• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Election 2016

Her

  • 11,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen today
    With pretty much all the relevant candidates for the American presidency having announced their campaigns, I thought it was time to make a general thread for the subject. If you think any single news event about the subject is big enough to warrant its own thread, go ahead.

    To get the ball rolling, since there seems to be such a plethora of them, who do you think are the most viable Republican candidates?

    Election 2016
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
  • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I want to say most of them? Keep in mind that I haven't been following US politics with any kind of closeness lately, and my criteria is basically if I've heard them mentioned in the news, they're probably viable.

    Jeb Bush for obvious reasons, Mike Huckabee because I think he's a big name, Marco Rubio for the same reason, and Chris Christie because he's apparently moderate so if he gets the nomination (big if) he could have a wider appeal. I've also heard that Rand Paul is more serious than his father about going for the presidency, so he might be able to moderate his positions.

    Other than that, I have no idea.
     

    twocows

    The not-so-black cat of ill omen
  • 4,307
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I want to see Rand Paul versus Bernie Sanders. Rand has come a long way in the past several years and I like him a lot more than I did several years back. His politics are much more libertarian and much less socially conservative than they used to be.

    Both candidates actually seem to care, unlike the rest of the people in the race.
     

    Her

  • 11,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen today
    Chris Christie because he's apparently moderate so if he gets the nomination (big if) he could have a wider appeal.

    Isn't Christie done for? I'm not sure how much American voters actually care about that traffic scandal he was in a while back, but from the way I was reading reports about it, it seemed like a pretty big mark on his chances for the nomination, let alone the presidency. Though, those same reports always seemed to mention him as 'possible frontrunner for the Republican nomination, if Hillary does announce her campaign' so I guess there's still a chance for him/I'm not up to speed
     

    Lizardo

    Public Enemy
  • 290
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Aug 18, 2016
    Here's the list of candidates currently in the race, expected to join, and who'll not be running: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-candidates.html?_r=0. Still a few probable future Republican candidates on the way, including Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Bobby Jindal.

    As far as most viable Republican candidates go, I don't think there are any. This is a lineup that includes a failed CEO running on her business experience, a biology major who doesn't believe in Evolution, a guy who shut down the government, a third Bush, a guy who stands up for child molesters, a guy who thinks businesses should be allowed to put up "Whites Only" signs, and Donald Trump. And the most notable future candidates include a petty asshole who shut down lanes on a bridge and a Wisconsin governor who wages war on unions. None of these people should ever be within a mile of the White House.

    Bernie Sanders is still the best candidate out there, Democrat or Republican, and he may actually be gaining traction as of late. Hillary is obviously still the frontrunner, but I'm hoping that he'll surprise us.
     

    Sir Codin

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    Rand Paul is the only one among this entire rabble of both parties that I even remotely like. Even then I think he's a dipshit compared to his father.

    Everyone else shouldn't be allowed within 10 feet of the White House, especially Bernie Sanders. Looks like I'm voting third party again...if I even decide to vote at all.
     
    Last edited:
  • 9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Bernie Sanders all the way. The only candidate that I truly agree with consistently 99% of the time.

    But realistically it's going to be Clinton vs. Bush again lol
     

    twocows

    The not-so-black cat of ill omen
  • 4,307
    Posts
    15
    Years
    The amount of Sanders ass-kissing I see is truly repulsive.

    He seems to genuinely care about people, at the very least. He also agrees with me on several key issues.

    * believes those responsible for the 2008 economic crisis should be criminally charged
    * opposes the TPP and the TPA
    * supports net neutrality
    * opposes campaign finance through political action committes
    * supports the legalization of marijuana
    * opposes the Patriot Act and government surveillance overreach
     

    Klippy

    L E G E N D of
  • 16,405
    Posts
    18
    Years
    Reminder: keep things level-headed. This is your warning!

