The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
...The Washington Post published a good overview, explaining just how ugly the developments became...
The ugly goes back to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's blatant bias toward Hillary. It's great that many of us will vote for the Dem no matter what, but it's a little sickening to be throwing the word ugly around now that Hillary got her way, being there were likely unfair forces at play.
The thought that we didn't get a fair choice still tastes awful and it's not surprising to see people getting up in arms about that.
 

grokit

well-worn member
"The Nevada Caucus has 3 tiers. Hillary won the first tier, Bernie won the second tier, and the third tier, which occurred this weekend let many infuriated.

Bernie Sanders supporters demanded 64 rejected pro-Sanders delegates, that were disqualified from voting for administrative reasons, be allowed to participate in selecting delegates for the national convention, but DNC leaders refused to reconsider their decision.

Bernie supporters then held a sit-in, but security and local police officers forced them out, saying “it is now in the hands of the attorneys.”

“If we do not leave, it becomes a big issue,” said one Sanders supporter. “I’m not leaving.””

:myday:


When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.


Why Bernie Sanders Should Stay in the Race—and How He Can Win


“Those who want to see the Sanders campaign continue through Election Day need to urge Sanders to meet with Jill Stein and to not endorse Clinton. Sanders will only change course if he is pushed from the grassroots.”

Make no mistake: Settling for Hillary Clinton means abandoning the political revolution that Bernie Sanders has inspired. It means unconditional surrender after overcoming many obstacles in a rigged primary. That’s why the revolution must continue through November and beyond, and the Vermont senator’s supporters must urge him to keep fighting.

The West Virginia primary on Tuesday illustrates why. After his victory there, Sanders wrote: “There is nothing I would like more than to take on and defeat Donald Trump, someone who must never become president of this country.”

Unfortunately, he is unlikely to get that opportunity from the Democratic Party. If Sanders does not remain in the race until the end, he will very likely be helping the Republican candidate. Why? Because nearly half of his voters in West Virginia said they would switch their vote to Trump in November. In fact, we will explain why the best way to prevent Trump from taking the Oval Office would be for Sanders to run on a ticket with Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

Sanders’ current plan is to get some of his policies into the unenforceable Democratic Party platform and then simply endorse Clinton for president. But because that platform is unenforceable, it will have little value and is belied by the reality that the Democrats serve big business.

Clinton has a long history of representing Wall Street, Wal-Mart, weapons makers and insurance companies. She is in many ways the opposite of Bernie Sanders. The CEOs on Wall Street—and even the Koch oil barons—want her as the nation’s chief executive because her vision and political views align so perfectly with their own. The global 1 percent will be relieved if, when the revolution ends, they are still in charge and the oligarchy lives on. We can’t let it end that way.

The Corrupt and Unfair Democratic Primaries
Sanders was an independent for more than three decades until joining the Democratic Party last year, and he knew going into the primaries that he would be fighting establishment Democrats who are closely tied to everything he opposes. No insurgent has won a Democratic primary since the current system of superdelegates was put in place in 1982 to stop them.

This year, that anti-insurgent system also included a plan to have a limited number of debates (and independent and third-party candidates are blocked from participating in them). The number of debates dropped from 25 in 2008 to less than half that number this election season—and many were scheduled at times when few voters would be able to watch them. Clinton gave in to pressure for more debates when she thought it was in her interest. Ironically, in each of those face-offs, Sanders at least argued Clinton to a draw, and many saw him as the victor. Thus, the debates did not stop his revolution; in many ways, they grew it.

Another part of the establishment’s anti-insurgent plan is to front-load the primaries and caucuses by having 39 states and territories vote all in the month of March. This strategy usually destroys insurgents because they do not have the money to compete with well-funded, big-business establishment candidates. The Sanders revolt overcame that obstacle by raising millions in small donations.

Closed primaries are also a feature of that anti-insurgent plan, disenfranchising millions of voters who don’t want to join the Democratic or Republican parties. More than 6 million people were deprived of such a vote in New York and Florida alone.

