Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

2016 US Presidential Election


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3855 replies to this topic

#61
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,895 posts

At this point, Hillary Clinton looks like a slam dunk. It is early enough that anything can happen, so that might change.

 

Another name to consider: Jerry Brown of California. I don't think he will run, but he is a very popular governor right now.  Population wise, California is the largest state in the country, and Brown just might be able to tap into enough money to make a go of it. On the down side, he has tried and failed many times before, so he would have to change a lot of minds, at least among older voters outside of California.

 

I like Elizabeth Warren, but I can't see her running against Hillary.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#62
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
If Hilary wins it seems really unlikely a 2nd woman would be deputy as well.

Checked and theres a few articles out there saying shes not running in 2016.   I know that's not always set in stone but that's really unfortunate. Media can easily bring politicians to the forefront but her type is the opposite of what they want.
'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#63
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationSunny England

I actually think the democrats would do better with a fresh face rather than Hillary. For better of for worse she is a very polarizing figure.


"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 


#64
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

1. It's actually quite sad that Hillary will be the next president,

 

2. as she's extremely Russophobic, which will make the Russian-American relations deteriorate even further.

1. You can't say that right now unless you have a reliable crystal ball.

 

2. Source, please? Honestly, I don't think that she is much more Russophobic than her husband is/was.



#65
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

I actually think the democrats would do better with a fresh face rather than Hillary. For better of for worse she is a very polarizing figure.

It depends on who exactly that fresh face would be.



#66
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Why not Futurist? not enough money behind her maybe? criticising banks cant help, the price she pays for honesty.

Because I don't think that she will want to run in a campaign where she is likely to lose.



#67
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

1. At this point, Hillary Clinton looks like a slam dunk. It is early enough that anything can happen, so that might change.

 

2. Another name to consider: Jerry Brown of California. I don't think he will run, but he is a very popular governor right now.  Population wise, California is the largest state in the country, and Brown just might be able to tap into enough money to make a go of it. On the down side, he has tried and failed many times before, so he would have to change a lot of minds, at least among older voters outside of California.

 

3. I like Elizabeth Warren, but I can't see her running against Hillary.

1. I wouldn't say "slam dunk" yet, but I agree with you that, as of right now, Hillary Clinton is likely (but not certain) to win.

 

2. Jerry Brown is almost a decade older than Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton herself will be almost the same age in 2016 that Ronald Reagan (our oldest President ever) was in 1980.

 

3. Agreed.



#68
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,530 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

At this point, Hillary Clinton looks like a slam dunk. It is early enough that anything can happen, so that might change.

 

Another name to consider: Jerry Brown of California. I don't think he will run, but he is a very popular governor right now.  Population wise, California is the largest state in the country, and Brown just might be able to tap into enough money to make a go of it. On the down side, he has tried and failed many times before, so he would have to change a lot of minds, at least among older voters outside of California.

 

I like Elizabeth Warren, but I can't see her running against Hillary.

 

Brown isn't running unfortunately: http://www.usatoday....vernor/4491471/

 

There's still quite a pool on each side that remains. Schweitzer would be interesting but his anti-Obama rhetoric could alienate a lot of democratic votes. 


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#69
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts

Futurist. Hilary is russophobe and everything else compared to Bill, however most are russophobe, who isnt? Ron Paul?

 

Hilary has been very quick on all the offensives lately, which is a bit of a worry.

 

noticias_da_rua_judaica_16_09_13_clip_im

bill-clinton-boris-yeltsin.jpg

 

Bill still the best US pres since??


'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#70
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Futurist. Hilary is russophobe and everything else compared to Bill, however most are russophobe, who isnt? Ron Paul?

 

Hilary has been very quick on all the offensives lately, which is a bit of a worry.

 

noticias_da_rua_judaica_16_09_13_clip_im

bill-clinton-boris-yeltsin.jpg

 

Bill still the best US pres since??

You are aware that Bush Jr. met Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Abbas, correct? Meeting with someone does not necessarily mean that much.



#71
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts

yeah and meet them is all Bush did


'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#72
Mashallah

Mashallah

    Transgender student

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • LocationSerbia

 

1. It's actually quite sad that Hillary will be the next president,

 

2. as she's extremely Russophobic, which will make the Russian-American relations deteriorate even further.

1. You can't say that right now unless you have a reliable crystal ball.

 

2. Source, please? Honestly, I don't think that she is much more Russophobic than her husband is/was.

 

1. That seems very likely from my pov, to say the least. A little hint: I'm convinced that USA won't have a single white male president in the foreseeable future.

2. http://www.reuters.c...633656720080107


I don't like being lied to, but I'm also tired of The Truth.

Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor.


#73
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,895 posts

Not to ignore the Hillary Clinton on Putin angle, but I thought that I would throw another name into the mix: Bernie Sandiers.

 

http://www.thedailyb...hampshire.html#

 

 

Sanders has repeatedly criticized Clinton from the left, telling Time Magazine earlier this year that he would make a better president than her.

 

"I like Hillary… She’s a very, very intelligent person, no question about it," Sanders said then. "But I think, you know, if you talk about the need for a political revolution in America, I think it’s fair to say that Secretary Clinton probably will not be one of the more active people."

...

Although Sanders would face a steep challenge if he did run for president, he could give voice to the feeling of many in the Democratic Party who want the party to adopt a more aggressive, populist stance on Wall Street regulation, climate change, and economic growth.  And such a candidate could suck up oxygen from Clinton as she tries to focus on the Republican Party, which will be hungry for the White House after eight years in the wilderness.

 

Sanders has called for a minimum wage above the $10.10 that Obama has proposed, further investment in the nation’s infrastructure, higher taxes on corporation and the wealth and a carbon tax....

 

“If [Clinton] does run, will she be as strong as the times require in taking on the billionaire class that has so much power? I’m not sure that she will be,” Sanders recently told The Washington Post. “Will she be as strong as needs be to address the crisis of climate change? I am not sure that she will be. Will she be as strong as needs be to take on the power of Wall Street? I’m not sure she will be.”

 

Sanders has made no decisions yet about running, but he has made all the moves that a possible candidate could make.

 

 

To say that Sanders is a long shot to gain the nomination is too grossly overstate his chances. Still, he could bring a truly progressive voice to the nomination process, one that has the potential to further the cause on many issues. He would also demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a moderate on many issues.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#74
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,895 posts

I actually think the democrats would do better with a fresh face rather than Hillary. For better of for worse she is a very polarizing figure.

Hillary is a successful Democrat. That is something that Republicans just cannot stand. It is her success that makes her a "polarizing figure". See also my post above that points at how truly a centrist a figure Hillary really is.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#75
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,491 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Zoltan Istvan 2016

I'm in the very early stages of preparing a campaign to try to run in the 2016 election for US President. I'll be doing it as a transhumanist for the Transhumanist Party, a political organization I recently founded that seeks to use science and technology to radically improve the human being and the society we live in.

In addition to upholding American values, prosperity, and security, the three primary goals of my political agenda are as follows:

1) Attempt to do everything possible to make it so this country's amazing scientists and technologists have resources to overcome human death and aging within 15-20 years--a goal an increasing number of leading scientists think is reachable.

2) Create a cultural mindset in America that embracing and producing radical technology and science is in the best interest of our nation and species.

3) Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#76
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts

A 3rd-party candidate will never win the election.



#77
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,491 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Eeeexactly. Especially one based on the principles of transhumanism, in a nation where 60% of the population believes in holy creationism and rejects evolution, and nearly has a seizure over privacy and the Antichrist just discussing nanotech and bionics, let alone applying it.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#78
Kemotx

Kemotx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • LocationWrocław
First, an atheist has to win. Then, a homosexual. A transhumanist in my opinion could be elected only after 2035.

#79
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts

Eeeexactly. Especially one based on the principles of transhumanism, in a nation where 60% of the population believes in holy creationism and rejects evolution, and nearly has a seizure over privacy and the Antichrist just discussing nanotech and bionics, let alone applying it.

Lol, yes. Wait, where did the 60 percent come from? Surely not that many people are creationists?

 

 

First, an atheist has to win. Then, a homosexual. A transhumanist in my opinion could be elected only after 2035.

An atheist president would definitely be a step in the right direction. But although there's nothing wrong with the idea of a homosexual president, I'm not sure how one would lead to a transhumanist president.



#80
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,491 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Exaggeration. It's actually closer to 3 in 10

http://www.pewforum....uman-evolution/


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users