1DMF
Old School Cheesy Quaver
We have a couple of cat houses for them in case it rains and they lose their collar with the magnet to open the flap, if that's of any help to you
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Funny...after I posted the brief script of my household's version of the democratic debates I did wonder how many other folks differ with their significant other. I especially wondered if there were some that even differed by party affiliation ..... and lived to talk about it
The irony is that I've had more heated debates with fellow democrats than republicans.
BD9
Well-Known Member
Funny...after I posted the brief script of my household's version of the democratic debates I did wonder how many other folks differ with their significant other. I especially wondered if there were some that even differed by party affiliation ..... and lived to talk about it
The irony is that I've had more heated debates with fellow democrats than republicans.
I have been active since I was first able to vote. My wife registered this year after not voting for about 8 years. I was surprised we agreed on Bernie. I thought for sure she would have supported Hillary. It was kind of nice going to vote with my wife, to see how proud she was.
More on topic...
Seems the donald may be involved in a nice money laundering scheme.
Story
Trump's campaign spends $6 million with Trump companies
What's more, fundraising reports show he's used about $6 million in campaign money to pay his own companies and family members.
Trump's campaign expenses are hardly inspiring confidence among people whose money he's pursuing. The spending includes a $423,000 May payment to Mar-a-Lago, the private club in Florida that serves as his vacation home, and enough Trump-branded bottled water to fill a bathtub.
The biggest payment to a Trump company is $4.6 million to TAG Air, the holding company of his airplanes.
His campaign headquarters is at Trump Tower in New York. The campaign has paid about $520,000 in rent and utilities to Trump Tower Commercial LLC and to Trump Corporation.
For events, he often uses his own properties. The campaign paid out $26,000 in January to rent a facility at Trump National Doral, his golf course in Miami. He'd held an event in the gold-accented ballroom there in late October. The campaign spent another $11,000 on Trump's hotel in Chicago.
Even refreshments have a Trump tie.
About $5,000 from the campaign went to Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which offers Virginia wines bearing the bold letters of Trump.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing?
by Nancy LeTourneau
June 22, 2016 9:32 AM
Over the course of the Obama presidency, we’ve watched as Republicans have thrown out many of the norms that have been established in order to keep our democracy functioning. It isn’t just things like shouting “You lie!” in a presidential address before a joint session of Congress. And it isn’t just a requirement that basically any vote (including presidential nominations) get a super majority in the Senate. It includes doing things like overtly undermining the executive branch during complex negotiations with other countries (i.e., Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate accord) and failing to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. Remember back during Obama’s first term when Republicans were taking the global economy hostage by threatening to not raise the debt limit? Now we’re witnessing a truly bizarre presidential candidate who is basically running on a platform of breaking all the norms.
These are the kinds of things a party does when it doesn’t care about governing. So what is it that they actually want? Perhaps Sen. Mitch McConnell articulated it best when – during Obama’s first term – he said that his ultimate goal was to ensure Obama was limited to one term. It’s basically the same rationale he and Speaker Ryan have given for supporting Donald Trump – they want to win the White House, even if it means electing a racist/sexist narcissist. In other words, it’s a power game with the interests of the American people as the pawns.
I am reminded of something a blogger named mistermix wrote back in 2010 during the height of the budget negotiations.
As Tim F. posted earlier, Ezra Klein thinks that Obama’s a bad poker player. He may be right, but the analogy isn’t helpful. Poker is a win/lose game. Negotiation is a win/win game, because both parties get something when a deal is struck. Republicans aren’t playing poker or negotiating. They are playing another game, call it “You Must Lose”. They’re happy with win/lose, if they win, but they’ll tolerate lose/lose as long as Obama loses.
The only analogy that springs to mind when I look at the Republicans’ recent behavior is a bad divorce. Think of a situation where Lisa and Bob are getting a divorce, and Bob is so hell-bent on hurting Lisa that he doesn’t care about their kids or their bank account. Bob will deploy a hundred variations on the same tactic: put the Lisa in a bind where she has to choose between damaging the children and losing money. Lisa will lose money almost every time in order to save the children.
In this situation, capitulation is inevitable, the only question is what form it will take.
That caught my eye because, as a former family therapist I know the analogy well. I used to call it “divorce wars.” The basic plot is all about parents who have divorced and continue to play out their anger games with each other by using the children as pawns. It actually becomes calcified and intractable when both parents buy in – which ensures that everyone always loses. Think about that next time you hear a liberal suggest that Democrats should employ the same tactics as the Republicans.
What we are witnessing is a Republican Party that has completely abandoned any pretense of actually governing on behalf of the people. Here is how Mike Lofgren described it back in 2011:
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
So what are the Democrats’ options in a situation like this? First of all, they shouldn’t take the bait and join in a guaranteed lose-lose game. From there, mistermix described Obama’s options as three-fold back in 2010:
Obama has three tactics he can use, all of them weak: The first is to try to fracture the Republican caucus…The second is to use executive power to its limit, by rule-making…The third is institutional reform, specifically, ending the filibuster.
We’ve certainly seen the President employ the first two. The third was used in a small way to get the wheels going on presidential nominations. Part of the reason Democrats haven’t gone “nuclear” on the filibuster is that it actually joins Republicans in dismantling governing norms that have been in place for decades. But eventually that might have to be considered.
Because he was writing just as all of this was getting underway, mistermix didn’t include the ultimate solution…the one that gives the American people a say. At some point, voters have to decide if it is in their interest to elect politicians who are simply using them as their pawns in a power game. I know that as a family therapist, when I saw that a divorce wars situation was intractable, I would eventually go to the kids to begin the process of empowering them to make good choices (luckily in my practice they were adolescents).
As Republicans have increasingly become post-policy, the old conservative vs liberal arguments aren’t much in play this election. That is obvious in the presidential contest. But it is also true in House/Senate races – even if the candidates themselves won’t acknowledge it. Electing Republicans means supporting a party that isn’t interested in governing and is resigned to lose/lose if that is what it takes to stop Democrats from doing so.
by Nancy LeTourneau
June 22, 2016 9:32 AM
Over the course of the Obama presidency, we’ve watched as Republicans have thrown out many of the norms that have been established in order to keep our democracy functioning. It isn’t just things like shouting “You lie!” in a presidential address before a joint session of Congress. And it isn’t just a requirement that basically any vote (including presidential nominations) get a super majority in the Senate. It includes doing things like overtly undermining the executive branch during complex negotiations with other countries (i.e., Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate accord) and failing to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. Remember back during Obama’s first term when Republicans were taking the global economy hostage by threatening to not raise the debt limit? Now we’re witnessing a truly bizarre presidential candidate who is basically running on a platform of breaking all the norms.
These are the kinds of things a party does when it doesn’t care about governing. So what is it that they actually want? Perhaps Sen. Mitch McConnell articulated it best when – during Obama’s first term – he said that his ultimate goal was to ensure Obama was limited to one term. It’s basically the same rationale he and Speaker Ryan have given for supporting Donald Trump – they want to win the White House, even if it means electing a racist/sexist narcissist. In other words, it’s a power game with the interests of the American people as the pawns.
I am reminded of something a blogger named mistermix wrote back in 2010 during the height of the budget negotiations.
As Tim F. posted earlier, Ezra Klein thinks that Obama’s a bad poker player. He may be right, but the analogy isn’t helpful. Poker is a win/lose game. Negotiation is a win/win game, because both parties get something when a deal is struck. Republicans aren’t playing poker or negotiating. They are playing another game, call it “You Must Lose”. They’re happy with win/lose, if they win, but they’ll tolerate lose/lose as long as Obama loses.
The only analogy that springs to mind when I look at the Republicans’ recent behavior is a bad divorce. Think of a situation where Lisa and Bob are getting a divorce, and Bob is so hell-bent on hurting Lisa that he doesn’t care about their kids or their bank account. Bob will deploy a hundred variations on the same tactic: put the Lisa in a bind where she has to choose between damaging the children and losing money. Lisa will lose money almost every time in order to save the children.
In this situation, capitulation is inevitable, the only question is what form it will take.
That caught my eye because, as a former family therapist I know the analogy well. I used to call it “divorce wars.” The basic plot is all about parents who have divorced and continue to play out their anger games with each other by using the children as pawns. It actually becomes calcified and intractable when both parents buy in – which ensures that everyone always loses. Think about that next time you hear a liberal suggest that Democrats should employ the same tactics as the Republicans.
What we are witnessing is a Republican Party that has completely abandoned any pretense of actually governing on behalf of the people. Here is how Mike Lofgren described it back in 2011:
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
So what are the Democrats’ options in a situation like this? First of all, they shouldn’t take the bait and join in a guaranteed lose-lose game. From there, mistermix described Obama’s options as three-fold back in 2010:
Obama has three tactics he can use, all of them weak: The first is to try to fracture the Republican caucus…The second is to use executive power to its limit, by rule-making…The third is institutional reform, specifically, ending the filibuster.
We’ve certainly seen the President employ the first two. The third was used in a small way to get the wheels going on presidential nominations. Part of the reason Democrats haven’t gone “nuclear” on the filibuster is that it actually joins Republicans in dismantling governing norms that have been in place for decades. But eventually that might have to be considered.
Because he was writing just as all of this was getting underway, mistermix didn’t include the ultimate solution…the one that gives the American people a say. At some point, voters have to decide if it is in their interest to elect politicians who are simply using them as their pawns in a power game. I know that as a family therapist, when I saw that a divorce wars situation was intractable, I would eventually go to the kids to begin the process of empowering them to make good choices (luckily in my practice they were adolescents).
As Republicans have increasingly become post-policy, the old conservative vs liberal arguments aren’t much in play this election. That is obvious in the presidential contest. But it is also true in House/Senate races – even if the candidates themselves won’t acknowledge it. Electing Republicans means supporting a party that isn’t interested in governing and is resigned to lose/lose if that is what it takes to stop Democrats from doing so.
!
little maggie
Well-Known Member
I've been talking to some of my friends who are serious Bernie fans. They all voted for Nadir and some acknowledge that it was a mistake. I'm sure there are others here who agree with them but I don't get it. They think the best thing that could happen would be for Trump to win. Then the revolution that Bernie thinks we need will happen.
I think all of this is crazy. I can't help but wonder how those who live in other countries view the success of Trump.
I think all of this is crazy. I can't help but wonder how those who live in other countries view the success of Trump.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
I ran across this last night . . .
It may, or may not, help answer your question because specific enlightenment resides in the mind of the individual . . . 
Last edited:
little maggie
Well-Known Member
I think that's the one I posted Tuesday in this thread. But it was made by a US artist. Love it anyway. I may try a google search later to see what comes up about world persepctive on Trump.I ran across this last night . . .
grokit
well-worn member
Pre-convention lull...How about a major celebrity endorsement
I was just reading about this poor couple, and their starwhacker conspiracy when I came across this gem.
edit: updated for equal time
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Here's part of Hilary's, a salon.com article from 2015, during some major campaigning. Especially for those who think Hilary is the "peace promoter":
*Emphases are Yogo's, not the articles. I especially love how much the Dems railed against foreign influence is politics, and yet this is probably the most extreme case in recent history.
The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for
Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.
While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.
As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”
That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.
During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn’t, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”
The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.
While these arms deals may seem like ancient history, Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, says they “raise a fundamental question of judgment” — one that is relevant to the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise?” he said. “And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Rumors are swirling around that Hillary may have chosen Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. Apparently they have scheduled campaign stops together. Damn. if this is true it would give Hillary a lot more gas in her tank on the road to the white house. I even like Elizabeth better than Hillary.
If this is true I feel it may bury Trump as yet another failed GOP effort to try to take the white house.
Warren will only solidify the base, not bring in independents. She is not very favorably looked upon by those outside of the progressive left.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Then your version of independent is very different from the standard term, which is totally fine, but not exactly what I meant.
I speak in generalities in this regard, not specifics, as the term independent traditionally means someone who falls in between the hard lines of liberal and conservative, and Sanders and Warren fall farther left and progressive than Clinton.
I speak in generalities in this regard, not specifics, as the term independent traditionally means someone who falls in between the hard lines of liberal and conservative, and Sanders and Warren fall farther left and progressive than Clinton.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Elizabeth Warren is everybody's favorite. She has a high favorability level with the Independsnts and a lot in the Democratic Party. She may not be the fav of the old farts in the senate.
She is very popular among progressives. She was a lawyer then a professor at Harvard before becoming the senator of Massachusetts. Some good credentials and not a long life in politics which is good. There's not much baggage.
I hope Trump continues to call her Pocahontas, it just makes him look bad. She really gets under his skin.
Those folks that are Bernie supporters may go over to Hillary's side a little easier.
Trump just wants to win not be the president. I think he was surprised last spring that he was doing so well. Attacking Hillary's religion is a mistake because he's not a religious person. It will back fire on him.
I'm looking forward to someone asking him some evangelical questions regarding the bible.
She is very popular among progressives. She was a lawyer then a professor at Harvard before becoming the senator of Massachusetts. Some good credentials and not a long life in politics which is good. There's not much baggage.
I hope Trump continues to call her Pocahontas, it just makes him look bad. She really gets under his skin.
Those folks that are Bernie supporters may go over to Hillary's side a little easier.
Trump just wants to win not be the president. I think he was surprised last spring that he was doing so well. Attacking Hillary's religion is a mistake because he's not a religious person. It will back fire on him.
I'm looking forward to someone asking him some evangelical questions regarding the bible.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
FWIW, it wasn't about a box, it was about terminology. I don't like boxes; but at the same time, its difficult to discuss generalities without some sort of vocabulary framework.
The constant change of terms and what means and what is or is not allowable in conversation is dizzying at best.
And based on HuffPo, she's at a higher disapproval than approval, albeit undecided/not heard enough is just shy of 50%, but still, you want to talk about generalities, both yours and @CarolKing statement about her broad acceptance is shaky at best.
The constant change of terms and what means and what is or is not allowable in conversation is dizzying at best.
And based on HuffPo, she's at a higher disapproval than approval, albeit undecided/not heard enough is just shy of 50%, but still, you want to talk about generalities, both yours and @CarolKing statement about her broad acceptance is shaky at best.
grokit
well-worn member
She'd bring in the bernie independents a lot more than the trump independents.
Sanders and warren are the very face of the progressive left
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Generalities regarding Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren? We are all just giving our opinion, for what it's worth. Just FC politics regarding the presidential election. I was hoping Elizabeth Warren would run for prez.
Bernie doesn't have a chance at this point unless something terrible happens regarding emails or something health wise with Hillary. I liked Bernie and went to my caucus on a Saturday and voted for him. I also donated a little money. I haven't donated to Hillary.
We will have only 3 choices. Republican, Democrat or Independant, I want to make sure Mr Trump doesn't get the job. Our conversations here are fun and interesting.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Generalities regarding the term "independent," not a candidate.
Although the broad usage of "everybody likes Elizabeth Warren" is debatable at best based on the HuffPo polls as they are an aggregate of major polls across the spectrum and country, that was what I meant. And I didn't mean any disrespect whatsoever, just that I feel based on the data that the view she is widely well thought of isn't entirely accurate.
Although the broad usage of "everybody likes Elizabeth Warren" is debatable at best based on the HuffPo polls as they are an aggregate of major polls across the spectrum and country, that was what I meant. And I didn't mean any disrespect whatsoever, just that I feel based on the data that the view she is widely well thought of isn't entirely accurate.
I don't believe she is THAT widely known to begin with.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I would agree. And those that are wary of any socialistic mindset will immediately dislike her based on her overtly progressive ideas as she is even farther that direction than Clinton.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Using the word Independant depends on how you are using it in your sentence. Independent to me can mean people that have no Democratic or Republican affiliations. I am a registered Democrat myself.
Independent can have different meaning far as actions. Not interested that much into politics and the ideas are more of what you are interested in. Sorry if any feelings were hurt didn't mean to.
Independent can have different meaning far as actions. Not interested that much into politics and the ideas are more of what you are interested in. Sorry if any feelings were hurt didn't mean to.
little maggie
Well-Known Member
I wonder whether the Bernie supporters will vote for Trump, Hilary or no one. And what kind of difference that will make in the election. Especially if, based on Bernie's philosophy, they turn to Trump. I know I sound like a broken record but this worries me given how many people love Bernie.
Level headed, objective, and even keeled as always... Bravo!
Amoreena
Grown up Flower Child
I'm with you, there.