The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Journey to the Center
by D.R. Tucker
July 9, 2016 11:30 AM

If the final version of the Democratic platform effectively sabotages Clinton’s chances of winning the general election, how exactly does that advance the progressive cause? The noted British philosopher Mick Jagger observed that you can’t always get what you want. Someone should remind Sanders’s appointees on the committee that if you try to get what you want, you may well end up with absolutely nothing.

Pretty sure the noted British philosopher, Mick Jagger, said "You can't always get what you want but if you try real hard you'll get what you need". Not.... "you may well end up with absolutely nothing".

So in honor of the noted British philosopher....how about we get behind solutions that actually solve the problem and not chose the ones that are just politically expedient for a change. Maybe if we aim high for a '10' we'll get a '7'. Pretty sure if we aim for a '7' we'll get a '5'. At least that's how I interpret the noted British philosopher's words.

Yeah - I'm fuckin naive as hell.......
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
I am looking forward to the Republican convention in Cleveland, which is coming up in about a week. This is going to be entertaining. Chills, thrills, and plenty of spills. All of these repubs trying to ooze past the spectacle of Trump without catching too many Trump cooties but at the same time seeming sufficiently loyal to the party. Real Kabuki coming up. Whenever the question of their support for the Donald comes up they will earnestly dodge, genuflect and recite ten hell hillaries. And every night on tv there will be nervous repubs, awaiting the questions about Trump's latest buffoonery... Fun stuff!
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
Hillary's flip-flops again as her sycophants block tpp opposition from the dnc platform:rant:
CNN's Advice to Clinton camp: Ditch TPP to beat Trump

They both suck.
Here's that other article.
The green party is looking better every day :tup:


3 Boggling Facts in Hillary Email Cover-up/Dallas Shooting

Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer.

I know full well how incompetent, stupid, amateurish, and ill-prepared government employees can be. But the dog and pony Hillary show of the last few days is truly staggering.

If the effort was to exonerate Hillary Clinton, it was done so badly the American people are more certain than ever that she is guilty as sin.

Here are the top three actions of the past few days that conspired to free her, while actually revealing how culpable she is, to anyone with a few working brain cells:

:o One: Just by chance, US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the highest law-enforcement official in the land, runs into Bill Clinton at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. They talk in secret, as the FBI is wrapping up its email-scandal probe and is preparing to present its findings. This Lynch-Clinton meeting assures one and all that the fix is in. “Hillary’s guilty, but we’re going to find her innocent.”

:o Two: In an unprecedented move, FBI Director Comey holds a global press conference. He runs down a massive list of Hillary’s actions, leaving no doubt she is guilty of gross negligence in her handling of classified materials. But then he does an abrupt turn and recommends no prosecution, because the Bureau found no evidence she intended to do harm.

Comey knows, and ensuing press reports emphasize, that intent is not the legal issue. The Federal Penal Code (Title 18, section 793f) makes that clear. Gross negligence is sufficient for prosecution, conviction, and a sentence of up to ten years in prison.

:lol: Furthermore, why is an FBI Director making his recommendation in public, before the world? His job is simply to turn over the evidence to his boss, Attorney General Lynch, who will decide whether prosecution is the next step. But since, a day earlier, Lynch inexplicably said she would blindly follow the FBI’s recommendation—thereby abdicating her duty as Attorney General—Comey is suddenly doing her job and occupying her position. He is, for the moment, the US Attorney General.

:lol: Comey is also an appellate judge, because he is interpreting Title 18 of the Federal Penal Code—and interpreting it falsely.

:o Three: Comey then appears before the Congress for a grilling. Are we to assume he expected to get off easily? Of course not. He knew he would be raked over the coals, and in the process he would reveal more clearly how Hillary had violated the law. Comey would continue to assert there was no need for prosecution, while showing the world that prosecution was exactly the proper path. And that’s what happened, during Comey’s conversation with Rep. Trey Gowdy.

:nope: Four main facts emerged out of Comey’s mouth:
  1. When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.
  2. When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.
  3. When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.
  4. When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.
Comey admits all this under questioning. He further concedes that lies of this nature would normally be used to mount a prosecution.

