US Presidential Race

I thought Christie was their strongest candidate, despite "Bridgegate" (that name tho, omg) but he's not winning the primaries.

It's the same problem the Republicans face each election cycle since the rise of the Tea Party; can't win the Primaries without Tea Party support, can't win the general election with having said on record what you had to say to win Tea Party support.

I'm still holding out for Rahm Emanuel 2022 TBH

If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

Meh, 'toast' is surely too strong a word.
I agree, looking at that field now, Rubio looks the most likely to win in the general election, as he's the most likely to get votes from demographics the Republicans have to vastly improve in order to stand a chance at all.

IF he keeps his campaigning performance up that is, I've seen him come across very scripted and unnatural too.

But then, he'd still have to run on a Republican platform.
Yes, as a person he'd maybe be able to sound convincing on these issues, he'd still have to explain how lowering taxes for the rich will help achieve income equality.
Because obviously there's no Republican platform that hasn't lowering the taxes for the rich at its core

The American people are not that stupid, they're voting on issues too, and on issues Democrats are winning all day long.

Health care is another one, let's not forget Obama won twice campaigning for, and defending, the Affordable Care Act, and I'm not sure how Rubio positioned himself there in the past but if I had to take a guess I'd say "REPEAL!!"

Basically Republicans would need a really strong centrist candidate to win in a presidential election again, and they don't have those anymore.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

The thing is, the segments of voters tha Rubio could speak to with his bio are already firmly in the pocket of the Clintons, for the most part. Because even though Rubio would be "one of them" regarding latinos, or self-made people coming up from poverty... The policies he embodies are really bad for people like himself, ironically. Well for people like how he was, they're great for him now that he's rich.

Actually the only position that is, or what at some point, a little more centrist from Rubio was on immigration, no?
Apart from that he is, or has presented himself as, a pretty hard core conservative.

So he's more electable only in demeanor and as a person, not in his politics.
Of course I'd judge him to be a careerist mainly, so he'd surely be happy to switch, but that of course would be easily attackable.

Where do Americans find these people?

Ben Carson: "The Holocaust would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

Ben Carson about abortion: "There was a time in this country where there were people who thought it was OK to own other people."

Ben Carson about Obamacare: "It is slavery, in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control."

Ben Carson about political correctness: "We live in a Gestapo age. I mean, very much like Nazi Germany—and I know you’re not supposed to say Nazi Germany, but I don’t care about political correctness—you know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."

futbol wrote:Where do Americans find these people?

Ben Carson: "The Holocaust would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

My buddy and me were laughing hard at the irony of this.

Hint: Hitlers election was preceded by his cronies forming armed Militias used to intimidate voters. So the people being armed was exactly the problem. It's hilarious because 6 million people were murdered.

Sometimes I wonder if these people are truly retarded or, in fact, clever enough to know that saying these things will get them votes from the masses of retarded people without truly believing in what they spout.

futbol wrote:

Ben Carson about abortion: "There was a time in this country where there were people who thought it was OK to own other people."

This kind of logic is commonly used to trash social norms, so I don't see the problem of saying it in regards to abortion, do you?

futbol wrote:
Ben Carson about political correctness: "We live in a Gestapo age. I mean, very much like Nazi Germany—and I know you’re not supposed to say Nazi Germany, but I don’t care about political correctness—you know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."

Well, that's an exaggeration. But, these are times in which any sort of public figure or whatever, has to modify their words so they don't have a pack of crusaders trying to destroy their character and damage their career. That means even self deprecatory remarks are off the table (Tim hunt for example)

futbol wrote:Where do Americans find these people?

Ben Carson: "The Holocaust would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

Ben Carson about abortion: "There was a time in this country where there were people who thought it was OK to own other people."

Ben Carson about Obamacare: "It is slavery, in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control."

Ben Carson about political correctness: "We live in a Gestapo age. I mean, very much like Nazi Germany—and I know you’re not supposed to say Nazi Germany, but I don’t care about political correctness—you know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."

He took a note from Donald Trump's playbook.

DuringTheWar wrote:
Well, that's an exaggeration. But, these are times in which any sort of public figure or whatever, has to modify their words so they don't have a pack of crusaders trying to destroy their character and damage their career. That means even self deprecatory remarks are off the table (Tim hunt for example)

It's not just an exaggaration, and here's why:
It's qualitatively wrong. The notion Carson is entertaining is that there's some kind of central authority censoring free speech to infringe on freedom, and there is need for fear of reprisal.

That is an outright falsehood.

Yes, there is public outcry, there is backlash in terms of popularity. But you don't get jailed, or murdered, for just saying things.

It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

DuringTheWar wrote:

futbol wrote:

Ben Carson about abortion: "There was a time in this country where there were people who thought it was OK to own other people."

This kind of logic is commonly used to trash social norms, so I don't see the problem of saying it in regards to abortion, do you?

This is the one thing that's a little bit less ridiculous, because slavers did argue they had the 'right' to do whatever they wanted with their property (read: slaves). Similarly, pro-choicers will sugarcoat some of their more nasty arguments by saying women have the 'right' to do whatever they want with their bodies.

The rest is idiocy to the point of hilarity though.

VivaStPauli wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:
Well, that's an exaggeration. But, these are times in which any sort of public figure or whatever, has to modify their words so they don't have a pack of crusaders trying to destroy their character and damage their career. That means even self deprecatory remarks are off the table (Tim hunt for example)

It's not just an exaggaration, and here's why:
It's qualitatively wrong. The notion Carson is entertaining is that there's some kind of central authority censoring free speech to infringe on freedom, and there is need for fear of reprisal.

That is an outright falsehood.

Yes, there is public outcry, there is backlash in terms of popularity. But you don't get jailed, or murdered, for just saying things.

It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

I think you underestimate the insidious effect the identity politics is having on discourse, any sort of nuance has been driven out of town, in favour of catch-all terms, some of which you mentioned. I don't know if you're willfully ignoring it or you just don't get it. When a guy cannot even joke about himself without causing total meltdown, those people haven't been driven nuts, they are already freakin nuts

Edit: Looking on the bright side though, I do get some mirth from Richard Dawkins related Twitter shitstorms

VivaStPauli wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

The thing is, the segments of voters tha Rubio could speak to with his bio are already firmly in the pocket of the Clintons, for the most part. Because even though Rubio would be "one of them" regarding latinos, or self-made people coming up from poverty... The policies he embodies are really bad for people like himself, ironically. Well for people like how he was, they're great for him now that he's rich.

Idk, speaking as someone that lives in America, I don't know a single person that Hillary has "in their pocket", and I live in a very blue state. I have a feeling that most of the people that love Hillary are baby boomers, but millenials are more attracted to Sanders or will vote for Hillary out of a sense of inevitability, not passion for her policies. Rubio might represent policies that won't benefit immigrants or poor the most, but at this stage in the worst congress in US history doing anything is better than doing nothing.

Just saw this:

"You can believe marriage is between one man and one woman without being a homophobe." - Ben Carson

VivaStPauli wrote:
It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

I don't agree with any of the Republicans talking about PC going crazy, because they really haven't experienced it at all and they are talking about it being a government thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, if you think political correctness hasn't gone too far anywhere, I would advise you to go to any of the college campuses in Canada/US. I just graduated from one (probably the most crazy in Canada tbf) so I know what I'm talking about. Obama has talked about it too and so have many liberal commentators in the media.

Just as an example, without giving too much info, there was a huge outcry about cultural appropriation on our campus because a Fiesta party had a Mexican flag and a poncho on its banner. The offended parties (who were not actually Mexicans, but white kids) stated that this was stereotyping Mexicans and that it was contributing to the economic marginalization of Mexicans in North America.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

The thing is, the segments of voters tha Rubio could speak to with his bio are already firmly in the pocket of the Clintons, for the most part. Because even though Rubio would be "one of them" regarding latinos, or self-made people coming up from poverty... The policies he embodies are really bad for people like himself, ironically. Well for people like how he was, they're great for him now that he's rich.

Idk, speaking as someone that lives in America, I don't know a single person that Hillary has "in their pocket", and I live in a very blue state. I have a feeling that most of the people that love Hillary are baby boomers, but millenials are more attracted to Sanders or will vote for Hillary out of a sense of inevitability, not passion for her policies. Rubio might represent policies that won't benefit immigrants or poor the most, but at this stage in the worst congress in US history doing anything is better than doing nothing.

As someone who lives in a pretty liberal college campus, what you said sums up the view of pretty much every liberal I know on Hillary. Everybody likes Sanders more but will inevitably vote for Hillary.

Also, even if Hillary had those segments of voters in her pocket, the bigger issue is getting them out and voting, which Hillary won't be able to do like Obama did. Voter turnout is still the Democrats biggest problem right now and Hillary is hardly one to mobilize like Obama.

This is, of course, assuming those segments of people act rationally and vote for Hillary based on her policies and what is best for them, which is often not the case for many Americans, who go out and vote Republican because they're Catholic and Rubio is a hard working 'Murican (adopted 'Murican) Catholic too (I have no idea what religion he is), despite the fact that Republican policies have really...never been good for them.

When Bill Clinton gave that mobilizing speech in 20012 i was about to go vote before i remembered that i wasnt an American. I think he'll do the same thing for his Wife.

Hilary is a character is meh, she couldnt inspire me to go brush my teeth in the morning, but if i'm to vote for someone ill vote for her, simply because she will not deviate a lot from Obama's policies.

That said, Sanders really identifies with the idealist hippie within me, but his chances in the primaries are meh for now so..



fun fact of the day: 21% of self-identified Republicans in Alabama felt that marriage between the races should be illegal

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If Rubio wins the nomination then Hillary is toast. Can you imagine Hillary (many times a millionaire) debating income inequality or immigration with Rubio (son of immigrants who worked as a bartender and housekeeper to make ends meet)? Or the old vs new juxtaposition?

I disagree with this as well. I'm not a fan of Hillary for reasons that have nothing to do with inequality or immigration (well, at least little to do), but can I imagine her debating Rubio on those topics? Absolutely yes.

Rubio has the story but that's ALL he has. So in a debate vs Clinton, he can start off about his bootstrap upbringing all he wants - but when it comes time to talk about how his policy proposals are going to help *OTHER* people get out of poverty.....what does he have? An income tax cut disproportionately benefitting the highest tax bracket and promises to gut poor people's health insurance? Enough people will see right through that to prevent his feel-good story from moving any needles, IMO...Also I would feel pretty confident that Hillary would comfortably defeat Rubio among all hispanic demographics other than Cuban expats.

El Messico wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:
It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

I don't agree with any of the Republicans talking about PC going crazy, because they really haven't experienced it at all and they are talking about it being a government thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, if you think political correctness hasn't gone too far anywhere, I would advise you to go to any of the college campuses in Canada/US. I just graduated from one (probably the most crazy in Canada tbf) so I know what I'm talking about. Obama has talked about it too and so have many liberal commentators in the media.

Protip: In every instance in which you come across "political correctness" or "PC" used in a serious manner in a headline or article, replace it with "treating people with respect" and you will see directly through the jig. Anytime people rail about PC what they are really complaining about is that in 2015 it's harder to say shitty things about minority groups without facing any consequences. Period.

Swanhends wrote:

El Messico wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:
It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

I don't agree with any of the Republicans talking about PC going crazy, because they really haven't experienced it at all and they are talking about it being a government thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, if you think political correctness hasn't gone too far anywhere, I would advise you to go to any of the college campuses in Canada/US. I just graduated from one (probably the most crazy in Canada tbf) so I know what I'm talking about. Obama has talked about it too and so have many liberal commentators in the media.

Protip: In every instance in which you come across "political correctness" or "PC" used in a serious manner in a headline or article, replace it with "treating people with respect" and you will see directly through the jig. Anytime people rail about PC what they are really complaining about is that in 2015 it's harder to say shitty things about minority groups without facing any consequences. Period.

But the people who decide what "treating people with respect" is are in a lot of cases (I'm not going to say "in every instance"...) insane. And their version of "disrespect" is anything that violates any political belief they have that they have no damn right to expect me to agree to. Im not even going to bother addressing the rampant hypocrisy that runs through it.

DuringTheWar wrote:

Swanhends wrote:

El Messico wrote:


I don't agree with any of the Republicans talking about PC going crazy, because they really haven't experienced it at all and they are talking about it being a government thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, if you think political correctness hasn't gone too far anywhere, I would advise you to go to any of the college campuses in Canada/US. I just graduated from one (probably the most crazy in Canada tbf) so I know what I'm talking about. Obama has talked about it too and so have many liberal commentators in the media.

Protip: In every instance in which you come across "political correctness" or "PC" used in a serious manner in a headline or article, replace it with "treating people with respect" and you will see directly through the jig. Anytime people rail about PC what they are really complaining about is that in 2015 it's harder to say shitty things about minority groups without facing any consequences. Period.

But the people who decide what "treating people with respect" is are in a lot of cases (I'm not going to say "in every instance"...) insane. And their version of "disrespect" is anything that violates any political belief they have that they have no damn right to expect me to agree to. Im not even going to bother addressing the rampant hypocrisy that runs through it.

That's a mirage though. Everytime people talk about the "political correctness takeover" they always provide at most one or two anecdotal examples that any reasonable person would recognize are over the top, and then point to that as definitive evidence of some massive trend of hyper sensitivity. It's just nonsense.

Just look the post Sepi quoted in the women's issues thread as an example. People say bullshit like "PC Culture is a cancer that is taking over this country! Men at colleges all over the country are being forced to attend seminars in order to graduate where they are demonised as rapists & criminals and forced to answer for crimes they've never committed!"

