2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

"Our No. 1 goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president."

So? That's the definition of being the opposition party. If a Republican is elected in 2016, democrats will make it their number one goal to make sure he or she is a one-term president.

"He is a muslim"

"He is not an American"

"He hates America"

Donald Trump is not representative of "the right."

"He is friendly with terrorists."

He is.

Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election | Reuters

Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"He is ruining America."

He is.

"He wears mob jeans."

He does.

"He does not love the US as founded"[/I]

He doesn't. What do you think "fundamental transformation" means? What do you think Michelle Obama means when she says "for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country"?

 

[wizards8507]

There is nothing in there that says he doesn't love the U.S. There is nothing in there that says he thinks the Constitution sucks. He is talking about fundamentally changing how governmental policies, which really is what all people running for President (besides incumbents) do. Do you truly believe that any Republicans in this years field aren't going to be running on a platform of fundamentally changing our government policies after 8 years of Obama? Republicans talk of getting rid of the Department of Education, or even the IRS. Isn't that fundamentally changing our government's policies? I think that the idea that he wants to fundamentally change the US gets blown completely out of proportion.

There's a big difference between changing policies and fundamentally changing The United States of America. Operating within the Constitution and this country's established framework is not a fundamental change. Fundamental, by definition, means changing the core of what something is. What America is.

 

[GoIrish41]

Why is it always if an R disagrees with a D president it is due to hatred but if a D disagrees with an R president it is because dissent is good and justified?

Just curious...asking for a friend...

For more evidence, see wizards' post two up.

 

[wizards8507]

There's not even anything controversial about this. Many liberals freely admit that they don't love the country as founded. They believe that the scars in our history make our nation's very status as a superpower illegitimate. Our greatness, they believe, is built upon the blood of slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, the poor, and Mother Earth. For that reason they've made it their mission to take America down a notch from within.

 

[pkt77242]

I disagree with that entirely, there was a cottage industry of Bush Hitler, Bush Sniper, Bush Devil shirts, hats, whatever during the Bush era,... There were acclaimed books and films about how wonderful the world would be if someone would just assassinate Bush already, stuff being physically hrown at him and national media members openly laughing about it and high fiving each other on TV over it, Bush lied people died, Bush blew up the towers, much of this was supported or even started by members of the fed on the left. The big difference is Bush rarely if ever resorted to that level, and just ignored it as a leader should. Obama straight up takes part in the vitriol, and he completely brought what little he gets on himself. Honestly, for large part, Obama has been completely coddled IMO.

So he deserves to be called a Muslim, a monkey, compared to Hitler (multiple times by members of congress, DeMint and Broun both did it), called a Marxist, Socialist, runs a "gangsta" government, is advised by thugs, Hates the US, isn't really an American, and saving the best for last (though this is just a small sampling)

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda,” and said he was “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution.”

He brought the name calling upon himself? Seriously ACamp you are better than that, don't stoop to that level.

 

[pkt77242]

There's not even anything controversial about this. Many liberals freely admit that they don't love the country as founded. They believe that the scars in our history make our nation's very status as a superpower illegitimate. Our greatness, they believe, is built upon the blood of slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, the poor, and Mother Earth. For that reason they've made it their mission to take America down a notch from within.

WTF? That isn't really what most Liberals believe but you can keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.

 

[pkt77242]

There's a big difference between changing policies and fundamentally changing The United States of America. Operating within the Constitution and this country's established framework is not a fundamental change. Fundamental, by definition, means changing the core of what something is. What America is.

That is the time that he mentioned fundamental change and all of the examples he gave are well within the Constitution so I am failing to see what your point is, and where you are getting it from. Where in that speech did he say that he was ignoring the Constitution? From where else are you getting the fundamental change? I would love to see some quotes, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

There's not even anything controversial about this. Many liberals freely admit that they don't love the country as founded. They believe that the scars in our history make our nation's very status as a superpower illegitimate. Our greatness, they believe, is built upon the blood of slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, the poor, and Mother Earth. For that reason they've made it their mission to take America down a notch from within.

Why not post a link to these instances where any politician or public figure stated that they do not love America as founded, and because of this they believe that the past "scars in our history" have caused them to make it their mission to take down America a notch from within?

The fact of the matter is that our nation was built on slaves, native Americans, immigrants, the poor and the environment. I'm not sure that is even remotely debatable. However, that does not mean that anyone believes that because of those things they hate American ideals or the Constitution. Careful, if you reach much further you are going to pull a muscle.

 

[GoIrish41]

There's not even anything controversial about this. Many liberals freely admit that they don't love the country as founded. They believe that the scars in our history make our nation's very status as a superpower illegitimate. Our greatness, they believe, is built upon the blood of slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, the poor, and Mother Earth. For that reason they've made it their mission to take America down a notch from within.

Thanks for the Neg Rep douche. You sent me this nice little note with it ...

"Refusal to debate honestly through mischaracterization and obfuscation."

Your premise refuses to acknowledge what is patently obvious. If you are going to base everything you think politically off of pure hatred and just try to spin everything to fit your narrative, you are the one who is being dishonest. The irony is that you are "fundamentally changing" the meaning of Obama's quotes to apply some sinister meaning to them. You, like your silly posts in this thread, are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Black Irish]

Can you guys take the shit-slinging to the "Politics" thread where it belongs? I'd like this thread to be kept to a discussion of viable candidates for the '16 Presidential race, their chances of getting nominated/elected, and the general machinations of a national election. Everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping the partisan gut punches in check up to about the last 12 hours. In the immortal words of Patrick Swayze "Take it outside."

 

[wizards8507]

Thanks for the Neg Rep douche. You sent me this nice little note with it ...

"Refusal to debate honestly through mischaracterization and obfuscation."

Your premise refuses to acknowledge what is patently obvious. If you are going to base everything you think politically off of pure hatred and just try to spin everything to fit your narrative, you are the one who is being dishonest. The irony is that you are "fundamentally changing" the meaning of Obama's quotes to apply some sinister meaning to them. You, like your silly posts in this thread, are intellectually dishonest.

So you can lie about what I said but I can't post direct quotes from President and Mrs. Obama. Got it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[pkt77242]

Can you guys take the shit-slinging to the "Politics" thread where it belongs? I'd like this thread to be kept to a discussion of viable candidates for the '16 Presidential race, their chances of getting nominated/elected, and the general machinations of a national election. Everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping the partisan gut punches in check up to about the last 12 hours. In the immortal words of Patrick Swayze "Take it outside."

Up until Rubio started backtracking on immigration, I thought that he would be a real threat in a general election. I think that the Republican primary might (or will) force him to abandon some of the things that made him a viable general election candidate though. To me that is the real question for all candidates (not just the Republicans but also the Democrats) is can these candidates get through the primaries and still appeal to moderate voters.

 

[ACamp1900]

So he deserves to be called a Muslim, a monkey, compared to Hitler (multiple times by members of congress, DeMint and Broun both did it), called a Marxist, Socialist, runs a "gangsta" government, is advised by thugs, Hates the US, isn't really an American, and saving the best for last (though this is just a small sampling)


He brought the name calling upon himself? Seriously ACamp you are better than that, don't stoop to that level.

Sorry but maybe it's the President that should be better??? He's called republicans terrorists, compared them to all kinds of filth and completely, "lead by example" when it has come to name calling and fight starting. I have zero sympathy what so ever, especially when leftists want us all to cry for him like his experience has been special, it hasn't been.

 

[pkt77242]

Sorry but maybe it's the President that should be better??? He's called republicans terrorists, compared them to all kinds of filth and completely, "lead by example" when it has come to name calling and fight starting. I have zero sympathy what so ever, especially when leftists want us all to cry for him like his experience has been special, it hasn't been.

Actually a quick Google search shows that he didn't call them terrorists (a white house advisor did). Care to try again?

 

[wizards8507]

To me that is the real question for all candidates (not just the Republicans but also the Democrats) is can these candidates get through the primaries and still appeal to moderate voters.

Objectively, the Republican will have an easier job at this particular task than the Democrat. Jeb is about the most squish candidate in the world and it won't be hard for the GOP candidate to stake out a position to the right of him for the primaries without needing to go too far. Conversely, Hillary's primary competition is the far-left Warren. It'll be very hard for Hillary to get THAT far left without alienating the middle.

On the specific issue of immigration, I haven't seen any Republican candidate taking a "deport them all" position, nor do I expect them too. Even if that was a political winner (which it's not), it's logistically impossible.

 

[EddytoNow]

There's not even anything controversial about this. Many liberals freely admit that they don't love the country as founded. They believe that the scars in our history make our nation's very status as a superpower illegitimate. Our greatness, they believe, is built upon the blood of slaves, Native Americans, immigrants, the poor, and Mother Earth. For that reason they've made it their mission to take America down a notch from within.

I guess I'm what you would call a liberal. However, your assumptions about liberals are way off base. I do love my country as it was founded. However, a number of issues have needed to be addressed since the founding of our country.

Slavery was wrong. Native Americans were killed or dispossessed so their land could be taken from them. Immigrants had to be integrated and accepted into American society as each new immigrant group fled their home country. Vast wealth was being accumulated at the expense of child labor and an underpaid workforce. Water that was safe to drink is now polluted. Air that was clean and fresh is now polluted.

The United States has not been taken down a notch or two by addressing the issues above. If anything, the country has adapted and improved over the 200+ years of its existence. Would you have us ignore our own history of correcting the inequalities that still existed after the 18th century? Was the ending of slavery not an improvement for our country? Was the ending of child labor not a necessity for a civilized country? Should we not be concerned about the purity of our water and our air when there is substantial evidence to indicate the connection between unsafe water and air with deadly diseases, such as cancer? Should we have continued to give our Native Americans smallpox infested blankets? Should we look at our once proud Native Americans and not feel remorse that we, as a nation, took everything from them but the worst patches of land? You seem to be suggesting that we would have been better off if liberals had let these activities continue.

As a liberal, I am contending that we are a better country now because we saw and accepted our faults, choosing to correct them rather than ignoring their existence. Self-reflection is a strength of this country. Liberals are not haters of America. They love their country enough to view its history honestly and with an eye to making it even better.

We still have many issues remaining. Is not universal healthcare a worthy national goal? We may differ on the approach to getting there, but is it not a worthy objective? Isn't a decent paying job for everyone who is willing to work a worthy goal? Once again, we may differ on the approach to that end, but isn't full employment a goal we should all support? The country has tackled some large issues and many more remain to be solved. Working to correct these inequities is not unpatriotic. Conservatives and liberals need to work together to solve our problems. Making believe we have no problems is not going to make us better.

 

[pkt77242]

Objectively, the Republican will have an easier job at this particular task than the Democrat. Jeb is about the most squish candidate in the world and it won't be hard for the GOP candidate to stake out a position to the right of him for the primaries without needing to go too far. Conversely, Hillary's primary competition is the far-left Warren. It'll be very hard for Hillary to get THAT far left without alienating the middle.

On the specific issue of immigration, I haven't seen any Republican candidate taking a "deport them all" position, nor do I expect them too. Even if that was a political winner (which it's not), it's logistically impossible.

Warren isn't running, did you mean Bernie Sanders?

I agree that Republicans haven't said anything like that so far but Rubio did some great work as part of the gang of eight but he seems to have moved away from it since it won't play well during the primaries.

Edit: If Warren was running I would agree about Hilary but since it appears that she will sit it out, Bernie Sanders while very liberal is very unlikely to steal the nomination. I think that with the current line-up out there of Democratic candidates that Hilary will coast to an easy victory for the Democratic nomination. Now if Warren decides to run then throw out what I just said.

 

[wizards8507]

I guess I'm what you would call a liberal. However, your assumptions about liberals are way off base.

I didn't say "all liberals," "most liberals," or "liberals in general." I very deliberately used the word "many." The majority of the folks who fit into the box I've described are intellectual post-nationalists from the Ivy League faculty lounges (to which President Obama traces his roots).

 

[wizards8507]

Warren isn't running, did you mean Bernie Sanders?

I don't think Sanders is a legitimate candidate. His policies probably aren't that far from Warren's in practice but I don't think America will elect a candidate who actually calls himself "socialist." Not yet at least.

I know Warren hasn't declared but I fully expect her to do so.

I agree that Republicans haven't said anything like that so far but Rubio did some great work as part of the gang of eight but he seems to have moved away from it since it won't play well during the primaries.

But what I'm saying is I don't think it will be an argument in the primaries. Even Cruz (as far right as they get) has acknowledged that deporting however many millions of people is a non-starter.

 

[EddytoNow]

I didn't say "all liberals," "most liberals," or "liberals in general." I very deliberately used the word "many." The majority of the folks who fit into the box I've described are intellectual post-nationalists from the Ivy League faculty lounges (to which President Obama traces his roots).

Actually you used the word "many", not "some", but that is arguing semantics.

I will agree with your contention, if you are saying there are a few wacko liberals way out there on the left. They do exist. But they comprise a very small minority of all liberals. Conservatives have their own wackos way out there on the right. Once again, they comprise a very small minority of all conservatives.

The vast majority of Americans do not support the extremes of the left or right. This huge majority needs to insist on cooperation and compromise, not inflammatory rhetoric that drives a wedge between people that essentially agree on the problem, but differ in their solutions.

 

[wizards8507]

I will agree with your contention, if you are saying there are a few wacko liberals way out there on the left. They do exist.

That's my first contention. My second is that President Obama is one of them.

 

[EddytoNow]

That's my first contention. My second is that President Obama is one of them.

Liberals would probably disagree that Obama is part of the wacko left, but you certainly have a right to classify him that way. Most liberals feel that he has been very wishy, washy on advocating any sort of liberal policies (with the exception of the Affordable Care Act). We also aren't totally sold on Hillary Clinton as a liberal. She lost a lot of liberal support when she supported the second war in Iraq. In my eyes she is too focused on winning the next election, and her opinions change with the wind.

By the same token, I would classify Ted Cruz as a member of the wacko right. To us liberals, he is just an attack dog for the wackos on the right.

 

[wizards8507]

Liberals would probably disagree that Obama is part of the wacko left, but you certainly have a right to classify him that way. Most liberals feel that he has been very wishy, washy on advocating any sort of liberal policies (with the exception of the Affordable Care Act). We also aren't totally sold on Hillary Clinton as a liberal. She lost a lot of liberal support when she supported the second war in Iraq. In my eyes she is too focused on winning the next election, and her opinions change with the wind.

By the same token, I would classify Ted Cruz as a member of the wacko right. To us liberals, he is just an attack dog for the wackos on the right.

I think "wacko" undersells both Obama's and Cruz' intelligence. To me, the "wacko" left is Occupy Wall Street and the Baltimore rioters. Making demands without really knowing why. Obama is much more shrewd than that. He wants single payer healthcare for example, but knows America won't go for it so he implements the ACA as a "step one" in that direction.

Similarly, Ted Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar. His positions are far-right to be sure, but they're not "wacko" (you just vehemently disagree with him). A Ted Cruzian answer on gay marriage, for example, would be "it's not a federal issue because the constitution does not grant congress the right to regulate marriage," and he could back up that position with history and legal precedent. The "wacko" right position is "we don't like gays because Jesus."

ETA: As to how this impacts 2016, I think Cruz plays an important role in making Rubio and Paul appealing to the masses. As much as the media hates all Republicans and will even paint a moderate candidate like Romney as "too extreme," they don't hate anybody as much as they hate Ted Cruz. He can be the punching bag for the media throughout the primary while Paul and Rubio focus their efforts on defeating Jeb.

 

[connor_in]

Actually you used the word "many", not "some", but that is arguing semantics.
.

How many somes are there in a many? How mamy manys are there in a some?

Riggs: Some antics? I'm always up for some antics!

 

[wizards8507]

How many somes are there in a many? How mamy manys are there in a some?

I also edited my post to accurately reflect my use of "many" before he quoted me.

 

[ACamp1900]

it probably depends on what your definition of 'is,' is....

 

[connor_in]

How many thems is a they? Theys in a them?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Obama does not love the US as founded.

Who does?

 

[phgreek]

I asked this

So you respond with this

I call you out for saying that they should stay without an SOFA and you say this

Hmm. Really? That is what you just said in response to my question.



The difference is that we had to get Iraq's parliament to vote for a SOFA and they didn't want to do it because the public didn't want it. Of course they wanted the U.S. to stay (I never questioned that), they wanted the political victory of having the U.S. soldiers leave or that the U.S. had to beg them to keep their soldiers there so that they could give in and save face (the part of the article that you quoted speaks nothing of a SOFA just that they wanted troops to stay). Lets say that Obama had begged them to keep our soldiers there and then they had agreed, do you really think that the Republicans/Conservatives would be happy? Nope they would call him a weak President for begging. Also a big difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran is willing to publicly negotiate with us, Iraq wasn't willing too during that time. Do I think that Obama could have done a better job? Yep, he could have, do I think it is as nice and neat and simple as you think? Not by a mile. In fact I would say that Iraq is exceedingly tricky in comparison to Iran which is relatively straightforward.

The truth is that we can't fix Iraq even though we broke it. If we had kept soldiers there for 5 more years (or 10), the violence just would have broken out once we left. Iraq with its disagreements and differences between its population is difficult to govern effectively. As Iraq currently stands there is little hope for peace and it has nothing to do with US troops being there or not (unless you want to permanently leave 25K soldiers there but that opens a whole other can of worms).

Ah now I understand where that was coming from. I was trying to say it was an easy sell to get a SOFA now...which wasn't really responsive to what you actually said/asked having just now reread it...sorry.

Everything I said about going back in assumes they want us to...Since I know they asked us to send troops when ISIS started running them over. So a SOFA was always attainable...even moreso today, and easily done as a condition of boots on the ground...so I don't think going in without one is that much of a consideration.

Further, I do not believe after more than a decade of stability, that parts of Iraq would have fallen to ISIS. Truth be told, I always thought we'd be in Iraq through 2020 with a substantial force. Had we NEGOTIATED a SOFA 7 years ago, we wouldn't be contemplating a complete ground game do-over. They'd be on their way to an extended period of "stability" (comparatively speaking)...which I believe gives Iraqi people the impetus to fight...something to fight for. The longer stability exists, the better chance you have of Iraq sustaining itself.

I do not believe Iraq's parliament was above a Kansas kickback...so, you were saying what about them not going along?

I think since most everyone who was serious wanted a SOFA, the folks who attacked the president for getting one would have been few and short-lived. Myself, I'd try to govern more on what makes sense and less on avoiding being attacked...anyway, neither of us know what would have happened, or if it would have been a long-lived issue, so not really worth discussing what republicans would have done.

 

[connor_in]

‘You’ve got to be kidding': Hillary answers Ed Henry with ‘a giant F you’ [video] | Twitchy

edhenry interrupts as Clinton takes Qs from attendees, asks if she'll talk to press
HRC: "I might. I have to ponder it. I will put it on my list for due consideration."