Election 2016

[azurile13]

Here's the thing about believing that every aspect of the gender wage gap can be explained away:

If you actually believe every part of it is due to non-gender related factors, why would you be opposed to a bill that makes it illegal? This isn't some "PaYZ wOMenz mOar!" The relevant bills, like the Paycheck Fairness Act, still require a plaintiff to prove lower pay for equal work, and the employer can avoid liability by explaining confounding factors. Therefore, if you believe there is no such thing as a woman being paid less than a man for equal work, you shouldn't have a problem with it being illegal, right?

 

[Her]

(thread revival idc the section has been dead for a few days)

Did any of you catch the GOP debate?

 

[Esper]

I did not catch the debate. I've read a little about it, but honestly I don't think there's much point right now. (I'll wait until some of them drop out.) There's not much new being said, just lots of jabs at Clinton, etc., etc. It seems like they're still all racing to the right and I've heard enough of that these last few months (years).

Having so many candidates is just a painful thing to watch. Especially when Trump is leading in the polls.

 

[Her]

Having so many candidates is just a painful thing to watch. Especially when Trump is leading in the polls.

While there's no chance he'll be taken seriously once push comes to shove (I hope), it's so weird to me that Trump is leading at the polls. The only explanation I can think of is that his seemingly omnipresent status in the news thanks to his shock jock-level remarks is currently making up for his lack of credibility.

 

[Infinitum]

Despite the fact that the name doesn't have a good reputation, I still think Jeb Bush could be a good candidate, he might not be the favorite in the poll, but things can change.

 

[Ivysaur]

Trump is leading because he says what the republican primary base wants to hear, helped by name recognition, TV coverage and having such a large field that a 25% is enough to lead the polls by far. You see, a "Washington drone", as conservative as he might be, is bound to lose against an angry, racist, populist billionaire insulting those very politicians because, as ridiculous as it might sound, the angry Tea Partiers agree with him in hating them. It's very unlikely he'll overcome all the hurdles but, the further he runs, the worse it will be for his opponents by turning the primary into a populist mudfight show. And Ross Perot in 1992 split evenly the Bush and Clinton vote- if this guy runs as an independent, he's sure to take 90% of his (hypotetical) vote from Republicans.

As of yet, the primaries (due to start in 6 months) are more about looking at the menu, and the bases obviously love the big old steak with chips and meatballs for drink. Come the time, the people who will accept a moderate and electable salad will probably increase, but, for now, it's all about stablishing your own narrative and the R primary voters love Trump's narrative. That is why he's leading.

 

[Sir Codin]

Trump is an ass.

The fact that he's leading in the polls says all that needs to be said about the average Republican voter.

 

[Akio123]

Trump is leading because he says what the republican primary base wants to hear, helped by name recognition, TV coverage and having such a large field that a 25% is enough to lead the polls by far. You see, a "Washington drone", as conservative as he might be, is bound to lose against an angry, racist, populist billionaire insulting those very politicians because, as ridiculous as it might sound, the angry Tea Partiers agree with him in hating them. It's very unlikely he'll overcome all the hurdles but, the further he runs, the worse it will be for his opponents by turning the primary into a populist mudfight show. And Ross Perot in 1992 split evenly the Bush and Clinton vote- if this guy runs as an independent, he's sure to take 90% of his (hypotetical) vote from Republicans.

That...all of that.

Trump is the ID of the republican party: White, angry, loud, uninformed, and out of touch. Note how his tentative foreign policy he presented in the first debate was based on talking to some random border patrol officers.

 

[twocows]

The only difference from what I posted a month and a half ago is that I like Sanders more than I did back then and I'm also kind of digging what Jim Webb has to say, even if I don't think he stands a chance. My opinion on Rand Paul hasn't changed much; there's stuff I like and stuff I dislike.

 

[Klippy]

I'm still fairly unsure. Trump has appeal, same as Sanders, because they don't sound the SAME as everyone else. Not saying Trump is Heaven-sent or Sanders either, but neither of them are echo-chambers like the rest of their parties and they're both different enough to attract attention.

Trump will fall off the platform before long because he's not a serious choice. Sanders could realistically steal the nom for the Dems, but that'll take some moving and hustling, which he's obviously doing.

 

[£]

My dream is Trump vs Sanders (I shouldn't need to explain why), the probable reality is Bush v Clinton because America and change don't get along too well.

Bernie Sanders for the democrats seems to be a fresh left wing take on the usually bland moderate excuse for a left wing party. Somewhat like what Jeremy Corbyn aims to do with Labour over in England.

 

[Lizardo]

If there's one good thing to be said about Donald Trump, it's that his very presence is exposing a lot about the GOP. The fact that so many conservative voters can cosign a man who called the majority Mexicans coming into the U.S. rapists tells you a lot about what appeals to the base. And it's awesome how it's backfiring on establishment Republicans. Jeb Bush looks soft as hell next to Trump, and the way the moderators clearly tried to sink him in the debate only backfired on FOX in the eyes of hardline conservatives.

Donald Trump is a horrible person with horrible views, but he's been honest about what he believes. He's not hiding his racism and misogyny behind thinly-veiled subtext. And the best part is that he's attracting the attention of reactionary nutcases with a persecution complex in the Republican Party (and there are tons), which means every time FOX News or a moderate Republican like Bush or Rubio try to come after him will just feed their delusion that Trump is a victim of a giant conspiracy to bring him down. Trump isn't afraid to call out other Republicans like Bush, Megyn Kelly, or John McCain – the former and latter of whom many of the hardliners never really loved – and he's driving a wedge in the base because of it.

Republican elites created a monster they can't control, now it's eating them alive and all they can do is wait for him to flame out and hope he doesn't do too much damage in the meantime. Trump is only in this for himself, which gives me hope that he seriously considers running as an Independent if he manages to maintain his following but doesn't win the nomination (which is likely). Split the GOP vote, guaranteeing the White House for the Democrats, and keep the extreme Right convinced that the Republican Party needs to be even more conservative in the future so they can keep losing Presidental elections.

It's the same for Bernie Sanders. I'm disappointed with the way things went down between him and the Black Lives Matter protestors, but he's still the one Democrat who feels genuine about what he believes. I would love to see Sanders vs. Trump in the general (or, rather, Sanders vs. Bush vs. Trump). It'd be far more interesting than the more likely Clinton vs. Bush.

 

[Her]

Trump isn't afraid to call out other Republicans like Bush, Megyn Kelly, or John McCain – the former and latter of whom many of the hardliners never really loved – and he's driving a wedge in the base because of it.

It's interesting that you mention Megyn Kelly 'cause here in NZ they're currently painting her as Fox's Dream Woman despite her being just as complicit as everyone else involved in Fox's (and by extension, the Republican Party's) bullshit, just minus sexism lmao

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I want Sanders to win on the Democrats' side and Fiorina or Paul to win on the Republican side.

I think Trump will start to go down after the debate as the most recent polls show that he has fallen somewhat. I hope that he loses, I detest him and not only for what he said about Mexican immigrants (his comments hurt me personally). I do get why he is popular though, his tell it like it is style is rare in politicians. Sadly the person exhibiting such style is a bigot.

Sander's is a very interesting candidate. I wonder why he is the one most targeted by BLM while the rest of the candidates (on both sides) aren't being treated the same. I have heard arguments that it's to push Sanders further to the left (considering that he's already farther to the left I wonder how far he can go...) in an attempt to make the "ideal" candidate.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'm backing Rand Paul or Donald Trump. I'm also liking Carly Fiornia.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm backing Rand Paul or Donald Trump. I'm also liking Carly Fiornia.

Hey! :D I missed you!

Fiorina certainly took the chance from the kids' table debate to get a poll boost. Not sure how far she'll go, but she'd be some fresh air in a room full of male politicians.

 

[Klippy]

I voted for Fiorina back in the California Senate race. I think she seems way more polished now than then and, yeah, she's a fresh face and if people wanted a female President, she'd have the one-up on Clinton in the "I have way less baggage than you" department.

 

[Sir Codin]

The only candidate I'm realistically backing is Rand Paul.

The candidate I want to back is Gary Johnson.

 

[Esper]

I voted for Fiorina back in the California Senate race. I think she seems way more polished now than then and, yeah, she's a fresh face and if people wanted a female President, she'd have the one-up on Clinton in the "I have way less baggage than you" department.

Clinton vs. Fiorina would be an interesting race. I think Clinton would probably still win because of name recognition, experience, etc. but it would probably be a better run for the Republicans than if they nominated someone like Trump or Cruz or Paul who all have, shall we say, sides to their personalities and policies which can be off-putting.

I voted for Boxer

 

[Klippy]

The candidate I want to back is Gary Johnson.

I quite like Gary as well.

Clinton vs. Fiorina would be an interesting race. I think Clinton would probably still win because of name recognition, experience, etc. but it would probably be a better run for the Republicans than if they nominated someone like Trump or Cruz or Paul who all have, shall we say, sides to their personalities and policies which can be off-putting.

I voted for Boxer

I think the appeal of people like her, Ben Carson, and Trump is that they're not politicians. Clearly it shows Trump isn't, but Fiorina and Carson are outsiders who have a different perspective. It's a reason I like them (I don't have a choice for who I'd vote for yet in any case). But their appeal will grow as the generic Republican candidates all look and speak the same and promise the same.

To me it's too early to call the race in any way. It's basically gonna come down to who gets the nomination and who does better in the debates.

Also I'm tired of Boxer and Pelosi. I'm not a fan anyway, but they've been holding those seats for too long and I prefer fresh faces at times. At this point though, they've basically got no reason to even campaign. Their seats are pretty locked in unless there's a real screw up.