I predict America will still be the best place for me to make money in 2016, so I have no plans to leave. Good chance I'll have things set up to where I can still get money here but physically be wherever. Gotta love this place.
Your Hillary 2016 Survival Plan
- Thread starter Blunt
- Start date
- Status
a lot can happen between now and 2016,
I would love to see a race between dennis kucinich and rand paul but that probably won't happen unless things really fall off the rails.
I would love to see a race between dennis kucinich and rand paul but that probably won't happen unless things really fall off the rails.
I don't think she's anything like Obama. She's a lot more alpha male. She has bigger balls than Obama, and I expect that she fucks hotter chicks.j r said:
Congressional representatives have the power to create laws and also control the nation's purse strings. The lower house of Congress will remain in Republican hands in 2016, so compromise, especially on domestic issues, will be required. Don't really see the problem with that arrangement in theory so long as both sides are able to work together. Your local Congressman and state politicians have an infinitely larger impact on your actual life than the President.
Presidents are more important for the macro domestic challenges and for international leadership. On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones. You can go back to the beginning of the last century and make the comparisons. Not even close. FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. Those men have all been treated like rockstars overseas.
Presidents are more important for the macro domestic challenges and for international leadership. On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones. You can go back to the beginning of the last century and make the comparisons. Not even close. FDR, JFK, Clinton, Obama. Those men have all been treated like rockstars overseas.
Truth Teller
Ostrich
I'm not sure she'll even get the nomination, let alone win the presidency. After 8 years of Obama, I don't see any Democrat having an easy time in the election. Also, while Benghazi has gone away (for now), the primaries are where the really awful things about candidates come out. Think about how Hillary tried to smear Obama and how Obama smeared everyone else.
Also, you have to understand that Hillary doesn't poll well outside of the traditional Democratic strongholds... and the population is shifting away from those places. For my money... 2016 will be between someone like Martin O'Malley and someone like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.
If you look at her record, then you see how little she actually did. Yeah, she was in the Senate for 8 years. She didn't sponsor any important legislation. Then she was Secretary of State. What did she do? Escalate our tensions with Russia and China, allow Iran to grow ever closer to obtaining an atomic weapon, directly aid terrorist organizations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and put the US in a position where nuclear war with North Korea became a more serious threat than we had ever thought it could've been.
Also, you have to understand that Hillary doesn't poll well outside of the traditional Democratic strongholds... and the population is shifting away from those places. For my money... 2016 will be between someone like Martin O'Malley and someone like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.
If you look at her record, then you see how little she actually did. Yeah, she was in the Senate for 8 years. She didn't sponsor any important legislation. Then she was Secretary of State. What did she do? Escalate our tensions with Russia and China, allow Iran to grow ever closer to obtaining an atomic weapon, directly aid terrorist organizations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and put the US in a position where nuclear war with North Korea became a more serious threat than we had ever thought it could've been.
The demographic change argument is questionable. Both parties somehow managed to survived all the demographic and social change that has taken place over the past 150 years.
Republicans are in trouble because they are in the midst of an internal civil war between moderates and radicals. The radicals win primaries, but the moderates win state and national elections. It won't go on forever. In the next few years, it will resolve itself one way or the other. Either the Republicans will be mostly the center-right party with Tea Party elements scattered about or it will be a rightwing populist party with a few moderates scattered about. If it's the former, they will survive; if bits the latter, they'll fade an some other party will fill the void.
The idea that women and minorities are somehow inherently incapable of being swayed by the conservative message is just wrong. There are lots of traditional women in this country who do identify as conservative. And there would be more if Republicans stopped saying stupid shit and actually addresses the progressive brand of feminism that Democrats sell. Same with minorities. Tere are lots of minorities that are natural Republicans. Blacks are the most religious ethnic group in America. Hispanics are fairly religious as well and mane are very traditional. And there are lots of middle class minorities who don't like the welfare state. Republicans just haven't learned to speak to these people and can't seem to go a week without saying something spectacularly stupid.
Stop blaming demographics. Blame these idiot candidates and pundits.
Republicans are in trouble because they are in the midst of an internal civil war between moderates and radicals. The radicals win primaries, but the moderates win state and national elections. It won't go on forever. In the next few years, it will resolve itself one way or the other. Either the Republicans will be mostly the center-right party with Tea Party elements scattered about or it will be a rightwing populist party with a few moderates scattered about. If it's the former, they will survive; if bits the latter, they'll fade an some other party will fill the void.
The idea that women and minorities are somehow inherently incapable of being swayed by the conservative message is just wrong. There are lots of traditional women in this country who do identify as conservative. And there would be more if Republicans stopped saying stupid shit and actually addresses the progressive brand of feminism that Democrats sell. Same with minorities. Tere are lots of minorities that are natural Republicans. Blacks are the most religious ethnic group in America. Hispanics are fairly religious as well and mane are very traditional. And there are lots of middle class minorities who don't like the welfare state. Republicans just haven't learned to speak to these people and can't seem to go a week without saying something spectacularly stupid.
Stop blaming demographics. Blame these idiot candidates and pundits.
Does a certain party really make a difference for the average person. Put a blindfold and ear plugs on and tell what major economical changes the last three presidents have made that have made a difference.
j r said:
1. It is not women. Married women vote with their husbands. Romney won the married vote. 50 years ago, when 85% of adults were married, that would've meant he won just from that.
2. I can see how Blacks might be an approach for the GOP, but only insofar as their problems of low productivity could be alleviated by addressing immigration - legal and illegal.
3. The idea that minorities otherwise are conservative is something I find hard to believe. For instance, they are the most avid users of abortion - something I bet most Conservatives don't know - but most abortions are by minorities and in states like CA or NY (which is why Levitt's book Freakanomics could argue that abortion probably reduced crime). In addition, in attitudes and values and voting behavior minorities are increasingly tribalistic.
This is not to say that they all are, far from it. But this is way things are developing right now.
Gator
Sparrow
It's a matter of issues and electorate. A GOP rep may have to worry about a local plant or local schools or winning a public works project for his area. His views on economic or foreign policy matter far less. In addition, not all GOP (or for that matter Dem) candidates are created equal. Some are more center leaning than others. This is why a Republican like Christie can win the Governorship in a solid blue state like NJ. The issues are weighted differently.
In theory, they should. But that is not the reality and hasn't been for sometime. The executive branch has gained more and more power over the past 100 years. The Vietnam War was not a formal declaration of war by Congress, as an example. Most states at this point need federal funds to meet their budget. They are far from autonomous and essentially take their cues from the Fed Gov.
Because they're all war presidents. WW1: Wilson, WW2: FDR, Korea: Truman, Vietnam: LBJ. Not something to be particularly proud of.
I don't buy the argument that whites or white men are less tribal than everybody else. The Republicans, or at least the ones winning primaries, have chosen to take an explicitly white populist stance. All the talk about how "we" are losing America and makers vs takers, all the stories on conservative media outlets about the supposed black-on-white crime wave, painting Obama as the affirmative action or food stamp president.
How is that not tribal?
And I'm speaking from experience. For all of my life, I self-identified as a Republican, but in the last few years it's just become too much. The truth is that Romney's economic plan was so similar to Obama's that all he could do was resort to scare tactics. Also, brown people and immigrants don't scare me.
How is that not tribal?
And I'm speaking from experience. For all of my life, I self-identified as a Republican, but in the last few years it's just become too much. The truth is that Romney's economic plan was so similar to Obama's that all he could do was resort to scare tactics. Also, brown people and immigrants don't scare me.
j r said:
The last two elections have proven that moderate republicans cannot win national elections. Therefore, they will be become the latter (a rightwing populist party) or they will disappear. The problem is that the establishment refuses to acknowledge this because it would mean facing the ridicule of the national media, of which they are scared to death.
The Republicans will run a hard right social conservative/non neo-conservative lunatic who goes "full retard" or they will lose.
I do believe that Hilary is unstoppable. I'd be worried but it's really hard to take this madhouse seriously anymore.
It's true that the executive branch has become more powerful, but that's mostly expressed through foreign policy. Domestically, almost everything the executive branch does has to get approval from Congress.
The US has what's called a program budget. Every program that the executive branch runs is authorized in law and funded through the budget. So if congress passes a budget that says that HUD has to run a $100 million program building parks in cities, then HUD has no choice but to spend $100 million building parks. The president can veto the whole budget, but he can't change that specific budget line.
The US has what's called a program budget. Every program that the executive branch runs is authorized in law and funded through the budget. So if congress passes a budget that says that HUD has to run a $100 million program building parks in cities, then HUD has no choice but to spend $100 million building parks. The president can veto the whole budget, but he can't change that specific budget line.
Serious question to all yanks here: Why do care so much who your President is going to be as if s/he could ruin your personal life?
Here's what I infered from my superficial preoccupations with the US political system (correct me if I'm wrong):
The president is often called "the most powerful man in the world" yet to me he seems to be a lame duck, basically, and not that influential on the domestic level when I compare the office to the constitional role of heads-of-governments in other countries.
Granted, he has his executive orders and can exert a lot of influence in international affairs, questions of war & peace and federal government issues. But even that seems to be severely limited by the US constitution. On the other hand, Congress is fucking powerful and can block basically everything the President wants to do. Checks and balances work much differently than in European parliamentary systems and the whole lawmaking process is much more competitive among the branches than in France or Germany. (Which also have their advantages and strengths, imho).
