The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
I t’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”
Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.
For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.
The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.
As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).
I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.
The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?
Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?
Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.
These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.
Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.
It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.
I t’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”
Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.
For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.
The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.
As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).
I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.
The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?
Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?
Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.
These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.
Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.
It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.
Well, she did say, when asked if she always tells the truth, "I try to!" - a/k/a Situational Ethics.This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
I t’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”
Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.
For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.
The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.
As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).
I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.
The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?
Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?
Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.
These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.
Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.
It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.
Last edited:
BeardedCrow
Well-Known Member
No, I was homeless and lived in very substandard ways. But I worked hard and now middle class.
While living in Los angeles, i saw many many many people living off EBT, and no ambition to work hard whatsoever as long as someone else with ambition is providing them with free money.
These people are parasites.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Rogue State and Misogyny: Trump’s Foreign Policy
Since I did my due diligence and slogged through Donald Trump’s interview with the Washington Post, I have no desire whatsoever to try and get through the one he did with the New York Times. But Max Fisher did the work for me and tried his best to understand Trump’s foreign policy. Here’s the part of that analysis that stood out to me:
Kevin Drum also waded through the interview - which was conducted with David Sanger and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times and noticed something extremely telling.
-------------------
America: Rogue State. I just can't wait...
Since I did my due diligence and slogged through Donald Trump’s interview with the Washington Post, I have no desire whatsoever to try and get through the one he did with the New York Times. But Max Fisher did the work for me and tried his best to understand Trump’s foreign policy. Here’s the part of that analysis that stood out to me:
Trump’s favorite word in his New York Times interview is “unpredictable.”
“We need unpredictability,” he says. “Would I go to war? Look, let me just tell you. There’s a question I wouldn’t want to answer. Because I don’t want to say I won’t or I will.”
Unpredictability is central to the Trump foreign policy doctrine. So is an emphasis on zero-sum relations with all nations, a disdain for allies, a status quo position of belligerence and uncooperativeness, a strategy of using leverage and bullying to extract concessions from other countries, and an innate suspicion of the international order.
What Trump is describing, in his vision of American foreign policy, is what we might otherwise call a rogue state.
Trump’s America is, like North Korea or at times Putin’s Russia, a rent seeker leeching off the international order rather than upholding it.
Frankly, I am at a loss for words beyond that. It is incomprehensible to me that rational people would seriously consider voting for a man like that to be Commander-in-Chief. The anger/fear that drives those folks must be some powerful elixir.“We need unpredictability,” he says. “Would I go to war? Look, let me just tell you. There’s a question I wouldn’t want to answer. Because I don’t want to say I won’t or I will.”
Unpredictability is central to the Trump foreign policy doctrine. So is an emphasis on zero-sum relations with all nations, a disdain for allies, a status quo position of belligerence and uncooperativeness, a strategy of using leverage and bullying to extract concessions from other countries, and an innate suspicion of the international order.
What Trump is describing, in his vision of American foreign policy, is what we might otherwise call a rogue state.
Trump’s America is, like North Korea or at times Putin’s Russia, a rent seeker leeching off the international order rather than upholding it.
Kevin Drum also waded through the interview - which was conducted with David Sanger and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times and noticed something extremely telling.
Trump spent the entire interview practically slobbering over Sanger. Haberman might as well have been nonexistent for all the attention she got and the number of times Trump interrupted her to turn his attention back to Sanger. You may draw your own conclusions.
Here’s my conclusion: Franklin Foer is right when he says, “But there’s one ideology that he [Trump] does hold with sincerity and practices with unwavering fervor: misogyny.” Nuff said.
-------------------
America: Rogue State. I just can't wait...
lwien
Well-Known Member
Or.....they are mentally handicapped, or addicts, or physically handicapped, or mentally ill, or have been so beaten down that they have given up, or.......etc etc etc.
Considering the lifestyle that one has to live being sustained by EBT, one has to ask themselves that if it is a choice, why are they making that choice but I contend that those that are making the choice are in the minority and that the majority are living off of EBT not by choice but by necessity.
Does this mean that it is inaccurate to state that there are many people living off of EBT simply because they are lazy parasites? Not at all but to imply that the majority of them do this simply out of parasitic laziness is, in my opinion, not true.
They way you worded your response reminds of an ex-smoker who looks down on those who are still in the midst of their tobacco addiction and can't understand how you could quit but they can't.
Add to that the unfair movement that wants to mandate drug testing those receiving Welfare assistance, assuming that they often fit the profile of a drug abuser.
grokit
well-worn member
America's been a "rogue state" for quite some time now. Trump is talking about it openly, like he is about 9/11; right message wrong messenger imo, but this is a conversation america needs to have 
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-could-be-the-military-industrial-complexs-worst-nightmare/
edit:
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-could-be-the-military-industrial-complexs-worst-nightmare/
edit:
Last edited:
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
"It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee (DNC), its Wall Street and corporate backers, and the major media, most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations, have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton."
"Bottom line, they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern."
"Here are 10 ways that establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/the-remarkable-bernie-san_b_9548422.html
EDIT*
More Reasons Why Bernie Is The One For Sarah.
"Bottom line, they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern."
"Here are 10 ways that establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/the-remarkable-bernie-san_b_9548422.html
EDIT*
More Reasons Why Bernie Is The One For Sarah.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
"The United States Secret Service said Monday that attendees of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July will not be allowed to enter the event if they are carrying a firearm, despite the growing number of signatures on an online petition asking the RNC to permit firearms."
yada yada yada
"However, private employers and entities are permitted to ban firearms despite the open-carry law, according to Ohio state law. The Secret Service, in response to interest around the petition, also noted a separate law, Title 18, United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752, that permits the agency to overrule state open-carry laws when it is overseeing a protected site.
"Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site," Secret Service spokesperson Kevin Dye said in an emailed statement.
grokit
well-worn member
This is a big problem, and weakness for the democrat's current "frontrunner".
If hillary does get the nomination, trump will skewer her for her foreign policies in libya and syria and with isis, like he did with jeb for his brother's similary indefensible policies in iraq, afghanistan and 9/11.
Last edited:
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Don't forget when he attacks for the arms deals.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ical-arms-sales-middle-east-countries-1949653
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/hillary-clinton-saudi-arabia_b_9374490.html
ShishkaBerry
New Member
As a Canadian watching helplessly from across the border, I just want to say good luck to you all! If we can revolt against Harper and get Trudeau in office, you guys have a good chance of coming out of this with the best candidate. I'm feeling the Bern!
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Just in case do you have some property where we can put up our tents?
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
I know cannabis tends to attract liberals/leftists more so than the outgroups, but does nobody here feel Trump? He wants a wall to keep brick weed out, I think we can get behind that. Legal buds is sort of moot if they can continue to just distribute their merchandise unfettered, the whole point of making it legal is to take away the criminal perks and if we legalize without correcting that it will be status quo. The off the books money likely exceeds our legal trade deficit with Mexico and it would just be good for our pocketbooks to not continue hemorrhaging that sort of money for decades more.
Detonator
Well-Known Member
Yeah us liberals like weed and stuff.... Fuck Trump and the rest the the GOP...
Brick Weed? We should thank Mexico for never stopping the growing.... They are the rebels and heros that kept me high all those years before what we have now...
Fuck Regan and the years of shit we all went through
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
I will yield about the rest of the GOP but Trump is in many respects more rational and moderate than Hilary, but it appears you are uninclined to hear it out. Solving the drug war requires BOTH border security and the white market.
I mean I get where you're coming from but the dealers and kingpins already got their pound of flesh, we don't need to be cartel patrons anymore when we lose so much money against them. We need to bring that industry back to benefit america and americans not transnational criminals.
Last edited:
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
neverforget711 said:
That's why he wants the wall? Well shit. Never thought of that one. I still think I'll support Sanders since he supports removing cannabis from the controlled substances act.
neverforget711 said:
I always thought the whole point was repealing prohibition. Thereby ensuring people have safe access without incurring criminal charges. Taking away the "criminal perks" is just a beneficial byproduct of that.
Either way, I don't believe that even Trump thinks he can build his wall.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
How interesting... And surprising...
Not about the repubs but the Dems...
Trump and Clinton Supporters Lead in Enthusiasm
by Lydia Saad
Story Highlights
Enthusiasm for Voting in 2016 Among Republican Candidate Supporters
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners who are registered to vote
Trump supporters% Cruz supporters% Kasich supporters%
Extremely enthusiastic 37 22 16
Very enthusiastic 28 17 17
Somewhat enthusiastic 23 25 15
Not too enthusiastic 5 19 20
Not at all enthusiastic 5 16 31
No opinion 2 0 1
Extremely/Very enthusiastic 65 39 33
Gallup, March 21-23, 2016
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's supporters are more enthusiastic than Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters, 54% vs. 44%.
Enthusiasm for Voting in 2016 Among Democratic Candidate Supporters
Based on Democrats/Democratic leaners who are registered to vote
Clinton supporters% Sanders supporters%
Extremely enthusiastic 25 23
Very enthusiastic 29 21
Somewhat enthusiastic 23 27
Not too enthusiastic 12 19
Not at all enthusiastic 10 9
No opinion 1 0
Extremely/Very enthusiastic 54 44
Gallup, March 21-23, 2016
In both parties, people's enthusiasm for voting in the election could reflect a combination of factors -- including excitement about their preferred candidate's presence in the race as well as confidence that the candidate will succeed in winning either the nomination or the general election. The latter could be particularly relevant on the Democratic side, where Clinton is widely seen as the likely nominee and is poised to be the first female major-party nominee. That contrasts with the Republican nomination, which remains unclear given the real likelihood that no candidate will garner the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination before the convention.
Not about the repubs but the Dems...
Trump and Clinton Supporters Lead in Enthusiasm
by Lydia Saad
Story Highlights
- Two-thirds of Republicans backing Trump are highly enthusiastic
- Less than 40% of other GOP candidates' supporters are enthusiastic
- Clinton's supporters lead Sanders' 54% to 44% in enthusiasm
Enthusiasm for Voting in 2016 Among Republican Candidate Supporters
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners who are registered to vote
Trump supporters% Cruz supporters% Kasich supporters%
Extremely enthusiastic 37 22 16
Very enthusiastic 28 17 17
Somewhat enthusiastic 23 25 15
Not too enthusiastic 5 19 20
Not at all enthusiastic 5 16 31
No opinion 2 0 1
Extremely/Very enthusiastic 65 39 33
Gallup, March 21-23, 2016
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's supporters are more enthusiastic than Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters, 54% vs. 44%.
Enthusiasm for Voting in 2016 Among Democratic Candidate Supporters
Based on Democrats/Democratic leaners who are registered to vote
Clinton supporters% Sanders supporters%
Extremely enthusiastic 25 23
Very enthusiastic 29 21
Somewhat enthusiastic 23 27
Not too enthusiastic 12 19
Not at all enthusiastic 10 9
No opinion 1 0
Extremely/Very enthusiastic 54 44
Gallup, March 21-23, 2016
In both parties, people's enthusiasm for voting in the election could reflect a combination of factors -- including excitement about their preferred candidate's presence in the race as well as confidence that the candidate will succeed in winning either the nomination or the general election. The latter could be particularly relevant on the Democratic side, where Clinton is widely seen as the likely nominee and is poised to be the first female major-party nominee. That contrasts with the Republican nomination, which remains unclear given the real likelihood that no candidate will garner the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination before the convention.
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
Trump, as a straight-edge individual, has earlier endorsed legal drugs and know exactly how much it would troll mexico to do so. The cartels know walls works, that's why there is so much uproar. http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm#Drugs
You can legalize and tax, but if you don't control the smuggling you are going still have turnover and activity in the black market. you need to not allow them a space to profit. This is why decriminalization is a lose-lose and legal drugs with porous borders isn't any better because you still provide the opportunity for them. He doesn't just want to impair pot, but all the harder substances (impure heroin,etc) that are less bulky and harder to interdict.
lwien
Well-Known Member
As much as I like cannabis, if it was guaranteed that a Trump presidency meant that recreational weed would be legal across the US, I STILL wouldn't vote for him.
There soooooo much more at stake here than just legalized weed.
btw, if I said that a campaign manger just got arrested for battery at a rally which campaign would you guess we were talking about here?
You got it.........TRUMP >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/index.html
There soooooo much more at stake here than just legalized weed.
btw, if I said that a campaign manger just got arrested for battery at a rally which campaign would you guess we were talking about here?
You got it.........TRUMP >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/index.html
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@neverforget711 it would be a horrific clusterfuck if America voted Trump into office. He would definitely change America as we know it but not in a good way. Several economists have warned that we would go into a real economic downturn. He would also get us involved into a major war. Does Trump intend on sending his sons over to fight ISIS? I doubt it.
A wall and wanting or making Mexico pay for it, he's an ass. Who cares if Trump would legalize cannabis. The Country would be in the garbage. He wouldnt be good for us. We have gotten a little snippet how he riles people up in a hateful negative way. I don't want to live in America if Trump becomes president.
This man has a temper tantrum if anybody disagrees with him or says something he doesn't like. His family probably has to walk on egg shells around him.
What happens when he calls Angela Merckel a fat bitch when she says something he doesn't like? It tells us something - that Putin likes Trump. Putin thinks that Trump would be a good choice for a president for America.
A wall and wanting or making Mexico pay for it, he's an ass. Who cares if Trump would legalize cannabis. The Country would be in the garbage. He wouldnt be good for us. We have gotten a little snippet how he riles people up in a hateful negative way. I don't want to live in America if Trump becomes president.
This man has a temper tantrum if anybody disagrees with him or says something he doesn't like. His family probably has to walk on egg shells around him.
What happens when he calls Angela Merckel a fat bitch when she says something he doesn't like? It tells us something - that Putin likes Trump. Putin thinks that Trump would be a good choice for a president for America.
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
This Embarrassing Interview Signals Donald Trump May Be In Trouble In Wisconsin
'Thin skinned' Donald going through the same song and dance interview. Getting defensive, back peddling, placing blame then the boasting with no real plan.
Later that day...
Donald Trump’s First Wisconsin Event Triggers Protests, Arrests
'Thin skinned' Donald going through the same song and dance interview. Getting defensive, back peddling, placing blame then the boasting with no real plan.
Later that day...
Donald Trump’s First Wisconsin Event Triggers Protests, Arrests