Then when you ask them to provide any proof of this, they either go silent (because all they're doing is repeating heresay), or eagerly point to ONE anecdotal example where, when you actually look up the details, in reality turns out to be an optional campus orientation seminar that's an hour long and discusses some dangers of college life for new students

The entirety of the PC takeover examples are always based on heresay or unconnected anecdotes, almost always grossly exaggerrated, that people use to extrapolate huge trends in popular opinion. It's nothing but an okey-doke to fool people who only read headlines & never bother to question the things they are told.

Swanhends wrote:

El Messico wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:
It is easily explained why it's always the Republicans saying that "Political Correctness is running rampant", or that the "mainstream media" won't tolerate "freedom of speech", because it's all code.
It's all code for "I want to say ignorant shit, and society won't let me, this makes me sad, so I have to blame someone."
Donald Trump says he isn't PC when he's being racist.
Carson says he isnt PC when he's being a homophobe.
It's always republicans saying shit like that because, again, they're on the wrong side of history, and they feel like they're being persecuted, when all that is really happening is society moving on from earlier prejudice, xenophobia, and gaybashing, and they want to hold on to that, and still get elected.

Well news flash, you idiots (politicians saying shit like that, not you DtW, I just happened to quote you): you can't ignore societal progress and then blame some imagined censor for the fact that you keep on saying ignorant shit that drives people nuts.

I don't agree with any of the Republicans talking about PC going crazy, because they really haven't experienced it at all and they are talking about it being a government thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, if you think political correctness hasn't gone too far anywhere, I would advise you to go to any of the college campuses in Canada/US. I just graduated from one (probably the most crazy in Canada tbf) so I know what I'm talking about. Obama has talked about it too and so have many liberal commentators in the media.

Protip: In every instance in which you come across "political correctness" or "PC" used in a serious manner in a headline or article, replace it with "treating people with respect" and you will see directly through the jig. Anytime people rail about PC what they are really complaining about is that in 2015 it's harder to say shitty things about minority groups without facing any consequences. Period.

hmm, I'll just have to disagree with you. Overall, I'm not sure there's any PC takeover brigade among the general public, but on college campuses? I have enough anecdotal evidence for my campus atleast. The problem is political correctness is being used as a catch-all term (by me too) even though what I consider "PC" is completely different from what a lot of different people consider PC.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (ignore the headline - these are always sensationalized by editors to get more people to read the article):

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

And here is Obama's take (again ignore the title of the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZVCbW63lc

Can you really consider this problem to be purely anecdotal when the president of your country has decided to talk about it? I understand he may have been asked about the issue earlier and he didn't bring it up himself (from this snippet it looks like he brought it up himself), but the fact that he has a well-formed opinion on it means he has atleast heard about it, considers it valid enough to give it some critical thought.

FYI, I'm a visible minority in North America.

Swanhends wrote:I disagree with this as well. I'm not a fan of Hillary for reasons that have nothing to do with inequality or immigration (well, at least little to do), but can I imagine her debating Rubio on those topics? Absolutely yes.

Rubio has the story but that's ALL he has. So in a debate vs Clinton, he can start off about his bootstrap upbringing all he wants - but when it comes time to talk about how his policy proposals are going to help *OTHER* people get out of poverty.....what does he have? An income tax cut disproportionately benefitting the highest tax bracket and promises to gut poor people's health insurance? Enough people will see right through that to prevent his feel-good story from moving any needles, IMO...Also I would feel pretty confident that Hillary would comfortably defeat Rubio among all hispanic demographics other than Cuban expats.

Alright perhaps "toast" is a bit hyperbolic, but let me rephrase the point: Rubio is the republican candidate that would stand a best chance against Hillary in the general election. Fiorina, Trump and Carson would get dominated by Hillary, they have no broad appeal at all. Jeb is only famous because he is associated to one of the presidents with the lowest approval ratings ever and he would be forced to defend the Iraq war, so that immediately makes him in-eligible. Ted Cruz is too far to the right and Rand Paul is doing his best to alienate his libertarian base in search for a broad one, and getting no base as a result. Chris Christie has a chance, I suppose, but is unlikely to get the nomination in any event.

Rubio was not raised with a silver spoon, is hispanic, is tea-party but not crazy, is charismatic, is young and doesn't have any skeletons in his past. Rubio would have a much easier time getting the average american to relate to him. Rubio would capitalize the vote of people that are tired of 'old politics'. Rubio would be able to steal the ever important hispanic voters and broaden the base of his party, which is the main reason that Republicans would fail in a general election. Not to mention, Rubio is quick on his feet and could punish Hillary for her many screw ups (and I'm sure there are more to come). He is also the Republican candidate that has a highest acceptability rating (when people are asked "Could you see yourself voting for X?" Rubio comes out with the most positive answers).

Bonus: https://twitter.com/BanCollectivism/status/608344761758568448