2016 Presidential Horse Race

[DonnieNarco]

If we stop giving aid all of the dictators we established may not be so pro-US anymore.

 

[Huntr]

Foreign aid is only about 1% of the federal budget, 1.4% if you include foreign military aid.

Talking about reducing spending without specifying defense, health care and social security is, well, pretty much what I expect to read on an intarwebs message board.

 

[wizards8507]

Foreign aid is only about 1% of the federal budget, 1.4% if you include foreign military aid.

Talking about reducing spending without specifying defense, health care and social security is, well, pretty much what I expect to read on an intarwebs message board.

Did I say not to cut those things? No, I didn't. Stating "this is a good idea" is not the same as stating "this is a good idea exclusive of all other ideas because I think they're terrible."

 

[Huntr]

Did I say not to cut those things? No, I didn't. Stating "this is a good idea" is not the same as stating "this is a good idea exclusive of all other ideas because I think they're terrible."

Cutting foreign aid is not a good idea. We spend a pittance on foreign aid. Cutting foreign aid would not help reduce government spending in any meaningful way and would only serve to reduce our influence globally.

 

[wizards8507]

In N.H., Rand Paul distinguishes himself from rivals — and from his father - Politics - The Boston Globe

Rupert Murdoch weighs in on 2016, calls Romney 'a terrible candidate' - POLITICO.com

 

[RDU Irish]

Looks like Paul just lost 1/8th of the people age 55 to 65 who are on disability. Disability claims are up 250% over the last thirty years, in a time that manual demands of jobs has dramatically dropped.

As usual, I agree with every damn thing he says in that article.

 

[wizards8507]

Five decisions for Hillary | TheHill

WESLEY PRUDEN: Why Hillary Clinton won't run for president - Washington Times

 

[Irish8248]

Can't wait to see Kasich accept the nomination at the RNC as the entire Quicken Loan Arena erupts

 

[wizards8507]

EXCLUSIVE: Marco Rubio Moves Toward 2016 Presidential Bid - ABC News

 

[wizards8507]

Romney Will Not Run for President

 

[ND NYC]

who do you guys think will be the respective nominees at this point?

Republican: __________
Democrat: _________

any wild card independents out there that could have a shot?

 

[irishog77]

who do you guys think will be the respective nominees at this point?

Republican: __________
Democrat: _________

any wild card independents out there that could have a shot?

If Gary Coleman were still alive, I wish he'd make another run at office.

 

[wizards8507]

who do you guys think will be the respective nominees at this point?

Republican: __________
Democrat: _________

any wild card independents out there that could have a shot?

My best guess would be Bush and Clinton.

 

[Black Irish]

My best guess would be Bush and Clinton.

NO! We already did the 90s, let's try something different.

 

[wizards8507]

NO! We already did the 90s, let's try something different.

#StandWithRand

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

No Mitt. That's a good first step for 2016.

 

[connor_in]

If Gary Coleman were still alive, I wish he'd make another run at office.

Oh I see...its OK for him to still vote, but you won't let him hold office just because he's dead? THAT'S RACIST!

or shouldn't I use italics...?

 

[Rack Em]

#StandWithRand

Rand Paul - Trey Gowdy

#ModernConservativeDreamTeam

 

[Buster Bluth]

I have fundamental disagreements with libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for Rand Paul over anyone else listed regardless. But assuming he someone wins the election...what happens? Congress runs the country.

 

[GowerND11]

I have fundamental disagreements with libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for Rand Paul over anyone else listed regardless. But assuming he someone wins the election...what happens? Congress runs the country.

This. First step for any change is fixing Congress not the President.

Question Buster, what do you have against libertarianism? Serious question, not trying to come off dickish.

 

[LeapinLeprechaun]

First off the true problem in this country isn't the President, Republican or Democrat, it is Congress. Term limits anyone?

However, I really hope that people do not nominate the same old people Clinton or Bush. There are over 300 million people in this country. I am sure there are better people in other families.

I initially wanted Romney in past years because he actually has a track record of being a decent executive. Look at his business record, Olympics and I thought he did a pretty good in a Liberal state while he was a Republican. However, the Republican right crazies got a hold of him in the elections and beat him down, forcing him to take their positions. That is when I pulled the lever for Obama.

But people will do what they always do, vote for name recognition over anything else and play the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. Clinton is too old and for God's sake people a third Bush is not the charm. But it will be Bush vs. Clinton the ultimate blood bath. The country will show how dumb we really are again.

 

[NCDomer]

First off the true problem in this country isn't the President, Republican or Democrat, it is Congress. Term limits anyone?

However, I really hope that people do not nominate the same old people Clinton or Bush. There are over 300 million people in this country. I am sure there are better people in other families.

I initially wanted Romney in past years because he actually has a track record of being a decent executive. Look at his business record, Olympics and I thought he did a pretty good in a Liberal state while he was a Republican. However, the Republican right crazies got a hold of him in the elections and beat him down, forcing him to take their positions. That is when I pulled the lever for Obama.

But people will do what they always do, vote for name recognition over anything else and play the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. Clinton is too old and for God's sake people a third Bush is not the charm. But it will be Bush vs. Clinton the ultimate blood bath. The country will show how dumb we really are again.

Fivethirtyeight has a good column about how the crazies float to the top. Romney was better when he failed to get the Republican nomination. Took on more conservative positions and received the nomination the second time around. However, in adopting those conservative positions, lost votes from the fringe Dems/liberals. It's tough to blame those voters because if Romney had to cater to the extremists on the right then, he'd likely do the same once elected.

Republicans will have a tough time getting someone nominated who's appealing to moderates in general. J.Bush is already getting attacked for being too moderate. With that said, H.Clinton is getting some similar flack for the big business deals Bill did while in office.

As a result, if either Bush or Clinton fails to get the nomination, we're probably getting an extreme candidate on both sides. GOP next in line are Paul, Rubio, and Walker. Dems next in line are Warren, O'Malley, and Biden.

I have a difficult time seeing someone beat Clinton on the Dem side. Warren doesn't seem interested. Biden can't beat Clinton, but he becomes a major player if Clinton withdraws. O'Malley lacks too much compared to the others to win.

 

[NCDomer]

This. First step for any change is fixing Congress not the President.

Question Buster, what do you have against libertarianism? Serious question, not trying to come off dickish.

Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed because it's premised on people acting rationally and ignores externalities when people only focus on what's good for them. It also ignores the fact that even people acting rationally can be bad for the collective whole (ie, America).

We know people don't act rationally.

Externalities happen.

Individuals acting rational harms collective whole. Why hello, AIG.

 

[wizards8507]

Fivethirtyeight has a good column about how the crazies float to the top. Romney was better when he failed to get the Republican nomination. Took on more conservative positions and received the nomination the second time around. However, in adopting those conservative positions, lost votes from the fringe Dems/liberals. It's tough to blame those voters because if Romney had to cater to the extremists on the right then, he'd likely do the same once elected.

Republicans will have a tough time getting someone nominated who's appealing to moderates in general. J.Bush is already getting attacked for being too moderate. With that said, H.Clinton is getting some similar flack for the big business deals Bill did while in office.

As a result, if either Bush or Clinton fails to get the nomination, we're probably getting an extreme candidate on both sides. GOP next in line are Paul, Rubio, and Walker. Dems next in line are Warren, O'Malley, and Biden.

I have a difficult time seeing someone beat Clinton on the Dem side. Warren doesn't seem interested. Biden can't beat Clinton, but he becomes a major player if Clinton withdraws. O'Malley lacks too much compared to the others to win.

1. Romney didn't lose because he lost the moderates. Romney lost because conservatives stayed home.

2. Your description of the "extreme" of the Republican party is based on a sophomoric understanding of the left-right political spectrum. The Republican primary in 2016 will not be about more conservative or less conservative, it'll be about big government versus small. Think Rand Paul versus Rick Santorum, not Rick Santorum versus Jeb Bush. One is a libertarian and the other wants to legislate morality. Which is the "extreme" conservative?

Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed because it's premised on people acting rationally and ignores externalities when people only focus on what's good for them. It also ignores the fact that even people acting rationally can be bad for the collective whole (ie, America).

We know people don't act rationally.

Externalities happen.

Individuals acting rational harms collective whole. Why hello, AIG.

AIG happened BECAUSE of state intervention, not individuals acting rationally. Further, libertarianism does not ignore externalities, it just has a different way of dealing with them than "ban shit."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[NCDomer]

1. Romney didn't lose because he lost the moderates. Romney lost because conservatives stayed home.

2. Your description of the "extreme" of the Republican party is based on a sophomoric understanding of the left-right political spectrum. The Republican primary in 2016 will not be about more conservative or less conservative, it'll be about big government versus small. Think Rand Paul versus Rick Santorum, not Rick Santorum versus Jeb Bush. One is a libertarian and the other wants to legislate morality. Which is the "extreme" conservative?


AIG happened BECAUSE of state intervention, not individuals acting rationally. Further, libertarianism does not ignore externalities, it just has a different way of dealing with them than "ban shit."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

Regarding 1., I think you watch too much foxnews. That's what they claimed and claimed it was because Romney didn't go conservative enough. Most liberals were looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama for varying reasons. The conservatives already had the not-Obama appeal in full force.

Regarding 2., both are extremes. Rand is the fiscal conservative extreme while Santorum is the moral conservative extreme. Also, stating a concept in simple form doesn't equate to a sophomoric understanding.

Please explain how libertarianism deals with externalities.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. Romney didn't lose because he lost the moderates. Romney lost because conservatives stayed home.

2. Your description of the "extreme" of the Republican party is based on a sophomoric understanding of the left-right political spectrum. The Republican primary in 2016 will not be about more conservative or less conservative, it'll be about big government versus small. Think Rand Paul versus Rick Santorum, not Rick Santorum versus Jeb Bush. One is a libertarian and the other wants to legislate morality. Which is the "extreme" conservative?


AIG happened BECAUSE of state intervention, not individuals acting rationally. Further, libertarianism does not ignore externalities, it just has a different way of dealing with them than "ban shit."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

Romney lost because he is a 1% douche who alienated half the country when he made a dramatic shift right to appeal to tea baggers and further alienated half the country by saying they were addicted to the gpvermment teet. Fuck Romney and the dancing horse he rode in on.

 

[DillonHall]

First off the true problem in this country isn't the President, Republican or Democrat, it is Congress. Term limits anyone?

However, I really hope that people do not nominate the same old people Clinton or Bush. There are over 300 million people in this country. I am sure there are better people in other families.

I initially wanted Romney in past years because he actually has a track record of being a decent executive. Look at his business record, Olympics and I thought he did a pretty good in a Liberal state while he was a Republican. However, the Republican right crazies got a hold of him in the elections and beat him down, forcing him to take their positions. That is when I pulled the lever for Obama.

But people will do what they always do, vote for name recognition over anything else and play the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. Clinton is too old and for God's sake people a third Bush is not the charm. But it will be Bush vs. Clinton the ultimate blood bath. The country will show how dumb we really are again.

LOL you state that Congress is the problem then spend the rest of your post talking about the Presidential election.

 

[wizards8507]

Regarding 1., I think you watch too much foxnews. That's what they claimed and claimed it was because Romney didn't go conservative enough. Most liberals were looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama for varying reasons. The conservatives already had the not-Obama appeal in full force.

Regarding 2., both are extremes. Rand is the fiscal conservative extreme while Santorum is the moral conservative extreme. Also, stating a concept in simple form doesn't equate to a sophomoric understanding.

Please explain how libertarianism deals with externalities.

I don't watch any Fox News, thanks. If you think a libertarian would find like-minded voices amongst O'Reilly and Hannity, not even close. It's funny that you paint Rand Paul as an extreme conservative yet the Republic establishment criticizes his positions as liberal. Left-libertarian and right-libertarian are two sides of the same coin yet far opposite sides of the traditional spectrum. Our recent choices have been between right statism and left statism but I reject the notion that we should have to pick between a socialism and fascism.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[BobbyMac]

I don't watch any Fox News, thanks. If you think a libertarian would find like-minded voices amongst O'Reilly and Hannity, not even close. It's funny that you paint Rand Paul as an extreme conservative yet the Republic establishment criticizes his positions as liberal. Left-libertarian and right-libertarian are two sides of the same coin yet far opposite sides of the traditional spectrum. Our recent choices have been between right statism and left statism but I reject the notion that we should have to pick between a socialism and fascism.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

The problem for most Wiz is if it doesn't fit neatly into the media's carefully pre-packaged political boxes, they still label it with their "team's" lingo and try to cram it in the box anyways.

People on today's left can't wrap their heads around someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They throw you in the same box with Pat Robertson because you are the same in their eyes.

.

 

[nico7980]

This thread is really informative. I consider myself an Independent. Though I lean to the left. As of late. I noticed that some on the right have been talking more about income inequality. How bad it is now. My question is. Can some of those that lean right give me some examples where Republicans proposed laws that benefited the middle class?