Election 2016

[Esper]

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.

Personally, I'd rather have someone more like Sanders than Boxer or Pelosi. He's a politician, but he doesn't speak like a politician either. I agree that people like Boxer and Pelosi are only going to stop representing their respective areas when they either retire or screw up in some major way (which they probably won't). That's just how it is in lots of heavily blue or red areas. I'd like newer people in their places as well, some who aren't such Clinton-esque Democrats but something more progressive and responsive to the needs of the most needy. (Not to say that they do nothing, and I'd sure rather have Boxer representing my state over Fiorina, but, you know. Can't always get what you want.)

I'd be most disappointed if the presidential election ended up Clinton vs. Bush. I'd almost want to give up then.

 

[Klippy]

Personally, I'd rather have someone more like Sanders than Boxer or Pelosi.

I'd be most disappointed if the presidential election ended up Clinton vs. Bush. I'd almost want to give up then.

I like Sanders' honesty. I'm not really familiar with his politics though, but he seems like he's a very genuine person, so that's really commendable compared to the other people we get.

Yeaaaaah. I'm honestly kind of tired of the two families in general. I think we need fresh faces, fresh ideas, etc. Not the same two dynasties ruling our country for 20 of the last 28 years.

 

[Sir Codin]

Just because someone is honest and genuine with their views that doesn't mean their views aren't shit.

 

[Castaigne]

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.

I literally don't understand Fiorina's appeal at all. She singlehandedly ran HP into the ground, her Senate races seemed like a bizarre half formed idea, and now she's actually doing well despite the fact that again she has zero credentials. Trump may not be a great businessman (spoiler: he ain't lol) but at least he's a good businessman.

 

[Klippy]

I literally don't understand Fiorina's appeal at all. She singlehandedly ran HP into the ground, her Senate races seemed like a bizarre half formed idea, and now she's actually doing well despite the fact that again she has zero credentials. Trump may not be a great businessman (spoiler: he ain't lol) but at least he's a good businessman.

Like I said, she's not a Washington politician, which is largely why people see the appeal in her and the others who have different backgrounds. She also performed well in the debate, so it brought her numbers up. I'm definitely not saying she's the end-all, be-all candidate, but that's why there's appeal.

 

[Castaigne]

Like I said, she's not a Washington politician, which is largely why people see the appeal in her and the others who have different backgrounds. She also performed well in the debate, so it brought her numbers up. I'm definitely not saying she's the end-all, be-all candidate, but that's why there's appeal.

I get the appeal of "I'm not from Washington" but I don't get the appeal of "failed CEO." I get Trump. He made money, he marketed himself as a guy that made money. Everything he does is spray painted in gold, but to ye old common folk it's still gold. I get Bernie. He's a hippy Vermont snowball that doesn't have a chance in hell to win, but I get him. He's saying what a lot of young people want to hear.

But why in god's name is anyone voting for Fiorina. It doesn't matter that she handled herself well in a circus of fools. She's a bad businesswoman, and the way you can tell is that the only way she's made any money since HP is as a public speaker.

 

[Klippy]

I get the appeal of "I'm not from Washington" but I don't get the appeal of "failed CEO." I get Trump. He made money, he marketed himself as a guy that made money. Everything he does is spray painted in gold, but to ye old common folk it's still gold. I get Bernie. He's a hippy Vermont snowball that doesn't have a chance in hell to win, but I get him. He's saying what a lot of young people want to hear.

But why in god's name is anyone voting for Fiorina. It doesn't matter that she handled herself well in a circus of fools. She's a bad businesswoman, and the way you can tell is that the only way she's made any money since HP is as a public speaker.

The average American doesn't know her background beyond what she says on that stage. If she says, "I helped run HP, a successful printer company", then that's what people hear. If they hear, "Actually I ran HP into the ground, oops!", you'd have a different picture. But I'd wager less than 15% of Americans look real deep into the candidates they're voting for or interested in. People see what they want out of their chosen candidate.

 

[Castaigne]

The average American doesn't know her background beyond what she says on that stage. If she says, "I helped run HP, a successful printer company", then that's what people hear. If they hear, "Actually I ran HP into the ground, oops!", you'd have a different picture. But I'd wager less than 15% of Americans look real deep into the candidates they're voting for or interested in. People see what they want out of their chosen candidate.

Yeah HP is a printer company because of her. With all the mud people are slinging around how has no one managed to sling that one?

Granted I've disliked her way before she was ever on anyone's radar nationally. Actually went to one of her events a couple years ago and asked her how she felt about HP's recovery after her departure.

 

[Ivysaur]

Just for good measure, let's remember Fiorina's Demon Sheep ad during her Senate campaign.

 

[Lizardo]

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.

It's not really a political thing.

Black Lives Matter is all about forcing black issues to the center of people's attention whenever possible and its participants have made a point of saying the movement is apolitical. Sanders may be the most far left candidate in the race, but he doesn't get special treatment for it and the feeling was that his platform wasn't saying enough about race. It seems to have worked, too. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have made moves to reach about to BLM activists.

BLM also just went after a Jeb Bush rally, so it's not just Sanders. But in general I'd honestly regard the GOP as a waste of time. Not one of those candidates care, and so much of the base is actively hostile to the idea of treating black people as human anyway.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

It's not really a political thing.

Black Lives Matter is all about forcing black issues to the center of people's attention whenever possible and its participants have made a point of saying the movement is apolitical. Sanders may be the most far left candidate in the race, but he doesn't get special treatment for it and the feeling was that his platform wasn't saying enough about race. It seems to have worked, too. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have made moves to reach about to BLM activists.

BLM also just went after a Jeb Bush rally, so it's not just Sanders. But in general I'd honestly regard the GOP as a waste of time. Not one of those candidates care, and so much of the base is actively hostile to the idea of treating black people as human anyway.

I don't think that's true. Either way the base of either party may vote most often but they aren't the majority. It's worth noting that the Democratic party was the most anti-Black Party fifty years ago but rapidly shifted it's platform due to the Civil Right's movement, so if the party that created the KKK could change so quickly so can the Republicans.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

My impressions on the 2016 campaign choices:

Spoiler:

Isn't it just perfect that they have the date set in November? Out of all the things in the world this topic has me walking away before they can fit two words in. Such a mess it is.

 

[Esper]

I don't think that's true. Either way the base of either party may vote most often but they aren't the majority. It's worth noting that the Democratic party was the most anti-Black Party fifty years ago but rapidly shifted it's platform due to the Civil Right's movement, so if the party that created the KKK could change so quickly so can the Republicans.

They won't though. People can change their minds and views and opinions, but if they do they'll just move to a different party when they vote. The parties themselves are slow and don't change very quickly at all. What happened in the civil rights era was an outlier brought about mostly because an entire demographic didn't have much of any representation in government. Today all the largest voting blocs have, at least in theory, one party that represents them. Republicans represent white people and Democrats represent everyone else. Now of course plenty of black people aren't going to be satisfied with the Democratic party, but most of them would be even more unhappy with the Republican party as it is and if the Republican's official stance were to change drastically to be more appealing to black voters then that would just alienate a lot of their existing base.

 

[Lizardo]

I don't think that's true. Either way the base of either party may vote most often but they aren't the majority.

Republican voters have consistently been in support of policies that are, directly and indirectly, detrimental to black Americans for decades. It says something that even the most moderate GOP Presidential candidates today are the most reluctant to discuss race in their platforms while conservative media like FOX News have been hostile to the Black Lives Matter movement. The majority of Republican voters likely would never admit to it obviously, but it's easy to see what they really think of black people when the topic is brought up, or when Republican elected officials have to vote.

And I think that's why the BLM protestors shutting down the Bernie Sanders rally was important, more so than going after the Republicans or even Hillary Clinton. The Democrats and white liberals have been able to get by with only paying nominal attention to black issues for too long, because they know black people have nowhere else to go in the two-party system. The GOP is so much worse and the reactionaries currently boosting Trump's numbers are obviously still too much of an influence in that party. But this at least shows that there's a vocal segment of black people who won't simply be content with, "at least we're not the Republicans".

 

[Sir Codin]

"The lessor of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend."
- Penn Jillette

 

[Silais]

The only viable candidate I can think of is perhaps Dr. Ben Carson, because of his background in medicine and his obvious high intelligence. None of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, interest me in the least. None of them really deserve to be president. They're all the same; big business, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. etc.

 

[Ivysaur]

The only viable candidate I can think of is perhaps Dr. Ben Carson, because of his background in medicine and his obvious high intelligence. None of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, interest me in the least. None of them really deserve to be president. They're all the same; big business, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. etc.

I think you might have missed one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Because if you think that this dude is "the same; big business, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.", then maybe your whole concept of politics is a bit really skewed.

 

[Silais]

I think you might have missed one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Because if you think that this dude is "the same; big business, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.", then maybe your whole concept of politics is a bit really skewed.

Anyone can talk the talk. He may have a history of walking the walk, but we will have to see if being president impedes his ability to do what he wants to do. Even good candidates who have a history of making bold claims tend to end up sitting in the White House twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Livewire]

Ben Carson may be the least qualified of the republican bunch (Well, except Cruz or Trump) to be President, lol. He's a neurosurgeon, not a statesman, and he's little more than a fringe candidate. This is the guy who said, with a straight face no less, he would use drone strikes to bomb the hideouts along the mexican border used to bring "illegal immigrants" across the border. Nah fam.

 

[Her]

On a side note, Deez Nuts is polling at 9% in North Carolina lmao