US Presidential Contenders

[Lorizael]

There aren't any candidates who even approximate my real views, so it's simply not possible for me to cast a principled protest vote. My strategy with voting is to put the kinds of people in office who will make noises about the kinds of things I think are important so that children will be raised in an environment that makes them predisposed to being brainwashed into believing my insane ideas. I don't actually vote for candidates because I think they will create the kind of society I want to live in, or even because I think they will be enact good policies.

For example, Obamacare is a pretty awful variety of universal healthcare and I don't particularly support it as a policy, but I think its mere continued existence increases the chances that people in the US grow up with the ingrained assumption that society should, at a minimum, guarantee you a healthful life.

[Buster's Uncle]

Well yes.

I can't recall a whole handful of candidates for anything in front of me for whom I had enthusiasm, and I been at it since 1983.  (I once voted twice for president in the general - my senile maternal grampa remembered that it was election day, and needed help with his ballot, so I checked off Bob Dole and canceled out my own vote for Clinton - Bob Dole is not terrible at all and I can live with that easily.  [Fortunately, Grampa lost interest after President, 'cause Jesse Helms was next, and I'm VERY not okay with that.])

But THIS is AMERICA, and if all they ever give me is clowns, dummies who are wrong, evil people and ineptitude, if NO ONE ever represents ME, well DAMMIT, I AM GOING TO BE HEARD on whom I think is the lesser of two evils - or what my protest vote is.  It is my duty as a citizen, and frankly, rather a pleasure, given the stupid world I'm trapped in.

I'm one of those Hillary haters. I cross party lines to vote against her. She just spikes my blood pressure every time I see her on TV. She seems one of the most insincere people I've ever seen. The woman who refused to give her healthcare task force staff enough hours to qualify for healthcare. Power-hungry and untrustworthy.

Well, you get the idea.

I don't want another Clinton or Bush in the race ( and I admired George the elder for his career of public service ) . Bring any of them back is bringing back old boy staffers.

We think a lot alike.  I recall actually defending the real George Bush to someone presumably left of me back in the day - "He's not that bad", "He has some good points" and tepid stuff like that, but defense nonetheless.

He wasn't all bad - and yes, the career in public service; he actually tried to be a real ambassador to China, and his presidency demonstrated that he learned a lot.

[Rusty Edge]

At this stage the field is full of potential.

Another issue I have with a Clinton or Bush is that I don't think that they would be true reformers, and I think the government has a lot of room for meaningful reform.

Real Reformers-

Scott Walker http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Walker  is declaring today. He's the governor of Wisconsin, and is famous/notorious for reforming. The fundamental question is "Do the taxpayers exist for the benefit of the government workers, or do government workers exist for the benefit of the taxpayers?"  Beyond his credentials as a fiscal conservative and proven campaigner, Walker is the son of a Baptist preacher, and you can predict his social opinions from that.

Mark Everson http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Everson is a former bureaucrat who has grand ideas for banking and IRS reform. He promises to be a one and done president. I think he and his ideas need more attention.

Rand Paul http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Paul/ seems to be as libertarian as we are likely to get in the GOP this time.  I don't think he has the disposition and integrity of his father, but right now I think he is one of the last, best hopes for keeping us out of war in the Middle East.

Bernie Sanders http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Sanders/ recognizes  both the oligarchy, and the evil of the Citizen's united decision which grants personal rights to corporations. He would work to overturn it with a constitutional amendment.

Well, I have problems with all of these guys. My question is, among the declared candidates, who would you consider a sincere reformer, and which are their issues?

[Buster's Uncle]

I'll have to find out more about Scott Walker, then. Pretty sure I never heard of Mark Everson, but your endorsement carries weight with me...

You put your finger on the thing I think about Rand Paul, especially v. his possessed-of-infinitely-more-integrity-and-guts dad, except I'd assert much more strongly what a chimp he is.  Dr. Ron's frequently wrong, but he's one of the very, very few with the guts to be standing up to the fascism in public before it got popular and safe to do so, and I admire him intensely.  I wouldn't take ten of his boy, not 100, in trade for him - it's the Bushes again.

[Rusty Edge]

I'm talking about legitimate reformers. I don't know if I want any of them to actually become president, so much as bring their ideas to the campaign and debates.  If Everson is appointed secretary of the Treasury, that's a win.

I'm sure you'll hear more about Walker, likely in terms of messiah or anti-Christ. I watched his announcement speech, and it was refreshing to see a fellow give the entire thing without a teleprompter. I suspect he is Jeb's worst nightmare, or will be. Walker is easy to misunderestimate.

The trouble is his Baptist Bundle of views. Kinda strong on the pro-life/sanctity of marriage stuff. Enough to write off the gays and lots of women. Probably not enough to stop him from getting the Republican nomination. When it comes to the middle east, he sounds like an articulate version of Santorum. That scares me, but that might be another thread.

[Lorizael]

Pretty sure I never heard of Mark Everson, but your endorsement carries weight with me...

Mark Everson was the lead designer (or something) on an alt civ game called Clash of Civilizations being developed a decade and a half-ish ago. Anyone in the civ community gets my vote.

[Buster's Uncle]

Yes; I'm sure that's the same Mark Everson.

I'm talking about legitimate reformers. I don't know if I want any of them to actually become president, so much as bring their ideas to the campaign and debates.  If Everson is appointed secretary of the Treasury, that's a win.

I'm sure you'll hear more about Walker, likely in terms of messiah or anti-Christ. I watched his announcement speech, and it was refreshing to see a fellow give the entire thing without a teleprompter. I suspect he is Jeb's worst nightmare, or will be. Walker is easy to misunderestimate.

The trouble is his Baptist Bundle of views. Kinda strong on the pro-life/sanctity of marriage stuff. Enough to write off the gays and lots of women. Probably not enough to stop him from getting the Republican nomination. When it comes to the middle east, he sounds like an articulate version of Santorum. That scares me, but that might be another thread.

AHHH, so THAT'S where I'd gotten my vague impression that Walker was a chimp.

What you're talking about, I call the Perot Effect - a terrible candidate who has a decidedly positive effect by showing up.  He was (more or less; economics is complex) right on his big issue, Clinton would never have summoned up the will to submit balanced budgets to Congress if it hadn't been for him - and he had enough going that the real candidates were afraid to ignore him and just trash each other, which, despite his own lack of class, REALLY classed-up the 92 campaign.

I miss the little dummy every presidential cycle since he finally went away.

(The two times I cast primary protest votes for Jesse -who might make the worst president ever- were on similar grounds as all the right-wingers who 'threw away' their votes on a man who couldn't win and wouldn't even establish a movement about his issues and not him.  Jesse still stood for some important poor-people issues so much so that my somewhat bigoted dad voted for him once.)

[Lorizael]

On the subject of Hillary's campaigning, I'm not sure that judging a candidate by how they campaign is necessarily all that useful, as weird as that sounds. For example, many commentators say that Obama's 2008 campaign was nearly "flawless," yet as an actual president he's been mediocre. /me shrugs.

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't think you're wrong about that -Al Gore actually seems to be a good man who is a terrible campaigner (and rather a [person of unmarried parents] in that mode)- but we also know about the Clinton habit of throwing people under the bus -their "friends", usually- and that ain't all MR. Clinton.  Nixon could have gotten away scot-free if he hadn't taken a principled stand trying to protect his loyal people, you know.

I HATE backstabbers with the fiery passion of a thousand exploding galactic cores - though I already admitted that I think she'd probably make a decent president; she's a capable and proven administrator with Senate and Executive Branch experience.  However, I will not vote for her for anything, ever, unless I think it's close, and I'll be astonished if it comes to that, 'cause it still looks like it's hers to lose with NO viable challengers on the horizon.

[Lorizael]

I'm probably too cynical for my own good. I assume any politician who doesn't appear to be a backstabber just hasn't been caught.

[Buster's Uncle]

Reminds me of something Bruce Vilanch said about Woopie - they're collaborators, not really friends like people assume, because she's a lovely woman, but SHE's a STAR, with a star's look-out-for-number-one psychology who doesn't really have time for him outside the work.  He went on to observe that he could probably be a star (HA) if he wanted it bad enough, but he's just not got the right mindset. 

I think politicians are a lot like that - politics aren't even showbidness for ugly people, or Nixon would have won over Kennedy and lightweights like Romney and Perry and John Edwards wouldn't have made it so far.

[Rusty Edge]

Well, yeah, bring on the Perot effect.

An American presidential campaign is a great test of energy and organizational ability. If you can't run nationwide, you can't become president. That seems pretty reasonable to  me. Running one of the largest countries in the world isn't easy.

[Buster's Uncle]

And John Kerry wasn't competent to be president, yes - he had an easy campaign against a vulnerable opponent and blew it.

[Rusty Edge]

Everson, calls on [Sleezebag] to quit. 
-to-end-campaign/]http://markforamerica.com/mark-everson-calls-for-[Sleezebag]-to-end-campaign/


“Donald [Sleezebag]’s defense of his announcement speech demonizing Mexican immigrants only makes matters worse. After accusing the Mexican government of a deliberate policy of shipping criminals across the border, [Sleezebag] broadens his charge, stating “The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world.”  [Sleezebag] clearly has neither an understanding of nor respect for America’s immigrant tradition. His words divide at a time when we need to unite and reinforce our proud tradition of assimilation. We must move to secure our borders and reform our immigration system. Unfortunately, Donald [Sleezebag]’s continued presence in the 2016 presidential contest makes this national imperative more unlikely. He should stand down and spare us all the ugliness of his candidacy.”

[Buster's Uncle]

Everson has a way with words.

Donald [Sleezebag]’s continued presence on Earth makes human evolution -and lack of embarrassment to be human- more unlikely. He should finance an expedition to Alpha Centauri and then exit the universe quietly and entirely to spare us all the ugliness of his existence.