The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
While this is not directly candidate related, the candidates are going to all have to respond to this so...

The Armed Domestic Terrorists in Oregon Should Be Treated Just as ISIS Terrorists Would Be

The big story of the day is the armed seizure of an empty federal building in rural Oregon by a group of domestic terrorists, some of whom are the sons of federal tax cheat and freeloader Cliven Bundy.

They’re apparently upset at the conviction and upcoming jail sentences of a couple of fellow domestic terrorists for arson. They believe that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land, that national parks are essentially illegal, and that men like them have a God-given right to mine, log and otherwise destroy whatever forest land they want. (It remains unclear whether they would condone Native Americans for “standing their ground” and responding with force to their trespass on the same lands that God clearly gave to them first.)

I don’t want to dwell too much on the rationales and motivations for these domestic terrorists any more than I would for the people who fight for ISIS or Al Qaeda. It’s always the same thing: a group of armed, angry men believe that the Big Bad Western Government is infringing on their right to do whatever it is they very well please—whether it’s to the environment, or to minorities, women, people of different religious groups, etc. Undereducated, armed angry men are often upset at Western governments for upsetting their private power apple carts because in their small, solipsistic worlds they’re very used to being lords of their manors and local enforcers of bigoted frontier justice. That’s as true of Afghan militants in the Taliban as it is of rural Montana militiamen. The only difference is in the trappings, the external presence of the rule of law and the degree of violence involved.

What’s more interesting to focus on is the response to the incident so far. As with ISIS, the Bundy clowns are actively seeking a confrontation with the big bad wolf of Big Western Government. They believe that an active confrontation will spark a movement that will lead to the overthrow of Big Brother. So far, especially after the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco, American leaders have been disinclined to give those opportunities to the domestic militiaman terrorists. Cliven Bundy and his miscreants got away with a wide range of crimes due to the forbearance of federal officials.

But the problem with taking that hands-off approach is that the treatment of left-leaning protesters is far different. Occupiers and Black Lives Matter protesters aren’t met with hand wringing and gentle admonishments. They’re met with batons and tear gas. If Black Lives Matter or Occupy protesters started arming themselves and taking over federal buildings, you can guarantee that police would start using live ammunition and people would die.

So on the one hand it’s understandable that federal officials would not want to make martyrs of the right-wing domestic terrorists who are actively seeking to engage in a confrontation and make themselves appear to be downtrodden victims of the federal beast. But on the other hand, it’s infuriating that they receive special kid glove treatment that would not be afforded to minority and liberal activists.

Personally, I feel that if ISIS fighters want a grand confrontation with the West on an open battlefield, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to give them one. The outcome of that battle would not be in doubt. Similarly, I feel that if Bundy’s little crew wants to occupy a federal building and assert that they’ll use deadly violence against any police who try to extract them, then they should get what they’re asking for just as surely Islamist terrorists would if they did likewise.

As much as restraint is the better part of valor when dealing with entitled conservative crazies, principles of basic justice and fair play also need to apply. What’s good for one type of terrorist must also be good for another.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
While this is not directly candidate related, the candidates are going to all have to respond to this so...

[snip]

As much as restraint is the better part of valor when dealing with entitled conservative crazies, principles of basic justice and fair play also need to apply. What’s good for one type of terrorist must also be good for another.

How about we curtail violence in all cases instead of extending the violence applied to liberals and minorities to right-wing demonstrators? These dopes in Oregon don't pose much of a threat to anyone, let alone the government. Wait em out! They'll eventually get bored and hungry and come out.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
How about we curtail violence in all cases instead of extending the violence applied to liberals and minorities to right-wing demonstrators? These dopes in Oregon don't pose much of a threat to anyone, let alone the government. Wait em out! They'll eventually get bored and hungry and come out.

The only problem with that is it could encourage others of the same ilk to do the same thing. On the other hand, the last thing we need is another Waco.
 
Last edited:

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
Me? I always wanted the folks who chant "Death To America" to stand in one spot. If the wingnuts want to do the same we should be grateful.
 
TeeJay1952,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
The difference between Black Lives Matter and those who seized the federal building is the ass-u-me-d purpose of the protest.

Black Lives Matter is trying to bring a topic to the forefront but aren't looking for a physical confrontation/fight. Those who seized the federal building are also trying to make a point but are assumed to be purposely looking for a physical fight.

Care should be taken to enforce the law while keeping the amount of force to the minimum required. Armed forces will have to be much more careful and forceful with those in that federal building.

In keeping with the thread purpose....Why not ask the republican front runners for a game plan to deal with the federal building?
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I was thinking the same as @lwien we don't want another Weyco. Just wait them out, they will run out of supplies eventually. It will just cost the county more money for police coverage.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I don't want another Waco either. But neither do I want extremist militias or other extremist groups to think that as long as they are white and choose a place that isn't in a big city or downtown area that they can do whatever the fuck they want whether it breaks the law or not. These people have been stealing from you and I for generations and are just getting away with it. And now they are threatening law enforcement that if they are bothered they will kill them. And they are being allowed to get away with that.

As soon as we allow people who disagree with the government to arm themselves and take over federal property and we do nothing about it, we have lost the rule of law and damaged any attempt to require people in the future to follow it. Whats next, let them make moonshine and live in polyamorous societies? Oh, wait, we already allow that. How bout white slavery?
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
As soon as we allow people who disagree with the government to arm themselves and take over federal property and we do nothing about it, we have lost the rule of law and damaged any attempt to require people in the future to follow it.

Yup. That's the flip side of the Waco coin for sure.

You would think, especially being that they are in such a remote location, that we could have a drone that could drop a knock-out gas that would render them all unconscious and then the government can just swoop in and pick 'em all up without a shot being fired or maybe I'm just watching too much TV, eh?
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
If you try to place armed people under siege and starve them out they may be inclined to fight, especially if as many suspect they are already spoiling for a fight. Regardless of ones position on this incident or on the results of the Branch Davidians incident the parallels are worth considering. IME
 
howie105,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
You're right, forget the moonshine.

Branch Davidians

These people have no religious figure they are following and don't have a large number of innocents (children) among them (as far as I know). Everyone there if voluntarily giving a stink eye to the local and federal government. I have no problem ending this siege by force.

(No offense taken if anyone wants to remove a "like" they made before I added to my post)
 
Last edited:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
You would think, especially being that they are in such a remote location, that we could have a drone that could drop a knock-out gas that would render them all unconscious and then the government can just swoop in and pick 'em all up without a shot being fired or maybe I'm just watching too much TV, eh?

Love the drone idea.

I'm not for allowing any group or individual to take unlawful possession of a federal building without repercussions. Even if they leave peacefully they should be charged with something, anything, even trespassing would do that results in a fine and parole of sorts. That way if they do something equally stupid again they were warned and should go to jail. If they don't leave.... draw a line in the sand date wise and go get them. If they have a death wish....grant it. I'm assuming there are no children in there with them since I couldn't find anything to the contrary. Yes...children would be a game changer for me.

They have guns. The FBI must assume they are willing to use them. Are they trying to compete with 'real' terrorists gladly willing to sacrifice themselves?!?! If so...let them. If not, they should get out of the building NOW or once force is announced as the next step.

IMO - It's about those guns they brought in there with them. Nothing peaceful about this protest.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
You're right, forget the moonshine.



These people have no religious figure they are following and don't have a large number of innocents (children) among them (as far as I know)....Religion is not a requirement for standing up for ones principals nor is it a justification for bad acts.

Everyone there if voluntarily giving a stink eye to the local and federal government. I have no problem ending this siege by force... I take it you are not going to be one of the trigger pullers?
 
howie105,

lwien

Well-Known Member
Fucking Fox News.

So Obama wants to close the gun show loophole with mandatory background checks. He wants to eliminate the possibility of those that are on the no-fly list to not be able to purchase a gun……etc.

And what is Fox’s take-a-way on this?

“President Obama is plotting with his attorney general to get our guns.”
“This president ultimately wants to disarm the nation.”
“Obama Wants to impose more gun control. My response? COME & TAKE IT."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/04/president-obama-wants-to-disarm-america.html?intcmp=hpbt1

And I have do doubt that their viewership is giving them a standing ovation of approval.

It's a perfect tie-in with those idiots in Oregon.

I'm not quite sure who scares me more...........ISIS or the Far Right. If the GOP gets in the White House, the face of the Supreme Court will change and as far as I'm concerned, I consider that more of threat to our homeland than ISIS ever will be.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Fox News the Republican's, favorite news I'm sure. IMO Fox News is what has split the Republican Party. You have the old fart Republicans, the newer, younger Republicans, then you have what Fox News gave birth to. That would be the Tea Party Republicans.

The caucus's will be interesting to watch.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I'm kinda hoping Trump misses on both Iowa and NH. He may just fold up this tent and go home. If he thinks he would be wasting the millions he says he will put into ads he won't do it. He likes the money too much to toss it for no reason. He doesn't care about making a point.

I only want him to go away cause I am tired of listening to him and think he's doing some real damage to the country, not because I am afraid he'll win. If we are stuck with him anyway and he is going to stay and keep poisoning the well, I hope he wins the nomination.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
True, the Oregon thing is not a peaceful protest. I personally think they've got a lot of nerve, camping out in the buildings of a beautiful federal wildlife preserve armed to the teeth and insisting that they and their families should have the right to exploit these lands and resources that have been set aside for all of us. Ripping us all off and despoiling the environment, is what they want to do. Nevertheless, and though I believe the use of force should mainly be reserved to the government, the primary duty of the government and probably the main justification for the use of force is to preserve life, not to take it, and particularly not to take it just to make a point. If we are patient and don't pay them too much attention (as the Obama administration is rightly doing) these people will tire of it without much help. I agree eventually they should be prosecuted for their illegal activities to the fullest extent of the law.
 
Last edited:

howie105

Well-Known Member
I only want him to go away cause I am tired of listening to him and think he's doing some real damage to the country, not because I am afraid he'll win...If everyone went away when they pissed someone off over political speech then we would still have slavery, women would not have the vote and there would not be any chance for legalization of MJ. It is supposed to be a free country after all.
 
howie105,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I question Trump's commitment to becoming president. What I mean by commitment is how important becoming president really is to him in comparison to his running mates. The man's ego will certainly drive his intentions but the publicity is priceless for someone like him who can turn fame into $$$. No matter how far his run goes it's a huge win-win for him.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Right, the White House is not the only prize when running for President. Newt Gingrich, for example, has become quite wealthy by running for President. He and Huckleberry send offers that make them money to their political mailing lists all the time. That is part of why Chris Hayes famously said "The republican party is a Con, and the base are their Marks..."

Edit: Oops, I meant Huckabee, sorry. Somehow the cartoon character came to my mind first. "Oh my darlin..."
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
January 05, 2016 1:31 PM
Now They Notice Cruz Is No Better Than Trump
Finally, some media outlets are beginning to catch on to what I’ve been saying for weeks, which is that there isn’t anything better about Ted Cruz than Donald Trump and that either man will be a complete disaster for the Republican Party’s brand and the office seekers who will have to share a ballot with them.

Alex Isenstadt wrote it up for Politico and it’s pretty much identical to the pieces that have been churned out about Trump for more than half a year now. The difference is that it drops the pretense that Cruz would be an improvement.

The news in the piece is that Alex Castellanos (the creator of the infamous Jesse Helms “White Hands” video) is trying to put together some billionaires to fund a carpet bombing campaign against Trump. You might remember Castellanos better from his 2000 work for the Bush campaign, including his subliminal rats commercial he ran criticizing Al Gore’s prescription drug plan. His body of work would easily send him to hell if hell were a real punishment for immoral inexcusable behavior.

In recent weeks, Alex Castellanos, a veteran TV ad man who was a top adviser to George W. Bush and Romney, has been meeting with top GOP operatives and donors to gauge interest in launching an anti-Trump vehicle that would pummel the Manhattan businessman on the television airwaves.

Those who’ve met with Castellanos say he’s offered detailed presentations on how such an offensive would play out. Castellanos has said that an anti-Trump ad campaign, which would be designed to cast him as a flawed strongman, would cost well into the millions. It was unclear, the sources said, whether Castellanos, who did not respond to a request for comment, would ultimately go through with the effort.

Even if Castellanos were the genius he seems to think he is, destroying Trump will avail nothing if it just results in Cruz getting the nomination. And intelligent Republicans understand this:

“At some point, we have to deal with the fact that there are at least two candidates who could utterly destroy the Republican bench for a generation if they became the nominee,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We’d be hard-pressed to elect a Republican dogcatcher north of the Mason-Dixon or west of the Mississippi.”

“Trump and Cruz are worrisome to most Republican candidates for governor, senator and Congress,” said Curt Anderson, a longtime GOP strategist and former Republican National Committee political director. “Some will say they are not worried, but they are.”

As I’ve also said repeatedly, however, I’m not seeing the savior who is supposed to be so much more acceptable to the American people.

For one thing, the GOP has kind of locked themselves into another base mobilization strategy. It worked, barely, in 2004, and probably thanks only to shenanigans in Ohio. It hasn’t worked in the last two presidential elections and seems less likely to work with each four-year passage of time.

But, if you’re stuck with base mobilization as your strategy, you have to at least mobilize your base. Who’s going to do that besides Cruz or Trump?

As I see it, their goose is cooked and their only hope is some kind of Black Swan situation where everything goes to shit at just the wrong time for the Democrats.

But you can’t bank on that, and if it happens, it probably doesn’t matter who the Republicans have nominated.

When these billionaires settle on a champion that will be more interesting than all these articles about how they don’t want the top two Republican contenders.

by Martin Longman
 
cybrguy,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
The repubs are in a terrible hole this time. So far their instincts have driven them to dig it deeper. All one can do is watch in amazement.

All of the republican candidates on the main stage have tax plans which are unworkable and make no sense in the current circs. Rubio, Bush, Christie, Carson - all much of a muchness and not much to choose over Trump and Cruz. All following the pack: if Trump pees on this spot, they all lift their leg on the same spot.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom