2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?

[Delta1212]

The problem with this is nothing well get done or good plans/policies will be compromised too much.

 

As opposed to now...

[Ten oz]

The problem with this is nothing well get done or good plans/policies will be compromised too much. I prefer the idea of a voted executive political group being able to implement their policy as they intend it to be executed. I want to see a clear five year plan not a mish-mash of opposing ideas from different groups being implemented.

 

I clear 5 year plan would be dangerous. Imagine what Bush 43 would have done with an unopposed 5 years. Social Security would be gone, national parks would belong to industry, troops would have gone into Iran and Syria, k - 12 education would have been privatized, EPA lashed out of existence, and who knows what else. Without opposition things like federal bans on abortion and Gay marriage would easily pass through a Republican dominated government. A mish-mash of opposing ideas is a good thing. I just wish the actual population numbers played a bigger role in the administrative branch.

[StringJunky]

I clear 5 year plan would be dangerous. Imagine what Bush 43 would have done with an unopposed 5 years. Social Security would be gone, national parks would belong to industry, troops would have gone into Iran and Syria, k - 12 education would have been privatized, EPA lashed out of existence, and who knows what else. Without opposition things like federal bans on abortion and Gay marriage would easily pass through a Republican dominated government. A mish-mash of opposing ideas is a good thing. I just wish the actual population numbers played a bigger role in the administrative branch.

A party is voted for on their manifesto. If the above things you mention are what the majority wants, that is the mandate. It is democracy.

[Ten oz]

A party is voted for on their manifesto. If the above things you mention are what the majority wants, that is the mandate. It is democracy.

Was Bush voted in by the majority?

[iNow]

Yes, but only in 2004.

[MigL]

In post # 120, Phi, you posed the question 'is this democracy ?'.

To which I replied 'yes it is', and if you don't think it is then you don't understand democracy.

At no time did I suggest you said 'they shouldn't be allowed to vote'.

 

Who's doing the stretching ?

[StringJunky]

Was Bush voted in by the majority?

The beauty of our democracies is that it is time-limited and policies are reversible. Proportional representation is a recipe for stasis and inter-party bickering.

Edited April 18, 2015 by StringJunky

[moth]

Yes, but only in 2004.

 

With a little googling it looks like that may be the topic of a budding conspiracy theory.

 

On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes. The Senate voted the objection down 1–74; the House voted the objection down 31–267. It was only the second Congressional objection to an entire State's electoral delegation in U.S. history; the first instance was in 1877, when all the electors from three southern states were challenged, and one from Oregon.

 

 

The destruction of the election records also frustrates efforts by the media and historians to determine the accuracy of Ohio's 2004 vote count, because in county after county the key evidence needed to understand vote count anomalies apparently no longer exists.

 

 

Most memorably, in 2003 O'Dell penned a letter pledging his commitment “to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President.” O'Dell defended his actions, telling the Cleveland Plain Dealer “I'm not doing anything wrong or complicated.” But he also promised to lower his political profile and “try to be more sensitive.” But the Diebold boss' partisan cards were squarely on the table.

 

 

 

The Republican consultant accused of involvement in alleged vote-rigging in Ohio in 2004 was warned that his plane might be sabotaged before his death in a crash Friday night, according to a Cleveland CBS affiliate.

 

 

This is one of the reasons I would like to have a functional F.E.C.

[Ten oz]

Not only did Bush lose the popular vote to Al Gore but Ralph Nadar (a progressive liberal) won a few million votes. This is not the only example where a president is elected without a majority of the country supporting them. Bill Clinton in 1992 was elected with only 43% of votes. Ross Perot split conservative support and achieved 19% of the vote. Bush 41 ended with 37.5% of the vote. Same For Richard Nixon in 1968. He only achieved 43% of the vote. Another third party candidate name George Wallace took the south and got 13.5% of the vote. So in 68', 92', and 00' the majority of the country voted for someone other than the person who won.

 

So back to StringJunky's suggestion IMO it would be wrong to give which ever party (person) wins a clear path to do as they wish for a few years. It would not always be in the interested of the majority. I also don't feel the policies would always be reversible. War is not reversible. Bush/Cheney wanted to push into Syria after Iraq but couldn't whip up the support to do it. If abortion was banned for a few years then reversed we would still have a generation impacted by that few years. Young would be mothers who died getting illegal abortions, mothers having babies they don't want, child being abandoned, and all the long term phycoligical damage that causes.

 

Further more Politicians lie. Politicians say things they don't mean to get elected. Just because a politicians runs on a platform to save the environment and make college affordable it doesn't mean once in office that is what their agenda will be. Republicans stomp their feet and scream for smaller government. What Republican president ever shrunk the size of government? Bush and Reagan both grew the size of government at record speed.

 

 

 

 

@ moth, the long lines to vote in important swing states like Florida and Ohio is a coincidence. Niether is the supreme court (conservatively held) gutting the voting rights acts following two crushing conservative defeats by the nations first minority president. There are some fairly obvious attempts to rig the game afoot.

[Phi for All]

In post # 120, Phi, you posed the question 'is this democracy ?'.

To which I replied 'yes it is', and if you don't think it is then you don't understand democracy.

At no time did I suggest you said 'they shouldn't be allowed to vote'.

 

Who's doing the stretching ?

 

My point in that post was that I don't think it's democracy when so many people's opinions are being skewed by lies from their own party, and lies + money from big business, and lies from a preaching media that tries to make every side of every issue equally relevant. I think conservatives are being manipulated and misinformed, and I think they make easy targets because they tend to make decisions based on emotions more than reason.

 

To that, you actually replied,

 

Unfortunately ( or fortunately ) all those people, with all their misguided beliefs and fears are entitled to a political opinion and a vote.

That's what we call Democracy (to answer your question ).

 

What is your alternative Phi ?

 

... which certainly seems to imply I think they AREN'T entitled to a political opinion and a vote, that my alternative would strip them of that. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.

 

The problem is easy to see with regard to publicly funded assistance. Conservatives polled are very concerned that we're not spending enough to help the poor and needy. But as soon as you use the media-charged word "welfare", conservatives are almost unanimously against it, and quite obviously not in a rational way. Most of their objections (some of which go all the way back to the Reagan "Welfare Queen" propaganda efforts) have been debunked long ago, which also suggests that these opinions were based on emotionally manipulative lies.

 

I think this ties in with the current discussion because people can't sustain this kind of outrage and emotional momentum without SOME tangible evidence. I think Ten oz mentioned that the GOP has been claiming for so long that Obama's programs were going to destroy us all, that a lot of conservatives are starting to peek their heads out of their FOX holes and see that things are much better than they've been told.

[MigL]

No apology needed or expected Phi.

My wording was ambiguous as to its meaning, I suppose.

 

The point I was originally trying to make was that when someone who shares your ideology is in power, the opposition keeps him 'from doing his job', but when the opposition is in power, then we are 'minimizing the damage'.

 

Its all very 'point of view' dependant, is it not ?

[Delta1212]

No apology needed or expected Phi.

My wording was ambiguous as to its meaning, I suppose.

 

The point I was originally trying to make was that when someone who shares your ideology is in power, the opposition keeps him 'from doing his job', but when the opposition is in power, then we are 'minimizing the damage'.

 

Its all very 'point of view' dependant, is it not ?

Yes, it is. But as you pointed out, we're all entitled to our points of view.

[Nouveau]

So Hillary has thrown her hat in the ring for the head honcho position in 2016.

No big surprise there.

But this second time around, she's not going to be Margaret Thatcher Lite.

She's made tackling wealth inequality her platform, and is running as a woman, not trying to prove she's got bigger b*lls than her opponents.

 

I like it. What do you guys think ?

 

It was a big step for America to elect a black man as President it could possibly be an even bigger one to vote into office the first woman. Tackling wealth inequality may well appeal to a large part of the less well off Democratic base but she would still have to attract voters from the more affluent middle class who may not be so easily swayed.

 

If she is to be successful against Republican candidates such as Paul Rand, Ted Cruz or especially Marco Rubio, depending upon who actually gets the GOP nomination, then she probably has to ensure that the election is decided by substance over style. Clearly she has the brains to win but if the campaign comes down to who will look best in global arena upon the world stage, a not inconsiderable prospect given the nature of this image conscious society in which we live in, then she may well be in big trouble.

[imatfaal]

Informal poll / pulse check...

 

What do you think would happen if Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ran on a single ticket in 2016? Landslide or laughing stock?

 

...

 

Landslide or laughing stock? Sounds like a dream ticket right about now.

[MigL]

Its funny going back though this thread, how all the people against me for suggesting H. Clinton would make a good president, are now her biggest supporters, and I'm finding faults with her.

But I guess that's to be expected.

Look at what the US ( and the world ) could end up with if she loses.

[Ten oz]

Its funny going back though this thread, how all the people against me for suggesting H. Clinton would make a good president, are now her biggest supporters, and I'm finding faults with her.

But I guess that's to be expected.

Look at what the US ( and the world ) could end up with if she loses.

Clinton is too hawish on foriegn policy. That is my main concern with her. However Trump at the Commander in Cheif forum said "when I come up with a plan", 'if I like the general's plan", "I have a plan but won't say", "maybe a combination of my plan plus the general plan", and etc. Trump is simply worse. On a scale of 1-10 perhaps Clinton is a 5 where as Obama has been a 7 but Trump is a zero. He doesn't even register on that scale.