• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

What will you do?

  • Not vote

    Votes: 5 4.9%

  • Vote for Clinton

    Votes: 33 32.4%

  • Vote for Bush

    Votes: 28 27.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 3.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 32 31.4%
  • Total voters
    102
OrphanSlug said:
That is still not the point, it is merely opinion that a 3rd Bush or 2nd Clinton would do well. Not one that I share, you compound that with my concerns for aristocracy and we have a clear reason to be concerned. One that you rather stupidly ignore.
Click to expand...

But it is the point. You stipulated that if the election came down to Bush v Clinton, we have a problem with aristocracy. The candidates would have gone through the primary process in their respective parties and come out the other side. Your problem did center specifically on the two of them winning their nominations. You're whining about their last names.
 
Fiddytree said:
But it is the point. You stipulated that if the election came down to Bush v Clinton, we have a problem with aristocracy. The candidates would have gone through the primary process in their respective parties and come out the other side. Your problem did center specifically on the two of them winning their nominations. You're whining about their last names.
Click to expand...

No, that is still not it but enjoy the ignorance of thinking we are not developing one hell of a problem here.
 
Perotista said:
I think there comes a time, at least those who are not hard core Reps or Dems that they just get tired of all this business as usual.
Click to expand...

That is hopefully a more common feeling than it used to be. How can we ever hope to change jack in America if we continue to elect people who represent business as usual?
 
Risky Thicket said:
That is hopefully a more common feeling than it used to be. How can we ever hope to change jack in America if we continue to elect people who represent business as usual?
Click to expand...

We can't, that is the sad part of all of this. Both parties owe their heart and soul to the money folks, to corporations, wall street, special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors. Neither party will do a thing to upset their sources of campaign cash.

Oh the rhetoric might be different, but it is always with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge assurances to those who provide the money they won't step on their toes.
 
Perotista said:
I think there comes a time, at least those who are not hard core Reps or Dems that they just get tired of all this business as usual.
Click to expand...

That's probably because they remember a time not too long ago when the parties actually compromised with each other to get things done for the good of the people in this country, and they liked that idea. It must have been a childish thought, though, since it only seems to happen these days when they have to vote on something like exempting themselves from laws that the rest of us have to live by, and other personal self-interest things like perks and such. No partisan thinking there! :2mad:
 
Perotista said:
We can't, that is the sad part of all of this. Both parties owe their heart and soul to the money folks, to corporations, wall street, special interests, lobbyist, huge money donors. Neither party will do a thing to upset their sources of campaign cash.

Oh the rhetoric might be different, but it is always with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge assurances to those who provide the money they won't step on their toes.
Click to expand...

Ok, and this is not profound, we've known it forever, who's the guy that said there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties, you always know, lol. Anyway, it really and truly is way past time for a third party (at least) independents are in the upper thirty % now. If they really would vote independent, one of the other parties, Green, Libertarian, what have you, just imagine what that would do to the two party albatross.
 
polgara said:
That's probably because they remember a time not too long ago when the parties actually compromised with each other to get things done for the good of the people in this country, and they liked that idea. It must have been a childish thought, though, since it only seems to happen these days when they have to vote on something like exempting themselves from laws that the rest of us have to live by, and other personal self-interest things like perks and such. No partisan thinking there! :2mad:
Click to expand...

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have been working on my senate update. I decide since it is getting close to the election, instead of waiting until 1 November for my next update, I will do on one the 10th and 20th of this month, plus my final on 1 November.
 
I don't think that the nation could survive another Bush, and the neo-cons who front them, in the White House. Thus, I would have to vote in a way that would prevent this, meaning supporting the Democrats for the first time in a presidential election. I say this, still seeing them both anathema to my belief in limited government.
 
Montecresto said:
Ok, and this is not profound, we've known it forever, who's the guy that said there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties, you always know, lol. Anyway, it really and truly is way past time for a third party (at least) independents are in the upper thirty % now. If they really would vote independent, one of the other parties, Green, Libertarian, what have you, just imagine what that would do to the two party albatross.
Click to expand...

George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."

Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
 
Perotista said:
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have been working on my senate update. I decide since it is getting close to the election, instead of waiting until 1 November for my next update, I will do on one the 10th and 20th of this month, plus my final on 1 November.
Click to expand...

I'll be very interested in reading those! :thumbs:

My neighbor just called to remind me that there's a big lunar eclipse at 0445 tomorrow morning. It's supposed to be raining here, though, so I don't know if we could see it in this area even if I set my alarm. :sigh:
 
polgara said:
I'll be very interested in reading those! :thumbs:

My neighbor just called to remind me that there's a big lunar eclipse at 0445 tomorrow morning. It's supposed to be raining here, though, so I don't know if we could see it in this area even if I set my alarm. :sigh:
Click to expand...

I never heard of that. But I sure ain't getting up that early.
 
Perotista said:
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."

Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
Click to expand...

It's not letting me give you a "like" on this post, so I'm doing it this way for all your hard work!
 
We may as well have a monarchy if these are our 'choices.' Bush III vs Clinton II. Does anyone really believe this is democracy?
 
Perotista said:
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."

Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
Click to expand...

Cool, I've seen that before, was that you that posted it?
 
chromium said:
We may as well have a monarchy if these are our 'choices.' Bush III vs Clinton II. Does anyone really believe this is democracy?
Click to expand...

That's what I've been asking?
 
faithful_servant said:
Set aside his family and explain what it is that you dislike about Jeb Bush. Everything negative I hear about him is either standard "He's a conservative, therefore I hate him." or "He's a Bush, therefore I hate him." Set aside the rhetoric and preconceived notions and look at the man and let us know what issues you have with him.
Click to expand...

he's a politician. Do i need another reason?
 
polgara said:
It's not letting me give you a "like" on this post, so I'm doing it this way for all your hard work!
Click to expand...

It's not hard work, it is work of joy. I love messing with politics, it is right up my line. I love history and I love making predictions, both work in conjunction with the other. If it wasn't fun, I wouldn't do it.
 
Montecresto said:
Cool, I've seen that before, was that you that posted it?
Click to expand...

It probably was. I have all sorts of things like that I keep track of. Usually I post this thing to show the dissatisfaction of the electorate with both parties. It is sad when both parties unfavorables are 60% or more. But even if one hates both parties, what is one going to do on election day? Stay home? I didn't and have voted third party in five of the last six elections.

The problem is the Democrats and the Republicans have a monopoly on our election system. Both parties write the election laws as a mutual protection act and those special interests etc. who donate their millions upon million donate only to the two major parties. So any third party is starting about a billion dollars or more behind the big two.
 
Perotista said:
It probably was. I have all sorts of things like that I keep track of. Usually I post this thing to show the dissatisfaction of the electorate with both parties. It is sad when both parties unfavorables are 60% or more. But even if one hates both parties, what is one going to do on election day? Stay home? I didn't and have voted third party in five of the last six elections.

The problem is the Democrats and the Republicans have a monopoly on our election system. Both parties write the election laws as a mutual protection act and those special interests etc. who donate their millions upon million donate only to the two major parties. So any third party is starting about a billion dollars or more behind the big two.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Montecresto said:
I totally agree.
Click to expand...

Actually thinking about it, when it comes to the big two they just aren't that big anymore. Oh, they are because of our election laws and money, but as for those who identify with them, they aren't. Independents is real close to 50% of the electorate. Look at it this way, the major parties have been on the down hill of things. From 1930 to 1960, 80% or more Americans identified themselves with the two major parties. By 1990 that was down below 70% and in 2011 the two party strength fell to below 60%. I would be a bit surprise if by 2016 their strength is below 50%.

Yet there is no alternative the way our system is. Both parties put up bum candidates and expect us to like it and to vote for them. Like fools, most of us do. So we have only ourselves to blame for the current situation. We have received exactly what we deserve.
 
Perotista said:
George Wallace while running as the American Independent Party back in 1968 said, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties."

Actually according to Gallup, as of 7 September of this year the party affiliation is broken down 26% identify or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, 25% with the Republican Party and 47% profess to be independents. Of those 47% who say they are independents, 16% lean towards the Democrats, 22% towards the Republicans and 9% are classified as true independent. Here is the history of Party affiliation since 1935, just in case you are interested.

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Everyone liked IKE. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52%, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and as low as 30% which the Democrats registered in 2011 and 2013. The Republicans all time low was 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office in 1975 because of Watergate. Today’s mark of 26% for the Democrats ties their record low which was recorded on August 14th of 2011.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
Click to expand...

It's truly worth noting that George Wallace said this in large part because the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties rejected Wallace's continued advocacy for segregation. His political party was formed with the explicit purpose of pushing his segregationist agenda after it was rejected by the Democratic party in the preceding years.

His opinion on this might be, ah, colored.
 
Sherman123 said:
It's truly worth noting that George Wallace said this in large part because the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties rejected Wallace's continued advocacy for segregation. His political party was formed with the explicit purpose of pushing his segregationist agenda after it was rejected by the Democratic party in the preceding years.

His opinion on this might be, ah, colored.
Click to expand...

Cute way of putting it. But I think when one steps back, puts cotton in their ears or puts on some ear plugs to stop the rhetoric of both parties and just watches how they govern, you will see little difference. There is another saying that I am unsure who said it, but it goes, "There is only one political party in the United States, but it has two wings. The Republican Wing and the Democratic Wing."
 
Insanity: repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

As long as there's an alternative to voting for an R or a D, I'll chose the alternative.
 
I'd probably vote Libertarian on that one... but to be totally honest I probably will regardless who the two mainstream candidates are.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, I would say that is a fantastic argument against and concern about aristocracy. It does not matter if we are talking about a 3rd Bush in office or a 2nd Clinton, there must be somoene out there that does not represent the polarization these families clearly bring to the table. Capabilities of course comes into play, not necessarily all one or the other but it would be moronic to not see the condition we are setting ourselves up for with political family dynasty after dynasty. In a way that also applies to the Kennedy's and several other families that have found a way that through family have a foot in the door to the political scene.
Click to expand...

So you could have the most qualified person in the world running for office and if she was part of a "dynasty", you wouldn't vote for her??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom