The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
@grokit hit the nail on the head with reviving eugenics.

For everyone making the Trump=Hitler, think back on how you have just argued about the fact that those who think differently from you have something genetically defective or inherently negative that needs addressing. :2c:

No. We aren't reducing Trump to some stereotype based on his race or genetics of some other type. This isn't Democrats saying Republicans have a defective gene because they don't agree with us. This is almost all sensible people realizing that one candidate deserves his characterization as an ignorant unqualified sexist racist xenophobe. This rightly makes us wonder why the party of ideological purity has decided to ditch most of their ideology and follow this hateful stupid dimestore strongman. This apparent lack of a moral core to the party that never stops shouting about their values is what makes us wonder more than ever what the hell is up with those people.
 

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
All of the media, ALL of IT, needs things to be at a boil in order to compete in the Dash for Dollars. Frustration with gridlock, false equivalencies and lack of journalistic integrity have all contributed. Uniformed voters, lack of enthusiasm and oversight, too much self interest and apocalypse fatigue is on us.
Remember these are your neighbors. Words can hurt. People do have grievances. I believe everyone should be self sufficient but I also believe everyone needs the opportunity to become self sufficient and that may require some assistance.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
All along I have been wondering what Trump gets out of this. He's unlikely to win and he doesn't act like he really even wants to be president. His campaign is minimalistic and has a lackadaisical quality. He has developed no real policies and seems uninterested in policy or government in general. He has invested very little money in it despite all the claims of self-financing and has hired little in the way of staff. Sometimes I wondered if all his bigoted rhetoric wasn't hurting Trump's business interests. But this recent Russian business may provide a key to understanding Trump's bid. He wants to build stuff in Russia. He may not win the presidency but sucking up to Vladimir Putin so publicly may well make it possible for Trump to get oligarch financing and build some mega-structures in Russia.
 
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: steama

gangababa

Well-Known Member
..."10th Amendment recourse" of 'States' Rights', supposedly limiting the government to 18th century realities, practices and strategies....

I'd love to use this 'states' rights' argument to restrict the 2nd-amendment to 18th century realities, practices and strategies.

Khan is magnificent. He boiled down the objections to Donald Trump to a few irrefutable constitutional contradictions. If repubs really cared about fidelity to the constitution, they would withdraw support from Donald Trump until such time as he renounces his unconstitutional views.

The Republican party has long demonstrated antipathy for the constitution, therefore Trump is not an aberration of the party. He is the direct (as though) genetic descendant of the party populace.
No friends, I will not do the simple Google research available to anyone, unless s/he willfully avoids facts to maintain deliberate ignorance.

...This apparent lack of a moral core to the party that never stops shouting about their values is what makes us wonder more than ever what the hell is up with those people.

Precisely. Persuasions made from religion, ethics, morality and consistency (or lack) in Trump supporters' world view, serve as the strongest arguments that can be made to, and about, the people of the party of self-professed moral monopoly, siding with Trump. Facts seem not to matter, but lie after proven lie, day by day, ugly disgusting behaviors that we will not tolerate in our children; these are ways that the moral cognitive-dissonance of Trump supporters can be pointed out, with the hope that some of the never-right-minded thinkers will experience a "does not compute" break-through.

Now for some new hopeful news, this how the Electoral College would be if no American women voted for Trump. Source and source
ifwomenrefusetovoteTrump_zps2qrdf8al.jpg
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Because I do believe in intellectual honesty.
This refutation, if not negation of the post I made above:

Snopes.com says that the story about Trump leaking information about a secret US base is Saudi Arabia is false.
"There is no evidence that Donald Trump received a national security intelligence briefing before his 29 July 2016 speech in Colorado Springs, nor did he say anything he hasn't said before about U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia."

From my point of view however, this quote applies, "There are two possibilities here: Either Donald Trump is so woefully out of touch with American foreign policy that he thinks a base that closed down 13 years ago is still open – or he just leaked a staggering nugget of classified information", if there is a secret base.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
Washington (CNN) Donald Trump said Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin won't make a military move into Ukraine -- even though Putin already has done just that, seizing the country's Crimean peninsula.

"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanoploulos responded, in a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014.

Trump said: "OK -- well, he's there in a certain way. But I'm not there. You have Obama there."

WHAT ?!?!? :doh::shrug::doh:
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
This IS the danger. It doesn't require us to change our behavior as it doesn't really change anything. But it DOES suggest that we must not in any way relax or get off our guard. We learned what can happen if we do that in 2004. This is just a reminder of how serious it all is and that we COULD lose it if we remove ANY pressure. So every day from now till Nov 8th we need to keep pushing and talking and emphasizing just how CRITICAL this election will be...
------------------
The So-Called “Creative Class” is Underestimating Donald Trump. Again.
by David Atkins
July 31, 2016 8:00 AM


Human beings are creatures of habit. We don’t like change, and are discomfited by the idea that our world may be more of a precariously constructed house of cards than we had imagined. This is true not only of our everyday jobs and family lives, but also of our politics. It is disturbing to think that our nation was one scandal or terrorist attack away from putting an ignoramus like Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency. Few of us want to believe that the dignity of the Oval Office and our nation’s nuclear arsenals could easily fall into the hands of a deranged lunatic with no knowledge of global affairs. This is especially true for if one belongs to the Ivy-League-educated upwardly mobile creative class in the Acela corridor, for whom “temperament,” “seriousness,” “fitness” and “qualifications” are highly-prized cultural commodities.

So we (and the creative class in particular) tell ourselves that no such thing could actually happen: the United States would never really elect a Silvio Berlusconi–much less a Benito Mussolini–to our highest office. It’s just not possible. Columnists like Michael Cohen insist that Trump’s support will diminish toward election day in the mold of 3rd party candidates, or that he will lose in a landslide because he has already proven himself disqualified and unfit for office (as Ezra Klein reminds us daily in increasingly, almost amusingly alarmed tones.)

The mistake these pundits make is assuming that the American people are remotely as invested in the notions of temperament, fitness and qualifications as they are. Writers, wonks organizers and campaign types who live in the greater D.C. and New York areas, who went to the same schools, attend the same musicals, go to the same trendy bars and parties and share the same workaholic gossip-fueled lifestyles find it difficult to imagine that anyone but trailer-park-living mouth-breathers could possibly support a candidate like Donald Trump. These same mostly clueless elites are the ones who failed to predict the housing bubble crash and excused their failure by calling it a “black swan event,” the preferred Malcolm Gladwell-popularized term for any predictable event that the connected creative classes were too insular to see coming in their bubble of epistemic closure.

The latter-year version of this conventional wisdom was marked by hilariously wrong political predictions: that Bernie Sanders would be a joke candidate, that Donald Trump would flame out by the fall of 2015, that the “establishment lane” of the Republican Party was the only one worth winning, that a 74-year-old socialist crank couldn’t possibly win a single state outside of Vermont, etc. Complaints about Sanders and Trump from the Nate Silver/David Brooks/Matt Yglesias /John Podhoretz crowd mostly came to attitude: they just seemed too crazy to be taken seriously. Their policies weren’t practical. They were too angry. Too divisive. They didn’t share what they believe to be America’s fundamental optimism, and its belief in a Horatio Alger world where America’s original promise of a city on a hill with opportunity for all is still in effect–but updated for the modern era with equal access for all races, genders and orientations.

But that turned out not to be true. Wonkish quantitative objections notwithstanding, a large number of Americans are very anxious about the economy and many other aspects of society. Some of that upset is based on white male resentment at being displaced by other races and genders; some of it is due to middle-class economic decline; some of it is because of anger at elites who seem to do well no matter how insecure the other 95% of America becomes. Some of it is anger at the political system: liberals and conservatives hating and blaming each other for the failure of the country and its archaically divided government to be able to move in any direction at all, regardless of what happens in a given election. It’s all of the above.

It turns out that when times are tough and people are angry, they don’t care so much about temperament or qualifications. They want someone who will smash up the place. 25% of voters aren’t undecided or supporting 3rd party candidates because Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or backstabbing Romney RINOs led voters off a cliff like some modern-day Pied Piper: they’re doing so because they’d rather throw away a vote in protest than give further support to the current system.

Moreover, Republican voters aren’t about to move en masse to Clinton, as the latest Public Policy Polling data suggests. Clinton leads Trump, but only by five points after the Democratic Convention. Republican voters simply despise Clinton too much, with supermajorities saying that Clinton should be in jail and that she presents a greater threat to the United States than Russia does. Over a third think she may be in league with Satan himself. Not a lot of crossover potential there.

Donald Trump is still very unlikely to win the election. But that’s mostly because of the same demographic trends and electoral college challenges that would have been a problem for any Republican candidate this year. In a presidential year nowadays there are just more liberal voters than there are conservative ones.

But it won’t be a blowout, and it won’t have much to do with seriousness, fitness or temperament. The likeliest scenario is that Clinton will win by 5 or 6 points, with 8 to 10 points going to third party candidates due to the high negatives of both nominees–particularly after a brutal slew of negative advertising.

That will be far too close for comfort among the elite creative class that can’t imagine anyone voting for Trump or Jill Stein. But that’s because the creative class is fairly disconnected culturally from the reality of most of the rest of the country, and has been for quite some time.
---------------
And, BTW, as much as I may not want to admit it, I am one of these people this author is talking about. I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE that this narcissistic "Jagoff" (as Cuben called him) could actually win this thing. That is very scary. But I now believe that he CAN, and I WILL NOT STOP trying to stop him.
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
With Donald Trump talking about Mr Khan and how Trump himself has sacrificed in his lifetime. Mr Khan is the man who spoke during the DNC convention regarding his son who was Muslim who died saving his fellow America soldiers in Iraq. I watched Mr. khan on one of the morning news shows.

Maybe there needs to be more attention to why Trump wasn't drafted like many young men during that era, I had read that he got out of service because he had bone spurs on each heel. He was healthy enough that they thought he may play college baseball when he graduated high school.

Bill Clinton was drilled about that all the time. Why hasn't Trump been questioned more about why he didn't serve in the military? I personally would like to hear more about that.

Edit
Republicans can't say that the democrats were using Mr Khan because they used the poor mother at their RNC convention. The mother that personally blamed Hillary for the death of her son in Benghazi. That started all the lock her up BS.

Mr Khan didn't blame George W Bush for the death of his son. He could be blaming the Reoublicans for that since that would have been under GW's reign.

I just thought of something that really is so glaring. How dare Trump for saying what he did about John McCain. He himself was able to get out of the war in Vietnam. How can anybody make excuses for that? Now he's attacking that Muslim father.

Watch Mr Khan on State of the Union from CNN Sunday morning. All I can say is wow. Nobody could have said it better.

Khizr Khan: Trump has a 'black soul' - CNNPolitics.com - CNN.com
CNN.com › 2016/07/31 › politics › khizr...
 
Last edited:

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
With Donald Trump talking about Mr Khan and how Trump himself has sacrificed in his lifetime.

Maybe there needs to be more attention why Trump wasn't drafted like many young men during that era, I had read that he got out of service because he had bone spurs on each heel. He was healthy enough that they thought he may play college baseball when he graduated high school.

Bill Clinton was drilled about that all the time. Why hasn't Trump been questioned more about why he didn't serve in the military?

Only Dems feet are held to the fire.
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
But it won’t be a blowout, and it won’t have much to do with seriousness, fitness or temperament. The likeliest scenario is that Clinton will win by 5 or 6 points, with 8 to 10 points going to third party candidates due to the high negatives of both nominees–particularly after a brutal slew of negative advertising.

We know that about 40% (right wingers) of the electorate will vote for Drumpf and 40% (Dems) will vote for Hillary. The only votes that actually make a difference are the other 20% of so called undecided voters.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I'm not sure those rules necessarily apply in this unusual election, but it is perfectly fine to make that assumption. If it IS true that his starting share is 40%, and his ugly rhetoric and lack of humanity limit him to just those voters, that leaves 6o% of voters gettable for Hillary, and that would be historic. I'm sure that Stein/Johnson could pull 5 or 6%, and that would leave a potential 55% for Hillary. Maybe not historic, but certainly a significant win with a mandate.

Just ruminating, not stating expectations, but still...
 

grokit

well-worn member
The So-Called “Creative Class” is Underestimating Donald Trump. Again.

I agree with the premise of this headline, that political insulation breeds false confidence. But the condescending tone of the article below it ironically belies an attitude that is much like the one atkins is critical of. If we're not part of the 'clueless elite', or 'trailer-park-living mouth-breathers', all of us bernie supporters are just interested in burning the place down? It's stunning that atkins can't recognize his own hypocrisy, especially when he ticks off all the reasons that have supposedly driven reasonable voters away from existing two-party tyranny. He's right about the insular class, but the fact that he is wrong about so much else shows him as especially insulated from political realities on the ground. Not once does he mention the dissatisfaction that exists about our foreign policies, or perhaps more importantly, how our middle class is disappearing because of all the income that goes to the people that need it the least. Atkins criticizes other pundits in an attempt to separate himself from an irrelevant pack that never gets it right anyways. In doing so he reveals that while he is indeed clever with words, his ideas are ultimately, ideologically, vacuous.

:myday:
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
Like the ideology that created the declaration of *independence?

*from the banking elite that funds all wars, and certain presidential campaigns.

Maybe atkins was right...

8154965_f520.jpg

:myday:
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Did you forget about George Bush and the air national guard fiasco?

Nope. Remember what the "establishment" did about that truth?
They fired Rather instead of going for the truth. Rather and his team got taken on one piece of paper.
The truth was not discredited only the one liar who gave CBS the paperwork.
The rest of the evidence was clear that Bush did not fulfil his commitment.
 

ReggieB

Well-Known Member
He turned up in Scotland fairly recently, the locals put mexican flags out just to make sure he knows how welcome he is. You know what? I reckon he could be a sleeper agent for the king, just saying, them sneaky royalists and all that... :rofl:
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Where did the reasoned political science discussion go?
Guess I will take the time to restart a previous project, activity=karma=action.

Most everyone will grant the world is an orderly place, as science sees it.
Planets spin in orderly fashion, reasonably described in words of mathematics and physics.
Gravity is orderly. Gravity doesn't appear and disappear or change magnitude or direction in any locale.
Get far enough from earth though and experience gravity pulling you down, to the moon.
Because gravity is orderly.

For those who prefer 6000 year old theological thinking, order is still acknowledged because....God.
Even disorder, like entropy, is accommodated within the overall orderliness.
Psychology, psychiatry, behavior sciences, sociology all seek to explain the disorder of the human condition.

We all live in a world of orderly wrappers that have internal consistencies and inter-connectivity.
Cosmic orders, geological order, the hydrological order, atmospheric order, biological order, social order- like that, the orders can be investigated and mind-models constructed to explain the orderliness perceived in parts and unperceived in the whole; knowledge that can not all be gained via the five direct senses.

To the nature-nurture debate, Vedic understanding adds another analysis of the orders.
The karmic order is added to explain the human condition and indeed it explains everything, including Muslim supporters for Trump and Republican women for Clinton.
I find the karmic model fully explains the me that I see, saw, say and succor.

However, there is a catch 22, the explanation will not satisfy the one attached to wanting outside answers to the ineffable. That doesn't make the explanation wrong, it means desire trumps wisdom in those lacking the knowledge. This catch 22 is behind all of the "wax on, wax off" traditions in the teachings.

The karmic model suggests that there is an orderliness to the reality of each human birth. Consciousness repeatedly seems to wake up in a genetic wrapper, in a time and place.
Consciousness without memory, without the limitations born of words, of the names and forms that s/he will be learning.
Consciousness within a body-mind-sense complex surrounded by the wrapper of world; the actor and the field of activity.
And births are there in so many different conditions of comfort and distress. Why?

Why are you you?
We are genetics, yes, but we are also the food of which the body is made. The air we breathe is life inside and the atmosphere outside.
We are selfless nurture, that given education in the ways of our tribe, but we are also our own selfish desires that exasperate the tribe.
We are trajectories of action, karmic chains; the results, the reactions, the fruit of karma are markers on the path.
We are trajectories of our choices and desires (hopefully guided by dharma- pc behavior). Thoughts lead to action leads to habits and soon the trajectory is set.

Of the past 365 of each year of your life, how many waking hours are blank in your memory?
Could significant cause of the now, be embedded in forgotten choices (actions) in the past?
The karmic model says you are the consciousness born repeatedly into a wrapper suitable to the field of activity needed for your pre-existing, but forgotten at birth, trajectory.

It is not fate or pre-determintion or sky-daddy dolling disaster and delight.
It is order built into the system at the beginning, like gravity.

You, consciousness, are the one actor in role after role after role, on different stages, in different moods (comedy, tragedy, adventure...); it is all walk-on, you are improvisationally writing your next scenes as you go.
But it would be too confusing to carry over the previously most excellently acted role onto the next, .
Thus ever costume change includes forgetfulness of the previous character
Still, though, you are following the screen play that you have been long writing, and editing, and directing and producing...

And that is where Republicans and Democrats come from.
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
The Führerprinzip (German for "leader principle") prescribed the fundamental basis of political authority in the governmental structures of the Third Reich.

An excellent piece about hypocrisy and the rise of despots, https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-elections-dictatorship?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1 :


Extremism thrives because of cowardly collaborators
the guardian

Anglo-Saxon democracies, which were never invaded in the 20th century, have produced a rich series of alternative histories of resistance. When the Nazis win the Second World War, audiences can flatter themselves that they would never have collaborated with Robert Harris’s Fatherland or Amazon’s Man in the High Castle.

No one is more prone to imagining how well they would have behaved in conflicts that they never experienced than American conservatives. The cult of Churchill in the US would embarrass even his most devoted British admirers. From George W Bush, who placed a Jacob Epstein bust of Churchill in the Oval Office in 2001, via the CEOs who put Churchill their most admired leader, ahead of Steve Jobs, to today’s Republican leaders in Congress, the mainstream right is unanimous and unctuous in its admiration.

In truth, they are only admiring themselves. When the House of Representatives’ leader, Paul Ryan, said that for Churchill it was an “unforgivable sin” for a politician to fail to warn the electorate about an impending threat, or when John McCain compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain as he cut a deal with the Castros, they were signalling their courage. Churchill and the minority of anti-Hitler Tory and Labour MPs were abused in their own parties, and beyond, until appeasement fell apart in late 1938. No matter. Like them, today’s Republicans would rather be right than be popular.

Donald Trump has proved that they are destined to be neither.

I don’t throw the word “fascism” around, but can we at least accept that Trump follows the Führerprinzip? He has no colleagues, only followers. He is a racist. Not a closet racist, or a dog-whistle racist, but a racist so unabashed that the Klan endorses him. Above all, he has the swaggering dictator’s determination to bawl opponents into silence with screams of “loser”, “dummy”, “fraud”, “puppet,” “biased”, “disgusting”, “liar” and “kook”. As with the web trolls Trump so resembles, it is never the point and always the person. Female news presenters have to explain that they are not asking him difficult questions because they have “blood coming out of whatever” or surrender to him, as Megan Kelly of Fox News did to her shame. Latinos have to explain why they are not rapists and murderers or shut up and give up. Muslims have to explain that they are not terrorists or they lose the right to a hearing. At every stage, the argument is shifted on to the troll’s terrain of ethnic and religious loyalty tests. Except here the troll could become the world’s most powerful man.

Conservatives boasted too that they knew that the old-fashioned virtues of good character mattered as much as a man or woman’s ideology. By this reckoning, Trump’s bragging, vainglory, dark fury and towering vanity should disqualify him from the presidency regardless of his politics. Republican grandees must agree with Hillary Clinton when she said: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons”, not least because Marco Rubio, one of their own, has said as much himself. Yet McCain and Ryan, those enemies of appeasement, have folded and endorsed Trump. Rubio, that piercing judge of his character, has decided that, after all, Trump’s finger should be on the button. Presidents Bush père et fils are bravely abstaining. Bobby Jindal, who described Trump as a “narcissist and egomaniacal madman”, wants him in the White House. Nearly all the Republican names you remember follow suit. The Dick Cheneys, Rand Pauls and Condoleezza Rices are backing Trump or refusing to commit. Confronted with a dictatorial menace in their own time and their own country they lack the courage to risk the unpopularity that Churchillian dissent would bring.

Even when Trump followed his years of promoting the interests of a dictator of a hostile foreign power by urging Vladimir Putin to hack Clinton’s emails, they held steady in their cowardice. The Republicans, the party of red-baiters and Cold Warriors, is now in the pocket of a Kremlin “useful idiot” and the best its national security conservatives can manage are embarrassed mutters.

Only Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz openly oppose him, among prominent Republicans. And when a once mighty political movement relies on Cruz to uphold its honour it is so deep in the dustbin of history it is already composting.

My friend and comrade, the American journalist Jamie Kirchick, coined the phrase “Vichy Republicans” to describe its leaders. They don’t quite support Trump, you understand, but you surely can’t expect them to oppose him either. It is not as if America is under occupation. It is not as if the man in the high tower will order the secret police to herd them on to cattle trucks. The only suffering they will face is challenges in Republican primaries and many won’t even face that.

From ‘vehemently oppose’ to ‘all in’: explore the universe of positions on Donald Trump. See which politicians have been sucked into orbit and which ones are resisting the pull

Read more

A little fear goes a long way. Just the possibility of being told off for challenging a candidate that they fear to be mentally unstable has been enough to persuade them to conform.

Optimists say that America’s founding fathers designed its constitution to cage men such as Trump. “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for,” said James Madison in 1788, “but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits.”

But where are Madison’s checks today? Trump has already made his contempt for judicial independence clear by race-baiting and bullying a judge who was investigating one of the many accusations of fraud against him.

As for the legislature, a Trump victory would ensure a Republican-dominated Congress – those same Republicans who are too frightened to raise a word of protest against him today.

Compare them to the British Labour MPs fighting Jeremy Corbyn. They are everything that conservatives despise: hand-wringingly PC, eco-conscious, emotionally literate, bleeding-heart do-gooders every last one of them. Christ, some of them may even read the Observer. But after the killing of Jo Cox by an alleged rightwing extremist, Angela Eagle, Jess Phillips and all the other anti-Corbyn MPs who are speaking out know that the death and rape threats from left-wing extremists may not just be bluster.

They are showing true courage. Not just moral courage but physical courage. A courage that those American conservatives, who are so loud in the determination to fight the threats of the past, and so silent before the dangers of the present, entirely lack.
 
Top Bottom