The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[KimDracula]

I have felt embarrassed for years at the Republican party. Trump is just ditching the code and dog-whistles, as someone has already mentioned. The people that support him are the idiot white people (for the most part) that have been holding us back forever by voting against their own interests because they're scared of everything.

 

[Gunky]

I was able to stream about a half hour of it on CNN.com last night so I got a pretty good dose of each candidate's stage presence. They all suck.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._nothing_about_foreign_policy_in_the_cnn.html

Cruz also outlined his plan for defeating ISIS. “My strategy is simple,” he said. “We win, they lose.” How would he translate this bold idea into action? “We will utterly destroy them by targeting the bad guys.”

Why didn’t Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton think of that?

 

[lwien]

How can anyone see those expressions and not come away thinking he was acting like a spoiled child and still is taken seriously.

The people that support him are the idiot white people (for the most part) that have been holding us back forever by voting against their own interests because they're scared of everything.

These are the same people that not only love the WWE, but actually think that it's for real.

 

[cybrguy]

The difficult thing for people from elsewhere (and some here) to understand is that in this country people can say pretty much whatever they want without fear of consequences. There is NO legal limiter on speech, and that is America's choice. We as Americans have to use our own experience and knowledge to cull the wheat from the chaff and that isn't a simple process, especially for the poorly educated. We really HAVE to choose individuals or groups that we believe we can trust to break down issues and policies into information we can more easily manage. Most people just can't invest the time to become competent in all the areas of government that are critical to a well functioning country and must rely on others. And there is the rub, who can we trust? Who is a good filter and who is not?

There are no simple answers. The nature of politics has changed in negative ways. The collegiality and camaraderie that influenced (and even drove) the interaction and process for senators and congressmen is gone, replaced by hostility and anger and a highly destructive disdain (especially by republicans) for cooperation and compromise. The whole nature of the process has been dropped in the ashcan, and I don't know how we get it back. And I don't know how we can function without it.

But I CAN tell you one thing for certain. If we choose one of the monsters we saw last night as President of the United States, we are seriously fucked. And it won't effect just us.

 

[lwien]

The nature of politics has changed in negative ways. The collegiality and camaraderie that influenced (and even drove) the interaction and process for senators and congressmen is gone, replaced by hostility and anger and a highly destructive disdain (especially by republicans) for cooperation and compromise.

If you look back in our history, I don't think things has changed that much. Actually, many decades ago, senators and congressmen called each other much worse things than they are doing today, especially from our founding fathers.

No one today is calling out another candidates wife a slut like they did back then.

The amount of vitriol kinda ebbs and flows with each election cycle so the way I see it, this behavior is kind of part and parcel for our government in general. Some years it will be worse than others but it's always been there to one extent or another.

Check this article out : http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

 

[Gunky]

One of the more amusing moments was when Trump didn't know what the 'nuclear triad' was and Rubio was there, practically pumping his hand up - oh teacher, teacher, I know! As I noticed from previous debates, Rubio is only able to play memorized licks. You would think he would have some foreign policy chops from being on the Senate committee but it's mostly warmed-over GW Bush and platitudes.

 

[His_Highness]

I interpreted Rubio's explanation of the triad as clarification for the audience and taking a shot at Trump but..... done in a way that made it look like he was taking the high road by not calling out Trump on his ignorance.

 

[grokit]

These are the same people that not only love the WWE, but actually think that it's for real.

Pressure Mounting for WWE to Oust Donald Trump from Hall of Fame
By Ryan Dilbert , WWE Lead Writer Dec 16, 2015

Donald Trump with Vince McMahon.

It may be hard to hear it over the cacophony of controversy surrounding Donald Trump, but there's a growing rumbling as to whether he still belongs in the WWE Hall of Fame.

The real-estate mogul and presidential candidate's proclamations during his campaign have generated a stockpile of headlines, have become talking points and have some fans pushing to get him ousted from the WWE institution. The louder that contingent becomes, the more WWE will be forced to listen.

Seeing his brash, over-the-top personality on display, it's not surprising to learn that he has history with WWE, including being a key part of WrestleMania 23 in The Battle of The Billionaires.

He hosted two of the earliest WrestleManias, has appeared on WWE TV and, in one storyline, bought out Raw. All that added up to a spot in the celebrity wing of WWE's Hall of Fame.

As he continues to deliver polemical statements on the campaign trail, though, whether he should remain in the Hall of Fame is becoming a bigger question mark.

The sports entertainment giant has proved willing to distance itself from individuals poised to bring the company bad press. WWE cut ties with two of its biggest names just this year.

A leak of Hulk Hogan's racially charged rant got him fired and essentially erased from WWE history. Mike Cole of NESN noted, "Hogan's name has been removed from the website, he’s no longer listed as a host for WWE's Tough Enough TV show and all of his merchandise has been pulled from the WWE's online store. Furthermore, Hogan's name has been removed from the WWE's Hall of Fame website, too.

And as NBC Philadelphia reported, WWE took a similar approach with Jimmy Snuka, the Hall of Famer who faces murder charges.

Some want Trump to be next on the list of banned Hall of Famers. An online petition on Change.org calls for his removal. It now has nearly 10,000 signatures as of this writing.

In part, the petition reads, "WWE not only employs Muslim and Middle Eastern talent but has also recently launched the Network in the Middle East. The WWE must realize how many of its fans are Muslim. What message does it send to them to honor Donald Trump on the WWE's Hall of Fame?"

This is in response to Trump "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," as stated in a campaign press release via CNN.

It's easy to argue that Trump's statement was as inflammatory as Hogan's repeated use of the n-word was. But WWE has not followed the same pattern as it did with The Hulkster. It has made no move against Trump and apparently doesn't plan to.

more...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...or-wwe-to-oust-donald-trump-from-hall-of-fame

 

[Derrrpp]

Are Democratic Voters About to Make the Same Mistake Again with Hillary Clinton?

It all comes down to electability.

By Rob Hager / CounterPunch
December 14, 2015

Photo Credit: Screen capture

Last week the highly trusted Quinnipiac University National Poll delivered good news and bad news for Bernie Sanders.

The unpromising lead is: Sanders polls 30% behind Clinton.

This bad news might be best explained by the Democrats’ even more lopsided answer to the big “electability” question. Unfortunately for Sanders, 38% more Democrats think Clinton “would have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee” than would Sanders (87% to 49%).

Whose Electability?

The good news is what the pollsters actually demonstrate to be true about electability by direct match-ups of the two Democrats against those four Republican contenders who have more than single digit support. Their findings: “Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson,and Cruz].” Against each of the latter three, Sanders’ winning margin exceeds Clinton’s by 2%, 3% and 5% respectively.

It appears that democratic voters are not just misinformed, but grossly misinformed, about whether Clinton or Sanders would do better against Republicans. Comparing the margin of support for Clinton over Sanders (30%) with the even larger 38% margin of polled Democrats who erroneously rank Clinton as a more electable candidate than Sanders suggests the possibility that their grossly erroneous belief may well account for much of their expressed preference for Clinton.


more...

 

[Gunky]

Watching the Dem debate on ABC. It's refreshing to hear some adults discuss the issues.

 

[cybrguy]

I was kinda wishing when one or the other were calling somebody out for not being accurate about their record they said something along the lines of "This isn't a Republican debate. OUR audience expects us to be telling the truth"...

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[lwien]

Watching the Dem debate on ABC. It's refreshing to hear some adults discuss the issues.

Issues AND specific plans to address those issues, which the Republican front runner has never done on ANY of his issues, other than possibly his tax plan.

I'll tell ya this though. While I knew that Hillary was a bit of a hawk, she is more of a hawk than I thought she was, but Bernie, for me, rang true on so many issues especially this issue of it being a very bad idea to bring down Assad at the same time that we're fighting Isis. Haven't we learned anything about the vacuums that are created when we take down ruthless dictators? It's like she and others are just blind to the repercussions.

While I like Hillary on many issues, this one is the "same oh, same oh" bullshit on regime change and we really gotta stop trying to do this shit simply because it doesn't work, especially in that part of the world.

 

[Gunky]

Funny, I thought Hillary did a good job of explaining why it is nearly impossible to deal with ISIL while Assad is still raining down barrel bombs on his people. He is a large part of the reason ISIL exists and as long as he keeps bombing his opponents in Syria we are unlikely to get Syrians (of any persuasion) to focus on defeating ISIL.

 

[lwien]

Funny, I thought Hillary did a good job of explaining why it is nearly impossible to deal with ISIL while Assad is still raining down barrel bombs on his people. He is a large part of the reason ISIL exists and as long as he keeps bombing his opponents in Syria we are unlikely to get Syrians (of any persuasion) to focus on defeating ISIL.

Yeah, I understand her explanation but to me, it just doesn't make sense. To me, it kinda sounds like Iraq all over again. Assad is a ruthless dictator. So was Saddam, and they both ruled with an iron fist, but it was their ruthlessness that kept things in check.

My question is this. If Assad goes, who is going to replace him? And...........will that person be a better option than Assad? If we can't answer these questions, than we shouldn't fucking take him out.

Edit: btw, Bernie is a pretty funny guy. Had me chuckling. His comedic timing is pretty darn good.

 

[Gunky]

Yeah, I understand her explanation but to me, it just doesn't make sense. To me, it kinda sounds like Iraq all over again. Assad is a ruthless dictator. So was Saddam, and they both ruled with an iron fist, but it was their ruthlessness that kept things in check.

My question is this. If Assad goes, who is going to replace him? And...........will that person be a better option than Assad? If we can't answer these questions, than we shouldn't fucking take him out.

As she explained, that's what the diplomats have been working on recently and there is now momentum in the security council and the Russians have now recognized that this won't go away unless something is done about Assad.

 

[lwien]

As she explained, that's what the diplomats have been working on recently and there is now momentum in the security council and the Russians have now recognized that this won't go away unless something is done about Assad.

But again, I ask, what in the hell makes us think that his replacement will be a better option when we don't even know who in the hell that would be?

Malaki sure worked out well in Iraq, eh?

 

[Gunky]

But again, I ask, what in the hell makes us think that his replacement will be a better option when we don't even know who in the hell that would be?

Malaki sure worked out well in Iraq, eh?

You keep assuming this is Bush style regime change at the point of a gun. Hillary is talking about diplomacy. Assad only exists at the whim of his backers: Iran and Russia. Russia is edging into a recognition that Assad can't win, even with Russian jets. Meanwhile ISIL can't be defeated if half the country is busy fighting Assad. The Russians, having committed themselves militarily in the region, now recognize the inherent stalemate. Hence the activity in the Security Council.

Bernie is saying let's get the Muslim countries in the region fighting against Daesh. Hillary is saying it aint that simple and we have to come to a cease-fire in the civil war and a path toward Assad's departure before we can get a concentrated focus on Daesh. One historic precedent I can think of is the cease fire between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party in order to fight the Japanese. As long as the civil war continued, China was unable to resist the Japanese invasion.

IMO, Bernie is slightly out of his depth here. Even more so O'Malley, who seemed to think the US has no role to play as world leader.

I will go even further and say that I was very impressed with what Hillary said about Syria, Daesh, and Assad. In my view she is the only candidate of any party with a coherent plan. All other candidates are in so many words advocating continuing in the same fashion, perhaps somewhat intensified bombing or something. Hillary is saying something new: we have to unwind the civil war and here is how it can be done. (Ok a few repubs want to go full-on Cheney and send a hundred thousand troops, but that's just nuts).

 

[lwien]

Hillary is saying something new: we have to unwind the civil war and here is how it can be done.

But that's where we disagree. We can't unwind someone else's civil war. They have to unwind their own, and ultimately, civil wars burn themselves out but unfortunately, just like our own civil war, they are typically the bloodiest.

 

[grokit]

It's over, time to get out/go home (I wonder how true this is):

Obama Surrenders ISIS War, Withdraws Troops, Looks To Putin

A report from the Kremlin on Thursday says that President Obama has ordered a “strategic withdrawal” of American troops fighting ISIS in the Levant War Zone, admitting that Russia are leading the way in their fight against terrorism in the region.

In a meeting with Putin, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Foreign Secretary Lavrov, Russia told America that the threat of a nuclear war between the US and Russia was a very real possibility due to the continued support of ISIS by the U.S.

After presenting to Secretary Kerry the Federations entire portfolio of evidence regarding which nations, and intelligence services, were supporting the Islamic State, this report continues, and turning over to the Americans the secret emails of both former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and present US Defense Secretary Ash Carter obtained by the Federal Security Service (FSB) from these two US officials private unsecured emails, the Obama regime immediately “surrendered” and announced the following historic moves towards what may be peace in this region:

• US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama regime would no longer be seeking regime change in Syria—which just 4 weeks ago Obama vowed he would never allow happen.
• US Vice President Joseph Biden ordered Turkey to immediately remove its invading troops from Iraq—which just 6 days ago the US State Department refused to even acknowledge happened.
• The Pentagon ordered the immediate removal from Turkey of the F-15 fighter jets the US had just stationed there and which posed a threat to Federation Aerospace Forces.
• Obama agreed to join Russia in offering a UN Resolution seeking to cut off Islamic State funding—an action that will occur at a rare UN Security Council meeting to be chaired by the US later today.

http://yournewswire.com/obama-surrenders-isis-war-withdraws-troops-looks-to-putin/
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1963.htm

 

[Farid]

You keep assuming this is Bush style regime change at the point of a gun. Hillary is talking about diplomacy. Assad only exists at the whim of his backers: Iran and Russia. Russia is edging into a recognition that Assad can't win, even with Russian jets. Meanwhile ISIL can't be defeated if half the country is busy fighting Assad. The Russians, having committed themselves militarily in the region, now recognize the inherent stalemate. Hence the activity in the Security Council.

Removing Assad does not remove supporters of the Baath Party. It would also put minorities at a huge risk. I don't think Americans understand that he still has significant support in the Urban areas within government control. If he stepped down he would be replaced with another, possibly worse, individual close to the Alawite community.

Iran and Russia are not happy about what is going on in Syria at all and certainly don't have the control over Damascus that people insist. They all have interest in Syria, but they are different. Hezbollah sees this war as a preemptive defense of Lebanon. Russia sees this conflict as NATO aggression, and Iran sees this conflict as a Gulf State conspiracy. Iran has only sent troops in at the request of the Syrian government, and this request came much later than many expected, especially considering the heavy losses suffered by the Syrian government early on in the war.

Post invasion Iraq failed, in my opinion, because the United States failed to unite Iraqis, instead using sectarianism to fuel our own gains. It came to bite us in the ass in the form of the failed Maliki government, and in the failure of the Anbar Awakening, Sons of Iraq, and other programs intended to empower Sunnis. I fear going into Syria with the goal of taking out Assad is following the same sectarian logic that led to Sunni and Shia insugents turning Iraq into their battleground. If Assad was removed, the power struggle within the Baath party could cause the sides to become even more fractured. For instance, as it stands, the Kurds are allied with the Syrian government. If that government were to fracture, the Syrian Kurds could decide to seek autonomy, which would significantly complicate the region even more.

 

[cybrguy]

I don't think this is really the place to bang out a military strategy, but is is pretty clear that Bernie and Martin no dick about how to go about it, and Hillary had been secretary of state for 4 years, as well as being reasonably close to much of the conversation for 8 years as first lady. As SOS she negotiated and/or worked with many of the same players on the game board today. As a senator from New York during the WTC attacks she had first hand knowledge of the devastation of terrorist attacks and how to manage the fear and destruction and havoc they wreak. There is no question about who is qualified here, your only question is who you think would represent your interests. I know who represents mine.

But that's where we disagree. We can't unwind someone else's civil war. They have to unwind their own, and ultimately, civil wars burn themselves out but unfortunately, just like our own civil war, they are typically the bloodiest.

So, you would rather stand back and allow him to continue to blithely murder his population? Over a quarter of a million dead so far and thousands more every month from the kind of weaponry designed for greatest kill rate. He has created a refugee crisis with millions fleeing all over the world looking for a safe place, and most of them finding none. And now he has enlisted Putin to make his killing more efficient. But that's not our problem, they are just Arabs. They may as well be black Africans, another killing field we like to ignore

I'm sorry, but that is not a solution for us. Isolationism isn't an option for the worlds only superpower. I don't look forward to military engagement and I want to avoid it wherever we can, but there are many places we can not, and the attempted murder of the entire Syrian population not part of the minority Alawite sect is a bridge too far and something the world cannot quietly watch. As we weaken Daesh, as we must, the Syrian regime is strengthened, and if we ignore them as we fight Daesh, with the support of Russia, it will be impossible to remove Assad. The only possible solution is a negotiated one that results in the removal of Assad, and we can't walk away until that is accomplished. And we probably won't be able to walk away even then.

And again, I am not suggesting that this is the responsibility of the US alone. But it clearly IS the responsibility of the world community, in whatever form they can be activated to accomplish it.

 

[Farid]

He has created a refugee crisis with millions fleeing all over the world looking for a safe place, and most of them finding none.

The terrible war in Syria has created a refugee crisis, but to put all of that blame on the Syrian government, let alone Assad, is not being realistic. Syria's war happened for a number of reasons, the main one being the terrible drought that led to economic turmoil, and forced many Syrians living in the country to move to the cities. This population change is why you saw so many people taking the streets during the protests. The dissatisfaction caused by poverty inspired many to take to the streets seeking change. Some individuals made terrible decisions (the governor of Hama for instance was fired by Assad for the way he dealt with the protests) and this cause things to spiral out of control.

The question I ask is why does the United States support protesters asking for democracy in Syira, but not in Saudi Arabia or other Gulf States. I think it's because democracy is an excuse, not the real geopolitical goal.

 

[lwien]

I don't think this is really the place to bang out a military strategy, but is is pretty clear that Bernie and Martin no dick about how to go about it, and Hillary had been secretary of state for 4 years, as well as being reasonably close to much of the conversation for 8 years as first lady. As SOS she negotiated and/or worked with many of the same players on the game board today. As a senator from New York during the WTC attacks she had first hand knowledge of the devastation of terrorist attacks and how to manage the fear and destruction and havoc they wreak. There is no question about who is qualified here, your only question is who you think would represent your interests. I know who represents mine.


So, you would rather stand back and allow him to continue to blithely murder his population? Over a quarter of a million dead so far and thousands more every month from the kind of weaponry designed for greatest kill rate. He has created a refugee crisis with millions fleeing all over the world looking for a safe place, and most of them finding none. And now he has enlisted Putin to make his killing more efficient. But that's not our problem, they are just Arabs. They may as well be black Africans, another killing field we like to ignore

I'm sorry, but that is not a solution for us. Isolationism isn't an option for the worlds only superpower. I don't look forward to military engagement and I want to avoid it wherever we can, but there are many places we can not, and the attempted murder of the entire Syrian population not part of the minority Alawite sect is a bridge too far and something the world cannot quietly watch. As we weaken Daesh, as we must, the Syrian regime is strengthened, and if we ignore them as we fight Daesh, with the support of Russia, it will be impossible to remove Assad. The only possible solution is a negotiated one that results in the removal of Assad, and we can't walk away until that is accomplished. And we probably won't be able to walk away even then.

And again, I am not suggesting that this is the responsibility of the US alone. But it clearly IS the responsibility of the world community, in whatever form they can be activated to accomplish it.

I will repeat my question that both you and Gunky has kinda danced around here but not answered. My question is this. If Assad goes, who is going to replace him? And...........will that person be a better option than Assad?

 

[Farid]

I will repeat my question that both you and Gunky has kinda danced around here but not answered. My question is this. If Assad goes, who is going to replace him? And...........will that person be a better option than Assad?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was somebody more hardline than Bashar. Maher Assad, for example, would be much worse than Bashar. If there is an election while the war is still raging, I wouldn't be surprised if government supporters elect a more hardline candidate. Bashar was actually criticized by many of his supporters for not acting sooner and cracking down on the protests before they grew. I disagree with that assessment, but many Syrians do not.

Clinton's plan of going after Assad while ISIS still holds significant territory is just absurd though. It's stuff like that which makes people think the United States isn't doing enough against ISIS.

 

[cybrguy]

I will repeat my question that both you and Gunky has kinda danced around here but not answered. My question is this. If Assad goes, who is going to replace him? And...........will that person be a better option than Assad?

I will try to make this my last post that is completely off topic.

We don't know. At this time we have no idea what can be negotiated as the negotiations are still in very early stages. And I don't know enough about internal Syrian politics to even hazard a guess, tho I suspect that the same is not true for the State Department. Even if it were to be another dictator installed by Putin that would be WAY better than a minority monster who insists that his own people be the only ones in power. Putin just wants to maintain an ally in the region, and I am fairly confident that he has no allegiance to the Alawites and would be happy to allow control to be handed to the majority Sunni, though I'm not sure Iran would like that much. The point is that stability is in Putin's interest as well, so ending the Assad regime helps him as well as long as he maintains his influence.

The reason this discussion is in this thread at all is to describe which presidential candidate is the most likely to have a handle on or at least be in a position to understand the intricacies and relationships that are the basis of our interaction to the powder keg that is the middle east at this time in history. I don't think this is a good place for amateurs.