95% of the other stuff that affects your daily lives is not decided by the federal government but by states and counties. You guys even have it very easy to file for a popular vote in your city or state. You can vote and change the laws on fucking everything you want on the local level which in my home country is mostly decided on the national level or subject to internal administrative decision-making: drugs, prisons, sentencing, police chiefs, property taxes, business regulations, schools, environmental protection, guns, etc.
None of which can be changed by a fuck-wit in the White House. If I were an American and lived in California or North Dakota, I wouldn't give two shits if the President is a Democrat or Republican and only go to state elections, unless I'd be very concerned over foreign policy.
So, why would Hillary be so much worse than Obama, Jeb Bush or Christie? Don't see the point.
Here's what I infered from my superficial preoccupations with the US political system (correct me if I'm wrong):
The president is often called "the most powerful man in the world" yet to me he seems to be a lame duck, basically, and not that influential on the domestic level when I compare the office to the constitional role of heads-of-governments in other countries.
Granted, he has his executive orders and can exert a lot of influence in international affairs, questions of war & peace and federal government issues. But even that seems to be severely limited by the US constitution. On the other hand, Congress is fucking powerful and can block basically everything the President wants to do. Checks and balances work much differently than in European parliamentary systems and the whole lawmaking process is much more competitive among the branches than in France or Germany. (Which also have their advantages and strengths, imho).
95% of the other stuff that affects your daily lives is not decided by the federal government but by states and counties. You guys even have it very easy to file for a popular vote in your city or state. You can vote and change the laws on fucking everything you want on the local level which in my home country is mostly decided on the national level or subject to internal administrative decision-making: drugs, prisons, sentencing, police chiefs, property taxes, business regulations, schools, environmental protection, guns, etc.
None of which can be changed by a fuck-wit in the White House. If I were an American and lived in California or North Dakota, I wouldn't give two shits if the President is a Democrat or Republican and only go to state elections, unless I'd be very concerned over foreign policy.
So, why would Hillary be so much worse than Obama, Jeb Bush or Christie? Don't see the point.
That broad would trump Obama as the worst president in history.If she gets elected it proves my point that everybody doesn't deserve to vote.Skin color or gender aint got nothing to do with it.Id bet well over half of the people that vote democrat have no idea what the 2 parties stand for.Let alone the fact that democrats have done more to destroy America since the 60's than any body else.Broken homes,feminism,entitlement...all that lays at their feet.
Sawyer said:
I didn't say pro-white. I said white populist. There is a difference. Calkin Obama the food stamp president is a populist tactic.
When you say that Romney and McCain lost because they weren't radical enough sounds like the guy at the poker table saying that he only lost because he didn't bet big enough.
This is politics. This is how the game works. You make your pitch to the people and the people say yea or nay. When you lose and start making excuses instead of actually being critical about your performance, it just guarantees that you'll never make progress.
Flint said:
Because Hillary especially will play the feminist card to get in to office and slowly start pushing 3rd wave feminist policies down our throat.
"The war on women" is a very successful scare tactic that they will use against Republicans.
Federal policies do affect young men. For example, they are forcing colleges to lower the standards for conviction of sexual assault (see the related thread ).
Gator
Sparrow
Flint said:
That's simply not the reality of the situation any longer, unfortunately. He who has the money makes the rules. I'll give an example:
During the 1970's, the drinking age is every state was 18. If you could be drafted into military service, many argued you should have the right to drink a beer and vote (the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by an amendment to the Constitution during this same time). At the start of the 1980's some states began raising their own drinking ages partly because of a populist movement to curtail drunk driving. To effectively push the other states into line, the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required all states to raise the legal age to 21 or forfeit 10% of their federal highway funds. Not surprisingly, every state followed suit.
That's just one example. The feds shutting down marijuana dispensaries in California could be viewed as another. States that have tried to promote autonomy and nullify federal edicts have consistently had their asses handed to them. South Carolina once attempted to secede and we know how that turned out.
The simplest way to look at this is, as a US citizen, who collects most of your income each year, state government or federal? That is your master.
Remember back in 2002 when Barry O. was pushing that Hope and Change bullshit? Then when he got elected he eventually morphed into a black George W. Bush?
Hilary will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. She will get into office, find out the horrible truth about things and nothing will change. The game is rigged. Penis or vagina. Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter.
The only thing that will change things is an economic collapse (IT'S COMING!) or a major war. And by major war I don't mean an invented war for resources (*coughcoughIRAQcoughcough*) I mean WW3.
Hilary will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. She will get into office, find out the horrible truth about things and nothing will change. The game is rigged. Penis or vagina. Democrat or Republican. Doesn't matter.
The only thing that will change things is an economic collapse (IT'S COMING!) or a major war. And by major war I don't mean an invented war for resources (*coughcoughIRAQcoughcough*) I mean WW3.
- Status