The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[gangababa]

We absolutely do want to clean out the corruption in our corpus politicus.
However, if one does not accurately see the cause, the cure will not be complete.

The corruption problem is not caused by the natural persons elected as officials of USA (us-all, regardless of zip-code).
If you see the problem as being there, then vote out your incumbents.
Start with the senators up for reelection next Tuesday.

Burr and McCain,et al, have publicly repudiated the American way of USA (us-all), by denying the legitimacy of the next President unless s/he is the leader of their tribe.
Some of their 'enemy' tribe do wish that 8 years ago, investigations and impeachment proceeding had begun against the previous President (whose administration unlawfully destroyed 22 million emails and a nation; what to speak of international order).
Providentially the present President was prescient enough to know that the results of such actions would undermine the American way.

As of today the world is worried and appalled, watching the balkanization of the USA as fifty states sort themselves out into progressive and regressive tribes.

The capitalist corporate person is the root cause of corruption. Corporate power and money and influence keep the king-of-the-hill game going.
The stock market (a Ponzi scheme) seems to be the one place in capitalist world thinking where inflation is valued.

This year we can vote for the truest representation of the corporate person that the capitalist world could possibly promote. Romney had the corporate going but he lacked the beating breast of the beast within the human condition. He was not base enough for the base. This year we can keep or can the tribe that is currently collapsing the American way.

We can ignore facts, logic, reason, religion and society and vote our anger and ignorance.
It is a lot easier for a corporate person to corrupt a state than a nation. Selling koch to the kooks in Kansas costs less than turning on* (as below) a entire nation.

The problem is rooted in the corporate person who is essentially immortal, has twice the rights of the natural person, seems to avoid most of the responsibilities and is more than happy to repudiate* (as above) nationalism in favor of mammon.

The corporate person is the perfect representation of republican tribal thinking.

 

[Tranquility]

Tons of made-up non-scandals about one candidate versus lots of real scandals involving one hateful stupid unqualified candidate. It's not a difficult choice.

I agree. But, which candidate are you talking about?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441573/hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation

Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.​

There is a book out called "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich)" that described how things worked well over a year ago. At the time, Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta, said about the book, "The book has zero evidence to back up its outlandish claims...While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged." and Clinton associates have disputed the book's accusations with vehement denials.

The facts we know from releases of emails by wikileaks and the investigations into the Foundation by the FBI all seem to make the theory and story more likely and not less. Now it seems there is a big pile of evidence out there found because of Fredo's dikileaks investigation by the FBI. We don't know what it is.

When you hear of this big old pile of facts out there that we now know will come to light, what do you think they are going to be?

1. Nothing new. All information was already turned over to the FBI.
2. The deleted posts from Hillary's server. You know, recipes, yoga tips and a single email from Bubba.
3. Things that have not been produced that will tend to make the RICO claim LESS likely.
4. Things that have not been produced that will tend to make the RICO claim MORE likely.
5.

For another's prediction:
https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/11/04/clinton-cash-revisited-national-security-edition/

 

[RUDE BOY]

...the previous President (whose administration unlawfully destroyed 22 million emails...)

I'm still baffled as to why the Bush administration could get away with this and very little is ever said about it.

A bunch of 'em even used their own aol accounts, but than again all this tech has come a long way since then.

 

[ReggieB]

@RUDE BOY It's that old false equivalency that the republicans like to throw around.

 

[Tranquility]

 

[cybrguy]

I'm still baffled as to why the Bush administration could get away with this and very little is ever said about it.

A bunch of 'em even used their own aol accounts, but than again all this tech has come a long way since then.

IOKIYAR Duh, where ya been?

 

[RUDE BOY]

IOKIYAR? Don't know what that means. Is that like my "Aleppo" moment?

 

[cybrguy]

IOKIYAR It's OK if you're a Republican...
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/04/the-republican-agenda-politicize-everything/
The Republican Agenda: Politicize Everything
by Nancy LeTourneau
November 4, 2016 9:35 AM

In order for Fox News to be successful, they had to convince potential viewers that the mainstream press was liberal. That led to a whole cottage industry of right wing media that thrives today because conservatives bought the premise. Eventually liberals needed to create their own counterweight to combat the lies and spin emanating from these sources and now, never the twain shall meet. A lot of Americans live in a world created by one side or the other. Our news is polarized.

When President Obama embraced a plan for health care reform that was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation and signed into law in Massachusetts by a Republican governor, conservatives labelled it as a partisan move to shove socialized medicine down out throats. As a result, not one Republican in Congress voted for Obamacare and now they claim that it is because the President politicized the process and failed to find common ground with them.

We all watched as the Bush administration tried to politicize the DOJ by getting rid of federal prosecutors who didn’t toe their partisan line and inserted political operatives into the hiring process – especially at the Civil Rights Division. When AG Eric Holder worked on cleaning up that mess, Republicans accused him of partisanship in an attempt to politicize the Justice Department.

Over these last few years, we’ve even seen conservatives politicize science and math.

I’ve been thinking about all of that as we watch what is happening in the FBI these days. As I noted yesterday, here is what Spencer Ackerman is reporting:

Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.
​

I imagine that when/if the Obama administration moves to clean up that mess, there will be howls of “partisanship” heard across the land.

The goal of all of this is to ensure that we never find any common ground and that everything becomes a “he said/she said” – which much our media buys in to with their both-sider-ism.

It was Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein who broke through all of that with their assertion that what we are seeing is “asymmetrical polarization.” Here is Ornstein writing about why that matters:

If bad behavior—using the nation’s full faith and credit as a hostage to political demands, shutting down the government, attempting to undermine policies that have been lawfully enacted, blocking nominees not on the basis of their qualifications but to nullify the policies they would pursue, using filibusters as weapons of mass obstruction—is to be discouraged or abandoned, those who engage in it have to be held accountable. Saying both sides are equally responsible, insisting on equivalence as the mantra of mainstream journalism, leaves the average voter at sea, unable to identify and vote against those perpetrating the problem. The public is left with a deeper disdain for all politics and all politicians, and voters become more receptive to demagogues and those whose main qualification for office is that they have never served, won’t compromise, and see everything in stark black-and-white terms.​

The response of some liberals to this situation is to simply do the same thing. In a way, that is what President Obama ultimately decided to do by accomplishing what he could via executive order once all avenues of finding common ground via legislation were blocked. For someone who has staked his entire career on extolling the virtues of our democratic processes that require elected officials to come together and compromise, that was probably a difficult decision. But he is also a pragmatist who recognizes the Niebuhrian notion that we have to live in the world as it is – not as we want it to be.

But it behooves us all to keep in mind that when we give up the attempt to find common ground – even when that decision is warranted – we do as Ornstein suggests and leave “the average voter at sea, unable to identify and vote against those perpetrating the problem.” To the extent that their response is cynicism, that leads to “a deep disdain for all politics and all politicians.” As Mike Lofgren explained several years ago, that is exactly what Republicans are hoping for.

There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).​

To the extent that liberals believe in government as a force for good, it is imperative to keep in mind that the end goal here is to do what is necessary to uphold the democratic processes that were put in place to govern this diverse country. That means continuing to aspire to the better politics described by President Obama.

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives…

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.​

 

[RUDE BOY]

IOKIYAR It's OK if you're a Republican...

 

[Silat]

IOKIYAR? Don't know what that means. Is that like my "Aleppo" moment?

What is Aleppo?
/s

 

[His_Highness]

What is Aleppo?
/s

It's dog food isn't it?

 

[Tranquility]

 

[thisperson]

I want to say I was dead set on voting for Jill Stein again this election, seeing as my horse in the race got shot at the starting line (Bernie), but then the Hillary supporters like Carol and Jay convinced me with their arguments of fear against Trump (particularly nuclear fears). It was as much the Trump supporters who convinced me though. Classy people there.

I wanted to tell you guys you did it. You've convinced me. I have a bad taste in my mouth though that I can't seem to get out. I hope I don't have to do this ever again. Please help grow the alternatives.

Proof.

http://imgur.com/a/AE0on

I'm what passes for an informed voter in my family, so they tend to listen to me when I tell them the going ons of politics. Your actions caused a ripple effect. Those bad boys are in the mail now. Going to take a fat dab now. Peace.

 

[Farid]

@OldNewbie People will probably say using Omran Daqneesh in memes is in bad taste, but the media has been using him as much for propoganda purposes.

It should be noted that the photographer of Omran was also pictured hanging out with the same fighters of the rebel group Harakat Nour al Din al-Zenki who beheaded a Palestinian child who was captured in government held territory.

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie People will probably say using that kid in memes is in bad taste, but the media has been using him as much for propoganda purposes.

It should be noted that the photographer of that kid was also pictured hanging out with the same fighters of the rebel group Harakat Nour al Din al-Zenki who beheaded a Palestinian child who was captured in government held territory.

I did not mean to offend. I just wanted to take the joking attitude through to the fact that people are dying.

Do you think I should re-edit the post?

 

[Farid]

You didn't offend me at all, I just think others might be.

 

[grokit]

Whomever wins next week, america has already made its choice. We could have had an independent democratic socialist starting to heal this nation, and our world from the bs of our endless war on terror, and the bush-clinton divisiveness that has stymied our domestic policy-making for so long. But we chose to go on fighting amongst ourselves, and to continue to inflict industrialized terror upon our world.

I have always found two things to be true. 1) If you want change, follow the money and vote the other way. I say it every election, it always proves itself, but hardly anybody gets it. 2) We deserve the leaders that we elect, every single damn one of us, for buying into the illusion that we control our democracy. We have to take control of it, or it will be done for us by evil corporations. Hence the mess we're in now.

The problem is ourselves, and our greed to sustain our unsustainable way of consumptitory life
As dubya famously said during our march to endless warfare 15(!) years ago...
"The american standard of living is not negotiable".

Yes I made up the word, "consumptitory"
We're all guilty

 

[CarolKing]

My view of the world and people align up with the Democratic Party. I would not vote for a republican because I don't believe in what they want for America. My views are different than theirs. I don't waiver on what I believe in these days. I know what I want in a president. I say bide our time and wait for the next election. Remember the Supreme Court.

The republicans are against the freedom for gays to marry. They are against other things such as abortion that I am for. So I worry if a republican were to win. I'm voting for party and against Trump. If Trump was a democrat I wouldn't be able to vote for him though.

Trumps rallies are outrageous with all the terrible comments and the chanting "lock her up" I don't like all the hate and anger. Also the outright lies from Trump continually.

The republicans at the Trump rallies are an embarrassment for America. This stuff is shown all around the world. What are others thinking.

My husband (The republican) has been really pissing me off. He's all happy about the FBI stuff. I think I need to go on a trip.

Edit
Fox News is just plain and simple irresponsible journalism.

Think about Chris Christie and Rudy Gulliani in important posts in the Trump administration like Secretary of State. It's insanity.

IMO it was irresponsible for the FBI to announce what they did without any details. The democrats are screwed. Hillary's lead is shrinking every day because of Comey's statement and Fox's lie that Trump is running with. That Hillary will be indicted and he's saying this as fact. People are believing it.

 

[cybrguy]

Team Trump won’t let facts get in the way of anti-Clinton story
11/04/16 05:07 PM—Updated 11/04/16 05:09 PM

By Steve Benen
Your Republican uncle who watches Fox all day might have emailed you the other day, alerting you to a big scoop: the FBI was “likely” to issue an indictment as part of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. In fact, your uncle’s note probably included a question such as, “Why aren’t other news outlets covering this?”

The answer, it turns out, is because the report was wrong. Several news organizations, including NBC News, quickly discredited Fox’s report, and the Bret Baier apologized on the air this morning for his mistaken reporting.

There are plenty of questions surrounding this incident – we don’t know, for example, who gave Fox the bogus information – but in the short term, it’s important to appreciate the fact that Donald Trump and his team have decided to believe Fox’s debunked claims and they’re inclined to keep treating fiction as fact.

This morning, for example, Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), a Trump surrogate, suggested that repeating a false claim that the campaign knows to be false is acceptable behavior. When CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked the congresswoman for proof, Ellmers said, “I’m hearing about it. I don’t really have all that many connections and yet I’m hearing about the investigation.”

Of course, “hearing about” lies doesn’t make them true.

Similarly, on MSNBC last night, Brian Williams asked Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway whether Trump will walk back his claims about the Fox report, now that everyone including Fox knows the claims are wrong. She didn’t answer directly, instead saying, “Well, the damage is done to Hillary Clinton…. It just doesn’t change what’s in voters’ minds right now.”

Don’t brush past this too quickly. This was the campaign manager for a presidential campaign telling a national television audience that her team spread bogus information – and she doesn’t really care, because some people are believing falsehoods.

Conway’s boss appears to care even less. TPM reported today:

“The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment,” Trump said, “However, the report also showed that the political leadership at the Department of Justice is trying as hard as it can to protect their angel, Hillary Clinton.”

“She’s likely to be under investigation for a long time, concluding with a criminal trial. Unprecedented,” he said later.

Trump appeared to be referring to a Wednesday night report from Fox News’ Brett Baier, who said that FBI sources told him the investigation “will continue to likely an indictment.”
​

Note, Trump said all of this this afternoon. By the time the Republican delivered these remarks, the candidate and his aides knew Fox’s report was wrong; knew Fox had walked back its reporting; and knew that Clinton isn’t facing an indictment.

But Trump told supporters the exact opposite anyway.

There’s occasional speculation about whether or not Trump knows what he’s saying is false. Is he profoundly ignorant, saying ridiculous things he believes to be true, or is intentionally deceiving the public, repeating shameless lies?

Today offers compelling evidence of the latter.

 

[Bdubbdiblets]

Looks like my new Milaana will be here Monday. Just in time to keep me nice and medicated for what will surely be the most stressful election day I personally have been through.

Craziness.

 

[ReggieB]

Team Trump won’t let facts get in the way of anti-Clinton story
11/04/16 05:07 PM—Updated 11/04/16 05:09 PM

By Steve Benen
Your Republican uncle who watches Fox all day might have emailed you the other day, alerting you to a big scoop: the FBI was “likely” to issue an indictment as part of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. In fact, your uncle’s note probably included a question such as, “Why aren’t other news outlets covering this?”

The answer, it turns out, is because the report was wrong. Several news organizations, including NBC News, quickly discredited Fox’s report, and the Bret Baier apologized on the air this morning for his mistaken reporting.

There are plenty of questions surrounding this incident – we don’t know, for example, who gave Fox the bogus information – but in the short term, it’s important to appreciate the fact that Donald Trump and his team have decided to believe Fox’s debunked claims and they’re inclined to keep treating fiction as fact.

This morning, for example, Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), a Trump surrogate, suggested that repeating a false claim that the campaign knows to be false is acceptable behavior. When CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked the congresswoman for proof, Ellmers said, “I’m hearing about it. I don’t really have all that many connections and yet I’m hearing about the investigation.”

Of course, “hearing about” lies doesn’t make them true.

Similarly, on MSNBC last night, Brian Williams asked Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway whether Trump will walk back his claims about the Fox report, now that everyone including Fox knows the claims are wrong. She didn’t answer directly, instead saying, “Well, the damage is done to Hillary Clinton…. It just doesn’t change what’s in voters’ minds right now.”

Don’t brush past this too quickly. This was the campaign manager for a presidential campaign telling a national television audience that her team spread bogus information – and she doesn’t really care, because some people are believing falsehoods.

Conway’s boss appears to care even less. TPM reported today:

“The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment,” Trump said, “However, the report also showed that the political leadership at the Department of Justice is trying as hard as it can to protect their angel, Hillary Clinton.”

“She’s likely to be under investigation for a long time, concluding with a criminal trial. Unprecedented,” he said later.

Trump appeared to be referring to a Wednesday night report from Fox News’ Brett Baier, who said that FBI sources told him the investigation “will continue to likely an indictment.”
​

Note, Trump said all of this this afternoon. By the time the Republican delivered these remarks, the candidate and his aides knew Fox’s report was wrong; knew Fox had walked back its reporting; and knew that Clinton isn’t facing an indictment.

But Trump told supporters the exact opposite anyway.

There’s occasional speculation about whether or not Trump knows what he’s saying is false. Is he profoundly ignorant, saying ridiculous things he believes to be true, or is intentionally deceiving the public, repeating shameless lies?

Today offers compelling evidence of the latter.

You should first off check who runs fox, then check out who their parents are, then you should probably take a look into the sun and the news of the world uk newspapers and how they have shamelessly tried to manipulate elections in the uk for decades. In my opinion, trump knows exactly what he's doing, it's shockingly bad and your media are just as culpable as trump is.

 

[ataxian]

You should first off check who runs fox, then check out who their parents are, then you should probably take a look into the sun and the news of the world uk newspapers and how they have shamelessly tried to manipulate elections in the uk for decades. In my opinion, trump knows exactly what he's doing, it's shockingly bad and your media are just as culpable as trump is.

I was going to take a back seat this election.
However I'm sick of all the bickering?
Now what I think doesn't matter anyway.
However let us vote for the kid's!

CIVILIZED WHEN?

VAPORIZING = NOW

 

[Tranquility]

Have all the candidates put out their last pitch? The final propaganda push in the election should be coming out today or tomorrow (Or, earlier.) so everyone can talk of it over the weekend and on Monday and I would like it if, when they come out, someone can post them.

H e e e e r ' s.......Donald's:

 

[ReggieB]

the organisation that owns fox also owns an insane amount of media outlets across the planet, Film production/broadcast, Satellite and cable TV production and broadcast, ISPs, Newspapers (national AND local!!), their reach is truly global, when the phrase 'we will control all that you see and hear' was coined they had this organisation in mind.

Freedom of speech shouldn't equal a license to lie.

 

[Tranquility]

Freedom of speech shouldn't equal a license to lie.

It kinda does though, doesn't it?

The concept was put out in the Supreme Court by Holme's dissent in Abrams v. U.S ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States ) and the idea took root and grew to our current theory of the First Amendment law. He created the meme of freedom of speech being like a marketplace of ideas. (Technically, the actual words were used by by Douglas in U.S. v. Rumely, "Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.")

What he wrote (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)):

The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
​

Milton wrote of the idea too:

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?​