The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

lwien

Well-Known Member
Trump's sons would've been called in to shoot the bird with a two barrel shotgun - like on their farmed leopard kill African safari... heartless losers don't fall far from the tree!
Y2ofeiK.jpg

Here's Donald Trump Jr. proudly displaying an elephants tail that he just cut off from an elephant he just killed. Who in their right fucking mind would do something like this?
1o9fbyi.jpg
 

grokit

well-worn member
:peace:

Former DNC Vice Chairwoman Supports Bernie Sanders’ Foreign Policy in Evocative New Ad
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned as a DNC chairwomen in order to support Bernie, also supports his foreign policy and stance on war and has said so in a recent ad.

After resigning as Democratic National Convention (DNC) vice chairwoman in order to endorse presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has recently appeared in an emotional campaign ad supporting his foreign policy and stance on war. While choking back tears, Rep. Gabbard explained why she decided to serve in Iraq and how the cost of war does not simply end after a soldier leaves the battlefield.

In a powerful new campaign ad titled “The Cost of War,” Gabbard, who served a 12-month tour in Iraq with the Hawaii Army National Guard, discusses her decision to join the military while commending Sanders’ foreign policy. Attempting to keep her composure, Gabbard asserts,

“I felt a sense of duty and I could not in good conscience stay back here in beautiful Hawaii and watch my brothers and sisters in uniform go off into combat. These are people and friends who we never forget, and who we strive to honor every day that we are blessed to live and breathe.”

more...
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/...rnie-sanders-foreign-policy-evocative-new-ad/

:peace:
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
FUCKING BASTARD!!! :cuss::rant::mad::goon:

btw, here was Trumps response to his sons pic that I posted above, "My sons love to hunt. They are members of the NRA, very proudly. I am a big believer in the Second Amendment."

Can someone please tell me what in the fuck killing and severing and proudly displaying an elephants tail has to do with the Second Amendment?
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Can someone please tell me what in the fuck killing and severing and proudly displaying an elephants tail has to do with the Second Amendment?
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, and Trump knows that - he will say, do, and use anything to pander for applause from an imbecilic crowd. A land & life conservationist he's not - eminent domain attaches to anywhere a foot can step and to anything that lives and breathes.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I don't know if I agree with super delegates. I thought I would post explaining it. A little food for thought.

by Liz Olson
americanflag3.gif

Related Links
In some presidential elections, superdelegates can play a major role in determining the Democratic nominee. Unlike delegates, superdelegates are not bound to represent the popular vote of a region at the Democratic National Convention; they are free to support any candidate for the nomination. The Republican Party does not have superdelegates.

Superdelegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, superdelegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegate is a term that arose in the 1970s.

In order for a candidate to win the party nomination for president, he or she must gain the majority of delegate votes. The purpose of superdelegates is for high-ranking Democrats to maintain some control over the nominating process. Superdelegates make up one-fifth of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention. So, 747 of the 5,083 delegates attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention can choose whichever candidate they prefer.

Out of 2,470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 437, 168 are members of the Republican National Committee.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
I don't know if I agree with super delegates. I thought I would post explaining it. A little food for thought.

by Liz Olson
americanflag3.gif

Related Links
In some presidential elections, superdelegates can play a major role in determining the Democratic nominee. Unlike delegates, superdelegates are not bound to represent the popular vote of a region at the Democratic National Convention; they are free to support any candidate for the nomination. The Republican Party does not have superdelegates.

Superdelegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, superdelegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegate is a term that arose in the 1970s.

In order for a candidate to win the party nomination for president, he or she must gain the majority of delegate votes. The purpose of superdelegates is for high-ranking Democrats to maintain some control over the nominating process. Superdelegates make up one-fifth of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention. So, 747 of the 5,083 delegates attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention can choose whichever candidate they prefer.

Out of 2,470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 437, 168 are members of the Republican National Committee.

The SDs are doing what they were meant to do, steering the party. Otherwise Clinton would be running against a larger and more powerful field of opponents.
 
howie105,

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
@howie105 You think Clinton is anointed? I think superdelegates make an ongoing political decision depending on which way the wind blows. Show weakness and increase weakness. Show Strength... and so forth.
Who do you think sat out? Who is strong party leader? I am not sure who is leading Party. Republicans have taken this lack of leadership to provide both sides of most arguments. False equivalency abounds and the mantra of how broke the kids will be in the future clouds most discourse. We need the political capital to build and stop blowing shit up around world. Amazon and Internet brought Soviet Union down not Star Wars missile program.
 
TeeJay1952,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Following Bernie Sanders’ latest landslides, what’s next?

03/28/16 08:00 AM—Updated 03/28/16 08:20 AM

A couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, laid out his short-term expectations for the Democratic presidential race, which now appears rather prescient. As Mook saw it, Bernie Sanders would win the next five caucus states with relative ease – Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, and the state of Washington – while coming within striking distance in Arizona.

After Clinton’s bigger-than-expected win in Arizona, one of Mook’s predictions looked a little off, but the rest of the assessment was quite sound. Last week, Sanders cruised to easy wins in Idaho and Utah, and over the weekend, the independent senator did it again.
Bernie Sanders swept all three Democratic caucuses on Saturday, with decisive victories over front-runner Hillary Clinton in Washington state, Alaska and Hawaii, according to NBC News analysis.

Speaking to a rapturous crowd in Madison, Wisconsin, after his victory in Alaska, Sanders declared his campaign was making “significant inroads” into Clinton’s big delegate lead.​
Sanders was supposed to do well in Saturday’s caucuses, but let’s be clear: he did extremely well, winning by margins ranging from 40 to 70 points. As for “significant inroads,” the final numbers are still coming together, but it looks like Sanders will end up with a net gain of 60 to 70 pledged delegates.

By most measures, Saturday was Sanders’ single best day of the entire presidential race: three lopsided landslides, which, when combined, gave the Vermonter his biggest net delegate gain of 2016.

That’s the good news for Sanders and his supporters. The bad news is, well, just about everything else.

The delegate math is so brutal for the senator that narrowing the gap in earnest remains incredibly daunting. Clinton’s recent victory in the Florida primary, for example, netted her about 70 delegates. Sanders’ wins on Saturday night were worth roughly as much.

Or put another way, Clinton appeared likely to win the Democratic nomination on March 15, when she led by about 215 pledged delegates, and as things stand, her advantage is even larger now, even including Sanders’ weekend wins. (Adding Democratic superdelegates to the equation makes Clinton’s advantage even larger.)

The argument from the Sanders campaign is that these results don’t happen in a vacuum: big wins get noticed, and this leads to improved fundraising, positive press, increased enthusiasm, and a sense of momentum as the race enters the next round of contests.

And while that may yet happen, the calendar is unforgiving. Sanders is excelling – winning by enormous margins, making sizable net delegate gains – in caucus states with low turnout among African-American and Latino voters. There are a few more of these contests remaining – Wyoming and North Dakota stand out – but there aren’t many, and the number of delegates at stake is quite modest.

Saturday’s caucuses were practically custom made for Sanders, and he took full advantage, winning by enormous margins. But what he needs is a calendar full of caucus states like these, and they don’t exist in a quantity that would make a real difference. The alternative is racking up big wins in competitive primaries, which could happen, but which recent history suggests is unlikely.

I’m not saying his nomination is impossible – it’s been an election cycle full of unexpected developments – but even after the weekend, the Democratic race doesn’t look much different than it did a couple of weeks ago. Sanders was a long shot before his latest round of caucus wins, and he’s still a long shot now.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
@howie105 You think Clinton is anointed? I think superdelegates make an ongoing political decision depending on which way the wind blows. Show weakness and increase weakness. Show Strength... and so forth.
Who do you think sat out? Who is strong party leader? I am not sure who is leading Party. Republicans have taken this lack of leadership to provide both sides of most arguments. False equivalency abounds and the mantra of how broke the kids will be in the future clouds most discourse. We need the political capital to build and stop blowing shit up around world. Amazon and Internet brought Soviet Union down not Star Wars missile program.

The SD,s are one tool in a larger tool box that includes money, access and whatever the political coinage is needed to run the party.
 
howie105,
  • Like
Reactions: Snappo

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
One can only hope...

Many Republicans Won’t Back Trump, and Trump Voters Hate Cruz. Could a Downballot Wave for Democrats Be Coming?


David Brooks notwithstanding, this is not a wonderful moment to be a conservative. A new poll out of California highlights the disaster looming for the Republican Party across the nation, but particularly in blue states.

The most troubling problem is that even in a big blue state like California, Trump holds a commanding 7-point lead over Ted Cruz. As Trump will certainly hold the plurality of delegates entering the national GOP convention, Republicans are currently trying to figure out whether to back him and let come what may, or wrest the nomination from him in a brokered convention. But the brokered convention strategy relies mostly on Trump’s not reaching an outright delegate majority—a question that may not be resolved until California’s large batch of delegates is determined. If the business magnate wins big in California, he will probably reach the delegate majority he needs, crushing establishment hopes of subverting his nomination.

But the even more troubling issue for Republicans is that the party is deeply, deeply divided no matter what they do. Many moderate and evangelical Republicans despise Trump and say they will not vote for him. Meanwhile, Trump’s voters cannot stand Ted Cruz:

A quarter of California Republican voters polled said they would refuse to vote for Trump in November if he is the party’s nominee. Almost one-third of those backing Trump’s leading competitor, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, said they would not cast a ballot for Trump. Voters who back Trump, meanwhile, are critical of Cruz, with only half holding a favorable impression of him.
Much of this is probably overblown, of course: when Republicans are faced with the prospect of a Clinton or Sanders presidency, the vast majority will still hold their nose and toe the line for the GOP. But these numbers constitute an unprecedented level of disaffection with their choices. That’s understandable: many ideological and theocratic conservatives don’t feel they can trust Trump on policy, establishment and future-minded Republicans know that his racist appeals will destroy their future, even as more moderate, populist and ideologically flexible Republicans are turned off by Cruz’ oily cynicism and radicalism.

Even a modest drop in turnout by the GOP in blue states and districts could lead to a downballot debacle for the Republican Party, and could even cost them the majority in the House given a big enough wave. The Cook Political Report and other prognosticators have revised their house race projections to account for the Trump effect (and quite possibly for the Cruz effect as well.)

So far, the GOP has latched itself to the hope that even if it must throw away the presidency this cycle, it can count on control of the House, the Supreme Court and most legislatures. With Scalia’s passing the Supreme Court is lost given a Democratic win in 2016, the Senate will likely change hands, and their House majority seems set to shrink or even disappear. Many legislatures may also flip as well given a wave election.

Things can change, of course: an economic downturn or major terrorist attack could alter the landscape significantly. But as things stand, circumstances are ripe for a GOP debacle up and down the ballot.
 

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
Cruz = Senator from The Dead Zone played by
Martin Sheen as Greg Stillson (Thanks Google)
Trump = Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.
Tough Choice!

 
TeeJay1952,

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Georgia's republican Governor Rejects 'Religious Freedom Bill'.
The Georgia version, which was itself viewed as a compromise designed to win broader support, would not only have allowed faith-based groups to deny “social, educational, and charitable services” to people basedon their religious beliefs—but in some cases, would also have preserved their right to fire people for the same reason.
The lead sponsor of the bill was state Sen. Greg Kirk

WTF!?!?! Preserve the right to fire people for being gay ?!?! I'll be right back...I wanna take a quick look out my front door to confirm I'm still in the U.S.A. :doh:

Some things make me angry, some things make me wonder... but this one just makes me wanna :cry:

When a post in this thread implies that the democrats and republican politicians/parties are too much alike to bother voting....this post is all I'm gonna have to reference. Geez!

Edit: It makes me feel good that a republican Governor rejected it..but it made me feel worse knowing it got far enough to have to be rejected.
 
Last edited:

lwien

Well-Known Member
It makes me feel good that a republican Governor rejected it..but it made me feel worse knowing it got far enough to have to be rejected.

I think that the ONLY reason why he rejected it was because of the resulting financial loses that his state would incur if that law was passed. I also think that his decision on this could very well cost him his re-election.
 

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Understood. Hell, I had a real tough time posting it here but I just like to air out all perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
My bet is that a majority of Trump supporters are in favor of some form of legalization, so that's the way the wind blows to & from the pandering blowhard Trump.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom