US presidential election, the two thousand sixteenthening

So it begins. Hillary Clinton has made the first significant public move toward an assumed presidential run: she's criticized Obama.

There's a number of people pushing for Romney again, but I expect the GOP will let this run for awhile to allow him to absorb/deflect criticism while they build someone else in the background.

Seems Christie has lost a lot of his steam, but who knows, we've got time for them to fix him up.

Don't know who the other front runners are at the moment, but I expect this campaign season to start earlier and last painfully longer than previous elections.
 
There's a group wanting to draft WV Senator Joe Manchin to run.

Not just no, but fuck no. The man is an abject coward and a lapdog of the coal interests. When a man willfully pisses on the graves of family he lost in the Famington disaster of 1968, but uses their memory to try to prove he's "one of us", you know that he'll stab you in the back the moment someone waves a large enough contribution in his face.
 
And I know why.
Remember to vote for Burke Tuesday, by the way.
I'm just exhausted by the politics in this state. The abject terror of Glenn Grothman probably becoming a U.S. Senator makes the world a sadder place. You'll not find a stupider man in the House of Representatives.
 
Too many personal minutiae.
Not enough care remaining.

Now don't start thinking I'm saying it doesn't matter. It does, and quite a bit. I just do not have the luxury of dealing with it until its urgency level has surpassed my own.

--Patrick
 
Hey guys, I hear Rick Perry might try to run again, what do you think! Lol
Yeah, it's true, I heard it from three separate news sources. The New York Times, CNN, and... uh... there was a third one... it's slipped my mind for the moment... it'll come to me soon... any minute now...
 
Honest question: is anyone here excited about Hilary Clinton, Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie? Those are the three big names at the moment, and I have yet to meet a person with real enthusiasm for any of them.
 
Pretty much. It's over two years until the election; odds are none of those three will be the final candidates.
This is part of your guys' problem: CONTINUAL election cycles. It barely gets more than the occasional blips up here until the actual election is called. THEN we get what you guys get pretty much 24/7 down there.

No wonder you guys have political burn-out down there.
 
This is part of your guys' problem: CONTINUAL election cycles. It barely gets more than the occasional blips up here until the actual election is called. THEN we get what you guys get pretty much 24/7 down there.

No wonder you guys have political burn-out down there.
And by the time you get to election time, people stop caring.

This probably sounds paranoid, but I doubt it's by accident.
 
Honestly, I think the problem is more Congress than anything else. There's always someone trying to get re-elected, so everyone there plays "what have you done lately for me" bingo with their election promises. So the grandstanding never ever stops.

I wish we had a system for national referenda so we could toss out a "fire everyone in Congress every two terms (one term if I had my druthers) and elect exclusively new people" idea.
 
Long story short, @Eriol, we have a bare minimum influence or control over what goes on in our country on a national level and we're as pissed off with our government as every other country is pissed off with our government. The best we can do per state is scare an individual congressman into believing they won't be re-elected, but since it's just one or two people at a time, it carries little weight.

Yet we still have to hear about it every other year for months at a time.
 

Dave

Staff member
Libertarians are republicans using a more press-friendly name to fool those who think they are pro-small government into voting for them. It the latest buzzword for republicans who don't want to be associated with the tea party, but they are all the same sheep, just different colored wool.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Libertarians are republicans using a more press-friendly name to fool those who think they are pro-small government into voting for them. It the latest buzzword for republicans who don't want to be associated with the tea party, but they are all the same sheep, just different colored wool.
Them's fighting words.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
People always say that to those who tell the truth. :ninja:
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass wearing a "Truth" onesie and carrying a sign that said the word "Truth" on it in bold Arial Black.

Sometimes I hope the phrase "President Ted Cruz" becomes truth, not because I think he'd be a good president or anything, but rather just to hear the lamentations of people who deserve to get pushed under that emotional steamroller.
 

Dave

Staff member
Yeah, hoping for the US to go downhill. That's great, man.


And truth hasn't fit in a onesie for a very, very long time.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Yeah, hoping for the US to go downhill. That's great, man.
It's past the point of no return. Think our $17 trillion debt is bad? We have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities and absolutely zero political will to stop spending, or even stop increasing spending every year. It's literally impossible for us to tax our way back to solvency. This plane's already shot down, it just has a few dozen thousand feet to glide through before it hits the ground.
 
you know everyone that's so bothered by the national elections wouldn't need to be if those same people didn't insist on having the Federal government involved in every single aspect of governance. Then again its the same people who complain about the two-party system while voting a straight party ballot, and absolutely refusing to even consider the merits of a third party or their candidates.
 
I like how they use a picture of fat Drew... it's like nobody likes skinny Drew.
Nobody recognizes skinny Drew.[DOUBLEPOST=1407781325,1407781133][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah, hoping for the US to go downhill. That's great, man.
I get the sentiment. And to be honest I'd actively cheer on the stampede over that cliff. It would be very emotionally satisfying for the ones who make the bad decisions to Get What's Coming To Them...if only I could do it from outside the situation. But I can't. So I still try. I don't get very far, though, since it's so flamin' difficult for an unfunded individual to effect any change.

--Patrick
 
People want a change, but aren't willing to juggle the risks. People are used to the way things are, even when they're fucked up like the ethnic prejudices, the healthcare system, unemployment issues, economy, political corruption, etc. These evils suck, but we know them.

There are benefits to living in the U.S. You don't have to worry about military squads breaking into your house and ordering you at gunpoint to rape your children like was going on in the Congo. Americans don't have the government hauling women into hospitals and forcing abortions and sterilizations on them like in China.

And then look at our neighbor to the south and the upheaval going on there. No one wants that here, and they're afraid that any change to the political status quo could spark another civil war. There's really no way to dismantle the current government and establish something better without sacrifice, and as bad as things are at times, I think most people just want to live simple lives, have families, grow old, etc. They aren't going to risk that so Congress can get put in its place.

It wouldn't be so bad if we could vote to change it, but Congress makes the laws. We can't do anything to them. We can vote new members in, but so what? They then become members of Congress as well. There's no way for us to create another government body to take some of that power away, because Congress decides it. And it's made sure that the status quo will remain. Even peaceful protests like the Occupy stuff were stricken down harshly. You must not even have the thought of changing things, or else.
 
Top