• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Gunky

Well-Known Member
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/electability-2/
Electability

February 6, 2016 1:58 pm February 6, 2016 1:58 pm
If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. And all of them dismiss current polls as meaningless.
You are, of course, free to disagree. But you need to carefully explain why you disagree — what evidence do you have suggesting that these scholars’ conclusions, which are based on history and data, not just gut feelings, are wrong?
And there are two really unacceptable answers that I’m sure will pop up again and again in comments. One is to dismiss all such analyses as the product of corruption — they’re all bought and paid for by Wall Street, or looking for a job in a Clinton administration. No, they aren’t. The other is to say that you’re willing to take the chance, because Clinton would be just as bad as a Republican. That’s what Naderites said about Al Gore; how’d that work out?
I have some views of my own, of course, but I’m not a political scientist, man — I just read political scientists and take their work very seriously. What I do bring to this kind of discussion, I hope, is an awareness of two kinds of sin that can corrupt political discussion.
The obvious sin involves actually selling one’s views. And that does happen, of course.
But what happens even more, in my experience, is an intellectual sin whose effects can be just as bad: self-indulgence. By this I mean believing things, and advocating for policies, because you like the story rather than because you have any good evidence that it’s true. I’ve spent a lot of time over the years going after this sort of thing on the right, where things like the claim that Barney Frank somehow caused the financial crisis so often prevail in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. But it can happen on the left, too — which is why, for example, I’m still very cautious about claims that inequality is bad for growth.
On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your own conclusions. But do consider the evidence — don’t decide what you want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too high for that, and history will not forgive you.
 

grokit

well-worn member
My #1 issue with hillary (and there are so many) is gmos.

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Talks About Her Plan to Get People to Accept GMOs
Watch Hillary Clinton explain at a Biotech convention her plan to change the narrative of how GMOs are promoted to the public in order to get their support.

They don't call her the queen of monsanto & bride of gmo's for nothing :2c:
:puke:
Hillary-Clinton-Monsanto-2016.jpg
 
grokit,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Right, because college campuses are the political center of the world given their "HUGE" turnout and follow through...

The 2014 Youth Vote

  • 19.9 percent of 18- to 29-years old cast ballots in the 2014 elections. That was the lowest youth turnout rate ever recorded in a federal election. See CIRCLE’s analysis here.
  • Overall, young voters in 2014 favored Democratic Congressional candidates over Republicans. For example, according to the national exit poll data on House races, youth aged 18-29 preferred Democratic candidates by 55% to 42%. Young voters also backed Democratic candidates in most Senate races. Read our analysis of youth vote choice here.
Funny that didn't result in a Democratic House and Senate...

Any chance the youth vote in 2014 was so disillusioned by the gridlock, etc. that they just said 'Fuck it...doesn't make a difference anyway' and that maybe Bernie is energizing them the way Obama did his first time out?
 

grokit

well-worn member
And if he does the REPUBLICANS win the general. It's that simple.
This is false.
Bernie has a much better chance in the general, according to all the polls of likely voters.
It's almost over for hillary, again.
The well-paid politicos and pundits are trying to spin toward her to no avail.
The problem isn't who she is, but what she stands for.
Hint: it ain't US :2c:
 
Last edited:
grokit,
  • Like
Reactions: steama

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
I see a lot of general mistrust and dislike and a lot about the Iraq war....Well usually if you are the Secretary of State and you boss is actively destabilizing an entire region you are expected to share in the arrows and laurels as they come.

along with the stuff about speaking fees and lobbying from Wall Street, which again is coming straight from the Sanders campaign....Once again, big money in campaigns is an old complaint levelled at both parties and Clinton chose to commit the same action, how one chooses to react to the action is an individual call.

I'm wondering if anyone is doing their own homework when it comes to Clinton. That's all....139,000,000 citizens, yeah I think some may be awake and no I don't expect them to all agree.

You seemed to really gloss over how many ridiculous non-scandals have been thrown at Hillary...That is an opinion and while you are free to have it doesn’t make it so, now dose it?

... in order to discredit her and wrote only about what political opponents do to each other....Wait let me check, yep Sanders is an political opponent and she is surly trying to do him. Seriously look at the whole campaign operations surrogates, family members and paid staffers all operations roast the opposition while they and many of the same surrogates also plead innocence.

I'm not really getting what you're putting down here nor do I understand what you're on about regarding Bernie's campaign management. My point is that Bernie is only really hitting one note over and over and IMO he needs to have a broader message...OK let me try it this way, Sanders has a professional team of managers planing his presentation. If they have decided to focus on a limited set of topics it wasn't by accident. Right or wrong they are the pros getting the big bucks, aren’t they? Is that any clearer for you?

Snide comments are a poor substitute for the substance and detail that I was asking for. I'll go ahead and avoid you for the rest of the thread because this is neither entertaining nor illuminating.
 
KimDracula,

howie105

Well-Known Member
Snide comments are a poor substitute for the substance and detail that I was asking for. I'll go ahead and avoid you for the rest of the thread because this is neither entertaining nor illuminating.

Exactly what are you referring to? Maybe I can make it simpler for you.
 
howie105,

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
It would be great to get our information and opinions across without it getting aggressive. It's clear many of us wear our political leanings on our sleeves. There are points on both sides worth considering, and points on both sides that make you want to scream because the Founding Fathers set us on course for a rousing debate.
May the vapor keep the community united.:)
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
My #1 issue with hillary (and there are so many) is gmos.
You do realize that GMO wheat has saved hundreds of millions of humans from starving to death, right?

This is false.
Bernie has a much better chance in the general, according to all the polls of likely voters.
It's almost over for hillary, again.
This is complete fantasy. Nevermind the fact that general election polls this far out are all but meaningless, none of the polls so far can account for the republicans beating the shit out of Bernie for being a socialist, because none of them ARE yet, and they won't unless he wins the nod. And then it will be too late to get Hillary, or anyone, to run in his stead. And the republicans win. THIS AMERICA AT THIS TIME DOES NOT ELECT A SOCIALIST.
Did I say that loud enough?
Tell you what. Lets revisit this after some primaries in states that are not all white. Maybe we wont even need the argument about socialism when he shows that he can't win minority votes from folks over 24 years old...
 
cybrguy,

grokit

well-worn member
As usual we have a different opinion, @cybrguy :rolleyes:

What bernie needs is an actual communist to run to the right of:rofl:!

Let's see it we're even on the same page in regards to these political philosophies:

Fascism: What is it? Think Mussolini—he is the poster child for what a fascist is. While he started out as a socialist, he did not stay one, denouncing socialism in December 1914. The formal definition of fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism is usually placed on the far right within the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Marxism: The granddaddy of political philosophies on the left. The child of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it’s the philosophy that laid the ground work for socialism and communism. But what is it? The formal definition of Marxism is the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx, and “a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.” Much is this is laid out by Marx in Das Kapital, which is a fascinating read if you are so inclined. Marxism is on the far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Communism: The direct descendant of Marxism. Some of the more well-known communist states in the world are the Soviet Union (and her satellites), the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. Communism calls for the means of production to be owned by the government, and there is no private property. In theory, it is the final evolution of Marxism and is the perfect classless society. In practice: Well, George Orwell said it best in Animal Farm. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Communism is on the far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Socialism: The middle step between capitalism and full-blown communism. The formal definition of socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. So the important industries like healthcare, power, communications, transportation, and other industries are owned by the state, but there is private property. Socialism is on far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Democratic socialism:
Social ownership of the means of production, but with a democratically elected government. The formal definition is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. The adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic. We have many aspects of democratic socialism in the United States today: Public libraries, snow removal, trash pick-up, Medicare, fire protection, police protection, and Social Security are just a handful of examples. Democratic socialism is on the left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

National Socialism, aka the Nazis: This is not socialism no matter what anyone tells you. It is a fascist-based philosophy. The formal definition is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th century German Nazi Party and Nazi state, as well as other far-right groups. It’s usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and anti-Semitism. National Socialism is on the far right of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Islamofascism: Is this really even a thing? Formally it is defined as an ideology promoted by some Islamists, the aims of which are to establish Islamic orthodoxy and to resist western secularism. However, many critics are dismissive. Daniel Benjamin brands it as "meaningless." Norman Finkelstein calls it a “kosher-halal" throwback version of the "vacuous" old leftist epithet "fascist pig.” Paul Krugman calls it a "figment of the neocon imagination,” and Angelo Codevilla states that it “betrays an ignorance of both Islam and Fascism.” It appears that Islamofascism is something our conservative friends made up as a bogeyman to replace the former Soviet Union. I have no idea where this made-up thing goes on the traditional left/right political spectrum.

:goat::dog:
 
Last edited:

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Being Secretary of State is the third(?) most powerful position in government. Yes she is taking orders from the Commander in Chief. I'm not hung up on the speculation of "who she is" questions or projecting my own personal/political bias on her. Much less the daytime TV type questions which most of that list seems to be comprised of. Not surprising why I have to tune that type of thing out when Trump is at 1000X that in a single month. :ugh: Trump fatigue has set in.

Yes you do want to have a idea of whom she is to make sense of things. But it's the policies and how she has handled affairs while in power, that is closer to where the rubber meets the road. Her ambition is at least transparent. :lol: Fav SNL skit.
 
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion,
  • Like
Reactions: KimDracula

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
As usual we have a different opinion, @cybrguy :rolleyes:

What bernie needs is an actual communist to run to the right of:rofl:!

Let's see it we're even on the same page in regards to these political philosophies:
You are missing the point again. I don't have a problem with Bernie's "Democratic Socialism". If I liked him better than I liked Hillary and I thought he could win, I would gladly vote for him. I get that the VA, and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare and farm subsidies etc., are socialist like (if not socialist) programs and I have no problem with them. I actually strongly believe in them (farm subs not so much). But I am fairly well educated and fairly well read and reasonably knowledgeable, and most of America is not. And Socialism is a bridge too far for them because they associate it with communism and nazism. Not because it IS that, but because they believe that to be so. And unless you think you have time to educate them (we all know how much people like being educated by their politicians) than they will send Bernie home. And TRUMP becomes President. Yippee...
 
cybrguy,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
But I am fairly well educated and fairly well read and reasonably knowledgeable, and most of America is not. And Socialism is a bridge too far for them because they associate it with communism and nazism. Not because it IS that, but because they believe that to be so. And unless you think you have time to educate them (we all know how much people like being educated by their politicians) than they will send Bernie home. And TRUMP becomes President. Yippee...

So....we can't vote for Bernie because America is stupid?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
You're joking or showing disbelief but that is certainly not so far from the truth. Not "stupid", as that requires cooperation, but poorly educated for sure. And certainly lacking knowledge on how government DOES and SHOULD operate. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I believe it to be true.

Frankly new citizens probably have a better understanding of how our government is (at least) supposed to work, because they are required to learn it to pass their citizen's test.
 
cybrguy,

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
As usual we have a different opinion, @cybrguy :rolleyes:

What bernie needs is an actual communist to run to the right of:rofl:!

Let's see it we're even on the same page in regards to these political philosophies:

Fascism: What is it? Think Mussolini—he is the poster child for what a fascist is. While he started out as a socialist, he did not stay one, denouncing socialism in December 1914. The formal definition of fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism is usually placed on the far right within the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Marxism: The granddaddy of political philosophies on the left. The child of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it’s the philosophy that laid the ground work for socialism and communism. But what is it? The formal definition of Marxism is the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx, and “a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.” Much is this is laid out by Marx in Das Kapital, which is a fascinating read if you are so inclined. Marxism is on the far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Communism: The direct descendant of Marxism. Some of the more well-known communist states in the world are the Soviet Union (and her satellites), the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. Communism calls for the means of production to be owned by the government, and there is no private property. In theory, it is the final evolution of Marxism and is the perfect classless society. In practice: Well, George Orwell said it best in Animal Farm. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Communism is on the far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Socialism: The middle step between capitalism and full-blown communism. The formal definition of socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. So the important industries like healthcare, power, communications, transportation, and other industries are owned by the state, but there is private property. Socialism is on far left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Democratic socialism:
Social ownership of the means of production, but with a democratically elected government. The formal definition is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. The adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic. We have many aspects of democratic socialism in the United States today: Public libraries, snow removal, trash pick-up, Medicare, fire protection, police protection, and Social Security are just a handful of examples. Democratic socialism is on the left of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

National Socialism, aka the Nazis: This is not socialism no matter what anyone tells you. It is a fascist-based philosophy. The formal definition is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th century German Nazi Party and Nazi state, as well as other far-right groups. It’s usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and anti-Semitism. National Socialism is on the far right of the traditional left/right political spectrum.

Islamofascism: Is this really even a thing? Formally it is defined as an ideology promoted by some Islamists, the aims of which are to establish Islamic orthodoxy and to resist western secularism. However, many critics are dismissive. Daniel Benjamin brands it as "meaningless." Norman Finkelstein calls it a “kosher-halal" throwback version of the "vacuous" old leftist epithet "fascist pig.” Paul Krugman calls it a "figment of the neocon imagination,” and Angelo Codevilla states that it “betrays an ignorance of both Islam and Fascism.” It appears that Islamofascism is something our conservative friends made up as a bogeyman to replace the former Soviet Union. I have no idea where this made-up thing goes on the traditional left/right political spectrum.

:goat::dog:
One of hardest distinctions I have to make in these kind of discussions is an academic definition of a political theory and whether it has been fully implemented by any government. I'll argue the flaws/benefits in a system, etc and someone else wants to rail on a system simply based on one poorly implemented 'example'. Conversely, National Socialism, Communism and Islamofacism have been fully implemented because they merely require a bogeyman to exist. I was taking a cheap shot at communism. BTW.;)

Socialism in it's purist form resembles more of what the smaller European countries have. But still not close to the formal definition by at least a few notches. I have my own theories why that dynamic works for them, in that manner that it has. But that's another topic for another post perhaps.

There is even other ways to measure power and personal freedom, distribution of wealth. Just don't get hung up with the semantics and miscommunication I guess.:shrug:

You could also further the 'no country lives in a vacuum argument.' One system of government does business with the government of another political category and benefits. So to me political categories are more like brackets to help define things and move the argument forward.

I'm in more than one mind as to what Marxism is and what Marx and Engels were getting at. Much like the bible, people take out certain passages and put their hook on it.:peace:
 

grokit

well-worn member
You are missing the point again. I don't have a problem with Bernie's "Democratic Socialism". If I liked him better than I liked Hillary and I thought he could win, I would gladly vote for him. I get that the VA, and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare and farm subsidies etc., are socialist like (if not socialist) programs and I have no problem with them. I actually strongly believe in them (farm subs not so much). But I am fairly well educated and fairly well read and reasonably knowledgeable, and most of America is not. And Socialism is a bridge too far for them because they associate it with communism and nazism. Not because it IS that, but because they believe that to be so. And unless you think you have time to educate them (we all know how much people like being educated by their politicians) than they will send Bernie home. And TRUMP becomes President. Yippee...
I think you underestimate americans, and that you probably missed my point.
They know this country is on the ropes, and needs fundamental change (not soundbites).

I was speaking to our differing opinions regarding bernie's electability.
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
@cybrguy With respect, did you feel the same way when Obama ran against Hillary in the 08' primaries? That Obama could not win?

I have typed and deleted this several times. I am just wondering who you backed last time, if you don't mind?
 
Joel W.,
  • Like
Reactions: cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I think you underestimate americans, and that you probably missed my point.
They know this country is on the ropes, and needs fundamental change (not soundbites).

I was speaking to our differing opinions regarding bernie's electability.
But... but... but... This country ISN'T ON THE ROPES!!! We are on the UPSWING. Our economy is in better shape than practically ANYONES. It is the REPUBLICANS telling you the country is fucked up BECAUSE THERE IS A NEGRO IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

DAMNIT!

@cybrguy With respect, did you feel the same way when Obama ran against Hillary in the 08' primaries? That Obama could not win?

I have typed and deleted this several times. I am just wondering who you backed last time, if you don't mind?
I supported Hillary until Obama proved to me that he could win. I knew I wanted him to be President ever since his 2004 speech, but I didn't believe America was ready for a black man as president in 2008 until he won Iowa.

And I will say here, if Bernie wins in SC and NV, I will give him another look, but he won't become more qualified between now and then.
 
Last edited:

lwien

Well-Known Member
But having grown up in the 50's, 60's & 70's, calling someone a “Socialist” is akin to calling them a "gay child molester”. The American Press and the Government inundated the airwaves with propaganda against creeping Socialism and Communism.

Many Americans believe that Socialism and Communism is the same thing and in my opinion, that is the reason why Bernie can't win the general.
 
Last edited:

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Nice try politicians. The economy of the last fiscal quarter is not going to manipulate my decision making. I'm thinking long term. Obama is going to be elected out of office last I checked. When I did peek into the RNC debate, every speaker seemed to end their answers with how much they are not like Obama. Fine. Heard this kind of thing every election cycle.
Then it became self referential. OMG.:lmao:Rubio might have been exposed as a one note song, but I thought Christie was repeating the same note as well. See If you catch my meaning. Then it started to dovetail.... Reminds me of the crabs in a bucket analogy.
 
CuckFumbustion,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
This may be our last chance to kick these guys in the balls and get our country back. Do not vote for any candidate that accepts donations from big money. I think we could be a democracy again if people cared enough.
 
cybrguy,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Thanks, I did not think Obama had a chance in hell either, but I voted for him every time, anyways!
Right, it was his win in lilly white Iowa that convinced me. I figured if a black man could win there maybe the country could get past it and elect him anyway...

Of course adding Sarah to the republican ticket helped us a lot...
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
I haven't even been to a Mosque in over five years, and have never been for anything besides holidays, but still I am a threat?

What's kinda funny about that is that I can say the exact same thing being Jewish in that the only time that I went to Temple was during the High Holidays and then, only went because my parents made me go.


One of may favorite bands. Saw 'em live at the Santa Monica Civic.
 
Top Bottom