2016 Election Thread

shimmy · PostAug 07, 2015#12015-08-07T17:20+00:00

There's a lot of threads on progressive politics specifically, St. Louis city politics, and specific issues that often spiral into political topics, but I figured it would be good to start a general politics thread with the 2016 election cycle really kicking off last night. This forum has proven to be a great spot for intelligent, passionate, and respectful debate and I greatly admire many of the people that I have sparred with on a host of issues over the past year. As a conservative, I know I'm in the minority on this board, so I don't always enjoy jumping into the progressive threads and stirring up debate, but I also know many here take a great interest in national politics and the impact that it has on "urban living".

I found the Republican debate last night entertaining, and here are my observations that I wrote down while watching it:
- Donald Trump was hilarious at first, but act has grown tired.
- Jeb Bush is a really smart guy who isn't good at soundbites, and isn't afraid to embrace non-mainline positions.
- Ted Cruz is an absolute imbecile.
- Marco Rubio is more impressive than I gave him credit for, but doesn't leave much of an impression.
- Chris Christie has balls and ideas.
- Rand Paul is disappointing and desperate (criticizing Christie for hugging Obama during a natural disaster is lame red meat).
- John Kasich probably has some good ideas if they actually asked him a question. I don't know.
- Mike Huckabee is pandering for the votes of Breitbart comment trolls.
- Scott Walker is more fake than a cartoon politician.
- Ben Carson is a philosopher, not a politician. And not in a good way for a presidential candidate.
- Carly Fiorina should be on the stage.

After reflecting on what I heard last night and doing some more research, the candidate I am most impressed with is Kasich (I was a Paul guy, but he disappointed me last night). To me, he should be the Republicans' best candidate, but I don't know if he'll get enough attention. However, he:
- Opposes gay marriage, but admits that it's time to move on and answered that question perfectly last night.
- Gives credit to climate change and supports protecting the environment, to an extent to remain economically competitive, and puts it in the right context for conservatives to get behind ("God gave us the responsibility to take care of the world")
- Pro-life
- Pro-Second Amendment
- Is strong on national defense and the military
- Strong track record of low taxes and economic growth
- Realistic in his solutions to illegal immigration (pay a fine and receive legal status, supports massive immigration overhaul)
- Has a heart for the poor (accepted Medicaid expansion in his state to cover 275,000 low-income Ohioans)

These positions, if he can get through the primary, I think have the perfect balance of lining up with the GOP's historic cornerstone positions (low taxes, strong military, pro-life) while reaching out to the left on issues such as gay marriage, immigration, and climate change to try to build some form of consensus and unity while winning votes.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 07, 2015#22015-08-07T17:34+00:00

Im writing Fox News a check for $49.99, i felt that the show last night should have been pay per view...it was worth it. but the sad thing is...one of these clowns will be the GOP nominee....

with that being said (as a far left liberal) John Kasich is probably the only one i would consider voting for if someone held a gun to my head.

Northside Neighbor · PostAug 07, 2015#32015-08-07T21:48+00:00

A few impressions...

In general, watching that debate last night was pretty depressing. I'm thinking if this group of 17 people is the best of the best of the Republican Party, this country is in real trouble. None of them came off as being very impressive.

That a guy like Ted Cruze can raise any money amazes me. Can't stand just listening to his whiny, nasely voice.

I was hoping to like John Kasich, but he seems to have aged a lot from what I remember of him, he seemed tired, and he came across as too religious/born again. I don't like my leadership/government mixed with religion.

Trump is a bully. The idea that a man like that has so much traction in GOP circles says a lot about modern "conservatives".

MarkHaversham · PostAug 07, 2015#42015-08-07T22:04+00:00

I don't think Trump's appeal is to typical conservatives so much as rabidly right-wing white-supremacist mad-at-the-world types. But that's a demographic the GOP appears to need, which might be more depressing in its own way.

shimmy · PostAug 08, 2015#52015-08-08T00:42+00:00

Each side has its nut-cases. Rubio, Kasich, and Fiorina in the earlier debate were all really impressive. Perhaps you don't agree with them, but all seemed like legit contenders. Bush just has to figure out how to phrase his positions better. He's by far one of the most moderate candidates, and his name holds him back considerably, but he seems like he's thinking far faster than he's talking. Not in the same way as his brother, just in that he's having a hard time expressing his more complex positions efficiently. I thought him and Christie brought the most specifics to the debate. Paul just seemed eager and desperate for attention (which, to be fair, he is), but I still found it disappointing.

I think the Republicans have a number of candidates better than anything the Democrats are offering. Hillary's whole campaign is to be as vague as possible ("yay for income equality") and to come out on issues after looking at all of the polls. That's not leadership. Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist. Good luck with that. While he is much more likable than Cruz, his supporters on the left are the equivalent of the Cruz supporters on the right.

KerrytheKonstructor · PostAug 08, 2015#62015-08-08T08:05+00:00

Bush seems to be the most "moderate" on immigration. Trump is more moderate on everything else, it appears now. Kasich has a nice populist streak and a tasty sounding name, as in "Yeah I'll take a tunafish Kasich on rye, hold the tomato, extra mayo, please."

leeharveyawesome · PostAug 09, 2015#72015-08-09T21:49+00:00

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ders-rally

roger wyoming II · PostAug 10, 2015#82015-08-10T21:41+00:00

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to post it, but there is a photo circulating of Rep. Wagner eating her booger on t.v. Between Lady Claire chugging beer and Lady Ann eating nose meat, I gotta say our female contingent in D.C. has a certain flare that should fit right in with the boys.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 10, 2015#92015-08-10T21:53+00:00

shimmy wrote:Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist. Good luck with that. While he is much more likable than Cruz, his supporters on the left are the equivalent of the Cruz supporters on the right.

Sanders supporters lean democratic socialist, which is to say they support a well-used and well-liked form of government known for successfully increasing happiness. Cruz supporters are birthers and climate denialists.

I'm not sure "socialist" is such a bad word anymore. Replace "socialist" with "person who thinks workers deserve a fair shake"; what's wrong with that?

Mound City · PostAug 11, 2015#102015-08-11T15:08+00:00

shimmy wrote:Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist. Good luck with that. While he is much more likable than Cruz, his supporters on the left are the equivalent of the Cruz supporters on the right.

Respectfully, the Cold War ended over twenty years ago, when I was just coming out of the toddler phase. To my entire generation (and even increasingly to people older), "socialist" is, in no way, a "dirty word." Sanders has drawn over a hundred thousand supporters to his rallies so far, more than any other candidate. Today, one of the nation's largest nurse unions announced their endorsement for him. Apart from the facts that Sanders and Cruz are both U.S. senators running for president, the two and their respective supporters have very little, if anything, in common.

To say "each side has their nut jobs" is an utterly false dichotomy. The democratic nominees and their debates are/will not hold a candle to the clown-car circus that was on display in Ohio last week.

For what it's worth, I think Rubio and Kasich looked the best out of all debaters in that first round. I can only laugh at the fact, however, that Trump's poll numbers have apparently improved since that GOP debate.

leeharveyawesome · PostAug 11, 2015#112015-08-11T15:59+00:00

The US is already more or less a "socialist" country. I personally could vote Sanders or Rand Paul. There's very little difference. It's mostly how people choose to view themselves reflected in the mirror that is each candidate. What I mean is, it's basically a "feelings" or an emotional thing.

Mound City · PostAug 11, 2015#122015-08-11T16:10+00:00

I frankly don't understand why anyone who isn't a Wall Street broker or a Fortune 1000 executive would support Paul, but that's just me.

leeharveyawesome · PostAug 11, 2015#132015-08-11T17:01+00:00

There's an aspect of "socialism" and what it takes to make "socialism" work on the level of, say, Denmark that I don't think people generally consider.

It probably takes MORE across the board "personal responsibility" to pull off than just about any other form of government. Also helps to have a very tiny pool of participants. It falls apart otherwise.

I think it's safe to say that most Americans are about as far from your average Dane as you can possibly get. People are different. Cultures are different. Outcomes are not determined by some magic wave of the "socialism" wand. It's just not that simple.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 11, 2015#142015-08-11T17:08+00:00

Paul explains income equality....

Asked if his flat tax plan would further separate the haves from the have-nots, GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said Sunday that income inequality is the result of some Americans working harder than others, rather than economic policies.

"The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things," Paul told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money."

His answer doesn't come close to explaining why $1m households would see a 13% reduction in taxes and 50-75K only 3%

Paul has proposed what he calls a "flat and fair tax," which would put a flat 14.5 percent tax on all types of income. An analysis by the Tax Foundation found that under the plan, households earning more than $1 million per year would see their after-tax incomes rise by 13 percent. Households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income rise only by 3 percent.

"Doesn't your plan massively increase income inequality?" Wallace asked.

"It's a fallacious notion to say, 'Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,'" Paul responded. "If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back

shimmy · PostAug 11, 2015#152015-08-11T17:35+00:00

First, if you don't think the left has its nut cases, then you didn't pay attention to Occupy Wall Street, or Black Lives Matter for that matter. Worshiping Hugo Chavez or chaining yourself to a barrel in the middle of freeway are prime indications that one might be a nut case.

Second, for whatever merits modern socialism may have (which is debatable, considering that the small, homogenous, closed-society Nordic states aren't exactly an equivalent model to the US), and while socialism is less of a dirty word than it was during the Reagan years, it is still perceived mostly negatively by Americans. The most recent poll result I found from the Pew Research Center indicates 60% view it negatively while 31% view it favorably (this was also in 2011, the height of the OWS movement, and when the market was far worse than it is today: http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/ ... socialism/). A poll by Gallup a year earlier has it at 58% negatively and 36% positively (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socia ... aign=tiles). When you look at the graphs, most of that support comes from the left (naturally), which means that a "socialist" running in the general election would have a difficult time winning support from outside the left (54% of moderates had a negative view, 34% positive). To be fair, a libertarian like Paul would run into the same problem. Maybe in the past 4 years there's been a massive turn-around on public support for socialism, but with an improved economy and job markets, I'd reckon that there hasn't been that huge a shift in its favor.

This is all rather irrelevant, though. Sanders has been able to ignite an impressive grassroots movement, but he still trails Hillary by at least 29 points (and that's a Fox poll, others have him trailing by as many as 41 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3824.html). It should also be noted that Sanders is one of only three legitimate Democrat contenders (including Biden, who may not even declare), and with Clinton having been the anointed one for the past two years, it should come as no surprise that the Democratic primary is far less chaotic than the Republican one which has 17 contenders, about 10 of whom can garner strong support. Percentage wise, Trump's supporters are about equal to Sander's. The difference is, instead of the party moderates all supporting one candidate (like Hillary), their support is divided among 16 others (albeit, not all of whom are "moderate").

MarkHaversham · PostAug 11, 2015#162015-08-11T17:58+00:00

leeharveyawesome wrote:There's an aspect of "socialism" and what it takes to make "socialism" work on the level of, say, Denmark that I don't think people generally consider.

It probably takes MORE across the board "personal responsibility" to pull off than just about any other form of government. Also helps to have a very tiny pool of participants. It falls apart otherwise.

I think it's safe to say that most Americans are about as far from your average Dane as you can possibly get. People are different. Cultures are different. Outcomes are not determined by some magic wave of the "socialism" wand. It's just not that simple.

I don't really see why living wages or higher marginal income taxes require cultural homogeneity to pull off. It might require cultural homogeneity to convince voters to go along with it due to racial prejudices, but I wouldn't assume those prejudices are correct.

leeharveyawesome wrote:The US is already more or less a "socialist" country. I personally could vote Sanders or Rand Paul. There's very little difference. It's mostly how people choose to view themselves reflected in the mirror that is each candidate. What I mean is, it's basically a "feelings" or an emotional thing.

Sanders and Rand Paul are about as philosophically opposite as possible. If you think they're the same, I have no idea what you think their platforms are.

audac1ty · PostAug 11, 2015#172015-08-11T18:00+00:00

Mound City wrote:I frankly don't understand why anyone who isn't a Wall Street broker or a Fortune 1000 executive would support Paul, but that's just me.

I can think of lots of reasons. While I don't love any of the candidates, I'd much rather see a Paul presidency than a Sanders one. They both have reasonably strong positions on civil liberties (though I'd argue Paul is a little stronger there), they both have good positions on foreign policy (for the most part - Paul has seemingly gone more hawkish in an attempt to win the primary which I don't love). But I will take Paul's economic policies 100 times out of 100 over Sanders'. I don't think his cuts go nearly far enough, and he's not advocating for the cuts to the military that I think he should - but its vastly preferable in my mind to the sorts of crap Bernie is proposing.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 11, 2015#182015-08-11T18:47+00:00

I don't think anyone who values property rights over human rights can be considered "strong" on civil liberties.

ajwillikers · PostAug 11, 2015#192015-08-11T20:16+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think anyone who values property rights over human rights can be considered "strong" on civil liberties.

In regards to civil rights, (in high voice) technically the unborn aren't citizens.

audac1ty · PostAug 11, 2015#202015-08-11T20:42+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think anyone who values property rights over human rights can be considered "strong" on civil liberties.

Property rights are the most fundamental of human rights, all other rights and ethical concerns flow from property rights. Property rights are literally the most important thing you could possibly be "for." I can't see how a candidate that doesn't understand that could be considered strong on civil liberties.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 11, 2015#212015-08-11T20:56+00:00

audac1ty wrote:
MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think anyone who values property rights over human rights can be considered "strong" on civil liberties.
Property rights are the most fundamental of human rights, all other rights and ethical concerns flow from property rights. Property rights are literally the most important thing you could possibly be "for." I can't see how a candidate that doesn't understand that could be considered strong on civil liberties.

That's the sort of thinking that unironically justifies archaic social constructs like slavery and feudalism. I don't think anyone considers feudalism to be a system known for its strong respect for civil liberties.

leeharveyawesome · PostAug 11, 2015#222015-08-11T21:21+00:00

I bet Haversham could find a way to link a tuna sandwich to slavery. It's a gift.

audac1ty · PostAug 11, 2015#232015-08-11T21:24+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:
audac1ty wrote:
MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think anyone who values property rights over human rights can be considered "strong" on civil liberties.
Property rights are the most fundamental of human rights, all other rights and ethical concerns flow from property rights. Property rights are literally the most important thing you could possibly be "for." I can't see how a candidate that doesn't understand that could be considered strong on civil liberties.
That's the sort of thinking that unironically justifies archaic social constructs like slavery and feudalism. I don't think anyone considers feudalism to be a system known for its strong respect for civil liberties.

Yup, the idea that people have ownership and agency over themselves and that all other freedoms are derived from that fact is totally justification for slavery.... sigh....

The idea that other people are entitled (via force) to the benefits of your labor without your consent seems a lot more like slavery to me, but what do I know.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 11, 2015#242015-08-11T21:55+00:00

leeharveyawesome wrote:I bet Haversham could find a way to link a tuna sandwich to slavery. It's a gift.

"God, how come every time I demand that large swaths of the population quietly work for subsistence wages to make things for me, you gotta bring up slavery?"

audac1ty wrote: Yup, the idea that people have ownership and agency over themselves and that all other freedoms are derived from that fact is totally justification for slavery.... sigh....

The idea that other people are entitled (via force) to the benefits of your labor without your consent seems a lot more like slavery to me, but what do I know.

I agree with everything in this post. Which is why I don't support corporate use of the threat of bodily harm to force workers to work for slave wages while keeping the benefits of their labor for the corporate shareholders. And it's why I support the right of a woman to control herself and her body without government interference, even in the case of pregnancy.

Supremacy of property rights leads to arguments like "so-and-so owns all this property, so anyone who wants to live there has to submit to any conditions he demands with no complaint, no matter how dehumanizing." After all, pretty much all the property in the country is owned by a handful of people, and many people own no property at all, so supremacy of property rights means that those people with no property have no meaningful rights at all. If the landowners of the country get together and decide that all propertyless people should be enslaved or shot on sight for the crime of trespassing, well, so much for civil rights! Your right to live doesn't trump my right to not have to look at unseemly sorts walking through my lawn, after all.

audac1ty · PostAug 11, 2015#252015-08-11T22:26+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:
leeharveyawesome wrote:I bet Haversham could find a way to link a tuna sandwich to slavery. It's a gift.
"God, how come every time I demand that large swaths of the population quietly work for subsistence wages to make things for me, you gotta bring up slavery?"

audac1ty wrote: Yup, the idea that people have ownership and agency over themselves and that all other freedoms are derived from that fact is totally justification for slavery.... sigh....

The idea that other people are entitled (via force) to the benefits of your labor without your consent seems a lot more like slavery to me, but what do I know.
I agree with everything in this post. Which is why I don't support corporate use of the threat of bodily harm to force workers to work for slave wages while keeping the benefits of their labor for the corporate shareholders. And it's why I support the right of a woman to control herself and her body without government interference, even in the case of pregnancy.

Supremacy of property rights leads to arguments like "so-and-so owns all this property, so anyone who wants to live there has to submit to any conditions he demands with no complaint, no matter how dehumanizing." After all, pretty much all the property in the country is owned by a handful of people, and many people own no property at all, so supremacy of property rights means that those people with no property have no meaningful rights at all. If the landowners of the country get together and decide that all propertyless people should be enslaved or shot on sight for the crime of trespassing, well, so much for civil rights! Your right to live doesn't trump my right to not have to look at unseemly sorts walking through my lawn, after all.

Its reductive yes, but I was always told "two wrongs don't make a right." Yes, its crappy that people get stuck in bad situations, and yes its not fair that some people start life with economic advantages over others but that doesn't suddenly ethically justify the forcible confiscation of their property/money/whatever to give it to those that have less. It is always, unequivocally, wrong to take someone's property without their consent - the fact that its for a good cause doesn't justify it. The world doesn't owe everyone an existence.