The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Gunky]

Coupla good articles on the Sanders phenomenon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/opinion/campaign-stops/is-the-sanders-agenda-out-of-date.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hings-that-wouldve-helped-bernie-sanders-win/

 

[His_Highness]

Decades ago while heading to class and walking by the student union my curiosity was piqued by a number of students handing out pamphlets by a sign that said 'Jews for Jesus'. I stopped to talk to them because the topic was so polarizing.

What follows is something similar that I ran into today on CNBC .... this one makes sense to me where Jews for Jesus didn't. This got me to wondering.....if Bernie was the presumptive nominee would the following have occurred?

Republicans for Hillary:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/

http://time.com/4360519/hillary-clinton-republican-pac-craig-snyder/

 

[HellsWindStaff]

Exhibit A:


Three out of four ain't bad.

I never said humans don't contribute. Or denied its existence. It's also a naturally occurring thing, just like global cooling.

1) there is no global warming phenomenon; it's a hoax
I never said this 0/4
2) global warming is natural and not caused by man
I never said this either, I said it's natural but didn't deny man's contributions 0/4
3) even if global warming is caused by man, there's nothing we can do
Nope, didn't say this 0/4
4) global warming is good for you
Nope, didn't say this either 0/4

0/4 is not 3/4 ..............

Nothing like a liberal to misconstrue the facts of what is said to fit their own liberal agenda. Par for the course. Do you deny the natural forces that also cause it? Sounds like you are, sorry if not.

And calling him Drumpf is not racism period. I do not see how you come to that conclusion.
His family name was Drumpf. He attacked others who had changed their family names and said they were ashamed of their heritage. It is only fair that he stop being such a thin skinned moron and take his own medicine.

Lol at denying the long history of racism and the Democratic party, and again saying that the only racism now is in the Republican party........ wasn't just the small little offshoot of Dixiecrats who were racist....you Democrats/Liberals always have some excuse though apparently and someone to blame...... simply was using it as an example. You're kidding yourself if you think there isn't racism in the Democratic party though. And you're kidding yourself if you deny their long history of racism.

I'm not saying Republicans aren't racist either. Please don't misconstrue that. I do find it very funny though how you couldn't let me express a factual negative point about the history of Democrats without you trying to justify and excuse them and immediately shout "But THEY (Reds) are worse!!!"......the liberal way, to a tee.

Calling him Drumpf is racist. Period. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't have it both ways (why do liberals always do this........) you can say he is a racist for saying those things, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But by doing the same thing, you're also expressing racism. Point blank period. You can shriek and shout how much worse of a racist Trump is, doesn't make you calling him Drumpf any less racist....again, two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry you can't see it that way, but we'll just agree to disagree.

No one is bothered by people calling him Drumpf, but call it for what it is. That's too ugly for many of you to confront, so you'll push it to the back of your mind and excuse it because he himself is a bigger racist. Just like how the Democrat's history in racism is too ugly to confront, so you excuse it as a minor offshoot and justify it by saying Repubs are worse. Cloth cuts both ways. Don't know why the liberals don't think that.

I'm sure there are Republican's who think the same thing, that the cloth doesn't cut both ways and they pick and choose and pluck parts of points. And I'm sure there are Democrats (there are in this thread even), who don't pick and choose and pluck parts of points to fit their agenda and look at the bigger picture. But, from my experiences, one group clearly does it much more than the other. This is from a guy who was registered Democrat.

No one thinks its gross to only start identifying as a minority in your mid 30's in an effort to get perks?? Goofy Elizabeth literally viewed Native American's as a ticket to savings on her law school........she never identified as that before, but she'll be happy to call herself one to save some money. Just curious because no one ever touched on this........ more liberal pushing the ugly facts to the back?? Out of sight, out of mind?? That's racism though, and it's never brought up. Supporting EW means you support racism, just like supporting DT means you support racism??? Or does the cloth not cut that way either?? Can you support aspects of both of them?? Or is it a big brush? Sounds like a big brush from your guys POV. Then cut the cloth both ways with the big brush and acknowledge EW's marginalization of Native Americans in an effort to give her savings. Or don't, but then don't say a vote for Trump is a vote supporting racism.
(cue the excuses and justifications...... "it's her right to identify however she wants!!" "Donald is worse!!!" "She simply was trying to save some money!!!")

Stay vaped guys, wasn't trying to be a dick, it's just baffling to me though the mentality of some of you. IMO its a fundamentally flawed mentality to have. I'd like to understand it and where it comes from, don't feel like I will.......all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. I love that line...



Edit: Just saw this on the Facebook after I posted, relevant.

Spoiler

 

[lwien]

Nothing like a liberal to misconstrue the facts of what is said to fit their own liberal agenda. Par for the course.

Would you deny that conservatives do the exact same thing and if so, why even make a statement like that?

But, from my experiences, one group clearly does it much more than the other.

From my lifelong experiences, which may be just a tad longer than yours, I'd agree but would say that that one group are conservatives.

What may be happening here though is that subconsciously, we all tend to support those belief systems that we are "currently" aligned with and all that that entails.

 

[His_Highness]

@HellsWindStaff - Can I get a pass on the use of Drumpf being racist? I use it because it sounds funny and more derogatory than 'Trump' not because of any race or geographical distinction. Edit: I'm just being mean spirited.....not racist and mean spirited.

Edit: We had to make a 'Pocahontas' decision of our own with our children and registering them for social security. The paperwork called for selecting a 'race' and we could have selected more than one. Among ourselves the debate went as follows.....if we select something other than white the child might qualify for benefits that come with being a minority like some that were quota based back then. We selected white when the black woman who worked for SS that was working with us as we filled out the form told us.......... it was in the best interest of our child to select white and that we could always claim otherwise when it benefited the child later. I didn't feel like a racist until now. Felt like more of an opportunist than a racist.

 

[CarolKing]

@His_Highness i will give you a free pass since Drumpt is calling everyone else racist remarks. Sometimes a person needs some outlet of their frustrations. Seems pretty harmless to me.

The rules work both ways far as the two political parties go. I do see the Republican Party standing behind their nominee even though he is saying the most over the top, disgraceful statements I've ever heard in a political race. I truly believe Trump is toxic for America. He brings out the worst in the White Supremacists in society. Now they have a leader.

The Democratic Party is far from perfect. Perfection doesn't exist in politics. What one person's perfection is imperfect to someone else. We always think we are right. Right?

 

[cybrguy]

I NEVER thought I would say anything like this, but my fingers are crossed that the Rethugs can find no way to drop him without complete implosion...

I WANT him at the top of the ticket.

Trump accuses Obama of siding with U.S. enemies
06/15/16 08:39 AM—Updated 06/15/16 08:43 AM

Two weeks ago, Donald Trump escalated his racist attacks against a Latino federal judge, sparking a national controversy and causing widespread Republican heartburn. As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up, this is how the presumptive Republican nominee wanted to launch the general-election phase.

But take a moment to consider what we’ve seen from the GOP candidate since his offensive against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. At times, it’s been dizzying: Trump went after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a rather racially charged way; Trump adopted a self-congratulatory posture about the deadliest mass shooting in American history; Trump said President Obama should resign because he won’t use the anti-Muslim phrasing Republicans like to hear; Trump suggested the president might be a terrorist sympathizer; Trump stripped the Washington Post of its press credentials; and Trump delivered a nauseating and brazenly dishonest speech demanding a ban on Muslims entering the country and targeting American Muslims’ loyalties.

And really, that’s just a sampling – from the last five days.

Yesterday, after President Obama made Trump’s rhetoric look ridiculous, the Republican candidate responded in the most Trump-like fashion possible, telling the Associated Press:
“President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.

“When I am President, it will always be America First.”

The Atlantic’s James Fallows noted soon after, “Saying that the Commander in Chief has prioritized the enemy’s interests is an accusation of treason…. I am not aware of any previous case, whatsoever, of a national-ticket candidate publicly accusing a president or presidential nominee of a capital offense.”

I can appreciate why it’s easy to grow inured by the avalanche of offensive nonsense coming from the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. In fact, I often find it difficult to keep up with, and some garbage – developments that would be the basis for real controversies in a normal year with a normal candidate – falls through the cracks.

For all I know, this may be intentional. Maybe Trump and his team have decided if the GOP candidate uses a firehose to spew nonsense, the sheer volume will become overwhelming, making it easier for him to get away with antics that might otherwise doom a traditional White House contender.

But there’s value in remaining as focused as possible. For a major-party nominee to argue that a sitting, war-time president sides with America’s enemies over the American people is bonkers, but it’s a staple of Donald Trump’s general-election messaging. The fact that it’s no longer surprising doesn’t negate its significance.

 

[lwien]

Trump has a 70% general disapproval rating. That's 7 out of 10 !!!
Trump has a 89% disapproval rating among Hispanics. That's almost 9 out of 10 !!!
As of right now, the betting odds are that Hillary has a 76% chance of winning the general.
----Washington Post/ABC Poll

With numbers like that, there is no way in hell that he can win unless he turns things around but considering what he has said in the past, it seems to me that these numbers will only get worse for him rather than better.

And as far as those betting odds, I would think that once Bernie drops out, those odds will grow even larger.

btw, have you noticed how quiet the GOP has been lately? For the most part, they have not come to his defense. I have never seen a presumptive nominee not being supported by their own party. Maybe Goldwater but I wasn't paying too much attention to politics back then.

 

[CarolKing]

Trump basically said if the Republican Party won't go along with him, he will go it alone. He can do it all by himself he was telling a group of supporters.

Edit
I second that @lwien - he's fucking delusional. He has the David Duke Supporters and the Tea Party members. He has Sarah Palin and Chris Christy at his side. What else does he need? Except for enough votes from sane people. He has the insane covered it looks like.
Trump also said he loves the uneducated.

Sorry if I insulted anybody that's voting for Trump. You have every right to vote who you want to. It just boggles my mind though.

 

[lwien]

Trump basically said if the Republican Party won't go along with him, he will go it alone. He can do it all by himself he was telling a group of supporters.

He also said that Hispanics love him.

The fucking guy is delusional.

 

[Mr. Gweilo 420]

You guys are set to have another dangerous clown as your president. He will be even worse than W.

 

[TeeJay1952]

@HellsWindStaff
I will read your notes and consider your points. But PLEASE make your points without telling me an interpretation of something is the only conclusion possible. (ie a vote for Hill is shows no respect for the 4 dead in Benghazi)
also you use liberal as a pejorative. I am not your enemy. I am your neighbor. We just disagree on how government works.
Tell your story. Explain your guys theories. Telling me what I think is foolish.
When someone is out of facts they start throwing accusations and smokescreens of false equivalencies.
I want to hear what you think. Not what you think I think. That is how views can be exchanged without rancor.

 

[Gunky]

Trump was able to win pluralities in the republican primaries by scapegoating minorities because about a third to a half of repubs actually are bigoted and/or xenophobic. Now declared republicans only comprise about 30% of the general electorate, so Trump's hard-core supporters, the ones who voted for him in the primaries, are actually a pretty small sliver of the general electorate, maybe 10%. He was able to slide in, in spite of not having the support of the majority because the R's couldn't unite around one of the other candidates. Yet Trump seems to think he can just continue his campaign of scapegoating minorities and foreigners, flaunting his bigotry and misogyny and just ride the wave into the white house. Uh huh, that'll happen. Not.

 

[Silat]

Wow. That was some rant.
I gave you facts on the history of Dems and racism. You do not like facts. That is ok.
As to calling Trump by his original family name, that is not racist on any planet. Nice try though.

Good vaping to you.

 

[lwien]

the ones who voted for him in the primaries, are actually a pretty small sliver of the general electorate, maybe 10%.

It was reported on CNN that it was around 6%, but he's so high on the adulation that that 6% gives him, that he actually believes that the rest of the country is behind him, especially blacks, hispanics and women............

But THIS soundbite will go down in history.....

 

[BD9]

@HellsWindStaff
I will read your notes and consider your points. But PLEASE make your points without telling me an interpretation of something is the only conclusion possible. (ie a vote for Hill is shows no respect for the 4 dead in Benghazi)
also you use liberal as a pejorative. I am not your enemy. I am your neighbor. We just disagree on how government works.
Tell your story. Explain your guys theories. Telling me what I think is foolish.
When someone is out of facts they start throwing accusations and smokescreens of false equivalencies.
I want to hear what you think. Not what you think I think. That is how views can be exchanged without rancor.

Calling him Drumpf is racist. Period.

I call him Drumpf to show his hypocrisy. He admonished Jon Stewart for changing his name from Leibowitz when Trump's family did the same thing. It's a dig, not racist.

I'll also allow @TeeJay1952 to speak for me, see above, as he said what I was thinking better than I could have said it myself.

 

[CarolKing]

That's what I was thinking. Drumpt was how Trump's name was spelled in German. When the family moved to America they changed the name like many others did. I thought maybe I missed something?
I didn't think it was racist either.

Why make an issue out of Drumpt? It's a dig and no big deal @HellsWindStaff carry on with the Drumpt name I like it.

 

[grokit]

John oliver made a huge deal about it & sold a lot of hats

http://store.hbo.com/make-donald-drumpf-again-baseball-cap-red/detail.php?p=979076

 

[Silat]

I call him Drumpf to show his hypocrisy. He admonished Jon Stewart for changing his name from Leibowitz when Trump's family did the same thing. It's a dig, not racist.

I'll also allow @TeeJay1952 to speak for me, see above, as he said what I was thinking better than I could have said it myself.

I already tried to explain that to him but he refuses to understand. Racist my ass....

 

[CarolKing]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t considering primary rival Bernie Sanders as her running mate, but is actively looking at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose populist politics line up closely with Mr. Sanders, people familiar with the process said.

The vetting remains in its early stages. So far, potential candidates have been scrutinized using publicly available information. The Clinton team hasn’t asked anyone to submit tax returns or other personal information, one of the people said. Conversations with Mrs. Clinton herself about options are just now beginning.

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

Asked Tuesday if she would consider Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton told Telemundo, “I haven’t even begun to sort all that out.” She added, “There are a lot of really qualified, dynamic candidates, I’m sure, to be considered for vice president.”

The search process is being led by John Podesta, the campaign chairman. Longtime Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills also is an informal adviser.

Many Sanders supporters, disappointed by his failure to win the nomination, have held out hope that Mrs. Clinton would pick the Vermont senator in a show of unity and a signal that she will chart a progressive course if elected.

 

[lwien]

I like Cory Booker...

 

[Silat]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t considering primary rival Bernie Sanders as her running mate, but is actively looking at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose populist politics line up closely with Mr. Sanders, people familiar with the process said.

The vetting remains in its early stages. So far, potential candidates have been scrutinized using publicly available information. The Clinton team hasn’t asked anyone to submit tax returns or other personal information, one of the people said. Conversations with Mrs. Clinton herself about options are just now beginning.

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

Asked Tuesday if she would consider Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton told Telemundo, “I haven’t even begun to sort all that out.” She added, “There are a lot of really qualified, dynamic candidates, I’m sure, to be considered for vice president.”

The search process is being led by John Podesta, the campaign chairman. Longtime Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills also is an informal adviser.

Many Sanders supporters, disappointed by his failure to win the nomination, have held out hope that Mrs. Clinton would pick the Vermont senator in a show of unity and a signal that she will chart a progressive course if elected.

We do not need nor can we afford to lose a one of a kind senator like Warren. It would be a hard blow to consumer interests if she was sidelined as VP. In fact we cannot afford to lose any senators if we want to tip the balance in the Senate.
It is just a bad bad idea.

 

[CarolKing]

HINGTON – Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has been actively reviewing Massachusetts rules for filling a US Senate vacancy, another indication of the seriousness with which Democrats are gaming out the possibility of Elizabeth Warren joining likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s ticket.

The upshot of Reid’s review is that Senate Democrats may have found an avenue to block or at least narrow GOP Governor Charlie Baker’s ability to name a temporary replacement and prevent the Senate from flipping to a Democratic majority if Warren were to leave the chamber. That suggests the issue is not as significant an obstacle as Reid previously feared.

Pieces of the legal guidance given to Reid were shared with the Globe by a person close to Reid who is familiar with the guidance.

“Reid sees a number of promising paths to making sure that Democrats keep Warren’s seat and is very open to her being selected,” said this person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Warren is a frequently mentioned figure in the capital’s fevered vice presidential speculation. Clinton’s campaign, while not explictly confirming that Warren is under consideration, has said its list of finalists for the pick will include at least one woman.

I think Cory Booker would be a good choice too.
I had to add that.
CK

 

[cybrguy]

I really hope she doesn't choose a sitting Senator. We need good Democratic Senators in the Senate supporting the President, and special elections are always a risk. See Senator Scott Brown...

I like Julian Castro for one. Mayors are also fair game. Governors are a risk just like Senators, and given how many Repub Governors we already have, probably not the best choice.

Regarding Warren, I think she can be MUCH more effective where she is than as Vice President. As VP she has much less power (other than being a tie breaker) on creating and moving legislation. I think that is a BAD plan. I'm surprised she would even want it. She will probably be too old in 8 years to be elected President.

Added: Bernie's age, btw. Whether that is too old or not is, of course, a matter of opinion. But if I were 74 I don't think I would be looking for that kind of gig...

 

[CarolKing]

I hope that Bernie will be talking to his supporters about voting for Hillary after he said a bunch of negative things about her. I didn't want him to say a lot of the things he was saying. A moderate amount of bashing the other candidate of your own party since there's a chance that you won't get the nomination. Some of what he said was unnecessary. That's the only thing that bothered me about him.