Who wins 2016 Presidency?

[deedsker]

For the next president, all I want is someone to spearhead the tax code. Increase the top marginal rates and make all income taxed the same. Stay out of the world's back yard for four years and see if anyone misses us. Easy enough, right?

[Scratchtown]

I actually was really intrigued by Paul Ryan during the 2012 elections.

 

But, I don't care who wins as long as NCLB gets the hell out of our education systems. I don't know what you about NCLB, but I'm going into education (already coaching 4+ years), my wife IS a teacher, and so after stories and stories of situations of where it becomes more about "holding back" kids who are "naturally" more gifted than the "catching up" of the kids who struggle.

Also, I'm not sure if its the state of Nebraska or a federal thing but our resource(title 1, etc) are absolutely destroying kids who are on IEP's. They literally can't fail. You can't give them an "F", its basically a law. The kids can refuse to do their reading, math, etc...and the teacher is not allowed to give a "0".

Education Reform is tops on the list in my opinion. Who ever gets the presidency.

[Dr. Strangelove]

For the next president, all I want is someone to spearhead the tax code. Increase the top marginal rates and make all income taxed the same. Stay out of the world's back yard for four years and see if anyone misses us. Easy enough, right?

Tax code is something that will always be dangled in front of voters as the thing they'll tackle, but something that is very difficult and politically explosive to change. Much like how gun control and abortion are dangled in front of voters with little to no action taken by either side. When I studied Political Science, our professor referred to these issues as 'voter fodder'.

 

I actually was really intrigued by Paul Ryan during the 2012 elections.

 

But, I don't care who wins as long as NCLB gets the hell out of our education systems. I don't know what you about NCLB, but I'm going into education (already coaching 4+ years), my wife IS a teacher, and so after stories and stories of situations of where it becomes more about "holding back" kids who are "naturally" more gifted than the "catching up" of the kids who struggle.

 

Also, I'm not sure if its the state of Nebraska or a federal thing but our resource(title 1, etc) are absolutely destroying kids who are on IEP's. They literally can't fail. You can't give them an "F", its basically a law. The kids can refuse to do their reading, math, etc...and the teacher is not allowed to give a "0".

 

Education Reform is tops on the list in my opinion. Who ever gets the presidency.

I don't know much about NCLB, but I do know some teachers and they all feel similar to you. It's something that needs to be addressed, but is difficult due to our current state of budget cuts.

[deedsker]

 

 

For the next president, all I want is someone to spearhead the tax code. Increase the top marginal rates and make all income taxed the same. Stay out of the world's back yard for four years and see if anyone misses us. Easy enough, right?

Tax code is something that will always be dangled in front of voters as the thing they'll tackle, but something that is very difficult and politically explosive to change. Much like how gun control and abortion are dangled in front of voters with little to no action taken by either side. When I studied Political Science, our professor referred to these issues as 'voter fodder'.

I guess that's why I hate politics. Don't tell me what you intend to do, just get it done.

 

Have honor and commit political suicide.

[knapplc]

Hillary Clinton will win assuming she decides to run, which I think she eventually does. She'll have unified party support, she won't be forced to move farther to the left because she'll essentially be running unopposed. She'll have the flexibility to appear moderate to independents in swing states like Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. This will also keep great lakes states like Minnesota and Wisconsin safe.

 

The Republicans, as it currently stands, have no electable candidate. I think Ted Cruz won the most recent straw pole (which means next to nothing), with people like Rand Paul, Donald Trump etc. still getting a lot of support. Those guys would be crushed in a general election. I think all of the other serious candidates would be forced to far to the right by their unelectable piers, mentioned above, and would struggle to win enough swing states to take the election.

 

This is pretty crazy considering in 2016 we will likely see a Democrat President easily win a victory in the white house while the Republicans simultaneously hold both the House and the Senate. We likely won't see any agreement on major issues for the foreseeable future.

 

 

This can be attributed to wildly gerrymandered districts. They've gamed the system to make sure some areas will always elect a Democrat or a Republican.

 

The people were not diligent in monitoring our elected officials. While we weren't paying attention, district lines were redrawn for the benefit of the career politicians and now we have institutional gridlock.

 

It will take a major shift in the thinking of our citizens to fix this. It won't be fixed from inside Washington. People need to:

 

• Stop listening to every word "their" party's candidate says and think about what's right and what's wrong.
• Turn off 24-hour news channels. All of them, but Fox most especially.
• Make it clear to candidates that we want compromise, not further division, and that we expect people in office to work with "the other side"
• Make it clear to candidates that, while corruption will not be tolerated, something as stupid as a bridge lane closure will not end your presidential aspirations.
• The disenfranchised voters need to vote. The more people they turn off from the polls, the fewer they have to convince to vote for them. They're making you pissed on purpose. They don't want you to vote. Stop playing their game.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Pssst. Reagan would be driven out of the current Republican Party.

 

Put aside the nostalgia for a moment and actually look at his record. No way in hell could he win the GOP nomination.

JFK wouldn't recognize his party either.

 

The difference is that JFK's corpse isn't trotted out every 30 seconds to rally the base.

 

Oh Good God.....

 

Maybe not much right now in American politics, but I remember every single election every Democrat was constantly bringing up JFK and trying to act like they were the next JFK. Maybe it just stopped after his alcoholic girlfriend abandoning brother died and stopped trying to be like him.

 

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

 

THAT is a leader. We can sit and nit pick about this policy or that policy all we want. But, what we need is a leader in the oval office that accomplishes what Reagan did for the nation as far as mood and attitude. THAT is what he did to put in motion the economic boom that started and lasted through the Clinton years.

[carlfense]

This is pretty crazy considering in 2016 we will likely see a Democrat President easily win a victory in the white house while the Republicans simultaneously hold both the House and the Senate. We likely won't see any agreement on major issues for the foreseeable future.

IIRC there are a lot of somewhat vulnerable GOP seats in both the House and Senate in 2016 and of course a different demographic turns out in presidential election years. The House will probably stay red but even if the GOP takes the Senate in 2014 they probably won't hold it past 2016.

 

That said, you're spot on as far as not a lot of agreement on major issues. That's going to be the case for the foreseeable future. Particularly given defeats like Cantor's.

[carlfense]

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Think about what you're saying a bit. I've little doubt that you'll pretty quickly see the difference between then and now. To be a little less cryptic . . . the difference isn't Ronald Reagan.

[Junior]

 

THAT is a leader. We can sit and nit pick about this policy or that policy all we want. But, what we need is a leader in the oval office that accomplishes what Reagan did for the nation as far as mood and attitude. THAT is what he did to put in motion the economic boom that started and lasted through the Clinton years.

 

 

 

Like Iran-Contra? :/

[carlfense]

Like Iran-Contra? :/

It's really amazing how far that has fallen off the radar. The average Joe is probably far more familiar with Clinton receiving BJs than that truly explosive scandal.

[zoogs]

Maybe not much right now in American politics, but I remember every single election every Democrat was constantly bringing up JFK and trying to act like they were the next JFK.

 

I guess that's why I hate politics. Don't tell me what you intend to do, just get it done.

 

Have honor and commit political suicide.

I don't think it's a matter of needing a guy to have guts or sacrifice his career (if they did, then they really wouldn't be able to do anything). It's just gridlocked due to opposition. One guy can't have an idea and just force it through.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

THAT is a leader. We can sit and nit pick about this policy or that policy all we want. But, what we need is a leader in the oval office that accomplishes what Reagan did for the nation as far as mood and attitude. THAT is what he did to put in motion the economic boom that started and lasted through the Clinton years.

 

 

 

Like Iran-Contra? :/

 

 

Meh....I never was one that thought Iran-Contra was as big of deal as it was made out to be. Sorry if I don't mind a President doing something to try to get American hostages back. Sure, there was an arms embargo. This sh#t happens all the time behind the scenes around the world. I never saw anything that convinced me that he agreed to this for personal gain or even political gain. He saw an opportunity to get the hostages back and said OK.

 

In my mind, it's not much different than having a policy of not negotiating with terrorist groups but then negotiating to release 5 detainees for the release of one US soldier.

 

Iran Contra was politicized much more than it really hurt us in anything really meaningful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let the outrage begin towards my attitude about Iran - Contra.......

[BigRedBuster]

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Think about what you're saying a bit. I've little doubt that you'll pretty quickly see the difference between then and now. To be a little less cryptic . . . the difference isn't Ronald Reagan.

 

I see what you are trying to say and it's a fail.

 

Politically, at the time the US was at polar opposites just like today. When Reagan came into office he was willing to hold out his hand to O'neill. Now, I respect O'neill also because he was willing to shake it and work.

 

NOW....where the real leadership of both men came was that they were then able to turn around and convince Americans that it's OK and things will get better if they work together. Really, neither side abandoned their beliefs, they were just able to find middle ground. Right now, neither side will do that. BOTH sides are sitting in Washington believing the other side is the problem because "they" won't agree to what "I" want to do.

[carlfense]

I see what you are trying to say and it's a fail.

 

Politically, at the time the US was at polar opposites just like today. When Reagan came into office he was willing to hold out his hand to O'neill. Now, I respect O'neill also because he was willing to shake it and work.

 

NOW....where the real leadership of both men came was that they were then able to turn around and convince Americans that it's OK and things will get better if they work together. Really, neither side abandoned their beliefs, they were just able to find middle ground. Right now, neither side will do that. BOTH sides are sitting in Washington believing the other side is the problem because "they" won't agree to what "I" want to do.

 

No. Quite frankly, if that's your understanding of the differences you're poorly informed.

[Junior]

 

 

 

THAT is a leader. We can sit and nit pick about this policy or that policy all we want. But, what we need is a leader in the oval office that accomplishes what Reagan did for the nation as far as mood and attitude. THAT is what he did to put in motion the economic boom that started and lasted through the Clinton years.

 

 

 

Like Iran-Contra? :/

 

 

Meh....I never was one that thought Iran-Contra was as big of deal as it was made out to be. Sorry if I don't mind a President doing something to try to get American hostages back. Sure, there was an arms embargo. This sh#t happens all the time behind the scenes around the world. I never saw anything that convinced me that he agreed to this for personal gain or even political gain. He saw an opportunity to get the hostages back and said OK.

 

In my mind, it's not much different than having a policy of not negotiating with terrorist groups but then negotiating to release 5 detainees for the release of one US soldier.

 

Iran Contra was politicized much more than it really hurt us in anything really meaningful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let the outrage begin towards my attitude about Iran - Contra.......

 

 

What about the part where they diverted the money to the Contras? You seem to be forgetting that bit of information which is quite crucial to the story.