2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

Pages

Welp, there's no sense putting this thread off any longer.

Canadian press calls this sh*t like it is:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/kqDosTP.jpg)

A picture of the Koch brothers pretty much perfectly illustrates, for me, what's wrong with Capitalism at this point: No one ever has enough. These guys have enough money to live more than comfortably for a dozen lifetimes... but they still gotta try to buy every election so people will pay more and more for their crap so that they have even MORE money to do... what with? I feel like there's gotta be some diminishing returns eventually on money to happiness.

Demosthenes wrote:

A picture of the Koch brothers pretty much perfectly illustrates, for me, what's wrong with Capitalism at this point: No one ever has enough. These guys have enough money to live more than comfortably for a dozen lifetimes... but they still gotta try to buy every election so people will pay more and more for their crap so that they have even MORE money to do... what with? I feel like there's gotta be some diminishing returns eventually on money to happiness.

If you found yourself in a situation where you had way more money than you could ever need, and could spend it to try and affect politics in a way that you thought would make things better for a lot of people, would you do it?

Aetius wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

A picture of the Koch brothers pretty much perfectly illustrates, for me, what's wrong with Capitalism at this point: No one ever has enough. These guys have enough money to live more than comfortably for a dozen lifetimes... but they still gotta try to buy every election so people will pay more and more for their crap so that they have even MORE money to do... what with? I feel like there's gotta be some diminishing returns eventually on money to happiness.

If you found yourself in a situation where you had way more money than you could ever need, and could spend it to try and affect politics in a way that you thought would make things better for a lot of people, would you do it?

Give their "better" seems to be "more oil profits and only our personal theology which runs against the Constitution"... I don't think that applies.

Demosthenes wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

A picture of the Koch brothers pretty much perfectly illustrates, for me, what's wrong with Capitalism at this point: No one ever has enough. These guys have enough money to live more than comfortably for a dozen lifetimes... but they still gotta try to buy every election so people will pay more and more for their crap so that they have even MORE money to do... what with? I feel like there's gotta be some diminishing returns eventually on money to happiness.

If you found yourself in a situation where you had way more money than you could ever need, and could spend it to try and affect politics in a way that you thought would make things better for a lot of people, would you do it?

Give their "better" seems to be "more oil profits and only our personal theology which runs against the Constitution"... I don't think that applies. :lol:

To be fair, THEY probably think it is better for at least someone other than themselves.

So you may not agree on their definition of "better" but the concept seems right.

Personally, I hate it that people with a lot of money can throw it around like that to affect politics, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I can't attribute anything to their actions except greed at this point...

But, the thing I'm more curious about here, do we have any confirmed people running on the Dem side? I haven't seen nearly as much speculation there as with the GOP beyond Hillary.

Demosthenes wrote:

I can't attribute anything to their actions except greed at this point...

Which is always a safe assumption when it comes to politicians and their supporters, but you're avoiding the question.

Aetius wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

I can't attribute anything to their actions except greed at this point...

Which is always a safe assumption when it comes to politicians and their supporters, but you're avoiding the question. :)

I think I'd draw the line, honestly. If I had that kind of money to bring to bear in the system we currently have, I'd use it to curtail the influence of money by trying to get Citizen's United and similar bills undone.

Aetius wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

I can't attribute anything to their actions except greed at this point...

Which is always a safe assumption when it comes to politicians and their supporters, but you're avoiding the question. :)

I honestly don't know the answer... or I do, but I think I would largely ignore the political sphere. I'd be donating money to get computers to schools, setting trusts to pay for internet access, paying for vaccinations and food for those who are starving.

Restricting gay marriage, pushing carbon energy policies, and trying to make corporations into powerhouses equal to the US government does not strike me as anyone's idea of a good time.

Basically, I think I would, but I would Bill Gates the thing, rather than follow the Koch bros.

I could safely say that I wouldn't use money to effect politics if only for the express purpose that politics should not be controlled by any one person. I wouldn't have the hubris to assume I knew better than the will of the people, even as flawed as that can be. I have a decent vocabulary and a powerful voice but that doesn't make it any more important.

The power behind a voice should come from the people it represents not the exposure or volume purchased for it.

It is why I stayed way away from the "what kind of government would you make?" thread. Who am I to say that Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese dynasties that lasted 1000's of years were wrong or worse forms of government?

This brings up what has been bothering me lately about the main slam against the Occupy movement. That the message can somehow be gutted because the protesters are always photographed using their iphones. That they are just spoiled and whiny. But that is just it! The point is that they are only afforded numerous yet ultimately fruitless luxuries and denied concrete opportunities to grow. It is like expecting your your child to develop when they can't play little league (to socialize, find self esteem and pride in their work and accomplishments) but get all the latest gimmick apps and can play as much Candy Crush as they like? Free community college would have 100x the value of all the opiate-for-the-masses technologies combined. But no, we laugh at that and continue to gut community colleges and any sort of arts programs to enrich students lives it is required to pay $40-70K a year at a private university.

On the one hand, my gut instinct is that maybe if one of the Koch brothers took a bullet to the head, then the other one might grow half a heart and realize that their political power play bullsh*t is inhuman and they would have a more fulfilling life by playing a positive part in the future of their country.

On the other hand, that sh*t only happens in movies. In reality, the surviving Koch brother would use the opportunity to grab and consolidate even more power under his own self-serving hateful claws.

Demosthenes wrote:

But, the thing I'm more curious about here, do we have any confirmed people running on the Dem side? I haven't seen nearly as much speculation there as with the GOP beyond Hillary.

Who on earth would stick their head up? Honestly, I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren, but at this point even a remotely human neoliberal would be better than whatever will emerge from the Republican primary Thunderdome.

Hopefully racism will work against Ben Carter. An awful thing to say, I know, but eight years of ugliness aimed at Obama has to have a residual effect on those who believe, in the words of the Carson 2016 bumper sticker, "America needs a doctor, stat!"

Here are the current odds on republican nominees.

Candidate Odds
Scott Walker 11/2
Jeb Bush 11/2
Rand Paul 8/1
Chris Christie 10/1
Marco Rubio 12/1
Mitt Romney 14/1
Mike Pence 20/1
Mike Huckabee 25/1
Paul Ryan 25/1
Bobby Jindal 33/1
Rick Perry 50/1
Rick Santorum 100/1
Bob McDonnell 150/1
Condoleeza Rice 150/1
Rob Portman 200/1
Donald Trump 500/1
Field 15/1

Seriously? Ben Carson has no odds at all? I'm mildly surprised by that.

I'd be genuinely curious to see what a national spotlight would do to Carson's views. He's a very intelligent man who claims to support science and logic, yet refuses to accept the reality of evolution and holds bigoted views on gay marriage. I'm curious to see if those would soften.

Seth wrote:

I'd be genuinely curious to see what a national spotlight would do to Carson's views. He's a very intelligent man who claims to support science and logic, yet refuses to accept the reality of evolution and holds bigoted views on gay marriage. I'm curious to see if those would soften.

Assuming he won the primary, no chance in hell before the end of the primaries.

clover wrote:

Carson is pretty religious. I don't think the GOP will ultimately be ok with someone who is beholden to a denomination well-known for their institutional pacifism/conscientious objection as the US commander-in-chief.

They were, up until Watergate, when Nixon was the CiC, elected during wartime..

Nixon had a reputation for being exceptionally... pragmatic, though

Carson is pretty religious. I don't think the GOP will ultimately be ok with someone beholden to a denomination with well-documented institutional pacifism/conscientious objection as the US commander-in-chief.

Edited because SDAs aren't "well-known" for much of anything unless you are a nutrition or military history researcher.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

But, the thing I'm more curious about here, do we have any confirmed people running on the Dem side? I haven't seen nearly as much speculation there as with the GOP beyond Hillary.

Who on earth would stick their head up? Honestly, I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren, but at this point even a remotely human neoliberal would be better than whatever will emerge from the Republican primary Thunderdome.

Hopefully racism will work against Ben Carter. An awful thing to say, I know, but eight years of ugliness aimed at Obama has to have a residual effect on those who believe, in the words of the Carson 2016 bumper sticker, "America needs a doctor, stat!"

I smell the next reality TV hit.

I would watch the sh*t out of that. That's the only reason I pay attention to national politics at this point.

Demosthenes wrote:

A picture of the Koch brothers pretty much perfectly illustrates, for me, what's wrong with Capitalism at this point: No one ever has enough. These guys have enough money to live more than comfortably for a dozen lifetimes... but they still gotta try to buy every election so people will pay more and more for their crap so that they have even MORE money to do... what with? I feel like there's gotta be some diminishing returns eventually on money to happiness.

Like pretty much everyone who isn't uber rich, we're thinking about money as means to an end. I imagine that guys like that see money as an end in itself, and it doesn't matter how much money they have because gaining more wealth is the primary thing they live for.

Who knows, I don't know them and I don't think I'd want to, but that's always how those guys seem to me.

Kehama wrote:

Here are the current odds on republican nominees.

Candidate Odds
Scott Walker 11/2
Jeb Bush 11/2
Rand Paul 8/1
Chris Christie 10/1
Marco Rubio 12/1
Mitt Romney 14/1
Mike Pence 20/1
Mike Huckabee 25/1
Paul Ryan 25/1
Bobby Jindal 33/1
Rick Perry 50/1
Rick Santorum 100/1
Bob McDonnell 150/1
Condoleeza Rice 150/1
Rob Portman 200/1
Donald Trump 500/1
Field 15/1

Scott Walker? Seriously? Isn't that the Wisconsin gov that is still dealing with all kinds of shady stuff regarding his campaigns there? I think the GOP would shy away from that just because too much dirt that can be dug up. Then again, a lot of those top names are pretty scary.

I look at that list of Republican possibilities and think that surely we're going to end up with Jeb Bush, and of course Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and it'll be Bush vs. Clinton and we're never going to get any fresh blood into politics ever again, are we?

Demyx wrote:

I look at that list of Republican possibilities and think that surely we're going to end up with Jeb Bush, and of course Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and it'll be Bush vs. Clinton and we're never going to get any fresh blood into politics ever again, are we?

Front runners before everyone has announced are establishment candidates from dynasties. It's not the most surprising.
I would bet some serious money (with odds of course) on the next pres not being a Bush or Clinton.
Not cause it won't happen, just cause there is a strong possibility of it not happening.

Why do you think that, Boogle? Explain your reasoning to the class.

It's early so a lot of the focus is on name recognition and immediately available political and financial capital.
*EDIT*
Sorry, to be clear here I'm talking about the perspectives of people on the betting market which is not a 1to1 to the election.

Scott Walker's getting a lot of hype this week. That might be my worst case scenario out of all the realistic candidates right now. Jeb Bush and Rand Paul would actually have some positive ideas. You could make deals with Marco Rubio. Scott Walker would take the partisan antipathy that's already at fever pitch and turn it incredibly ugly. And he would probably get his legislative way, as he has in a Wisconsin that's a fair bit bluer than the average US state. He'd dismantle worker protection in this country, break up any kind of social safety net, and try to implement nationwide voter restrictions. He'd drop even nuttier ideologues in the federal and Supreme Courts. Lord only knows what he'd do with foreign policy--he sure doesn't seem to.

Boogle wrote:

Sorry, to be clear here I'm talking about the perspectives of people on the betting market which is not a 1to1 to the election.

But the betting market cited above currently has Clinton as the odds-on favorite... That's why I'm confused by your reasoning.

Rand Paul comes out as explicitly anti-Vax. Chris Christie implicitly so.

Pages