Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

...she's not anti-science...

Setting all the others aside for now, I disagree vehemently with that (and we've discussed it before). Democratic anti-science stances are more dishonest than republican ones (even if the dishonesty is self-deception rather than overt disagreement), but they are no less anti-science when science and politics interfere with each other. Based on her opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, I'm quite sure she'll also take the other core anti-science democratic positions, particularly on other energy issues such as nuclear power/nuclear waste, and fracking.

As I've pointed out before, the irony is that while the most significant Republican anti-science stance is probably global warming denial, the most significant Democratic ones (in my perception), nuclear power and fracking, are actually more harmful on that issue!

 

[Evo]

Setting all the others aside for now, I disagree vehemently with that (and we've discussed it before). Democratic anti-science stances are more dishonest than republican ones (even if the dishonesty is self-deception rather than overt disagreement), but they are no less anti-science when science and politics interfere with each other. Based on her opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, I'm quite sure she'll also take the other core anti-science democratic positions, particularly on other energy issues such as nuclear power/nuclear waste, and fracking.

Well, we don't know until she makes her positions on those things known. But I'd rather have someone sane in office right now, regardless.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, we don't know until she makes her positions on those things known.

Well -- "we don't know until she makes her positions known" is more realistic than saying she's not anti-science. That's moving in the right direction.

Since she was SecState and most of her experience was with foreign policy, she hasn't stated many of her domestic positions, which are where science and politics intersect. But I don't think it makes sense to assume that her other positions are pro-science and against her politics when we already know a key position that is anti-science and aligned with her politics (you weren't shocked a month or two ago when she finally said she was anti-Keystone Pipeline, were you?). Similarly, I haven't heard much from her on global warming (maybe I missed it), but I would assume she follows the pro-science party line on that as well.

Bottom line, her stated positions on science are mixed at best and the ones she (conveniently/not coincidentally) has avoided taking positions on (and she avoided the Keystone Pipeline for quite a long time as well) are ones where the smart money has her towing the anti-science party line.

But I'd rather have someone sane in office right now, regardless.

I certainly agree with that. There's a long way to go, but if we end up with a generally sane but hardcore democrat vs an insane republican, I think the third party turn-out for Mickey Mouse may be quite strong.

 

[Evo]

My computer wouldn't let me finish my post.

Obama vetoed the pipeline and environmentalists are opposed to the pipeline.

Climate change is front-and-center in the debate over whether the pipeline should be built because of the high energy intensity of extracting the Canadian tar sands and the carbon dioxide emissions that result from mining, processing and burning them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that that the energy required to process tar sands oil is so great that oil piped through the Keystone XL will emit 1.3 billion more tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the pipeline’s 50-year lifespan than if it were carrying conventional crude oil.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...h-blow-18698?gclid=CNX-hvmprckCFZKLaQodTMcELA

 

[russ_watters]

Obama vetoed the pipeline and environmentalists are opposed to the pipeline.

Yes. "Environmentalists" who really aren't. They are deluded at best. USA Today had a great editorial six months or so that said it best: it's just a pipeline. We have more than a hundred thousand miles of pipelines crisscrossing the US right now. There's two new ones under construction in PA to bring fracked oil and gas to port in Philadelphia; exactly the same purpose as the Keystone pipeline, but not crossing any borders and so not able to be federally politicized. There simply is no real reason to oppose the Keystone Pipeline -- just the vague pseudo-goal of lip-service environmentalism.

Hillary's website has 24 policy issues listed on it. The only one that involves science is "Climate Change and Energy". Her goal, couched in hidden wording about being able to power every home with renewable energy equates to generating about 10% of our electricity from renewable sources. If she succeeds, between her and Obama she will have done about as much to reduce carbon emissions in the US as France did in the same time period when they nuclearized over '70s to '80s. And that's even by percentage despite the fact that our consumption is 10x higher: France built 56 reactors in 15 years, which would be about 9% of the US's electrical consumption today. If we wanted to, with more than 4x the population, we could build 200 in 15 years.

So the question is, is global warming really the problem that needs to be solved, or is "environmentalism" just a stand-alone movement with only a vague connection to real-world problems?

 

[Evo]

Yes. "Environmentalists" who really aren't. They are deluded at best. USA Today had a great editorial six months or so that said it best: it's just a pipeline. We have more than a hundred thousand miles of pipelines crisscrossing the US right now. There's two new ones under construction in PA to bring fracked oil and gas to port in Philadelphia; exactly the same purpose as the Keystone pipeline, but not crossing any borders and so not able to be federally politicized. There simply is no real reason to oppose the Keystone Pipeline -- just the vague pseudo-goal of lip-service environmentalism.

Hillary's website has 24 policy issues listed on it. The only one that involves science is "Climate Change and Energy". Her goal, couched in hidden wording about being able to power every home with renewable energy equates to generating about 10% of our electricity from renewable sources. If she succeeds, between her and Obama she will have done about as much to reduce carbon emissions in the US as France did in the same time period when they nuclearized over '70s to '80s. And that's even by percentage despite the fact that our consumption is 10x higher: France built 56 reactors in 15 years, which would be about 9% of the US's electrical consumption today. If we wanted to, with more than 4x the population, we could build 200 in 15 years.

So the question is, is global warming really the problem that needs to be solved, or is "environmentalism" just a stand-alone movement with only a vague connection to real-world problems?

Yeah, well you know my feelings about this. I agree with you.

I still say Hillary is the best candidate right now, if another sane candidate with world leadership experience threw their hat into the ring, I probably wouldn't hesitate to back them.

Russ, run for president! Right now the options are scarier than hell!

 

[rootone]

As not a US citizen, I have to agree that Hilary while no angel, is at least sane.
That would be a major advantage as commander in chief of the world's largest military outfit.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, well you know my feelings about this. I agree with you.

I still say Hillary is the best candidate right now, if another sane candidate with world leadership experience threw their hat into the ring, I probably wouldn't hesitate to back them.

Russ, run for president! Right now the options are scarier than hell!

Fair enough - I've got the passion but not the stomach for actually doing politics, but I do agree with you that the cupboard, particularly on the republican side, is bare. As a republican, the irony is that I'm hoping for a collapse of the republican party. It's like in sports when your team comes in last, which earns you a #1 draft pick and public support to disband the team and rebuild.

For both parties, I see the main problem being that politics is religion - people follow beliefs instead of thought/logic. Yet another irony is that while it is common for people to come around to the idea that reality should trump wishful thinking, it is usually people moving from liberal to conservative as they age. For me, I've become more liberal on some social issues for the same reason. The pendulum swings both ways, I suppose.

 

[Dotini]

...this e-mail thing is ridiculous, OK, so now she won't do it again, more than you can say about any other candidate. she's not crazy,...she has what we need.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of a FOIA lawsuit reveal top aide Huma Abedin warning a State Department staffer that Hillary is "often confused". It may fair to inquire whether or not she is suffering from early stages of dementia or Alzheimer's.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...affer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/

 

[JorisL]

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of a FOIA lawsuit reveal top aide Huma Abedin warning a State Department staffer that Hillary is "often confused". It may fair to inquire whether or not she is suffering from early stages of dementia or Alzheimer's.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...affer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/

Well I better get myself checked then, even though I had that in my childhood as well.
Being "confused often" needs a baseline if you ask me (and hopefully the doctors as well).

 

[Astronuc]

On Trump and the GOP
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/can-trump-be-stopped-171010062.html

Two months before the Iowa caucuses, Donald Trump finds himself in a familiar position: on top in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

According to a Quinnipiac national survey released Wednesday, Trump leads Florida Sen. Marco Rubio by 10 points, with the billionaire real estate mogul receiving 27 percent support among GOP voters. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are tied for third at 16 percent, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (5 percent), who is a distant fourth. No other candidate in the Republican field registered more than 3 percent support in the poll.

Pretty sad.

 

[HossamCFD]

I honestly thought this is fringe politics and will never become mainstream. It looks like I was mistaken.

Donald Trump: Ban all muslim travel to the US, even tourists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html

 

[Dotini]

I honestly thought this is fringe politics and will never become mainstream. It looks like I was mistaken.

Donald Trump: Ban all muslim travel to the US, even tourists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html

If this is even up for discussion, it should be noted that both Trump's mouth and website added the qualifier "...until our representatives know what's going on."

It's fear-mongering. But its also politics in a political season. Funny things happen when angry and disillusioned people are voting. Sort of begs the question why they are so angry and disillusioned in the first place. This has long been called called a political "prairie fire".

It seems like every radio and TV is reporting skyrocketing gun sales. Not to mention Trump's poll numbers zooming.

It would seem that when a pair of apparently self-radicalized Muslims killed 14 and wounded 21 at a humble center for the disabled and elderly, that it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

This was in the central valley of California, where they shot the movie American Graffiti. Coming of age is much different now than it was then. On the one hand you could say we have come a long way...down. On the other, you could say that the good old days really weren't all that good.

 

[Astronuc]

I honestly thought this is fringe politics and will never become mainstream. It looks like I was mistaken.

Donald Trump: Ban all muslim travel to the US, even tourists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html

The backlash was swift. - Trump’s Muslim Ban Proposal Draws Extraordinary Rebukes
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trumps-muslim-ban-proposal-draws-extraordinary-035621771.html

As Dotini indicated, it is important to consider the full statement and context.

Certainly national security and border control are concerns, for any nation, but ideally, the policies must be fair.

...until our representatives know what's going on

Therein lies a challenge. How does an embassy check the backgrounds of so many people (10's or 100's of thousands), some of whom may have lived in or visited several different countries. The refugee situation is a crisis distinct from the immigrant situation. Ostensibly, refugees are in imminent danger of life or limb, whereas immigrants are looking for better economic/educational opportunity, or perhaps better conditions or more freedom or security.

Meanwhile, gun control is another substantive topic, because at the moment, anyone can acquire high power weapons and munitions without raising red flags. The current laws seem only work after the fact.

 

[mheslep]

I honestly thought this is fringe politics and will never become mainstream. It looks like I was mistaken.

Donald Trump: Ban all muslim travel to the US, even tourists.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html

I think the fringe is increasingly enabled by the President's message: all is well, nothing to see here move along; and if there is actually any foreign threat it's caused by the xenophobia of you Americans anyway, about which I will lecture you at this time...

Fertile ground for a guy like Trump.

 

[Dotini]

Perhaps not quite rivaling Donald in controversy and fringe appeal, Hillary promises to investigate UFO's.

Reporter Daymond Steer asks Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for her stance on UFOs when she visited the Sun on Tuesday. (MARGARET McKENZIE PHOTO)

When asked about her husband's nonchalant comment about contact with the third kind, Hillary Clinton responded: "I think we may have been (visited already). We don't know for sure."
http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/123978-clinton-promises-to-investigate-ufos

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...73ce4b014efe0da95db?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps not quite rivaling Donald in controversy and fringe appeal, Hillary promises to investigate UFO's.

Appealing to the far out?

 

[Astronuc]

Right now, the issues seem to be electability and popularity.

GOP establishment loses hope of winning Iowa, New Hampshire
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-establishment-loses-hope-winning-iowa-hampshire-171937927--election.html

 

[Astronuc]

Palin's re-emergence underscores GOP split
http://news.yahoo.com/palins-emergence-underscores-gop-split-082027150--election.html

So it's perhaps little surprise that Palin is re-emerging on the national political scene at this moment of reckoning for Republicans. While she's hardly the conservative kingmaker she once was, Palin remains a favorite of the tea party insurgency, and her endorsement of Donald Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination gives him an added boost of conservative, anti-establishment credibility.

This will certainly be an interesting election year.

 

[Astronuc]

Bobby Jindal dropped out of the GOP race after losing support.

and now the rest of the story -

"When Bobby Jindal exited the Louisiana governor's office, he left behind a string of IOUs for his economic development deals"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/edwards-owes-155m-cover-jindals-211413083.html

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- When Bobby Jindal exited the governor's office, he left behind a string of IOUs for his economic development deals, at least $155 million of which could come due during the next four years of Gov. John Bel Edwards' term.

Ouch. Louisiana is probably hit hard the drop in oil prices.

So what happened to the 'conservatism' in Jindal's case?

 

[Astronuc]

I think the whole GOP presidential candidate slate should quit, and the GOP should draft Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

Otherwise, I hope attention turns to John Kasich, Governor of Ohio.

 

[Student100]

I think the whole GOP presidential candidate slate should quit, and the GOP should draft Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

Otherwise, I hope attention turns to John Kasich, Governor of Ohio.

Not Rand Paul? He was always my favorite, his policy stances are rather sane for the most part; although, the Republican primary always brings out of a bit of crazy in all the candidates, however, for shame: .

Interesting stuff: Pauls AMA onReddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/422tnb/i_am_senator_doctor_and_presidential_candidate/

I particularly like:

Hi Dr. Paul,

What do you think of the popular gif of your father? On a scale of funny to hilarious, how would you rate it? Said gif

 

[lisab]

One thing that has surprised me in this election cycle is how strongly the Republican base rejected Jeb. I am aware - very keenly aware - of what the left thinks of the Bush legacy (albeit the vast majority of it is due to W., not his dad). But I had no idea the right felt the same.

I don't agree with most of what Jeb stands for, but I think he's a good guy. Definitely would welcome him as a neighbor. I can't say that about Trump or Cruz.

 

[jtbell]

An interesting take on the Republican race from the BBC, comparing party bigwigs with an airplane passenger who has to choose a meal. It's starting to look like they won't get their first choice, chicken and tomato pasta bake (one of the "establishment" candidates), so they're apparently starting to lean towards the "irradiated, overcooked beef" (Trump) instead of the "tasteless salmon and dill" (Cruz), because they figure they can make deals with the beef.

Is Donald Trump now unstoppable?

 

[russ_watters]

One thing that has surprised me in this election cycle is how strongly the Republican base rejected Jeb. I am aware - very keenly aware - of what the left thinks of the Bush legacy (albeit the vast majority of it is due to W., not his dad). But I had no idea the right felt the same.

I'm surprised too, but I'm not sure though that the reasons are the same as those from the left. If the polls are correct, Bush isn't doing well because he's not far enough to the right, not because he's too far to the right.

 

[Astronuc]

On the horizon - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source
http://news.yahoo.com/michael-bloomberg-may-launch-independent-u-presidential-bid-152658508.html

Interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/trump-cruz-battle-iowa-republican-civil-war-brews-181713565.html

Cruz has portrayed Trump as an unscrupulous businessman who favors seizing private property so his casinos can thrive. The senator accuses the tycoon of being an opportunist with no real attachment to conservative values.

The rest of the Republican party has watched amazed, powerless and divided as the anti-establishment candidates have powered along, with party leaders seemingly unable to contain them.

"Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones," it said in a biting lead editorial.
. . . .
The broadside triggered an angry response from the Republican National Committee, which disinvited the National Review from being a partner of the party's candidate debate on February 25.

 

[Dotini]

A rather breathless CNN reporter at a Republican Iowa caucus pointed out an apparently huge, record turnout at the site.
He showed a long line of people waiting to change party or vote for the first time. He deemed this critical, and said he interviewed some who switched parties to vote for Trump and some to vote against Trump.

If that's true, it could be good news for Bernie. And Rubio?

 

[Astronuc]

Trump’s campaign is getting the most bang for the buck
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-s-campaign-is-getting-the-most-bang-for-the-buck-202159785.html

Trump benefits from uttering ridiculous, absurd or provocative statements, and the media gives him news coverage.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Cruz wins Iowa

 

[Astronuc]

I'm looking at the totals for the caucus votes.

Hillary Clinton  51.15%  665
Bernie Sanders   49.32%  654
Martin O'Malley   0.53%    7

Total                   1326
92.5% reporting

Even if Clinton wins by a handful of votes, they are statistically tied.
Where are the democrats?

Compared to the Republican caucus vote

Ted Cruz         27.70%   50,794
Donald Trump     24.30%   44,561
Marco Rubio      23.07%   42,294
Ben Carson        9.31%   17,074
Rand Paul         4.51%    8,263
Jeb Bush          2.80%    5,132
Carly Fiorina     1.86%    3,419
John Kasich       1.86%    3,414
Mike Huckabee     1.79%    3,276
Chris Christie    1.76%    3,233
Rick Santorum     0.96%    1,761
                        
Total                    183,221
                        
97.3% reporting

 

[Evo]

Looks like the democrats may be happy with either candidate. Where are the Democratic candidates?

 

[Dotini]

So Ted "Awaken the body of Christ!" Cruz has won Iowa, and the polls were off well beyond the percentage of error. I think Ted had the best ground game and team for dealing with the caucus state of Iowa. Kudos to him, a smart and revolutionary man.

Trump has had a moment of clarity to reflect upon his errors and shortcomings.

Rubio has clearly won the backing of the establishment, for all the good and ill that portends.

Dr. Carson is still a strong player.

Rand Paul emerges in a clear 5th, still a player. He's my man!

Jeb Bush. Spent more than all the rest combined, but will he give up?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I'm looking at the totals for the caucus votes.

Looks like the democrats may be happy with either candidate. Where are the Democratic candidates?

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

 

[Samy_A]

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

The Democrats don't count voters in Iowa, but ... something else:

The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results. At the county level, The Associated Press inflates numbers by 100, as state delegate equivalent numbers for some candidates are often very small fractions.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/20...region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region