The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
There seem to be many posts urging us to vote for Hillary because she is the more electable of the two, but not so many with Hillary's accomplishments or actual reasons for us to vote for her.
Part of why she's more electable in because DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz, and former Clinton crony, worked to make her moreso, which pushes many people completely out of her camp.
Maybe the party shouldn't have picked the less appealing of the two for our candidate already, but they don't want Bernie because he wants to change the status quo, which does not sit well with the already rich and in power.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
It doesn't matter a whit to me who you vote for in the primary. There will only be one Democrat in the general, and it has been clear for some time who that would be.

If you choose to vote against her that is your choice, of course, but it is very unlikely to serve you in any way. Then, you would not be the first to vote against your own interests as 2/3s or more of declared Republicans do it in every election.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I'm voting for whoever the Democratic choice is for the general. I don't want a Republican as prez especially the choices that are out there. It would be disaster.
 
Last edited:

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
I'm Anti-Trump. Anti-Christe. Anti-regressive (LEFT and RIGHT and maybe CENTER:D). Call me a dreamer. :haw: Interesting that there is a thing with Christie <-> Casinos <-> Trump. Connect the dots anyone? Cruz seems to have 'wait and see', let the states experiment with MJ and examine the outcome. I'm trying to get a handle on his concept of federal and states rights outside the MJ issues. Since he might be outmaneuvering Trump in delegates. Trump still number one in making accusations. ZING! Newer science and data of the outcome of Legal states would be needed to convince Cruz to move anything forward for MJ.

When it comes to a question of legalizing marijuana, I don’t support legalizing marijuana,” he told Hugh Hewitt in April. “If it were on the ballot in the state of Texas, I would vote no.”

“But I also believe that’s a legitimate question for the states to make a determination…I think it is appropriate for the federal government to recognize that the citizens of those states have made that decision, and one of the benefits of it, you know, using Brandeis’ terms of laboratories of democracy, is we can now watch and see what happens in Colorado and Washington State.”

So before any candidate is inaugurated and syncs up with the status quo, Lets look at what is about to unfold during the election. :cool:The DEA is taking a second look at MJ in 6 months. More states between now and them might go Pro-medical. Black Americans and DC are pressuring Obama to step up. Perhaps rescheduling? It is being now being referred as a 'Purple' issue instead of a RED or BLUE issue by politicians. Keep the pressure up and argument relevant. :peace: & :2c:
 

GetLeft

Well-Known Member
Don't expect mainstream dems to wake up the morning after Bernie is elected and say to themselves "Saint Bernie of the Sparrows has now ascended the throne, the people have spoken and I am now a democratic socialist!" It just doesn't work that way.

What tends to happen, daily I'd say, is mainstream dems (or repubs or whoever) wake up, sniff the breeze and behave accordingly.
Wake up With B, they know where he stands and where they stand. With H, they don't know much of anything. Other than it will have lots to do with the status quo.

Anyway are we voting for a president to lead the country or a president to appease already elected politicians.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
What tends to happen, daily I'd say, is mainstream dems (or repubs or whoever) wake up, sniff the breeze and behave accordingly.
Makes no sense. Sniff the breeze and smell the holiness of St Bernie? They will all bend like the waving grass to the breeze. Not.
Wake up With B, they know where he stands and where they stand.
Yah, and there is a huge gulf between them. What exactly do you expect to happen when you put somebody in the top position that none of the other players is willing to follow and whom they have never shown the slightest inclination to follow before? You drank the kool-aid and prefer not to think about that.
With H, they don't know much of anything. Other than it will have lots to do with the status quo.
Completely wrong! The candidate will be running against a republican extremist like Trump or Cruz. The status quo is dems control the presidency and repubs control congress. Electing Hillary means the same party in control of both branches and a leader on the same wave-length as followers who actually have the ability to pass legislation. That would be quite different from the status quo.

Elect Bernie and we are likely to have more gridlock, not less. Because he has no team behind him. Maybe you are right and they all wake up the next morning and sniff some ineffable Bernie perfume and decide he's the man. Nah.
Anyway are we voting for a president to lead the country or a president to appease already elected politicians.
I am voting for a president to lead the country and to do that specifically by leading the democrats in Congress (because that's how our legislature works - with party alliances; that is how things pass and how we can have a consistent and coherent set of of federal law and policies). Leading requires cooperation between leaders and followers. Your idea is to abandon an historic opportunity to let the only reform-minded party we have take full control and instead set them up to fight internally with a 'leader' who is playing a completely different tune from all his supposed followers and whose grasp of many of the issues is paper thin because as a socialist independent he has never had any real responsibility or leadership position in the federal government before. I am looking for someone who has had experience leading; not somebody good at composing slogans but incapable of explaining how he will implement his slogans other than to suggest that his opponents will all fade away under the onslaught of his angelic worthiness.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

grokit

well-worn member
Lifelong Republicans Who Support Bernie Sanders
Conservatives that are defying expectation and backing the Vermont senator

lead_960.jpg


When Tarie MacMillan switched on her television in August to watch the first Republican presidential debate, she expected to decide which candidate to support.

But MacMillan, a 65-year-old Florida resident, was disappointed. “I looked at the stage and there was nobody out there who I really liked. It just seemed like a showcase for Trump and his ridiculous comments,” she recalled. “It was laughable, and scary, and a real turning point.”

So she decided to back Bernie Sanders, the self-described “Democratic socialist” challenging Hillary Clinton. MacMillan was a lifelong Republican voter until a few weeks ago when she switched her party affiliation to support the Vermont senator in the primary. It will be the first time she’s ever voted for a Democrat.

That story may sound improbable, but MacMillan isn’t the only longtime conservative supporting Sanders. There are Facebook groups and Reddit forums devoted entirely to Republicans who adore the Vermont senator.

These Republicans for Sanders defy neat categorization. Some are fed up with the status quo in Washington, and believe that Sanders, with his fiery populist message, is the presidential contender most likely to disrupt it. Others have voted Republican for years, but feel alarmed by what they see as the sharp right turn the party has taken.

“I have been a conservative Republican my entire life. But the Republican party as a whole has gotten so far out of touch with the American people,” says Bryan Brown, a 47-year-old Oregon resident. “I switched my registration so that I could vote for Sanders in the primary, but the day the primary is over I’m going to register as an Independent.”

Anger and alienation have turned conventional wisdom upside down in this presidential election. Self-styled outsider candidates like Donald Trump and Ben Carson have surged in the polls. And as Republican candidates debate their conservative credentials, support for Sanders shows how difficult it can be to pin down what exactly it means to be conservative.

“Once you get out of Washington ‘conservative’ can mean all sorts of different things. Voters are often left of center on some issues and right of center on others. So someone like Trump or Sanders who talks about themselves in a way that doesn’t fit into a pre-ordained box could be appealing to a lot of people,” says Chris Ellis, a political science professor at Bucknell University.

In some cases, longtime Republican voters who have decided to support Sanders, like MacMillan, are rethinking their political affiliation entirely. (“I’m inclined to say I might stay with the Democratic Party because the Republican Party has changed and it’s not the way it used to be,” MacMillan says.) Far from claiming to have experienced a political conversion, other Republicans argue that Sanders actually embodies conservative values.

“When I think of true conservative values I think of Teddy Roosevelt who earned a reputation as a trust-buster,” says Jeff DeFelice, a 38-year-old registered Republican voter living in Florida.Now look at Bernie. He’s the only one willing to stand up to the big banks. The big banks control an obscene amount of wealth in this country and he wants to go after them.” If Sanders looks like “a viable candidate” by the time the primary rolls around, DeFelice says he’ll switch his party affiliation to vote for the senator.

“Once you get out of Washington ‘conservative’ can mean all sorts of different things.”
Sanders’s promise to wrest power away from Wall Street and return it to the American middle class taps into the same vein of populist anger that fueled the rise of the Tea Party. It’s also a message that resonates with mainstream Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two percent of Republicans, for example, believe that large corporations wield too much influence on American politics, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in May.

“Sanders has focused primarily on economic issues on which Americans are not divided,” says Elizabeth Coggins, a professor at Colorado College who studies American political psychology and ideological identification. “There is a strong consensus in agreement with Sanders on many of his core ideas, and his rhetoric has been largely centered on these sorts of issues.”

more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...conservatives-who-love-bernie-sanders/417441/
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Because I made the mistake is 2004 of believing that America couldn't be stupid enough to reelect George W Bush and I took my foot off the gas. I will not make that mistake again.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
It doesn't matter a whit to me who you vote for in the primary. There will only be one Democrat in the general, and it has been clear for some time who that would be.
I disagree: for HRC this will be a repeat of '08 - Obama was behind where Sanders is now in delegates at this point in the sequence...and had NONE of the momentum that is lifting and pushing Sanders as he heads into the most liberal contests of the primary season.

It's become common to note with concern that Sanders needs to win 57% of all delegates from this point...but it's also apparently customary to gloss over the fact that she'll have to win 60%+ of all contests remaining...which will largely be in states that have never been Clinton-friendly - areas where there is little to no love for anything about her. In those states, given a choice between Trump and Clinton, many conservative voters would stay home

Much has been huffed and puffed (not by you!) about how HRC's 'conquest' of the Deep South is definitive proof of her inevitability , how 'Sanders just can't wave away his problems with blacks', how "Berniebroze can't spin their way out of it", but here's the thing: the Clintons spent DECADES building a power base in the black communities across the south, and that was a winning strategy...and HRC has come to rely on those old networks and connections rather than keeping fresh. Bad strategy: there's a new generation in black communities all over the nation, and fresh outrages, it seems, almost daily; we now have 20 years of 20/20 hindsight on the Clinton era and the legacy of 'the first black president', and that's not a good light for her - not now, with these competitors, with these challenges ahead, with not just the next 20 but maybe the next 200 years looming upon us. The Clinton coalition with the 'pre-Trayvon' / pre-Ferguson black-community leadership is eroding as we speak, as larger and larger chunks of HRC's "firewall" break off and cast their lot with Sanders; and and most of their kids and grand-kids these days seem to be hearing Sanders message loud-and-clear.

But...it's not just that: the calculus is actually even cleaner. Why does HRC do better in the old south than Sanders? Because those states are the bastion of slaver values, "heritage culture", carefully segregated (but plausibly deniable) within their technical 'integration', and still run by the 'old plantation network'. THAT is the OTHER half of HRC's southern power base - which she & WJC NEEDED to win in Ark. in addition to black support, and her roots go every bit as deep in those circles as in her more publicized communion with black churches and other organizations. HRC is a dependably conservative, predictable player in that particular swamp (as is WJC). Sanders has no such roots, no such history or demonstrated affinities, of course, never as conservative as HRC. Based solely on her acceptability to the white power structure in the south, she was literally ALWAYS going to win there. No further explanation needed; 100% self-evident reality.

Now THERE is something that can't just be spun into meaninglessness
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
Because I made the mistake is 2004 of believing that America couldn't be stupid enough to reelect George W Bush and I took my foot off the gas. I will not make that mistake again.
Well, does it matter a whit or not?

And if I'm not mistaken, Bush didn't take 04 due to two Dems splitting the party. The Repubs used fear of terrorism and swiftboating among other tactics.
And it wouldn't have hurt Kerry to take a shot of adrenaline before a couple of his appearances on camera.:)

Again, if Hillary supporters are really worried about losing the White House to the Republicans, and not just getting Hillary in, perhaps a better strategy would be to join forces with Bernie supporters to insure the win.
 
Adobewan,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I disagree:
You can disagree all you want, it won't change anything. The proof is in the pudding, or the voting if you will. Bernie needs to win New York, and with a HUGE margin. If he doesn't you may as well pack it up. If he DOES, then he needs to do the same thing in Penn and in Cali. Then the smoke and mirrors becomes something of real concern for Hillary and the Democratic party. Otherwise Hillary needs to concentrate on Trump and Cruz and stop worrying about her left flank.

I'm not suggesting she not do her best to placate Berniemania, I'm just saying that Bernie is NOT the roadblock to the White House for her.

Again, if Hillary supporters are really worried about losing the White House to the Republicans, and not just getting Hillary in, perhaps a better strategy would be to join forces with Bernie supporters to insure the win.

And that is the big fantasy driving Berniemania. This reliance on general election polls that make no effort to factor in the Republican slime machine that will make mincemeat of Bernie. Hillary has shown over the years how to slay it. Bernie has never ever had to deal with it, and I am not at all anxious to give him his first go when the results are so critical.
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,

grokit

well-worn member
The slime machine has a lot more ammunition compiled against hillary, they've been running against her for over a decade. Bernie scares the shit out of them, that's why he has such universal appeal.

Because I made the mistake is 2004 of believing that America couldn't be stupid enough to reelect George W Bush and I took my foot off the gas. I will not make that mistake again.
I don't really get this analogy either. For one thing, there's no sitting president running for re-election this year. For another this is the primaries where candidates are vetted, not the general election.
I'm looking forward to entertaining conventions on both sides:popcorn:
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
(CNN)Hillary Clinton holds just a two-point lead over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders nationally in the Democratic presidential race, a new poll shows.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveyreleased Monday has Clinton at 50% support to Sanders' 48% -- down from Clinton's nine-point advantage in the same poll one month ago.
Since more than half of all Democratic voters have already taken part in their states' contests, the national numbers are a limited gauge of where the race stands.
New York is set to hold a key primary on Tuesday, and Clinton is favored by a larger margin there, giving her an opportunity to build her lead among both delegates and in the popular vote.
A Sanders win in New York, though, could shift the tide of the race before five East Coast states vote the following week.

I think that Bernie will blow Trump out of the water if he and Trump are the 2 presidential contestants. I really think that Bernies comes across as being more honest and likable compared to Hillary. I also think that Hillary will win over Trump if she turns out to be the nominee but the waters will be muddied by all of her baggage - including Bill's baggage. I don't want to hear all that .

Edit
Ha Ha Donald Trump says that during the Rep. convention there should be a showbiz element to it, so the convention won't be so boring. It's going to be a circus alright. I'm not missing a minute of it.
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think Bernie gives Americans the feeling that anything is possible.
The New York Primary is crucial, the Clinton Campaign wants the Sanders Campaign to give up and quit being distructive to the party.

It's not the popular vote it's the delegate count. Senators like Al Frankin have said they would be voting for Hillary regardless if their state votes for Bernie Sanders. I would have thought better of Al Frankin than that.

Obama had a super pack like Hillary Clinton but folks are in a different state of mind. We are having second thoughts about the rich and big business buying elections. When someone gives you money you are beholden to them. Bernie is beholden to the American people - those who gave $20 and $30.

I would have added to the above but was unable to - time had lapsed.
 
Last edited:

BD9

Well-Known Member
I think Bernie gives Americans the feeling that anything is possible.
The New York Primary is crucial, the Clinton Campaign wants the Sanders Campaign to give up and quit being distructive to the party.

It's not the popular vote it's the delegate count. Senators like Al Frankin have said they would be voting for Hillary regardless if their state votes for Bernie Sanders. I would have thought better of Al Frankin than that.

Obama had a super pack like Hillary Clinton but folks are in a different state of mind. We are having second thoughts about the rich and big business buying elections. When someone gives you money you are beholden to them. Bernie is beholden to the American people - those who gave $20 and $30.

I would have added to the above but was unable to - time had lapsed.

You hit on some great points. I too am surprised by Al's comments. :mental:

I am one of those $20-30.00 people. I bought the shirt seen my avatar plus a $25.00 donation. Oh, and I also voted for him in early primary voting. So now Bernie has at least one vote in Indiana.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
More than 3 million people — about 27 percent of New York voters — were registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties as of April, and are therefore ineligible to vote on Tuesday. A significant number of voters, including many named in the lawsuit, say their party affiliation was switched without their knowledge.

Westchester County voter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to check on the status of her voter registration last month, after hearing about problems in Arizona’s primary. She was dismayed to discover that, despite being a registered Democrat since 2008, her party affiliation had been changed to unaffiliated. She is now unable to vote for her preferred candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in the primary.

“I am so hurt that my right to vote in this primary has been taken from me,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a Reddit post explaining her situation.

Ocasio-Cortez was later told by her local Board of Elections that her party affiliation was changed during Hurricane Sandy. The devastating storm hit right before Election Day 2012, and in an emergency measure, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) allowed New York residents to vote at any precinct via affidavit ballot. Ocasio-Cortez was stuck in New York City for the storm, so she voted there instead of in Wetchester.


I think this is bull, this info below. More broken machines. This is unacceptable, they should have known beforehand if the equipment was working. Our right to vote is important - especially now. CK

The primary voting at some Brooklyn and Queens polling places was a disaster Tuesday morning — with early morning voters arriving to broken machines and belated polling.

CLINTONS CAST N.Y. PRIMARY VOTE AT SCHOOL IN CHAPPAQUA

Queens resident George Mack said he came to P.S. 52 in Springfield Gardens to vote right at 6 a.m. He, and about 50 other early voters, learned all three machines on site were broken. Volunteers at the school told voters to place their ballots in a slot, and they would all get processed later.

Hillary would have been pissed if she couldn't have voted for herself. I have no tolerance for faulty problems when it's an election. I always wonder if it's done on purpose or nobody just doesn't give a shit. CK
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
We live in a country that continues to have voting problems in the states. We think here in America that everyone has the right to vote. We might have the right but not always the opportunity when our state lets us down due to difficult voting rules. Having to deal with working with shoddy equipment and outdated ideas how to go about fixing it.

Almost 18 years ago the horrendous clusterfuck in Florida that gave us the worst president possible. Due to sub par equipment they were using there was the nightmare of the hanging chads, what a joke. What's with some of the stupid rules leaving out thousands of voters. It's no wonder folks lose faith in our system.

What gives us the right to oversee any country's election. We've gone over to 3rd world countries assisting them with their elections. How can we do this when we can't get it right in our own country here in America.
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
The state-by-state thing is bs, especially as it pertains to national elections, and even more so when each state creates different rules to play by. Since this isn't a game, we need to have enforced national standards. Plus how about we re-cast our national holiday president's day as our election day every november.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
In CA they have what's called a provisional vote. They let you vote at a polling place and figure out later if everything is kosher.
 
Top Bottom