• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Rand Paul promises to 'take our country back' in 2016 White House bid | Reuters
Senator Rand Paul promised to be a different kind of Republican on Tuesday, launching a 2016 White House bid that he said would highlight the conservative principles of reduced government and spending as he vowed to break up "the Washington machine."

The senator from Kentucky, a libertarian who has built a national reputation for challenging party orthodoxy, criticized Republicans in Congress and recent Republican presidents for helping to drive up the federal debt and reducing personal liberties.
Click to expand...
He's behind Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee, and he is close to tied with Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio.
The anti-war agitator who mounted a 13-hour filibuster to call attention to the United States' use of drones recently proposed a boost to military spending. The firebrand who wants to scale back the authority of the Federal Reserve has been quietly courting Wall Street donors.
Click to expand...
Thus seeming like a sellout to some of his supporters and his father's supporters.
 
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
bilby said:
Gradually.
A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.
Click to expand...
Odd, we had 16 years of Democrat rule in the White House since 1992, and the nation's voting habits have shifted right. It took 100,000+ dead Iraqis (well more like 10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers) for the Republicans to lose control of Congress.
Click to expand...
Well it's a good thing that the President of the United States is the only elected position in your government, and that the Executive branch of government is the sole power in the land; because otherwise your point would be badly flawed.

Perhaps the reason that the Republicans maintained control of Congress has something to do with the lack of people voting for the fractionally less evil alternatives?
Click to expand...
Not really. In the US, Democrat turnout isn't as high during non Presidential elections. So that doesn't help much. Then there are the millions of Americans that are voting against their best interests because they've been convinced to do so by rich radio personalities.

- - - Updated - - -

lpetrich said:
Rand Paul promises to 'take our country back' in 2016 White House bid | Reuters

He's behind Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee, and he is close to tied with Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio.
The anti-war agitator who mounted a 13-hour filibuster to call attention to the United States' use of drones recently proposed a boost to military spending. The firebrand who wants to scale back the authority of the Federal Reserve has been quietly courting Wall Street donors.
Click to expand...
Thus seeming like a sellout to some of his supporters and his father's supporters.
Click to expand...
Oh thank god! Someone that promises to change things. Completely unlike George W. Bush who would work with both parties and end partisan rancor. Or Barrack Obama who promised to make the Federal Government transparent and accountable.

I look forward to this change thing Rand Paul speaks of.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
bilby said:
Gradually.
A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.
Click to expand...
Odd, we had 16 years of Democrat rule in the White House since 1992, and the nation's voting habits have shifted right. It took 100,000+ dead Iraqis (well more like 10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers) for the Republicans to lose control of Congress.
Click to expand...
Well it's a good thing that the President of the United States is the only elected position in your government, and that the Executive branch of government is the sole power in the land; because otherwise your point would be badly flawed.

Perhaps the reason that the Republicans maintained control of Congress has something to do with the lack of people voting for the fractionally less evil alternatives?
Click to expand...
Not really. In the US, Democrat turnout isn't as high during non Presidential elections. So that doesn't help much. Then there are the millions of Americans that are voting against their best interests because they've been convinced to do so by rich radio personalities.
Click to expand...

So it's not a lack of people voting Democrat; rather it is Democrats not turning out to vote?

I am glad you could clear that up for me. ;)
 
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
bilby said:
Gradually.
A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.
Click to expand...
Odd, we had 16 years of Democrat rule in the White House since 1992, and the nation's voting habits have shifted right. It took 100,000+ dead Iraqis (well more like 10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers) for the Republicans to lose control of Congress.
Click to expand...
Well it's a good thing that the President of the United States is the only elected position in your government, and that the Executive branch of government is the sole power in the land; because otherwise your point would be badly flawed.

Perhaps the reason that the Republicans maintained control of Congress has something to do with the lack of people voting for the fractionally less evil alternatives?
Click to expand...
Not really. In the US, Democrat turnout isn't as high during non Presidential elections. So that doesn't help much. Then there are the millions of Americans that are voting against their best interests because they've been convinced to do so by rich radio personalities.
Click to expand...
So it's not a lack of people voting Democrat; rather it is Democrats not turning out to vote?

I am glad you could clear that up for me. ;)
Click to expand...
Heh... it's American Politics. It isn't supposed to make sense. If it were, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz wouldn't have been elected. And most importantly politicians running for President wouldn't continually be saying they'll change shit they'll never change once elected.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
If we must choose between a lesser of two evils, then how are we ever going to get to the point where we can vote against evil?

A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.
Click to expand...
I recommend studying:
Maurice Duverger himself explains why first-past-the-post voting is vulnerable the spoiler effect:
The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated.
Click to expand...
Proportional representation, however, much more easily allows multiple parties to be represented. It's used by most of the top scorers in the Economist magazine's Democracy Index (long-time bottom scorer: North Korea) and most of the bottom scorers in the Fund for Peace's Fragile-States Index (the long-time top scorer: Somalia).
 
My bad. I'd created a second thread on this subject (2016 US Presidential Election) not long after creating this one. :(

Rand Paul Is Losing His Father’s Base | FiveThirtyEight
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign is less than a day old but already suffers from an identity crisis. Paul wants to win, but he can only do so if he is seen as more mainstream than his father, Ron Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. At the same time, Paul can’t completely jettison the far-left and far-right positions that have made him a hero to the substantial number of Republican libertarians who made up his father’s base.

In Paul’s dream world, he’ll satisfy everyone. In the most likely real world, he’ll end up satisfying no one.
Click to expand...
Like in foreign policy,
When was the last time you heard Paul accused of being an isolationist? He used to advocate for cutting foreign aid to Israel, but now he offers pro-Israeli bill after pro-Israeli bill to cut off funding to the Palestinians. He once seemed to favor President Obama’s diplomatic overtures to Iran, but he signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter aimed at hurting those negotiations. Paul was once reluctant to get involved in fighting the Islamic State, but he now wants more airstrikes. ...

While there doesn’t seem to be as much visible hatred for Paul as there is for, say, Ted Cruz among his fellow senators, Paul is one of the few candidates who is attracting opponents to jump into the presidential race just to stop him. Lindsey Graham — and potentially John Bolton — might waste half a year or more of their lives campaigning in large part because they disagree with Paul on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
 
Who ever is chosen as the Presidential candidate I'll bet most Americans will be glad to see the back of Obama!
 
angelo said:
Who ever is chosen as the Presidential candidate I'll bet most Americans will be glad to see the back of Obama!
Click to expand...

No shit!

I mean, when Barack Hussein (OMFG HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!!!) Obama took over as President, America was a strong nation with a kick-ass economy. The stock market was on fire (literally, burning) the housing market was on fire (literally, burning) and every economic indicator was pointing towards a decade of prosperity.


Then on January 20th, 2009, the American economy crashed. Why? Barack Hussein...sorry...HUSSEIN Obama.


And for the last six years the economy has languished. Unemployment has exploded. Gas prices are at 8 dollars a gallon. The stock market is at record lows.


If only we could return things back to the way they were when George W. Bush was in office.
 
lpetrich said:
My bad. I'd created a second thread on this subject (2016 US Presidential Election) not long after creating this one. :(

Rand Paul Is Losing His Father’s Base | FiveThirtyEight

Like in foreign policy,
When was the last time you heard Paul accused of being an isolationist? He used to advocate for cutting foreign aid to Israel, but now he offers pro-Israeli bill after pro-Israeli bill to cut off funding to the Palestinians. He once seemed to favor President Obama’s diplomatic overtures to Iran, but he signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter aimed at hurting those negotiations. Paul was once reluctant to get involved in fighting the Islamic State, but he now wants more airstrikes. ...

While there doesn’t seem to be as much visible hatred for Paul as there is for, say, Ted Cruz among his fellow senators, Paul is one of the few candidates who is attracting opponents to jump into the presidential race just to stop him. Lindsey Graham — and potentially John Bolton — might waste half a year or more of their lives campaigning in large part because they disagree with Paul on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Libertarianism is not popular with the Tea Party base. There is a reason Ron Paul was never a reasonable threat to win the nomination... ever! Even when almost everyone else dropped out.

How bad was it? The Republicans sided with Santorum as the alternative to Romney. Santorum! That'd be like being at a dance and there is this girl and only two guys, you and her cousin... and she picks to dance with her cousin.
 
Yeah, I know the theory lpetrich. And the theory is bullshit. It says "if you agree with one candidate 1% of the time and the other candidate 2% of the time, you should tactically vote for the guy you only agree with 2% of the time."

And that's bullshit designed in order to eliminate the 3rd party menace, since after all the votes belong to the two established parties and not to the voters.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Yeah, I know the theory lpetrich. And the theory is bullshit. It says "if you agree with one candidate 1% of the time and the other candidate 2% of the time, you should tactically vote for the guy you only agree with 2% of the time."

And that's bullshit designed in order to eliminate the 3rd party menace, since after all the votes belong to the two established parties and not to the voters.
Click to expand...
The good news is I agree with the Democrat Party about 50% of the time and the Republican Party about 0%.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Yeah, I know the theory lpetrich. And the theory is bullshit. It says "if you agree with one candidate 1% of the time and the other candidate 2% of the time, you should tactically vote for the guy you only agree with 2% of the time."
Click to expand...
JH, wouldn't you like proportional representation? That way, your favorite political parties can get some seats even if they don't get much of the vote.
And that's bullshit designed in order to eliminate the 3rd party menace, since after all the votes belong to the two established parties and not to the voters.
Click to expand...
But if your preferred candidates always lose, then what?
 
Ford said:
angelo said:
Who ever is chosen as the Presidential candidate I'll bet most Americans will be glad to see the back of Obama!
Click to expand...

No shit!

I mean, when Barack Hussein (OMFG HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!!!) Obama took over as President, America was a strong nation with a kick-ass economy. The stock market was on fire (literally, burning) the housing market was on fire (literally, burning) and every economic indicator was pointing towards a decade of prosperity.


Then on January 20th, 2009, the American economy crashed. Why? Barack Hussein...sorry...HUSSEIN Obama.


And for the last six years the economy has languished. Unemployment has exploded. Gas prices are at 8 dollars a gallon. The stock market is at record lows.


If only we could return things back to the way they were when George W. Bush was in office.
Click to expand...
The oldest trick in the political book! Always blame the previous government, and make outlandish promises you know can't be kept. It works every time!
 
Rand Paul seems to be turning himself into a typical Republican. No wonder his father's groupies have become so disappointed in him.

Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian | ThinkProgress
But is Rand Paul a libertarian? He certainly likes to talk like a libertarian. Let’s take a look at where he stands on the issues.

Rand Paul Opposes Abortion Rights, Sponsored Legislation That Would Make All Abortions Illegal ...

Rand Paul Opposes Same-Sex Marriage, Finds It ‘Offensive’ ...

Rand Paul Supports A Massive Increase In Defense Spending ...

Rand Paul Supports Extensive Use Of Drones At Home And Abroad ...

Rand Paul Opposes The Legalization Of Marijuana ...

Rand Paul Suggested Putting People In Prison For Listening To ‘Radical Political Speeches’ ...
Click to expand...

Rand Paul Changes His Tune On Defense Spending | ThinkProgress
In his first year in the Senate, Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a budget that called for a $164 billion cut to defense spending by 2016. “Military funding has often far outpaced not only our most likely enemies, but has often outpaced the entire world’s military spending combined,” he wrote at the time as he outlined his plan for a “draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense.”

Just four years later, as he prepares to mount a presidential campaign in early April, Paul is changing his tune. Late Wednesday, he introduced a budget amendment which would increase the defense budget by 16 percent, or $190 billion, over the next two years, TIME reported.
Click to expand...
Or else he wants to get the warmonger vote.

Rand Paul Attacks Reporter For Questioning His Reversal On Iran, Mansplains How To Conduct An Interview | ThinkProgress
During an interview with NBC’s Today show on Wednesday, GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul backed away from comments he made in 2007 suggesting that Iran did not pose a threat to the United States. Paul reversed himself just one day after formally announcing his presidential ambitions. ...

Asked to clarify the contradiction, Paul first bickered with the question, challenged Guthrie’s interview skills, and then reluctantly explained that he made his comments before he ran for office. “2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of time,” Paul said. “We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office, when I was helping someone else run for office.
Click to expand...
How convenient.
 
Ted Cruz is tired of the media making him look bad with accurately quoted remarks
According to Mediaite, Harwood pressed Cruz, asking him why people should support him when the facts he uses to bolster his points don’t match up with the truth.

“You’ve said a few things that don’t necessarily comport with the facts,” said Harwood. He quoted a statement by Cruz asserting that there are “125,000 I.R.S. agents, [so] send ‘em to the border.”

“They’ve only got 25,000 agents,” Harwood said.

Furthermore, Cruz claimed that Obamacare would kill jobs, said Harwood. It hasn’t.

“Why shouldn’t somebody listen to you and say, ‘The guy’ll just say anything — doesn’t have to be true?’” Harwood asked.

“There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers,” Cruz said. “It’s this new species of yellow journalism called PolitiFact. Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they’re literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.”
Click to expand...
What a sore loser Ted Cruz is. His response reminds me of the joke that reality has a liberal bias.

Scott Walker's Spectacular Flip-Flop On Political Contributions From The Gambling Industry | ThinkProgress
He was outraged when it helped Democratic politicians, but he became OK with it when he started receiving it.

Koch-Backed Candidates Aren't Following Their New Criminal Justice Push | ThinkProgress
The billionaire mogul Koch Brothers have made headlines in recent months for two reasons: the staggering amount they plan to spend backing conservatives in the 2016 election, and their push for an overhaul of the nation’s criminal justice system.

The greatest infringement on individual liberty and the poor is in the criminal justice system,” Koch Industries executive Mark Holden declared at a recent conference on criminal justice reform in Washington, DC. ...

“We support candidates who advance freedom for all, and this is a key component of that. It’s very important to us,” he added.

But in recent elections, the Koch Brothers have thrown their financial weight behind candidates who have a record of putting more people in prison, keeping them there for longer and spending more money on mass incarceration.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom