US Elections 2016

[Tigranes]

Rubio's going to benefit from suddenly looking like the most sane and reasonable of people next to Cruz and Trump. I personally think the guy's charismatic and often says reasonable things, but also tends to say things that end up being surprisingly nuts. Today's biggest winner I suspect will end up being him, even more than Cruz.

 

I still think Clinton will win the whole thing, but if she does so, it's good that she has to beat off a very serious challenge from Sanders, and it'll also be good if she has to beat Rubio to it rather than Trump. Make it a more meaningful race. 

[HoonDing]

[Tigranes]

It works pretty well, every time a US politician eats the disgusting 'American food' I feel sympathy for them. 

[BruceVC]

I don't particularly  like Cruz, he is too calculating and panders to that extreme conservative view that will harm the USA in the long term but I like Trump even less. I'm very glad Cruz beat him in Iowa as Trump  needs some lessons in humility. And I'm surprised how well Rubio did, I have watched some interviews with him and I consider him the most reasonable Republican candidate out of the 3 

 

So if I had to chose one of the 3 for the Republican nominations it would be Rubio 

 

And well done Sanders for running a very successful campaign, and it has been very close,  but  a Clinton victory obviously is ideal for me 

Edited February 2, 2016 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

A female will not be elected as President.

 

Call of Dooty saw to that.

 

[Meshugger]

Hahaha, what?!

 

https://twitter.com/BronyPhysicist/status/694292280639770624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Leferd]

After the Iowa caucus, betting markets are doubling down (as they should) on Clinton and Rubio for the November showdown.

 

Clinton: 5/6

Rubio: 11/4

Trump: 7/1

Sanders: 8/1

Cruz: 12/1

Bush: 40/1

Christie: 66/1

Kasich: 100/1

Ryan: 100/1

Carson: 200/1

 

Of course, betting on anyone underneath Cruz is dead money. It's still Clinton vs the field as the odds on HEAVY favorite at 5/6(!).

[Meshugger]

I personally find the push for Rubio to be ridicolously funny. The guy is the archetype of globalist, back-room deal politician that the establishment loves. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I personally find the push for Rubio to be ridicolously funny. The guy is the archetype of globalist, back-room deal politician that the establishment loves.

 

That's why you're seeing the push.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So Rubio and Cruz suddenly seemed as top contenders for the Republicans? Quite interesting, but i guess it so happens when one is married to an investment manager at Goldman Sachs and the other has them as their top donor; or that Mr. Rubio is a heavy supporter of the new H1-B Visa program of which was proved to be a manufactured crisis by big business (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/04/25/2219209/think-tanks-how-a-bill-gates-agenda-becomes-a-law) and they also happen to think that isolating Russia is the top priority combat in foreign relations. Not to mention the biggest billionare donors are for them are Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer, who thinks that the US has too tight borders and aren't zionists for Israel enough. Finally, Microsoft just so happened to be the one counting the votes and also being the second largest donor to Rubio.

 

But i guess it all comes together for the american voter that these are the positions that are in their best interests.

If you somewhere in the foreign frozen north get it, how come so many American "conservatives" don't? I know, it's our wonderful brainwashing -er- I mean educational system. Btw, Cruz is an even heavier supporter of H1-B, he wants to quintuple them when Rubio only wants to triple them.

 

Edit: Also, for everyone who thinks that Rubio is somehow moderate, both Cruz and Rubio think that a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's child for 9 months.

 

Edit2: How Cruz won Iowa: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-02/how-ted-cruz-engineered-his-iowa-triumph (by pandering)

 

I'm too bored to read it all, but looks like a lot of good information for those interested.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rostere]

Trump may be a narcissist, but at least he foresaw with the rest of us how the Iraq War would end up.

 

Bush II, Rubio and Bush III are both cut from the exact same cloth as far as foreign policy goes. Rubio even named his entire campaign "A New American Century"... For the good of the world, I'd rather the US elected a narcissist, or a deranged madman who thought Putin was a country and the pyramids were used to store grain, or a Tea Party taliban, than any of these neocons again. I don't want to see this three months from now:

 

Please?

[Guard Dog]

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://archive.is/EVi18

 

[Hurlshort]

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

I think in the end it hurt him that he tried to be a more mainstream candidate than his father.  There was nothing to distinguish himself from all the other candidates.  If he'd really pushed libertarian values, he would have resonated more.

 

I'm curious when Jeb Bush will drop.  I'm also curious where those votes will go.  I assume Rubio.

 

edit:  Who do we think is a potential VP out of these candidates?  Or do you think they will go with a nobody again like they did with McCain?

Edited February 3, 2016 by Hurlshot

[ShadySands]

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

No Gary Johnson?

[Guard Dog]

 

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

No Gary Johnson?

 

I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

No Gary Johnson?

 

I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges.

 

 

Why not?

Edited February 3, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Guard Dog]

 

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

I think in the end it hurt him that he tried to be a more mainstream candidate than his father.  There was nothing to distinguish himself from all the other candidates.  If he'd really pushed libertarian values, he would have resonated more.

 

I'm curious when Jeb Bush will drop.  I'm also curious where those votes will go.  I assume Rubio.

 

edit:  Who do we think is a potential VP out of these candidates?  Or do you think they will go with a nobody again like they did with McCain?

 

Jeb will fold up after Super Tuesday. He figures he'll do better in the south but he won't. After that he'll pack it in. If Trump wins the nomination there is no telling who he'll pick. If it's Cruz he'll pick Jeb or Rubio because he will not win without Florida. Rubio will pick Kasich I think because he'll need help in Ohio and Cruz won't be needed because Rubio will win Texas without him. 

 

One idea I love for Trump is to pick Fiorina.

[Meshugger]

Someone with good MS Paint skills replace "Bernie Sanders" with "BruceVC"

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Someone with good MS Paint skills replace "Bernie Sanders" with "BruceVC"

 

Already done.

 

[Namutree]

 

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

I think in the end it hurt him that he tried to be a more mainstream candidate than his father.  There was nothing to distinguish himself from all the other candidates.  If he'd really pushed libertarian values, he would have resonated more.

 

True, but he really ruined his campaign simply by being an a** in the debates.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Rand Paul isn't his father and somehow managed to be both more mainstream republican and less likeable at the same time.

 

[ShadySands]

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat".

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

 

No Gary Johnson?

 

I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges.

 

 

Why not?

 

The justices appointed by Democrats (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, & Ginsburg) seldom take the part of individual freedom/liberties over the government. They tend to follow a philosophy of the power of the state being paramount over the individual. Not always. Ginsburg is the only one who is a completely reliable leftist. Kagan appears to be leaning that way but she hasn't been around long enough to say. Now when it comes to civil rights they do tend to favor the individual who is seen as the "aggrieved party" unless the government has an interest in the case then it's even money who falls where. For example in DC v Heller the liberals were firmly on the side of the District of Columbia despite the fact that the city's position was a textbook violation of both the wording and intent of the Constitution. One more liberal justice on that court and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution disappears forever.

 

The other thing I dislike about the liberal jurists is their notion of the role of the court. The purpose of the court is not to make law or find law where there is none. That is the job of the legislature. A judge should look at how the facts of the case apply to the law and then resolve the case based on that comparison. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and sometimes Roberts & Kennedy do this. It's called orginalisim or constructionism. The liberal judges apply a political or philosophical standard to the case then twist the meaning of the law to match their politics/philosophy and that resolves the case they way they want it to come out. That is called activism. It not a good thing. Under that philosophy the law is nothing more than silly putty and what is legal/illegal is entirely up to whomever has the power to make the decision at that time.

 

Don't get me wrong. The lines between right & left are a lot fuzzier in the judiciary. And there is usually more agreement than dissention in cases where the meaning of the law is clear cut. But cases like that seldom have far reaching consequences. Cases like DC v Heller, & Kelo v New London, are prime examples if the liberal justices favoring the power of the state over the rights of the individual even when the law was clearly on the side of the individual. 

 

Democrats favor activist judges who think the law is something flexible than can be twisted into whatever shape those in power want. Republicans (usually) favor constructionist judges who see the law as something that must be applied evenly and but narrowly and only the legislature has the power to change it.

 

That's why. I know it was a long answer but it's an important question.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I know it was a long answer but it's an important question.

 

It was also a well-formulated answer, which is infinitely preferable to a short and idiotic one.