucking powerful and can block basically everything the President wants to do. Checks and balances work much differently than in European parliamentary systems and the whole lawmaking process is much more competitive among the branches than in France or Germany. (Which also have their advantages and strengths, imho).

95% of the other stuff that affects your daily lives is not decided by the federal government but by states and counties. You guys even have it very easy to file for a popular vote in your city or state. You can vote and change the laws on fucking everything you want on the local level which in my home country is mostly decided on the national level or subject to internal administrative decision-making: drugs, prisons, sentencing, police chiefs, property taxes, business regulations, schools, environmental protection, guns, etc.

None of which can be changed by a fuck-wit in the White House. If I were an American and lived in California or North Dakota, I wouldn't give two shits if the President is a Democrat or Republican and only go to state elections, unless I'd be very concerned over foreign policy.

So, why would Hillary be so much worse than Obama, Jeb Bush or Christie? Don't see the point.

[TheMachinist]

That broad would trump Obama as the worst president in history.If she gets elected it proves my point that everybody doesn't deserve to vote.Skin color or gender aint got nothing to do with it.Id bet well over half of the people that vote democrat have no idea what the 2 parties stand for.Let alone the fact that democrats have done more to destroy America since the 60's than any body else.Broken homes,feminism,entitlement...all that lays at their feet.

[j r]

(01-17-2014 08:39 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 08:35 PM)j r Wrote:  

I don't buy the argument that whites or white men are less tribal than everybody else. The Republicans, or at least the ones winning primaries, have chosen to take an explicitly white populist stance.

Can you give me an explicitly pro-white quote from a successful modern politician?

I didn't say pro-white. I said white populist. There is a difference. Calkin Obama the food stamp president is a populist tactic.

When you say that Romney and McCain lost because they weren't radical enough sounds like the guy at the poker table saying that he only lost because he didn't bet big enough.

This is politics. This is how the game works. You make your pitch to the people and the people say yea or nay. When you lose and start making excuses instead of actually being critical about your performance, it just guarantees that you'll never make progress.

[Blunt]

(01-17-2014 08:57 PM)Flint Wrote:  

Serious question to all yanks here: Why do care so much who your President is going to be as if s/he could ruin your personal life?
...
So, why would Hillary be so much worse than Obama, Jeb Bush or Christie? Don't see the point.

Because Hillary especially will play the feminist card to get in to office and slowly start pushing 3rd wave feminist policies down our throat.

"The war on women" is a very successful scare tactic that they will use against Republicans.

Federal policies do affect young men. For example, they are forcing colleges to lower the standards for conviction of sexual assault (see the related thread ).

[Gator]

(01-17-2014 08:57 PM)Flint Wrote:  

95% of the other stuff that affects your daily lives is not decided by the federal government but by states and counties. You guys even have it very easy to file for a popular vote in your city or state. You can vote and change the laws on fucking everything you want on the local level which in my home country is mostly decided on the national level or subject to internal administrative decision-making: drugs, prisons, sentencing, police chiefs, property taxes, business regulations, schools, environmental protection, guns, etc.

That's simply not the reality of the situation any longer, unfortunately. He who has the money makes the rules. I'll give an example:

During the 1970's, the drinking age is every state was 18. If you could be drafted into military service, many argued you should have the right to drink a beer and vote (the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by an amendment to the Constitution during this same time). At the start of the 1980's some states began raising their own drinking ages partly because of a populist movement to curtail drunk driving. To effectively push the other states into line, the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required all states to raise the legal age to 21 or forfeit 10% of their federal highway funds. Not surprisingly, every state followed suit.

That's just one example. The feds shutting down marijuana dispensaries in California could be viewed as another. States that have tried to promote autonomy and nullify federal edicts have consistently had their asses handed to them. South Carolina once attempted to secede and we know how that turned out.

The simplest way to look at this is, as a US citizen, who collects most of your income each year, state government or federal? That is your master.

[BLarsen]

Remember back in 2002 when Barry O. was pushing that Hope and Change bullshit? Then when he got elected he eventually morphed into a black George W. Bush?

Hilary will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. She will get into office, find out the horrible truth about things and nothing will change. The game is rigged. Penis or vagina. Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter.

The only thing that will change things is an economic collapse (IT'S COMING!) or a major war. And by major war I don't mean an invented war for resources (*coughcoughIRAQcoughcough*) I mean WW3.

[Bacchus]

I've seen a few of these:

[Sawyer]

(01-17-2014 09:07 PM)j r Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 08:39 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 08:35 PM)j r Wrote:  

I don't buy the argument that whites or white men are less tribal than everybody else. The Republicans, or at least the ones winning primaries, have chosen to take an explicitly white populist stance.

Can you give me an explicitly pro-white quote from a successful modern politician?

I didn't say pro-white. I said white populist. There is a difference. Calkin Obama the food stamp president is a populist tactic.

When you say that Romney and McCain lost because they weren't radical enough sounds like the guy at the poker table saying that he only lost because he didn't bet big enough.

This is politics. This is how the game works. You make your pitch to the people and the people say yea or nay. When you lose and start making excuses instead of actually being critical about your performance, it just guarantees that you'll never make progress.

But I am making my pitch and being critical about the performance. My pitch is that I don't believe McCain or Romney made an explicit enough pro-white right wing pitch. Ergo they were shitty candidates, ergo they lost. My pitch is that the Republican base will no longer bother voting for a neoconservative in a national election. To trump the neoconservative label and draw the white conservative base again, a candidate will absolutely have to go full-on balls-out neoreactionary, and trust that the people will respond in spite of the media antics.

[Vitriol]

(01-17-2014 09:48 PM)BLarsen Wrote:  

Hilary will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. She will get into office, find out the horrible truth about things and nothing will change. The game is rigged. Penis or vagina. Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter.

They all have to tow the line when they get elected to the presidency. She isn't going to change the gradual downward spiral our country has been on since Sept. 11th 2001. Expect the limitations on the First and Fourth Amendments to get worse, and the large scale surveillance to continue regardless of what the feds tell us they've done to limit the NSA's powers.

If you wanna know what happens to a president who actually does try to make changes, ask Johnny...

[Mod: Gore image removed.]

[Suits]

I'll be safely relocated to a safer continent by 2016, so no worries here.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-17-2014 10:34 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:48 PM)BLarsen Wrote:  

Hilary will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. She will get into office, find out the horrible truth about things and nothing will change. The game is rigged. Penis or vagina. Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter.

They all have to tow the line when they get elected to the presidency. She isn't going to change the gradual downward spiral our country has been on since Sept. 11th 2001. Expect the limitations on the First and Fourth Amendments to get worse, and the large scale surveillance to continue regardless of what the feds tell us they've done to limit the NSA's powers.

If you wanna know what happens to a president who actually does try to make changes, ask Johnny...

[Mod: Gore image removed.]

[greensteelhead]

Ah, JR, you go on believing that Barak Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmmmm) isn't the "food stamp President", and you will get me to pull out the statistics. Same on the amount of debt this assclown has heaped on us all.

Obamacare is a disaster in the making, and we continue to print script like there is no tomorrow. By about 2016, I am guessing that we will be right about $22 Trillion in debt, and the wheels on the bus are going to be ready to pop off. I just cannot see how printing to oblivion does not create a Weimar Germany-style economy. We have been graced with incredibly low interest rates, but if it ticks up, it will put a massive crunch on what our government is doing and spending. Additionally, there has been no budget passed from our wonderful Congress in years; instead, they existing on Continuous Resolutions (CRs - we just had another one) and continue to kick all cans down the street. There is not a leader in DC....they are all corrupt and disgusting losers.

Hillary is going to run. I have people in my area plastering their cars with that God-awful bumper sticker already. Silly bastards. Team Clinton is good at campaigning and destroying opponents, but that shining personality and screech is going to drive people insane. I am sure Bill will "stand by his (wo)man" and help as only he can, but perhaps his wandering eyes and cigar will create other problems.

Obamacare is going to be a tipping point. My father-in-law tried to sign up for it, and he waited for 63 days for someone to call him back. This was after calling to the state-run exchange and then working his way to state representatives and Senators. He still has no clue if he is enrolled, even though he used the website and entered all his information. This is a quagmire, and just wait until people try to use the worthless shit. It is going to be a disaster (and already is as people try to use it). When Obama's waiver orgy and exemption-deals expire, all hell is going to break loose. Why? Because it touches everyone in the US, and eventually all citizens are going to get bent over by a "benevolent" government and their ABC agencies.

I digress. The Republicans were down until October-November. Obamacare gave them new life. Yes, there is strife internally, and that is a good thing and a good fight. Personally, I believe there is little difference in the shade of "Progressive" between the established Republicans and the Democrats. Each wants a big, sloppy government that pays friends and donors to maintain status and power. That is why you have little change when one party is elected over the other in Congress. The two parties really come together to screw the individual and keep elected politicians (the ruling elite) in power is Goal #1. I am hoping that people will wake up and destroy both parties.

Frankly, I would prefer a Libertarian route: one where "Libertarians are silently taking over the world so they can leave us the fuck alone to live as we so choose." That might only happen after there is no money left to spend (or that is worth a damn). The bubbles created on Wall Street, Student Loans and the Housing Market will crash at some point....God help us all.

My plan? Learn skills that will be useful and in demand for when the shit goes down and economy stops functioning. Develop networks of like-minded people, and develop relationships in the neighborhood. I am getting good at urban gardening, carpentry, food preservation and wine making. These skills will be useful. Since I am an engineer, I have useful skills that will be in demand.

I also have a plan in place to head to Canada (a few hours away) to get across the border if shit goes really bad, and eventually flee to Chile. the one concern I have is that I would hate to be a US refugee when the world wants to beat on the last superpower and all her citizens. That is a last resort.

[RockHard]

(01-17-2014 08:57 PM)Flint Wrote:  

The president is often called "the most powerful man in the world" yet to me he seems to be a lame duck, basically, and not that influential on the domestic level when I compare the office to the constitional role of heads-of-governments in other countries.

Granted, he has his executive orders and can exert a lot of influence in international affairs, questions of war & peace and federal government issues. But even that seems to be severely limited by the US constitution. On the other hand, Congress is fucking powerful and can block basically everything the President wants to do. Checks and balances work much differently than in European parliamentary systems and the whole lawmaking process is much more competitive among the branches than in France or Germany.

What you're missing is that the executive branch controls most of the government. If you look at who runs what, the judicial and legislative branches amount to a few thousand employees each, and the rest of the federal employees are ultimately reporting to the President, who appoints cabinet heads to run all the various departments.

While Congress can block the President, it's more the other way around - it's much harder to get 500+ people to attain majority than it is for one guy to say "no". On top of that the President gets to appoint judges to the supreme court, which is immense power. A President who can appoint 2 or 3 judges can guide policy for decades after his death - just look at FDR who appointed 8 justices to the court and in the subsequent decades there was a radical reworking of the law in the US. Then there's Federal Reserve governors, who get 14 year appointments.

This is what you're voting for with the President - it's not so much about the one man, it's about the thousands of other people he'll bring with him, all the cabinet heads, the middle managers, advisors, etc. I don't know how it is in Europe, but when there's a change of party in the White House, it's like an invading army taking over.

[Tail Gunner]

(01-17-2014 08:02 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones. You can go back to the beginning of the last century and make the comparisons. Not even close. FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. Those men have all been treated like rockstars overseas.

That is some seriously spaced-out historical revisionism.

JFK's weakness, especially in regard to the Bay of Pigs, prompted the Cuban Missile Crisis and brought the nation to the brink of nuclear war.

Carter's weakness prompted the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan on its march towards a warm water port.

Obama has garnered nothing but contempt from the likes of Putin and all the belligerent leaders of the Middle East nations.

Clinton was probably the most competent of the four, but continually involved the U.S. in military conflicts where we it no vital national interests (Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, etc.) Then he refused a request by our military commanders to provide armored vehicles to the troops in Somalia. Anyone who has watched "Black Hawk Down" knows how that turned out.

Ronald Reagan was more respected by our friends and feared by our enemies than JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama combined.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-18-2014 02:45 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 08:02 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones. You can go back to the beginning of the last century and make the comparisons. Not even close. FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. Those men have all been treated like rockstars overseas.

That is some seriously spaced-out historical revisionism.

JFK's weakness, especially in regard to the Bay of Pigs, prompted the Cuban Missile Crisis and brought the nation to the brink of nuclear war.

Carter's weakness prompted the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan on its march towards a warm water port.

Obama has garnered nothing but contempt from the likes of Putin and all the belligerent leaders of the Middle East nations.

Clinton was probably the most competent of the four, but continually involved the U.S. in military conflicts where we it no vital national interests (Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, etc.) Then he refused a request by our military commanders to provide armored vehicles to the troops in Somalia. Anyone who has watched "Black Hawk Down" knows how that turned out.

Ronald Reagan was more respected by our friends and feared by our enemies than JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama combined.

Funny to see you having debates with yourself armchair. Where did I even mention Carter btw? F-D-R.

Not sure why you went on a worthless and irrelevant rant about foreign policy matters when I was talking about the popularity of Dem Presidents overseas. They are far more respected, liked, and well-known than their Republican counterparts by the international public. Not even a matter of debate. Anyone who's spent significant time overseas or is simply informed about US perception in foreign countries understands this. There's even polling done on this. Obama was the overwhelming choice in most countries during both his elections. Bill Clinton gets mobbed wherever he goes when he travels abroad. When I was in Brazil during Obama's first election victory, you would have thought he was running for office down there. JFK was an international celebrity and is still remembered by many.

Have fun debating yourself.

[Tex Pro]