Politics 2016 (election edition)

[bleedorange]

Isn't this similar to what Biden said 2 decades ago?

 

Actually, it isn't. The entire speech Biden gave was about the confirmation process in general. He said in the same speech: "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

[KevinG]

Isn't this similar to what Biden said 2 decades ago?

 

Funny is how the "Biden rule" is now the prevailing way the senate does things.  I wonder if the Senate now will follow all his ideas.  

 

If you take the "Biden rule" as it is and face value (which as BleedOrange has stated that it far more nuanced than that), it still does not make it right or a precedent that the senate should follow.    It would have been wrong if a Dem controlled senate did it in 1992, just as it is wrong for a GOP controlled senate to do it now.  

 

It also should be noted that Biden was talking a hypothetical, whereas the situation we are in is actually happening.  

[bleedorange]

Again, though, Biden merely said that during a contentious election season, there was no use in the president nominating someone at the far end of the political spectrum. In other words, Obama is technically following the "Biden Rule" by nominating a centrist judge, while the Republican majority is just being partisan.

[KevinG]

http://www.stereogum.com/1866192/stryper-frontman-denies-he-is-ted-cruz/news/

 

Freaking awesome

[Sir Stewart]

If Michael Sweet is really Ted Cruz, then he's apparently in his Chris Gaines phase.

[KevinG]

If Michael Sweet is really Ted Cruz, then he's apparently in his Chris Gaines phase.

 

I don't fault anyone for their Chris Gaines phase.  

[Sir Stewart]

I have been hearing a lot of the "Cruz is scarier than Trump" argument. I don't see it.

Yes, Ted Cruz is scary. Lately there's his Armageddon preacher and his insane national security advisor list, along with at least a hundred other terrifying things about him (nevermind that he's the Zodiac killer and the lead singer of Stryper, and - according to one tweet - wearing a rubber mask of his own face at all times). But once I assume he is electable, he's still not anywhere near as scary to me as Donald Trump. Either of them as president would have to deal with opposition from the House and Senate (and even more so after the first two years, because if the GOP candidate wins the presidency this year, we can bet the 2018 midterm results will be a liberal juggernaut). Either may start wars and close nearly every abortion clinic in the country, but probably not, because on paper they wouldn't sit in the Oval Office pulling the strings on everything - no president does.
The reason the belief that Cruz is scarier than Trump rings completely hollow to me is pretty simple. The Cruz acolytes among us (*shudder*), those citizens who lap up every Biblical doom-and-gloom reference he offers, they are mostly not energized nor motivated by his personality enough to grant him anything near a despotic type of reign over the land (regardless of specific political successes as president). An iron fist on Ted Cruz would look ridiculous.
Now Trump, on the other hand, does have exactly that - his followers will spit, steal, harm or even murder for him. And those that wouldn't commit violence would egg on the goons, in one way or another. It's starting to play out already, as you all know. Looking at a photo of my uncle in a Make America Great Again hat, standing at a rally, smiling broadly in his $1,000 suit, I see him as a coward, glibly complicit in the violence to come. The fans of Trump's ideology are immeasurably scarier than even the sickest, most delusional, hateful Cruz followers. President Trump would have to deal with the same obstructionism in Washington as Cruz, and on paper their two four-year terms may look the same, but I don't believe any substantial number of people would be moved to bring calculated physical attacks upon non-white, non-Christian males in the streets under a Cruz presidency. Cruz would end up just another shitty president. If Trump wins, I have no doubt that at some point (maybe many points) in those following four years, I personally will have to insert myself into a dangerous situation in public to help a victim of undue physical violence, be they "illegal", black, Muslim, gay, or just "not one of us". That's the bottom line to me. I'd decide to vote for Cruz in a heartbeat over Trump.

[KevinG]

^^

 

I think the main reason is that people are saying Cruz is worse than Trump, when you get down to brass tacks (and immigration and his crazy talk aside), Trump is seen as a fairly moderate Republican.  Or at least that is the sense you get from him.  Cruz is a pretty dyed in the wool evangelic christian.  Cruz just flatly will refuse to compromise on anything, whereas, Trump as business man, understands at time there is a need for compromise.

 

Robert Reich had a piece in Salon about why Cruz is more dangerous than Trump. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/25/5_reasons_ted_cruz_is_even_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump_partner/ 

 

It is interesting that you bring up the struggles Cruz would have working with Congress (beyond the fact that everyone in congress hates him).  But remember in 2008 through 2010 the Democrats had full control over the House and the Senate.  In that time Obama was able change our healthcare system pretty significantly.  And with his track record of compromise (or lack there of) I am sure he would try to push through whatever agenda he wants, regardless of the politics of the next election cycle.  

 

Now, I am not saying Cruz is more dangerous than Trump or vice versa.  I think they are both dangerous men and have some dangerous and harmful ideas for our country.  I will never have to make the choice or Cruz v Trump, because by the time my primary rolls around (early April), there still will be a battle on the Democratic side that needs my attention more than the dumpster fire that is the GOP.  I guess in November my choice will be Clinton (or Sanders) v Trump (or Cruz or Kasich or Ryan or  Romney). 

 

But for those moderate conservatives out there, do have to pick Cruz over Trump?  Really looking at their records and ideas, do you feel comfortable with either one of them as President?  Sure you say you vote for Cruz over Trump in a heartbeat, but is that what you really want to do?  Is Cruz the man who closely aligns with your ideals.  Or is the thought of a Clinton (or Sanders) presidency so onerous that you need to hold your nose and vote for someone just because of the letter after their name.  

 

BTW - I just saw your signature and I approve.  Although I do not approve of the font choice.  Cause comic sans is the worst.   

[JUDE]

I'm firmly in the Anyone But Clinton camp, I'd vote for Bernie over Trump or Cruz because I at least have some faith that he is following his principals, even though I fall on the conservative end of the spectrum. I don't believe for one second Hilary is fighting for anyone or anything but her legacy, if I ask myself, is Bernie really trying to fight for "the people", my answer is usually yeah, I really think he is.

 

In November I will most likely voting for Trump or Cruz, because Hilary is the anointed one this cycle and ABC.

 

You can point fingers at the Republicans and blame them for this shit storm of an election, I'm sure they thought by rolling out Jeb this would be smooth sailing for the GOPe, but the Democrats are equally to blame by putting everything behind Hillary before the electorate really had any chance to have any input.

[bleedorange]

I don't doubt that Clinton is running for her legacy. But doesn't everyone? And does that necessarily mean she would be a bad president?

[JUDE]

If I have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, I will have to go with whomever the R's put up. 

 

 

I don't think she would be any better of a president than Cruz or even Trump, in fact I think if Trump actually won, he really wouldn't do shit.  Cruz is running because he is an ideologue and believes the Constitution was sent from god, Trump is running just to win.

 

Do you think Bernie is running for his legacy? 

[bleedorange]

Not necessarily as the motivating factor, but I think that's a component in anybody's decision to run for office. Especially president. I doubt that Bernie's decision to run is purely altruistic.

[NoJ]

If I was a Hillary hater and found myself in a position that I had to vote for her or Trump or Cruz, I would abstain from voting.

[ih8music]

One must really have a hard on for the Clintons to consider voting for "whomever" as a valid response. IMO, the appropriate thing to do is either abstain from voting or vote for a 3rd party candidate if you find both options detestable.

 

I recall living in Michigan in the late 90s when John Engler was gov. Couldn't stand him and wished he was out of office. But when the democrats put Geoffrey Feiger up as their candidate, I couldn't bring myself to vote for such a clown. I sat out that election.

[Magnetized]

I'm not sure I understand why a candidate's personal motivation to run is more important than the values he or she espouses. The whole cult of personality thing is baffling to me. Vote for the person you think has the best ideas to move the country in the direction you think is correct, regardless of the person's charisma or personal reasons for running. Of course, it matters whether that person would have the political savvy to get things done too.

[John Smith]

I'm not sure I understand why a candidate's personal motivation to run is more important than the values he or she espouses. The whole cult of personality thing is baffling to me. Vote for the person you think has the best ideas to move the country in the direction you think is correct, regardless of the person's charisma or personal reasons for running. Of course, it matters whether that person would have the political savvy to get things done too.

Remember how often it was said that people would rather have a beer with BUsh than with Gore, so that became a basis for voting.  Competence, ideas etc... all took a back seat.  

[calvino]

Remember how often it was said that people would rather have a beer with BUsh than with Gore, so that became a basis for voting.  Competence, ideas etc... all took a back seat.  

 

Which was odd, since Bush stopped drinking by 2000.

[The Inside of Outside]

Which was odd, since Bush stopped drinking by 2000.

Which would leave more beer for me, if I am drinking with Dubya.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Which would leave more beer for me, if I am drinking with Dubya.

But he probably would have snorted up all the coke.

[KevinG]

Remember how often it was said that people would rather have a beer with BUsh than with Gore, so that became a basis for voting.  Competence, ideas etc... all took a back seat.  

 

Well this year, there is not one candidate I would have a beer with.  I thought I might want to sit down with Kasich, but I saw him this morning on Meet the Press, and man he is a dick.  

[brownie]

I thought I might want to sit down with Kasich, but I saw him this morning on Meet the Press, and man he is a dick.

 

I didn't see it. What did he say? I have been pinning my last hope on Kasich. Mind you, I usually vote democrat, but as much as I love Bernie, I don't see him making it past Hillary, and I just don't trust Hillary.

[Chez]

I watched Meet the Press this morning and didn't come away with that impression of Kasich at all.  Funny.

[tinnitus photography]

 I don't believe for one second Hilary is fighting for anyone or anything but her legacy, if I ask myself, is Bernie really trying to fight for "the people", my answer is usually yeah, I really think he is.

 

this.

[chuckrh]

I think Kasich is good @ wearing a mask of respectability, in this year of fanatics. Look at his record though on women's issues for instance. He's another sick f*ck. I'm not affiliated with any party. I always say I'm pro human being & we know which side comes closest on that. I'm no fan of Hilary either. If/when she gets in, it will be business as usual as she would sell her & the whole country's soul to become the first woman president. The only hope for change (& I'm not entirely sold) is Sanders. I don't think the powers in charge are ever going to allow that or if by some fluke he gets in allow anything to get done. @ this point, greed has destroyed the democracy experiment. It was a noble gesture but human nature being what it is, it was bound to fail. Most likely I'm going to be dead when it comes crashing down. I fear for the next generation or 2 though. Just my opinion, as humble as it is.

[lost highway]

I have to say, the longer the discussion goes on in the general public, the more I feel people are imagining a Clinton presidency wrong.  A Clinton presidency could be a continuation of the Obama presidency with perhaps a few differences.  I don't know if anyone has considered the benign mediocrity that the Clinton administration would be.

 

No, she won't take Wall Street to task.  No, she may not be authentic.  She won't socialize higher ed, or push health care to Scandinavian levels of access.  She won't stop the sending of billions of dollars to Israel. 

 

She would surround herself with a cabinet that would make smart foreign policy decisions.  She would continue the slow pattern of economic growth that Obama has helmed.  Some economists feel that wages are going to go up as the unemployment percentage has been down.  Eventually the fact that we've eliminated a labor surplus should pay off.  Businesses should begin to have the funds, and the need to off positions with more competitive wages. If anything, I see a Clinton administration's most negative effect (I'm not talking about character here, but effect on our citizens) can be encapsulated in four words: Too big to fail.

 

Possible scandals, and an instinctive distaste aside, I think a Clinton administration would do okay by the U.S. I can't think of a GOP candidate I can shower with equally faint praise.