Road to the White House 2016

[BruceVC]

I'm not all that left-leaning (firmly in between), but at this point, I'd vote for anybody who seems they have even a shred of honesty and integrity...so right now, my current favorite is Bernie Sanders. I do not want to see another Clinton - particularly not this Clinton - and I do not want to see another Bush. I hate U.S. politics.

 

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton 

[Zoraptor]

I believe that due to being Australian his choice vote wise is effectively between the Mad Monk and, uh, William Shorten (I think) in a non presidential race. Then again, I'd vote Sanders in ahead of either of those two options. Any time I feel depressed about kiwi politicos I can always look across the Tasman to be reminded that it could be worse.

 

I was a bit surprised that Sanders was standing for the Democrats though, iirc he actually stands as an independent in congressional elections.

[Volourn]

"should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement"
 

How so?  Clinton, btw, hates the poor and minorities. She is one of the Elite tm.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I believe that due to being Australian his choice vote wise is effectively between the Mad Monk and, uh, William Shorten (I think) in a non presidential race. Then again, I'd vote Sanders in ahead of either of those two options. Any time I feel depressed about kiwi politicos I can always look across the Tasman to be reminded that it could be worse.

 

I was a bit surprised that Sanders was standing for the Democrats though, iirc he actually stands as an independent in congressional elections.

He was elected as an independent, my guess is that he's going the path that will get him the most attention(democratic primary debates) sort of like Ron Paul did.* No idea how it will work out for him, but I'll take almost anyone over Hillary or Jeb.

 

*I know Ron Paul was elected as a Republican, but his history(presidential candidate for Libertarian party) makes him not a typical Republican.

[BruceVC]

"should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement"

 

How so?  Clinton, btw, hates the poor and minorities. She is one of the Elite tm.

 Volo..don't be a class hater...don't resent people who are more successful than you. I respect people who do well due to hard work...we can learn from them 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-has-a-better-fund-raising-start-than-republican-counterparts/?_r=0

 

I'm actually excited about a presidential candidate.

 

Is this what Libertarians felt like when Ron Paul ran?

[Zoraptor]

Is that actually 2008 Hillary data? It's got Lehman Bros on it and they're rather famous for being bankrupt as of 2008.

 

(Unless Barclays are still using the Lehman name in the US, which seems... unlikely. It would be a glowing PR choice, but only because it had been nuked so comprehensively from orbit)

[Volourn]

"Volo..don't be a class hater...don't resent people who are more successful than you. I respect people who do well due to hard work...we can learn from them "

 

WHAT? I'm one of the most pro rich  poor people you'll ever find. I don't dislike Hilary because she's rich. I dislike her because she's fake and presents to be 'one of the people' when clearly she isn't. She has done rather  disgusting things. Do some research and stop eating the garbage the Clinton media feeds you.

 

btw, I only have one real issue with Bill Clinton - his wife. She is probably the worst female politician ever. 

 

 

Rice > Hilariy any time any where even with her being Republican. <>

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is that actually 2008 Hillary data? It's got Lehman Bros on it and they're rather famous for being bankrupt as of 2008.

 

(Unless Barclays are still using the Lehman name in the US, which seems... unlikely. It would be a glowing PR choice, but only because it had been nuked so comprehensively from orbit)

Yes, still the fact that she has such large support from Wall street is troubling.

[Bartimaeus]

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton 

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

Vegas Odds as of 5/4/15 at Bovada.

 

2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - PRESIDENT OF THE USA ODDS
Hillary Clinton 13/10
Jeb Bush 4/1
Scott Walker 10/1
Marco Rubio 12/1
Elizabeth Warren 14/1
Rand Paul 14/1
Chris Christie 18/1
Ben Carson 33/1
Bobby Jindal 33/1
Martin O'Malley 33/1
Ted Cruz 33/1
Joe Biden 40/1
Kirsten Gillibrand 40/1
Andrew Cuomo 50/1
Bob McDonnell 50/1
Deval Patrick 50/1
Jim Webb 50/1
John Kasich 50/1
Mark Warner 50/1
Michael Bloomberg 50/1
Paul Ryan 50/1
Rick Santorum 50/1
Condoleeza Rice 66/1
Rahm Emanuel 66/1
Rob Portman 66/1
Susana Martinez 66/1
Al Gore 100/1
Donald Trump 100/1
George Clooney 100/1
Michelle Obama 150/1

 

2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - WINNING PARTY
Democratic Party -200
Republican Party +160

 

2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - GENDER OF WINNER
Male -165
Female +125

 

Hillary is the heavy deep favorite at 13/10 and a Democrat taking the oval office is essentially getting 2 to 1. Of course, based on male vs female, it's the field that's getting the favorite treatment vs. Hillary.

