Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[boo836]

Why would the Murphy Amendment have undermined education? The only negative I really see is the typical Libertarian talking point of federal overreach. However, education, from instructional methods to the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed, are pretty universal... Without a standard, or some sensible minimum requirements, you'll have some states excel, but also many fail. Unlike many state-level issues, a poor early education is immensely damaging to a child's future success; essentially, a better childhood education results in improved adulthood.

I disagree with current success metrics, accountability, and funding methods for schools, and so far the federal government has done little to improve these aspects, but states have done no better. A solid public education system is one of the most important services a government can provide to children, and in turn, the future generations. If you leave such a critical issue to states, you'll get massive disparities in quality of education and put more burden on other agencies when federal involvement is necessary (such as upholding civil rights). Even now, there's many states that fight tooth and nail to teach "intelligent design" as a plausible theory alongside evolution, and just recently, Texas schools are now rewriting history to fit their policymaker's biased, conservative viewpoints. Without federal governance, this problem will become increasingly worse.

Regarding your point about Sanders being a US imperialist, I found that surprising, so I did a little research. Does this article do justice on your stance regarding Sanders' imperialism? In any case, I noticed he tended to vote only for bills that had minimal ground involvement, such as the 2001 bill. His anti-visa stance makes sense when you consider corporations abusing it to essentially import workers to replace qualified American employees. Funnily enough, pro-globalization (typically a Republican stance) or pro-immigration (typically a Democrat stance), you are essentially introducing the same core issue, forcing Americans to compete with the global workforce, for good or bad, and neither group of policymakers wants to deal with the side effects of their policies.

To be honest, I do not have a problem with the idea of US imperialism (in the sense of protecting our interests abroad). In theory, the US is a pioneering country, ahead of its time from its inception. What we (as a country) stand for was unmatched until relatively recently, and still remains superior in many ways (top one off my head is the broad definition of freedom of speech; hate speech laws, common in many European countries, are unconstitutional, among others, which is incredibly important from a freedom standpoint). In practice, we do plenty of horrible things (recently you have outright constitutional violations with the NSA, shady deals with rebels, invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, so on and so on).

But what other country could hope to stem a more malicious superpower-to-be? For example, China has immense interest in supporting Africa. I would go as far to say as they have better relations with Africa than the US does today. Yet, China is by no means a champion of human rights or freedoms, in words or actions--and they are the most viable future superpower. China is by no means USSR, but their policies are in direct opposition to Western ideals.

Even though Dos Passos wrote his image of the US some 80 years past, I still hold it to be true and an excellent summary of what our country stands for, and post an excerpt here: "U.S.A. is the slice of a continent. U.S.A. is a group of holding companies, some aggregations of trade unions, a set of laws bound in calf, a radio network, a chain of moving picture theatres, a column of stockquotations rubbed out and written in by a Western Union boy on a blackboard, a public-library full of old newspapers and dogeared historybooks with protests scrawled on the margin in pencil. U.S.A. is the world's greatest rivervalley fringed with mountains and hills, U.S.A. is a set of bigmouthed officials with too many bankaccounts. U.S.A. is a lot of men buried in their uniforms in Arlington Cemetery. U.S.A. is the letters at the end of an address when you are away from home. But mostly U.S.A. is the speech of the people."

I wasn't arguing from a libertarian point. The Murphy Amendment extended cut-for-fail policies that have stripped away education funding for poorer schools. Furthermore, that article doesn't touch up on Israel enough.

The rest of your post makes me want to vomit profusely after that. Western imperialism treats local lives as collateral, and sets forth a supremacist agenda. Thirty years ago, the United States and its allies were strong backers of apartheid South Africa. Ten years ago (And even today), it's evolved into Judeo-Christian supremacy since evangelicals have gained even more political influence, and has constantly played a divide and conquer game in the Middle East, especially between the Shias, Sunnis, and Wahhabists. Typically, the United States has backed Wahhabi STATES, and funding Wahhabi organizations until they turn hostile to "American interests" and sow discord in the Middle East and Africa. Examples would include both al Qaeda and ISIL. Hell, that's without even getting into the complicated relationships of Ba'athist regimes such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad.

