|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I think you're wrong about "second Clinton". Part of the reason that she is the second Clinton is her ambition. Not saying she doesn't love Bill, but she's a political animal through and through. Even without the First Lady thing, 1.33-term NY senator and SecState with no major fuckups (sorry vilerat) is not a bad resume. Not great, but certainly not bad. The other names bandied about aren't definitely on a level above that, at least. I think you are partly making my point for me. I am postulating that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and otherwise politically connected, she is less likely to be a possible Democratic nominee. I don't deny that ambition is necessary for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton to be in the running for Presidential Candidates right now, what I'm saying is that if the selection process for each candidate was truly independent and meritocratic, it's really unlikely that it would pick two people that closely related to prior selections. In other words, the selection process is not meritocratic, and is instead cronyism.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I think you're wrong about "second Clinton". Part of the reason that she is the second Clinton is her ambition. Not saying she doesn't love Bill, but she's a political animal through and through. Even without the First Lady thing, 1.33-term NY senator and SecState with no major fuckups (sorry vilerat) is not a bad resume. Not great, but certainly not bad. The other names bandied about aren't definitely on a level above that, at least. A two-term Vice President could be, if that Vice President wasn't Joe Biden. The VP choices will be pretty interesting since people tend to describe it as a slot for grooming a future Presidential contender but that hasn't always worked out. Who's Hillary's likely choice, again? One of the Castros, or is it too early to give them prime time? And also it's true that Hillary's profile was boosted by being married to Bill, but if they hadn't married she probably would've had her own political career independent of him. It's more akin to a political alliance rather than being the son of a famous line and inheriting your parents' circle and money, otherwise we might as well say Vice Presidents are cronies since their own bid for President is buoyed by the networking and exposure they get playing second fiddle to America's top politician. I can imagine a situation where someone effectively uses their wife or husband as a hand puppet and gets them elected so they can be President through them, but this won't be one of those times. I'm actually kind of curious how Bill will/may take to the job of First... Gentleman? Since traditionally the role's called for being fairly neutral, passive and inoffensive. Not that Hillary didn't have a lot of swing in Bill's White House and Bill wouldn't have a lot in Hillary's, just that there'd be definite role reversal. Dolash fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:I think you are partly making my point for me. I am postulating that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and otherwise politically connected, she is less likely to be a possible Democratic nominee. I don't deny that ambition is necessary for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton to be in the running for Presidential Candidates right now, what I'm saying is that if the selection process for each candidate was truly independent and meritocratic, it's really unlikely that it would pick two people that closely related to prior selections. In other words, the selection process is not meritocratic, and is instead cronyism. Wow like most independents you have really penetrated to the heart of our system. Cronyism you say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:I think you are partly making my point for me. I am postulating that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and otherwise politically connected, she is less likely to be a possible Democratic nominee. I don't deny that ambition is necessary for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton to be in the running for Presidential Candidates right now, what I'm saying is that if the selection process for each candidate was truly independent and meritocratic, it's really unlikely that it would pick two people that closely related to prior selections. In other words, the selection process is not meritocratic, and is instead cronyism. If we put forth presidential candidates based on abstract notions of merit, we'd see a a whole gently caress load more people with PhD's and backgrounds in academia as opposed to now where the highest form of education will usually be law. Not saying that all of them need to be, but you don't see any realistic candidates with doctorates. The reason you can't do that is because you'll lose way too many years building up that "merit" while the real politicians are networking. In a two party system, you absolutely need to be plugged into your party and working to establish your own network of connections, donations, and whatnot. Hilary is objectively very good at politics. She has held significant offices, raised a poo poo ton of money, and managed to come out of decades of public scrutiny and failed scandals without being knocked out of contention. Obviously it's easier if you're related to someone who already has that network assembled, but I'd give Hillary a lot more credit for building the Clinton empire than Jeb gets for the Bush one. Finally, I still don't get how people can handwave Jeb and Hillary like they're the same. Do you remember the Clinton years as compared to the Bush years? You should probably have a pretty clear idea which ones were better. I'm not even a huge Hillary fan (she's way too moderate), but come on, one of those is the wife of a well-regarded president and the other is the son of a bad president and brother of the worst president in decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:So, I'm an Iowan that is currently Independent, not currently eligible to participate in either the Republican or Democratic caucuses. I'm pretty much a centrist who has yet to see any candidate that I care for yet. The last presidential candidate that I felt feelings stronger than "meh" for was Jon Huntsman, R-Utah. I'm going to have to question your centrism, since Huntsman proposed the most extremely regressive change to tax policy of any candidate during that cycle, and I'm including the absurd 9-9-9 plan in that. If Huntsman's proposal was in any way acceptable for you, there is no way you would ever vote for a Democrat. You are a deeply conservative person who prefers the label of Independent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:So, I'm an Iowan that is currently Independent, not currently eligible to participate in either the Republican or Democratic caucuses. I'm pretty much a centrist who has yet to see any candidate that I care for yet. The last presidential candidate that I felt feelings stronger than "meh" for was Jon Huntsman, R-Utah. I think that the fact that we could have Bush v Clinton for our next presidential election is about as damning a statement as you could possibly have on how broken the process we have for producing viable candidates for President. There's almost zero chance that a meritocratic selection process would choose a third Bush and a second Clinton for the nation to choose from. I mean, if we're talking merit, the last Clinton was one of the most successful administrations in US history and Hillary was a major part of that administration. (Bill used to joke in '92 that if you voted for him, you got "two presidents for the price of one.") And if we're talking ideology, the Clintons are quintessential centrists. The greater issue with the Clintons is the circus that tends to follow them, parts of which are out of their control and parts of which they're all too guilty of fomenting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I'm going to have to question your centrism, since Huntsman proposed the most extremely regressive change to tax policy of any candidate during that cycle, and I'm including the absurd 9-9-9 plan in that. If Huntsman's proposal was in any way acceptable for you, there is no way you would ever vote for a Democrat. You are a deeply conservative person who prefers the label of Independent. In fairness, they may simply be ignorant and attracted to rhetoric over substance. Huntsman appeals to centrists who lack policy knowledge or critical thinking skills, who promptly congratulate themselves for being independent-minded. e: I forgot they are from Iowa. Being pandered to directly by politicians must really give you an inflated sense of your own intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
The Louie Gohmert Presidential Campaign ~ March 26 - March 27, 2015  He blames the Kennedy-Nixon debates for making bald Presidents unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Louie Gohmert Presidential Campaign ~ March 26 - March 27, 2015 No second term for Walker I guess 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Tobermory posted:Bloomberg has an in-depth interview with Ted Cruz about his plans for foreign policy. The three foreign policy experts he cites as trustworthy: John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and James Woolsey. This Bolton? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=0 quote:The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed. It sounds so easy 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:If we put forth presidential candidates based on abstract notions of merit, we'd see a a whole gently caress load more people with PhD's and backgrounds in academia as opposed to now where the highest form of education will usually be law. Not saying that all of them need to be, but you don't see any realistic candidates with doctorates. Dr. Ben Carson shows that a doctorate does not necessarily make a candidate shy better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:I think you are partly making my point for me. I am postulating that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and otherwise politically connected, she is less likely to be a possible Democratic nominee. Really? Her having an extensive 20+ year network of politcal connections made her more likely to be the presidential candidate?? I'm going to need to see some work for how you arrived at this earth-shattering conclusion. quote:I don't deny that ambition is necessary for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton to be in the running for Presidential Candidates right now, what I'm saying is that if the selection process for each candidate was truly independent and meritocratic, it's really unlikely that it would pick two people that closely related to prior selections. In other words, the selection process is not meritocratic, and is instead cronyism. Politics (especially on the national level) are not, and have never been, a meritocracy
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Guys have you considered that if Obama had not been supported by the political establishment, he would never have been president
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This Bolton? And with no chance of massive blowback!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I used to think pence was a viable candidate until I looked and saw how chubby he's gotten since he was in congress I think Pence wants to run but he isn't making any of the obvious moves at this point. No exploratory committee, no totally-unconnected-PAC/Super PAC making staff decisions. He hasn't even really been going over to Iowa or New Hampshire that much. He did make a recent trip to Israel so maybe he's angling for a Veep nod? If a moderate is nominated he'd be a good pick to pacify the tea party out for blood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Harry Reid is retiring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In fairness, they may simply be ignorant and attracted to rhetoric over substance. Huntsman appeals to centrists who lack policy knowledge or critical thinking skills, who promptly congratulate themselves for being independent-minded. I would never have voted for Huntsman, as I grew up a poor, live in a poor state and mostly know poor people. Jon Huntsman's plan for combatting poverty and inequality closely resembled shoveling poor people into coal furnaces. But I did view it as a serious problem that a candidate with his credentials, ideological consistency and political skill was treated as a joke candidate during an election cycle where such worthies as michelle bachman and herman cain had their time in the sun. So I like Huntsman not insofar as I would like to be governed by him, but insofar as the hilariously thorough failure of his campaign is a useful icon for the messed-up political climate in our country. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Huntsman's problem was that he couldn't even stand out as the most promising Mormon running in 2012. He was a sensible sort, relatively speaking, but outside of that what did he have to grab people? He was a tepid speaker, a non-entity at the two debates he showed up for, and when he did grab the spotlight it was because Romney was attempting to collect his scalp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Huntsman's problem was that he couldn't even stand out as the most promising Mormon running in 2012. He was a sensible sort, relatively speaking, but outside of that what did he have to grab people? He was a tepid speaker, a non-entity at the two debates he showed up for, and when he did grab the spotlight it was because Romney was attempting to collect his scalp. Romney's attacks on him - particularly the one debate moment that got the most media play - are what I'm talking about, though. When asked when he agreed to work for SecState under a democratic regime, he was all "Because the President of the United States asked me to serve my country, and some things go beyond politics". A platitude, sure, but in any rational era that should have been a crowd-pleasing response. That the crowd and the pundits and the coverage media all fell over themselves celebrating Romney's weak-assed "yeah well the rest of us were busy doing something important, like GETTING REPUBLICANS ELECTED" response just struck me as super hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
My favorite Huntsman fact is that he dropped out of high school to play in a prog rock band named Wizard, but they could only get booked at church dances, so they had to change the lyrics to some of the songs they covered. If you want to hang out You've got to take her out Propane If you want to get down Down on the ground Propane She don't lie She don't lie She don't lie Propane
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:My favorite Huntsman fact is that he dropped out of high school to play in a prog rock band named Wizard, but they could only get booked at church dances, so they had to change the lyrics to some of the songs they covered. Hank Hill approves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Romney's attacks on him - particularly the one debate moment that got the most media play - are what I'm talking about, though. Yeah, it was pretty hosed up. But if you can get shaded by a professional loser like Mitt Romney like that, you're probably not destined for great things. I doubt that Huntsman would have a shot, even in a less polarized political environment. Seriously, "we were getting republicans elected." Oh, well, given your track record, governor, I suppose you'd be an expert at getting elected. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Huntsman is too good and handsome for american politics
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:If we put forth presidential candidates based on abstract notions of merit, we'd see a a whole gently caress load more people with PhD's and backgrounds in academia as opposed to now where the highest form of education will usually be law. Not saying that all of them need to be, but you don't see any realistic candidates with doctorates. I would add to this that it's not like the two party system makes this happen. In a multiple party system you have to network even harder to find a party you can rise in, and then get that party to power so you can have a leadership role in the overall nation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Huntsman is too good and handsome for american politics  I think Time might have a custom photoshop filter called "Sorkinesque mien" because all their politician glamor shots look like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:
I think it's some weird quasi-HDR poo poo they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Romney's attacks on him - particularly the one debate moment that got the most media play - are what I'm talking about, though. If Huntsman was any good he would have prepared a much better answer than a simple platitude. It's the Republican Primary in 2012, any decent politician should know you've got to show your Republican credentials. Instead he started off speaking the tongue of the godless red Chinese. A good politician tailors their message for their audience, or uses the audience to get their message to a different audience. Huntsman foolishly tried to run some sort of moderate sounding campaign at the Republican base. Sorry, but one of the downsides of democracy is that elections are between politicians and not virtuous experts comparing their meritocratic worth. We have never had an election based on the measured and scientifically based examination of the differences between the available candidates. It's always been who could rile up the bigger mob to go out and vote based on identity, profit, rhetoric, and popularity. Used to be the most powerful political tools you could have were an army of yellow journalists and flotillas of beer carts. Politics were never noble and anyone who says otherwise is trying to gin up your vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This Bolton? That Bolton. It's almost like he hasn't learned anything in the past decade: John Bolton posted:We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq. We will wait and see what the December 8th declaration says but there is no doubt that Saddam is a threat to the region and needs to be disarmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Tobermory posted:That Bolton. It's almost like he hasn't learned anything in the past decade: I dunno, seems to me like he's learned a very important lesson - namely, that you can advocate for a war that ended up being a disastrous failure, and still be taken seriously enough to have your articles published in the NY Times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I think Pence wants to run but he isn't making any of the obvious moves at this point. No exploratory committee, no totally-unconnected-PAC/Super PAC making staff decisions. He hasn't even really been going over to Iowa or New Hampshire that much. I live in Indiana and I can tell you right now Pence is doing everything he can to become palatable to the Tea Party. He's pretty much burned all of his political capital with his latest shenanigans in signing the religious freedom bill yesterday. He's receiving unprecedented levels of blowback from the press and he's clearly not used to having to answer questions about the evil poo poo he's done. Add to this his straight up dictatorial battles with our state's education superintendent, and he's probably the most unpopular governor in the past three decades. Even my fairly staunch republican friends really dislike him. It's also incredibly disappointing that the Indiana Democratic Party is beyond a loving joke. If we had even a halfway decent Democratic Party machine this state would be ripe for the plucking in 2016. The current Republican supermajority is incredibly unpopular for all of the really regressive policies they've enacted over the past two years, and if they keep going at their current pace we'll be burning witches at the stake by the time 2016 rolls around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Why doesn't Evan Bayh run for governor? I know he hates the Senate, but it seems like being governor would remove most of the reasons he hated the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I would add to this that it's not like the two party system makes this happen. In a multiple party system you have to network even harder to find a party you can rise in, and then get that party to power so you can have a leadership role in the overall nation. In a multiple party system it's not as all or nothing as US politics, so being part of a smaller party isn't a death sentence necessarily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Why doesn't Evan Bayh run for governor? I know he hates the Senate, but it seems like being governor would remove most of the reasons he hated the Senate. He was already governor from 89-97.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:In a multiple party system it's not as all or nothing as US politics, so being part of a smaller party isn't a death sentence necessarily. Yes but the original guy was whining about who gets to be President not who gets to be a random dude with some leadership in a legislature. So the comparison needs to be made between what you need to do to be US President versus what it takes to become Prime Minister or President in a parliamentary system where the President is a separate head of state role from PM's head of government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:He was already governor from 89-97. Durp! I didn't realize he was that old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Durp! It's easy to forget almost anything about Evan Bayh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:It's also incredibly disappointing that the Indiana Democratic Party is beyond a loving joke. This is so true. I've tried to volunteer and work with the Indiana Dems and I just end up despairing. Complete mess of a party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Hello Towel posted:This is so true. I've tried to volunteer and work with the Indiana Dems and I just end up despairing. Complete mess of a party. whats so bad about them
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:whats so bad about them The absolute best thing you could ever hope for from an Indiana Democrat would be a blue dog. This state is pretty drat conservative outside the few larger cities we have, and even the cities tend to run conservative. Also, pretty much anything south of Indianapolis with the exception of Bloomington might as well be the Deep South. Hoosiers are a proud people and we've seen this state being bled of jobs and opportunities since the auto industry collapsed in the 70's and 80's. Manufacturing jobs were gutted due to globalization and lots of people blame democrats because Clinton was in office when NAFTA was signed. We have a massive brain drain going on in this state, which is supremely ironic considering we have some of the best universities in the country here. Purdue, Indiana, Notre Dame, Rose Hulman, Ball State, and Butler are all here in Indiana yet for the past decade the elected officials have done their best to gut education and destroy them through eliminating funding. Our former governor capped property taxes at 1% and literally sold our section of the 80/90 toll road to an overseas conglomerate for what may as well have been a handful of magic beans. Said overseas conglomerate has since defaulted on their loans and the entire clusterfuck is now in limbo. Now our primary schools are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls and are literally having to eliminate school bus routes because they've cut everything else to the bone. And for even more FYGM fun, in the last election the voters did something drat near unprecedented. They voted out of office our notoriously corrupt former Republican state superintendent of education. Even though we voted in a Republican supermajority in our state house and senate, Hoosiers were fed up with the bullshit that Tony Bennett was pulling playing God with our education system. We elected the lone democrat in any position of authority in the state, and Mike Pence and his cronies loving lost their collective poo poo and immediately started stonewalling the newly elected Glenda Ritz at every opportunity. This recently came to a head when Pence decided to create an entirely new oversight board from whole cloth to essentially remove Ritz from power. It loving infuriated most of the people I know because it's nothing more than a naked grab for power and completely disregarded the electorate's will. So, any potential Democrats in this state have to overcome already bitter feelings about perceived Democrat sins from decades ago. Coupled with the largely socially conservative populace outside of the cities, and the massive brain drain of educated and likely more liberal people from this state, and it's pretty much an uphill battle with little opportunity for victory. And even once the Boomer generation dies off there still isn't much hope because the majority of the people that stay here probably never had the opportunity to really succeed and their bitterness is easily turned into votes by the Republicans. Huge_Midget fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:Manufacturing jobs were gutted due to globalization and lots of people blame democrats because Clinton was in office when NAFTA was signed. wikipedia posted:After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:21
|
|
