The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[TeeJay1952]

part 3
Donald Trump’s false claim that there have been no negative ads against Kasich
It’s fine to say far more ads have aired attacking Trump than John Kasich, but Trump went even further to say that no ads have attacked Kasich. That’s just not true. In fact, his own campaign has run an ad attacking Kasich. Attack ads sponsored by candidate committees and outside groups were fairly consistent earlier in the primary cycle, especially ones contrasting his record to other governors in the race.
Trump’s false claim that the Islamic State is ‘making a fortune’ on Libyan oil
Trump asserted that the Islamic State terror group had seized the oil in Libya and “is making a fortune now” in the country. But analysts said this is completely false. ISIS has attacked oil fields and destroyed equipment but it has not captured any – or even sought to control the fields. At best one can say ISIS has disrupted the flow of oil. But it is certainly not making any money from such tactics.
Trump’s claim that no foreign leader greeting Obama was ‘without precedent’
Trump claimed that the fact that President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia and Cuba and was not greeted at the airport by the country’s leader was “without precedent.’ But we found numerous examples of this happening under Obama – and previous presidents. We don’t know where Trump comes up with this stuff, but once again he’s wrong, wrong, wrong.
Trump’s false claim that ‘scores of recent migrants’ in the U.S. are charged with terrorism
It’s unclear where Trump is getting this information but it appears to be a bungled reference to a list issued by a Senate office concerning 30 foreign-born individuals who were arrested on charges relating to terrorism in recent years. But the majority of the 30 cases involved naturalized U.S. citizens — people who came to the U.S. as children or had arrived before 2011. There is no evidence that “scores” of “recent migrants” are charged with terrorism.
No, Putin did not call Donald Trump ‘a genius’
Trump likes to brag that Russian president Vladmir Putin has “called me a genius.” But Putin said no such thing. The Russian president used a Russian word that means “colorful” or “lively” or even “flamboyant.” A handful of news organizations used the word “bright,” but not in the sense of intelligent. As usual, Trump stretched the meaning even further.
Trump’s false claim that the National Enquirer story on Cruz’s father was not denied
Donald Trump refused to apologize for citing a thinly sourced National Enquirer article alleging that Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, worked with Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Part of the reason, he said, was because it had not been denied. But actually, Cruz himself denounced Trump’s claim, calling the businessman a “pathological liar.” The Cruz campaign also dismissed the story as “garbage” and “false” when the Miami Herald published an article on it on April 22 — 11 days before Trump gave it national currency on Fox News. Meanwhile, reports in The Washington Post, PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org and CNN all had concluded the story was hogwash.
Donald Trump’s ridiculous claim that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement
On the day Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee, he resurrected a zombie claim that has previously been debunked by fact checkers. The allegation that Clinton was the first, or even one of the first, to question President Obama’s birth certificate is simply false. Trump would be on safer ground if he blamed her supporters for stoking the birther rumors, since in spring 2008, some of Clinton’s supporters began circulating anonymous emails questioning Obama’s citizenship. But there’s no evidence that Clinton or her campaign questioned Obama’s birth certificate.

 

[thisperson]

I came of age around 2009. So for me most of what I know of the Clintons is hindsight. Such as that they were tough on crime and imprisoned a lot of people, or that they deregulated the banks by taking away Glass-Steagall. They even exported American Jobs with NAFTA. I just can't stand by them.

There's a slew of other things, such as DOMA and Gar Marriage, Welfare Reform, which I agree probably not the best idea to give someone cash directly but at least keep the funding level and switch over to vouchers of some kind so the kids benefit. I even read that Elizabeth Warren knew of an instance where she switched her vote due to contributions, it was the bankruptcy bill that she used to support and switched on. And when the story broke out about how they (she and Obama) had trafficked arms to Syrian Rebels (and you could find video interview evidence of one of their leaders saying his men had ties to al queda) and they still did it, I just couldn't trust her.

You probably have the image of politician Hillary, you know the one that politicians used to build up so you'd think they were a-ok and friendly while they sold you out. But we can look up records now and know exactly who stands with us. HRC does not stand with us, IMO. I can't imagine it being the same when if you wanted to know something more, such as headlines regarding someone you had to sort through collections of newspapers. How many people do you think actually did that and didn't just take everything the news fed to them? I get that news used to be factual, I cried the first time when I saw a news clip from the early 80s and it was the first time I'd seen a news anchor speak frankly and actually address the issues of the day. It made me realize what we'd lost.

I found an article comparing her and bernie on issues.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/30045938...-the-Wrong-Choice-And-Bernie-is-the-Right-One

 

[Gunky]

I came of age around 2009. So for me most of what I know of the Clintons is hindsight. Such as that they were tough on crime and imprisoned a lot of people, or that they deregulated the banks by taking away Glass-Steagall. They even exported American Jobs with NAFTA. I just can't stand by them.

There's a slew of other things, such as DOMA and Gar Marriage, Welfare Reform, which I agree probably not the best idea to give someone cash directly but at least keep the funding level and switch over to vouchers of some kind so the kids benefit. I even read that Elizabeth Warren knew of an instance where she switched her vote due to contributions, it was the bankruptcy bill that she used to support and switched on. And when the story broke out about how they (she and Obama) had trafficked arms to Syrian Rebels (and you could find video interview evidence of one of their leaders saying his men had ties to al queda) and they still did it, I just couldn't trust her.

The problem is you are getting the readers digest summary of Clinton's career as supplied by Bernie and the repubs. It's a ridiculous caricature. Most of the charges are for things enacted by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. Her position then was president's wife.

Blaming Hillary for NAFTA is really, really absurd. She did not hold office then. The NAFTA agreement was signed by George H.W. Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico, ratified by congress, and signed by Bill Clinton. The most you can say about Hillary is she voiced support for it about 25 years ago (as did an awful lot of politicians - it passed with lots of democratic support). Furthermore, it is not clear that NAFTA was such a bad deal for the U.S. The dumbed-down, Reader's Digest version as supplied by bullshitters like Trump and wily traders in half-truths like Bernie that you are repeating is not the whole story and not even particularly true.

If you want to talk about Bill Clinton vis a vis jobs and the economy, there is ample documentation for the remarkable period of stability and growth experienced by American workers during that time. The economy flourished in between Bush recessions. Yes, whenever there are changes in society there may be winners and losers; it is important to keep the bigger picture in sight. For example, right now policies espoused by both Bernie and Hillary are going to end up causing coal mines to close and thousands of miners will have to change career. You can insist that coal must continue to be mined so these people won't lose out. I think there are inevitable changes taking place as we re-assess the impact of coal combustion and some inevitable winners and losers. Our economy is dynamic enough to take up the slack. If we were to try to manage every industry and keep it limping along despite social, global and environmental changes with protectionism and subsidies we would end up with a shitty planned economy like the Soviet Union or China 30 years ago. I visited China in 82 and had a glimpse of stultifying, busy-body socialism. No thanks.

 

[Adobewan]

...If you want to talk about Bill Clinton vis a vis jobs and the economy, there is ample documentation for the remarkable period of stability and growth experienced by American workers during that time. The economy flourished in between Bush recessions...

Clinton has gotten credit for a strong economy, but the dot.com.boom played a huge part of that economic growth.

 

[Maitri]

Clinton has gotten credit for a strong economy, but the dot.com.boom played a huge part of that economic growth.

I wonder to what extent is that a correlation or causation.

 

[thisperson]

I remember reading that one of the reasons household incomes went up for black families was something to do with so many of them being locked up. And I agree with Adobe, I don't care what political party was in place, the dot com boom makes it all look good.

But thank you for your viewpoint Gunky. I do blame HRC for lots of Bill's policies, namely because she was his second half. I just don't like corporatists though. Born impoverished, I'm sure you would agree. I don't see much reason in giving huge taxbreaks after the rich already received their biggest tax break. Post Reagonomics I heard the marginal tax rate went from 70 to 35. I don't like 70, but 35 seems reasonable if you're scrooge mcduck. It doesn't make sense if you're also receiving loopholes and tax breaks for 35. Just pay the taxes. But instead they're talking about cutting my gran's social security.

 

[Gunky]

Clinton has gotten credit for a strong economy, but the dot.com.boom played a huge part of that economic growth.

More Reader's Digest condensed, dumbed-down history. The internet boom was important; it does not serve to explain away the huge burst of prosperity. I know because I was there and experienced it myself.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

Clinton has gotten credit for a strong economy, but the dot.com.boom played a huge part of that economic growth.

Clinton is also credited with being a catalyst in the 2008 Financial Crisis, so for all the economic growth that should still be mentioned.

We can go back and forth all day as to what extent he had on it, simply saying that if we're going to mention economic growth and Clinton, that should be mentioned or rather, it shouldn't be ignored, as that would be truly be dumbing down history.

"I love Hispanics!" Donald Trump post...... He definitely doesn't help himself & I can totally understand why people would consider him an idiot, as if him posting a picture of eating a taco bowl would somehow endear him to a group of people (Among other things). That said, the fact he thinks that is amusing to me, it doesn't endear him to me or anything like that, just literally LOL'd when I saw that.

It is pretty sad that him and Hilary are the front runners.

 

[CarolKing]

I think it says all we want to know that Sarah Palin endorsed Trump and he wanted her endorsement. He may surround himself with some smart people but there are plenty of idiots that are in his inner circle. I think Chris Christy thinks he may be in the running for VP.

Trump wants to change the Republican Party. He doesn't want to unify.

Sarah Palin wants to ruin Paul Ryan's career now. I can't wait for HBO's movie about this.

 

[cybrguy]

I think Chris Christy thinks he may be in the running for VP.

I would love that, but Trump is too smart. The "Bridgegate" trials begin in September, and I garundamntee you Christy will be prominently featured even if he isn't proven involved in the planning.

 

[CarolKing]

SNL was awesome last night. The church lady was on and they did a Ted Cruz skit. She said, "you think you love Jesus more than anybody, isn't that special" Eventually Cruz becomes the devil. The show did digs towards Trump and Hillary. I didn't think they favored either one.

 

[Adobewan]

More Reader's Digest condensed, dumbed-down history. The internet boom was important; it does not serve to explain away the huge burst of prosperity. I know because I was there and experienced it myself.

Dumbed down history?
The internet boom was a colossal event with global repercussions. It would appear that wasn't all Clinton benefitted from economically during his administrations.
Or maybe I'm mistaken and it was all Clinton.

 

[Nooky72]

 

[Maitri]

On behalf of any potential life on mars, I am offended.

 

[Nooky72]

My personal favourite (and most appropriate)

 

[Gunky]

Dumbed down history?
The internet boom was a colossal event with global repercussions. It would appear that wasn't all Clinton benefitted from economically during his administrations.
Or maybe I'm mistaken and it was all Clinton.

You are very young, aren't you? It was a big thing, but the part of the internet development that occurred during the Clinton administration was pretty small stuff by today's standards. You are thinking: internet, what a revolution! But in the nineties the internet was not that big a part of the economy. Most people did not even have internet access. By current standards very few people actually bought things over the internet then. There was a dot.com boom and bust at the end of the nineties, but that largely involved a bubble in stock prices on some internet-related companies; most people were not greatly affected by it. OK we used to joke after the bubble that our 401K had become a 301K, but that's about the size of it. The problem is young people get their history from Bernie's tabloid narrative of events, or Trump's, and now they want to explain away the Clinton economy as all just dot.com boom. A vast simplification which is basically wrong, a travesty of a rendering of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_United_States_boom

 

[CarolKing]

Also the smart phone came along too. It seems like it's been one innovation after another. The regular brick and mortar stores arent doing as well as internet stores. The stock market continues to rise for the time being.

 

[Farid]

You are very young, aren't you? It was a big thing, but the part of the internet development that occurred during the Clinton administration was pretty small stuff by today's standards. You are thinking: internet, what a revolution! But in the nineties the internet was not that big a part of the economy. Most people did not even have internet access. By current standards very few people actually bought things over the internet then. There was a dot.com boom and bust at the end of the nineties, but that largely involved a bubble in stock prices on some internet-related companies; most people were not greatly affected by it. OK we used to joke after the bubble that our 401K had become a 301K, but that's about the size of it. The problem is young people get their history from Bernie's tabloid narrative of events, or Trump's, and now they want to explain away the Clinton economy as all just dot.com boom. A vast simplification which is basically wrong, a travesty of a rendering of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_United_States_boom

Even if the dot com boom isn't to blame for the success of the economy of the 90's, there are other factors which influenced that. A big one was the fall of the Soviet Union and the resulting dominance of the United States especially in parts of the world previously within the Soviet sphere of influence.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

Dumbed down history?
The internet boom was a colossal event with global repercussions. It would appear that wasn't all Clinton benefitted from economically during his administrations.
Or maybe I'm mistaken and it was all Clinton.

Clinton nostalgia runs deep

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

http://www.aei.org/publication/why-the-1990s-boom-happened-despite-the-clinton-tax-hikes/

History is history.
(Just kidding, that history isn't true, it has been fabricated by the Bernie and Trump supporters of the world. )

I mentioned a few pages back as I was curious to what the issues are that Republican's aren't familiar with. After I made the post, I mentioned it to my father, he is a Republican. He said that liberals operate on what "feels good" rather than "what is practical" and he 100% correctly predicted that when I asked the question, I wouldn't get a response addressing it, instead I would get responses saying about how bad of a person he is and how it wouldn't "be right". I found that pretty interesting, neither here nor there but just interesting how different people look at the world. To say one is more or less correct is very close minded, but it's interesting how we all view and weigh out things different.

The stuff about Bill's extramarital affairs? It is not really relevant to Hilary, but you are the company you keep. And her actions don't reconcile the "causes" she fights so "hard" for.

But, it actually does involve more than just him and his wife, since he was the POTUS and that is the person representing our country. I don't understand how people would be all up in arms about Donald representing it, and at the same time not feel icky and gross and embarrassed that the POTUS, the guy representing us in the 90s, was a hounddog liar cheating on his wife. That really is a great person to represent us, pinnacle of America, cheating and lying

And I really only mention that, because the people who have issues with Trump's character, are the same ones who stood by Bill. I don't understand truly, but we all beat to the sound of our own drums I suppose. I love reading this thread as it really is interesting to me to see perspective and how we all value and weigh different things.

Her character is as much in the toilet as Trumps. Just depends on if you want a guy who will tell you how he feels, despite if he feels ignorant or racist, or if you want a lady who will tell you want you want to hear, but there won't be an iota of truth in it. And depends on what you view as the lesser of two evils. It truly does suck it's between those two.

Just my opinion though Happy to keep reading all of them

Had a thought when I was writing this, I used to like WWE back in my youth and there was a "bad boy" wrestler named Eddie Guerro....his theme was "I lie, I cheat, I steal!"

They totally screwed the pooch with his character, should of been a politician!

 

[CarolKing]

Trump had affairs while he was married to his first and second wife. What goes on between a husband and a wife is their business and should stay that way. Hillary needs to ignore Trump's cheap shots about her husband. She needs to rise above it.

It was her decision to stay married to her husband and it's nobody's business.

 

[thisperson]

The only thing I read there that had to do with enforcing the boom (gov policy) was the Fed lowering interests to a then record low of 5% and balancing the budget to...what did it say? "The reduction in government borrowing freed up capital in markets for businesses and consumers, causing interest rates on loans to fall creating a cycle that only reinforced growth"

So okay, Bill and his congress did good things, as well as his administration. They had good, or at least not fucked up, policy.

@Gunky I get that you see it as this economic boom outweighs all the other things I listed, or maybe they don't even bother you, but allow me to state my case for Bernie Sanders:

Just some background info, I read the first scientific double blind study on poverty and it was a very basic theory. Inject households directly with cash or some type of resource (we're talking third world countries), think goats, chickens, cow, etc. What this study found was that injections into an impoverished household increased their levels of wealth even a year later. I'm sure some killed the animals right away but others bred them. I include that as background and not a link because I read it some 2 months ago at most and can't find a single link to it.

With this in mind, Bernie's policies are like direct injections into the households of Americans. Sure it's tax money meaning it comes from every one of us, but it's then re-inserted into our households, rather than let's say the hands of a wealthy billionaire or corporation receiving a tax break or subsidy. Policies like universal healthcare (which if you understand economy at scale you support) saving American's pocketbooks from bankruptcy, or tuition free college making it easier on the youth who end up as wage slaves for decades sometimes. The list of his policies in this vein go on, Universal Pre-k, Massive Jobs Program Rebuilding America, Postal Banking...all of these in some way will inject Americans with cash because he doesn't want to raise taxes a lot, he's talking about reducing wars and closing loopholes (i.e. just making sure they pay their fair share).

Also, you should look at these statistics on the poor and the rich. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...poor-and-rich-spend-really-spend-their-money/

Specifically this part:

The greatest difference by far between rich and poor is not in how they spend, but how they save. For every dollar they spend at the grocery store, the poorest households save 12 cents, while the wealthy sock away $3.07 in pensions and life insurance.

This is one reason that some economists are concerned about rising levels of inequality. The rich save more than the poor, and the more they have, they more they'll save. Money that's being saved isn't being spent, which means less business for everyone from the dry cleaner on the corner to the owner of a five-star hotel. In turn, that means less work for everybody and a lethargic economy.

So with these things in mind, can you at least see why some people, myself included, believe Bernie's plans will stimulate the economy?

Edit: In case you don't see a relation between the goats given and the money injections proposed by Bernie, think of it like this. How many American's do you know that are working towards their own cash cow? And how would having money to spend facilitate that dream?

 

[Maitri]

Trump had affairs while he was married to his first and second wife. What goes on between a husband and a wife is their business and should stay that way. Hillary needs to ignore Trump's cheap shots about her husband. She needs to rise above it.

It was her decision to stay married to her husband and it's nobody's business.

Agreed - and I continue to wonder if HRC can allow Trump to go unchecked. This reminds me of how (then) Senator Kerry allowed President Bush to swift boat him unabated, and that seemed like a tactical mistake to me.

 

[Gunky]

To posters who started out saying the Bill Clinton economy was just internet boom and then when presented with (overwhelming) evidence to the contrary start searching for other factors (besides Bill) which can explain it - this type of behavior is a classic case of starting out from the conclusion and proceeding to cherry pick evidence to support that conclusion. Get over it! Bill Clinton was actually one of the best presidents in the last century. There were two times I can remember the economy really roaring. One was the late fifties and sixties and the other was the eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton had a smart foreign policy. He was concerned about Bin Laden, tried to kill him a few times, and gave the Bushies stern warnings about him which they ignored. Clinton attempted to get universal health-care, but was stymied by the same forces that have tried to repeal Obamacare umpteen times. Anyone who thinks we are going to have single-payer anytime soon needs to give some thought to this continuous and ongoing resistance.

 

[neverforget711]

To posters who started out saying the Bill Clinton economy was just internet boom and then when presented with (overwhelming) evidence to the contrary start searching for other factors (besides Bill) which can explain it - this type of behavior is a classic case of starting out from the conclusion and proceeding to cherry pick evidence to support that conclusion. Get over it! Bill Clinton was actually one of the best presidents in the last century. There were two times I can remember the economy really roaring. One was the late fifties and sixties and the other was the eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton had a smart foreign policy. He was concerned about Bin Laden, tried to kill him a few times, and gave the Bushies stern warnings about him which they ignored. Clinton attempted to get universal health-care, but was stymied by the same forces that have tried to repeal Obamacare umpteen times. Anyone who thinks we are going to have single-payer anytime soon needs to give some thought to this continuous and ongoing resistance.

You over sing his praises, the Savings&Loan snowball was his initiative. But I'll also be devil lawyer here and chime in the crime bill did earn results.

 

[Gunky]

You over sing his praises, the Savings&Loan snowball was his initiative. -snip-

Not correct. Way, way off, in fact. Look it up. You are clutching at straws.