Something else I found disturbing (aside from the exceptionalist rhetoric, which is pretty fucking scary) is that you view immigration and outsourcing as having the same result. Economically speaking, they're clearly different, as one produces FOR the United States, whereas the other does so for another country. That you seem to not count immigrants as Americans makes me wonder where your true sympathies lie, as everything else you've stated has pointed to a nationalistic and exceptionalistic outlook.

Edit: There's no such thing as a "malicious" superpower, unless you're arguing from another nation's viewpoint. Political entities act in their own interests. Personally, I treat every superpower as malicious to my ideals of liberty, equality and cooperation. If you want a better example of a rising superpower though, I wouldn't look at just China, but also the BRICS countries and Eurasian Economic Union (which is basically a neoliberal USSR).

 

[Max Carvalho]

Oh how odd, evangelical people rise to power reminds me of here to be honest.
Anyway, if I even was american, I would vote for Deez Nuts. I mean, just to show how disappointed I am after reading a bunch about the front-runners and after I all know about the two parties. Ugh, Deez Nuts would make for a nice screw-you-all vote. Unfortunately, the guy is a KID, so even if I was american, I wouldn't be able to vote him D :
On a more serious note, if there isn't any moderate canditate in these elections, could someone tell me any moderate canditate that ran for president so I can read about him/her?

 

[veiva]

I wasn't arguing from a libertarian point. The Murphy Amendment extended cut-for-fail policies that have stripped away education funding for poorer schools. Furthermore, that article doesn't touch up on Israel enough.

The rest of your post makes me want to vomit profusely after that. Western imperialism treats local lives as collateral, and sets forth a supremacist agenda. Thirty years ago, the United States and its allies were strong backers of apartheid South Africa. Ten years ago (And even today), it's evolved into Judeo-Christian supremacy since evangelicals have gained even more political influence, and has constantly played a divide and conquer game in the Middle East, especially between the Shias, Sunnis, and Wahhabists. Typically, the United States has backed Wahhabi STATES, and funding Wahhabi organizations until they turn hostile to "American interests" and sow discord in the Middle East and Africa. Examples would include both al Qaeda and ISIL. Hell, that's without even getting into the complicated relationships of Ba'athist regimes such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad.

Something else I found disturbing (aside from the exceptionalist rhetoric, which is pretty fucking scary) is that you view immigration and outsourcing as having the same result. Economically speaking, they're clearly different, as one produces FOR the United States, whereas the other does so for another country. That you seem to not count immigrants as Americans makes me wonder where your true sympathies lie, as everything else you've stated has pointed to a nationalistic and exceptionalistic outlook.

Edit: There's no such thing as a "malicious" superpower, unless you're arguing from another nation's viewpoint. Political entities act in their own interests. Personally, I treat every superpower as malicious to my ideals of liberty, equality and cooperation. If you want a better example of a rising superpower though, I wouldn't look at just China, but also the BRICS countries and Eurasian Economic Union (which is basically a neoliberal USSR).

Regarding the Murphy Amendment, how would it cut or strip funding from poor schools? Sources I found indicate it would force districts to create a plan for failing schools, but funding would, by no means, by affected; in essence, it would be a way for districts to acknowledge failing schools and respond by determining various causes of the failure (many of which tend to be as a result of mistreatment of minorities). See this article, particularly this bit:

But, unlike No Child Left Behind, which threatened failing schools with a loss of federal funds, there would be no penalty assessed on a chronically underperforming school.

Regarding US imperialism, I feel any discussion about it would be futile. I'd like to note that post-WWII and the rise of the USSR are pretty big reasons for modern US imperialism, although by now it's pretty indirect. I suppose if you'd prefer USSR to have been the sole disruption in Asia and the Middle East, you're free to hold that stance.

Americans (i.e., citizens of the United States of America; this is the definition I was using) includes naturalized citizens, which of course were immigrants. Visa holders, until they are naturalized citizens, are not citizens. They cannot vote, they can lose their residency through deceitful actions, and various other limitations. Illegal immigrants, contrarily, violated the standard immigration process, showing disregard for American laws from the first day. Open borders policies can be very damaging to a country. A country is not just a government and piece of land, it's a distinct cultural and social system (that's why I had the Dos Passos excerpt, but it seems you didn't understand my intent). Immigration can erode these unique aspects of a country, which is why it should be regulated. Immigrants who refuse to integrate pose major problems for countries and communities they are a part of.

In honesty, I feel globalization has hurt the world more than immigration policies. It has provided dramatically more power and influence to corporations at the cost of worker's rights in many countries. Globalization has led to the exploitation of workers in countries with poor civil rights, allowing slavery, child labor, unsafe working regulations, and countless other atrocities, only benefiting those at the very top, while essentially hurting everyone else. Open borders policies would be similar; countries with superior worker rights would be flooded with labor and potential employees who would accept much lower pay and safety (which, even still, would be massively superior to their home countries).

And yes, every superpower poses a threat globally. That's the reason they're a superpower. However, there's a sliding scale of malevolence. I see the scale as USA is less malevolent than China which is much less malevolent than what the USSR was. The world isn't black and white. Binaries are a human abstraction and aren't very realistic.

On a side note, the bolded statements are truly uncalled for. They are simply toxic. If you feel you cannot civilly discuss or convey disagreements, and if someone with a different opinion makes you physically sick (I'm aware your statement was facetious), then I won't bother. Such statements make me feel that you are intolerant of differing perspectives...

 

[boo836]

Regarding the Murphy Amendment, how would it cut or strip funding from poor schools? Sources I found indicate it would force districts to create a plan for failing schools, but funding would, by no means, by affected; in essence, it would be a way for districts to acknowledge failing schools and respond by determining various causes of the failure (many of which tend to be as a result of mistreatment of minorities). See this article, particularly this bit:



Regarding US imperialism, I feel any discussion about it would be futile. I'd like to note that post-WWII and the rise of the USSR are pretty big reasons for modern US imperialism, although by now it's pretty indirect. I suppose if you'd prefer USSR to have been the sole disruption in Asia and the Middle East, you're free to hold that stance.

Americans (i.e., citizens of the United States of America; this is the definition I was using) includes naturalized citizens, which of course were immigrants. Visa holders, until they are naturalized citizens, are not citizens. They cannot vote, they can lose their residency through deceitful actions, and various other limitations. Illegal immigrants, contrarily, violated the standard immigration process, showing disregard for American laws from the first day. Open borders policies can be very damaging to a country. A country is not just a government and piece of land, it's a distinct cultural and social system (that's why I had the Dos Passos excerpt, but it seems you didn't understand my intent). Immigration can erode these unique aspects of a country, which is why it should be regulated. Immigrants who refuse to integrate pose major problems for countries and communities they are a part of.

In honesty, I feel globalization has hurt the world more than immigration policies. It has provided dramatically more power and influence to corporations at the cost of worker's rights in many countries. Globalization has led to the exploitation of workers in countries with poor civil rights, allowing slavery, child labor, unsafe working regulations, and countless other atrocities, only benefiting those at the very top, while essentially hurting everyone else. Open borders policies would be similar; countries with superior worker rights would be flooded with labor and potential employees who would accept much lower pay and safety (which, even still, would be massively superior to their home countries).

And yes, every superpower poses a threat globally. That's the reason they're a superpower. However, there's a sliding scale of malevolence. I see the scale as USA is less malevolent than China which is much less malevolent than what the USSR was. The world isn't black and white. Binaries are a human abstraction and aren't very realistic.

On a side note, the bolded statements are truly uncalled for. They are simply toxic. If you feel you cannot civilly discuss or convey disagreements, and if someone with a different opinion makes you physically sick (I'm aware your statement was facetious), then I won't bother. Such statements make me feel that you are intolerant of differing perspectives...

Well fuck me for not reading an article. I was just sitting here reading the text of the amendment, which I didn't see as preventing test and punish, but as broadening the schools affected by test and punish. In truth, I sincerely hope I'm incorrect. I don't like thinking that literally no one in Congress gives a shit about education.

As "If we don't do it, the terrorists/Soviets/Chinese win!" Isn't a sound justification for imperialism, and never has been. Seriously, you think that aiding, fostering, and building the Mujahadeen is somehow justified because the Russians supported an already popular socialist movement in the Middle East? Do you think that disseminating chemical weapons to nations like Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was justifiable? How about recent support for Israeli MKs (including at least one deputy speaker) that have quite literally called for Arabs to be placed in concentration camps?

Please don't think I'm the kind of person who is intolerant of other people's positions. Rather, I'm intolerant to your particular positions. Even viewing the US of being "less malevolent" (an absurd phrase to use) than China or the USSR only goes to show that you've got a twisted (or at least poor) understanding of recent history.

Well either that or you're a cunt. I don't want to think that you're a cunt.

Remember, the US sought to subvert socialist influence of any kind, and frequently installed dictators that were just as brutal as the ones the Soviets supported, some even more so. Pinochet, Seko, Medici, the Duvaliers, Hussein, The Sauds, Franco, and many more come to mind. Go look up their wiki pages, I assure you that there's some brutal shit in there.

 

[veiva]

Well fuck me for not reading an article. I was just sitting here reading the text of the amendment, which I didn't see as preventing test and punish, but as broadening the schools affected by test and punish. In truth, I sincerely hope I'm incorrect. I don't like thinking that literally no one in Congress gives a shit about education.

As "If we don't do it, the terrorists/Soviets/Chinese win!" Isn't a sound justification for imperialism, and never has been. Seriously, you think that aiding, fostering, and building the Mujahadeen is somehow justified because the Russians supported an already popular socialist movement in the Middle East? Do you think that disseminating chemical weapons to nations like Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was justifiable? How about recent support for Israeli MKs (including at least one deputy speaker) that have quite literally called for Arabs to be placed in concentration camps?

Please don't think I'm the kind of person who is intolerant of other people's positions. Rather, I'm intolerant to your particular positions. Even viewing the US of being "less malevolent" (an absurd phrase to use) than China or the USSR only goes to show that you've got a twisted (or at least poor) understanding of recent history.

Well either that or you're a cunt. I don't want to think that you're a cunt.

Remember, the US sought to subvert socialist influence of any kind, and frequently installed dictators that were just as brutal as the ones the Soviets supported, some even more so. Pinochet, Seko, Medici, the Duvaliers, Hussein, The Sauds, Franco, and many more come to mind. Go look up their wiki pages, I assure you that there's some brutal shit in there.

I disagree that simply letting the opposing superpower of the time act uncontested was, by any means, a viable option, considering the US was the only country able to pose any reasonable threat after the destruction wrought during the war across Europe and Asia. Still, much like anyone else, I can't comment on how differently society would be if the US had returned to isolationist policies post-WWII. I figure the USSR would have dominated many key locations and their twisted political motivations would have caused dramatically more problems in the end, and if they collapsed (as they most likely always would have, given enough time), the fallout would very well have been much more disastrous. Again, speculation. But do you think a fight can be fought with idealism? Would the USSR have reformed itself without massive economic collapse, and dare say it, even war? I, ideally, believe that the US could have done unanimously morally superior during the Cold War. We could have leveraged positive aspects of our economic and political platforms, but we chose guns instead.

As well, a true socialist economic platform is... really difficult, and perhaps only idealistic. In practice, it's not feasible; it depends on each worker being informed and objective. Much like my stance on American exceptionalism is idealistic, but in practice, it's very mixed as a result of terrible policies (essentially [note: this may not be the right word, I can't figure out if especially is better?] all those you listed). A socialist economy also depends on jobs (i.e., labor) being a necessity. You can work towards an idealistic vision, but the reality of the world will corrode it. Even in the arts (and in this case, I speak from the perspective of literature), idealism is only so feasible (see the major shift from Romanticism to Realism, and then onwards to Modernism and so on).

Historically, the West moved from feudalism to capitalism. From here, I see social democracy being the most realistic next step as technology enables us to move into a post-scarcity world. If, or more likely when, that happens, human labor will (hopefully) be a historical footnote (or, more pessimistically, equality will be that footnote, and the only way you can move is down...). In a post-scarcity world, if the right conditions are met, perhaps a communist platform will actually be possible (if humans are unable to make decisions over others as we do now; this can be done if we delegate our political and economic autonomy to an objective, might-as-well-be-all-knowing AI, but perhaps that's just too sci-fi, even in the next 100+ years).

Lastly, I can figure you're not intolerant of other positions. You're only intolerant of distinctly differing positions. Much like the Republicans who refuse to work with Democrats, or the Democrats who refuse to work with Republicans, this straight-cut idealistic partisanship ("my way is the best, you're wrong [few exceptions apply] so I won't work with you or even consider your stance") doesn't work and leads to the wonderful line up of candidates we have today.

 

[macle]

welp ben carson lost my respect now

 

[macle]

walker seems to be dropping out, i wanted him to stick around longer and say more stupid stuff so that hopefully he doesnt get re-elected

 

[boo836]

welp ben carson lost my respect now

He shouldn't have had anyone's respect ever imo

Or at least insofar as a politician. Man was one hell of a doctor.

 

[phantom]

It's so strange seeing a neurosurgeon like Ben Carson say things you would normally expect from some southern hick. I'm bewildered as to how someone in his field can be as thick as he is.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

Speaking of Ben Carson, he's my pick to win the GOP nomination. He's a political outsider (which the GOP really likes this election cycle) and just seems to have an air of likability around him. He's pretty soft-spoken and doesn't really attack other candidates, and I feel once the Trump bubble bursts a lot of his "we're fed up with the establishment!" support will go over to Carson. Looking at favorability ratings (a much better predictor of electoral success than horse-race polls), Carson dominates the competition. More establishment candidates like Jeb Bush just don't seem to be as interesting as some of the outsiders, and I don't feel like it's as inevitable as Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic side.

Speaking of the Dem. side, I feel like Bernie Sanders is a better national candidate than Hillary is but he has no shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Bernie polls horribly with moderate, female, and racial minority voters, and you just can't win the Democratic nomination without those groups. However, I feel if Bernie went up against a hardcore conservative like Carson, Cruz, or (lol) Trump most voters would err on the side of sanity. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn't as likable as Bernie is and given her recent scandals might turn away a lot of voters. If I had to guess right now, I'm predicting Hilary Clinton defeating Ben Carson in the general election, but I'm probably going to be eating those words by this time next month.

(Being the statistics guy that I am I much prefer looking at polling trends and predicting outcomes than judging the candidates on the issues.)

 

[UncleSam]

There is no world in which Bernie could win a general election but loses the Democratic primary, that is the nature of being the furthest left candidate in the race. If you think Bernie has problems among moderates, women, and minorities then I assure you he will not solve those problems by winning whites, men, and evangelical Christians.

Ben Carson has next to no chance of winning the nomination. He is pretty much the same as Trump just with a more respectable previous job history. The nomination will end up going to Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio now that Walker is out of the race.

 

[boo836]

I disagree that simply letting the opposing superpower of the time act uncontested was, by any means, a viable option, considering the US was the only country able to pose any reasonable threat after the destruction wrought during the war across Europe and Asia. Still, much like anyone else, I can't comment on how differently society would be if the US had returned to isolationist policies post-WWII. I figure the USSR would have dominated many key locations and their twisted political motivations would have caused dramatically more problems in the end, and if they collapsed (as they most likely always would have, given enough time), the fallout would very well have been much more disastrous. Again, speculation. But do you think a fight can be fought with idealism? Would the USSR have reformed itself without massive economic collapse, and dare say it, even war? I, ideally, believe that the US could have done unanimously morally superior during the Cold War. We could have leveraged positive aspects of our economic and political platforms, but we chose guns instead.

Yeah except that's assuming the USSR would have collapsed in the absence of a war. The only way that would happen is if it had more Stalins.

As well, a true socialist economic platform is... really difficult, and perhaps only idealistic. In practice, it's not feasible; it depends on each worker being informed and objective. Much like my stance on American exceptionalism is idealistic, but in practice, it's very mixed as a result of terrible policies (essentially [note: this may not be the right word, I can't figure out if especially is better?] all those you listed). A socialist economy also depends on jobs (i.e., labor) being a necessity. You can work towards an idealistic vision, but the reality of the world will corrode it. Even in the arts (and in this case, I speak from the perspective of literature), idealism is only so feasible (see the major shift from Romanticism to Realism, and then onwards to Modernism and so on).

Socialist economies don't depend on jobs any different than capitalist ones. Exempting certain technologically advanced, idealistic societies.

Historically, the West moved from feudalism to capitalism. From here, I see social democracy being the most realistic next step as technology enables us to move into a post-scarcity world. If, or more likely when, that happens, human labor will (hopefully) be a historical footnote (or, more pessimistically, equality will be that footnote, and the only way you can move is down...). In a post-scarcity world, if the right conditions are met, perhaps a communist platform will actually be possible (if humans are unable to make decisions over others as we do now; this can be done if we delegate our political and economic autonomy to an objective, might-as-well-be-all-knowing AI, but perhaps that's just too sci-fi, even in the next 100+ years).

Post scarcity societies would actually necessitate communism or absolute regression. I'm impressed that you're able to understand the necessity of an AI or some sort of algorithm

Lastly, I can figure you're not intolerant of other positions. You're only intolerant of distinctly differing positions. Much like the Republicans who refuse to work with Democrats, or the Democrats who refuse to work with Republicans, this straight-cut idealistic partisanship ("my way is the best, you're wrong [few exceptions apply] so I won't work with you or even consider your stance") doesn't work and leads to the wonderful line up of candidates we have today.

I hope you realize the GOP and Democrats usually do work together pretty frequently, right? Furthermore, they've swapped positions pretty frequently and typically continue each other's policies.

Speaking of Ben Carson, he's my pick to win the GOP nomination. He's a political outsider (which the GOP really likes this election cycle) and just seems to have an air of likability around him. He's pretty soft-spoken and doesn't really attack other candidates, and I feel once the Trump bubble bursts a lot of his "we're fed up with the establishment!" support will go over to Carson. Looking at favorability ratings (a much better predictor of electoral success than horse-race polls), Carson dominates the competition. More establishment candidates like Jeb Bush just don't seem to be as interesting as some of the outsiders, and I don't feel like it's as inevitable as Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic side.

Speaking of the Dem. side, I feel like Bernie Sanders is a better national candidate than Hillary is but he has no shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Bernie polls horribly with moderate, female, and racial minority voters, and you just can't win the Democratic nomination without those groups. However, I feel if Bernie went up against a hardcore conservative like Carson, Cruz, or (lol) Trump most voters would err on the side of sanity. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn't as likable as Bernie is and given her recent scandals might turn away a lot of voters. If I had to guess right now, I'm predicting Hilary Clinton defeating Ben Carson in the general election, but I'm probably going to be eating those words by this time next month.

(Being the statistics guy that I am I much prefer looking at polling trends and predicting outcomes than judging the candidates on the issues.)

I don't know whether I should be impressed or disgusted if they do. Tbh tho i'm thinking Jeb Bush will get the candidacy. When it gets down to it, parties stick to safer options. The Clintons and the Bushs already have a brand going, and undecided voters will typically stick to that.

 

[Bughouse]

Nah I think Ben Carson is from Kenya and has a fake birth certificate.

 

[veiva]

I hope you realize the GOP and Democrats usually do work together pretty frequently, right? Furthermore, they've swapped positions pretty frequently and typically continue each other's policies.

When the two parties work together, it's usually on non-issues or after an extremely long and heated debate. Off the top of my head, even Clinton and Sanders vote together like 93% of the time. However, the "7%" are the major political differences that drastically change what each party (and individual politician) represents.

Also, I'm aware that the stance of each party has flopped back and forth throughout their histories. Good thing we're not talking about the 1860 election, though, right?

Regardless, I feel the Democratic party in the US is still too similar to the Republicans. Their social policies are the most distinct, but their economic policies are all essentially the same. I suppose social equality is nice, but when economic equality or mobility are non-existent, there's not much point; yay, we can all be poor and servants to the 0.1% together, equally!!

 

[Toonchu EU Switzerland]

Poor Donald Trump. He would actually be very good for a president, but Fiorina and her little friends and that thing saying Trump called her stupid or something and Trump replying with "I think she is a beautiful woman" mistake ruined him. I think U.S Elections are fun to see and hear about, but I really don't like the results of them. Ronald Reagan should totally have won the 2014 Elections.
But that's just me.

 

[SteelEdges]

Speaking of Ben Carson, he's my pick to win the GOP nomination. He's a political outsider (which the GOP really likes this election cycle) and just seems to have an air of likability around him. He's pretty soft-spoken and doesn't really attack other candidates, and I feel once the Trump bubble bursts a lot of his "we're fed up with the establishment!" support will go over to Carson. Looking at favorability ratings (a much better predictor of electoral success than horse-race polls), Carson dominates the competition. More establishment candidates like Jeb Bush just don't seem to be as interesting as some of the outsiders, and I don't feel like it's as inevitable as Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic side.

Speaking of the Dem. side, I feel like Bernie Sanders is a better national candidate than Hillary is but he has no shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Bernie polls horribly with moderate, female, and racial minority voters, and you just can't win the Democratic nomination without those groups. However, I feel if Bernie went up against a hardcore conservative like Carson, Cruz, or (lol) Trump most voters would err on the side of sanity. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn't as likable as Bernie is and given her recent scandals might turn away a lot of voters. If I had to guess right now, I'm predicting Hilary Clinton defeating Ben Carson in the general election, but I'm probably going to be eating those words by this time next month.

(Being the statistics guy that I am I much prefer looking at polling trends and predicting outcomes than judging the candidates on the issues.)

I don't think the GOP likes it. Their voters do.

 

[Bughouse]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...epublican-party-history-213212?paginate=false

Super interesting history that helps answer the questions of why the modern day GOP is so different from under Eisenhower (or heck the "party of Lincoln" as they like to call themselves)

Particularly interesting to see this come out of Politico which lately has been pretty conservative.

 

[boo836]

http://www.theroot.com/articles/new...tand_there_and_let_him.html?wpisrc=topstories

Carson has also made it clear that he'll fight every other candidate until they yield or die.

 

[Milhau5]

It would be interesting to see Trump win, and how things would be handled by a non-politician. But that's the novelty, though: voting for someone who's not a traditional politician and is (for better or worse) brutally honest.

If it boils down to just him and Clinton, I would vote him. I can see it being either Hillary and Jeb Bush for the final two, or Hillary and Trump. I don't like any of the choices, but I don't want Hillary in office. I sincerely do not trust her. Benghazi was a thing, you know.

 

[SteelEdges]

Speaking of Ben Carson, he's my pick to win the GOP nomination. He's a political outsider (which the GOP really likes this election cycle) and just seems to have an air of likability around him. He's pretty soft-spoken and doesn't really attack other candidates, and I feel once the Trump bubble bursts a lot of his "we're fed up with the establishment!" support will go over to Carson. Looking at favorability ratings (a much better predictor of electoral success than horse-race polls), Carson dominates the competition. More establishment candidates like Jeb Bush just don't seem to be as interesting as some of the outsiders, and I don't feel like it's as inevitable as Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic side.

Speaking of the Dem. side, I feel like Bernie Sanders is a better national candidate than Hillary is but he has no shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Bernie polls horribly with moderate, female, and racial minority voters, and you just can't win the Democratic nomination without those groups. However, I feel if Bernie went up against a hardcore conservative like Carson, Cruz, or (lol) Trump most voters would err on the side of sanity. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn't as likable as Bernie is and given her recent scandals might turn away a lot of voters. If I had to guess right now, I'm predicting Hilary Clinton defeating Ben Carson in the general election, but I'm probably going to be eating those words by this time next month.

(Being the statistics guy that I am I much prefer looking at polling trends and predicting outcomes than judging the candidates on the issues.)

Oh, I think the GOP voterbase likes outsiders. But they hate the party and its leaders, from my observation. Ask the ones supporting outsiders about Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, hell, even FOX News, and you'll hear about how they're not conservative enough. They threw John Bohener out and applauded his resignation because he wasn't right-wing enough.

 

[Bull Of Heaven]

Benghazi was a thing, you know.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/r...unks-conspiracy-theories-clears-obama-hillary

 

[Myzozoa]

this time on:

why Sanders (and other mainstream politicians) won't get with my posse...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pro-palestine-activists-outside-boston-rally/

And to an extent, I actually don't want to go to an event and talk with a bunch of people who take mainstream american politics seriously; maybe not for the principle but at least for the pleasure.

They presumed to have the cops arrest the pro-palestinian activists.

may the lord have mercy on these white ppl as they endure their Selection

 

[LonelyNess]

It would be interesting to see Trump win, and how things would be handled by a non-politician. But that's the novelty, though: voting for someone who's not a traditional politician and is (for better or worse) brutally honest.

If it boils down to just him and Clinton, I would vote him. I can see it being either Hillary and Jeb Bush for the final two, or Hillary and Trump. I don't like any of the choices, but I don't want Hillary in office. I sincerely do not trust her. Benghazi was a thing, you know.

Why exactly is this novel? If you were getting open heart surgery, wouldn't you want the most qualified and learned surgeon doing the job? Wouldn't you want it to be someone who dedicated his life to medicine? Or would you rather some random guy off the street with a lot of money do it, because HE ISN'T PART OF THE SYSTEM, MAAAAAAAN.

Why would you not want the same amount of experience / dedication from the people running the goddamn country? I sure as hell would rather have someone who knows how politics works than some asshat who decided on a whim to run for president because he has a ton of money.

 

[Shad0wBlazze]

I think the reason Trump and Carson are doing so well is because they're not politicians, everyones tired of candidates who are already senators.

On another note, can we just put our differences asside and say that any of the republican candidates would be way better than Obama (even fucking Christie would do better)

 

[Shrug]

About the whole "not a politician thing ergo more suited to the presidency thing", i was reading an article w/ section that clearly explained why this is a bad argument:

Cynical observation: The fact that John McCain in this morning’s speech several times invoked a “moral poverty” in America, a “loss of shame” that he blamed on “the ceaseless assault of violence-driven entertainment that has lost its moral compass to greed” (McCain’s metaphors tend to mix a bit when he gets excited), and made noises that sounded rather a lot like proposing possible federal regulation of all US entertainment, which would have dicey constitutional implications to say the least—this holds no immediate interest for CNN. Nor are they hunting for the hair-raising place in the speech where McCain declared that our next president should be considered “Commander in Chief of the war on drugs” and granted the authority to send both money and (it sounded like) troops, if necessary, into “nations that seem to need assistance controlling their exports of poisons that threaten our children.” When you consider that state control of the media is one of the big evils we point to to distinguish liberal democracies from repressive regimes, and that sending troops to “assist” in the internal affairs of sovereign nations has gotten the US into some of its worst messes of the last half century, these parts of McCain’s speech seem like the real “fighting words” that a mature democratic electorate might care to hear the news talk about. But we don’t care, evidently, and so neither do the networks. In fact, it’s possible to argue that a big reason why so many young Independents and Democrats are excited about McCain is that the campaign media focus so much attention on McCain’s piss-and-vinegar candor and so little attention on the sometimes extremely scary right-wing stuff this candor drives him to say

David Foster Wallace wrote this while covering the McCain 2000 campaign. The difference is McCain had been a congressman for eighteen years at the time, but the central tenant is the same - valuing "candor" (in this case, bombastic callouts and blather in case of D. Trump and a truly confusing ethical appeal on the part of B. Carson that appears to be "science isn't real - trust me, i'm a doctor" combined with deriding "political correctness" as the reason people call him out on deeply offensive comments with a spice of racism against B. Obama thrown in, though that is de rigueur for a member of GOP '16) over the actual content of their statements is absurd - he of the most dogmatic cant will scream loudest, and I humbly hold government of the most committed shouter is inimical to our democracy.