2016 Presidential Horse Race

[irish4ever]

Holy crap, how far to the right must one be to think that Obama, perhaps the most moderate centrist president ever, is a socialist? Seriously... vote for who you want, be a Republicant or Democrap, but you can't be even pretend to be a responsible citizen voter if you continue to hold really (sorry) insane beliefs.

By the way, the last most liberal president we had was Richard Nixon. Yes, even that pinko commie rag, The National Review, agrees with me.

OK, step away from the ledge! You obviously had way too much spiked eggnog to be stumbling around on a ledge!

And regarding "you can't be even pretend to be a responsible citizen voter if you continue to hold really (sorry) insane beliefs" ... you're obviously a f**kin' moron and probably a closet skunkbear fan!

 

[Irish YJ]

You still lose out on experienced people making decisions, and still have to deal with politicians eyeing/taking business positions afterward. Not every corrupt politician is a lobbyist, some get paid $200,000+ per fluff speech...

It's not.

I'll take fresh folks looking to serve over experienced horse traders.

Publicly funded elections could get out of hand. I'd prefer to see everyone get the same airtime to personally talk about their platform along with debates. Abolish all the "funded" negative commercials.

You can be a Liberal and govern as a centrist. That's pretty much what has happened over the last eight years. That you guys can't see the obvious speaks to the propaganda that you gobble up.

Most conservative would disagree. Lib sources like Pravda on the Potomac thinks he is a centrist, but what do we expect the Washington Post to say. Has nothing to do with propaganda....

One could argue on different issues, but all in all, Bill was more of a centrist IMO than BO.

https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN14G1M4

Jail.

Honestly I'm tired of this crap. We all know she lied and mishandled data. She'll never be convicted though. Let he and Bill go back to work for Walmart and call it a day. Chelsea needs a few houses paid for, so they need to focus a bit on the Clinton Foundation too. Foundations aren't built just to pay for weddings ya know!

 

[Irish YJ]

There is no correlation between time spent in office and corruption. In places that have actually instituted term limits, it backfires as the focus becomes "where is my next job? Who do I have to please during my time here to get a good job after this?"

Yes, career politicians often suck. But they often don't. There is something good to be said about statesmen like John McCain or Ted Kennedy. Again, there is no correlation that time spent in office increases corruption. Term limits would likely worsen the revolving door between politics and lobbying/special interests.

If you want to free legislators from corruption, support publicly funded elections, open primaries, etc.

Logic would say though that the more time one has to horse trade and make friends, the more opportunity they have to become corrupt. Cut the terms and folks that get into office for $$ don't find office near as appealing...

 

[Irish#1]

There is no correlation between time spent in office and corruption. In places that have actually instituted term limits, it backfires as the focus becomes "where is my next job? Who do I have to please during my time here to get a good job after this?"

Yes, career politicians often suck. But they often don't. There is something good to be said about statesmen like John McCain or Ted Kennedy. Again, there is no correlation that time spent in office increases corruption. Term limits would likely worsen the revolving door between politics and lobbying/special interests.

If you want to free legislators from corruption, support publicly funded elections, open primaries, etc.

I can go with McCain, but Teddy (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'll take fresh folks looking to serve over experienced horse traders.

Publicly funded elections could get out of hand. I'd prefer to see everyone get the same airtime to personally talk about their platform along with debates. Abolish all the "funded" negative commercials.

You can't guarantee that they're "looking to serve" in a way that you approve of.

I would recommend reading about what happened in California with their term limits. The lobbyist establishment gained even more power than ever before because the inexperienced new guys on the block didn't know the ins and outs of the legislative system. By the time they knew available maneuvers, their time was up.

I supported term limits fervidly until I read how it went down in California. Kudos to them for trying it, but it has unintended consequences for legislators. I of course still support term limits for executives.

And arguably worse than lobbying, term limits empower political parties. Political parties, organizations with the sole goal of obtaining power, do more damage than lobbying in my opinion. That's why I think publicly funded elections (removing the umbilical cords from lobbyist and party donors establishments) accomplishes more, and I think things like California's nonpartisan blanket primary are an interesting way to conduct Congressional primaries.

Most conservative would disagree. Lib sources like Pravda on the Potomac thinks he is a centrist, but what do we expect the Washington Post to say. Has nothing to do with propaganda....

One could argue on different issues, but all in all, Bill was more of a centrist IMO than BO.

Being less of a centrist than Bill Clinton doesn't mean that Obama didn't generally also govern as a centrist.

I would agree that Bill Clinton was more of a centrist, of course I've also been saying for over a year that the Republican hate for the Clintons doesn't make sense given that they govern as Republicans. I mean the Clinton duo literally brought the Democratic Party into bed with corporations after having seen it work so well with Reagan, and that's the bed they had to lay in through 2016.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I can go with McCain, but Teddy (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy?

Fine, Patrick Leahy...

 

[Irish#1]

You can't guarantee that they're "looking to serve" in a way that you approve of.

I would recommend reading about what happened in California with their term limits. The lobbyist establishment gained even more power than ever before because the inexperienced new guys on the block didn't know the ins and outs of the legislative system. By the time they knew available maneuvers, their time was up.

I supported term limits fervidly until I read how it went down in California. Kudos to them for trying it, but it has unintended consequences for legislators. I of course still support term limits for executives.

And arguably worse than lobbying, term limits empower political parties. Political parties, organizations with the sole goal of obtaining power, do more damage than lobbying in my opinion. That's why I think publicly funded elections (removing the umbilical cords from lobbyist and party donors establishments) accomplishes more, and I think things like California's nonpartisan blanket primary are an interesting way to conduct Congressional primaries.



Being less of a centrist than Bill Clinton doesn't mean that Obama didn't generally also govern as a centrist.

I would agree that Bill Clinton was more of a centrist, of course I've also been saying for over a year that the Republican hate for the Clintons doesn't make sense given that he governed as a Republicans. I mean the Clinton duo literally brought the Democratic Party into bed with corporations after having seen it work so well with Reagan, and that's the bed they had to lay in through 2016.

Maybe the term limit was too short? There has to be a happy medium in there.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I can go with McCain, but Teddy (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy?

I believe you mean Ted "invite the Soviets to interfere with our elections" Kennedy

Forbes Welcome

 

[Buster Bluth]

I believe you mean Ted "invite the Soviets to interfere with our elections" Kennedy

Forbes Welcome

Limbaugh: Ted Kennedy undercut Reagan with back-door line to Soviets | PunditFact

There is no evidence there ever was a letter from Kennedy. Limbaugh’s statement rests on a 1983 KGB memo that said there was a verbal overture from a friend of Kennedy's to meet with Andropov. Whether the memo was accurate or a KGB invention is deeply contested. We have a firm denial from the man who allegedly made the overture, and a Soviet archive researcher told us that memos of this sort are not always reliable. So Limbaugh was wrong about the letter, and spoke with great certainty about an event when its authenticity is very much in question.

And not surprisingly, your 2009 Forbes article is written by a former speechwriter for Reagan and HW Bush...

 

[Irish YJ]

You can't guarantee that they're "looking to serve" in a way that you approve of.

I would recommend reading about what happened in California with their term limits. The lobbyist establishment gained even more power than ever before because the inexperienced new guys on the block didn't know the ins and outs of the legislative system. By the time they knew available maneuvers, their time was up.

I supported term limits fervidly until I read how it went down in California. Kudos to them for trying it, but it has unintended consequences for legislators. I of course still support term limits for executives.

And arguably worse than lobbying, term limits empower political parties. Political parties, organizations with the sole goal of obtaining power, do more damage than lobbying in my opinion. That's why I think publicly funded elections (removing the umbilical cords from lobbyist and party donors establishments) accomplishes more, and I think things like California's nonpartisan blanket primary are an interesting way to conduct Congressional primaries.



Being less of a centrist than Bill Clinton doesn't mean that Obama didn't generally also govern as a centrist.

I would agree that Bill Clinton was more of a centrist, of course I've also been saying for over a year that the Republican hate for the Clintons doesn't make sense given that they govern as Republicans. I mean the Clinton duo literally brought the Democratic Party into bed with corporations after having seen it work so well with Reagan, and that's the bed they had to lay in through 2016.

I think the entire system has to change, term limits being only part of the change. Term limits alone are not enough... And IMHO, chaos in Cali doesn't mean chaos in other states. Cali is a bit different so not going to base any opinion on the success or failure in that state by itself.

I do believe the right changes can promote a system of citizenship government. The whole system is set up to be too F'ing complex. It shouldn't take someone 20 years in office to figure something out. One could argue it takes 20 years in office to get leverage, dirt, power, influence, etc. over enough people to impose things. IMO, we need to dumb it down. We don't need bills with 50 riders. We need to vote on bills for what they are. But unfortunately what we have is more horse trading than what the people truly want.

On the centrist thing, just because I think Bill was more centrist than Obama, doesn't mean I think Bill was a "moderate". He was more moderate than Obama, but I think Obama was pretty far down the liberal spectrum.

 

[Irish YJ]

Limbaugh: Ted Kennedy undercut Reagan with back-door line to Soviets | PunditFact



And not surprisingly, your 2009 Forbes article is written by a former speechwriter for Reagan and HW Bush...

Just like the whole Clinton email fiasco... just because there's no obvious public proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. I mean the whole effort (soviet) if true would have done with as much secrecy as possible, right? Who knows. Honestly I don't care but nothing I see proves it didn't happen.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Limbaugh: Ted Kennedy undercut Reagan with back-door line to Soviets | PunditFact



And not surprisingly, your 2009 Forbes article is written by a former speechwriter for Reagan and HW Bush...

Well for the record, I actually was pointed there by The Federalist, who also linked the full text of the letter here: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-ted-kennedys-offer-to-help-ussr The letter is included in the appendix of a book by Paul Kengor, who is an admirer of Reagan. The story was first reported in 1992 by The Times of London

It's not too surprising that the man accused of being an accomplice in this affair would deny that he did it. The much stronger argument is that these memos are not always accurate, as you pointed out. However, that does not definitively disprove the reports, especially when they bring out this quote:

In the Reagan years, Kenneth Adelman served as deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and then director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. We asked Adelman what he made of the KGB memo, and he dismissed it.

He had no idea if an overture might have been made, but even it had, Adelman said it didn’t matter.

"We knew senators were doing this sort of thing all the time and we ignored it," Adelman said. "We didn’t think it was important, and it wasn’t. The administration didn’t care about it."

You can call it inconclusive, but there's nothing that you have provided (or Politifact for that matter) that actually disproves the accusation.

Edit: I suppose I should say that I'm not trying to convince anyone that Ted was some sort of monster or even a pinko commie bastard, but I definitely don't want to lionize a deeply flawed man.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Well for the record, I actually was pointed there by The Federalist, who also linked the full text of the letter here: KGB Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light The letter is included in the appendix of a book by Paul Kengor, who is an admirer of Reagan. The story was first reported in 1992 by The Times of London

It's not too surprising that the man accused of being an accomplice in this affair would deny that he did it. The much stronger argument is that these memos are not always accurate, as you pointed out. However, that does not definitively disprove the reports, especially when they bring out this quote:



You can call it inconclusive, but there's nothing that you have provided (or Politifact for that matter) that actually disproves the accusation.

Edit: I suppose I should say that I'm not trying to convince anyone that Ted was some sort of monster or even a pinko commie bastard, but I definitely don't want to lionize a deeply flawed man.

You're asking me to prove a negative, to prove that it didn't happen. That's impossible.

Paul Kengor isn't a man I would be trusting, he's a man whose books from this decade are titled as follows:

2010: Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century
2012: The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor
2013: All The Dupes Fit To Print: Journalists Who Have Served As Tools Of Communist Propaganda
2014: 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative
2015: Reagan's Legacy in a World Transformed
2015: Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage

Clearly this is an author with a bit of an agenda. An admirer of Reagan would be an understatement, this is a guy who writes books on vague connections between progressives and communists and relationships between the President and his so-called mentor. On that last note, he makes defenders of Obama disprove his mentorship and propagandizes a view that spreads to Conservatives who then think he's a radical and not just a variation of a centrist... How fitting for what IE has been discussing lately!

This whole thing looks not only inconclusive, but perhaps a case study in how inconclusive information is presented by Conservative propaganda leaders like Limbaugh in a way that should ultimately be categorized as misinformation.

Just like the whole Clinton email fiasco... just because there's no obvious public proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. I mean the whole effort (soviet) if true would have done with as much secrecy as possible, right? Who knows. Honestly I don't care but nothing I see proves it didn't happen.

That's not how logic is supposed to work. You can't go around creating a world based on very inconclusive evidence and then create a burden of proof to disprove it.

 

[Irish YJ]

You're asking me to prove a negative, to prove that it didn't happen. That's impossible.

Paul Kengor isn't a man I would be trusting, he's a man whose books from this decade are titled as follows:

2010: Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century
2012: The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor
2013: All The Dupes Fit To Print: Journalists Who Have Served As Tools Of Communist Propaganda
2014: 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative
2015: Reagan's Legacy in a World Transformed
2015: Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage

Clearly this is an author with a bit of an agenda. An admirer of Reagan would be an understatement, this is a guy who writes books on vague connections between progressives and communists and relationships between the President and his so-called mentor. On that last note, he makes defenders of Obama disprove his mentorship and propagandizes a view that spreads to Conservatives who then think he's a radical and not just a variation of a centrist... How fitting for what IE has been discussing lately!

This whole thing looks not only inconclusive, but perhaps a case study in how inconclusive information is presented by Conservative propaganda leaders like Limbaugh in a way that should ultimately be categorized as misinformation.




That's not how logic is supposed to work. You can't go around creating a world based on inconclusive evidence and then create a burden of proof to disprove it.

When a person is murdered, a body is not found, and nobody is caught and convicted, does that mean the murder didn't happen? Hoffa still kicking it and prepping for a mad NYE's party???

My point is shit happens all the time that can not be proven. I don't give two shits about this, but I don't rule it out either. I believe LHO was not a loan gunman. Call me crazy...

Burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty is only innocent in the eyes of the law. Not necessarily anywhere else. And even proven guilty doesn't guarantee they got it right...

 

[Irish YJ]

That's not how logic is supposed to work. You can't go around creating a world based on very inconclusive evidence and then create a burden of proof to disprove it.

And a Qestions.... isn't that what religion does?

 

[zelezo vlk]

You're asking me to prove a negative, to prove that it didn't happen. That's impossible.

Clearly this is an author with a bit of an agenda. An admirer of Reagan would be an understatement, this is a guy who writes books on vague connections between progressives and communists and relationships between the President and his so-called mentor. On that last note, he makes defenders of Obama disprove his mentorship and propagandizes a view that spreads to Conservatives who then think he's a radical and not just a variation of a centrist... How fitting for what IE has been discussing lately!

This whole thing looks not only inconclusive, but perhaps a case study in how inconclusive information is presented by Conservative propaganda leaders like Limbaugh in a way that should ultimately be categorized as misinformation.




That's not how logic is supposed to work. You can't go around creating a world based on inconclusive evidence and then create a burden of proof to disprove it.

I don't disagree that Kengor is biased, which is why I admitted that he's a Reagan admirer, which does not say too much other than I wanted to point out his bias. I didn't post his bibliography, because I thought that it wouldn't matter, because we can all agree that he is certainly slanted to one end of the spectrum.

However, that certainly ignores the fact that this was first reported in The Times back in the 1990s.

Furthermore, if you want to throw out the impossibility of proving a negative, I'll certainly remind you that you are engaging in ad hominem attacks against these men and not the merits of their argument. The only point that you have brought up that has merit has been that Soviet records do have false memos in them. However, we do not have any proof that the memo in question is false other than Kennedy's friend says so.

I'm not advocating for charges to be brought against Tunney or for a posthumous censure for Ted Kennedy. I am instead agreeing with Irish#1 that we should not lionize him. The wife of Caesar must be above suspicion.

Buster, I admire your posts and contributions to this forum, and your capability is quite evident from said posts, but I must disagree with you on this. We should not offer Ted as an example of the model senator.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Interesting that Buster's examples of fine career politicians who would be forced out by term limits are both American aristocrats from dynastic families. There are, of course, advantages to hereditary aristocracy (and despite the hostility of our Founders to such an institution, it's probably inevitable since we've ended up with one anyway); though I wouldn't have expected to read a defense of it from a Progressive.

 

[Irish YJ]

Obama administration prepares sanctions, retaliation For Russian Election Meddling - CNNPolitics.com

Will we see any proof?

 

[kmoose]

Fine, Patrick Leahy...

"Leaky" Leahy? Yeah, no thanks.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This pure gold. Donna Brazille trying to save face by throwing HRC and the entire corrupt DNC under the bus. Politico, a website notoriously known to pander to HRC, is the publisher. Haha.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

 

[IrishLax]

This pure gold. Donna Brazille trying to save face by throwing HRC and the entire corrupt DNC under the bus. Politico, a website notoriously known to pander to HRC, is the publisher. Haha.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

This really is a great read.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I don't know if she's trying to save face, or trying to make Hillary look like even more of loser (probably both)

 

[IrishLax]

I don't know if she's trying to save face, or trying to make Hillary look like even more of loser (probably both)

I love reading "scorched earth" stuff... I usually assume it's true, but it can also be people trying to flip a double bird at people they don't like.

 

[BGIF]

But Bernie has never been a true Democrat. He's an Independent who happens to have more Democratic leanings rather than Republican.

So why did they let him run in the primary as a Democrat? Just for his money?

If they didn't want him why didn't they just say so?

 

[Cackalacky]

So why did they let him run in the primary as a Democrat? Just for his money?

If they didn't want him why didn't they just say so?

Sacraficial lamb. HRC needed "opponents". Remind me who the other two opponents were and how long they lasted?

I think Bernie's actual real support was unexpected and so DWS had to go to great lengths to ruin his chances.

DNC never really understood how much of the typical Dem voters didnt want HRC as president.

 

[wizards8507]

Sacraficial lamb. HRC needed "opponents". Remind me who the other two opponents were and how long they lasted?

I think Bernie's actual real support was unexpected and so DWS had to go to great lengths to ruin his chances.

DNC never really understood how much of the typical Dem voters didnt want HRC as president.

That's just not true. Hillary crushed Berne in the popular vote of the Democrat primary. It's a myth that she got the nomination on some kind of rigged superdelagate system. Bernie is very popular among a sizable minority, but he still lost the primary by something like 12 points, even excluding superdelagates.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I really don't understand the "But Bernie wasn't a true Dem" angle. It's true he labeled himself an Ind, but the man caucused with Dems all the time and his entire political resume suggests he's full blown, working class Dem.

What the DNC did to him (and it was obvious at the time to people really paying attention) was totally corrupt and un-democratic. I can never support a political party like that.

I can't stand Donna Brazile. How convenient of her to leave out the part where she gave HRC the debate questions and later got fired by CNN. Go away Donna.

All this shows me is that Bernie is taking over the Dem party. Look at all the support for Medicare for All at the moment, just for example. The Establishment is going to fight this tooth and nail. Get your popcorn.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That's just not true. Hillary crushed Berne in the popular vote of the Democrat primary. It's a myth that she got the nomination on some kind of rigged superdelagate system. Bernie is very popular among a sizable minority, but he still lost the primary by something like 12 points, even excluding superdelagates.

Wiz you keep beating this drum, but you completely refuse to accept that ALL of the MSM was in HRC's back pocket. Hillary is a well-known political figure, Bernie was not. The vast majority of his air time was negative coverage.

He also ran into the issue of closed Dem primaries and other really shady practices.

He also ran as the outsider who wanted to kick over the Establishment's apple cart. You think they're just gonna sit back and say, "Ok, Bernie. Go ahead"? No. They pushed back at him every chanced they got. It's why Bernie supporters were so irate. The entire Dem primary seemed overwhelmingly un-democratic.

What you said isn't untrue. It's just not the entire story.

 

[Cackalacky]

Wiz you keep beating this drum, but you completely refuse to accept that ALL of the MSM was in HRC's back pocket. Hillary is a well-known political figure, Bernie was not. The vast majority of his air time was negative coverage.

He also ran into the issue of closed Dem primaries and other really shady practices.

He also ran as the outsider who wanted to kick over the Establishment's apple cart. You think they're just gonna sit back and say, "Ok, Bernie. Go ahead"? No. They pushed back at him every chanced they got. It's why Bernie supporters were so irate. The entire Dem primary seemed overwhelmingly un-democratic.

What you said isn't untrue. It's just not the entire story.

Right. According to Donna, the table was SET via contract for HRC in August 2015. They had to trot someone out there as a candidate. Bernie exceeded all expectations. I think the HRC Dems underestimated just how well many liberals identified with Bernie, in addition to him being very relateable and true.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's just not true. Hillary crushed Berne in the popular vote of the Democrat primary. It's a myth that she got the nomination on some kind of rigged superdelagate system. Bernie is very popular among a sizable minority, but he still lost the primary by something like 12 points, even excluding superdelagates.

It is true haha. She signed a contract essentially making the DNC beholden to her in exchange for funding and support of lower ticket Dems who would play ball.

They thought their best play was to tow the middle ground so they allowed Bernie (a self described socialist) to run as a distraction/comparison. Then they sandbagged him along the way becasue of his support. His support was legitimate IMO but it wasnt enough to beat the DNC machine.