Started By
Message
2 Biggest issues for me in 2016 presidential election
Posted on 3/26/15 at 8:54 am
Posted on 3/26/15 at 8:54 am
1. Supreme Court nominations - a couple of them are getting long in the tooth. in the next 9-10 years we could see as many as 3 seats come available. That's huge. The 2 Bush's are repsponsible for 2 of the worst justices right now - Scalia and Thomas - so Bush is out for me. On the other hand, I don't want another super liberal/progressive unless that person replaces Ginsburg. I'm looking for another centrist like Kennedy. Having 2 "swing votes" with the 2nd maybe leaning a little left to counter Kennedy's right meanings would be good. In that regard, Hillary is a decent candidate. She's too hawkish for me, and I just generally don't like her. Which brings me to #2.
2. Iran, and the middle east in general. The neo-cons are already lining up on the right to start pushing for another invasion, or some type of military action against Iran. Every republican candidate will support that during their campaigns, excelt for Rand Paul. Are there enough Rlejblican voters that would support a candidate against military action? I seriously doubt it, but he'd be my choice today if I was forced to pick a Relublican candidate.
What do you guys think?
2. Iran, and the middle east in general. The neo-cons are already lining up on the right to start pushing for another invasion, or some type of military action against Iran. Every republican candidate will support that during their campaigns, excelt for Rand Paul. Are there enough Rlejblican voters that would support a candidate against military action? I seriously doubt it, but he'd be my choice today if I was forced to pick a Relublican candidate.
What do you guys think?
15
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:02 am to The Spleen
1) Which candidate does not have a pussy?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:06 am to The Spleen
quote:
What do you guys think?
After all these years and all this hardening of the heart (not to mention the arteries) I still tend to think that judges should be liberals.
Everyone else should not be.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:11 am to The Spleen
18 trillion debt
Illegals
Entitlements
Obamacare
Patriot act
Not violating the Constitution and overstepping the law
Stuff that will have a more direct impact and opposite of what we have had
Illegals
Entitlements
Obamacare
Patriot act
Not violating the Constitution and overstepping the law
Stuff that will have a more direct impact and opposite of what we have had
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:14 am to The Spleen
I am not saying that I am really for another military invasion, but our foreign policy must be geared around keeping threats against the United States at a minimum in regards to terrorism. Groups like ISIS will attack us on our own soil if we do not have some sort of presence or proactivity in the middle east which is why I am hesitant on a candidate like Rand Paul who appears to believe in almost an isolationist ideology in regards to foreign policy. I like pretty much everything about him but I fear he could pose a risk to our national security ultimately.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:15 am to The Spleen
quote:
1. Supreme Court nominations - a couple of them are getting long in the tooth. in the next 9-10 years we could see as many as 3 seats come available. That's huge. The 2 Bush's are repsponsible for 2 of the worst justices right now - Scalia and Thomas - so Bush is out for me. On the other hand, I don't want another super liberal/progressive unless that person replaces Ginsburg. I'm looking for another centrist like Kennedy. Having 2 "swing votes" with the 2nd maybe leaning a little left to counter Kennedy's right meanings would be good. In that regard, Hillary is a decent candidate. She's too hawkish for me, and I just generally don't like her. Which brings me to #2
1) You just hate Thomas because he's black.
2) You just hate Scalia because he's brown.
quote:
2. Iran, and the middle east in general. The neo-cons are already lining up on the right to start pushing for another invasion, or some type of military action against Iran. Every republican candidate will support that during their campaigns, excelt for Rand Paul. Are there enough Rlejblican voters that would support a candidate against military action? I seriously doubt it, but he'd be my choice today if I was forced to pick a Relublican candidate.
No republican president is going to war with Iran. We literally don't have the military that can do it, and no GOP contender is going to be able to pull another 20 divisions of soldiers out of their a-hole, because that's what it would take. Iran is larger than Iraq or Afghanistan, and is mountainous as all get out. The quick, decisive victory we had against Iraq (don't get fricking dramatic, you know I mean the invasion phase) was due to Iraq's geography of open desert and few rivers, which plays into our strengths. Iran is a fricking nightmare of mountain ranges, rivers, and total lack of logistical support via land. We would have to supply several Corps of mechanized troops via goat paths, because that's almost all there is between Iraq and Iran. Afghanistan is impossible to invade from, due to even worse logistical hurdles.
The most that would happen is drone strikes. Is that such a big change from now?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:31 am to cokebottleag
I'm not sure if Supreme court justices are a factor in my vote for president....Most presidents appoint 2, maybe 3 if they are lucky. There are currently 4 who were born in the 1930's, so maybe this next president will really turn the tide. You never know if they will serve til they die or retire, so I don't pay it much mind.
Foreign Policy is one of my top indicators for a president. We spend more than 400 billion more than the next nation per year. In fact, if you combine the top 14 countries after us, they barely combine to reach our military expenditures. It is the highest portion of the budget, by a lot.
As for Iran...I'm not too worried. I think Obama will come to an agreement this term.
Which brings me to a question. Why should the US have nuclear weapons if we don't allow other countries to?
Foreign Policy is one of my top indicators for a president. We spend more than 400 billion more than the next nation per year. In fact, if you combine the top 14 countries after us, they barely combine to reach our military expenditures. It is the highest portion of the budget, by a lot.
As for Iran...I'm not too worried. I think Obama will come to an agreement this term.
Which brings me to a question. Why should the US have nuclear weapons if we don't allow other countries to?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:34 am to 5thTiger
Yeah.. we should a few to N. Korea, Syria and Yemen.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:40 am to Alahunter
quote:
Yeah.. we should a few to N. Korea, Syria and Yemen
Not sure if typo...but I was being a bit ironic. We wonder why said countries hate us. It is like how some poor people view the rich. I don't think nuclear weapons will ever be used in my lifetime, so its a mute point.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:48 am to 5thTiger
I think Obama reaches a deal with Ian as well, but I read this morning that Scott Walker said he would tear up any deal Obama reaches his first day in office. Maybe he's being hyperbolic, but that's not a trait I want in a president.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:56 am to The Spleen
In reality, the only "issue" will be first woman US president. Millions of people will start there and only then rationalize supporting the other issues.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:58 am to The Spleen
quote:
What do you guys think?
I think you are a Democrat. As such you must be pretty happy with Obama. Most of us aren't.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:04 am to 5thTiger
quote:
Not sure if typo...but I was being a bit ironic. We wonder why said countries hate us. It is like how some poor people view the rich. I don't think nuclear weapons will ever be used in my lifetime, so its a mute point.
First off, why is it bad if some countries hate us? It seems like this is assumed to be something we need to correct. To be honest, I'm unconvinced why it matters.
Secondly, we do not want other nations to have nuclear weapons because then we cannot invade them and depose their government if we need to.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:16 am to davesdawgs
I definitely lean left on a lot of issues, but don't identify myself as a Democrat, and no I'm not entire happy with Obama's term as president. Though my criticisms of him are probably a lot different than most here.
I won't say never, but there are only a few instances where I would vote for Hillary, and it would depend who she's up agaiNst from the republican side. Bush? Not giving at all. Cruz? I'd vote for Hillary. Walker? Not voting. Paul? I'd probably vote for Paul. am hopeful another Dem candidate emerges.
I won't say never, but there are only a few instances where I would vote for Hillary, and it would depend who she's up agaiNst from the republican side. Bush? Not giving at all. Cruz? I'd vote for Hillary. Walker? Not voting. Paul? I'd probably vote for Paul. am hopeful another Dem candidate emerges.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:19 am to The Spleen
quote:
What do you guys think?
I think you're a far left wing liberal progressive socialist trying to masquerade as a libertarian or moderate democrat.
Wanna know what gave you away?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:29 am to scrooster
No
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:31 am to cokebottleag
quote:
we do not want other nations to have nuclear weapons because then we cannot invade them and depose their government if we need to.
Oh, thats right, overthrow governments and their democratic process when we aren't happy with their decisions.
I'm not saying that countries won't hate us, but I laugh when people wonder WHY they hate us.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:36 am to The Spleen
2 biggest issues for me? really only one.
Shitheads. Shitheads everywhere.
I cant see one candidate or potential candidate who can rescure this country from the frickups of the current administration or the one before it.
Shitheads. Shitheads everywhere.
I cant see one candidate or potential candidate who can rescure this country from the frickups of the current administration or the one before it.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:39 am to The Spleen
quote:
The 2 Bush's are repsponsible for 2 of the worst justices right now - Scalia and Thomas - so Bush is out for me.
Spleen, you know we differ greatly, but respectfully.
That is the stupidest fvcking thing you've ever posted and you're a smart dude. There are 3 others in there RIGHT NOW who actively want to change and create law from the bench and that's completely not how the constitution intended for the SC to operate. I'm not saying I like Scalia or Thomas, but I can point to several worse examples.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:57 am to The Spleen
1. Tax Reform. The current code is overcomplicated and therefore ripe for exploitation from special interests. Lower rates, cut exemptions and some tax credits, significantly lower corporate rates. A tax code to spur investment and more fair to all players.
2. Foreign Policy related to Asia. It's the region growing most thanks to globalization. I need to know what vision a candidate has toward Asia.
SCOTUS is important, but the type of justice will have a lot to do with party elected and any nomination will have a dog fight in congress that will keep the super crazies out. I'm hoping to get the 50% success rate the last two Presidents got. Roberts (though I'm not 100% happy) and Kagan were good additions. Alito and Sotomayer not so much.
I'm not worried about an Iranian invasion, because it's a logistical nightmare no reasonable leader would get us in-tangled in. Think Iraq was difficult to secure post invasion? Even if we were able to take Tehran, securing a city of 10+ million in the fricking mountains is practically impossible.
2. Foreign Policy related to Asia. It's the region growing most thanks to globalization. I need to know what vision a candidate has toward Asia.
SCOTUS is important, but the type of justice will have a lot to do with party elected and any nomination will have a dog fight in congress that will keep the super crazies out. I'm hoping to get the 50% success rate the last two Presidents got. Roberts (though I'm not 100% happy) and Kagan were good additions. Alito and Sotomayer not so much.
I'm not worried about an Iranian invasion, because it's a logistical nightmare no reasonable leader would get us in-tangled in. Think Iraq was difficult to secure post invasion? Even if we were able to take Tehran, securing a city of 10+ million in the fricking mountains is practically impossible.
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 10:58 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News