2016 Presidential Race

**wickedsolo** · 02-06-2015, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Not to turn this into a vaccine thread, but a friend of mine on Facebook actually posted this morning that the media is making up these stories about people contracting measles.

Was it meant to be a serious post?

I mean, that's a pretty ballsy accusation...

**HoustonRaven** · 02-06-2015, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Was it meant to be a serious post?

I mean, that's a pretty ballsy accusation...

He's also a "truther" and believes the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag operation carried out by our government.

**HoustonRaven** · 02-11-2015, 10:26 AM

Apparently, Hillary is having a hard time securing super donors ....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...on-115084.html

**JAB1985** · 02-11-2015, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Apparently, Hillary is having a hard time securing super donors ....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...on-115084.html

probably view it as wasted money because shes most likely is going to win no matter who the GOP put against her.

Side note: I still hate super-pacs. I realize money is always going to be involved with politics, as much as i think it shouldnt (i wouldnt be opposed to putting a limit on how much you can spend, and make them focus on the issues. not dissimilar to equal media time requirements) I could live with individuals giving money and supporting what they believe, that seems fine, but these super-pacs using businesses and unions and everybody elses money to influence just seems wrong to me. I still dont believe corporations are people, people are people that run corporations and id rather they be the ones directly handing their own money than the people they represent who may or may not agree with their choice.

**HoustonRaven** · 02-11-2015, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

probably view it as wasted money because shes most likely is going to win no matter who the GOP put against her.

Nobody is a shoe-in this early. Eight years ago, she was a shoe-in for the Dem nomination and look where that got her.

And even if you're a shoe-in, you still need money to run the campaign.

IMO, this is more of a function of not knowing who the GOP candidate will be over some sort of perceived success.

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Side note: I still hate super-pacs. I realize money is always going to be involved with politics, as much as i think it shouldnt (i wouldnt be opposed to putting a limit on how much you can spend, and make them focus on the issues. not dissimilar to equal media time requirements) I could live with individuals giving money and supporting what they believe, that seems fine, but these super-pacs using businesses and unions and everybody elses money to influence just seems wrong to me. I still dont believe corporations are people, people are people that run corporations and id rather they be the ones directly handing their own money than the people they represent who may or may not agree with their choice.

I agree in general. Though, the SCOTUS never ruled that "corporations are people". They simply ruled that they have a right to donate money too. I'd be ok with more stringent donations limits, both from corporations and individual donors.

**JAB1985** · 02-11-2015, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Nobody is a shoe-in this early. Eight years ago, she was a shoe-in for the Dem nomination and look where that got her.

And even if you're a shoe-in, you still need money to run the campaign.

IMO, this is more of a function of not knowing who the GOP candidate will be over some sort of perceived success.

meant that more jokingly, id agree way to early to deem her a winner of president, although im pretty much calling her the democrat elect. I dont think its too early to call that win.

**Dade** · 02-11-2015, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Side note: I still hate super-pacs. I realize money is always going to be involved with politics, as much as i think it shouldnt (i wouldnt be opposed to putting a limit on how much you can spend, and make them focus on the issues. not dissimilar to equal media time requirements) I could live with individuals giving money and supporting what they believe, that seems fine, but these super-pacs using businesses and unions and everybody elses money to influence just seems wrong to me. I still dont believe corporations are people, people are people that run corporations and id rather they be the ones directly handing their own money than the people they represent who may or may not agree with their choice.

A big problem with super pacs is the lack of transparency. No one really knows where the money is coming from, except of course the politicians and the super pacs themselves. I don't think corporations should be allowed to donate to any party or politician. I also don't like someone being able to donate to a politician that is not running in their state or district.

**HoustonRaven** · 02-12-2015, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

A big problem with super pacs is the lack of transparency. No one really knows where the money is coming from, except of course the politicians and the super pacs themselves.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Dade

I don't think corporations should be allowed to donate to any party or politician.

Strongly disagree. If I run a business, I should be able to lobby, petition and support any candidate I want on behalf of my business. I do think however those donations should be capped.

Originally Posted by Dade

I also don't like someone being able to donate to a politician that is not running in their state or district.

Here in TX, we had a gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, who got upwards of 70% of her donations from out of state donors. It didn't help her as she got boat raced in the election but had the race been closer, it could have been the deciding factor.

I'm on the fence with this. As an individual, I should be able to support what ever cause or person I choose no matter the state but I do see the danger mega-donors from out of state sweeping in and changing the outcome of an election. Perhaps a cap on out of state donations?

**HoustonRaven** · 03-14-2015, 09:57 AM

Reading the tea leaves .....

Christie is dead in the water. He can't gain any momentum in any of the straw polls and didn't do all that well at CPAC. The later was expected as he's more a moderate anyway.

Hillary is in real danger of being kicked out of the race before she even gets started. Dems were already holding their nose with her and now she's gone hypocritical rogue with this email mess. I can't see how she call pull her self out of this one. But that's the thing about Clinton's; they have a knack of doing just that.

Good ole O'Malley looks he'd be the logical successor if Hillary is indeed dead in the water. The thought of a President MoM makes me shudder but he's far more charismatic than anyone on the GOP side not named Scott Walker.

**JAB1985** · 03-16-2015, 07:39 AM

Hilary is not remotely dead in the water, imo. people are desperate and trying to drum up anything they can against her. If solely using a private email address for govt related business vs sometimes using like her predecessors is the biggest thing they can come up with, its kind of sad.

if the daily show has taught us anything its that ALL politicians are hypocrites in time. I dont remotely see this effecting anything because its before any real debates are even taking place and thats where shell likely shine anyway.

**HoustonRaven** · 03-16-2015, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Hilary is not remotely dead in the water, imo. people are desperate and trying to drum up anything they can against her. If solely using a private email address for govt related business vs sometimes using like her predecessors is the biggest thing they can come up with, its kind of sad.

if the daily show has taught us anything its that ALL politicians are hypocrites in time. I dont remotely see this effecting anything because its before any real debates are even taking place and thats where shell likely shine anyway.

She's not going to shine unless this email thing is put to bed. The issue isn't the commingling of personal and work emails. It's the security side of it combined with the cover up.

One thing that's always been true for decades that it's never the actual infraction that gets politicians in trouble. It's the cover up. She's already been caught in a few questionable statements and now she's going to be in two different congressional investigations right at the beginning of her campaign. Donors are already walking sideways from her and she's got members of her own party distancing themselves from her.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-16-2015, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

She's not going to shine unless this email thing is put to bed. The issue isn't the commingling of personal and work emails. It's the security side of it combined with the cover up.

One thing that's always been true for decades that it's never the actual infraction that gets politicians in trouble. It's the cover up. She's already been caught in a few questionable statements and now she's going to be in two different congressional investigations right at the beginning of her campaign. Donors are already walking sideways from her and she's got members of her own party distancing themselves from her.

:word

I'm not saying she's out of it. But I don't see how she focuses on a campaign while having this being the main topic people will talk about. But using a private email vs one that can be monitored to show what you're doing... "what difference does it make"

And JAB... Since when was The Daily Show supposed to teach us something. You know that's a comedy show, right? :p