The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[grokit]

Whoever wins it's just going to be more of the same/gridlock/whatever


Neither Presidential Candidate Can Unite the Nation
A majority of people believe the country is divided and neither presidential candidate can generate nation unity

A majority of people believe the country is divided and neither presidential candidate can generate national unity.

Results of a recent survey found that a majority of Americans think the U.S is greatly divided and most do not think either presidential candidate, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, is capable of unifying the country. James Robertson, a Civil War historian at Virginia Tech, sees parallels between the current time and the 1850s with its lead-up to the Civil War. In his evaluation, the current time is the second-most divisive time in U.S. history.

According to the results of the survey, 73 percent of those responding indicated a belief that Trump would further divide the country while 43 percent indicated the same belief about Clinton. Only 34 percent believed that Clinton would bring about unity and about half of that number, 17 percent, believed Trump would bring about unity. Among Republican respondents, 38 percent believed Trump would bring about national unity.

For 25 percent of the respondents, the main thing that divides Americans is political interests or values; for 18 percent, it is economic interests or values; and for 14 percent, it is race and racism. A large majority, 72 percent of the respondents, felt that the news media focus too much on the discord in America, and 63 percent cited some politicians and elected officials as putting too much focus on divisions.

Freedom or liberty was named most frequently as the thing that unites Americans (16 percent) and the second-most cited unifier was tragedy or crises (10 percent).

The survey was conducted June 23-27, 2016, by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs research and consisted of online or phone interviews of 1,008 adults.

http://politicalblindspot.com/neither-presidential-candidate-can-unite-the-nation/

 

[t-dub]

Guess he prefers Asians, eh?

That depends on who was left over. Might be paying customers of any race I bet . . . .

 

[CarolKing]

When I heard Trump's speech again. The term regime change really bothered me. Does it bother you?

Donald Trump goes full domestic terrorist, calls for “regime change” in America
By Daily News Bin | August 16, 2016 | 0

FacebookTwitterGoogle
Donald Trump was supposed to be giving a speech in Milwaukee on Tuesday evening about how he was going to stop terrorism, or something, as he instead spent most of his speech telling his audience of white people about how great he was for black people. The whole thing might have been unintentionally funny, if not for the fact that Trump threw in one terrifying phrase which served to up the ante in his recent calls for violence among his supporters: he actually called for “regime change” in America.

To be clear, the context of his words was that he and his supporters are “fighting for peaceful regime change” – but no adjective can soften the impact and connotation of that phrase. “Regime change” is the phrase that the George W. Bush administration definitely invoked when it made clear that it was going to invade Iraq and keep blowing up the country until Saddam Hussein was violently removed from power. “Regime change” is the phrase used by American domestic terrorists as they clutch their guns in one hand and threaten to violently overthrow the government while typing away on social media with the other hand.

Anyone using the phrase “regime change” with regard to America is talking about forcibly overthrowing the elected government of the United States. Any candidate for President using that phrase is sending a clear signal that he and his supporters intend to use any means necessary in order to take power, if they don’t like the results of the election.

Make no mistake about it, Donald Trump made a specific call for domestic terrorism against the United States tonight if he doesn’t win. Yes, yes, he threw in the completely incongruous word “peaceful” just to cover himself. But how much longer before he casually drops that word and simply begins calling for “regime change” without qualifying it? This is how domestic terrorists talk – and Donald Trump just became one.

 

[t-dub]

Another cut and paste article with nothing but vitriol. This thread is really turning into a shit show. Peaceful regime change is central to our Republic. In fact, if you hit the link you just posted in your article, the main twitter feed says this:

""Peaceful regime change" is the way Trump just described the election.""

That is what Democratic Republics, or representative democracies, are about, peaceful regime change through elections filtered through representative bodies, who have the real say so, for the final result. There is a big difference between a Democracy and a Republic and also between what we have and the rest of the world.

 

[CarolKing]

I guess the term bothered me because I don't hear it in America when it comes to a president. Sorry if I'm bothering you @t-dub just voicing my opinion.

Edit
The term regime change sounded more like the military to me when talking about other countries not the U.S.

Your probably spot on with the definition. I didn't look it up. Maybe I should?

 

[t-dub]

You are not bothering me at all. I try to bring clarity, from time to time, to this discussion, however, it is so partisan that's its not really a discussion any more. Its name calling. I agree with you guys on a lot of things but this partisan echo chamber is so biased its impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation here. Look, you hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either. I also have problems with HRC and I would like to see a balanced, non partisan discussion here. Looks like that isn't going to happen.

This may be off topic, however, we recently had conversations about neuro-plasiticity, language learning, and bias in human beings. I submit this as food for thought about how this occurs in the human brain.

 

[ReggieB]

If his tone had been about peaceful regime change throughout his campaign then I suspect this one wouldn't have been put in an article but the guy has skipped around explosive language with a can of gas and a lit zippo for a while now.

In other news, the manafort fallout continues, trump changes his top team, manafort no longer campaign manager.

 

[Serious]

I don't understand how you have a non-partisan discussion when one side puts out DAILY obvious falsehoods and expects the public not to notice the lie part, only the malicious intent. Hillary Clinton is the founder of ISIS? Seriously?

 

[ReggieB]

I'm wondering what the non-partisan discussion would consist of? Reading that would be a good place to kick off from? I found clintons economic policy speech the other day to be coherent, by all accounts it's a standard set of dem presidential race economic policies, more taxes for higher earners, benefits for lower earners, contrast that with trumps less tax for all, tends to suggest that his is also a standard for his party. Both appear to come out against tpp. It would be interesting to see trumps tax returns to see how much his economic policies will affect his own wealth, for me that's a massive question mark over his whole economic outlook.

 

[Serious]

I have to be honest, he lost me at birtherism.

 

[His_Highness]

I saw the Trump speech where he pandered to the black community. Why did I use the word 'pander'. Here's the Wikipedia definition.....

Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.

I defy anyone who watched that farcical speech to say they came away feeling that Trump was being honest in his presentation. I'm not talking about the facts or talking points he used...I'm talking about his caring about the facts and/or people this was pointed at.

Disgusting.....and way to obvious....

 

[TeeJay1952]

@Serious You don't agree with Bill Maher?

 

[yogoshio]

There's a difference between lying and lying under oath. One is expected of a politician, the other is a criminal offense. No matter the reason, if someone lies under oath it does matter, and they should be held accountable. Putting a blind eye to it just because you disagree with the circumstances is the exact reason we have the two candidates we have: lying sacks of shit that feel that they don't have to accountable to anyone.

 

[ReggieB]

If it's not ok to lie to congress, why should it be ok for politicians to lie to the people they're supposed to represent? People accept one as being part of a politicians make up and are up in arms at the other, double standards from ALL of the people that run the country or what?

 

[lwien]

I saw the Trump speech where he pandered to the black community. Why did I use the word 'pander'. Here's the Wikipedia definition.....

Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.

I defy anyone who watched that farcical speech to say they came away feeling that Trump was being honest in his presentation. I'm not talking about the facts or talking points he used...I'm talking about his caring about the facts and/or people this was pointed at.

Disgusting.....and way to obvious....

And, the audience that he was delivering his "black" message to were 99% white....

The polls show that he only has 1% of the black vote. That's right folks. One fucking percent. And.............he may have just lost that 1%, or in the best case scenario, he may have been able to push it up to 2.

btw, look who he just promoted from surrogate/pollster to Campaign Manager. Looks like Manafort is on his way out. If you've ever seen her on CNN you'll know what I mean when I say........... Katrina must be doing one of these.............., like, "What am I? Fucking chopped liver?"

His campaign truly is a reality show and I don't mean that as a metaphor.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/trump-campaign-overhaul/index.html

 

[His_Highness]

Trump is stating that he will not change nor pivot. He will remain true to himself and be himself.

REALLY?!?!?! It was pretty obvious when he pandered to the black community in that speech that he did change/pivot. Those were obviously not his own words nor his feelings on the topic. The irony is that it's because he's not a practiced politician that it was so easy to tell. Most career politicians can pull off making a speech that 'panders' (See previous post with definition) like that and still sound sincere.

So the man says he will remain true to himself and promptly lies about being true to himself. He can't even tell himself the truth.

 

[KimDracula]

Whoever wins it's just going to be more of the same/gridlock/whatever


Neither Presidential Candidate Can Unite the Nation
A majority of people believe the country is divided and neither presidential candidate can generate nation unity

A majority of people believe the country is divided and neither presidential candidate can generate national unity.

Results of a recent survey found that a majority of Americans think the U.S is greatly divided and most do not think either presidential candidate, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, is capable of unifying the country. James Robertson, a Civil War historian at Virginia Tech, sees parallels between the current time and the 1850s with its lead-up to the Civil War. In his evaluation, the current time is the second-most divisive time in U.S. history.

According to the results of the survey, 73 percent of those responding indicated a belief that Trump would further divide the country while 43 percent indicated the same belief about Clinton. Only 34 percent believed that Clinton would bring about unity and about half of that number, 17 percent, believed Trump would bring about unity. Among Republican respondents, 38 percent believed Trump would bring about national unity.

For 25 percent of the respondents, the main thing that divides Americans is political interests or values; for 18 percent, it is economic interests or values; and for 14 percent, it is race and racism. A large majority, 72 percent of the respondents, felt that the news media focus too much on the discord in America, and 63 percent cited some politicians and elected officials as putting too much focus on divisions.

Freedom or liberty was named most frequently as the thing that unites Americans (16 percent) and the second-most cited unifier was tragedy or crises (10 percent).

The survey was conducted June 23-27, 2016, by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs research and consisted of online or phone interviews of 1,008 adults.

http://politicalblindspot.com/neither-presidential-candidate-can-unite-the-nation/

These candidates are really not similar. While they are both rather unpopular there are very different reasons for that. Trump says hateful stupid things. Clinton is a woman who has been under a microscope for thirty years. The false equivalency gets tiresome.

Btw, do we really think any one candidate can "unite" the nation that is split into two disparate camps? Who would this messiah be and how would they keep their head from exploding from the cognitive dissonance of somehow appealing to reasonable people AND Republicans?

T-Dub, don't condescend to us, please. This conversation doesn't have to fit your standards.

 

[cybrguy]

You are not bothering me at all. I try to bring clarity, from time to time, to this discussion, however, it is so partisan that's its not really a discussion any more. Its name calling. I agree with you guys on a lot of things but this partisan echo chamber is so biased its impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation here. Look, you hate Trump, I get it. I don't like him either. I also have problems with HRC and I would like to see a balanced, non partisan discussion here. Looks like that isn't going to happen.

If I may, I don't think @t-dub means to condescend, I think he just longs for equal treatment for the two candidates. Unfortunately when one candidate is a legitimate pol who has spent her whole adult life serving the public in various capacities, and the other is a bigoted self indulgent carnival barker with no political history or skills who has spent his whole life screwing others to personally get very wealthy, it isn't reasonable, or even possible to treat them the same.

It isn't the "partisan echo chamber" that leads so many to laugh at, belittle, and disrespect Trump. It is Trump himself, his behavior and his mouth. Laughing and pointing at Trump just comes naturally to most people. You can't make that their fault.

 

[yogoshio]

The idea that because she worked in politics she 'served the people' is ridiculous. She chose the political career because thats where she excelled as oppose to private. The idea that one is somehow better than the other is a false argument. Government would not exist without private enterprise (ie, taxable expenditures), and private enterprise requires government to function within boundaries(ie, trade laws, IP laws, etc.). Both are needed, and one is not better than the other.

 

[lwien]

So the man says he will remain true to himself and promptly lies about being true to himself. He can't even tell himself the truth.

Thanks HH. I needed that this morning.

 

[KimDracula]

The idea that because she worked in politics she 'served the people' is ridiculous. She chose the political career because thats where she excelled as oppose to private. The idea that one is somehow better than the other is a false argument. Government would not exist without private enterprise (ie, taxable expenditures), and private enterprise requires government to function within boundaries(ie, trade laws, IP laws, etc.). Both are needed, and one is not better than the other.

You're right that working in government rather than private sector business doesn't make someone inherently a better person. Given the current context of electing the head of our government, however, it definitely makes one more qualified.

 

[CarolKing]

LAS VEGAS — Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign.

Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become the Republican campaign’s chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser and pollster for Mr. Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, will become the campaign manager.

Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title. But the staffing change, hammered out on Sunday and set to be formally announced Wednesday morning, was seen by some as a demotion for Mr. Manafort.

The news, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, was confirmed early Wednesday by Ms. Conway in a brief interview, but she rejected the idea that the changes amounted to a shake-up and said that Mr. Manafort was not being diminished.

“It’s an expansion at a busy time in the final stretch of the campaign,” she said, adding that Mr. Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, would remain in their roles.

“We met as the ‘core four’ today,” Ms. Conway added, referring to herself, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates.

People briefed on the move said that it reflected Mr. Trump’s realization that his campaign was at a crisis point. But it indicates that the candidate — who has chafed at making the types of changes his current aides have asked for, even though he had acknowledged they would need to occur — has decided to embrace his aggressive style for the duration of the race.

Both Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon, whose news organization has been very favorable to Mr. Trump since he entered the primaries, are close with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the father-and-daughter conservative donors who have become allies of the candidate and are funding a “super PAC” that is working against Hillary Clinton.

What Is Breitbart News? - The New York Times

 

[cybrguy]

The idea that because she worked in politics she 'served the people' is ridiculous. She chose the political career because thats where she excelled as oppose to private. The idea that one is somehow better than the other is a false argument. Government would not exist without private enterprise (ie, taxable expenditures), and private enterprise requires government to function within boundaries(ie, trade laws, IP laws, etc.). Both are needed, and one is not better than the other.

So, being a Senator or Secretary of State isn't serving the people? How funny. How DOES one serve the people? Need they wash their feet?

I never said anything in that post about who was a better person (tho I certainly could have). What I said is that one of the candidates has been working for us and one has been working for themselves. You may not see government work as service, but I certainly do.

Anyone competent at government work could make much more if they went into the private sector instead. I appreciate that sacrifice, I'm not sure why you don't. I suppose those who join the military are just doing another job and shouldn't get any more consideration than anyone working to enrich themselves.

We apparently see the world differently. Nothing wrong with that but it colors our perspectives... differently.

(I guess by describing Donald I DID imply who was a better person, but my point wasn't about who was better, but was about the objective of their work )

 

[grokit]

Hillary served the interests of the clinton foundation while she was secretary of state.

Just google the above sentence to see what I mean

 

[lwien]

I suppose those who join the military are just doing another job and shouldn't get any more consideration than anyone working to enrich themselves.

I think ya may need a bit more perspective there, cyber. A lot of people join the military because of the educational benefits that the military provides when they leave. A lot of people join the military because of the benefits that they offer and that they don't have any other job perspectives that would be a better choice for them. For others, they join for the danger and adventure. For some, they join because of the power that comes from having a gun and being able to legally use it to kill someone which can be, for those types of people, intoxicating.

For me, when I joined the Air Force, the ONLY reason why I joined was because of the draft during the Viet Nam conflict and the last thing that I wanted was to be drafted into the Army Infantry and have a gun put into my hands and I thought the Air Force would be a much safer bet and it was. I was sent to Pakistan to spy on the other superpower at the time. When people say, "Thank you for your service.", I feel kinda guilty in accepting that kind of praise.

Are there those that join the military because of their desire to serve others and protect their country? Sure, some, but I would bet that they are in the minority.