Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rubio Citizenship/Eligibility

He is clearly eligible under both the 14th amendment and the 2011 finding of the Congressional Research Service. Under the arguments frequently given by people claiming Rubio to be ineligible(namely, that his parents were not US citizens when he was born), this would also mean that the first 7 Presidents of the United States were also ineligible as either they or their parents were British subjects at the time of their birth. Martin Van Buren being the first President to actually be born a US citizen by the standards laid out by these detractors. Fnarrow 00:55, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

The Constitution has been interpreted to "grandfather" people who were citizens of the various states/colonies prior to the Constitution being ratified. Wschact 06:54, 28 May 2013 (EDT)

Where is Mike Huckabee?

He should be included in this list. A socially conservative protestant who lowers taxes.

John Kasich

Surely Ohio governor (and National Review favorite) John Kasich belongs on a list like this.[1] Whoever is at the top of the ticket, Ohio is a must-win state, which makes Kasich a logical choice for veep. PeterKa 21:54, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

Rubio popularity in Florida

I think his popularity in Florida and his ability to win the state are exaggerated here. His approval ratings in Florida have never been high. I can't say I know a single person here, on either side of the aisle, who approves of his record. It may give him leverage, but not much. Also, polls show that he doesn't have the support of Hispanic or Cuban groups in the state. ScottH35 18:00, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

"Rubio will probably pull out of the primaries on the eve of New Hampshire and endorse Jeb Bush in the hopes that Bush will pick his as V.P."

Not possible. "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..." (Constitution of the United States, Amendment XII). IsabellW 20:45, 19 April 2015 (EDT)

Great point! But Cheney simply changed his state of voter registration from Texas to Wyoming to resolve that same objection back in 2000. Rubio could do likewise, although that would be politically difficult for him as the senator of Florida.--Andy Schlafly 21:09, 19 April 2015 (EDT)
It seems like it would be more than politically difficult. The Constitution, of course, only mentions that a senator must be an inhabitant of the state at the time of their selection(later election). However, it doesn't seem to be clear if a senator could change their state of residency while in office. A fair amount of googling doesn't seem to resolve the question and I can't find anything to answer it. I wonder if it has ever happened? I know of plenty of congressmen who have lived outside their state while retaining residency there, but none of actual switched residency. I imagine there would be a court case about it were he to do so. ScottH35 15:54, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
I am guessing that people may have been less likely to move between states back when the U.S. Constitution was written.
It would also be interesting to know how cultural/economic differences have widened/narrowed over time between states/regions of the USA on various matters. On the one hand radio/TV/internet/automobile/interstate highway/national franchises would make things more homogeneous in the USA (of course the internet and cable TV causes "ideological cocooning" too), while the culture war post 1960s has created tensions within various parts of the USA.
And since political ideologies have economic/social consequences, many people are "voting with their feet" and leaving liberal states in order to better earn income or have a better place to raise their family. Conservative 16:15, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Actually, I think I've always read this part of the Constitution wrong. It seems to say that the electors cannot vote for both a president and VP from their state. If Bush ran with Rubio as VP, the Florida electors would not be able to vote for that ticket. But that would only be a problem if Bush had won fewer that 299 electoral votes. If he won more, the Florida electors could vote for someone else as VP and Rubio would still have a majority. Of course they'd never chance that. IsabellW 16:01, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Scott Walker

"The two-term Republican governor of Wisconsin is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage -- and recently called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision ruling same sex unions legal in all 50 states," according to ABC News. The linked article is a detailed recent profile and interview. PeterKa 14:57, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

I read the article. Walker's support of a pie-in-the-sky constitutional amendment is for cosmetic purposes. It's obvious he's not going to speak out against the homosexual agenda or issue any order to block enforcement of [Obergefell]]. This article in Politico is more informative about Walker's weakness on the issue: "Walker goes mum on same-sex marriage." [2]

See also Candidates on homosexuality

No links to their positions on actual issues that matter? IsabellW 13:48, 1 August 2015 (EDT)

Pros and Cons

These don't add up. Are these good things about each candidate or what will likely get them votes? It is interesting to note involvement in Iraq war is a con for Rice. I guess everyone has come around to that now--Scatach (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

On the contrary, Jeb Bush seems to be the only one who stumbled into ambivalence about the Iraq War. The rise of ISIS showed Bush and Rumsfeld's prescience in wanting to keep troops there and showed Obama's elitist dismissiveness of the critical region. VargasMilan (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Of course, it was a bad decision to completely withdraw troops in 2011.But to be fair, the Islamic State would not exist in the first place if the U.S. would not have invaded the country to begin with. It is hardly elitist for Obama to have made that decision though, considering the vast majority of the American people had grown tired of "war".--Scatach (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Those soldiers were there to wipe out terrorists. It's no accident that they came back in the same place. Removing all the troops wasn't just a bad decision, it made Donald Rumsfeld, to name one, very angry that Obama dismissed good military sense that would have cost a minimum of casualties like the troops kept in Germany after World War II. It was elitist to think the coalition troops weren't "authentic" enough to play a role in Iraq's emergence as a free nation. VargasMilan (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Donald Rumsfeld's feelings do not matter. I understand your sentiment however. I would be more upset the U.S. is not doing much of anything to combat the Islamic State right now then make it solely about Obama--Scatach (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

2016 campaign: Go (Game) strategy vs. chess strategy

2016 election results

Trump had a Go (game) strategy and won more territory/states which gave him the election in the electoral college. In Go, the object of the game is to control more space/territory through strategy/tactics. On the graphic to the right, there is a lot more blue on the map than red.

Clinton had more of a chess strategy. She relied more on negative campaigning and the press hammering away at Trump via negative coverage/editorializing (It caused more and more sacrificing of pieces of her and Trump's reputation since Trump is a counter puncher. Kind of a war of attrition when it came to their reputations. In chess, sacrificing pieces is a strategy and is kind of a war of attrition).

Like Vietnam, the Go strategy won over the chess strategy.[3]  :) If only Hillary had read more of Sun Tzu's the Art of War and spent less time giving paid speeches. :) Conservative (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2016 (EST)

Hillary Clinton's strategy was a classic case of fighting the last war. Romney was less well-known so hammering away at his reputation via negative advertising was more effective. But Trump's reputation was more firmly in place given his celebrity status.
By the way, Trump was very unpredictable. Has Trump read Sun Tzu? :)
Trump not only won the election, he also broke the will of much of his opposition! Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and many liberal ladies cried inconsolably after Trump's victory.[4][5][6] "Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting". - Sun Tu. Of course, the conservative ladies Phyllis Schlafly, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin were made of tougher stuff. Phyllis Schlafly, Thatcher (the iron lady) and Sarah Palin (the moose slayer) did not cry inconsolably after defeats! Conservative (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Yes, we 're seeing recriminations in the Hillary campaign already. Although the main talking points are to blame Comey, a few more sober advisors are saying it was a mistake to attack Trump. She learned nothing from the primaries, where attacks on Trump from 16 other would-be presidents only made Trump stronger. RobS#NeverHillary 13:55, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Hillary never had a strong positive theme to her campaign. "Stronger together" was just a reactionary slogan indicating that Trump was divisive and a temperementally unfit person who insults a lot of people.
The Democrats ran a corrupt, establishment candidate in a year that many voters wanted change, reform and not more of the same. Conservative (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2016 (EST)
The moderate "likeable enough" Clinton who ran in 2008 could have won this election. This time around, she talked more about "racial profiling," "Islamophobia," and protecting the families of terrorists than protecting the families of Americans. She was a prisoner of Obama, who could unleash the FBI on her whenever he chose. Clinton herself apparently blames Obama.[7] Now that he's got her out of the way, Obama is leader of the opposition. I suspect that's what he wanted all along. Michelle plans to run for Nita Lowey's seat in Congress (NY-17) and presumably for president eventually. Despite Trump's supposedly "surprising" win, the Obamas already have a dynasty planned. Nothing like that would be possible if Clinton had won. PeterKa (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2016 (EST)

