Are any of the candidates, either party, electable?

M&M · Postby **M&M** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:45 am

DH says "no". And I'm not sticking around to discuss! I'm sure I'll sneak back in to read.

(And obviously, someone will get elected - but it's not UDBB at it's worst, so I'm assuming that you assume that I assume that to be true.)

outsiderein · Postby **outsiderein** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:57 am

I wonder about that also. But it is not the first time I have had that thought early in the election season and things did straighten themselves out in the end. I remember Bill Clinton leaving me really scratching my head, but the more I watched him the more impressed I was. And apparently I was not alone. I wish he could have kept it in his pants, but there are a whole lot of men I can say that about.

But man oh man, if Ben Carson is nominated... I thought he had some promise in the beginning. Until I started reading his website. And he's making it worse every day. Mr. IwouldhavejumpedinthereandsavedthemallevenifIhadbeenshot. Yeah, right.

boots-aregard · Postby **boots-aregard** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:10 am

When Obama first poked his head up in the 2008 race, did he look "electable"? I'd say not. But much changed on the campaign trail.

Now, this observation is whether or not you happen to like Mr. Obama and his presidency. I'm talking about the campaign.

ProudHorse · Postby **ProudHorse** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:36 am

Bernie is not electable apparently but the only one I would vote for at this point. Can we re-elect Bill Clinton? Please?

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:42 am

I'm with ProudHorse. I really like Bernie.

Linde · Postby **Linde** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:47 am

I too like Bernie. I like his stance on getting money out of politics. Once the big money is out of politics, a lot of our problems would be much more solvable.

And I think that is an issue that many people, regardless of where on the political spectrum they fall, can agree on. And he seems to be the only one concerned about it. He was concerned about it in 2011 when the issue start coming into public awareness.

I actually think he has a chance should he get the nomination.

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:02 am

I really hope so.

Money out of politics. What a concept. How great that would be!

AnnCohrs · Postby **AnnCohrs** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:18 am

In an odd sort of way, Trump is aiming at voters who don't like the big money, since he says he has so much big money of his own (huge! huge!) that he doesn't need to take any of that money.

Figgy · Postby **Figgy** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:50 am

Ahhh Murdoch, don't we just love him and his twitter feed.

Except twitter is too much hard work for me.

I've yet to work out who all your candidates are. I'm still getting used to Trump and Bush and Clinton - is the 90s all over again? did we go through a timewarp?

carpevita · Postby **carpevita** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:05 pm

Stranger things have happened!
I know the chances of Bernie getting the nomination seem as slim as can be, but what if?
What if he wins?
I think he's enough of a statesman to represent us in the world, I think he has the integrity to not sell out, and I think he can make a difference. I think he's smart, ferocious when necessary, and truly has the country's best interests at heart, and NOT his own ban account in mind. Afaik he is beholden to no lobbyists--which is HUGE in my book.

I am also very worried that he will be murdered before then.
I worry that too many people see the word SOCIALIST and have that knee jerk reaction so many do. I wish he could rename his stance to prevent that from happening as well.

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:11 pm

I don't get why people are so afraid of the word socialism. We have a lot of socialist policies here already.

I sure hope he doesn't get killed.

Spiritpaws · Postby **Spiritpaws** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:16 pm

I think mainstream America is afraid of socialism because of propaganda, and the eroding component of the 21st century: critical thinking.

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:30 pm

Mainstream America frightens me.

I watched Idiocracy the other night, because someone told me it was basically about the dumbing down of America. It was not the most enjoyable movie, but it did make its point about how stupid so many Americans are.

M&M · Postby **M&M** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:00 pm

ProudHorse wrote:Bernie is not electable apparently but the only one I would vote for at this point. Can we re-elect Bill Clinton? Please?

Especially since he seems to take his health quite seriously after his - was it a quadruple? - bypass surgery. And messing around/getting caught is very bad for your health! (I don't want to out and out say that he's too old for that anymore, but it's possible!)

Meanwhile, why do we keep saying Bernie is unelectable? Am I insane to think he is?

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:02 pm

The media is telling us that Bernie is unelectable.

And no, you're not insane. :-)

boots-aregard · Postby **boots-aregard** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:52 pm

Spiritpaws wrote:I think mainstream America is afraid of socialism because of propaganda, and the eroding component of the 21st century: critical thinking.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

"Socialist" == "devil!" Add to that the fact that nobody knows what it is.

WheresMyWhite · Postby **WheresMyWhite** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:49 pm

Nobody knows what it is or nobody knows how it would be implemented...?

For many countries who have tried, their version hasn't done them any good.

Fatcat · Postby **Fatcat** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:41 pm

I hope and think Bernie is electable. I'm frustrated with how little media attention he's getting. Other than a brief mention in local news about how large his rally crowds are, the big media seems to be ignoring him to over analyze trump and Clinton. :roll:

Thank goodness the eye rolly emoticon is back!

outsiderein · Postby **outsiderein** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:49 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:For many countries who have tried, their version hasn't done them any good.

IDK, you can sign me up for one of the Scandanavian countries any time.

paownyc · Postby **paownyc** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:56 pm

Me, too!!

Tuffytown · Postby **Tuffytown** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:17 pm

Me three, or canada.
Some fear of the word socialism is similar to what they feel others fear is when it comes to guns.

boots-aregard · Postby **boots-aregard** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:57 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:Nobody knows what it is or nobody knows how it would be implemented...?

For many countries who have tried, their version hasn't done them any good.

My guess? Both. Firstly, they run from the word like it was a vampire, and hide their heads in the sand. The U.S. is a Republic, fer cryin' out loud, and the president has authority limited both by congress and by the Supremes, so just how awful could a socialist president end up being?

And of course, Bernie isn't a socialist, he's a democratic socialist, which has already got the rough edges knocked off. But such nuances are lost on 'Murkins.

EponaFarm · Postby **EponaFarm** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:11 pm

I think it could depend on who they choose as a running mate. Look back - I think McCain was very electable until he partnered with Palin.

WheresMyWhite · Postby **WheresMyWhite** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:17 pm

boots-aregard wrote:My guess? Both. Firstly, they run from the word like it was a vampire, and hide their heads in the sand. The U.S. is a Republic, fer cryin' out loud, and the president has authority limited both by congress and by the Supremes, so just how awful could a socialist president end up being?

Given how Executive Orders are tossed around, I'm not always convinced that POTUS is strictly "regulated".

As for electable... we're over 12 months out from the election. Plenty of time for the good, the bad and the ugly to rear their heads...

M&M · Postby **M&M** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:55 pm

EponaFarm wrote:I think it could depend on who they choose as a running mate. Look back - I think McCain was very electable until he partnered with Palin.

Excellent point.

Figgy · Postby **Figgy** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:39 am

6c - of course I found you, I had this moment where I was going to give up horse forums as I don't post on horse topics these days, but, Eques is full of helicopter mothers who are Abbott and Bolt groupies, and Cyberhorse has been taken over by the antivaxers who are convinced that Zoetis is a conspiracy theory to kill all the horses in this country

and I do love the political and social perspectives of our American friends

so of course I had to come find this place.

Valerie · Postby **Valerie** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:19 pm

I think the media wants Bernie to be unelectable so no one will "waste" their vote on him and their chosen is the candidate. I think the fact that he has raised almost as much money as HRC, but in small money is impressive. And says something about his support among voters- who are voting with their $100 contributions. He has no skeletons in his closet, and people may not like what he stands for, but he has never told anything but the truth as he sees it. He has my vote.

M&M · Postby **M&M** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:04 am

He's getting criticized for giving Hillary a pass on the emails, but I took it as just an example of the fact that he isn't going to fight dirty - how refreshing!

KathyK · Postby **KathyK** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:48 pm

M&M wrote:He's getting criticized for giving Hillary a pass on the emails, but I took it as just an example of the fact that he isn't going to fight dirty - how refreshing!

Not only that, but he wants to talk about issues that are actually important. Inconceivable! :lol:

Chisamba · Postby **Chisamba** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:22 pm

i find bernie sanders theories frightening. i have lived in countries where major companies were taken away from their owners and set up ad co operatives, and i do not like the starving that happened to the lower income groups as a result of those companies failing.

My first boss in the USA had a bean and elevator company, part of the reason for his wealth was that he absorbed the numerous failing co operatives that were in competition with him, and failed.

I do not feel safe when people say, well it worked in scandinavia, or it worked in................... because we all know that the cultural and geographical issues in the USA are vastly different.

So, while when i read his theories, I think the sound attractive, to me it fall in the category of, if its too good to be true, its not going to work.

what do i actually want in a candidate? moderate with the ability to work across party lines so that something can actually be accomplished.

is there a candidate that shows that tendency? not in my opinion.

Tuffytown · Postby **Tuffytown** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:43 pm

Perhaps I missed something. Where has Bernie Saunders proposed to take companies away from their owners?

WheresMyWhite · Postby **WheresMyWhite** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:08 pm

Chisamba wrote:I do not feel safe when people say, well it worked in scandinavia, or it worked in................... because we all know that the cultural and geographical issues in the USA are vastly different.

You have no idea what thoughts popped into my head when I read this statement as there is current a different hot subject that people continue to insist we are like other places

(Yes, I am poking the bear a bit here).

Chisamba wrote:What do i actually want in a candidate? moderate with the ability to work across party lines so that something can actually be accomplished.

is there a candidate that shows that tendency? not in my opinion.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I would love a candidate who can think outside the box, is moderate and willing to work across part lines and I also don't think there is a candidate who is willing to buck their party to do with.

I would love to see a viable third party candidate show up and so far, while there are plenty of third party candidates, most are no where near strong enough to go against the 2 party system the US currently has.

Zonderpaard · Postby **Zonderpaard** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:50 pm

Post #2

KathyK · Postby **KathyK** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:54 pm

Chisamba wrote:what do i actually want in a candidate? moderate with the ability to work across party lines so that something can actually be accomplished.

is there a candidate that shows that tendency? not in my opinion.

With the House in its current state, what moderate candidate could possibly work with them? They can't even find a speaker extreme enough to satisfy the Tea Party crazies.

Chisamba · Postby **Chisamba** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:04 pm

Tuffytown wrote:Perhaps I missed something. Where has Bernie Saunders proposed to take companies away from their owners?

raising the top tax bracket to 90% and subsidising co operative worker owned businesses,

taxing any income over 400K at 40 percent. and going up from there. ( okay 39. i rounded up)

Chisamba · Postby **Chisamba** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:12 pm

KathyK wrote:
Chisamba wrote:what do i actually want in a candidate? moderate with the ability to work across party lines so that something can actually be accomplished.

is there a candidate that shows that tendency? not in my opinion.

With the House in its current state, what moderate candidate could possibly work with them? They can't even find a speaker extreme enough to satisfy the Tea Party crazies.

I think that moderates are the most disenfranchised of the population, and we should be the majority, strong enough to expell the fringes of both parties, and carry the majority. I think there is something kind of wrong with a culture and election method that pushes the fringes into power and disenfranchises the moderates.

I am not smart enough to know how to fix it, and i find it rather depressing every time there is an election

and this should be the end of my foray into the political lounge for a year

Tuffytown · Postby **Tuffytown** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:25 pm

So he didn't propose to take companies away from their owners, just tax them at a higher rate. What do you have against worker owned businesses? The worker bees should be barred from ownership, only the oligarch can own businesses? If big corporations get lots of subsidies then why not other structures?

boots-aregard · Postby **boots-aregard** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:02 am

Yeah, really. I mean, Mr. Made-of-Money has already earned a cool $5million this year, what tax rate SHOULD be charged on the next million? I think 90% is a great tax rate at that level.

musical comedy · Postby **musical comedy** » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:22 pm

I have my choice, who has no chance, but that is not pertinent to what I have to write.

The press sickens me. Especially CNN cyber news. Is there a source out there that is not partial and/or blowing small stuff out of proportion to get headlines. They lure you into reading with a headline that is a bait-n-switch.

Even the candidates and their throwing stones at each other annoys me. I guess this has been going on forever, but I am especially interested in this election more so than ever before.

Have any of you read the comments that are at the bottom of all those articles? I read a few, then have to click off because the tone, crudeness, and ignorance of the comments frustrates me.

At this point, I couldn't bet on who was going to get the Republican Nomination. It doesn't matter, as Hillary is a shoe-in anyway.

I guess I should take a guess, and that would be that Rubio will get the nomination. That is not my choice, but just who I think will get it.

Chisamba · Postby **Chisamba** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:43 am

Linde wrote:I too like Bernie. I like his stance on getting money out of politics. Once the big money is out of politics, a lot of our problems would be much more solvable.

And I think that is an issue that many people, regardless of where on the political spectrum they fall, can agree on. And he seems to be the only one concerned about it. He was concerned about it in 2011 when the issue start coming into public awareness.

I actually think he has a chance should he get the nomination.

Money in politics has been a concern for a long time, not since 2012.

Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. These specific election donations are known as ‘hard money.’ The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1924, and prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as "soft money")

Etc etc etc

AirsAboveNC · Postby **AirsAboveNC** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:25 am

musical comedy wrote:Have any of you read the comments that are at the bottom of all those articles? I read a few, then have to click off because the tone, crudeness, and ignorance of the comments frustrates me.

It's really disheartening. Comments sections are full of people who are so sure that theirs is the only correct view and anyone with a different perspective is evil, stupid, mentally ill, or all three.

WheresMyWhite · Postby **WheresMyWhite** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:19 pm

AirsAboveNC wrote:It's really disheartening. Comments sections are full of people who are so sure that theirs is the only correct view and anyone with a different perspective is evil, stupid, mentally ill, or all three.

This type of behavior isn't limited to comments on political articles, unfortunately...

KathyK · Postby **KathyK** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:12 pm

The internet has provided a public forum for anyone who wants it. I believe that's unfortunate.

WheresMyWhite · Postby **WheresMyWhite** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:49 pm

KathyK wrote:The internet has provided a public forum for anyone who wants it. I believe that's unfortunate.

If it is indeed unfortunate - who would get to decide who gets to use the public forum and who doesn't?

IMO, it's either everyone or no one...

KathyK · Postby **KathyK** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:41 pm

Who is talking about deciding that? I'm certainly not.

Who is online