 

Still, Republicans are getting decent value at +160. You'd be getting the worst of it to bet on Hillary Clinton at 13/10 and Democrats at -200. I wouldn't even touch the gender "lines" either way. -165 and +125 is garbage value for both.

 

Lols @Bernie Sanders not even getting listed.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Leferd

[ShadySands]

Speaks well to his chances

[Calax]

 

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton 

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else.

 

So, you'd consider Jackie Kennedy to be Morally Bankrupt?

[Bartimaeus]

An interesting comment, and I'm not completely sure how to respond to it. Different times and different motives, I think - Mrs. Kennedy was never really anything besides the First Lady, and, at that time, I don't think really ever had any realistic aspirations of being, y'know, Secretary of State or something...unlike Mrs. Clinton. Also, I would like to amend my previous comment: I don't think Bill Clinton's affair(s) are the thing that actually make her morally bankrupt - that'd be a pretty stupid assertion to make (and I know that I did make it, but it wasn't quite what I meant)...just something that has always perturbed me about her, and, in my opinion, doesn't help paint a pretty picture of the Clinton family - along with everything else.

 

Bruce's reply got me in a little bit of a huff, I think. Note my mention of a former president assassinating a potential president - who also happens to be his wife.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Meshugger]

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-has-a-better-fund-raising-start-than-republican-counterparts/?_r=0

 

I'm actually excited about a presidential candidate.

 

Is this what Libertarians felt like when Ron Paul ran?

 

No friend of Wall Street and strong grass roots support? Running as a man on a mission instead of just political rhetoric?

 

Yup, congrats. He will be hated by the media and the established democratic party. Expect some hilarious truthbombs.

[BruceVC]

 

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton  yi

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else.

 

 

Its interesting you see her staying with Bill as a sign of weakness or politically opportunistic. I admire her for it and see it as sign of strength , she was utterly humiliated after the Lewinsky affair  and understandably could have divorced him and moved on 

 

Yet she stayed with him and in the end Bill Clinton redeemed himself and she created her own political identity. She became the first female senator elected from the state of New York and then nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination. She then became Secretary of State ..a very tough job on its own

 

And she did all of this in the context of American politics being still quite dominated by men, especially in 2000. So her achievements are doubly impressive 

 

So the real question everyone should ask themselves is " why wouldn't you want her to be president of the USA" ...she deserves it

[Calax]

The odd thing about american politics, to me, is that we take everything so.... unrealistically. A man has cheated on his wife, however this cannot be dealt with in private, it has to be a public matter. Maybe Bill was allowed to sleep around? Who knows, we're not going to pry into their sex life enough that we can find these things out, but we sure as hell can enforce our personal values upon them as a basis to decide if they are good at governing a Nation or not.

 

Everyone is human, everyone makes stupid mistakes, but we expect our politicians to not make them. You have to be a politically perfect paragon of your particular beliefs... or you'll be told that you can't make it in politics (without already being there). Anthony Weiner is a perfect example of this, he seemed good at his job, but it turned out that he wasn't exactly faithful and all of a sudden the entire nation declared him evil, even though we don't know his relationship with his wife (who stood by him and possibly pushed him into the NYC Mayoral Race the next election cycle)

[Bartimaeus]

Its interesting you see her staying with Bill as a sign of weakness or politically opportunistic. I admire her for it and see it as sign of strength , she was utterly humiliated after the Lewinsky affair and understandably could have divorced him and moved on

 

Yet she stayed with him and in the end Bill Clinton redeemed himself and she created her own political identity. She became the first female senator elected from the state of New York and then nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination. She then became Secretary of State ..a very tough job on its own

 

And she did all of this in the context of American politics being still quite dominated by men, especially in 2000. So her achievements are doubly impressive

 

So the real question everyone should ask themselves is " why wouldn't you want her to be president of the USA" ...she deserves it

And Genghis Khan managed to unite a significant portion of the tribal steppe hordes and conquer a good portion of Europe...and Attila defied the imperium sine fine and marched down the Italian peninsula and cowed the Romans, leading to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire a mere 20 years later..and Hitler was born in a small village to a poor family and ended up becoming Fuhrer and leading Germany to its infamous recovery from WW1...

 

I'm not concerned about her circumstances or supposed "accomplishments". I am not concerned about her supposed "beating the odds" - which I disagree with. Your statement "she deserves it" is completely reprehensible to me - nobody "deserves" the presidency. It is only because of our perpetually absolutely horrible state of affairs in politics that she is even being CONSIDERED as a potential candidate - never mind if she actually won it (by the way, this statement is hardly limited to her - I don't think ANY of the potential candidates, besides MAYBE Sanders, should even have a shot at it). The presidency should be earned, and if she were not a Clinton, I seriously doubt she would be in the running. It is extremely unlikely that she would've ever become Secretary of State or Senator without the backing of a former president (who happens to now be rather popular, perhaps thanks to the string of previous presidents we've had - was he ever not popular after leaving office?).

 

Nobody deserves the presidency. Unfortunately, with U.S. politics as they are, it can't be earned, so I guess that's just how it has to be, huh?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Calax]

That's to Bruce right? I'm not saying that she deserves anything, just that it's hard to get anywhere in politics if you're an "old hat" in the game.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton  yi

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else.

 

 

Its interesting you see her staying with Bill as a sign of weakness or politically opportunistic. I admire her for it and see it as sign of strength , she was utterly humiliated after the Lewinsky affair  and understandably could have divorced him and moved on 

 

Yet she stayed with him and in the end Bill Clinton redeemed himself and she created her own political identity. She became the first female senator elected from the state of New York and then nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination. She then became Secretary of State ..a very tough job on its own

 

And she did all of this in the context of American politics being still quite dominated by men, especially in 2000. So her achievements are doubly impressive 

 

So the real question everyone should ask themselves is " why wouldn't you want her to be president of the USA" ...she deserves it

 

 

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

 

You still haven't provided one.single.legislation, principle or judgement on why anyone should vote for her.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

You guys are right, I have removed the " she deserves it part" 

 

Now do you like her?

[Bartimaeus]

The odd thing about american politics, to me, is that we take everything so.... unrealistically. A man has cheated on his wife, however this cannot be dealt with in private, it has to be a public matter. Maybe Bill was allowed to sleep around? Who knows, we're not going to pry into their sex life enough that we can find these things out, but we sure as hell can enforce our personal values upon them as a basis to decide if they are good at governing a Nation or not.

 

Everyone is human, everyone makes stupid mistakes, but we expect our politicians to not make them. You have to be a politically perfect paragon of your particular beliefs... or you'll be told that you can't make it in politics (without already being there). Anthony Weiner is a perfect example of this, he seemed good at his job, but it turned out that he wasn't exactly faithful and all of a sudden the entire nation declared him evil, even though we don't know his relationship with his wife (who stood by him and possibly pushed him into the NYC Mayoral Race the next election cycle)

It's funny - because, again, I know I made a stupid assertion earlier that made it sound the other way - but I agree with you...to a point. I'm not really all that concerned with the private affairs of presidents, for the most part. I don't want a president who has affairs, or abuses their spouse or something, obviously...but the for the most part, I think these sorts of private matters should stay exactly that: private. I guess that's the result of being so important nationally...and worldwide, too, I guess...that there's absolutely zero room for mistakes of any sort, even in your personal lives. Shouldn't try running for one of the most powerful political positions on Earth then, I guess.

 

That's to Bruce right? I'm not saying that she deserves anything, just that it's hard to get anywhere in politics if you're an "old hat" in the game.

Yes, sorry: it apparently took me a bit to write my own post, and yours was posted in between.

 

I regret getting involved in this discussion in more than a superficial way: I hate politics and I can be a very poor arguer. I also dislike getting heated, which I am here with Bruce's statements, which are alienating me more than anything you've ever said to me before, Bruce. Sorry.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

You guys are right, I have removed the " she deserves it part" 

 

Now do you like her?

No. Besides being a woman - and, as you pointed out, succeeding in spite of it in a very poisonous political climate - she stands for most everything I hate about U.S. politics - corporate backing, family ties and other questionable connections, being put mostly in a position to succeed by others - just like everyone else who runs for anything even half-important in this godforsaken, nepotistic country - and straight up, I did not not like her part in the Obama administration (being a grand part of the "most transparent administration ever", HA), and I have little love for what I know of her politics.

 

Why in the world do YOU think we should like her for president? You still haven't given any bloody reasons that would actually play into why she makes a good candidate. Because she succeeded at manipulating her way into positions of import, just like everyone else who holds/has held those positions have?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Oerwinde]

What is it with Vermont producing worthwhile candidates? The last presidential hopeful I gave a hot damn about was Howard Dean, and the media screwed him.

[BruceVC]

 

You guys are right, I have removed the " she deserves it part" 

 

Now do you like her?

No. Besides being a woman - and, as you pointed out, succeeding in spite of it in a very poisonous political climate - she stands for most everything I hate about U.S. politics - corporate backing, family ties and other questionable connections, being put mostly in a position to succeed by others - just like everyone else who runs for anything even half-important in this godforsaken, nepotistic country - and straight up, I did not not like her part in the Obama administration (being a grand part of the "most transparent administration ever", HA), and I have little love for what I know of her politics.

 

Why in the world do YOU think we should like her for president? You still haven't given any bloody reasons that would actually play into why she makes a good candidate. Because she succeeded at manipulating her way into positions of import, just like everyone else who holds/has held those positions have?

 

You should vote for her  for several reasons, the main ones being she does have the credentials, experience and ability. So she is a women who actually meets the criteria ....she is not some token. That should be reason  enough ?