I am not sure if the dynasty card can be effectively played by Michelle Obama. It didn't work for Jeb Bush or Hillary. And Trumpism was partly a repudiation of Obama as it erases much of Obama's legacy. Time will tell. We'll see what the economy does and how well Trump serves as president. A bad economy could sink Trump even if he is not to blame. The "recovery" is long in the tooth, but maybe it still has legs as it was an anemic recovery.Conservative (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2016 (EST)

I assume Bill and Hillary will try to continue the Clinton dynasty through Chelsea, but Obama seems pretty determined to uproot the Clintons. The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation hasn't made much news, but it is said to be a "very high priority."[8] Imagine if Hillary had been elected and her administration had opened with the FBI recommending foundation indictments. PeterKa (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2016 (EST)
Chelsea is also eyeing the Lowey seat.[9] The NY-17 primary could be a battle of the dynasties. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2016 (EST)
It will very soon be easy to gauge Obama's influence by comparing what he gets for speaking fees compared to Bill and Hillary. Ultimately, he may end up working for the Clinton Foundation calling Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea boss.
The defeat for the Democrats nationally was sound. As I understand it, the Dems only control 8 state governors and legislatures, and nothing at the federal level. Further, these defeats nationwide is a thorough rejection of the Obama legacy. Serious Dems would do good right now to rethink the party's future strategy by purging completely Pelosi, Obama, and Hillary from recent memory or any influence over the party's future direction. They must do this sooner or later, and the longer the delay, the more time they will spend in the wilderness. RobS#NeverHillary 09:18, 14 November 2016 (EST)
When someone bashes Trump, Trump usually bashes right back. But not when it's Michelle Obama. Since the election, she has emerged as the top Democratic prospect for president. Obama turns the FBI investigation of Hillary on and off. Trump lays off Michelle. Could have been a deal. PeterKa (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2016 (EST)
Elizabeth Warren is seizing the mantle among Progressives.RobS#NeverHillary 07:10, 17 November 2016 (EST)
Washington Times runs down the odds. Michelle is the top Democrat for 2020, according to the oddsmakers. But Ryan and Pence are given better odds than Michelle. PeterKa (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2016 (EST)
The Dems win only they nominate someone who brings out the Black vote. Isn't Warren a Sanders clone? They might as well not nominate anyone. PeterKa (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2016 (EST)

Electoral college result

Here is the final tally: Donald Trump 304, Hillary Clinton 227, Colin Powell 3, Bernie Sanders 1, Ron Paul 1, John Kasich 1, and Faith Spotted Eagle 1.[10] That's two faithless Republicans, five Democrats. Despite all the hype, no Democrat ended up voting for a Republican, not even Kasich. It was mostly Democrats who thought Hillary wasn't left-wing enough -- and a Republican who thought Trump wasn't right-wing enough. The lone Kasich vote was Chris Suprun, the first responder wannabe from Texas with the fake résumé. Finally, I have to say, Colin Powell?? The man's claim to fame is his speech to the UN documenting Iraqi WMD -- something the left now tells us was a big lie. PeterKa (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2016 (EST)

I can't believe the "conservative" NeverTrump people actually oppose Trump because they don't think he's conservative enough. The evidence is right in their faces that he will likely be the most conservative president in decades (even more than Reagan ever was), and their rhetoric sounds just like that of liberal Democrats. As for Colin Powell, despite his WMD business (which I find interesting, that Democrat electors chose one of the strongest Iraq War advocates), he endorsed Clinton in the election, so it's a fitting choice. All these electors really want are do-nothing politicians (Kasich is one as well). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2016 (EST)
By "Republican who thought Trump wasn't right-wing enough," I meant the Texas elector who voted for Paul. Paul as president would surely be a bigger leap into the unknown than Trump. PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Unreliable source

Please take a hard look at: which is quote in the text of the article. If this really happened, I would think that there would be multiple sources on this. This website does not look like a journalism site to me. If we can't come up with a better source, we should delete the reference and the quote from the article. Thanks, JDano (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I tried to corroborate the story using reliable sources and could not. I removed the section/source.
I wish the press were doing a better job. If they were, Obama/Hillary would have never been presidential candidates. Conservative (talk)