Not only that, these lies would be used to form a circumstantial case for intent, the very issue on which Comey found Hillary “innocent.”

edit:
:myday:
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Unconventional #33: How Paul Ryan could decide whether Trump is dumped in Cleveland (and more!)
7e9ed587d8b409453f667d4cc42a52b6ff454fe7.png.cf.jpg

Andrew Romano
West Coast Correspondent
July 8, 2016
f19488ac3abfcd2a5ca602d4f0ecb152


1. Inside the plot to ‘save’ the GOP from Trump — with Paul Ryan’s help
A few months ago, conservatives desperate for a white knight to ride into the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and rescue the party from presumptive nominee Donald Trump turned to House Speaker Paul Ryan. Help us, Paul, they cried. You’re our only hope. Ryan turned them down flat.

But a scenario is shaping up that may force Ryan to play the white knight after all.

As chairman of the convention, Ryan will command the podium in Cleveland. He will hold the gavel. His face will be front and center on primetime TV.

And if a group of renegade delegates from the speaker’s home state of Wisconsin gets its way, Ryan’s duties won’t stop there.

He will also, they hope, allow his fellow Wisconsinites to block Trump from winning the nomination.

Can these Cheeseheads really overthrow Trump at the convention? And will Ryan, who officially supports the presumptive nominee, actually wade into a civil war on the convention floor and deliver the Donald’s deathblow?

Before we proceed, the usual caveats: Trump has 1,542 delegates. No other candidates are currently challenging him for the nomination. Trump is by far the most likely person to wind up as this year’s Republican presidential nominee. It’s not even close.

Still, various Dump Trump efforts are afoot — and various delegates from various states support these efforts. As a result, there is a non-zero chance that something might happen between now and the final hours of the convention to upend expectations and loosen Trump’s grip on the nomination.

So far, most of the Dump Trump speculation has focused on whether at least 28 of the Rules Committee’s 112 members will back a so-called “conscience clause” designed to give bound delegates permission to cast their ballots for whomever they want, thereby triggering a convention-wide vote on the measure.

But as Yahoo News Senior Political Correspondent Jon Ward reports, “The Rules Committee will not be the only stop-Trump game in Cleveland.”

Here’s where that gang of Wisconsinites comes in. They call themselves Delegates Unbound — and they’re plotting to torpedo Trump on the floor of the convention regardless of what happens with the Rules Committee.

Their plan? To convince at least 306 of the 1,542 delegates ostensibly bound to Trump to abstain from voting on the first ballot. If they succeed, Trump would fall short of the magic 1,237-delegate mark required to win the nomination. A second round of balloting would follow. Most state laws and party rules about binding would no longer apply. Other candidates would step forward and offer their services. The convention would become contested.

(Or so the thinking goes.)

“I personally believe there are enough delegates who will abstain to keep Trump from getting the nomination on the first ballot,” Dane Waters, an official with Delegates Unbound, tells Yahoo News. “And I think that will open up a lot of options for the delegates.”

This approach has a couple of advantages for the Dump Trump crowd. First, it doesn’t require any midstream rule changes — a procedure that makes most Republicans squeamish. And second, it allows delegates who don’t want to vote for Trump to obey their consciences without disobeying any rules.

In response to the Dump Trump chatter, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has threatened to invoke Rule 16(a) and simply ignore bound delegates who defy their obligations in Cleveland. But if you actually read Rule 16(a), you’ll see that it prohibits bound delegates from “demonstrat[ing] support … for any person other than the candidate to whom he or she is bound.” [Emphasis added.]

It doesn’t say anything about not voting at all.

Presidential nominating conventions have always permitted Bartlebys — delegates who “would prefer not to” vote. In 1896, for example, Democrats loyal to President Grover Cleveland pushed for a nominee who supported the gold standard, like their hero. But they were outnumbered by “free silver” Democrats. “When the time came to vote, 178 Gold Democrats just sat on their hands,” says convention historian Stan Haynes. “And that remained pretty consistent until the fifth ballot, when the Silver Democrats finally settled on William Jennings Bryan as the nominee.”

Will Delegates Unbound be able to pull any of this off? They are, at the very least, a serious group. Their leader is Eric O’Keefe, a respected political activist in Wisconsin who worked aggressively to bolster Gov. Scott Walker during the 2012 recall campaign, and they are “rumored to be better organized than the more publicized efforts focused on the Rules Committee,” according to Ward.

The numbers, meanwhile, suggest an uphill battle — but not an unwinnable one. A whip count of the delegates conducted this week by a pro-Trump member of the Republican National Committee found large numbers in favor of an open vote, plus many hundreds more up for grabs.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Randy Evans, an RNC member from Georgia, has estimated that 890 delegates are “personally loyal” to Trump, while another 680 oppose the presumptive Republican nominee. About 900 are undecided or undeclared. That leaves Delegates Unbound with a lot of wiggle room.

Ultimately, however, the success or failure of the group’s effort — and, as a result, the success or failure of the Trump campaign — may depend on Ryan.

Why? Because of how the GOP is supposed to tally its delegates’ votes.

Typically, the chairman of each state’s delegation announces how many delegates each candidate won in his state. But according to Rule 37, “if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called.” In other words, if a delegate bound to Trump wants to abstain, he can object to his state’s tally — and force the “chairman of the convention” (i.e., Ryan) to conduct a recount.

If there are enough of these abstentions in Cleveland — and enough of these recounts — Trump could lose.

“Delegates have the right to object and challenge the authenticity of their state’s announcement of votes cast for the possible nominee,” Waters of Delegates Unbound tells Yahoo News. “There are a significant number of states where delegates have made clear their intent to challenge the number of votes announced if they have been stopped from exercising their right to vote their conscience.”

As chairman, it’s up to Ryan to decide whether he wants to recognize these objections. He has a choice. He could stifle the dissenters by expediting the roll call, which is the trick his predecessor John Boehner pulled on the Ron Paul rebels in 2012. Alternately, he could contract a severe case of selective hearing — a malady that seemed to afflict Boehner’s Democratic counterpart, Antonio Villaraigosa, that same year.

Or Ryan could follow the rules and faithfully record every vote.

In some ways, the speaker has played the dutiful party man this cycle; he has technically endorsed Trump even though he seems to object to every other thing the tycoon says. But if you’re looking for clues about how Ryan might react to a bunch of Bartlebys coming forward on the floor of The Q, recall what he said in June when asked whether he would urge his fellow Republicans to follow his example and endorse Trump.

“The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that’s contrary to their conscience,” Ryan told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I get that this is a very strange situation. He’s a very unique nominee.”

Translation: Cleveland could still be crazy. And Paul Ryan might be in the middle of the melee.
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Pretty sure the noted British philosopher, Mick Jagger, said "You can't always get what you want but if you try real hard you'll get what you need". Not.... "you may well end up with absolutely nothing".

I like the verse that is more rational. MIGHT is the key word.

"You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you MIGHT find
You get what you need"
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
One of the speakers that Trump picked to speak at the GOP convention is Don King. I guess birds of a feather really do fly together....Check out his Wiki, and look down the page at "controversies".

If John Gotti was free and alive today, I have no doubt that he would be chosen to be a speaker as well....
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I will be interested to see if they give a speaking gig to Joe Walsh. I mean, if what you are actually trying to do is burn Cleveland to the ground, why use half measures? Just let the bigots have the mic. Fuck dog whistles. Tell it straight like it is.

He and David Duke could do a tag team...
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I wasn't sure who you were talking about? When you said Joe Walsh. I had to look him up. I was getting my Joe Walshes mixed up. I thought you meant the guitarist from the Eagles Joe Walsh:lol:. I thought, he wouldn't be speaking at the Rep convention. He's on our side.

i hope there is plenty of police at the Rep convention because they are going to need it. Trump stirs up the worst in people.

I can't help but think that because we have a black man in the White House this has stirred up all the racism in America. All this racism started as soon as Obama was elected. Also the Tea Party group has been talking nothing but hate since we've been hearing from them.

Trump has been so hateful in his speeches. All the people that think that the white person is superior to the rest of America are loving Mr Trump. It makes them feel more superior and more empowered. I can't help but think this is adding to the countries problems and how angry people are.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
-snip-

I can't help but think that because we have a black man in the White House this has stirred up all the racism in America. All this racism started as soon as Obama was elected. -snip-
No, I am afraid it didn't. It's a long term problem which periodically erupts, a sort of original sin of our nation's founding. Obama, by his very existence, brings some of it to a boil, but it's nothing new. Decades ago black motorists had to have their own road trip guide book, The Negro Motorist Green Book, in order to find places that would serve them and avoid dangers.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I agree racism didn't go away, it was in hiding in some places. I misspoke above. We were pretending like it wasnt around anymore. It was in full gear when a black man was voted as president because it never went away. Especially more so in certain areas of America, like a lot of the southern states.

Edit
Why Trump can't say he's sorry or condemn hate groups? Why not say some words against the David Dukes of the world? The Donald realizes that those folks are the main foundation of his followers, which are mainly white, angry, men. He doesn't want to lose any of his supporters.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
The repubs have long used racism, homophobia and xenophobia to whip up support. As Krugman said in that commentary a few days ago, the GOP's main cause is to deliver wealth to the 1% by cutting taxes and supplying loopholes and shelters. Since most voters don't really share that goal, they periodically stir them up with hatreds like this recent bathroom brouhaha. Or birtherism. Then they blame Obama for not successfully pouring oil on the waters they roiled up. Karl Rove used homophobia very effectively to get dubya elected the second time. In other words, Obama isn't the the real source of this recent upsurge of racism. It's all these race-baitin', gay hatin' repubs. It's less Obama than Obama Derangement Syndrome.
 
Last edited:

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
Obama, when he speaks, is cool, calm,collected, on point, poignant, engaging and precise. Hillary is in the ballpark. Not as good but few are. Donald? not so much. Really? Difficult decision? We ask people to hold power. It is extremely corrosive. I guess I mean no one is perfect and you put these people in a position where they have to do something. Like a Doctor held in high esteem will have made mistakes , even fatal ones, and is judged on their average against others. Not Perfection.
I wish Superman, Jesus or Odin would have ran but my choices are what they are and are twixt scheming adult vs petulant child. Easy Peasy!
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Obama is so right, "Its easier to start wars than it is to end them." I will miss his speeches. Hopefully we can still hear from him after he's done being president. I'm not ready to see him go. There isn't anybody as good to take his place. I just really like him.:love:
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Yes, I feel proud that we elected Obama twice. He is a thoughtful, dignified, rational person.

I am beginning to think my initial take on Trump was correct. He does not give a shit about the presidency, expects to lose, and is only in it to burnish his 'brand' and make it more valuable.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I agree racism didn't go away, it was in hiding in some places. I misspoke above. We were pretending like it wasnt around anymore. It was in full gear when a black man was voted as president because it never went away. Especially more so in certain areas of America, like a lot of the southern states.
I have absolutely no doubt that electing Barack Obama as POTUS reinvigorated bigotry and hate in America in ways we haven't seen since Jim Crow. Equal rights was difficult to accept for many in principle, but as long as it wasn't right in their face as an actual movement with visible examples in government, people could roll their eyes and blame it on political correctness. Its not like it was showing up that much in the milieu. How many black senators did we have, after all? How many black CEOs? There are plenty of black people in the entertainment industry, but other than in music they tend to be background players getting less important roles. There are exception, of course, but that is the general truth of it. It shouldn't surprise any of us.

But when we elected a black man to the most visible position in government, that is when the shit hit the fan. And the day he was inaugurated, for no discernible reason other than his color, the titular head of the republican party put a meeting together where they decided they would, as a group, oppose EVERY SINGLE THING THE NEW PRESIDENT TRIED TO DO! Everything, from day 1 to today. Didn't matter if it was even their idea. If this new President wanted it, they had to stop it. And he declared this on that fateful day, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Much of America is tired of unnecessary hostility and conflict. While much of the millennial generation is somewhat colorblind (not all by any means) and certainly more willing to evaluate people based on their behavior and attitude than their race or ethnicity, they are still the products of their parents and the social world in which they reside, so awareness and cooperation remain watchwords and goals that they need to keep in mind as well. The idea of people working together rather than choosing sides is something we ALL, of any age, need to always keep in mind and encourage in a world more dependent on cooperation than ever before.

So, it was a proud moment when America decided to take a chance and actually act to show our humanity and select a brilliant, well educated, and humane individual for our top office, even tho he was from a minority race. We would show the world how grown up we had become.

Oops. I think that fantasy of a post racial America was proven very quickly to still be only an ideal that is still quite far out of reach. We were left with a choice. Would we grow into our fancy new clothes that were a size or two too big, or would we fall apart at the seems and admit that we just aren't ready to address the issues that tear us apart?

The jury is still out, but right at this moment it isn't looking that great.
 
cybrguy,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Well these are growing pains. Sometimes it is necessary to let these things come to a head so everyone can see what's what and maybe get over it. I believe we are vastly better off now, from the viewpoint of racial harmony, than we were when Obama was inaugurated. We are talking about uncomfortable topics like racism in law enforcement, racism that didn't arrive because of Obama or only after Obama.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
The upside I suppose is that having a black POTUS has encouraged the conversation. It made for a lot of opportunity for a highly appreciated and respected black man to discuss race in ways that are productive. Voices like Joe Walsh are a lot easier to disrespect when positive and competent example like Barack Obama are constantly standing out from the crowd and pointing to the future.
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: Gunky

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
Just throwing this out there:

So in one article, it was argued and evidence pointed toward Clinton getting overseas donations to Clinton Foundation which is funding her campaign in exchange for preferential treatment in her term as SoS. In the above article, it shows how the FBI is acting outside its jurisdiction, all the while admitting Clinton lied, broke the law, and is getting away with it.

How is turning a blind eye to that and still voting for her any better than a xenophobe voting for Trump?

I am not throwing stones, but with the vitriol (and rightfully so) pointed at those behind Trump, why is there not the same outrage when it happens to be a leftist? Why can't we hold both parties accountable?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
How is turning a blind eye to that and still voting for her any better than a xenophobe voting for Trump?
There is a big difference between "turning a blind eye" and not falling for the bullshit. There are ZERO positive reasons for voting for Trump. There are MANY for voting for Clinton.

Even if you believe some of her detractors, on her worst day she is more qualified than Trump on his best day. It's that simple.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Prior to some of these recent incidents, polls showed that whites thought racism much less of a problem than blacks did. Apparently a lot of whites assumed absent any noise and here we are with a black prez, we are now post-racial. Black people like Sandra Bland did not see it that way. I have no idea if it's so, but I wonder if whites aren't beginning to get it better after some of these shootings, BLM, the resistance to Barack Obama...

On another topic, the Clinton Foundation does not fund Hillary's presidential campaign. Facts matter. The foundation does a lot of good.
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Both parties need to be held accountable regarding telling the truth and taking care of the health and well being of the country. In life sometimes you have to decide on which of the two evils are worse.

I believe that Donald Trump would be horrible for this country's mental health. If he gets into office many of us will have nervous breakdowns:lol:. I will actually lose sleep. He will stomp America into the ground with his hate and irrational ideas. He will make the U.S less safe in the world. I'm afraid he will start a nuclear war. :evil:Nobody would survive that. I don't think I'm being overly dramatic.

A terrible president can change America as you know it. Edit - Or blow it off the map.
 
Last edited:

lwien

Well-Known Member
How is turning a blind eye to that and still voting for her any better than a xenophobe voting for Trump?

Because she's not a xenophobe, she is not a racist, she is not an idiot, she does not pander to the worst in people, etc etc. While I would be the first to admit that she's a pretty shady character, what she is not, as compared to Trump, places her on an entirely different playing field.

This election really is about picking the less of two evils and to me, THAT choice is totally obvious.
 

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
It isn't that we can't. It is that we didn't. And no matter what we wish for....here we are.

I look at what is the best way (IMHO possible)forward and attempt to go there.
 
TeeJay1952,
Top Bottom