U.S. Politics

Page 880 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the post Merckx. I'll say what I did before, if his heart is in it for the long haul, Biden will be the next President. I really think that. But he has to truly want it. Even he alluded to that on Colbert. I also think his "speak then think" gaffes wont hurt him in this election, if you looks at some of the outrageous things people are saying unapologetically, a few misspeaks by him he could backtrack from wouldn't hurt at all.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
New CNN poll out today. 43% of Rs believe Obama is a Muslim.

If you've ever wondered why Trump is doing so well among Rs, it's because they live in an imaginary world of make believe.
 
Good article in the Atlantic on Netanyahu's role and views of the Iran deal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/netanyahu-israel-victory-iran/404965/

More good analysis than this, but...

Netanyahu’s complaint is not with the Iran deal. It is with the notion that one can deal with Iran. Like many of his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, he sees this deal as a defeat because it brought about neither complete capitulation by Iran at the negotiating table nor the demise of the Iranian regime. Netanyahu’s worldview is Manichaean; there is good, there is evil, and good people don’t do business with evil. I have sympathy for this view; I am a Reform Manichaean myself, and I think I understand the perfidious nature of the Iranian regime. But the total defeat of Iran was not a credible option, especially in the post-Iraq War American political reality, and it was Netanyahu’s mistake—one of several mistakes—to believe a) in the lethality of sanctions that turned out to be merely crippling, and b) that the United States, in the absence of sanctions-induced regime change, would choose confrontation over diplomatic compromise.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
VeloCity said:
New CNN poll out today. 43% of Rs believe Obama is a Muslim.

If you've ever wondered why Trump is doing so well among Rs, it's because they live in an imaginary world of make believe.
He's not? Dafuk?
"Welcome to the spirit world A$$holes."
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Good article in the Atlantic on Netanyahu's role and views of the Iran deal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/netanyahu-israel-victory-iran/404965/

More good analysis than this, but...

Netanyahu’s complaint is not with the Iran deal. It is with the notion that one can deal with Iran. Like many of his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, he sees this deal as a defeat because it brought about neither complete capitulation by Iran at the negotiating table nor the demise of the Iranian regime. Netanyahu’s worldview is Manichaean; there is good, there is evil, and good people don’t do business with evil. I have sympathy for this view; I am a Reform Manichaean myself, and I think I understand the perfidious nature of the Iranian regime. But the total defeat of Iran was not a credible option, especially in the post-Iraq War American political reality, and it was Netanyahu’s mistake—one of several mistakes—to believe a) in the lethality of sanctions that turned out to be merely crippling, and b) that the United States, in the absence of sanctions-induced regime change, would choose confrontation over diplomatic compromise.
...was about to read the article but upon seeing it was written by Jeffery Goldberg decided not to waste my time.... Goldberg is a world class producer of weaponized truthiness....his writing is technically quite well done and always has a tight internal coherence ( read, it tells a nice story with no loose ends ) but if you get past one article which by itself seems quite reasonable and lump more of his stories together and then run that across the contrast state you will quickly realize he is just a highly partisan propagandist/apologist trying very hard to disguise himself as a neutral observer....

...think a slicker version of everyone's favourite NYT buffoon, Thomas Friedman....to his credit he does present a position very well but be forewarned it is usually propaganda....not unlike say David Brooks...

...that being said the quote does have some very interesting, though debateable, points....but they also look like part of an attempt to paper over the fact that Bibi got his ass handed to him on a platter, and AIPAC was, despite rallying all their vast influence, soundly defeated...

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
red_flanders said:
Good article in the Atlantic on Netanyahu's role and views of the Iran deal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/netanyahu-israel-victory-iran/404965/

More good analysis than this, but...

Netanyahu’s complaint is not with the Iran deal. It is with the notion that one can deal with Iran. Like many of his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, he sees this deal as a defeat because it brought about neither complete capitulation by Iran at the negotiating table nor the demise of the Iranian regime. Netanyahu’s worldview is Manichaean; there is good, there is evil, and good people don’t do business with evil. I have sympathy for this view; I am a Reform Manichaean myself, and I think I understand the perfidious nature of the Iranian regime. But the total defeat of Iran was not a credible option, especially in the post-Iraq War American political reality, and it was Netanyahu’s mistake—one of several mistakes—to believe a) in the lethality of sanctions that turned out to be merely crippling, and b) that the United States, in the absence of sanctions-induced regime change, would choose confrontation over diplomatic compromise.
...was about to read the article but upon seeing it was written by Jeffery Goldberg decided not to waste my time.... Goldberg is a world class producer of weaponized truthiness....his writing is technically quite well done and always has a tight internal coherence ( read, it tells a nice story with no loose ends ) but if you get past one article which by itself seems quite reasonable and lump more of his stories together and then run that across the contrast state you will quickly realize he is just a highly partisan propagandist/apologist trying very hard to disguise himself as a neutral observer....

...think a slicker version of everyone's favourite NYT buffoon, Thomas Friedman....to his credit he does present a position very well but be forewarned it is usually propaganda....not unlike say David Brooks...

...that being said the quote does have some very interesting, though debateable, points....but they also look like part of an attempt to paper over the fact that Bibi got his ass handed to him on a platter, and AIPAC was, despite rallying all their vast influence, soundly defeated...

Cheers
Interesting observations. I did feel it read as a fairly coherent story, and there is definitely a feeling of trying to be neutral and give both sides some meat to chew on...probably why I thought to post it here. I'm not familiar with the writer, but on its face it seemed to offer a good analysis of BN's motivations.

I have continually been perplexed as to what exactly the right have been screaming about in regard to this deal, as from everything I read and from every other arms deal I can compare it to, it's stronger than anything we've ever seen. The idea that any deal which didn't force Iran to utterly capitulate was going to be attacked seems to resonate with what I hear from the right. There exists this wholly unrealistic view that we would somehow be able to force other countries to do whatever we want with no cost to us. A familiar (remember Cheney and "liberators"?) refrain from the right, and wholly, completely unrealistic. The idea that BN considers any dealing with Iran to be a failure sounds about right. This view, espoused by a hard-right Israeli PM seems perfect fooder to be taken as gospel by the right, who are almost always quick to war, desperate to appear supportive of Israel and looking for any reason to attack the President.

Appreciate your perspective on it. Thanks.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
blutto said:
red_flanders said:
Good article in the Atlantic on Netanyahu's role and views of the Iran deal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/netanyahu-israel-victory-iran/404965/

More good analysis than this, but...

Netanyahu’s complaint is not with the Iran deal. It is with the notion that one can deal with Iran. Like many of his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, he sees this deal as a defeat because it brought about neither complete capitulation by Iran at the negotiating table nor the demise of the Iranian regime. Netanyahu’s worldview is Manichaean; there is good, there is evil, and good people don’t do business with evil. I have sympathy for this view; I am a Reform Manichaean myself, and I think I understand the perfidious nature of the Iranian regime. But the total defeat of Iran was not a credible option, especially in the post-Iraq War American political reality, and it was Netanyahu’s mistake—one of several mistakes—to believe a) in the lethality of sanctions that turned out to be merely crippling, and b) that the United States, in the absence of sanctions-induced regime change, would choose confrontation over diplomatic compromise.
...was about to read the article but upon seeing it was written by Jeffery Goldberg decided not to waste my time.... Goldberg is a world class producer of weaponized truthiness....his writing is technically quite well done and always has a tight internal coherence ( read, it tells a nice story with no loose ends ) but if you get past one article which by itself seems quite reasonable and lump more of his stories together and then run that across the contrast state you will quickly realize he is just a highly partisan propagandist/apologist trying very hard to disguise himself as a neutral observer....

...think a slicker version of everyone's favourite NYT buffoon, Thomas Friedman....to his credit he does present a position very well but be forewarned it is usually propaganda....not unlike say David Brooks...

...that being said the quote does have some very interesting, though debateable, points....but they also look like part of an attempt to paper over the fact that Bibi got his ass handed to him on a platter, and AIPAC was, despite rallying all their vast influence, soundly defeated...

Cheers
Interesting observations. I did feel it read as a fairly coherent story, and there is definitely a feeling of trying to be neutral and give both sides some meat to chew on...probably why I thought to post it here. I'm not familiar with the writer, but on its face it seemed to offer a good analysis of BN's motivations.

I have continually been perplexed as to what exactly the right have been screaming about in regard to this deal, as from everything I read and from every other arms deal I can compare it to, it's stronger than anything we've ever seen. The idea that any deal which didn't force Iran to utterly capitulate was going to be attacked seems to resonate with what I hear from the right. There exists this wholly unrealistic view that we would somehow be able to force other countries to do whatever we want with no cost to us. A familiar (remember Cheney and "liberators"?) refrain from the right, and wholly, completely unrealistic. The idea that BN considers any dealing with Iran to be a failure sounds about right. This view, espoused by a hard-right Israeli PM seems perfect fooder to be taken as gospel by the right, who are almost always quick to war, desperate to appear supportive of Israel and looking for any reason to attack the President.

Appreciate your perspective on it. Thanks.
Interesting read. Also interesting is you guys take on it (aka perspective).

I said from the beginning we should not negotiate with Iran - plain and simple. I probably should have expanded my POV. I don't consider Iran a threat to the USA and not something we need to waist one dollar on. We should be vigilant not to have money enter that country from us with respect to aid or money through a 3rd player. That would be tough but better than negotiating with Iran. Let them get Nuke's I really don't have any Fck's to give with respect to that. I'm not interested in who they have as a leader either and we should not spend any money trying to change it. No war or any military effort to change that country will help.

Now if Iran decides they want to take on their neighbors or go through with their threats to wipe their a$$'s with Israel then the USA will need to react until then, who cares. Iran is in the mess that they want, if the people want something else then I guess they should pay their own price for it.

Israel BN has a different take and his is no negotiation and basically war. If that is what they feel like doing then the USA should do everything it can to stop them from acting out without provocation. I doubt that would happen.
 
Here’s an article arguing Biden should not run because, basically, he’s not ideologically different from Hillary:

Simply put, Sanders has a reason to oppose Clinton, just as the Iraq vote provided the basis for Barack Obama to leapfrog over his elder. You can’t plausibly argue the Sanders candidacy is an exercise in mansplaining.

Biden, on the other hand, is cut from the same Establishment Democrat cloth as Clinton. They have taken similar votes that Democratic base voters view as cynical, including in favor of the Iraq War resolution, the Patriot Act and the 2001 bankruptcy bill. They both eschew left-wing pipe dreams like single-payer health insurance. Perhaps some daylight would creep between them over the course of a presidential campaign, but it would not amount to a deep philosophical breach. A Clinton presidency would be similar to a Biden presidency.

In turn, there’s no reason for Biden to oppose Clinton, at least, not an ideological one. The only reason to run is personal: Biden wants the job and Clinton is in the way. That’s not a compelling basis for a candidacy. And when you bring the glass-ceiling factor into the equation, it’s a potentially toxic one.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/14/the_case_against_biden_16_128069.html

And here is a provocative, to say the least, argument: that climate change deniers could be following in the footsteps of Hitler:

The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.

The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.

The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people
Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.

The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.
Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets.
Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I don't think there's any question that if climate change worsens, it could lead to wars over resources. I don't think comparisons to Nazi Germany are needed to make that point, though.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Here’s an article arguing Biden should not run because, basically, he’s not ideologically different from Hillary:

Simply put, Sanders has a reason to oppose Clinton, just as the Iraq vote provided the basis for Barack Obama to leapfrog over his elder. You can’t plausibly argue the Sanders candidacy is an exercise in mansplaining.

Biden, on the other hand, is cut from the same Establishment Democrat cloth as Clinton. They have taken similar votes that Democratic base voters view as cynical, including in favor of the Iraq War resolution, the Patriot Act and the 2001 bankruptcy bill. They both eschew left-wing pipe dreams like single-payer health insurance. Perhaps some daylight would creep between them over the course of a presidential campaign, but it would not amount to a deep philosophical breach. A Clinton presidency would be similar to a Biden presidency.

In turn, there’s no reason for Biden to oppose Clinton, at least, not an ideological one. The only reason to run is personal: Biden wants the job and Clinton is in the way. That’s not a compelling basis for a candidacy. And when you bring the glass-ceiling factor into the equation, it’s a potentially toxic one.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/14/the_case_against_biden_16_128069.html
I don't disagree, but all that is to say two establishment candidates shouldn't run in the same election, which I'm not sure makes a ton of sense. There isn't in fact a wide policy gap between them, but there is a pretty wide personality gap, trust gap, and a gap in the ability to communicate. That's a meaningful, important difference in candidates. In fact, I'd argue that this is what a lot of people vote on rather than policy, and is in many ways more meaningful to a lot of voters.

Both parties have history of fielding candidates with little difference on policy.
 
I just realized this morning it's more than a year to an election. We're nuts in this country how we do this. What am I going to learn over the next 13+ months? I would think 3 months would be more than enough to learn about and vet candidates.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
There isn't in fact a wide policy gap between them, but there is a pretty wide personality gap, trust gap, and a gap in the ability to communicate. That's a meaningful, important difference in candidates. In fact, I'd argue that this is what a lot of people vote on rather than policy, and is in many ways more meaningful to a lot of voters.
If this is the case, how did Clinton get elected and re-elected? He communicated well (and so does his wife, as least as well as Biden), but no one trusted him from the get go. I think most people vote on issues, the ones that are important to them. It doesn’t matter how likable you find a candidate, if you think his policies are going to make your life more difficult, you’re not going to support him. Personality and trust are more of a tie-breaker, IMO.

Anyway, even assuming you and Alpe are right, what’s Biden going to say if he announces his candidacy, and he’s asked, what do you offer that Hillary doesn’t? Is he really going to contrast their personalities, and claim he is more honest, authentic and trustworthy? Even if really believes that, I can’t see him saying it publicly. It’s standard procedure for a newly-announced candidate to explain why he would make a better President than the people he’s running against, and in Biden’s case, I don’t see how he can contrast himself with Hillary without insulting her. It’s one thing to say that believe your opponent is simply wrong on the issues; it’s quite another to accuse your opponent of being dishonest or phony. Trump can do that, but I don’t think Biden can. Not for someone in his own party, someone who served in the same administration.

The dynamics here remind me a little of 1968, with Sanders playing the role of Gene McCarthy, Hillary LBJ, and Biden Humphrey. Or maybe Bobby Kennedy, because if Biden gets in, it will not be because Hillary has withdrawn. He will get in because he thinks Hillary is vulnerable, just as Bobby Kennedy stayed out of the race until he saw Johnson's blood in the water. Kennedy was heavily criticized by McCarthy supporters for being opportunistic, and Biden might receive some of the same criticism. If he announces his candidacy, it will look very much like he's doing so at this point because whereas before he didn't think anyone had a chance against Hillary, Sanders' success has suggested she can be beaten. You could even argue that Biden's announcement would be an implicit swipe at Sanders, saying in effect, the reason you're doing well is not because of your positions, but just because your opponent is unlikable.

Both parties have history of fielding candidates with little difference on policy.
In the early going yes, and they quickly get winnowed out precisely because they're redundant, because they can't make a case for being significantly different from another candidate. Fred Thompson's campaign went nowhere in 2008 in large part because he didn't stand for anything that some other candidate didn't stand for. I think a major reason why John Edwards never gained a lot of traction in his two failed bids was that he couldn't distinguish himself enough from the others he was running against. He tried to sell himself as a populist, which doesn't work that well when you're a rich lawyer. McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy were not far apart on the issues, which is precisely why McCarthy supporters resented Kennedy so much. Ford and Reagan were very close on the issues, the main difference was Reagan as the great communicator, and that approach didn't go anywhere, Reagan had to wait four years.

Can you give me an example of a campaign when two or more candidates with similar views ran, and one prevailed because of perceived better character?

More on the political effects of climate change:

From 2006 to 2011, large swaths of Syria suffered an extreme drought that, according to climatologists, was exacerbated by climate change. The drought lead to increased poverty and relocation to urban areas, according to a recent report by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and cited by Scientific American. “That drought, in addition to its mismanagement by the Assad regime, contributed to the displacement of two million in Syria,” says Francesco Femia, of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Climate and Security. “That internal displacement may have contributed to the social unrest that precipitated the civil war. Which generated the refugee flows into Europe.” And what happened in Syria, he says, is likely to play out elsewhere going forward.
http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/?xid=tcoshare
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
I just realized this morning it's more than a year to an election. We're nuts in this country how we do this. What am I going to learn over the next 13+ months? I would think 3 months would be more than enough to learn about and vet candidates.
Yeah, this goes on for way too long. I would prefer all the national primaries in May, have the conventions, then the national election in November. I never really understood why Iowa and New Hampshire have such an exalted position, especially now that the demographics of the country as a whole are so different.

As for Biden, I am surprised that he did not take the golden opportunity on the Colbert show to announce. That makes me think he is leaning towards not running. As for the issue overlap with Clinton, I think he is aware that he will be trying to appeal to the same voters and that was why he allegedly tried to court Warren for the VP slot to attract those not aligned with Clinton.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
red_flanders said:
There isn't in fact a wide policy gap between them, but there is a pretty wide personality gap, trust gap, and a gap in the ability to communicate. That's a meaningful, important difference in candidates. In fact, I'd argue that this is what a lot of people vote on rather than policy, and is in many ways more meaningful to a lot of voters.
If this is the case, how did Clinton get elected and re-elected? He communicated well (and so does his wife, as least as well as Biden), but no one trusted him from the get go. I think most people vote on issues, the ones that are important to them. It doesn’t matter how likable you find a candidate, if you think his policies are going to make your life more difficult, you’re not going to support him. Personality and trust are more of a tie-breaker, IMO.

Anyway, even assuming you and Alpe are right, what’s Biden going to say if he announces his candidacy, and he’s asked, what do you offer that Hillary doesn’t? Is he really going to contrast their personalities, and claim he is more honest, authentic and trustworthy? Even if really believes that, I can’t see him saying it publicly. It’s standard procedure for a newly-announced candidate to explain why he would make a better President than the people he’s running against, and in Biden’s case, I don’t see how he can contrast himself with Hillary without insulting her. It’s one thing to say that believe your opponent is simply wrong on the issues; it’s quite another to accuse your opponent of being dishonest or phony. Trump can do that, but I don’t think Biden can. Not for someone in his own party, someone who served in the same administration.

The dynamics here remind me a little of 1968, with Sanders playing the role of Gene McCarthy, Hillary LBJ, and Biden Humphrey. Or maybe Bobby Kennedy, because if Biden gets in, it will not be because Hillary has withdrawn. He will get in because he thinks Hillary is vulnerable, just as Bobby Kennedy stayed out of the race until he saw Johnson's blood in the water. Kennedy was heavily criticized by McCarthy supporters for being opportunistic, and Biden might receive some of the same criticism. If he announces his candidacy, it will look very much like he's doing so at this point because whereas before he didn't think anyone had a chance against Hillary, Sanders' success has suggested she can be beaten. You could even argue that Biden's announcement would be an implicit swipe at Sanders, saying in effect, the reason you're doing well is not because of your positions, but just because your opponent is unlikable.

Both parties have history of fielding candidates with little difference on policy.
In the early going yes, and they quickly get winnowed out precisely because they're redundant, because they can't make a case for being significantly different from another candidate. Fred Thompson's campaign went nowhere in 2008 in large part because he didn't stand for anything that some other candidate didn't stand for. I think a major reason why John Edwards never gained a lot of traction in his two failed bids was that he couldn't distinguish himself enough from the others he was running against. He tried to sell himself as a populist, which doesn't work that well when you're a rich lawyer. McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy were not far apart on the issues, which is precisely why McCarthy supporters resented Kennedy so much. Ford and Reagan were very close on the issues, the main difference was Reagan as the great communicator, and that approach didn't go anywhere, Reagan had to wait four years.

Can you give me an example of a campaign when two or more candidates with similar views ran, and one prevailed because of perceived better character?
There are a lot of questions here, I'll tackle a couple.

Bill Clinton got elected and re-elected in large part because he connected with people and they liked him. And his policy positions made sense. It's always a mix, for some it will be more about the person, for others it will be more about policy with a deal-breaker somewhere in there.

It makes me think of Joe Lieberman. Most of his policy positions I recall being fine with (not all, never works that way) but I just could not see that guy as a leader. Just had a major negative reaction to him as a person. I would not have been excited to see him run our country.

I don't know what Biden would offer beyond Hillary. Certainly he's going to have to carve out some meaningful differentiation from her if he's going to run. I don't really see why he has to give a reason why he's running instead of Hilary, he can just say why he's running and that will or will not be good enough. I could see him running a more populist campaign, as his personality suits it. But yeah, it won't be all that easy if it comes down to those two.

The truth of the matter is that Hilary is a flawed candidate. It's not that what she does is so terrible, it's that what she gets criticized for sticks to her because she's terrible about painting her vision for the country and her candidacy. I have no idea what her central theme is. I don't know what she's passionate about. All this nonsense about emails sticks to her because she doesn't know how to change the conversation, and she doesn't relate well to people at all. She is the anti-Bill. And I definitely disagree that she communicates as well as Biden. Biden comes of as genuine and she comes of as stiff, scripted and calculating. This matters to people, particularly in this election season.

A Biden candidacy would not be saying "the reason you're doing well is not because of your positions, but just because your opponent is unlikable". I think it's clear that Bernie has done much more than just sit there as an alternative to an unlikable candidate–he has crafted, communicated and passionately voiced a vision for America that is both timely and in stark contrast to whatever centrist position Hilary has tried to communicate. He comes of clearly as someone who believes fully in what he says. That's why there's so much excitement around him, he is the tantalizing speaker of his truth. Much like Trump, to be honest.

A Biden candidacy would be saying "we love you Bernie but we don't think you can get elected". He can certainly carve out space between Sanders and Clinton. It may be a little too late to sound or be genuine, but at the end of the day if he puts his hat in the ring, he'll have to be dealt with.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
VeloCity said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
I hope Biden runs so we can have some fun watching another idiot in action.
Forget Biden, think of a Mark Cuban vs Donald Trump matchup.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253584-mark-cuban-on-trump-i-would-crush-him

At some point we're just going to have to throw our hands in the air, admit that we have no idea what we're doing, and ask Canada to come and take charge.



....hmmm.....while the possibilities are intriguing we're gonna have to think about that....we'll get back to you eh....

Cheers
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
VeloCity said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
I hope Biden runs so we can have some fun watching another idiot in action.
Forget Biden, think of a Mark Cuban vs Donald Trump matchup.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253584-mark-cuban-on-trump-i-would-crush-him

At some point we're just going to have to throw our hands in the air, admit that we have no idea what we're doing, and ask Canada to come and take charge.
maybe so two moguls at it. Like a couple of a$$ hats.
 
Good Lord. While it's great he agrees income inequality is a huge issue, and him being a Democrat is interesting, we don't need Mark Cuban running for President.

If these rich, famous guys are truly interested in getting into politics, why on earth do people think the Presidency is a place to start? Starting as a mayor of a decent sized city, or a governor, makes much more sense (a la Jesse Ventura). Ego has to be the only answer. They either need to be CEO and King, or nothing. Just like the empire they currently rule.
 
Cuban running would be a great example of life imitating art. Mark Cuban was the president in Sharknado 3. Even scarier, Ann Coulter played the VP. I heard this morning that Schwarzenegger is replacing Trump on 'The Apprentice'. That makes even less sense to me than Trump running for president.
 
You set up a system where money is the defining factor in who can get elected and you will invariably skew the list of participants towards those who have or can get money. This is a direct result of the idiotic Citizens United ruling.

You should not have to be rich, famous, or connected to lead. You should have the best ideas and the most leadership qualities.
 
And I'm sure Cuban and Trump will both tell you they have ideas in spades and a great history of leadership. I'm just saying that being rich in business doesn't necessarily translate to jumping right into being President and doing a great job.

Dead on correct with the plutocracy. With how the system is so based on money, why wouldn't Cuban entertain the thought? The funny thing is, he could possibly be right with how screwed the system is and tilted to money. He quite possibly could beat Hillary (and Sanders), and Trump head to head in a general election. He could certainly afford it. And his person? Just watch Shark Tank. The guy is definitely smart and cunning. Speaks very well and seems personable. If he hit a few hot buttons (like income equality) with any sort of populist message, he could have widespread appeal. It's just nuts though that it takes an eccentric billionaire to be able to attempt this.

Regarding the super long campaign season, if you'll recall in my previous posts on fixing the political system, one of my top ideas is to limit the entire campaign season to 3 months. In today's day and age with technology, there's no reason this can't happen. I'd even be willing to compromise to 6 months. But to have it essentially be 18 months is just insane.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Good Lord. While it's great he agrees income inequality is a huge issue, and him being a Democrat is interesting, we don't need Mark Cuban running for President.
Then why have you been so supportive of Trump’s running (not supportive of Trump, I understand, but supportive of his being in the race)? Why wouldn’t you think it would lead to other rich individuals thinking about running? You think Trump is entertaining, and asks questions others aren’t asking. Why wouldn’t other rich individuals not want in on that? Why would you imagine it would stop with Trump?

One of the reasons I've been so opposed to Trump is that, beyond his style and substance (or lack of same), he lowers the bar. If Trump is a viable candidate, then all kinds of other people are, too. Think about it. We have a law that says no one under age 35 can be President. Anatomically, the human brain is fully developed long before this age, so the age limit must be about experience, not maturity. The founders seemed to think no one under the age of 35 could be certain to have enough life experience to hold the office. But someone with no political experience whatsoever? No problem? What exactly is it that people under 35 are supposed to lack that Donald Trump has?

If these rich, famous guys are truly interested in getting into politics, why on earth do people think the Presidency is a place to start? Starting as a mayor of a decent sized city, or a governor, makes much more sense (a la Jesse Ventura). Ego has to be the only answer. They either need to be CEO and King, or nothing. Just like the empire they currently rule.
The same point I made about Fiorina, and which should also be made about Carson. There’s no logical reason to think that success in some area outside of politics qualifies you to go straight to the top. People who support candidates like these are basically saying that politics is so easy that no experience is necessary—or maybe that it’s so difficult that no experience is sufficient.

red_flanders said:
You should not have to be rich, famous, or connected to lead. You should have the best ideas and the most leadership qualities.
If you mean by connected, connected to the rich, I agree. But being connected in a general sense is an important attribute of a candidate. Good ideas come from being connected, from being in touch with what many other people are thinking and doing. There are some brilliant minds in academia who may have some very interesting ideas, but if they aren’t connected with people living in the actual world, these ideas may be completely unpractical, if not downright dangerous. I think that’s part of the problem with Carson. He's not an academic, but he thinks in great abstractions.

Alpe d'Huez said:
Regarding the super long campaign season, if you'll recall in my previous posts on fixing the political system, one of my top ideas is to limit the entire campaign season to 3 months. In today's day and age with technology, there's no reason this can't happen. I'd even be willing to compromise to 6 months. But to have it essentially be 18 months is just insane.
I don’t see how you can do that. You can’t make a law preventing someone from campaigning. You could shorten the primary season, and in particular, change them so that Iowa and NH don’t have disproportionate effect. You might also discourage organizations from holding official debates among candidates before a certain time. But you can’t tell someone he can’t announce his candidacy and go around giving speeches. And as soon as one does it, others will follow soon, because they don’t want one person to have the entire spotlight.

The length of the campaign season is basically limited by the candidates’ tolerance for what is a hard life, and the public’s willingness to pay attention. At a certain point, it can’t be stretched out any further. And just to play the devil’s advocate here, the long campaign season does have some positive effects. It gives ideas an extended period of time to be developed, debated, modified and used to spawn other ideas. It gives candidates an extended period of time to reveal both their best and their worst, and selects those who are most dedicated and enduring. I can completely understand how many good people are not willing to put up with it, but OTOH, these people might have trouble putting up with the demands of the Presidency, too.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
You guys give me a headache. :D

All in agreement and such.

My posts have been deleted in another thread a little worried the censor police are out. Either that Or since my memory is coleslaw,,,,, blackcat has somehow found a way to delete posts.
 
Well, part of my issue "supporting" Trump is honestly from a skewed view. Keep in mind that I used to vote for some Republicans when I lived in Oregon. Several actually. Mark Hatfield, Dave Fronmeyer, Norma Paulis. But these thoughtful centrist politicians have been replaced by the lunatic fringe from the extreme right. Even in Oregon, and certainly across the country. It's startling, unsettling. I'm hoping in a sense that Trump will help cause this to collapse, and some sense will come through in the GOP core when the dust settles. I don't really know that the Democratic party needs to be dismantled in the same way, and having Cuban run would accomplish that. Though I'm sure others would disagree.

I know, wishful thinking. Yes, we run the risk of Trump actually getting elected, I realize that.

Regarding campaign seasons. I'm very well aware that my campaign finance and lobby ideas are not orthodox, and would require a constitutional amendment to change. Never the less, as I noted last week in my list of suggestions, while you could find flaws in my plan, I would challenge anyone in the world to show me that it would not be an improvement over the system we currently have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY