Time to Discuss the 2016 Presidential Election

[IamNoah]

Manifest Destiny! GOD IS A WHITE MAN!

Are Jews generally considered white? my own relatives play with that identity. They are white until they'd like to say something racist and normally true about brown/blackpeople. At which point they stop being white.

 

[IamNoah]

(I mention Jews because Jesus Christ [true God and true man, fully human and fully divine, etc] is what the word God means to me. [Yes I am certain that I'm an atheist])

 

[Benvolio]

M

Since this is your topic thread…please tell us what the final electoral map will look like and give us numbers in terms of the U.S. Popular Vote percentages of both major-party nominees, the percentage points margin, and who exactly will emerge as the Republican [R] and Democratic [D] nominees.


By the way: This may interest you…

@ http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...-votes-to-win-white-house-in-2016-republican/​

I predicted O'Malley and Walker in my original post. The Fox article is sickening, as it indicates that the democrat strategy of aborting Americans and replacing them with poor immigrants is working. It does not bode well for our economy or democracy. A one party system is no democracy, and socialism does not work.

 

[CoolBlue71]

M

I predicted O'Malley and Walker in my original post. The Fox article is sickening, as it indicates that the democrat strategy of aborting Americans and replacing them with poor immigrants is working. It does not bode well for our economy or democracy. A one party system is no democracy, and socialism does not work.

Please give us numbers, Benvolio.

The percentages of the votes for both Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin) and Martin O'Malley (D-Maryland); the percentage-points margin; and the electoral map.

 

[Benvolio]

Please give us numbers, Benvolio.

The percentages of the votes for both Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin) and Martin O'Malley (D-Maryland); the percentage-points margin; and the electoral map.

Too early for numbers. It should be a Republican year based on the general trend of the presidency swing between the parties, plus the unpopularity of Obama and Obamacare. I did say I do not feel strongly in favor of the Republican victory, and I would not bet big money against O'Malley.

 

[evanrick]

Republicants have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes. Their anti-democratic pro-plutocrat gerrymandering treachery wont be forgotten at any time in 2016. The single vote they did win 2004 was the slimmest margin in modern times and the slimmest margin for any 2 term president and it took 3 years 2 wars and exploiting Americans fears to do, not to mention using American Soldiers as body shields, cowards. Go to hell GOP. Fuck your party for letting 9-11 happen. Fuck your party for the Patriot Act. Fuck all GOPers they dont stand a fuckin chance

 

[palemale]

The Democratic nominee is easy: O'Malley of Maryland. He meets the democrat profile: Governor out of the blue, No Federal experience, nice smile, makes good speeches. This is enough a la Carter, Clinton, etc. Dems are suckers for such. I suspect Hillary will decide not to run.
BUT the election may turn of on a factor no one seems to be willing to discuss. O'Malley and many of the Republican candidates are Catholic, including, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul Ryan, Christie, perhaps others I forget.
This is more important than it would be in other years. Immigration should be a critical issue and may still be. BUT the Catholic Bishops have taken as strong position in favor of massive immigration of Latin Americans into the US and massive welfare and social programs for them. And, surprise, surprise, all the Catholic candidates favor massive immigration etc.
No politician and, indeed, no journalists seem willing to discuss this issue. Clearly, Catholics have enough votes to swing most elections. so it is a dangerous issue. Even the evangelical Protestants avoid or do not yet see the issue.
AND Protestants no longer can control the election, and many would agree with the Bishops agenda.
This makes the Republican nominee difficult to predict. My guess is that this issue will remain unspoken, but the immigration issue will give the GOP nomination to Walker. Since this is a Republican year, he will win. But I do not feel strongly at this time. I would not bet much money against O'Malley. I would bet the farm against Hillary.

Just when I thought Benvolio had exhausted the groups he disliked, he posts this. You better stay out of New York City, Ben. White Protestants are less than 5% of the population here.

 

[Benvolio]

Just when I thought Benvolio had exhausted the groups he disliked, he posts this. You better stay out of New York City, Ben. White Protestants are less than 5% of the population here.

You just cannot discuss the issues, huh?

 

[palemale]

You just cannot discuss the issues, huh?

You cannot discuss the issues without denigrating some discernible ethnic or religious group, huh? You are not trying to discuss any issue here. Rather, you are dredging up age old prejudice to assert that Catholics will vote consistent with their religious leaders in a way that you disapprove. I'm atheist, but was raised Catholic. Catholics don't tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans because of what their bishops say. They generally vote based on their class interests, their educational level and their cultural and economic experiences. Catholics, for example, tend to be more concentrated in the Northeast, or more favorable to unions and probably have higher union density than other groups. They descend from immigrants of countries that have a more communitarian outlook than in Protestant countries and, thus, their voting tends to skew a little more left than the average voter. You just have a problem with democracy.

 

[Benvolio]

,

You cannot discuss the issues without denigrating some discernible ethnic or religious group, huh? You are not trying to discuss any issue here. Rather, you are dredging up age old prejudice to assert that Catholics will vote consistent with their religious leaders in a way that you disapprove. I'm atheist, but was raised Catholic. Catholics don't tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans because of what their bishops say. They generally vote based on their class interests, their educational level and their cultural and economic experiences. Catholics, for example, tend to be more concentrated in the Northeast, or more favorable to unions and probably have higher union density than other groups. They descend from immigrants of countries that have a more communitarian outlook than in Protestant countries and, thus, their voting tends to skew a little more left than the average voter. You just have a problem with democracy.

Look again. My complaint was that the Bishops have come out strongly for amnesty and immigration, and the Catholic Republicans (as well as democrats) are obediently following. Democracy does not include flooding the country with immigrants and amnesty to over ride the votes of Americans. Now the NY City Council is proposing to allow non citizens to vote in city elections. Dems will try that on a stats libel now.

 

[bankside]

Benvolio you're quite right that a catholic bishop should have no opinion on immigration reform unless he is willing to give up the tax-free status of his enterprise.

 

[Benvolio]

Beyond mere opinion, I have no doubt that the Bishops have urged the politicians to support immigration and amnesty to relieve the massive overpopulation and poverty in Latin America, which results in large part from the Church's absurd and evil prohibition of contraception.

 

[arpeggi]

The only moderate candidate the Republicans have at this point is a Bush. Don't expect them to get Independents or undecideds in 2016. If they couldn't do it with Romney or McCain, they most certainly won't with the current foreseeable lot of candidates...

Unless they cheat. Which they tend to do.

Also, I think Elizabeth Warren would win with a wider margin the Clinton, regardless of the Republican nominee. Does Hilary Clinton excite anyone at all? We may as well nominate Al Gore.

 

[Telstra]

Democracy like that seems like dysfunctional.
The government are too busy chasing votes, very little is done about infrastructure ... etc.
At present i like China's meritocracy system.

 

[Benvolio]

Democracy like that seems like dysfunctional.
The government are too busy chasing votes, very little is done about infrastructure ... etc.
At present i like China's meritocracy system.

A better system is the Parliamentary system, with the Prime Minister chosen by parliament from among their leadership. It is based on merit to that extent. The presidential system, as the US, invariably becomes a popularity contest: good looks, nice smile, good speech giving, but little experience or mistakes to explain away. The result is a president totally political, focused on opposing the other party.

 

[palemale]

Beyond mere opinion, I have no doubt that the Bishops have urged the politicians to support immigration and amnesty to relieve the massive overpopulation and poverty in Latin America, which results in large part from the Church's absurd and evil prohibition of contraception.

Yes. Good thing the Republican Party is such a strong supporter of contraception and sex education. Isn't that why Sandra Fluke is a Republican.

 

[palemale]

Beyond mere opinion, I have no doubt that the Bishops have urged the politicians to support immigration and amnesty to relieve the massive overpopulation and poverty in Latin America, which results in large part from the Church's absurd and evil prohibition of contraception.

Incidentally, Latin American fertility rate is right about replacement level. Some deeply Catholic countries have lower fertility rates than the US.

Brazil’s fertility rate is now 1.8 children per woman. Chile’s is the same (see article). This is below the replacement rate of fertility (2.1, which stabilises the population in the long run). It is also lower than in the United States, where the rate is 1.9. Latin America and the Caribbean saw its fertility rate fall from almost 6.0 in 1960 to 2.2 five decades later. In the United States and Europe that fall took twice as long.

http://www.economist.com/news/ameri...changing-astonishingly-fast-autumn-patriarchs

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good, incendiary, bigoted argument.

 

[TX-Beau]

Incidentally, Latin American fertility rate is right about replacement level. Some deeply Catholic countries have lower fertility rates than the US.



http://www.economist.com/news/ameri...changing-astonishingly-fast-autumn-patriarchs

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good, incendiary, bigoted argument.

Again! DO NOT toss facts at the Elephants. Can't you people read the sign?

 

[Benvolio]

,

Incidentally, Latin American fertility rate is right about replacement level. Some deeply Catholic countries have lower fertility rates than the US.



http://www.economist.com/news/ameri...changing-astonishingly-fast-autumn-patriarchs

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good, incendiary, bigoted argument.

A 2.1 rate may or may not stabilize "in the long run" depending on the age at which people start reproducing. It cannot stabilize as long as the numbers of births exceed the number of deaths. As it is, the populations of Mexico and most of the L A countries continue to grow rapidly http://www.statista.com/statistics/263748/total-population-of-mexico/ And yes, the bishops favor immigration into the US.

 

[TX-Beau]

,

A 2.1 rate may or may not stabilize "in the long run" depending on the age at which people start reproducing. It cannot stabilize as long as the numbers of births exceed the number of deaths. As it is, the populations of Mexico and most of the L A countries continue to grow rapidly http://www.statista.com/statistics/263748/total-population-of-mexico/ And yes, the bishops favor immigration into the US.

Ben continues to pretend his absolutely mistaken assertions are actually facts. In the delusion Olympics, Ben takes Gold.