Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Warren has been taking the Progressive Democrats by storm as of late, so people are starting to talk, especially after she proposed changing student loan rates to match those that the government offers banks (this failed). I'd be interested in the possibility of Warren vs. Cruz in 2016.

As for Descan specifically, I imagine many filthy socialist foreigners are interested in the most left-wing mainstream member of the Democratic Party.

[RedKing]

Warren has been taking the Progressive Democrats by storm as of late, so people are starting to talk, especially after she proposed changing student loan rates to match those that the government offers banks (this failed). I'd be interested in the possibility of Warren vs. Cruz in 2016.

As for Descan specifically, I imagine many filthy socialist foreigners are interested in the most left-wing mainstream member of the Democratic Party.

Warren vs. Cruz has about a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening. Neither will survive primaries (and let's remember, this will be something like 2008, where the VP won't be the heir-designate so both sides will have a wide-open primary). Biden may run but he's not a lock by any means. It's looking increasingly like Clinton will run, which I wish she wouldn't.

Cruz may do well for a while, but then so did Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich et al. In the end, the establishment machine will bury him.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I know it's unlikely. But the level of clusterfuck that would result is too juicy not to contemplate.

[RedKing]

I think if it came down to Warren vs. Cruz, it would be a hallmark year for a third party candidate.

[GlyphGryph]

What's with you and Elizabeth Warren? Because I'm pretty sure about as many people could place her as could Claire McCaskill, defeater of Todd "legitimate rape" Akin.

Maybe it's just because I'm in New England, but everyone knows who Warren is around here, and she's... pretty popular?

Not sure if she has what it takes to win a Presidential campaign, but then, people said that about her winning her current seat too. She is also the literal embodiment of the stereotypical New England Liberal conservatives love to hate - an ivory tower academic with a social agenda! Ohnoes!

[FearfulJesuit]

Clinton may well get the nomination, but I could definitely see Warren as running mate. I kind of doubt Clinton would pick Biden. He's already had the post for eight years. At that point you go big or go home (to my knowledge, nobody's been in the veep slot for three terms, let alone four- Roosevelt had two different running mates). And, well, things happen. Thing is, Clinton is going to be sixty-nine years old in 2016. That's the same age as Reagan was in 1980 (though Warren is only two years younger), and, well- that's old for any presidential candidate, and I think it will be considered doubly so for a woman. (Reagan could pull off the wise old uncle persona. Clinton cannot pull off a grandmotherly feel- nor would, or should, she want to.) If Clinton completes two terms, she'll be seventy-seven when she leaves (though, again, Warren would be seventy-five). Not to dwell on the negative, but Reagan was going senile by the time his second term was up.

[lue]

It's looking increasingly like Clinton will run, which I wish she wouldn't.

Now I'm really curious as to what's wrong with Clinton. All I've heard so far is that she can be a bit rough at times, but are there any policy issues to bring against her?

Also, I just had a hilarious thought if Biden was the Presidential nomination:

And now, to introduce my chosen Vice President... Barrack Hussein Obama!

[FearfulJesuit]

That would be against the Constitution.

[lue]

That would be against the Constitution.

Really? I'm looking at Amendment 22, and it doesn't say anything about the President being barred from the position of VP. (Nor does 25 do anything, as 22 is about people no longer being electable to president, so unless by (somewhat tenuous interpretation of) 25 it's considered an indirect election for President, I don't see it.)

In any event, it's still a funny thought. Just imagine all the conspiracies!

[FearfulJesuit]

Ahh, but the Twelfth Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So.

[mainiac]

I suspect that if Warren were on the table, that would really hurt Clinton's chances.  Clinton has a lot of ties to the establishment but Warren simply excites people in a way that Clinton can't.  So people are naturally going to draw the comparison between them, thinking "which one do I want to be the first female president?".  That is an unfortunate comparison for Clinton.  But I don't think Warren is actually a contender.  Although with the precedent that Obama set by going straight from first term senator to president...

Now I'm really curious as to what's wrong with Clinton. All I've heard so far is that she can be a bit rough at times, but are there any policy issues to bring against her?

People on the internet tend to take a lot of offense at some stuff about censorship and privacy that she probably has no clue anyone cares about.  She voted for the authorization of forces for the invasion of Iraq.  Generally though, she just has a perception as just being too establishment.  Particularly when it comes to the financial system and wall street, she has a problem compared to Warren, who has done an enormous amount of good on those issues and is squeeky clean.

[smirk]

well- that's old for any presidential candidate, and I think it will be considered doubly so for a woman.

Might or might not hold. Women have longer lifespans than men on average, by at least 5 years or so. Not exactly an obscure fact. Hells, the Iron Lady herself only just died this year. Then again, as you say, it's also an image problem. Which Clinton has trouble with.

[lue]

Ahh, but the Twelfth Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So.

Gah! You win this round, FearfulJesuit!

There's still a way. Perhaps we could get Obama re-elected as a senator, and become president pro temporae? That oughta still ruffle some feathers .

Now I'm really curious as to what's wrong with Clinton. All I've heard so far is that she can be a bit rough at times, but are there any policy issues to bring against her?

People on the internet tend to take a lot of offense at some stuff about censorship and privacy that she probably has no clue anyone cares about.  She voted for the authorization of forces for the invasion of Iraq.  Generally though, she just has a perception as just being too establishment.  Particularly when it comes to the financial system and wall street, she has a problem compared to Warren, who has done an enormous amount of good on those issues and is squeeky clean.

That explains some things. Like I've said, I've not been politically cognizant for most of her career, so I wouldn't know. I probably would be more upset on her censorship/privacy history if I was cognizant at the time, but as it stands I (perhaps surprisingly) don't attach much feeling to anything of her past. Good to know, surely, but doesn't seem to effect me on a personal level.

[Descan]

She also supported the three-strikes law. >___>

Basically she's pretty good on social issues (Except censorship and punishment-over-rehabilitation) but is a little more pro-military and surveillance that I personally would like.

[mastahcheese]

There's still a way. Perhaps we could get Obama re-elected as a senator, and become president pro temporae? That oughta still ruffle some feathers .

Would he be eligible for the Supreme Court?