2016 Likely Candidates for POTUS?

[Up All Night]

Texan # 2 announces Tomorrow !!

[albrecht]

Texan # 2 announces Tomorrow !!

Haven't you seen in new glasses, cut of suit, and accent change? He is no longer a Texan (excepting when he will campaign here and to select other audiences and states.)

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

I actually wouldn't mind a bachelor president.  He can devote his full attention to running the country without the distraction of a wife/kids.  Also, he can openly date women instead of having to be secretive about his mistresses like some past leaders.

[albrecht]

I actually wouldn't mind a bachelor president.  He can devote his full attention to running the country without the distraction of a wife/kids.  Also, he can openly date women instead of having to be secretive about his mistresses like some past leaders.

I wouldn't mind either and certainly less of a security threat than a President that is cheating, is secretly homosexual, etc. Though it would be too much news, and tabloid tv crap, if he was actively dating while as President. And maybe awkward protocol during State visits meeting with married other heads-of-state or royalty. But I agree with you. A non-issue for me.

[136 or 142]

Jeb Bush to announce on June 15.

That leaves just Bob Ehrlich and Jim Gilmore for the Reps and James Webb for the Democrats to announce.

[Up All Night]

Haven't you seen in new glasses, cut of suit, and accent change? He is no longer a Texan (excepting when he will campaign here and to select other audiences and states.)

You're right, he looks like he's from New Hampshire..... 

[albrecht]

You're right, he looks like he's from New Hampshire..... 

I might the minority but I hate when politicians change themselves to attempt to appeal to voters. People should on their policies, past performance, and honesty. Do people really fall for it? Hillary speaking in about 5 different accents depending on with whom she is speaking is another example. Do blacks really think she is "one of them" when she tries some southern black accent? Or trying to "trick" a person- what's the price of milk?! Or some millionaire blue-blood suddenly becoming the common-man. Frankly I would be disappointed if some multimillionaire is out at 711 buying a gallon of milk. He would be stupid if he was. I also don't like "dumbing down" speeches, I know many people are stupid and we have all kinds of immigrants who won't learn English but Presidential speeches have been getting more simplistic and with "easier words" for decades. I read that Obama's speeches, the lowest level so far but about even with Bush Jr, is at the ninth grade level. And ninth grade level in English these days is probably twelfth or college several decades ago in terms of what they read in class, etc.

[Up All Night]

I might the minority but I hate when politicians change themselves to attempt to appeal to voters. People should on their policies, past performance, and honesty. Do people really fall for it? Hillary speaking in about 5 different accents depending on with whom she is speaking is another example. Do blacks really think she is "one of them" when she tries some southern black accent?

The Dem Party candidate is like the "Pusher" of Drugs on the corner. They "Push" all of the Govt. "handout" programs. So, just like a junkie, going to his "Pusher" on the corner, even if the pusher has hcanged his accent or appearance, as long as the junkie can somehow identify that "person" as his pusher, then that's good enough. So, no matter what the candidate looks or sounds like, if they have a "D" by their name, then, "they're the one." Yes, that is a Junkie mentality, for sure.

[136 or 142]

The Dem Party candidate is like the "Pusher" of Drugs on the corner. They "Push" all of the Govt. "handout" programs. So, just like a junkie, going to his "Pusher" on the corner, even if the pusher has hcanged his accent or appearance, as long as the junkie can somehow identify that "person" as his pusher, then that's good enough. So, no matter what the candidate looks or sounds like, if they have a "D" by their name, then, "they're the one." Yes, that is a Junkie mentality, for sure.

Could you please rewrite this in something more closely resembling English.

[albrecht]

Could you please rewrite this in something more closely resembling English.

If I could presume to explain what the previous poster was saying, he is saying that the Democratic Party gets elected by giving away things to people to vote for them and thrives on individuals who cannot manage their own life, employment, health, or finances because, over generations, receiving all of this largesse has addicted them to government hand-outs and voting for the Democratic candidates.

[136 or 142]

If I could presume to explain what the previous poster was saying, he is saying that the Democratic Party gets elected by giving away things to people to vote for them and thrives on individuals who cannot manage their own life, employment, health, or finances because, over generations, receiving all of this largesse has addicted them to government hand-outs and voting for the Democratic candidates.

I thought that might have been what he meant, but I couldn't tell for sure.

It is completely incorrect.  The vast majority of people on welfare don't vote and the majority of those receiving social security vote Republican.  Even a substantial minority of those receiving welfare or EITC do vote vote Republican, especially in southern states due to their primary concern being social issues, and not economic issues, obviously those are nearly all white voters.

According to this website 54% of people who had full time jobs voted for the Democrats from 2004-2007 which more or less mirrored the population as a whole that voted Democratic at that time.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats either work full time or are now retired but did work full time during their lives.
http://super-economy.blogspot.ca/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html

[albrecht]

I thought that might have been what he meant, but I couldn't tell for sure.

It is completely incorrect.  The vast majority of people on welfare don't vote and the majority of those receiving social security vote Republican.  Even a substantial minority of those receiving welfare or EITC do vote vote Republican, especially in southern states due to their primary concern being social issues, and not economic issues, obviously those are nearly all white voters.

According to this website 54% of people who had full time jobs voted for the Democrats from 2004-2007 which more or less mirrored the population as a whole that voted Democratic at that time.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats either work full time or are now retired but did work full time during their lives.
http://super-economy.blogspot.ca/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html

I can't speak for the other poster but, in my mind, welfare is far more than just the poor person getting his EBT card. I include all the Federal bureaucrats doing unnecessary jobs in unnecessary departments, scientists making studies on ridiculous subjects with government grants, artists who get government grants, NPR ([pubic radio) and PBS (public television) who gets government $, schools and police departments who get Federal $ (should be paid from local and state taxes,) Foundations who get out of paying taxes, and MOST expensive of all the connected corporate interests who get sweet-heart deals, fat government contracts, lucrative public-private-partnerships, and government subsidies. I wouldn't include SS in it because we are forced by the government to pay in though when you get back more than you put it is problematic. I also wouldn't include some farm subsidies but would include many of them- especially the "green" ones and the obvious ones.

All Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, support the vast power and spending and government give-aways (welfare) because the bigger the government the more influence they have that is in it and they can reward their "friends" and even their voters or key constituencies (even if they don't vote they still support, riot, etc on behalf of their candidate.)  The only difference is the Democrats want to expand it everywhere and never seen a new expenditure, welfare program, or government agency they didn't like and the Republicans, mainly, want to stick with welfare to corporations only.

[136 or 142]

I can't speak for the other poster but, in my mind, welfare is far more than just the poor person getting his EBT card. I include all the Federal bureaucrats doing unnecessary jobs in unnecessary departments, scientists making studies on ridiculous subjects with government grants, artists who get government grants, NPR ([pubic radio) and PBS (public television) who gets government $, schools and police departments who get Federal $ (should be paid from local and state taxes,) Foundations who get out of paying taxes, and MOST expensive of all the connected corporate interests who get sweet-heart deals, fat government contracts, lucrative public-private-partnerships, and government subsidies. I wouldn't include SS in it because we are forced by the government to pay in though when you get back more than you put it is problematic. I also wouldn't include some farm subsidies but would include many of them- especially the "green" ones and the obvious ones.

All Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, support the vast power and spending and government give-aways (welfare) because the bigger the government the more influence they have that is in it and they can reward their "friends" and even their voters or key constituencies (even if they don't vote they still support, riot, etc on behalf of their candidate.)  The only difference is the Democrats want to expand it everywhere and never seen a new expenditure, welfare program, or government agency they didn't like and the Republicans, mainly, want to stick with welfare to corporations only.

You included 'corporate welfare' but you left out the welfare that mainly goes to southern states to military contractors.  Not only is most of this spending wasteful in that even the Pentagon opposes many of the procurements  but it sucks up engineers and scientists who could be spending their time on projects with genuine value.

I am aware that there are military contractors in every state precisely so that they can lobby politicians everywhere, but I believe they are mostly located in the south east.

[albrecht]

You included 'corporate welfare' but you left out the welfare that mainly goes to southern states to military contractors.  Not only is most of this spending wasteful in that even the Pentagon opposes many of the procurements  but it sucks up engineers and scientists who could be spending their time on projects with genuine value.

I am aware that there are military contractors in every state precisely so that they can lobby politicians everywhere, but I believe they are mostly located in the south east.

Military contractors are usually corporations so would be included in welfare if the materiel is not necessary. National defense though is one of the few things the Federal government should be doing. However, since we aren't (we have an open-border with a near failed narco-state) and instead send troops to defend other countries and their borders I will say much of the spending is welfare. I won't say that the salaries for the individuals in the military is a form of welfare though and they should be higher, but if we abided by our Founders' ideas we would not need this many troops.

ps: you say "Southern States" getting most of the government contracts, that could be true but, if so one the reason is labor is cheaper (or was before the collapse and fiscal crisis in formerly strong manufacturing areas in the North) because of less unionization, more tort reform, and "right to work" laws so business of all types tend to flee there. If those businesses, or whatever type, get a government contract than the money will be going to the "Southern States."

[136 or 142]

Military contractors are usually corporations so would be included in welfare if the materiel is not necessary. National defense though is one of the few things the Federal government should be doing. However, since we aren't (we have an open-border with a near failed narco-state) and instead send troops to defend other countries and their borders I will say much of the spending is welfare. I won't say that the salaries for the individuals in the military is a form of welfare though and they should be higher, but if we abided by our Founders' ideas we would not need this many troops.

ps: you say "Southern States" getting most of the government contracts, that could be true but, if so one the reason is labor is cheaper (or was before the collapse and fiscal crisis in formerly strong manufacturing areas in the North) because of less unionization, more tort reform, and "right to work" laws so business of all types tend to flee there. If those businesses, or whatever type, get a government contract than the money will be going to the "Southern States."

I highly doubt the engineers and scientists in the southern states are paid less than any where else, but the support workers may be.

There aren't actually  many businesses that 'flee' to these southern states, especially those in the 'value added' sectors (Virginia and North Carolina being major exceptions). For instance, although Mississippi has a population roughly 40% of Washington State, its economy is only 20-25% the size of Washington State's.

Washington State is possibly the fastest growing state that hasn't benefited from oil or the natural gas fracking boom, even though it is a Democratic dominated state.  Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas and several others are all basket cases even though they are Republican dominated states.

The idea that Republicans are better for business is completely false, as is the laughable notion that a person, merely by being a conservative, is an expert in economics.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Having once, several years ago, chatted with a welder who was a proud confederate, I am confident extrapolating from his salary that blue collar workers in the southern states don't earn nearly what they do north of the Mason-Dixon.  He was making considerably less than the welders in our shop.  I would be happy to come on Fox news as an expert on the subject.

[albrecht]

I highly doubt the engineers and scientists in the southern states are paid less than any where else, but the support workers may be.

There aren't actually  many businesses that 'flee' to these southern states, especially those in the 'value added' sectors (Virginia and North Carolina being major exceptions). For instance, although Mississippi has a population roughly 40% of Washington State, its economy is only 20-25% the size of Washington State's.

Washington State is possibly the fastest growing state that hasn't benefited from oil or the natural gas fracking boom, even though it is a Democratic dominated state.  Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas and several others are all basket cases even though they are Republican dominated states.

The idea that Republicans are better for business is completely false, as is the laughable notion that a person, merely by being a conservative, is an expert in economics.

For sure there are a lot of things to be considered (education of workers, demographics (especially in states you mention Lousiana/Mississippi), taxes, environmental regulations, legal, how much "stuff" can the company get from the state in terms of tax abatement/contracts, logistics, etc) and simple geographics (Kansas would have a much harder time being a foreign import hub- though I recall there was going to be some NAFTA FTZ somewhere around there with a "super highway." But you can easily see the population and business population shift away from what were centers of production/living to Southern and Western states. There was a reason your vaunted Boeing didn't move to Chicago and are shutting down their Long Beach facility and moving IT jobs from Seattle to SC and Virginia and also were convicted by the WTO for getting billions in subsidies from the government.
From personal experience high-tech workers are paid roughly similarly (unless they negotiate better) but the REAL income (minus the cost-of-living, state income taxes, and real estate prices) is much better in, say in Austin than in SF. And the HB-1 workers (until they know better) usually make less than workers already here with same qualifications and stuff outsourced to India make far less (again though their cost of living is far lower.)

I agree that being conservative doesn't make you an economic expert, and clearly vice-versa. Are there any real economic experts  The track-record of predictions over history, or even short-term, seem rather suspect.

[albrecht]

Sorry, dude.  You never closed one of your parentheses and it really messed me up.

Ha. Dang it. Probably threw off my whole point, maybe, which is economic "experts" are often wrong and maybe the people actually participating to create the economy (workers, business owners, shareholders, etc) do a better job than the government(s) and it is fluid thing and top-down central planning might not be the way to go. Businesses/people will move to best available areas (barring government interference or natural barriers.) -close paren-
ps: I don't knock Washington. Love it there. Was a bad thing, in terms of government pork and influence, when y'all voted Foley out. The politics is interesting between the West and Seattle etc area of the state.

[136 or 142]

For sure there are a lot of things to be considered (education of workers, demographics (especially in states you mention Lousiana/Mississippi), taxes, environmental regulations, legal, how much "stuff" can the company get from the state in terms of tax abatement/contracts, logistics, etc) and simple geographics (Kansas would have a much harder time being a foreign import hub- though I recall there was going to be some NAFTA FTZ somewhere around there with a "super highway." But you can easily see the population and business population shift away from what were centers of production/living to Southern and Western states. There was a reason your vaunted Boeing didn't move to Chicago and are shutting down their Long Beach facility and moving IT jobs from Seattle to SC and Virginia and also were convicted by the WTO for getting billions in subsidies from the government.
From personal experience high-tech workers are paid roughly similarly (unless they negotiate better) but the REAL income (minus the cost-of-living, state income taxes, and real estate prices) is much better in, say in Austin than in SF. And the HB-1 workers (until they know better) usually make less than workers already here with same qualifications and stuff outsourced to India make far less (again though their cost of living is far lower.)

I agree that being conservative doesn't make you an economic expert, and clearly vice-versa. Are there any real economic experts  The track-record of predictions over history, or even short-term, seem rather suspect.

Kansas City is actually the second largest railway hub in the United States (probably after Chicago).  Though that is Kansas City, Missouri, I would expect there would be a lot of benefit crossing over to the state of Kansas.

[albrecht]

Kansas City is actually the second largest railway hub in the United States (probably after Chicago).  Though that is Kansas City, Missouri, I would expect there would be a lot of benefit crossing over to the state of Kansas.

Sure, but they don't get many container ships docking there. (That was my point.) Some cities due to location or due to trading partners will naturally have certain industries and therefore jobs. And has type of trade change things can move. (Spokane used to be a huge railway hub and repair facility.)

BTW there were plans to by-pass many US Pacific ports (supposedly due to the congestion but could also be the labor costs and frequent threats of strikes) and bring goods from the Orient into Mexico (a new port in Punta Colonet and expand current one in Lazaro Cardenas) and then up a "super highway" (controversial in Texas because it was taking some land by eminent domain) to a FTZ in KC Hub. Not sure what all is the status (the "super highway" was supposedly shut down) but I think the port improvements and railway stuff, and KC FTZ is still going. Not sure if it really going to be as big as planned or if the Colonet port will happen and, so far, hasn't seemed to effect US ports. Mexico is fairly corrupt and unstable so, who knows?
http://gcaptain.com/mexicos-900-million-mega-container/

[136 or 142]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/05/webb_says_decision_about_16_run_coming_soon.html

[Up All Night]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkJ3IjJDWcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QVAUFnckTU

[136 or 142]

Similarly the otherwise rather moderate Lindsey Graham clearly tries to overcompensate with questions over his sexuality with his warmongering. Shame because on most issues, not only is Graham moderate and thoughtful he is also a very funny person.

[albrecht]

I would suspect Nader is going to get some criticism from the usual feminist types with that bit on Hillary, I know if a "conservative" or "right-wing" pundit or politician talked about women being naturally nurturing or peaceful and different from men they would get "stereotyping!" "sexist!" "Joan of Arc!" "Bodiccea!" and so forth. I think he is correct in his point about Hillary and in his general "sexist" statement however I would point out that other politicians do this, particularly in the Republican party during the primaries, all trying to one-up the other's wild statement. (bomb, bomb, Iran etc.) The other day Mark Dice had another funny video of Obama supporters signing a petition to "nuke Russia." Now, granted, he goes to the beach or college campuses in California to make those videos but it seems there is a large percentage of the population that accepts whatever jingoistic statements about war with another country and also will sign anything if told "Obama supports it."

ps: remember the great and hilarious Phil Hendrie bit about Ralph Nader being a homosexual with Hendrie "guest" Doug Dangger the gay reporter? "Close enough for rock n roll. His belt matches his shoes." and threat of a "gay strike" if Nader didn't poll 25%? "See Phil, all your firefighters, your EMTs, your cattlemen and ranchers are going on strike. Want to fly? Well the majority of pilot are gay and will be on strike. Phil you are building a pool, right? Yes, yes I am. Well nope because all construction labor will be on strike."

[Up All Night]

Nader discusses upcoming bids for the Presidency: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGX3oa4BCss

[FightTheFuture]

The Donald is officially running.

Long Live the Donald.

[Up All Night]

The Donald is officially running.

Long Live the Donald.

With The Donald in the WH, I feel all of our embassies around the world, are going to get a little larger...

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I'm not sure why no one is discussing Jeb Bush's announcement yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/jeb-bush-presidential-campaign.html



Oops, wrong one.

[WOTR]

I really want to see Americans voting for a Bush dynasty and a Clinton dynasty.  Hillary can get it this time for 8 years then hand it off to Jeb.  By that time Chelsea Clinton should be old enough to take a shot and we can toss in the occasional Kennedy for good measure.  There really is no need to have anymore than two or possibly three families run the US. 

I have now heard that Jeb is "all in."  Is Hillary confirmed as well?  Nothing would make me happier than having only those two in the final running.  It would provide no end of amusement while pondering why America had a revolution when they really just want royal familie(s) to rule over them...

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I have now heard that Jeb is "all in."  Is Hillary confirmed as well?  Nothing would make me happier than having only those two in the final running.  It would provide no end of amusement while pondering why America had a revolution when they really just want royal familie(s) to rule over them...

Yeah, Hillary announced several weeks ago.