TGHusker Posted February 12, 2016 Author Share Posted February 12, 2016 Biden says he's not running, which means Trump vs Clinton. Bad day for Wall Street and progressives, because Biden stood a much better chance of beating Trump. Trump is going to win. Great day for pro-American citizens who don't want their country turned into a third world hellhole. Trump is just as liberal as Hillary, so it's a good day for the left or center-left of this country. Trump is the Kim Kardashian of politics, and the question is whether the voting public will be sick of him before election day 2016. Somehow nothing seems to stick the guy, so I guess he's effective at what he's doing as a candidate. He's also a loose cannon: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-shocking-suggestion-north-korea-222900241.html Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I think Clinton's foreign policy will be quite capable, and it definitely helps that she has been able to lean on so much experience. I guess we'll see. I know many find Obama to be not hawkish enough. That's not me, but for those people Clinton could be a welcome direction. I think the Democrats were mistaken to go all in on Hillary. I'm saddened that Biden and especially Warren did not run. I feel in their absence Bernie has capitalized with the stronger progressives, but that he is not nearly as worthy a candidate as Warren would have been. That being said, to even succeed as a Republican in politics requires numerous positions social and economic that are odious and total non starters for me. With as many identified independents as there are today (good thread on that, btw) I hope that one outcome in the near future is the dissolution of the two party stranglehold. It may have been fine before, but not in today's climate -- a reality which I think has been a shock to both party bases but one that I now hope will prevail. This has been a very hot topic with the people I've been talking to this cycle. Unfortunately, it's going to take a MASSIVE effort because the two existing parties will fight tooth and nail to not let it happen. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 We are now to the point where for the first time, we have more independents than any one party. Meaning, if they were all together, they are the biggest party in the country right now. I believe that will keep growing. This is what is needed to get rid of the stranglehold. Not sure where it goes from here though since the two parties are the only ones that the media (that is bought and paid for by those parties) pays any attention to. We are to the point where only 23% of the country identifies as a Republican and 32% identify as a Democrat. That means that barely over half of the country identifies with a party. Independents have now been the largest group and have grown over the last 5 years from 35% to 39%. Since 2010, the graph appears to show these independents have come from both parties almost equally. That tells me that this group is not going to bind together as a third party. They cover a spectrum of liberal to conservative that simply don't think a party represents them anymore. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 We are now to the point where for the first time, we have more independents than any one party. Meaning, if they were all together, they are the biggest party in the country right now. I believe that will keep growing. This is what is needed to get rid of the stranglehold. Not sure where it goes from here though since the two parties are the only ones that the media (that is bought and paid for by those parties) pays any attention to. We are to the point where only 23% of the country identifies as a Republican and 32% identify as a Democrat. That means that barely over half of the country identifies with a party. Independents have now been the largest group and have grown over the last 5 years from 35% to 39%. Since 2010, the graph appears to show these independents have come from both parties almost equally. That tells me that this group is not going to bind together as a third party. They cover a spectrum of liberal to conservative that simply don't think a party represents them anymore. Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Please don't give me trump for middle right. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 We are now to the point where for the first time, we have more independents than any one party. Meaning, if they were all together, they are the biggest party in the country right now. I believe that will keep growing. This is what is needed to get rid of the stranglehold. Not sure where it goes from here though since the two parties are the only ones that the media (that is bought and paid for by those parties) pays any attention to. We are to the point where only 23% of the country identifies as a Republican and 32% identify as a Democrat. That means that barely over half of the country identifies with a party. Independents have now been the largest group and have grown over the last 5 years from 35% to 39%. Since 2010, the graph appears to show these independents have come from both parties almost equally. That tells me that this group is not going to bind together as a third party. They cover a spectrum of liberal to conservative that simply don't think a party represents them anymore. Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. I would redefine this chart. 1. Socialist-Sanders 2. Far Left-Hillary 3. Center-left-Trump (I don't believe he's truly a Republican) 4. Center-Kasich, Bush 5. Center right-Rubio 6. Far Right-Cruz (and maybe Carson) Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 We are now to the point where for the first time, we have more independents than any one party. Meaning, if they were all together, they are the biggest party in the country right now. I believe that will keep growing. This is what is needed to get rid of the stranglehold. Not sure where it goes from here though since the two parties are the only ones that the media (that is bought and paid for by those parties) pays any attention to. We are to the point where only 23% of the country identifies as a Republican and 32% identify as a Democrat. That means that barely over half of the country identifies with a party. Independents have now been the largest group and have grown over the last 5 years from 35% to 39%. Since 2010, the graph appears to show these independents have come from both parties almost equally. That tells me that this group is not going to bind together as a third party. They cover a spectrum of liberal to conservative that simply don't think a party represents them anymore. Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. I would redefine this chart. 1. Socialist-Sanders 2. Far Left-Hillary 3. Center-left-Trump (I don't believe he's truly a Republican) 4. Center-Kasich, Bush 5. Center right-Rubio 6. Far Right-Cruz (and maybe Carson) There's no way to consider Trump left of center if one of his central tenants is to deport 11+ million illegal aliens and build a wall. I don't believe he really is a Republican either, though. His political views are really best described as a hodgepodge. I'd probably slide him into the Center category along with Bush and Kasich, ideologically. I just put him Center-right since he's running as a GOP. I agree with most of that, though. I'd argue that Clinton is more a Center-left candidate who's been pushed farther left as the election has worn on by Sanders. For the majority of her time in politics, she's had some strong centrist views on things. But she also veers to the far left on others. It could go either way to me, I guess. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Oh....this is going to get interesting. Can you imagine if this were said at a Republican rally? Rapper Killer Mike at Bernie Sanders rally: “a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president” Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Oh....this is going to get interesting. Can you imagine if this were said at a Republican rally? Rapper Killer Mike at Bernie Sanders rally: “a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president” I don't see it as sexist. Just really crass. Testicles don't qualify a person to be president either. *shrug* Also, it's kinda hard to see what he's getting at. That people shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's female? I guess? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Oh....this is going to get interesting. Can you imagine if this were said at a Republican rally? Rapper Killer Mike at Bernie Sanders rally: “a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president” I don't see it as sexist. Just really crass. Testicles don't qualify a person to be president either. *shrug* Also, it's kinda hard to see what he's getting at. That people shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's female? I guess? Any time either side tries to politicize the gender thing either way, it seems to blow up in their face. It seems to be a sticky issue for people. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Oh....this is going to get interesting. Can you imagine if this were said at a Republican rally? Rapper Killer Mike at Bernie Sanders rally: “a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president” I don't see it as sexist. Just really crass. Testicles don't qualify a person to be president either. *shrug* Also, it's kinda hard to see what he's getting at. That people shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's female? I guess? Any time either side tries to politicize the gender thing either way, it seems to blow up in their face. It seems to be a sticky issue for people. Discussion of crotch can get sticky at times. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 What I'm going to find interesting is Bernie's response to questions about it? And.....is Hillary going to make an issue of the statement? And....if it were made by a middle aged white guy, it DEFINITELY would be described as sexist by more people than it is now. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 What I'm going to find interesting is Bernie's response to questions about it? And.....is Hillary going to make an issue of the statement? And....if it were made by a middle aged white guy, it DEFINITELY would be described as sexist by more people than it is now. This is the first time I can remember a Sanders supporter openly shooting themselves in the foot in this manner. You're right when you say that if it had been from the man himself, it would've been much more open for criticism. Link to comment
Lil' Red Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 And....if it were made by a middle aged white guy, it DEFINITELY would be described as sexist by more people than it is now. The original quote was actually made by Jane Elliot. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 And....if it were made by a middle aged white guy, it DEFINITELY would be described as sexist by more people than it is now. The original quote was actually made by Jane Elliot. I know. When a woman says that, and a man repeats it, is it the same as when a black guy uses the "N" word and then a white guy repeats it? Link to comment
Recommended Posts