POLITICAL JUNKIES

Options
3-16-2011
3-16-2011 Member Posts: 559
edited November 2019 in Life After Breast Cancer

HI everyone.

I can not get enough of the 2016 US Presidential election. I am moved by Bernies passion for economic justice, thrilled that the US could have its first female president,intrigued by Ted Cruz's ability to stick with his principals, Mortified and fascinated by Trumps ability to break all the rules and still stay on top, and curious about Kasich's desire to improve civility of the current GOP debate.

I would love to hear what others think. I would love to see a respectful conversation that included passionate opinions from all sides.

Thanks

Mary

«13456729

Comments

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    They said today Kasich is delusional. Ted Cruz talks to slow and chooses his words too carefully. I think a forked tongue. Bernie went crazy today although my letrozole brain needs time to remember why. Hillary is the wrong female, but maybe someone will pick the right one for VP. Trump will probably win it all. My thoughts today, they change

  • ChiSandy
    ChiSandy Member Posts: 12,133
    edited March 2016

    I'm with Mary on this all the way. Trump is a loutish, crude, vulgar bully who talks in vague platitudes and despicable “dog whistles" to the vilest basest sentiments of his followers. That people think he “tells it like it is" tells me that they have no concept of the difference between opinions and reality. Sticking by one's principles is noble only when those principles are admirable. Having the courage of invalid convictions is no virtue.

    Who are the “they" who say Kasich is “delusional,” FAUXNews, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump? Good grief, does NOBODY remember the days when there were no such things as Presidential primaries--only open caucuses (in the more progressive states) and state conventions everywhere else? Think back to 1960, and what a floor fight it took to nominate JFK. It's not at all unprecedented for there to be more than one ballot, with wheeling and dealing and horse-trading, at the GOP convention in Cleveland---it's how ALL party conventions used to be. (Not saying it's preferable, it just is what it is). A political party--and its leaders--has every right to choose whom its nominee will be. Parties set their own rules all the time as to delegate math (e.g., superdelegates vs. pledged delegates in the case of Dems), primary dates, proportional vs. winner-take-all vs. district-by-district or any combination thereof), even whether crossover voting is allowed vs. registered members of that party vs. choose one party's ballot per primary. Conventions were never meant to be coronations--otherwise, why even hold them? The GOP set a specific number of delegates necessary to win a nomination on the first ballot, and if the leading candidate falls short, then it's anybody's game. Trump knew that going in. agreed to play by his party's rules, and take the chance that he may not reach that magic number threshhold come convention time in Cleveland. He can't throw a tantrum (and threaten riots) if he loses the nomination because there needs to be a second ballot and someone else gets that majority. Kasich's power is that he is the only real grownup on the GOP side of the race, and can consolidate the rational-and-sane-adult faction of the party in order to steer the nomination to someone competent (even if it's not likely to be himself). Governors and Senators are lining up to endorse just about everyone but Trump. (And I wouldn't be surprised if Rubio were to endorse Kasich).

    Ted Cruz? Trump has been so loud and extreme in his manner that people tend to forget lately just how radically reactionary Cruz is on just about every issue (especially anti-immigration, health care, veneration of big business and the uber-rich, and blurring the lines between church & state). He is every bit the xenophobe Trump is, but is cloaking his message in a more erudite yet unctuous and disingenuous wrapper. The Tea Party's 2010 hijacking of the GOP became so complete by 2014 that everyone seems to have forgotten that the Republican party used to be big enough to have room for the likes of Chuck Percy, Everett Dirksen. Dan Evans, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Jim Thompson, Wayne Morse, Jacob Javits, Kenneth Keating, John Chaffee (and until recently his son Lincoln), Jon Huntsman, Arlen Spector, Jim Jeffords, Ike, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Heck, I even occasionally voted for Republicans back in the day! Chuck Grassley, Susan Collins, and Kelly Ayotte have become endangered species, and the party would never let Chuck Hagel back in even if he asked. Sad state of affairs when conservatives are derided as too moderate and that the definition of “conservative" has slid all the way the right to John Bircher/Joe McCarthy-esque reactionary.

    And on the Democratic side? Sure, there's no way that with the superdelegates and the way the remaining states are stacking up, Hillary won't get the required threshhold on the first ballot. But that doesn't mean Sanders should drop out. He has to build leverage, and can use it to influence the party platform, and move Hillary's policies and positions close enough to his so that he can deliver his followers to her and he can work with & for her come November. Anyone remember 2008? By mid-spring, it was clear Obama would have a majority on the first ballot. Guess when Hillary dropped out and released her delegates? On the floor, during the first ballot, when NY State was called in the roll.

    Perhaps if parties went back to choosing their nominees the way they used to, serious third and even fourth parties might rise to the occasion and not just provide real choices but actually have real chances.

  • 3-16-2011
    3-16-2011 Member Posts: 559
    edited March 2016

    Fauxnews how is it that I have never heard that before. I am still laughing.


  • iammags
    iammags Member Posts: 216
    edited March 2016

    Fauxnews, too funny! This election is a joke. We are a joke for the whole world. It's just not funny.


  • ChiSandy
    ChiSandy Member Posts: 12,133
    edited March 2016

    Yes, the general public should choose elected officials, from President down to dogcatcher. BUT political parties should have the right to set their own internal rules as to who should be their standard-bearers in the general election. I think it’s unfortunate that members of one party (yes, even mine) can in most jurisdictions cross over (even in some states, hopscotching office-by-office) to help decide whom the opposition party will nominate. If a political party wants to make it possible for ultimate candidate selection to be by convention, it should have that right. Remember that until about 40 years ago, half the states in the US held primaries ONLY for Congressional, state and local offices--the convention delegates awarded to Presidential aspirants were determined by the caucus system, from precinct all the way up to the state convention. (I was a Udall delegate to the King County & Washington State Democratic conventions in 1976--lost the chance to be an alternate to the Big Dance in NYC by 2 votes). Statewide major-party primaries for Presidential candidates were still the exception rather than the rule.

    I for one would like to see the chance for third or fourth parties to offer a serious choice and have a serious chance of winning, rather than offering their supporters the opportunity to merely “make a statement” or “protest” vote or be “spoilers.” Many major First World countries have more than two parties--I’m thinking UK, Canada, even Israel--yes, their system is parliamentary (citizens vote for their favorite party’s candidate for national legislature, and the total number of seats won determines which party’s standard-bearer gets to be PM or Pres, And those party nominees get selected by means other than direct popular election. Obviously, a flaw in the parliamentary system is that Chief Exec. term lengths can theoretically be indefinite, but in reality can be much shorter if the parliament calls for a vote of no-confidence. But the point is that more than two parties have a chance to see their candidates elected to the highest office in the land, and there doesn’t have to be a parliamentary system for that to happen. I hope in my lifetime that parties other than the GOP or Dems will be seen as offering serious contenders rather than being mere punch-lines or throwing the election to one of the two major parties. (And in that case, those alternative parties would be likelier than they are now to nominate candidates with more experience, competence, gravitas and visibility--rather than ideological figureheads like Ralph Nader).

    As to 2000, it is not true that GWB was “elected by delegates.” He was, in essence, selected by a Supreme Court majority aligned with his own party, before a recount in progress could be completed. The culprit in the process was not the GOP primaries’ convention-delegate selection system (although that accounted for how he got the nomination), but rather the Electoral College, and the incompetence of those who designed and approved the “butterfly” ballot layout in Palm Beach County (where enough elderly voters--my mom, a lifelong Democrat included--were confused into unintentionally voting for Buchanan to have denied Gore the popular vote margin necessary to have won Florida’s electoral votes). I think that winner-take-all system has to go--it is a travesty that in some states one’s vote in Nov. doesn’t count because the state is overwhelmingly either Democratic or Republican, or doesn’t carry enough electoral votes to make a difference.


  • ChiSandy
    ChiSandy Member Posts: 12,133
    edited March 2016

    Kayb, remember too that Kasich is a staunch anti-union “right-to-work” (a misnomer if ever there was one) pro-big-business Gov. who had his legislature push through ALEC’s (a business PAC think-tank) multi-state cookie-cutter laws that gutted voting rights and ensured lower wages and benefits for both public and private sector employees. Though some unions have historically been tainted by having corrupt and sometimes criminally-affiliated leadership, the majority do not. Here’s what unions gave us: the 40-hr. workweek, minimum wages, safer working conditions, group health insurance policies, restrictions on child labor and outlawing of sweatshops.

    It’s a sad state of affairs that he is the most “moderate” of the GOP bunch.

  • Hopeful82014
    Hopeful82014 Member Posts: 3,480
    edited March 2016

    I'm another political junkie but this year is really hard to take - and it's actually been over a year that the focus has been on the 2016 elections. Unfortunately, it's hard to tune it out. The loutishness, fear-mongering and foul language are almost enough to make me want to fast forward to December.

    I'm with ChiSandy as far as Kasich is concerned - I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that it's entirely possible that while we're all busy being distracted by Trump, Kasich will quietly negotiate the nomination. I hope I'm wrong.

  • Meow13
    Meow13 Member Posts: 4,859
    edited March 2016
  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    Kasich can't beat Hillary, he's still delusional. Highly doubtful the Republicans would choose him

  • Artista928
    Artista928 Member Posts: 2,753
    edited March 2016

    First choice is Bernie for me. Second is Hillary. After that, God help us. :/

  • ElaineTherese
    ElaineTherese Member Posts: 3,328
    edited March 2016

    I'm not fond of Hillary, but I will probably end up voting for her. #NeverTrump

  • ElaineTherese
    ElaineTherese Member Posts: 3,328
    edited March 2016

    I'm not fond of Hillary, but I will probably end up voting for her. #NeverTrump

  • ChiSandy
    ChiSandy Member Posts: 12,133
    edited March 2016

    BTW, for the first time, Cook County made us all jump through an extra hoop before we were able to go into the voting booth, ballot and pen in hand. As usual, we checked in at our precinct table, only to be told to go to a table in the middle of the room to fill out an official form with our name, address, signature, and which party’s ballot we were choosing, before going back to the precinct table, and verbally answering the same question. Say what? It’s one thing for parties’ and candidates’ pollwatchers to be able to track who is voting in which primary by observing and making notations on their copies of the precincts’ voter lists--that’s how they can sense trends, as well as keep track of who still needs to be reminded to vote before closing time, and how to canvass between the primary & the general election. But I have a definite problem with the county’s Board of Elections knowing which party’s ballot I happen to be taking--when we register as voters, we are not asked to declare any party affiliation (or aversion to affiliation). That it’s now a matter not just of intramural party mechanics (e.g., checkmarks or x’es on a party hack’s computer printout) but of official written public county records definitely violates the privacy of my vote (even if they don’t know which candidates I chose). Repercussions and retaliation are now possible.

  • april485
    april485 Member Posts: 3,257
    edited March 2016

    Fascinating stuff for sure but my guess is that all of us are underestimating Trump. I am scared to death that he will slide in to the oval office somehow. So very many disgruntled people who do not truly care about his lack of decorum or even lack of common sense. They just want anyone but a politician in the white house. Sad but true. I hear over and over again that Trump will take this country out of poverty and make us prosperous because he knows how to "run a business." Is that true? Hell no. But, it seems to fall on deaf ears when you try to explain that to anyone who supports this man.

    I am truly frightened that he will not only get the nomination because the Republican party will be too afraid to buck the popular vote and take it from him at the convention, but that he will eek out a win over Hillary in the general election because he will try to destroy her credibility and people will believe his bull. She does have skeletons in her closet and he plans to exploit the crap out of them, even if he will exaggerate the hell out of each and every single issue. He will make Benghazi sound like she stood there with an AK47 shooting those people and then he will say that her e-mails should ALL be considered classified cause she was holding a very security sensitive position and should not have used a personal server.

    He will bring up Bill Clinton's indiscretions with Lewinsky even though she had nothing to do with them and he will bash her left, right and sideways. I don't have a lot of faith in the population that supports Trump and/or Cruz not to believe his bullshit. I think they bite and stay the course with him and even sway others who were undecided.

    If Hillary gets the nomination (or Bernie for that matter) their strategy has to very well crafted because Americans are really pissed off this time. I read all of the comments to articles on Disqus and they scare the crap out of me!!

    Devil


  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    image

    image

    Decorum, really? When is the last time we had that? Skipping Scalia's funeral? Playing golf after American beheaded? Selfies from the White House? Interviews with a girl in a bathtub? Picture Bill and Hill in the White House again. I'll look for images.

  • Englishmummy
    Englishmummy Member Posts: 337
    edited March 2016

    They don't call him 'Teflon Don' for no reason!

    Disclaimer: I can't vote as I am not a citizen (please don't hold it against me😀), but I have lived here 20 years so have seen a couple of elections . I am not enamoured with English politics either especially Cameron, the 'Chocolate Tea-Pot', but as the fantastic Ms. ChiSandy pointed out there are merits to the system and one can understand it...somewhat. I am in the throes of learning myself /teaching my 13 year old American Government and I find it so bloody complicated! I find it hard to believe that the average American (present company excluded - I feel I've discovered and understood more in these conversations than in weeks of reading) has a full grasp of what or why they are voting.

    I agree also, about Kaisch with the unions, although that is always a worry with any republican. Very disconcerting for us as my husband is proud union, his job and benefits provide a lifestyle otherwise unattainable in this area(those health benefits were tested really good last year👹). Yet, most members of his shop are very vocal about voting Republican??? I have friends who swear they'd never support their hubby (or allow themselves in)a union job but vehemently complain about making $11.50/ hr after being in a job 20 years, with little benefit plans that aren't worth a rub. In my head I think ,so bust up all the union's and see what your wage is then! See how trifling your benefits are then, if you have anything at all. They worry about an increase in taxes for those making $250k a year...why? Why, when you only make $45k as a household? Their answer - I may have that kind of money one day...ok, so worry about it then, not when you are so far away it's not even a remote possibility or concern. My hubby went to the caucuses a few weeks back, he hasn't done that ever: took our daughter and she was so inspired. She's a staunch 'Bernie' fan...looking out for free college! She thinks it's amazing how he's funded his campaign and how he wants to help those who need the most help. As opposed to Trump who just wants to help himself!

    I am really quite frightened by the thought of a Trump presidency, friends and family back home (we have family all over Europe), say Trump will be the downfall of the U.S.They laugh about him. I can't see any good coming from such a egregious individual myself...perhaps I'll be glad I am not a citizen? Or maybe Trump will just deport my arse?

    Chisandy, your depth of knowledge on this subject is amazing! So glad Mary opened the topic in the General forum, I really enjoy reading EVERYONE's insights....I am loving it!

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    oh look, Benghazi Hillary right in the middle.


    image

  • BrooksideVT
    BrooksideVT Member Posts: 2,211
    edited March 2016

    ChiSandy, I also was asked which ballot I chose. First, I was asked which one I wanted, and was given that ballot. As I passed the end of the table, (It's a very small town.), the Town Clerk asked and recorded my ballot choice. I wondered whether it was an attempt to determine whether a significant number of people were voting for the opposite-party contender they hoped their preferred candidate could most easily beat.



  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    -PRESIDENCY PAYMENTS

    Pension, staff, travel, Secret Service protection, funds for spouse covered by taxpayers. Obama asks for 18% Hike

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/obama-seeks-hike-in-post-presidency-payments/#TjhEeQQbTmsg1XQR.99
  • SummerAngel
    SummerAngel Member Posts: 1,006
    edited March 2016

    I read an interesting article the other day about why Trump is so popular: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authori...

    I find his appeal to be concerning not necessarily because of Trump himself, but because of the feelings he appeals to. The man isn't stupid, he knows that he can play upon people's fear - and that's exactly what he's doing. If Trump didn't come along and appeal to the need for someone "strong" and "in charge", someone else would have, at least eventually. My parents are extreme tea party type Republicans but are also very strong evangelical Christians, and while I haven't spoken to them about whether they support Trump, I believe that they do - or will. Even though Trump is definitely not in line with Christian beliefs, my parents fit the classic profile of those who let fear, especially fear of societal changes, rule them. Their fears will overcome any distaste for Trump's past behavior or statements.

    Personally, I'm not fond of Hillary, but if it comes down to her or Trump I will vote for her.

    By the way, I, too, used to occasionally vote Republican, but things in the Republican party have gone downhill. Now I can't help but call myself a Democrat. I'm a six-figure-making Democrat who will gladly contribute more taxes to society.

  • april485
    april485 Member Posts: 3,257
    edited March 2016

    Marijen, most sitting Presidents do not attend the funerals of former first ladies anyway. Read below.

    While Presidents usually attend the funerals of former Presidents, they have historically skipped the funerals of other high ranking officials and First Ladies, often sending the current First Lady to represent them at the service. Michelle Obama is, in fact, attending Nancy Reagan's funeral.

    President Obama will be taking part in an interview in Texas at the South by Southwest Festival, where he is also scheduled to speak about civic engagement and using technology to address the challenges we face in the future. This was planned prior to Reagan's death.

    Yet, conservatives see this as a sign of disrespect. The only problem is that he is hardly the first president to skip a funeral for a former First Lady.

    For instance, President Clinton did not attend Pat Nixon's funeral in 1993 and President Bush did not attend Lady Bird Johnson's funeral in 2007. President Obama also did not attend Betty Ford's funeral in 2011.

    Jimmy Carter didn't attend Mamie Eisenhower's funeral in 1979 and Franklin D. Roosevelt did not attend Lou Henry Hoover's funeral in 1944.


  • april485
    april485 Member Posts: 3,257
    edited March 2016

    ... Earnest revealed the president's plans during the daily briefing, saying Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will go to the Supreme Court on Friday "to pay their respects to Justice Scalia" while the justice lies in repose in the Great Hall. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden, who share Scalia's Catholic faith, will be at the services instead.

    President Obama did not appear to have disregarded any traditions in the way he paid his respects to Scalia. Scalia's Catholicism and the tone of the event appeared to have been a considerable factor in who attended the funeral; the Catholic Church discourages distractions from the solemnity of Mass, and the presence of the President would undeniably have affected the ceremony.

    Source is snopes.com

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    Ok, April, I corrected.

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    There's nothing to Fear but Hillary.

  • Englishmummy
    Englishmummy Member Posts: 337
    edited March 2016

    Could I ask why we should fear Hillary? Not being facetious, truthfully asking...aside from Benghazi and the email issue ....What would/should make us fear Hillary as opposed to Ted Cruz, Kaisch or Trump?

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    You want me to regurgitate the last 40 years. Ok, but it'll take some time. BBL with the list.

    SickTired

  • Englishmummy
    Englishmummy Member Posts: 337
    edited March 2016

    40 years ago, starting with President Ford?


  • april485
    april485 Member Posts: 3,257
    edited March 2016

    LOL...good one. Marijen is passionate about not liking Hillary Clinton so am curious to see what she comes up with. We shall see...

    so far, from what I know, she does not call any of the shots regarding Benghazi. She can only disclose what she is told she could. She is told what to do by CIA and President Obama's cabinet and much of this stuff is very top secret and can endanger people that we don't even know/think about so when everyone is screaming for explanations (especially loud in 2012 when it first happened understandably but also an election year, the same as now) there is only so much they can disclose. Contrary to popular belief, the government is not required to share everything with us.

    As for email, it has yet to be proven anything top secret or even moderately secret went through her server and others have also used their own servers. She was not the first but of course, she is running so it is fair game. So sick of it (and so is Bernie...tee hee)

  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited March 2016

    Since she got kicked off the Watergate Team for lying. Ha ha April! Hillary masterminded Benghazi, it's in the emails.

  • Englishmummy
    Englishmummy Member Posts: 337
    edited March 2016

    How Trump is viewed by the world:

    'Foreign leaders rarely comment on U.S. candidates they may ultimately have to work with, but Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons late last year, "if he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him."

    I take back what I said about Cameron being a chocolate tea pot....

    'Europeans are frightened by what he called Trump's "strongman persona and politics … his xenophobia and contempt for the rule of law." Europeans are haunted by their own past, he explained. "Americans don't seem unnerved when they see a swaggering strongman on stage surrounded by thuggish crowd, wildly cheering when he talks of rounding up people and sending them home." He said. "But in Europe, we have seen this before, and it sets our nerves jangling."

    The article is on PBS and breaks down why the world is 'recoiling' at the thought of a Trump presidency http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/president-trum...

    Summer, that was a good article you posted and I know a lot of people like your parents, too many, infact...

    Colbert had John Oliver on the other night and they quickly discuss how the numbers of the voting so far breaks down (at about 4.20) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x056ioqqn8A I haven't fact checked it...

Categories