The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

As far as the ability of the prospective president-elect to compromise with what I consider an overtly racist congress that will be ideologically pitted against him/her, I think that they have not only demonstrated that they will not work with a black man; they are not shy about their general bias against women either.

That was quite a run-on sentence so I'll let it be its own paragraph. But it's something to think about

It's a lot easier to get away with bigotry when your target population is a minority like blacks or jews, but women are a majority in this country. And while the resistance to the equal pay act and the treatment of Planned Parenthood show discrimination against women HAS been considered acceptable in the past, those kind of policies are on the way out.

I think not choosing Hillary because she is female would be pretty cynical and likely a mistake in 2016.

grokit said:

As far as the ability of the prospective president-elect to compromise with what I consider an overtly racist congress that will be ideologically pitted against him/her, I think that they have not only demonstrated that they will not work with a black man; they are not shy about their general bias against women either.

That was quite a run-on sentence so I'll let it be its own paragraph. But it is something to think about

Click to expand...

The wacky world of democracy where the bad guys are entitled to their fair share of representation just like the good guys. The challenge is how do such representatives work together for the good of the nation in spite of differences. My take is If they can't and the nation suffers they should get the cardboard box regardless of their position.

cybrguy said:

I think not choosing Hillary because she is female would be pretty cynical and likely a mistake in 2016.

Click to expand...

It's more about an answer to the notion that there would be even more gridlock if sanders is elected.
More than we have now, or more than there would be with hillary.

As I said I see sanders as a progressive populist more than as a liberal,
that might make a difference with this congress as well.

It's more about an answer to the notion that there would be even more gridlock if sanders is elected....Being an elected representative is a job and you are expected to produce. If an employee goes to an employer with the same old tired set of excuses for failure, time after time most places will find a replacement. Sadly that process is not working with our elected employees, if they fail they blame the other guy, escape the repercussions and turn their failure into a rallying call in the next election. My contention is simple, actual employee performance should be noted and acted on come election time.

I don't know if they do this anymore... but I believe GE used to fire the bottom 10% of the work force on a Rank and Yank basis. No questions asked and no excuses accepted...bottom 10% of a group and out you go. Quite the motivator.

Maybe if we used a procedure like that instead of the tenured popularity contest we have now we'd get something done and politicians would have to 'work for a living'. Maybe they'd even show up to vote on a policy or two instead of just showing up for an election. Can you imagine how much their voting record count would climb?

Isn't it the "Heckler's Veto" if we get talked out of voting our conscience because something that hasn't happened yet will prevent success?
I have had many friends over the years who were paralyzed by potential failure. Democracy works best when you vote what you think is right and then we count the votes, not before.
I have been so positive and so wrong over the years, impossible to add up. I keep swinging though.

I think it is all up to the individual to select their own processes (both voter & candidate) on decision making. If it is a policy hounds endless pursuit of details, a true believers vote from the hart or just someone’s effort to represent his constituents desires its up to the individual and come election time they should reap what they have sown.

Of course it's up to the individual. When people are very foolish or gullible about this decision, however, we all have to reap what they sow.

KimDracula said:

Of course it's up to the individual. When people are very foolish or gullible about this decision, however, we all have to reap what they sow.

Click to expand...

Yep, its the way democracy is supposed to work. I like majority rule even if I don't always get what I want.

KimDracula said:

Of course it's up to the individual. When people are very foolish or gullible about this decision, however, we all have to reap what they sow.

Click to expand...

All you can really do is try to educate people. Some people are open to facts and records and some people are not. For some folks it is a beauty contest. For some a conformation of affiliation. For some it is a duty to learn the facts and make the best decision and for some it is nothing but a waste of time.

Those of us who REALLY care will do whatever we think we can to produce the results that we want and others will hide from the discussion however they can and quietly pull the lever, or just stay home. Ya can't MAKE people care, anymore than you can MAKE them think.

All WE can really do is suggest how important it is and hope that people will make the effort. Decisions are made by the people who show up.

What does experience mean? Judge for yourself:

South Carolina Democrat Withdraws Support for Hillary Clinton
Walter Scott lawyer endorses Bernie Sanders instead

A South Carolina lawmaker withdrew his support for Hillary Clinton Monday, instead electing to back Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) for president.

South Carolina state representative Justin Bamberg decided that Sanders unveiled a superior platform to better the lives of individuals living in the South and across the nation, the New York Times reported.

“Hillary Clinton is more a representation of the status quo when I think about politics or about what it means to be a Democrat,” Bamberg said. “Bernie Sanders on the other hand is bold. He doesn’t think like everyone else. He is not afraid to call things as they are.”

Bamberg is also the lawyer for the family of Walter Scott, a black South Carolina man who was shot and killed by a white police officer last April. Bamberg had previously endorsed Clinton in December, citing her commitment to criminal justice reform.

However, the Democratic lawmaker said he hadn’t given Sanders a “fair shake” before deciding to back Clinton. Since, he has learned more about the Vermont senator and listened to his campaign speeches, making the decision to change his endorsement after he and Sanders had a conversation about Scott’s death last week.

“What I got from him was not a presidential candidate talking to a state representative, or an old white man talking to a young black guy,” Bamberg explained. “What I got from him was a man talking to a man about things that they are passionate about, and that was the tipping point for me.”

The development could spell trouble for Clinton, who is trailing Sanders in the key early states of Iowa and New Hampshire despite being widely considered as the likely nominee.

more:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sout...ail&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-a27d4f870f-45962761

Farid said:

What does experience mean? Judge for yourself:

Click to expand...

I'm sure this will make me a monster in your eyes, Farid, but given her explanation for her vote (in your vid), and given that it was way too early to see what a bad President GWB would be, or to see how badly he would prosecute a war she clearly hoped he would not engage in, I have no problem with the decision she made, and to be honest I would probably have done the same. She knew after 8 years in the White House supporting her husband that the strength of the President in international affairs COMES from his ability to act. Take that away and you severely weaken his influence.

Had a different President been in the White House congress giving him/her the authority to act would have been the right thing to do.

The point is that some people did predict what a mistake invading Iraq would be. People like Bernie Sanders in his speech against the war. He couldn't be more on point with his predictions, which is why I think he is better prepared to deal with foreign policy than Clinton.

Farid said:

The point is that some people did predict what a mistake invading Iraq would be. People like Bernie Sanders in his speech against the war. He couldn't be more on point with his predictions, which is why I think he is better prepared to deal with foreign policy than Clinton.

Click to expand...

I agree, regarding foreign policy she would be more like obama is than bill was.
Bill kept things

grokit said:

I agree, regarding foreign policy she would be more like obama is than bill was.
Bill kept things

Click to expand...

The shot callers from both parties are not trying to pull the plug on this war (that is not a war) and so its no surprise that the more mainline candidates aren’t visiting the issue in the campaign. What I hope is we don't get another decade and a half of involvement in the region.

I was totally against going to war with Iraq at the time when everybody was on the bandwagon to make things right because of "911". I couldn't believe how crazy things got. People were saying things like. If you are against the war then you are against America.

Bernie Sanders stood up, even though it wasn't the popular thing to do and voted no to war. He also mentioned what would happen . He was pretty right on. I'm not for everything he believes in but I do with most things. I hope he does well. Nobody thought that his momentum would explode the way it has.

There are some dangerous individual running for president that could really set the country back. I know we would recover.

Ronald Reagon changed mental healthcare in America and it didn't recover. They still need to fix what he undone some 30+ years ago. That's why you see so many mental ill walking around not being helped. The mentally ill seem to have been forgotten. It seems ironic because the last years of President Reagon's life he suffered from a mental illness. He had lots of money and caregivers unlike some less unfortunate individuals.

The country seems to be doing a lot better since the Obama presidency. He hasn't done s bad job. The other side chose not to work with a democratic president. The same thing will continue. Something in the house and senate needs to change.

The president is the leader of their party as well as the commander and chief of the military if they are not in support of the war it's over but its not so neither party gets a pass on this cluster fuck.

We can debate this until the cows come home but the Anerican people and our lawmakers were lied to when it comes to the Iraq Clusterfuck. I think we know who lied. Nobody will ever be accountable either.

America be careful who you elect as the leader of our military.

CarolKing said:

We can debate this until the cows come home but the Anerican people and our lawmakers were lied to when it comes to the Iraq Clusterfuck. I think we know who lied. Nobody will ever be accountable either.

America be careful who you elect as the leader of our military.

Click to expand...

With respect and simply its still happening on his watch.

howie105 said:

With respect and simply its still happening on his watch.

Click to expand...

Some criticism of Obama's foreign policy is in order but you gotta be more specific than to equate what his administration has been doing to the massive conspiracy put on the entire government and the people of the US that was W's prosecution of the second Iraq War. At least call it "regime change" or something, and mention Ghadafi.

KimDracula said:

Some criticism of Obama's foreign policy is in order but you gotta be more specific than to equate what his administration has been doing to the massive conspiracy put on the entire government and the people of the US that was W's prosecution of the second Iraq War. At least call it "regime change" or something, and mention Ghadafi.

Click to expand...

Once more, "its still happening on his watch". If Clinton, Trump, Sanders or whoever wins the general election and the war continues then its happening on their watch.

I'm not even sure what "it" is. This is one vague argument.

I don't think America needs to be involved in issues all over the World. Why do we need to continue to be the World's peace keeper. I'm for a president that will avoid war at all costs. A war is the last resort. Or should be the last resort.

What's wrong with our tax dollars going towards education, healthcare and infrastructure. Our roads and bridges all over the U.S need repair.


Edit
CNN projects Cruz as winning the Iowa Caucus for the GOP. I'm glad Trump didn't win.