Which US presidential candidate from the party you don't support scares you the most?

[Martin_Hyde]

I’m a Republican, none of the Democrats really scare me. Some of the fringe Republicans scare me, but I don’t view them as very realistic. The last few (2008 and 2012 anyway) GOP primaries have tended to have a few fringe types that get a lot of attention early but lack any meaningful way to win the nomination.

The only GOP candidates that could beat Hillary would be Bush, Kasich, and maybe some other moderate I can’t remember. Both have shown ability to get minority votes and win important swing states (Kasich one that went for Obama twice.) Both are more balanced on issues of economic equality and etc. Both would need a lot going their way to beat Hillary though, she’s going to most likely walk into the White House unless something happens in the primaries to bloody her.

[TriPolar]

@Martin_Hyde

I’m a Republican, none of the Democrats really scare me.

Lincoln Chafee should scare you. The thought of such a nebbish becoming president should scare anyone.

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

Cruz scares me because he is an establishment figure masquerading as a grass roots favorite. He also has a shit-ton of money.

What makes you think he’s an establishment figure? ISTM he makes the GOP establishment reach for the aspirin.

@WillFarnaby

Sanders scares me because his policies show that he is stridently opposed to gaining knowledge about how the world works, a quality he shares with a majority of the public which makes him dangerous. Common people favor a minimum wage because they don’t have time to read up on it. He favors a minimum wage out of self-righteousness, willful ignorance, and plain liberal snobbery, making him a sociopath.

How do you know he does not support the minimum wage based on studying economics? There are respectable economists, such as Paul Krugman, who think it’s a good idea. Is Krugman a sociopath?

[bup]

@Fear_Itself

Most of the Republicans are polticians who will say anything to be elected, even things they don’t really believe. But Huckabee and Santorum are True Believers who have absolute certainty that their religion is right, and our government should codify their religious beliefs. That should scare anyone.

That would scare me if I thought either of them had a shot at winning.

I’m going to say Walker, like many others in this thread.

[Martin_Hyde]

@TriPolar

Lincoln Chafee should scare you. The thought of such a nebbish becoming president should scare anyone.

Heh, poor Lincoln Chafee, I legit forgot he was running and on the whole I like Chafee–at least his policy positions. After his stint as Governor he showed himself prone to some mismanagement problems, though.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Scott Walker the union-buster.

[adaher]

And that’s why I’m not a big fan of Walker. I’m tired of the partisan warfare. We need a uniter, not a divider. Scott Walker is a divider.

[ElvisL1ves]

Unlike, well, who among your guys?

[It_s_Not_Rocket_Surgery]

@adaher

And that’s why I’m not a big fan of Walker. I’m tired of the partisan warfare. We need a uniter, not a divider. Scott Walker is a divider.

No, he’s a great uniter. Most of this thread is united against him!

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

What makes you think he’s an establishment figure? ISTM he makes the GOP establishment reach for the aspirin.

How do you know he does not support the minimum wage based on studying economics? There are respectable economists, such as Paul Krugman, who think it’s a good idea. Is Krugman a sociopath?

Krugman is a political hack. A very good political hack, but one that has demonstrated intellectual dishonesty to an astonishing degree.

But before we embrace the policy prescription of Krugman the pundit, let’s ask the opinion of Krugman the economist. In his 1998 review of a book on living wages he wrote: “So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.”
Krugman the economist should know. He co-authors an Econ 101 textbook. The 2008 edition clearly states, “when the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage rate, some people who are willing to work–that is, sell labor–cannot find buyers–that is, employers–willing to give them jobs.”

So, yes I would consider krugman to be a sociopath. The fact that Sanders probably realizes this about the minimum wage (it is simple supply/demand stuff) makes him a dangerous sociopath. He is lying to his audience to further his ideology, an ideology that will make them poorer.

Cruz was first an establishment lawyer and clerk for Rehnquist, and his wife is a Goldman Sachs crony. He’s a skilled politician, a good speaker, and good fundraiser. He is raking in millions from establishment wallets this election cycle.

[Clothahump]

The idea of either Clinton or Sanders as POTUS is scary.

[BrainGlutton]

@Clothahump

The idea of either Clinton or Sanders as POTUS is scary.

Why?

[Fear_Itself]

@bup

That would scare me if I thought either of them had a shot at winning.

Maybe I misunderstood the OP. I thought it was which candidate would make the scariest president, without regard to their chances of winning.

[Buck_Godot]

@BrainGlutton

Why?

Because that’s what the right wing talking points he’s been fed say.

[bup]

@Fear_Itself

Maybe I misunderstood the OP. I thought it was which candidate would make the scariest president, without regard to their chances of winning.

Maybe that’s it. But I just can’t get scared about the thought of them anyway, because it seems so impossible.

[Procrustus]

@Fear_Itself

Maybe I misunderstood the OP. I thought it was which candidate would make the scariest president, without regard to their chances of winning.

this is from the OP:

Take into consideration both their positions and their electability.

[foolsguinea]

@WillFarnaby

Krugman is a political hack. A very good political hack, but one that has demonstrated intellectual dishonesty to an astonishing degree.

So, yes I would consider krugman to be a sociopath. The fact that Sanders probably realizes this about the minimum wage (it is simple supply/demand stuff) makes him a dangerous sociopath. He is lying to his audience to further his ideology, an ideology that will make them poorer.

Wow, some nice out-of-context quote-picking by Powell there.

I’ve been reading Krugman for years, and it does seem that he has over time come around to the “new liberal consensus” in a big way: Labor unions have a real effect on wages, government policy can broaden prosperity, redistribution can be contributory to growth rather than depress it, and so forth.

But even in the 1990’s, his statements about, “what every Econ 101 student can tell you,” were probably more qualified then Benjamin Powell would have it.

There’s some very convincing economic history backing up the idea that prevailing wage laws and better low-end blue-collar pay are very good for growth in depressed, low-liquidity environments.

[eschereal]

@WillFarnaby

The fact that Sanders probably realizes this about the minimum wage (it is simple supply/demand stuff) makes him a dangerous sociopath.

Because, yeah, the economy is a bog-simple thing that always behaves exactly as we expect it to.

He is lying to his audience to further his ideology, an ideology that will make them poorer.

The financial system is in the control of a bunch of dangerous sociopaths (a term that you do not seem to have a very good grasp of), an ideology that seeks to correct that situation hardly seems like it would be sociopathic.

[Frank]

@ElvisL1ves

Unlike, well, who among your guys?

Kasich! Kasich the uniter! Whose uniting attempt to remove state employees of their uniting union rights was overridden by the voters of Ohio.

[WillFarnaby]

@foolsguinea

Wow, some nice out-of-context quote-picking by Powell there.

I’ve been reading Krugman for years, and it does seem that he has over time come around to the “new liberal consensus” in a big way: Labor unions have a real effect on wages, government policy can broaden prosperity, redistribution can be contributory to growth rather than depress it, and so forth.

But even in the 1990’s, his statements about, “what every Econ 101 student can tell you,” were probably more qualified then Benjamin Powell would have it.

There’s some very convincing economic history backing up the idea that prevailing wage laws and better low-end blue-collar pay are very good for growth in depressed, low-liquidity environments.

First you accuse Powell of cherry-picking, then you don’t provide context. That is an odd post indeed. For myself, I have seen absolutely shameful stuff from Krugman on a regular basis, so this falls right in line with my opinion on his lack of integrity.

@eschereal

Because, yeah, the economy is a bog-simple thing that always behaves exactly as we expect it to.
The financial system is in the control of a bunch of dangerous sociopaths (a term that you do not seem to have a very good grasp of), an ideology that seeks to correct that situation hardly seems like it would be sociopathic.

The minimum wage does not correct that situation. The bailouts (both implicit and explicit) are what keeps that gang in power, and Krugman supported all of them.

What about the term do I fail to grasp?

Supply and Demand economics are very simple. Even Krugman agrees that demand curves slope downward on a good day.