The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I look at the tactics of the Republican candidates and all I can do is shake my head....

------------------------
gettyimages-497294764.jpg

Former President Bill Clinton shares a laugh with his wife and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Central Iowa Democrats fall barbecue, Nov. 15, 2015 in Ames, Iowa.

GOP, media take aim at Bill Clinton’s personal life
12/30/15 08:03 AM

By Steve Benen

It’s not like Republicans didn’t telegraph the punch. Over the summer, a variety of GOP presidential campaigns – Lindsey Graham’s, Scott Walker’s, and Rand Paul’s among them – went out of their way to take cheap shots at Bill Clinton’s personal controversies from the 1990s.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that, as far as he’s concerned, the decades-old Lewinsky scandal is one of many 2016 issues he considers “on the table.”
And now Donald Trump is getting in on the fun.

“You look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or many of them,” Trump said on NBC’s TODAY. “That certainly will be fair game. Certainly if they play the woman’s card with respect to me, that will be fair game.”

In recent days, the GOP front-runner has been highlighting the former president’s affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, saying that Bill Clinton has a pattern of “abuse of women.”

Nearly eight years ago, Trump said the sex scandals surrounding the former president were “totally unimportant.” Evidently, he’s changed his mind.

Note, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have also joined the parade, and pundits such as the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus are offering their support for the line of attack.

The remaining questions are pretty straightforward: why do Republicans think this is a smart strategy and will it have the intended effect?

On the former, GOP candidates and their campaigns are well aware of the fact that Bill Clinton is a popular national figure whose presidency is held in high regard by much of the American mainstream. When Republicans raise the prospect of a “third Clinton term,” quite a few voters are likely to think, “Sounds good to me.”

So, as the former president gets ready to hit the campaign trail, Republicans are left to clumsily go after the former president, one of the most well liked people in the country, in the hopes of knocking him down a peg or two. What do they have in the way of rhetorical ammunition? They have his extra-marital affairs … and that’s about it.

As for the efficacy of the offensive, I’m highly skeptical any voter, anywhere is likely to be impressed.

The phrase of the week is apparently “fair game” – as in, “If Bill Clinton is re-entering the political arena, his affairs are fair game for attack.” I’m not altogether exactly sure what that means in practical terms. If the point is that Clinton’s detractors are able to talk about his personal controversies decades later, then sure, have at it. But if the point is to undermine Clinton’s support, and/or immunize GOP candidates against criticisms of their right-wing platform on women’s rights and women’s interests, Republicans and their allies are likely to be very disappointed.

I’m not suggesting Bill Clinton’s sex scandals should be considered off-limits; I am suggesting this is a ridiculous gambit doomed to fail. Let’s see a show of hands: how many folks believe Bill Clinton is thinking, “If they’re going after me, maybe I should keep a low profile for the next 11 months”? Or how about the number of voters who’ll say, “I was planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, but now that I’ve been reminded about her husband’s personal troubles from the 1990s, never mind”?

As we discussed several months ago, the more Republicans went after Bill Clinton over adultery during his presidency, the more popular he became. The day the House GOP actually impeached him – Dec. 19, 1998 – Gallup put Clinton’s approval rating at a stunning 73%.

In the years since, Americans have had plenty of time to consider Clinton’s tenure, and re-litigate his personal misdeeds. As best as I can tell, the public just doesn’t care.
What’s more, in case this somehow gets lost in the shuffle, it’s probably also worth mentioning the fact that Bill Clinton isn’t a candidate for anything. (If he were, he’d probably win.) It’s Hillary Clinton who’s likely to be on the 2016 ballot, and even this field of GOP candidates isn’t prepared to start blaming her for her husband’s infidelity.

So what’s the end game? Republicans are still going to face criticism for embracing a right-wing agenda on women’s issues; Bill Clinton is still going to be a popular surrogate; the American mainstream is still going to shrug its shoulders over the Lewinsky affair.
Carly Fiorina told Fox this week, “[Y]ou’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by attacking Bill Clinton.” That’s true, which is probably why her rivals and her party should think of something else to talk about.
 

grokit

well-worn member
I look at the tactics of the Republican candidates and all I can do is shake my head....
From the 90s! And these tactics were incredibly unpopular even back then :rolleyes:

In fact, clinton left the white house "with the highest average job approval rating any president of the past half century has received over his last three months in office" :tup:
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
I look at the tactics of the Republican candidates and all I can do is shake my head.... Real simple, politicians play to their voter base. People for the most part don't want to hear campaign speeches that are too foreign to their own beliefs or they will wander off to another camp. This is just politics 101, so no surprised.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Winning the presidency as a republican is a two stage process: first you get the approval of the extremely conservative, Christian chauvinist, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-government, science-denying wingnuts who vote in republican primaries and caucuses. These people are the hard right of a party which as a whole has in recent years veered way off toward right wing delusions (such as Ayn Rand quasi-marxist fantasies of the state withering away), total math incompetence when it comes to taxes, socialism for rich capitalists and rugged individualism for everyone else... Then you have to pivot to a new stance for the general election, since what was said during primary season is so nuts they can't possibly win with that in the general. It's a serious handicap for repubs. As Jeb! put it, you have to lose the general to win the primaries.
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
An al Qaeda affiliate has apparently released a new recruitment video, telling Muslims in America that the country has a long history of racism and discrimination and will turn on its Muslim community.

The video purportedly by Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab uses historic civil rights era footage of firebrand Malcolm X and audio of 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump to label the United States a racist society.

In the wake of the San Bernandino shootings last month, Trump said he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

The video runs this line, bleeping out the word "hell."


151209063932-backlash-over-donald-trump-muslim-comments-murray-dnt-newday-00000000-medium-plus-169.jpg

Fierce backlash over Trump's plan to ban Muslims 02:11
Before that, Trump had called for surveillance of mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the country.

The video also includes recent footage of police shootings and violence against African Americans in Ferguson and Baltimore -- and claims that this is what is in store for American Muslims.

CNN cannot independently confirm the authenticity of the video. Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.

Throughout the video, excerpts of previous video messages from the late radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki are played predicting persecution of Muslims in the United States.

Al-Awlaki was U.S. born and raised and revered as a powerful motivator in terrorist operations for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

He was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011, in Yemen.
Clinton claim
[/paste:font]

151220191914-trump-clinton-split-1220-medium-plus-169.jpg


Trump demands apology from Clinton 01:58
Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric was providing fodder for Islamist terror group ISIS to use in its propaganda. ISIS and al Qaeda are rivals.

At a December 19 debate with two rivals for the Democratic nomination, she said ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."

However, that claim has never been proven.

 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
An al Qaeda affiliate has apparently released a new recruitment video, telling Muslims in America that the country has a long history of racism and discrimination and will turn on its Muslim community.

The video purportedly by Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab uses historic civil rights era footage of firebrand Malcolm X and audio of 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump to label the United States a racist society.

In the wake of the San Bernandino shootings last month, Trump said he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

The video runs this line, bleeping out the word "hell."


151209063932-backlash-over-donald-trump-muslim-comments-murray-dnt-newday-00000000-medium-plus-169.jpg

Fierce backlash over Trump's plan to ban Muslims 02:11
Before that, Trump had called for surveillance of mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the country.

The video also includes recent footage of police shootings and violence against African Americans in Ferguson and Baltimore -- and claims that this is what is in store for American Muslims.

CNN cannot independently confirm the authenticity of the video. Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.

Throughout the video, excerpts of previous video messages from the late radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki are played predicting persecution of Muslims in the United States.

Al-Awlaki was U.S. born and raised and revered as a powerful motivator in terrorist operations for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

He was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011, in Yemen.
Clinton claim
[/paste:font]

151220191914-trump-clinton-split-1220-medium-plus-169.jpg


Trump demands apology from Clinton 01:58
Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric was providing fodder for Islamist terror group ISIS to use in its propaganda. ISIS and al Qaeda are rivals.

At a December 19 debate with two rivals for the Democratic nomination, she said ISIS is "going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."

However, that claim has never been proven.
I neither support or oppose the following report... just passing it along -
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...use-dems-move-to-implement-first-sharia-laws/

Quote
On December 17, Democrat Congressmen quietly sponsored House Resolution 569, a resolution that asks lawmakers to condemn “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The resolution specifically mentions Muslims, no other religious groups, and will serve as a test by which further criminalizing of “Islamophobia” may be introduced."
Quote
“Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes”
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ, this country will never "institute sharia". Beer, boobs, and bacon aside, doing such would mean making interest illegal, and that will never happen.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Anyone mind if I throw some Nazi or Bircher propaganda in here while we're at it?

Maybe if we only post stuff we believe, or have reason to believe, it will be easier to have a conversation. Posting "reports" based on fear mongering yet claiming no support for them is probably not useful...
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Anyone mind if I throw some Nazi or Bircher propaganda in here while we're at it?

Maybe if we only post stuff we believe, or have reason to believe, it will be easier to have a conversation. Posting "reports" based on fear mongering yet claiming no support for them is probably not useful...
Not sure if I understand your point correctly, or if you understood my point for posting... I posted a link to something that poses a direct counter-point to what @CarolKing posted... both her post and mine are merely FYI regarding what's out there in the media sphere (neither are vetted for credibility or accuracy, as most media cannot be... caveat emptor) - support, neutrality, or opposition for one viewpoint or other not required. Fear mongering? Definitely not! Invitation for discussion, should anyone wish to partake - definitely, and as always.:)
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Rereading it I don't like the tone of my post. I meant no disrespect.

I DO happen to strongly believe that suggesting that Sharia might be incorporated into American jurisprudence is fear mongering and is meant to stir up animosity towards Muslims. Its only purpose is to divide people, and I see that as destructive and in no way productive. One may as well argue eugenics or racial purity as argue which religions are right and which are wrong. These are not useful constructs to me, and I would hope a lot of other people...
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
I DO happen to strongly believe that suggesting that Sharia might be incorporated into American jurisprudence is fear mongering and is meant to stir up animosity towards Muslims.

Question. If someone actually believes that Sharia might be incorporated into American law, is that fear mongering or simply stating what one actually believes or does fear mongering have nothing to do with what one really believes or not?
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Question. If someone actually believes that Sharia might be incorporated into American law, is that fear mongering or simply stating what one actually believes or does fear mongering have nothing to do with what one really believes or not?

IMO If someone actually believes something it is not fear mongering.....Having said that... I'd be really afraid for the person who believes that Sharia might be incorporated into American law. I'd suggest coming out of the bubble and removing the tin foil hat.

I always thought that the best way to fight racism, intolerance and stereotype in general was education and for the most part still feel that way. I still get surprised when someone with a higher learning degree and/or IQ spouts something 'out-there' with complete belief. Have you ever incredulously said 'You really believe that'?! to someone intelligent and found 'Yep they really believed that'.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Normally one needs a reason to believe things to be true, even if it is just faith. There are no municipalities anywhere in America that have come anywhere near instituting sharia law, even communities with large Muslims populations. Sharia is completely incompatible with American jurisprudence. One would have to abandon the principles of our legal institutions to enact Sharia. Is that likely to happen? No. Is it even possible? Not if American law is still in force. So, does someone have to be fear mongering to believe that Sharia may be coming? No, but they have to be stupid, or at best very ignorant of how things work here. However, the source where they are HEARING about Sharia from is fear mongering.

Is someone afraid that aliens are going to come and take them away fear mongering? No, but something else important isn't working properly...
Have you ever incredulously said 'You really believe that'?! to someone intelligent and found 'Yep they really believed that'.
That happens to me all the time when talking to people who insist they are voting republican in 2016...
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Rereading it I don't like the tone of my post. I meant no disrespect.

I DO happen to strongly believe that suggesting that Sharia might be incorporated into American jurisprudence is fear mongering and is meant to stir up animosity towards Muslims. Its only purpose is to divide people, and I see that as destructive and in no way productive. One may as well argue eugenics or racial purity as argue which religions are right and which are wrong. These are not useful constructs to me, and I would hope a lot of other people...
...Anyway, despite a spongy-ground start of unsure footing, I think good discussion is now being had among us. Political correctness has become an insane ubiquitous form of extremism. I personally find most current expressions of it, mostly found in media, to be ridiculous and should be taken with no more than a grain of salt and a snicker, hardly cause for fear among the mongering masses, but it is what it is. Saw this the other day, more unnecessary bullshit - a sad sign of the times:

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

Plus, a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wisher.

*Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms.

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.

This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher who assumes no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit."

BTW: I neither believe that Trump, if elected (BIG IF!), would ever be able to enforce a ban on all Muslims, nor do I believe for a second that Sharia law would ever be incorporated into our system of jurisprudence in any way, ever. But this is the shit that our media feeds the hungry mongering poorly educated masses - supply & demand. McDonald's for the mind & soul.
 
Last edited:

Derrrpp

For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky
Saw this the other day, more unnecessary bullshit - a sad sign of the times:

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

Plus, a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wisher.

*Disclaimer: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms.

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.

This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher who assumes no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit."

I'm curious, where did you see that? Reading it, I have to assume it's satire. Seems like a textbook example.

If that's not intended to be satirical, then... :disgust: :mental:
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
January 03, 2016 1:15 PM
Republicans Going for Broke On The Angry 20-30%

Texas governor Greg Abbott had choice words for President Obama and his plan to use executive power to expand gun safety laws:

“Obama wants to impose more gun control. My response? COME & TAKE IT.”

Grover Norquist went farther, comparing Obama to Darth Vader. So what is the President planning to do, exactly, that makes him some combination of Persian Emperor and Sith Lord? Mostly, expand background checks and clarify a federal rule or two:

The Post said Obama would use executive authority in several areas, including expanding background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume dealers… Thousands of guns are sold yearly by dealers who fall between licensed dealers and occasional sellers who do not need a license. Clarification could define which sellers need to meet rules and do background checks. Alcorn said.

It’s worth remembering in this context that a full 88% of Americans support stronger background checks for gun purchases—including 79% of Republicans. This is not a contentious issue except to a very small percentage of Americans who consider owning unchecked and unregulated arsenals a sacred right (while insisting that access to healthcare is not.)

But this isn’t unusual. Seventy percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform, for example. That’s not particularly contentious, either, except to America’s most bigoted elements.

63% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich and on large corporations to reduce income inequality. Only 31% oppose, with the rest uncertain. Again, this isn’t a terribly problematic issue in a normal democracy where supermajorities rule the day.

Republicans, however, are increasingly trapping themselves into a strategy that doubles down on the angriest and least moral 20-30% of the population. They do have the advantage of knowing that that demographic votes more reliably and consistently than the other 70-80% of the public. It’s true that many of these voters, especially the ones with the deadly arsenals, are incredibly passionate about their views and will not only vote but work hard to encourage others to vote their way as well.

But it’s also true that this particular demographic is declining in number. And in the long run a political party cannot succeed by continuing to court an ever slimmer set of out-of-touch voters, particularly in a high-turnout election.

Nothing in this analysis is new, of course. But it’s worth noting that this year is different in the degree to which the GOP has placed its bet on the rump 20-30%, the virulence with which it is doing so in its rhetoric, the obvious disadvantages it is working with in polling not just on the issues but also with candidate head-to-head matchups, and the rapid decline of the very voter base on which it is depending.

Yes, the GOP will probably quite well in the House for the next few years. Yes, it will continue to control large numbers of mostly rural and Southern states.

But electoral gravity cannot be defied forever. Tipping points turn into breaking points. And it’s going to be very ugly when the worst fifth of America’s population realizes that it really isn’t the silent majority anymore, and just how few friends it has left.
 
Top Bottom