    I would hate for Clinton to get nominated. I feel like she's got far too many questionable things going on with her right now and it would just show American ignorance if we let her be a nominee. At the same time, Jeb Bush could probably fall under the same umbrella. I think he's got a much cleaner picture currently when compared to Clinton (in terms of negative news/bad coverage). That said, I think it's really too early to consider either party having a clear nominee.

    I like Rand, some of Marco Rubio, and I hear good things about Sanders. I don't really know their policies very well right now (I usually check things out when the crowd has thinned up some). I think Christie is has no viability anymore, same with Rick Perry, Donald Trump (obviously), and a few other Republicans. Too many names in the field right now and only a few showing their worth or potential viability.
     
  • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Reminder: keep things level-headed. This is your warning!

    I would hate for Clinton to get nominated. I feel like she's got far too many questionable things going on with her right now and it would just show American ignorance if we let her be a nominee. At the same time, Jeb Bush could probably fall under the same umbrella. I think he's got a much cleaner picture currently when compared to Clinton (in terms of negative news/bad coverage). That said, I think it's really too early to consider either party having a clear nominee.

    I like Rand, some of Marco Rubio, and I hear good things about Sanders. I don't really know their policies very well right now (I usually check things out when the crowd has thinned up some). I think Christie is has no viability anymore, same with Rick Perry, Donald Trump (obviously), and a few other Republicans. Too many names in the field right now and only a few showing their worth or potential viability.

    Such as what? I haven't heard anything about her.
     

    Sir Codin

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    My dislike of Sanders is pretty complicated.

    On many social issues, I agree with him, especially about gay marriage rights, repealing the PATRIOT ACT, and legalizing marijuana.

    Problem is the methods he plans on bringing these things about. His support of an economic system that I vehemently despise makes me prefer more libertarian candidates like Rand or Gary Johnson over him.

    It's very funny...based on social issues alone, I like him. On fiscal issues, however, I despise the man.
     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I do highly doubt that much of the old style Socialist economic system one would automatically associate with him would be enacted in the United States. Even in Europe he would find a place in any Labor or Social Democratic party considering how much such parties have pretty much moved to the right in terms of fiscal and economic policies that they are indistinguishable with Liberals.

    Much of the fiscal policies he is advocating is quite mainstream for the more progressive caucus of the Democratic party. It's just really hard to see someone in the political realm actually advocate for a full throttled defense of certain fiscal policies that I do like. Though the fact that I am a Social Democrat makes me quite biased for him.

    Heck the fact that Sanders has Clinton going 180 on various policies she and her husband supported is quite fascinating.
     

    Lizardo

    Public Enemy
  • 290
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Aug 18, 2016
    For a more comprehensive look at Bernie Sanders' platform, particularly where the economy is concerned, also see here: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/.

    I know people get scared of the whole "social democrat" angle, but what Sanders proposes here really shouldn't be all that radical:

    - investing more in infrastructure, less on fighting useless, expensive, unwinnable wars.
    - recognizing and adapting to the fact that Climate Change exists.
    - not giving tax breaks to businesses who ship jobs off to other countries.
    - supporting unions so as to protect workers.
    - raising the minimum wage to something that people can actually live off of.
    - equal pay for women.
    - not creating trade policies that cost the U.S. jobs (e.g. opposes NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership).
    - making college affordable for everyone.
    - punishing criminal bankers who've proven reckless with people's money and nearly destroyed the economy.
    - health care as a right for everyone.

    I mean, more than half this stuff are things other developed nations already have/do, and a great deal of Americans claim that they want. An economic model where workers can work 8 hours a day and still not be able to feed themselves or their families while CEOs who don't pay their fair share in taxes get richer and ship jobs off to other countries isn't sustainable. And if you think anyone in the GOP, including Rand Paul, is interested in reversing that trend, then I don't know what to tell you.

    As for everything else, it's embarrassing that in the year 2015 we're still debating whether or not women should receive equal pay or that health care should be a right. And there's no reason why the U.S. should be spending as much as it does on the military and on its prisons while its infrastructure rots. Bernie Sanders is on point with almost everything he proposes, much more so than Hillary Clinton or the GOP ever will be.
     
    Last edited:

    Sir Codin

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    Oh, for fuck's sake, the whole "women equal pay" thing. I could go on about this, but Maddox made an awesome as hell video about it that I'm just going to smack you all in the face with and leave it at that:

     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I do respectfully disagree with you on that. It's a real phenomenon and the mental contortions done to justify it just doesn't morally sit right with me. And that's not incorporating the Economics of consumption.
     

    twocows

    The not-so-black cat of ill omen
  • 4,307
    Posts
    15
    Years
    - investing more in infrastructure, less on fighting useless, expensive, unwinnable wars.
    I generally agree with this. Some battles are necessary, but a lot of ours haven't been.
    - recognizing and adapting to the fact that Climate Change exists.
    That sounds good
    - not giving tax breaks to businesses who ship jobs off to other countries.
    That also sounds good
    - supporting unions so as to protect workers.
    Unions are great in theory, but they've become corrupt husks of what they used to be. We need union reform, if anything.
    - raising the minimum wage to something that people can actually live off of.
    I don't know much about economics, but I fear that when you raise the minimum wage, it often leads to inflation, raising the cost of living. I'm not so sure about this, but again, I'm no economics expert.
    - equal pay for women.
    I have a lot of issues with this one, but I'll try to keep it to the point. People should receive fair compensation for the work they do given the expertise and skill they posses; sex/gender should not factor into this equation at all. That is a desirable goal and something I think most people would agree is worth pursuing.

    However, I do not believe that many US liberals are dedicated to this; rather, they have the misguided notion that fair compensation necessarily means equal numbers in all cases. Equality is not expected nor necessary in many cases; small (and sometimes large) pay discrepancies between sexes/genders are very often expected given the presence of other important factors. They are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, ultimately creating problems where there are none. I believe they are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. However, intentions aside, they're still causing problems for innocent, hard-working people, and that's something I will always voice my opposition to.
    - not creating trade policies that cost the U.S. jobs (e.g. opposes NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership).
    The TPP is more sinister than just costing jobs. See here. Sanders' opposition to it is certainly a good thing.
    - making college affordable for everyone.
    I absolutely support this. I know there will be significant costs, but I think the benefits far outweigh them.
    - punishing criminal bankers who've proven reckless with people's money and nearly destroyed the economy.
    Good
    - health care as a right for everyone.
    Good in theory, but the ACA specifically has some flaws. I'd like to see it worked on, at the very least.

    I mean, more than half this stuff are things other developed nations already have/do, and a great deal of Americans claim that they want. An economic model where workers can work 8 hours a day and still not be able to feed themselves or their families while CEOs who don't pay their fair share in taxes get richer and ship jobs off to other countries isn't sustainable. And if you think anyone in the GOP, including Rand Paul, is interested in reversing that trend, then I don't know what to tell you.
    Republicans and Libertarians claim to believe more in the ideal of capitalism, where a dedicated individual can (and should) work their way up the ladder through hard work and education. However, many of their politicians don't support it in practice, and I think that's a major problem with their platform.

    As for everything else, it's embarrassing that in the year 2015 we're still debating whether or not women should receive equal pay
    I think few people are debating the fact that sex/gender should not be a factor in assigning pay. What people are debating is what I've stated above, and that's something that I think is important to talk about, especially since so many liberals are dead-set on calling it an "embarrassing debate."
    or that health care should be a right. And there's no reason why the U.S. should be spending as much as it does on the military and on its prisons while its infrastructure rots. Bernie Sanders is on point with almost everything he proposes, much more so than Hillary Clinton or the GOP ever will be.
    Military spending tends to be reinvested into our own economy and generally increases our foreign influence. I'm opposed to wasteful military spending, but not military spending. Realistically, it's a necessary and useful thing to spend money on.

    If anything, we need MORE spending on prisons (and a lot of reform, too). Our prison system is abysmal compared to other countries'. We need to fix that, not ignore it.
     
    Back
    Top