The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Gunky

Well-Known Member
-snip -

In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups.

-snip-

No, it isn't even remotely close. False equivalence. We have beaten this horse repeatedly, just look up thread.

On another note, if you boil down what the candidates say, all the dems are basically saying the same thing and given what is possible under the severe constrictions in place with republican dominance of the House at least, end up having few substantive differences. Except that Hillary is better prepared.
 
Last edited:

Farid

Well-Known Member
Whenever people bring up Hillary's experience, I can't help but ask, would you vote for Dick Cheney? He has experience working for Bush, H.W Bush, and Ford. What about Donald Rumsfeld? He's got experience working for three presidents: Nixon, Ford, and Bush.

Two guys with a wealth of experience between them. Each worked for three different administrations as well as other political positions. Each one of them would be a devastatingly bad president.
 

grokit

well-worn member
I would say that partisan conservatives are more guilty of willful ignorance than stupidity.
But yeah there's a lot of brain-dead ones as well.

If warren decides to join the sanders ticket, hillary is sunk.
Otherwise it will be close :2c:

No Endorsement Yet, But Plenty of Clues from Sen. Elizabeth Warren

In speech lambasting big money in politics, 'Warren came as close as she has—or perhaps will—come to officially endorsing Sanders.'

impassionedwarren.jpg

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren back similar agendas that include breaking up big banks, reducing the role of money in politics, and a $15 minimum wage. (Photo: AFGE/flickr/cc)

With days to go before the critical Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, pundits are abuzz about one potential endorsement in particular—one they say could actually sway voters: that of progressive luminary Elizabeth Warren.

Many are pointing to an impassioned speech the senator from Massachusetts gave on the U.S. Senate floor last week, in which she offered what Salon described on Tuesday as a "not-so-subtle endorsement of Bernie Sanders."

The speech, which marked the sixth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, lambasted the "flood of hidden money that is about to drown our democracy." It called for citizen-funded elections, stronger financial disclosure laws, and a "full-blown" Constitutional amendment to restore authority to Congress, individual states, and the American people to regulate campaign finance.

But "[t]he most revealing part of the speech was the end," wrote Salon staff writer Sean Illing, when "Warren came as close as she has—or perhaps will—come to officially endorsing Sanders."

"A new presidential election is upon us," Warren said. "The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run the country like some private club."

As Illing argued: "The subtext here is clear: do not listen to those who say we have to be prudent and accept that fundamental problems like financial corruption or campaign finance can’t be solved in the short or medium term. The knock on Sanders, fair or not, is that he’s too idealistic, too detached from the realities of Washington. Part of Clinton’s appeal to voters is that she’s pragmatic and experienced. She may not be as progressive as Sanders, but she can get more done in Washington."

much more ...
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/27/no-endorsement-yet-plenty-clues-sen-elizabeth-warren

also:
Elizabeth Warren could be a game changer:
Most endorsements don’t matter much, but hers would be a giant boost for Bernie


:popcorn:
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Fine prove your point show me the facts.
We've done it so many times up thread. Not going to retype. Seriously if you think the parties are roughly equal I would like some of the stuff you are vaping, because that is seriously delusional. The repubs are so deep in the pocket of big carbon they do things like forbid any mention of rising sea levels in public documents. The Bushies were famous for quashing science that disagreed with their oil buddies way of thinking. Do I have to go through the whole litany of bat shit crazy republican nonsense, like lower taxes increase government revenue? They don't and you can look it up and verify it for yourself if you haven't drunk the kool-aid and are willing to consider evidence. Not going to say more, but it is utterly preposterous in 2016 to say the parties are equivalent. One party wants to lower taxes on the rich still more and the other wants to raise the minimum wage. Those are really really different. Even the supposedly 'sane repub' Paul Ryan - his plan takes away from the poor and gives to the rich! It makes up for lost revenue with magic asterisks. Even the 'sane' guy is a compulsive, pathological liar.
 
Last edited:

howie105

Well-Known Member
We've done it so many times up thread. Not going to retype....Got nothing, you prove you point or you don’t.

Seriously if you think the parties are roughly equal I would like some of the stuff you are vaping, because that is seriously delusional...Insults is not proving your point.

They don't and you can look it up and verify it for yourself if you haven't drunk the kool-aid and are willing to consider evidence...We agree on most of that but even with something I agree with I would not exspect it to stand the sniff test which is why you needs provable facts.

Not going to say more, but it is utterly preposterous in 2016 to say the parties are equivalent...Not what I said. I said that the parties shared about the same number of stupid people. Differences in agendas and philosophies are a different discussion.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...failed_state_donald_trump_is_its_warlord.html
People who call themselves leaders of the Republican Party—politicians, donors, strategists, elders—are panicking over an impending disaster. Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are about to roll through the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, crushing the “establishment” Republican presidential candidates. Trump and Cruz are also running first and second, respectively, in South Carolina. They even lead in Florida, the home state of Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush. It’s hard to see where Trump or Cruz could be stopped—and how either of them, if nominated, would win a general election.

The party’s putative leaders,
desperate for a third option, are begging the establishment candidates—Rubio, Bush, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio—to consolidate their support or at least to stop attacking one another. Many Republican insiders, resigned to a Trump or Cruz nomination, are blaming anyone but themselves: mainstream candidates who failed to connect with voters, super PACs that didn’t take Trump seriously, donors who wouldn’t pony up to stop him.
The disaster, the blame game, and the establishment’s surprise at what’s happening are related. Since President Obama’s election, the GOP has abandoned its role as a national governing party. It has seized Congress not by pursuing an alternative agenda but by campaigning and staging votes against anything Obama says or does. The party’s so-called leaders have become followers, chasing the pet issues of right-wing radio audiences. Now the mob to whom these elders have surrendered—angry white voters who are determined to “take back their country” from immigrants and liberals—is ready to install its own presidential nominee. The Trump-Cruz takeover is the culmination of the Grand Old Party’s moral collapse.
In foreign policy, there’s a term for governments that don’t govern. We call them failed states. A state can fail for many reasons, but weak or clueless leadership is usually a factor. In a failed state, insurgencies grow, warlords arise, and chaos reigns. That’s what the GOP has become.
When did the collapse begin? Maybe it was in late 2008 and early 2009, when congressional Republicans decided to block anything Obama proposed. Maybe it was in 2010, when they refused to compromise on health insurance reform or to agree on a plausible alternative. Maybe it was later, when they staged dozens of pointless votes to repeal the new law in its entirety, treating health care as a campaign issue rather than a problem to be solved. Maybe it was in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown, when they took the nation’s credit rating hostage, or in 2013, when they forced a federal shutdown to protest the health insurance law.
Republicans captured the House in 2010, but they didn’t use that power to cut favorable deals and pass legislation that might be signed into law. Instead, they reduced Congress to theater. House Republicans, unwilling to offend their base, killed immigration reform. In 2014, Republicans captured the Senate. Again, they spurned the opportunity to govern. Forty-seven Republican senators advised Iran not to sign a nuclear nonproliferation agreement with the United States. The Senate became such a farce that according to Rubio, there’s no point in attending, since nothing happens there but “show votes.”
Republicans no longer have a policy agenda. They have a scapegoating, base-stoking agenda. Their economic plan is to blame legal immigrants for the demise of upward mobility. Their social policy is to defund the nation’s leading birth-control provider and promote disobedience of court orders. Their foreign policy is to carpet-bomb Syria, insult the faith of our anti-ISIS partners, and void Iran’s pledge to abstain from nuclear weapons production....
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
In the race to the right, yesterday’s conservatives can’t keep up. John Boehner, a right-wing rebel in the House 20 years ago, has been purged as speaker by the GOP’s new hardliners. Kasich, another House rebel from the Boehner era, is now ridiculed in the presidential primaries as a liberal. Cruz and Rubio accuse each other, correctly, of having switched positions on immigration. Both men have shifted to the right—Rubio turning against illegal immigrants, Cruz turning against legal ones—in pursuit of angry white voters.
When you run a party this way, chasing after your most radical constituents—in Republican parlance, leading from behind—you shouldn’t be surprised to find that the audience you’ve cultivated doesn’t match your original principles. National Review’s Jan. 21 editorial, “Against Trump,” is eloquent but far too late. Today’s Republican electorate doesn’t belong to National Review. It belongs to Trump.
Trump is leading almost every national and statewide Republican poll. Together, he and Cruz are drawing the support of 60 percent of Republicans in the latest CNN/ORC poll, 58 percent in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 54 percent in the Fox News poll, and 53 percent in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In Iowa, Trump and Cruz are splitting 60 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers. In New Hampshire, they control 47 percent of the vote. In South Carolina, they’re drawing 61 percent.
Even if all the establishment candidates pooled their support, they wouldn’t win. Together, Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Kasich are attracting only 18 percent of the Republican vote in the CNN/ORC poll, 22 percent in the ABC/Post poll, and 22 percent in the Fox News poll. The NBC/Journal poll found that even if the Republican field narrowed to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio, Rubio would still finish last by 5 percentage points. With Cruz removed, Trump would still beat Rubio, 52 percent to 45 percent.
Trump’s grip on this Republican electorate isn’t superficial. It’s based on shared attitudes. In the CNN/ORC poll, 34 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners picked Trump as the candidate who “best represents the values of Republicans like yourself.” Twenty-five percent picked Cruz; only 18 percent picked Rubio, Bush, Christie, or Kasich. Many surveys show that Republicans share Trump’s distrust of Muslims and his willingness to discriminate against them. In an analysis of the ABC/Post data, pollster Gary Langer found that “anti-immigrant views” and “interest in a candidate from outside the political establishment” were “the single strongest independent predictors of supporting Trump vs. any of his opponents.” These views now dominate the GOP.
The ABC/Post poll asked: “Overall, do you think immigrants from other countries mainly strengthen or mainly weaken American society?” Republicans and Republican leaners, by a margin of 50 percent to 38 percent, said immigrants weaken America. The rest of the sample, by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, said the opposite. The poll asked: “Would you like the next president to be someone who has experience in how the political system works, or someone from outside the existing political establishment?” Republicans and Republican leaners, by a margin of 54 percent to 42 percent, preferred an outsider. The rest of the sample, by a ratio of more than 3 to 1, preferred experience. The poll asked whether “America’s best days are ahead of it or behind it.” A 49 percent plurality of Republicans and Republican leaners said the country’s best days are behind it. The rest of the sample, by a ratio of 2 to 1, said the country’s best days lay ahead.
What these polls illustrate is a party adrift from America. By chasing the right and abandoning the middle, Republican politicians have developed a constituency that turns out in midterm elections and believes it’s entitled to control the country but doesn’t think like the rest of the population. Trump is on course to win the Republican presidential nomination and then lose the general election precisely because he mirrors this constituency. The crisis for leaders of the Republican establishment isn’t that Trump doesn’t represent their party. It’s that he does.
 
Gunky,

howie105

Well-Known Member
Bernie's goals are not feasible and I have doubts about his relative viability in a general election. That's all.



I don't really understand the relevance of this comment. You may as well have interjected that the most important thing is that the sun doesn't explode, precluding the election. Of course it's important that our electoral system has integrity but that's really an entirely different discussion. Was the goal here to make my partisan comment look petty?

Many folks where cheering when Governor Jeb got involved in that whole Florida voter fiasco, I on the other hand was horrified at the potential for abuse. So yes I see an honest process more important than a partisan win.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member

Total failure to address my point (In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups.) You can cut and paste till the cows come home but it doesn’t change anything, you are still not addressing the point.
 
howie105,

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
You were the one claiming equivalence so the burden is really yours, @howie105 . The affirmative side should have to make the case. It's backwards and illogical to demand evidence from one who is doubting an unsubstantiated claim.

@Farid : That's ridiculous. Sanders is running from the far Left and is absolutely a partisan. He's not afraid to name Republicans as the enemy.
 
Last edited:
KimDracula,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Trump is on course to win the Republican presidential nomination and then lose the general election precisely because he mirrors this constituency
I pulled the above from the Slate article and I would hope if Trump wins the primary (God forbid!) that the prognostication turns out to be true.....BUT...it can only become true if the democrats get off their ass and vote in large numbers. Regardless of what the article implies the republicans are going to rally behind this fool with the carpet comb-over because he's got 'Charisma'. Anyone who can insult a POW like that and get away with it has already made my point.

Obama has charisma coming out of every pore, a natural likability and he energizes people, not just democrats. IMO the current dems that are running, do not have that same charisma. I hope the die hard democratic base and pure disgust for Trump are enough because I think the independents are going to be the key here.

I'm His_Higness and I Approve This Message :rofl:
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
You were the one claiming equivalence so the burden is really yours, @howie105 . The affirmative side should have to make the case. It's backwards and illogical to demand evidence from one who is doubting an unsubstantiated claim.

Read it again (In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups) See no claim of absolute equivalence just a similarity in demographics.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
And lets not even get into the GOP's general denial of science and general paranoia that our tyrannical government is going to take away everyone's guns.

Do the Dems have their share of crazies? Yup, they sure do, but with them, it seems to be the exception rather than rule. As far as I can tell, there aren't any religious fundamentalists running the Democratic Party. Can't say the same thing for the GOP.
 

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Read it again (In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups) See no claim of absolute equivalence just a similarity in demographics.

Why are you being so slippery? If you don't like my use of the word "equivalence" (to which I did not add "absolute" btw, since we're being so very specific) then simply substitute your own phrase. My intention was not to put words in your mouth, so to speak; I was simply paraphrasing. In any case, you made a claim about two very disparate groups wherein you made an unsubstantiated generalization. Your estimate is unsupported and it just doesn't make sense to demand that one who disagrees provide evidence for that disagreement when you failed to meet that burden yourself. In absence of some kind of analysis, why shouldn't we simply dismiss your point?
 
KimDracula,

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I was so angry during the Florida election voting crisis, almost 16 years ago, it seems like yesterday. The hanging chads. If Florida has that problem again, I say toss out the votes and start again. How rediculous they seem during every presidential voting year. Last time it was folks trying to vote and the polls were closing. People standing in long lines. I hope they have fixed their issues.

What's wrong with having mail in ballots? We do that in WA state.

Florida has a lot of electoral votes.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
I was simply paraphrasing. In any case, you made a claim about two very disparate groups wherein you made an unsubstantiated generalization.....No I made an estimate which by definition is supported by the information I have at hand. Read it again (In my estimate I think the stupid is pretty darn close to being balanced between the two groups)

Sorry about the edit, I fucked up.
 
howie105,

Farid

Well-Known Member
@Farid : That's ridiculous. Sanders is running from the far Left and is absolutely a partisan. He's not afraid to name Republicans as the enemy.

I know several conservatives who are voting for Sanders. I don't consider myself far left either, and I support Sanders. I think it's dishonest for Clinton supporters to write him off as "too far Left" while at the same time attacking him for not being far left enough on gun control, women's rights, and minority rights (which isn't even true).

And certainly he's less partisan than Clinton. Just look at how the Republicans talk about her in the debates.
 
Farid,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
With nearly 16 years in the White House between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and maybe 4 or 5 more years of campaigning, the question you might ask democrats is not "Why have you worked for/with one or both of them in your career?" if they have, it is why NOT if they haven't? Virtually every Democrat in politics in the 90s worked for or with Bill Clinton in some capacity, and many are now journalists. Why are you so shocked? Should they have been required to do something else? Would you rather they be lobbyists like most republican staff seem to become?

I wasn't pro Sanders for the longest time, because I didn't think he had a chance against her, and I was turned off from the whole election process - I wasn't even planning to vote.

He STILL has no chance against her, and I hope, when you finally realize that, you will stop trying to take her down and vote for her to help prevent the holocaust to American ideals that electing a republican at this time would surely precipitate.
I don't think he will cause a revolution, I think he will cause change in certain areas that most Americans agree need change.
If he DOESNT cause a revolution his whole presidency will be totally ineffective. The only REASON for his candidacy is to create a revolution. If he doesn't he will be a complete fail. And WE will have to pick up the pieces. He is NOT an incrementalist, he has made that clear. It is Revolution or bust.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom