The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Vanity Fair Oct. 5, 2016
And Pence’s boss might not be pleased.
Indiana governor Mike Pence, America’s humorless gym teacher, almost managed to make Donald Trump look palatable at the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night, largely by ignoring all of the positions Trump has taken, or denying them altogether. This had the immediate effect of enthralling many Republicans, who for 90 minutes glimpsed an alternate reality in which the order of the G.O.P. ticket was reversed, while having the unintended effect of potentially angering Pence’s ostensible boss.

On the facts, Pence clearly lost the debate, giving fact-checkers several metric tons of material to work with the next day. (Indeed, there were moments in which Pence directly contradicted Trump in an attempt to make his candidate look rational.) But in terms of style, Pence was the clear winner. Weaponizing a Midwestern politesse, a soothing voice honed by years in talk radio, and a predilection for staying on message—even if it was the one he wanted, not the one his campaign has—Pence easily flustered Kaine, who charged eagerly into the debate as if he was prepared to take on Trump himself, only to find himself flummoxed.

Republicans, particularly those in the professional political class, were ebullient, falling over themselves to declare Pence the winner of their hearts. Several dozen G.O.P. insiders surveyed by Politico, who had bemoaned Trump’s debate performance last week, were universally pleased with Pence’s performance. One Michigan Republican praised Pence for being “calm, reasoned, on message and polite, [while] Kaine was arrogant, rude and defensive.”

On Twitter, the Pence love-fest quickly turned adulterous. “If the RNC would sell a PENCE 2016 sticker with Trump crossed off of it, I could buy it,” said Amanda Carpenter, formerly Ted Cruz’s communications director, joking that she hoped Trump would be impeached in January. “If Trump had been half as good as Pence last Monday, the race might look different right now,” National Review editor Rich Lowry declared. “Pence speaks the language of conservatives in a way Trump does not and cannot,” tweeted Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes, adding that his performance was bound to reassure Republican voters on the fence about Trump. The highest praise for Pence, however, came from commentator and bigly #NeverTrumper Erick Erickson, who suggested that Pence had a promising political career that might just survive Trump’s orange stain. “Pence has convinced me conservatives should not write him off for 2020 just by being Trump's VP nominee,” he wrote. “He was solid.”

With all the G.O.P. love for Pence, some speculated that jealousy could not be far behind. Several sources within the Trump campaign told reporters that the billionaire would likely be upset that Pence outperformed him. “Pence won overall, but lost with Trump,” a Trump adviser told Bloomberg’s John Harwood. “He can’t stand to be upstaged.”

I was just telling my husband this last night. I bet Trump is pissed at Mike Pence because he did better at the debate. He's so predictable. I thought this was a good article. IMO important facts were brought up regarding of what Trump has been saying. Kaine just said it in an annoying way by butting in.
:leaf:
 
Last edited:

gangababa

Well-Known Member
(excerpted from longer post in religion thread)
Discussing religion in the context of politics is acceptable when we use our scriptures to guide our own behaviors and inform our own morality.
It is violence to use one's own subjective scriptures in ways that cause objective harm to others.
One can say Clinton is not ethical enough for me. One can say Trump is factually a serial liar. These are moral judgements and ethical facts.

In this country of USA, religion is not a acceptable societal yardstick for governing; it is in the constitution, no religious test for running, and thus none for serving or governing.
One can not say, ... "Bible says so, so laws must".

Politics is morality and ethics.
Ethics means being good.
...
Dharma, polite conduct (PC) is not a mandate of God, it is a manifestation of Truth (God).
We all know this. Who can truly affirm they want to be lied to, stolen from, cheated by, or in any other way seek disturbance in one's own life?
...
Not knowing is natural. Knowledge replaces ignorance. All ignoring of the known is subjectivity.
...
God is not an 'other' that can be the "object" of knowledge.
What means of knowledge (what 5 senses and what logic) can reveal the limitless?

What we understand of knowledge and learning is all about the temporal and relative world, not the absolute. Mathematics reveals this side of the 'Big Bang' event horizon. Math began then and can't reveal the Big Bang behind itself.
...
Applying scripture to legislation brings disturbance; and it is unconstitutional.

Here among us in the USA and elsewhere among others, the use of scripture to justify political repression and harm to other people is a failure of understanding, and cause of ungodly disasters.
...
"Render onto Caesar..." etc.
...
To Mike Pence and his ilk, I say, God makes people gay.
If this is not true of you (whoever you are or think yourself to be), then you are unhappy.
Only the joyous join God.

So, yes there is disturbance without truthiness when in our Constitutional USA, there are those who are SO sure of their subjective projections ( like creation is 6000 years old), so certain of their reflected-back world, colored by such selfish assurance, that they are willing to cause (or allow) actual harm to others (because others fall short of their moral projections).
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
We are suppose to have separation between religion and state. Our leader's and law maker's ideas about their religion often can't be separated when they are deciding important issues in our country, such as abortion rights for example or gay rights.

What would happen if an atheist decided to run for president? A little food for thought. Maybe some would think apples and oranges. A lot of prejudice regarding religions and lack of one.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Voting for Johnson (or Stein or Pete Seeger or Jesus) allows someone to defend themselves from the argument that they have no right to complain because they didn't bother to vote. It doesn't advance anyone towards the White House, but it also can't be taken as supporting Trump or Clinton. The idea that voting for Johnson is a vote for Trump isn't reasonable to me.

This would lose it's salience if there was much of a chance that enough votes for Johnson might prevent anyone from getting 270, but I think that is very unlikely. If it WERE to happen, I have no idea at this point who the House would choose. I doubt it would be Trump, but...
 
cybrguy,

grokit

well-worn member
Both sides say that a vote for a 3rd party is a
vote for their opponent, so it's the only way to say
FUCK YOU !!
to both of them :2c:

:myday:
 

063_XOBX

Ganjapreneur
Both sides say that a vote for a 3rd party is a
vote for their opponent, so it's the only way to say
FUCK YOU !!
to both of them.

:myday:
Just a few months ago our friends across the pond had a little "protest" vote that wasn't supposed to do any harm. Look how that went.

If you choose to go 3rd party and something awful happens (whatever that is) your "protest" was part of the problem.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
Both sides say that a vote for a 3rd party
is a vote for their opponent, so it's the only way to say
FUCK YOU!
to both of them.

:myday:

I hear ya, but I gotta keep pressing on this. Other than some personal satisfaction, what practical purpose does it serve to say "fuck you" to both them?

One of them is going to be our President and Commander-in-Chief. You can say, "FUCK YOU" till the cows come home but that doesn't change anything. We don't have an option to disqualify both of them. While they both share some of the same things that would cause one to dislike both of them, they are NOT the same.

It's like, take out a piece of paper and list the negatives and positives of each one and vote for the one that for YOU, has the most positives or the least amount of negatives. Doesn't that make more sense than to (and I'm not saying this to belittle anyones thoughts on this, but it is a good analogy) throw a "fuck you temper tantrum"?
 

grokit

well-worn member
I'm tired of being manipulated by this two-party tyranny bullshit, even if I haven't been around for all 150 years of it. From what I can see brexit hasn't destroyed much of anything over in the uk; apple computer even pledged to build a huge new campus over there post-brexit which is a huge vote of economic confidence. If hillary decides to invade syria over the objections of our generals and russia responds in kind to protect its military assets (it could be their pearl harbor), a lot of folks will be regretting voting for wwiii as well. This is promising to be a historic election year for 3rd-party voting, and I'd much rather be a part of that history than be forced to choose between an unabashed lying criminal racist giant douche weakling of a strongman, and an ambitious isis-enabling warmongering nwo-sellout turd sandwich career politician.

:myday:
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
This is promising to be a historic election year for 3rd-party voting, and I'd much rather be a part of that history....

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here but I gotta keep coming back to......in the whole scheme of things, what does being a part of 3rd party voting accomplish for it surly doesn't accomplish the fight against a two party system but rather just voicing the dissatisfaction of their particular candidates and what in the hell does that accomplish when you look out to year 4 from now.

What am I missing here?
 

grokit

well-worn member
I know I'm sounding like a broken record here but I gotta keep coming back to......in the whole scheme of things, what does being a part of 3rd party voting accomplish?
What does voting for more gridlock accomplish?

Absolutely nothin' say it again

Because that's all you're doing when you vote republicrat.

:myday:
 
grokit,

grokit

well-worn member
The process hasn't even started yet.

It depends on what you mean by "started";
from 3 days ago:

Brexit begins: Theresa May takes axe to EU laws

Theresa-Summary2-small_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png

Theresa May wants to make Parliament sovereign

2 October 2016 • 9:56am

Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in a move that will formally begin the process of making Britain’s Parliament sovereign once again.

Addressing the Conservative Party Conference for the first time as leader, Mrs May will on Sunday declare that her Government will begin work to end the legislation that gives European Union law supremacy in Britain.

In its place, a new “Great Repeal Bill” will be introduced in Parliament as early as next year to put power for the nation’s laws back into the hands of MPs and peers.

The announcement is Mrs May’s first firm commitment on Brexit since becoming Prime Minister in July and marks a major step on the road to ending the country’s EU membership.

Leading Eurosceptics are likely to cheer the news after they put repealing the law at the heart of a “Brexit manifesto” published just days before the referendum. Ministers will also announce protections for workers’ rights secured via Brussels, such as parental leave and automatic holiday, to pre-empt Labour attacks.

It is intended to show critics that No 10 does have a plan for Brexit, after weeks of sniping that the Government does not have a clear strategy for the forthcoming negotiations.

Mrs May will take to the stage with her three Brexit Cabinet ministers – Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis – to show a unified front on the first day of conference.

much more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/brexit-begins-theresa-may-takes-axe-to-eu-laws/

:myday:
 
grokit,

063_XOBX

Ganjapreneur
From what I can see brexit hasn't destroyed much of anything over in the uk; apple computer even pledged to build a huge new campus over there post-brexit which is a huge vote of economic confidence."
Did you see what happened to the Euro on the day brexit passed? I am genuinely terrified of the (short and long term) effects this election might have on the $ and the global economy.

Saying fuck the system and/or 3rd party is being selfish / obstinate and forcing those who aren't willing to risk burning everything down as a "protest" to worry about our future.

If ~35% of the country is just blatantly self-destructive and x% (who could help) is determined to stand on the sidelines as some kind of moral high ground what does that say about us as a people?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Pardon me. Brexit made it's first move 3 days ago after being voted on in July. I missed it. You still have ZERO basis to suggest "brexit hasn't destroyed much of anything over in the uk" when the process is BARELY begun. At the very least it has already destroyed confidence among many of the British people.
But hey, we can come back to this in a year. Let this post hold our places, grokit. :)

Back to OUR politics.

Is there any reason to believe, a month before the election, that the Johnson Weld ticket is likely to get ANY electoral votes? Is there ANY state where they are leading, or within 30 points of either candidate other than New Mexico where Johnson was Governor?? All but 2 states (I think) are winner take all.

Edit: Right, Nebraska and Maine with 9 votes between them.
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

grokit

well-worn member
If ~35% of the country is just blatantly self-destructive
Problem is that the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%, the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%, and the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%.

:myday:
 
grokit,

063_XOBX

Ganjapreneur
Problem is that the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%; that the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%; that the other ~35% thinks the same thing about the other ~35%.

:myday:
That's not the case though. Like Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a wel-known liberal bias".

It's a false equivalence to say that because both sides demonize the opposition that it's better to stay out of the process.


If you try to compare rhetoric, campaign slogans, supporters or even independent fact-checks there's almost no comparison between the two sides.

One person is unlikable but otherwise the same as just about every other politician while the other one is actually (or just tries very hard to seem) dangerous and unpredictable.

I doubt I can convince you or anyone else but to act as if saying "FUCK THE SYSTEM" is some kind of moral high ground is disingenuous at best.

You might as well write in Santa Claus for all the good it will do and maybe you'll get a nice surprise around X-mas.
 

grokit

well-worn member
I doubt I can convince you or anyone else but to act as if saying "FUCK THE SYSTEM" is some kind of moral high ground is disingenuous at best.
I'm not saying fuck the system, those are your words.

Fuck the two-party system, in order to form a more perfect union. Voting independent is actually important, in a functioning democracy in order to prevent the non-productive stalemate we are suffering from today.

I'm not walking away from voting, I'm registering my protest in the only way that I can.

If a third party candidate receives a large number of votes, or enough votes to change the outcome of an election, political leaders receive a signal that the ideas advanced by the third candidate are worth considering. Strong showings by the Libertarians, Greens or other third parties in the 2016 election are very unlikely to prevent a Trump or Clinton presidency. But they could affect the positions presidential candidates take in 2020 and beyond. Just as many points in the Socialist Party platform became part of FDR’s New Deal, ideas from today’s third parties may be implemented by a future major party administration. From this perspective, a third party vote is not a waste at all. Votes for the major party candidates, by contrast, reinforce the notion that their policies and personal attributes are good enough for the American public. Rather than accept these unappetizing choices, voters should demand better.

For one thing, I'm tired of democrats that only protest for peace when republicans are in office.

:peace::myday:
 
Last edited:
grokit,

Farid

Well-Known Member
Let me ask you a question. What purpose does it serve to vote for Johnson? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Farid. I'm just trying to understand. Why vote for a candidate that can't win? Again, what purpose does that serve?

The purpose it serves is that Johnson gets my vote, and he is one vote closer to victory. If I trusted the media I would believe that Sanders had no chance (something I believed for a long time). Now that it is clear that the media favors Clinton I have come to the conclusion that I should not trust polls and I should vote for who I support. No amount of bullying will get me to vote for somebody who wants to go to war in Syria. Clinton and Trump both want to bomb the people who are on the front lines fighting ISIS. Fuck both of them, I will never EVER vote for either.

The purpose is I can tell my kids that I didn't vote for a candidate that would force me to compromise my values. You have values I'm sure. I bet there are issues that are "red lines" for you.
 
Farid,

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Silat, @Farid never said that Clinton WANTS to start a war with Russia. He said that Clintons penchant for invading Syria "could" start a war with Russia.

Actually here is his quote:
"somebody who is running on a platform that includes invading Syria and possibly starting a war with Russia."

1/ She does not have a platform for invasion.
2/ She most certainly does not have a platform for war with Russia.

If Farid can provide any links that dispute my statement or back his up I am more than willing to read them.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
Creating a no fly zone over Syria would be a declaration of war against the Syrian Government, and Russia is on the ground there helping them. There is a video I just posted where a US general says creating a no fly zone would effectively lead to war with Syria and Russia. I don't know which VP debate you watched, but in the one I watched there was little disagreement between Pence and Kane about wanting to attack the Syrian Government forces (or the Assad regime as they always put it).

Here are your sources, Silat. Clinton saying she is advocating for a no fly zone. The other source was the VP debate we all just watched.
 
Last edited:
Farid,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

lwien

Well-Known Member
No amount of bullying will get me to vote for somebody who wants to go to war in Syria. Clinton and Trump both want to bomb the people who are on the front lines fighting ISIS. Fuck both of them, I will never EVER vote for either.

The purpose is I can tell my kids that I didn't vote for a candidate that would force me to compromise my values. You have values I'm sure. I bet there are issues that are "red lines" for you.

I'm not bullying you Farid. I'm just trying to understand while at the same time, giving my own perspective. If you believe that I am bullying you, than please accept my sincere apologizes for that was and is not my intent.

In regards to the views on Syria from Clinton and Trump, I totally agree with you. They both have their heads up the ass on this. I saw an interview, I think it was on 60 minutes, with Abdullah II of Jordan who basically said the same thing, that is, that the US has no idea what is really going on, and as such, is making some really stupid-ass decisions, but I can't think of any candidate, past or present, who does know what's going on and that scares the shit out of me.

And yes, I do have red lines as well. It's just that outside of your red lines, I see a vast difference between Trump and Clinton and for me, the choice is a pretty easy choice to make. I didn't say it was a palatable choice, but it is an easy one.

While your red lines and my red lines may differ, please know that I respect yours and I thank you for your responses to my questions.
 
lwien,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Creating a no fly zone over Syria would be a declaration of war against the Syrian Government, and Russia is on the ground there helping them. There is a video I just posted where a US general says creating a no fly zone would effectively lead to war with Syria and Russia. I don't know which VP debate you watched, but in the one I watched there was little disagreement between Pence and Kane about wanting to attack the Syrian Government forces (or the Assad regime as they always put it).

Here are your sources, Silat. Clinton saying she is advocating for a no fly zone. The other source was the VP debate we all just watched.

None of those call for a war. No fly zones only lead to a US led war when a con is president. /s
You are stretching.
And for the record I do not support the pissing contest in Syria. There are no good choices. In fact Assad my be the best choice considering the alternatives.


For those that want to vote Stein or another 3rd party candidate this is a great chat that should bring some clarity:
 
Top Bottom