In addition to these anti-democratic tactics, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, was the national co-chair of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Such an in-the-face conflict of interest shows audacious hubris, and the Democrats clearly thought that they could get away with anything to nominate Clinton. Wasserman Schultz has been consistently biased in Clinton’s favor, as indicated by her action to deny Sanders’ campaign access to the voter database just before the Iowa primary.

In August 2015, Clinton set up an agreement with 33 state Democratic parties for a joint fundraising agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund. This was before the first primary in a contested nomination. Not only was the DNC headed by a Clinton operative, but state parties were tied to Clinton’s fundraising, creating an unbreakable bond between her and the party. This allowed Clinton’s wealthy donors to multiply their donations astronomically. “A single donor, as Margot Kidder wrote at Counterpunch, “by giving $10,000 a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund.

“For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016,” Kidder said. “And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.”

Clinton’s superdelegates are chairs of key standing committees as well.

Sanders has complained to the DNC that the way these funds have been used violates federal election laws. He also wrote a letter to Wasserman Schultz, saying that she is tipping the scales for Clinton’s benefit.

Throughout the primary process, there have been voting irregularities. There are too many to review in this article, but they involved the erasing of voter registrations, an insufficient number of polling places, polls that opened late, and so on. In New York and Arizona where some of the worst problems were reported, investigations are ongoing.

Now, Sanders is heading into a Democratic Convention that is rigged against him, and he has more than enough reason to reconsider his previous plan to endorse Hillary Clinton. The 2016 election is historically unique and presents a perfect storm for an independent candidate. As a third-party candidate, Sanders could win the popular vote as well as the 270 electoral votes necessary to take the presidency—and his campaign would actually hurt, not help, Donald Trump.

Jill Stein of the Green Party has indicated that she is open to discussing how she can work with Sanders. By choosing her as his vice presidential running mate and becoming the Green Party nominee, Sanders could get on enough ballots to pose a solid independent challenge to two of the most unpopular major-party candidates in recent memory. It is a historic opportunity that should not be missed.

MUCH more:
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/16/bernie-sanders-stay-race-can-win/
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Free use bumper sticker ideas welcome here

"Trump Voters = Archie Bunker Brigade"
"The Revolution Belongs to Millennials- VOTE"
"I'll believe trump voters when they hire gardeners as surgeons"
 
gangababa,

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Note: By signing, you agree to receive email messages from MoveOn.org Civic Action and MoveOn.org Political Action. You may unsubscribe at any time. [ Privacy policy ]

EMBED THIS PETITION
<iframe src="http://petitions.moveon.org/embed/widget.html?v=3&name=remove-debbie-wasserman" class="moveon-petition" id="petition-embed" width="300px" height="500px"></iframe>
Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair
Petition by Dan DiZinno

To be delivered to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair

As a result of a complete and total lack of coordinated messaging, and horrific dissemination of available resources, all ending in the absolute failure of her mission, Debbie Wasserman Schultz must resign or be removed as DNC Chair.
There are currently 75,495 signatures. NEW goal - We need 100,000 signatures!


PETITION BACKGROUND
Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz took control of the DNC in May of 2011. And while she has been comfortably “tucked in bed” in her own district, her complete lack of messaging and dissemination of available resources has cost us two consecutive congressional defeats.

She also distanced herself from the President and his policies in the 2014 election. We got crushed.

And now, what can only be described as the debacle of the Democratic debate schedule unfolds. The obvious structuring of this schedule and its limited number seem to prove Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has ulterior motives.

We Democrats cannot have a person of such electoral criticality so compromised by her personal preferences, and ambition.

Every second that this leadership is in place is another second the Democratic Party concedes congress to the Republicans. She never took any responsibility for her miserable failures in our previous two elections. Our current message in news cycles is invisible as is she. And I believe that this now even jeopardizes our crucial need to hold onto the White House in 2016.

Honorable people who have failed so miserably in their mission would hurry to apologize and get out of the way. But apparently, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s hubris will not allow her to do so.

Please sign this petition to remove Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the DNC Chair.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
So, here is the man most famous for trying to buy American elections, and guess who his guy is now??????

ap131131172909.jpg


With Adelson ready to invest in Trump, who’s the ‘puppet’ now?
05/16/16 10:40 AM

Now that Donald Trump has abandoned months of boasts about “self-funding,” he’s going to need some Republican mega-donors to help finance the Republican’s general-election campaign. The New York Times reports that one especially notable contributor is already eager to play a role.

The casino magnate Sheldon G. Adelson told Donald J. Trump in a private meeting last week that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge of Mr. Adelson’s commitment.

As significant, Mr. Adelson, a billionaire based in Las Vegas, has decided that he will significantly scale back his giving to congressional Republicans and direct most of his contributions to groups dedicated to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The article noted that it’s unclear exactly how Adelson will make his investment, and the casino magnate and his team “are still uncertain about which super PAC to use as their vehicle for the bulk of the contributions.”

That said, Trump and Adelson met last week; the candidate said he’s “dedicated to protecting Israel’s security,” and Adelson agreed soon after to spent as much as $100 million to make the former reality-show host the president of the United States.

The punch-line, however, is something Trump said on Twitter in October: “Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to [Sen. Marco Rubio] because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet.”

At the time, the Florida senator was receiving quite a bit of support from GOP mega-donors, and Adelson appeared to be on board with Team Rubio – a dynamic Trump was eager to mock. Indeed, the idea that the senator was part of a corrupt system in which wealthy interests buy candidates in order to make them “puppets” was at the heart of Trump’s message.

The key word in that sentence, however, is “was.”

As we discussed last week, Trump assured voters for months that he’s “self-funding” his campaign, and it was a powerful selling point. He insisted campaign contributions have a corrupting effect on public officials – Trump said he knew it because he was among the wealthy donors doing the buying – but he’s above all of this ugliness because he relies solely on his own checkbook. Americans wouldn’t have to worry about fat-cat donors telling Trump what to do because he doesn’t want – and doesn’t take – their money.

And yet, there was Trump telling Sheldon Adelson what he wanted to hear during a private discussion last week, which was followed soon after by the donor’s decision to be quite generous towards the presumptive Republican nominee.

Months of rhetoric about the corrupting influence of campaign contributions has been wiped away with amazing efficiency, and in the process, arguably the most compelling pillar of Trump’s entire candidacy has been removed.
 

GetLeft

Well-Known Member
But we don't seem interested in setting positive examples or making the world a safe democracy. We seem interested in acquisition. When that's not guided by some sense of morality we all become caveman(cavepeople, sorry:)). Unfortunately our leadership is Neanderthal heavy!

Modeling virtuous behavior is an enlightened behavior. But it is not easy.
I find Obama and Warren to be examples of enlightened leaders. But, by and large, I feel US policy abroad abandoned enlightenment in favor of thuggery long ago. Something to do perhaps with the rise of military industrialization.

Most of present day US national pride is a pride in thuggery. Sadly, the lives of many in this country would be void of meaning were it not for this perverted sense of nationalism. This is what I think every time I see someone wearing a 'make america great again' shirt or bumper stickers. "Which 'great' are you talking about?" is always my reaction.

enlightened
/ɪnˈlaɪtənd/
adjective
1. factually well-informed, tolerant of alternative opinions, and guided by rational thought: an enlightened administration, enlightened self-interest.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/enlightened?s=t
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Obama sends pointed shots across GOP’s bow
05/16/16 02:40 PM


When President Obama delivered the commencement address at Rutgers University in New Jersey over the weekend, he did not mention any Republicans’ names. In fact, over the course of his fairly long address, the word “Republican” did not come up at all.

Obama did not, however, leave any doubts as to who he might have been referring to with some of his more pointed jabs.

Midway through his remarks, for example, the president turned his attention to the climate crisis, and mercilessly mocked Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.):

“A while back, you may have seen a United States senator trotted out a snowball during a floor speech in the middle of winter as ‘proof’ that the world was not warming.” After the audience laughed at the far-right senator’s antics, Obama added, “t’s up to you to insist upon and shape an informed debate. Imagine if Benjamin Franklin had seen that senator with the snowball, what he would think. Imagine if your 5th grade science teacher had seen that. He’d get a D – and he’s a senator!”

But his most forceful rhetoric was reserved for the GOP’s presumptive nominee.

Although he didn’t mention Donald Trump by name, President Obama used his commencement address at Rutgers University on Sunday to make his most forceful case yet against the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. […]

Obama took on the premise of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan…. He slammed Trump’s call for a border wall…. He criticized the presumptive GOP nominee’s Muslim ban…. He ripped into Trump’s command of the facts…. And he highlighted Trump’s lack of political experience in politics.

Subtle, it wasn’t.

The speech is worth checking out in its entirety, but this portion stood out for me:

“Class of 2016, let me be as clear as I can be. In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real, or telling it like it is. That’s not challenging political correctness. That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about. And yet, we’ve become confused about this.

“Look, our nation’s Founders – Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson – they were born of the Enlightenment. They sought to escape superstition, and sectarianism, and tribalism, and no-nothingness. They believed in rational thought and experimentation, and the capacity of informed citizens to master our own fates. That is embedded in our constitutional design. That spirit informed our inventors and our explorers, the Edisons and the Wright Brothers, and the George Washington Carvers and the Grace Hoppers, and the Norman Borlaugs and the Steve Jobses. That’s what built this country…. [W]hen our leaders express a disdain for facts, when they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, while actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we’ve got a problem.”

You can almost hear the eagerness with which the president wants to hit the 2016 campaign trail.
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
Note: By signing, you agree to receive email messages from MoveOn.org Civic Action and MoveOn.org Political Action. You may unsubscribe at any time. [ Privacy policy ]

EMBED THIS PETITION
<iframe src="http://petitions.moveon.org/embed/widget.html?v=3&name=remove-debbie-wasserman" class="moveon-petition" id="petition-embed" width="300px" height="500px"></iframe>
Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair
Petition by Dan DiZinno

To be delivered to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair

Signed! And thank you for posting the link. :tup:
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Cory Booker is one of the names floating around for VP. People like Cory Booker Hillary needs to go with him IMO. Elizabeth Warren is low on the list. she would overshadow her anyway. People like Cory Booker I think more than Hillary. He may overshadow her too.
 

HellsWindStaff

Dharma Initiate
Cory Booker is one of the names floating around for VP. People like Cory Booker Hillary needs to go with him IMO. Elizabeth Warren is low on the list. she would overshadow her anyway. People like Cory Booker I think more than Hillary. He may overshadow her too.

It would be smart for her to do that, it would not convince me to vote for her, but I think Cory Booker is a good politician and is moderate enough to appeal to a wider range of people.

My grandparents used to live in Newark in the 50s/60s, they love Cory Booker for what he's done to revitalize the city.
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
Cory Booker is one of the names floating around for VP. People like Cory Booker Hillary needs to go with him IMO. Elizabeth Warren is low on the list. she would overshadow her anyway. People like Cory Booker I think more than Hillary. He may overshadow her too.

I read somewhere she was also considering Julian Castro Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I think he may be a good choice for her.
I agree with you about Warren and Booker overshadowing her and Hillary would not stand for that. You gave me an interesting thought though.

Warren/Booker 2020? Hmm......:shrug:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/abc-news-plus-special-report-220000361.html

CNN: Bernie wins Oregon
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I would just as soon have Booker, Brown and Klobucher and especially Warren left in the Senate where they can do the most good. Castro would be a good choice, as Kaine would be. There are others. But I don't think it is wise to take a good sitting Senator and take them off the field.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The polls are showing that Trump is winning over Hillary. It's like watching a train wreck and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

I'm glad Bernie won Oregon but it's not going to be enough. Democrats need to do something. Hillary's likability factor isn't winning over voters unfortunately. I'm irritated that the Democrat National Commitee put all their backing behind Hillary. I think she was the wrong choice.
There were other folks in politics that would have made a better selection.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Exclusive: Skeptical Trump says would renegotiate global climate deal
NEW YORK | By Emily Flitter and Steve Holland
r



Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming.

A pull-out by the world’s second biggest carbon-emitting country would hobble the deal reached in Paris last December by nearly 200 nations, who for the first time in more than two decades found a common vision for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else," the New York real estate mogul said in an interview with Reuters.

"But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States."

Trump said he did not believe China, the world’s top emitter of the carbon dioxide gas that many scientists believe is contributing to global climate change, would adhere to its pledge under the Paris deal.

"Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere," he said.

The accord to transform the world's fossil-fuel driven economy was a potent signal to investors.

It seeks to limit a rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius through combined national pledges to cut emissions, and provide funding for developing nations to mitigate the damaging effects of a sea level rise and climate change.

The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 compared to 2005, while China promised it would halt increases in carbon emissions by 2030. Both countries have promised to ratify the deal this year.

Many U.S. Republicans have found fault with the deal for overreacting to what they see as an uncertain threat.

Former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who helped broker the deal, said this month that the U.S. election was critical to its future. "If a climate change denier was to be elected, it would threaten dramatically global action against climate disruption," he said.

Trump has said that he believes global warming is a concept that was invented by China to hurt the competitiveness of U.S. business. One of his energy policy advisers is a climate change skeptic, U.S. Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender for the White House, has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030.

Trump's comment drew fire from environmental advocates.

"This is another example of Trump’s dangerous lack of judgment and the very real impacts it could have for all of us," said Gene Karpinski, president of the U.S.-based environmental group League of Conservation Voters.

"Trump's denunciation of the Paris climate accord is not only short sighted, but would be terribly costly for America and our ability to lead the world. We cannot go backwards on this important step towards a clean energy economy that benefits all our families," billionaire environmental financier Tom Steyer said in a statement.

The Paris agreement has an article built into it meant to protect countries in the accord in the event that a new government comes in and wants to dismantle it. The clause says any nation wanting to withdraw will first have to wait four years.

U.S. chief climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said last week that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election, other countries were likely to be bound by the pact.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
The polls are showing that Trump is winning over Hillary. It's like watching a train wreck and there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

I'm glad Bernie won Oregon but it's not going to be enough. Democrats need to do something. Hillary's likability factor isn't winning over voters unfortunately. I'm irritated that the Democrat National Commitee put all their backing behind Hillary. I think she was the wrong choice.
There were other folks in politics that would have made a better selection.
The DNC did not decide this. Several million more people voting for Clinton decided it. The process isn't rigged; Bernie did not get robbed. He just lost in the popular vote. Lost badly enough that his campaign for the nomination has been over for all practical purposes for some time now. It keeps on going like a zombie but has zero chance of winning. Bernie's campaign misleads people into thinking he still has a shot 'but it's an uphill climb'. Yeah I have a shot at reaching the moon if I jump a little higher every day. He no longer has any shot whatsoever. Bernie knows that perfectly well, but if he admits it his contributions would plummet.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

grokit

well-worn member
:myday: Bernie's leaning in with:love:

Bernie Sanders Delivers One Of The Most Heartfelt Messages You Will Ever See – Video

The 2016 campaign is mired in bigotry and dissent, but Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders delivered one of the most heartfelt responses of this year’s electoral cycle.

As The People For Bernie Sanders 2016 wrote: “Regardless of who you support, you have to watch this. It’s the most honest, heartfelt response you’re going to see from ANY candidate this election.”

Asked about where his support for Native Americans comes from, Sanders responds that:
“It comes from, I think, a political life of trying to do my best to protect the least among us. You know, I don’t hustle money from Super PACs and billionaires. I try to get an understanding of the reality of American life; and I’ve learned a lot in this campaign.”

He continued, adding: “I must be very honest to you. It was, to me, a very emotional experience being in Flint, Michigan and seeing what a broken infrastructure there and a water system, which is poisoning the children, is doing to that community.“

Concluding, Sanders stated:
“I was in McDowell Country in West Virginia where the life expectancy of people there is – for men – 18 years less than it is 6 hours north. That’s incredible. That’s insane; and to go to a Native American Reservation like Pine Ridge and see where very few kids are going to make it to college. Many of these children are going to drop out. Where substance abuse is rampant. Where life expectancy is of a Third World level. It is unacceptable. That’s all. It is unacceptable. I’m an American and I will not tolerate those conditions. They have got to change. And if elected President of the United States, I will change this.”

You can watch the clip, [here (sorry can't embed)]

:myday:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom