Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)

He's also apparently strongest among " a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York." So... you know, Southern Democrats who didn't make the switch to Republics during the Civil Rights era. Yes, these people exist... ESPECIALLY in Appalachia where people still live like it's fucking 1910.
 
Yes, these people exist... ESPECIALLY in Appalachia where people still live like it's fucking 1910.
As in perpetually in thrall to the mine operators? Yes, yes they do. They're the ones parroting the "war on coal" line their bosses have fed them, in spite of the mines being mined out and nobody buying what's coming out of them anyway. Not because of the evil EPA, but because it's cheaper to use gas and other means of fuel.
 
It's had to take Hillary's railing against Wall Street seriously when she's got a giant for sale sign around her neck and cashing checks for $600K in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

And what do guys like Santorum expect to accomplish when they can't even win over the lunatic fringe of their own party, let alone the entire electorate? Bag the next Fox Noise talking head gig?
 

Necronic

Staff member
The only serious candidate I've ever seen who would have turned that down is Bernie Sanders. And why would he need to accept a check? He's incredibly good at writing them himself. Just don't try and cash it.
 
Makes sense. He spent more time campaigning in NH than any other candidate and still had a dismal finish. Now the question becomes where will the voters he DID get decide to go...
Probably Jeb, Cruz, or Kasich now that's actually made some gains... though how Kasich beat Jeb is astounding, considering how hard Jeb campaigned in NH and how much money his campaign as spent.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Probably Jeb, Cruz, or Kasich now that's actually made some gains... though how Kasich beat Jeb is astounding, considering how hard Jeb campaigned in NH and how much money his campaign as spent.
I am a bit astonished and disappointed at how well Jeb did. Just goes to further show how worthless polls are.
 
Kasich pretty much lived in NH this primary season trying to shake every hand and kiss every baby banking on a strong showing to lift his boat from the also rans.

And with Rubio getting demolished in NH and Bush having been shown to be a terrible investment he might just be the guy that the establishment rallies around.
 
Kasich pretty much lived in NH this primary season trying to shake every hand and kiss every baby banking on a strong showing to lift his boat from the also rans.

And with Rubio getting demolished in NH and Bush having been shown to be a terrible investment he might just be the guy that the establishment rallies around.
Especially since Kasich is basically the only candidate that hasn't done something truly embarrassing yet.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Kasich is the Huntsman of this election. He's simply too milquetoast for republicans these days. He went all in on New Hampshire and did better than expected there, but he played all his cards on this one, I don't see him holding out last Super Tuesday.
 
That really IS going to be the ultimate fate of this election, isn't it? Ether the Republican candidate is going to be Trump (and could he really win against Hillary or Bernie?) or it's going to be someone so safe, so generic, so... establishment that there is a good chance that a lot of conservative voters are just going to stay home.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Honestly my money right now is on Cruz. He straddles the fence better than any other candidate, and is the best bet for beating Hillary/Sanders (a Trump victory is a dem victory). And it's absolutely terrifying to me because he is a huge unknown with a history of very ugly politics of convenience. It's impossible to tell what he would actually do as a president. Maybe this is a good thing, because the worst case scenario is him actually following through on his rhetoric, and the alternative is him getting into office and saying "lol jk I'm actually sort of moderate I just did all that to get elected". Maybe he's a Canadian at heart.[DOUBLEPOST=1455201705,1455201638][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's my guesses:

Cruz v Trump: Cruz

Cruz v Sanders: Cruz

Cruz v Hillary: Very close race down to the wire.
 
Cruz v Hillary
That's probably where it's headed, and it's pathetic. Our choices are just garbage candidate 1 and garbage candidate 2. I hate party X, so I will vote for party Y. U.S. politics are such b.s. This is why I have abstained from voting for either Dems or Rep for Pres. It's sick.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I don't know how much of an unknown quantity Cruz is, I mean, he's been a practicing lawyer and a senator, and has argued before the Supreme Court. We certainly know more about him than we did "community organizer" Obama, anyway.
 
He may be our only protection against Xenu. Everyone keeps paying too much attention to Iran and Syria and Afghanistan... but what about Xenu?!
 

GasBandit

Staff member
He may be our only protection against Xenu. Everyone keeps paying too much attention to Iran and Syria and Afghanistan... but what about Xenu?!
He'll have a hell of a time fighting Xenu when he won't even come out of the damn closet in the Lincoln bedroom.
 
Note that that is an opinion (not even an editorial), and that the case itself is fascinating in its complexity. Even the Supreme Court justices could not weigh in meaningfully - they punted it back down in a 6-3 decision and told Haley to try to exonerate himself in a different way.

It would have been nice if Cruz had chosen not to pursue the case, but 1) he may not have felt it was appropriate for him to pick and choose which cases should be dropped and which should be pursued, particularly in a case where another law suggested that it should be pursued and 2) taking the law all the way up the chain to the supreme court creates precedent, which may actually help future Haley's from running into this problem, or at least inform the justice system how to deal with these difficult cases where laws may require the wrong choice to be made.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/11/lazarus.dretke/

At any rate, I don't think your vitriol is fully justified, and may have been inflamed by the media and Cruz's opponents.
 
Note that that is an opinion (not even an editorial), and that the case itself is fascinating in its complexity. Even the Supreme Court justices could not weigh in meaningfully - they punted it back down in a 6-3 decision and told Haley to try to exonerate himself in a different way.

It would have been nice if Cruz had chosen not to pursue the case, but 1) he may not have felt it was appropriate for him to pick and choose which cases should be dropped and which should be pursued, particularly in a case where another law suggested that it should be pursued and 2) taking the law all the way up the chain to the supreme court creates precedent, which may actually help future Haley's from running into this problem, or at least inform the justice system how to deal with these difficult cases where laws may require the wrong choice to be made.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/11/lazarus.dretke/

At any rate, I don't think your vitriol is fully justified, and may have been inflamed by the media and Cruz's opponents.
Hey now! You're not allowed to speak politely and raise points that might make sense if you're supporting that guy! You're supposed to be foaming at the mouth and Evil! At least that's what the impartial media told me :(
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I lean in your direction philosophically. Do you really think Cruz is a decent candidate? And I don't mean the lesser of two evils.
What attracts me to Cruz is his strong constitutionalist streak, and his willingness to stick to conservative principles no matter the political cost. When he argued before the supreme court, it was against gun control, and he succeeded. That he didn't back down from the government shutdown when everybody said it'd be the end of his career if not the entire republican party in general, he went up a great deal in my estimation. He genuinely wants smaller, limited government and unlike most republicans, he's got a spine about it. If a republican congress sends him ACA repeal, it wouldn't surprise me if he signed it with one hand while extending a middle finger toward the CNN cameras with the other. Not that I think a republican legislature without Senator Cruz would send a repeal to President Cruz, once it actually had some teeth and wasn't just kabuki for the party base. Under a Cruz presidency, you'd see job-choking regulations start to loosen, and he's even made noises about abolishing the IRS. He's very much about reducing the federal bloat.

That said, there's plenty I don't like about him. He's anti-abortion and gay marriage. He's got the fiscal conservative chops to be sure, but unfortunately, he's also got the reactionary social platform that unfortunately usually goes along with it in the republican party. If it weren't for those two things, he'd be darn close to being libertarian. But the fervor with which he talks about these two subjects makes me think he considers them an important, central part of his platform as opposed to just boxes he ticks off to placate a certain demographic without really doing anything, and that keeps me from endorsing him... no matter how much it'd make me giggle to see him kick over every apple cart inside the Beltway.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I can't take any candidate seriously that jokes about nuking a nation to go after a handful of terrorist. (Cruz)
You take candidates seriously?

Joking aside, obviously he wouldn't go nuclear.
But you know.. it might actually help our efforts if our enemies thought our leader was unstable enough to actually do so...
 
I would like someone to explain to me how the government would function without the IRS. Does this entail an end to taxes, and if so, how could the government function on even the smallest scale? If not, how would the government collect taxes?
 
Top