Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2016?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun May 25, 2014 8:22 pm

Or George.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Sun May 25, 2014 8:28 pm

msduncan wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Clinton/Clinton vs Bachmann/Palin or Bachmann/Trump would be a curb stomp.

12th Amendment (last sentence)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

22nd Amendment (first sentence)
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

I didn't say it was legal. I just said that it would be a curb stomp.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue May 27, 2014 10:41 am

msduncan wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Clinton/Clinton vs Bachmann/Palin or Bachmann/Trump would be a curb stomp.

12th Amendment (last sentence)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

22nd Amendment (first sentence)
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

While I agree with that interpretation, it's not universal

A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president. Some agree with the conclusion that the presidential term limit embedded in the Constitution bars someone such as Clinton from returning to the White House even in the No. 2 slot. Others, though, call that a misreading of the literal language of the law.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue May 27, 2014 11:42 am

Oh my God. That would be so awesome, just to see the en masse gnashing of teeth and rage from Republicans!

Clinton/Clinton 2016! LOL Pretty sure that would cause Rush to have an on-air heart attack, or at least pop a few blood vessels. The howling would be heard around the world.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue May 27, 2014 1:36 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:Oh my God. That would be so awesome, just to see the en masse gnashing of teeth and rage from Republicans!

Clinton/Clinton 2016! LOL Pretty sure that would cause Rush to have an on-air heart attack, or at least pop a few blood vessels. The howling would be heard around the world.

Anyone like Rush would love this to happen. Just think about the ratings on his show.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:09 pm

“I come out here, and people say, ‘we loved President Obama, we’re all for President Obama, we’re from the tech community’ but why?” said Senator Paul. “He’s not for innovation, he’s not for freedom, he’s for the protectionism crowd, the crowd that would eliminate the activity of these companies.”
The National Security Agency scandal sent shock waves through Silicon Valley. Paul warned about its repercussions for the business climate.
“Since the NSA scandal, there have been people losing money,” said Paul. “People selling stuff in Asia and Europe aren’t very happy with us now. There have been articles written citing as much as 22 billion in lost sales.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/0 ... rand-paul/

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:13 am

While all that might be true (at least the protectionism and NSA), that all existed before Obama took office. It's a definitive US strategy.

If you're gonna get pissed at this stuff, take it to the government, *any* government. Doesn't matter who's in the WH.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:24 am

Carpet_pissr wrote:Oh my God. That would be so awesome, just to see the en masse gnashing of teeth and rage from Republicans!

Clinton/Clinton 2016! LOL Pretty sure that would cause Rush to have an on-air heart attack, or at least pop a few blood vessels. The howling would be heard around the world.

It just occurred to me to check. Chelsea turns 35 next year.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:01 pm

GreenGoo wrote:While all that might be true (at least the protectionism and NSA), that all existed before Obama took office. It's a definitive US strategy.

If you're gonna get pissed at this stuff, take it to the government, *any* government. Doesn't matter who's in the WH.

I dislike both parties equally. It's only a little more depressing because of the whole "Change" nonsense that was never going to happen.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:46 pm

Democrats fundraise and campaign by exploiting concerns about right-wing extremism. But at least at the moment, what they apparently fear most is the rise of a candidate who could potentially poach enough of their supporters to beat them in 2016.
Rand Paul has not yet formally announced he is running for the Republican nomination. But with a lead in GOP polls and already laying the foundation for the infrastructure of a campaign, the junior senator from Kentucky is considered the early front-runner, one who is transparent about his desire to appeal to a broad range of voters—and that has Democrats worried.

For the 10th time in two years, Paul arrived on Monday in Iowa, where the first presidential caucuses will be held in 17 months, to try out his message on a three-day, multi-city, headline-generating tour.

Over the course of the trip, the Democratic National Committee sent out 10 press releases about Paul’s every move and utterance. “What it can tell you as a political observer is that they recognize what we’re trying to point out, which is Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of keeping and energizing the base while going into their constituencies," a senior aide for Paul told The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... emy-1.html

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:17 pm

He's going to be eaten alive on foreign policy, especially where it applies to Israel.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:24 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:He's going to be eaten alive on foreign policy, especially where it applies to Israel.

Perhaps, we shall see.

One thing for sure. The establishment candidates from both sides are worried about him.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:30 pm

Ross Perot caused fear and consternation as well. He might be a Ross-Perot-type player and have an impact, but that will be limited after he fails to get the nomination.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:34 pm

Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:He's going to be eaten alive on foreign policy, especially where it applies to Israel.

Perhaps, we shall see.

One thing for sure. The establishment candidates from both sides are worried about him.

All they need to do to neuter him is to embrace scaling back the National Security State.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:40 pm

Plus he is not an outsider anyway. Everybody is playing inside the sandbox nowadays.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:20 pm

What does one have to be politically that would appeal to the modern Republican base, and yet still capable of eating in to Democratic constituencies?

The only way that makes sense is if he's a RINO. How is a RINO going to win the Republican nomination. This time in the 2012 election cycle, weren't we talking about how Herman Cain was the guy to win the White House?

I mean I get that it's likely that whoever wins the R nomination will likely win overall but I can't imagine that I'd be lucky enough to get a RINO in that deal.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:31 pm

Paul is a pipe dream. The primary-voting Republican base will chew themselves apart before nominating him.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:34 pm

Zarathud wrote:Paul is a pipe dream. The primary-voting Republican base will chew themselves apart before nominating him.

Which is undeniable proof that he IS NOT just another establishment guy.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:42 pm

Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Paul is a pipe dream. The primary-voting Republican base will chew themselves apart before nominating him.
Which is undeniable proof that he IS NOT just another establishment guy.

We'll see - my prediction is he'll be mashed by the primary machine into the same mold as everyone else. There is no room for disagreement and he'll adapt to it if he is serious. He has made slight steps out of line and was pilloried for them and he fell right back in line - e.g. his plan to cut of foreign aid which he awkwardly walked back because hey Israel...

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:50 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:What does one have to be politically that would appeal to the modern Republican base, and yet still capable of eating in to Democratic constituencies?

A female Latino?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:28 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... .html?_r=0

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:52 pm

As someone who voted for Ron Paul twice from the way back machine (as in beginning in 1988), I believe Libertarians time has come in the same way Linux has brought on the death knell to Microsoft, as mouthpieces for the Linux community predicted in 1998 or so.

Libertarian integrity went out the window when they cross bred with tea baggers and then co opted into the republican party. The idea that libertarian Rand Paul will pull people away from the democratic party is delusional to say the least.

OtOH, as election years go on and the global corporate economy digs deeper and deeper into US politics, the need for a viable third party grows and grows. When the presidential candidate in 2012 was this >< close to being Lee Wrights, you know there will never be a wider appeal for them.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:30 am

An interview with Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy

She seems to be distancing herself from Obama's policies:

Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it's worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)

Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).

This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

And then she seemed to signal that, yes, indeed, she’s planning to run for president. “Okay, I feel that this might be an old-fashioned idea, but I’m about to find out, in more ways than one.”

There's a lot more in there, if you're interested in reading about her views on foreign policy.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:05 am

article wrote:she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good.

The thing is - a leader that always believes that America is an indispensable force for good tends to do stupid shit that they convince themselves is for good when it isn't.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:56 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
article wrote:she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good.
The thing is - a leader that always believes that America is an indispensable force for good tends to do stupid shit that they convince themselves is for good when it isn't.

Hush, you.

#Murrica.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:47 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
article wrote:she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good.
The thing is - a leader that always believes that America is an indispensable force for good tends to do stupid shit that they convince themselves is for good when it isn't.

It may be that she is differentiating her self even more from Paul than from Obama.

America has to engage with the rest of the world because the rest of the world affects us. And it has been an indispensable force for good and an indispensable force for stupid shit. A good president is one that can do the first and avoids the second.

But even the presidents that have done stupid shit have done good as well. Bush's presidency, for all it's many faults, did get inspectors back into Iraq, did get Libya to giving up it's WMD programs and did start a program that has saved millions of lives in Africa.

And even presidents that try to avoid doing stupid shit end up with a world that is, to put it mildly, a bit of a mess.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:11 pm

What I am getting at is that Presidents with that belief tend to start believing that something is good simply because we've done it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:26 am

Bernie Sanders May Seek The Presidency In 2016, Testing The Waters In Iowa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 18634.html

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:36 am

It must be football season, because I initially read that as "Barry Sanders".

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:51 pm

I like Bernie. He wouldn't have a chance (nobody that I like ever wins), but he might be able to push Hillary a little bit left of the center that she so comfortably hews to.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:53 pm

That "socialist" tag will be his epitaph.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:54 am

AWS260 wrote:It must be football season, because I initially read that as "Barry Sanders".

I would totally vote for Barry Sanders.

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:42 am

Jaymann wrote:
AWS260 wrote:It must be football season, because I initially read that as "Barry Sanders".
I would totally vote for Barry Sanders.

No way, he would keep troops in the middle east indefinitely cause we can't lose forever right???

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:15 pm

Toe wrote:
Jaymann wrote:
AWS260 wrote:It must be football season, because I initially read that as "Barry Sanders".
I would totally vote for Barry Sanders.
No way, he would keep troops in the middle east indefinitely cause we can't lose forever right???

You can if there is only 1 good soldier fighting.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:34 am

P.J. O’Rourke interviews Rand Paul.

“A principled GOP could,” said the Senator, “find people on both left and right to cooperate on issues.” He listed some:

“The inequities of the criminal justice system.”

“Government surveillance.”

“Fourth Amendment privacy.”
...
I wasn’t going to bring that up. Sen. Paul has been getting a dunking in the media for his flip-flops on foreign policy. To my mind this is nothing compared to the flip-flops done lately by foreigners. (Foreigners being something foreign policy has to take into account.) NATO ally Turkey has flipped – opposing us against ISIS. Iran has flopped – opposing ISIS against us. Assad, the Syrians who hate him, and Iraqi Sunni tribesmen are all flipping and flopping. Our foreign policy canoe is filled to the gunnels with catch-and-release trout armed with AK-47s. I’m not surprised a senator – or even a president – has changed his mind about giving these fishy characters a whack on the head with the paddle.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:23 am

Wow. That article made less sense than Rand Paul.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:56 pm

You have to love how our Governor likely won't sign a bill because it will tank his reputation in Iowa:

“I’ve said Governor Christie cares more about the first Republican presidential caucus in Iowa, headquarters of the National Pork Producers Council, than the suffering of mother pigs,” he said in a statement this week. “Governor Christie, prove me wrong, sign my legislation and put an end to this cruel practice in New Jersey.”

Didn't realize we had an issue in NJ with pig crates, but the political theater over him running is hilarious. I mean, he's already not signing bills on marijuana and prescription painkiller tracking to make sure he's appropriate for a national stage. Now we have to use pigs to try and flush him out?

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:22 pm

Smoove_B wrote:You have to love how our Governor likely won't sign a bill because it will tank his reputation in Iowa:

“I’ve said Governor Christie cares more about the first Republican presidential caucus in Iowa, headquarters of the National Pork Producers Council, than the suffering of mother pigs,” he said in a statement this week. “Governor Christie, prove me wrong, sign my legislation and put an end to this cruel practice in New Jersey.”
Didn't realize we had an issue in NJ with pig crates, but the political theater over him running is hilarious. I mean, he's already not signing bills on marijuana and prescription painkiller tracking to make sure he's appropriate for a national stage. Now we have to use pigs to try and flush him out?

A literal pork barrel!

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:34 am

Scott Walker?

After the GOP’s midterm-elections sweep, the Republican Party holds more U.S. House seats and controls more state houses than at any time since 1928. Having reached this goal, the GOP now needs to look for a 2016 presidential nominee to match this success.

President Calvin Coolidge, who sat in the Oval Office from 1923 to 1929, would be a smart model for the party. He reined in spending and reduced tax rates at a time when it was as needed as it is today. President Ronald Reagan admired Coolidge so much that he hung a portrait of the 30th president in his Cabinet Room.

One talked-about possible 2016 presidential candidate who shares many of Coolidge’s policy bona fides is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who won his third statewide race in four years on Nov. 4. The two men have so much in common that it is worth seeing what Coolidge’s experience can tell us about a potential President Walker.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:25 am

If you think the Democrats are going to be silent and timid, you have another thing coming....and forgetting that tax rates aren't at 73%, but more like those 46%-24% rates Coolidge adopted.

Dad is a Republican who currently lives in Wisconsin. He used to live in Rep. Phil Crane's district, which was ACU conservative before Reagan made it popular. He called me in 1992 to tell me he voted for Ross Perot instead of Bush because of breaking his tax pledge. These days, he's retired but works a holiday job at a call center in Wisconsin. He tells me that his employer believes they have the flexibility under state law to leave messages with their employees to tell them they're not needed that day. They're calling 10 minutes before the shift starts, so the employees are often parking in the company lot (the job is a 30-75 minute drive). He usually works all Friday to Sunday to handle the Black Friday shopping rush, but he's making plans to visit us this year after Thanksgiving when his shifts are cancelled. Not if...when.

When we talked, it was clear that he's no longer a fan of Gov. Walker. Republicans can get support from working people for being pro-business, but not when those businesses treat workers this badly.