2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[godfather]

Agreed 100%

If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he's in a really solid position. Hillary will really hope to solidify the Black vote behind her in South Carolina where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American (she's already started this process). Florida is going to be interesting though. Can Clinton capture the Jewish vote, ahead of Sanders? If Israel is a concern, if there is one person more inline with Israeli interests, it's Bernie Sanders - that's one of my biggest problems with him. But the Florida primaries are going to be very interesting indeed.

If Sanders takes Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida before Super Tuesday - Clinton will hope for a sweep on Super Tuesday. Either she can get the caucus states behind her this time, or Sanders will pull an Obama and neutralize Super Tuesday entirely. But we should know by then. This won't be dragged out like the 2008 primaries I think.

Hoping Biden runs just to inflict damage on her too. That would be the sole purpose of him running, and it would put her in harms ways too.

I take it you are hoping for Sanders?

 

[gourimoko]

Hoping Biden runs just to inflict damage on her too. That would be the sole purpose of him running, and it would put her in harms ways too.

I take it you are hoping for Sanders?

I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Sanders, but I'll take Sanders.

I'm not a socialist though, and I do not believe in his economic policies for America. I have a real problem with the "raise taxes through the roof" approach that some liberals are advocating for. This isn't a supply-side, trickle-down vs Keynesian economics argument at all; but simply, what is a fair and equitable portion of a person's income that the government can forcibly take from them for the betterment of society.

Personally, I find any net tax level that exceeds 50% to be abhorrent on ideological and ethical grounds.

So no, I'm not really in the Sanders camp; but, I think, as you put it, he's the lesser of several evils currently in the race.

 

[godfather]

I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Sanders, but I'll take Sanders.

I'm not a socialist though, and I do not believe in his economic policies for America. I have a real problem with the "raise taxes through the roof" approach that some liberals are advocating for. This isn't a supply-side, trickle-down vs Keynesian economics argument at all; but simply, what is a fair and equitable portion of a person's income that the government can forcibly take from them for the betterment of society.

Personally, I find any net tax level that exceeds 50% to be abhorrent on ideological and ethical grounds.

So no, I'm not really in the Sanders camp; but, I think, as you put it, he's the lesser of several evils currently in the race.

Yeah, I agree, the socialist part of Sanders I'm not a huge fan of. That's a red flag in him I don't like, but I like a lot of his other policies compared to the other remaining candidates.

I'm not a 100% in his camp just yet, but he's been growing on me a lot.

I figured going from fascism, to a socialist isn't the end of the world (I'm kidding of course)

 

[gourimoko]

Yeah, I agree, the socialist part of Sanders I'm not a huge fan of. That's a red flag in him I don't like, but I like a lot of his other policies compared to the other remaining candidates.

I'm not a 100% in his camp just yet, but he's been growing on me a lot.

I figured going from fascism, to a socialist isn't the end of the world (I'm kidding of course)

Kidding or not, the bolded is why I'd vote for Sanders. How bad could Euro-socialism be compared to fascism?

 

[godfather]

Isn't Trump considering adding Palin to his team? I thought I read that?

Funny how he's so opposed to McCain, but is ready to make a McCain like mistake.

I would love to see it at a comedy standpoint.

 

[spydy13]

I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Sanders, but I'll take Sanders.

I'm not a socialist though, and I do not believe in his economic policies for America. I have a real problem with the "raise taxes through the roof" approach that some liberals are advocating for. This isn't a supply-side, trickle-down vs Keynesian economics argument at all; but simply, what is a fair and equitable portion of a person's income that the government can forcibly take from them for the betterment of society.

Personally, I find any net tax level that exceeds 50% to be abhorrent on ideological and ethical grounds.

So no, I'm not really in the Sanders camp; but, I think, as you put it, he's the lesser of several evils currently in the race.

I really wish Elizabeth Warren would run.

She doesn't come off as a bitch all the time like HRC, and doesn't come off as a crazy person like Bernie.

I feel like she would be the Obama we all thought we were getting in that she would push for real change and would hold the reckless people on Wall Street accountable, not to mention tackling the student loan issue.

Unfortunately it seems like she would rather become the leader of the dems in the senate, which I guess isn't a bad thing either after years of inept leadership under Harry (really wish Pelosi would get the fuck out too).

 

[Kyrieville]

I'm not a fan of Sanders' Social Security reform idea (removing the pay-in cap and capping payouts). I do like his ideas about replacing it with pensions, I made a post about it a while back.

 

[gourimoko]

I really wish Elizabeth Warren would run.

She doesn't come off as a bitch all the time like HRC, and doesn't come off as a crazy person like Bernie.

I feel like she would be the Obama we all thought we were getting in that she would push for real change and would hold the reckless people on Wall Street accountable, not to mention tackling the student loan issue.

Unfortunately it seems like she would rather become the leader of the dems in the senate, which I guess isn't a bad thing either after years of inept leadership under Harry (really wish Pelosi would get the fuck out too).

Warren doesn't run because of promises she made during the Massachusetts election that she wouldn't seek the Presidency in 2016. So, she doesn't run. That might change, or she might be nominated as VP (think Sanders/Warren); but her path to the Presidency doesn't likely lie in running this cycle.

She could change her mind though.

 

[pr26]

The "socialist" aspect of Sanders excites me personally, but I understand the trepidation and it's what makes me doubt him as a viable national candidate. Would love for him to prove me wrong, and he's already doing better in the polls/fund raising then I thought he would.

So excited to watch the Republican debate on Thursday, should be political theater at its finest

 

[FiveThous]

Here is what I'm looking for in terms of a candidate:

Willing to come in, roll up their sleeves then sit on their hands for the next 8 years.

 

[godfather]

The "socialist" aspect of Sanders excites me personally, but I understand the trepidation and it's what makes me doubt him as a viable national candidate. Would love for him to prove me wrong, and he's already doing better in the polls/fund raising then I thought he would.

So excited to watch the Republican debate on Thursday, should be political theater at its finest

It should be like watching the WWE. Trump might even bitch slap someone even.

I'm ready to expect anything to happen.

 

[godfather]

Here is what I'm looking for in terms of a candidate:

Willing to come in, roll up their sleeves then sit on their hands for the next 8 years.

Ferry in '16?

 

[MRMsix6]

I'm not a socialist though, and I do not believe in his economic policies for America. I have a real problem with the "raise taxes through the roof" approach that some liberals are advocating for. This isn't a supply-side, trickle-down vs Keynesian economics argument at all; but simply, what is a fair and equitable portion of a person's income that the government can forcibly take from them for the betterment of society.

Personally, I find any net tax level that exceeds 50% to be abhorrent on ideological and ethical grounds.

This is exactly how I feel about it. At that point you're no longer working for yourself, but the state. You are being "allowed" to keep a portion of your paycheck. How generous!

 

[gourimoko]

This is exactly how I feel about it. At that point you're no longer working for yourself, but the state. You are being "allowed" to keep a portion of your paycheck. How generous!

Agreed. There's just no need for that level of taxation. Society has to find another way to raise funds rather than essentially robbing the wealthy.

This is one of the reasons that I believe the federal government should have some socialistic programs that raise revenue - for example - there is no reason the Post Office, a long standing institution, can't compete and profit against UPS and FedEx. It should be run as a for-profit business. Many government services should be retooled to run as for-profit businesses with their net operating profits returned to the federal government as a form of revenue generation.

This is how Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should work as well in my opinion; and yes, that would require some level of partial privatization (yet with complete government oversight and regulation).

I just feel that the government too often gives away services that it could charge a fair and effective rate for, causing shortfalls.

 

[Surge]

I'm going to lock you in the Federal Reserve!

@Deezus @The Oi