The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Gunky]

Reagan. The repubs have deified him but they forget all the scary, sinister things that went on under Reagan. He had Admiral Poindexter and Ollie North running a rogue operation, defying restrictions congress placed on aid to Contras. They had a three way thing going on involving selling American arms to Iran (illegally) and getting aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. Questioned about it, Reagan repeated over and over that he couldn't remember anything. One of many, many shameful episodes under Reagan.

 

[Silat]

The history of Ronald Reagan should be written that he was nothing more than a tool to harm the nation. He tripled our debt, he sold weapons to enemies and he started the war against the nation by bringing in trickle down and the christian taliban. The man was a disgrace.

Since Reagan the Americans have suffered.

Republicans and those who vote Republicans are nothing more than tories, red coats, the buffoons and suckers who kiss rich man's ass and exist for no other reason than to kiss rich man's ass. It's obscene and it's worse than pornography.

Dispel the Reagan myth. Multiple tax increases, a balloted budget, giant increase to government and deficits. Reagan beyond being a failure as a President was someone that should have been arrested for crimes against humanity for what he did in central america.

Reagan was the first president to politicize the CIA. He told the CIA to lie to Congress by telling Congress that the Soviet Union was a very wealthy country, so he can con money out of Congress.

The Soviet Union was on it's way to a collapse long before Reagan took office. Kruschev already told Nixon the model in the Soviet Union was not working.

Mikhail Gorbachev spoke in a US community, one of only two communities he gave a speech at in the United States. At the speech, Gorbachev blew the Reagan myth out of the waters. Gorbachev blamed himself for not acting quickly enough to transform the former Soviet Union into a new model.

The Cold War was long gone and over before Reagan came onto the scene. The Soviet Union knew it was a matter of time. It was Reagan who lied, nothing new there, lied about the economic conditions in the former Soviet Union.

I have heard many Russians say it was the Beatles that taught them about freedom and kept the ideas alive until they could throw off the regime.

If Dem had been caught doing what Reagan did during Iran Contra they would have been impeached immediately for being incompetent at the very least.

Reagan said "I don't recall" or "I can't remember", 88 times in eight hours of testimony over the issue.
Either he was lying or was not mentally competent to be the president.

ReaganVooDooTrickleDownGoldenShowerPizzOnYou economics 101.
Conservative redistribution of the wealth of the 99% to the 1%.
Nationalist Reagan Socialism, promoting a fascist aristocracy and disposable human beings.

 

[Melting Pot]

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Snarky ill-spirited admonishments in response to opinions, and name calling, is not welcome, nor is it instructive - particularly when so off-base.

YOU said:

Yeah, I get that withholding my vote is possibly a vote for the other guy, but somehow that argument still isn't compelling enough for me to get out of bed on election day. Let the house burn down - from the rubble & ashes let the Phoenix rise... or not.

...And in so saying, you show an apparent lack of thought about what the likely consequences of your stated position might be. I attempted to jump-start a consideration of what might actually happen under a Tramp administration by mentioning just ONE of the main currents running through the GOP support base this cycle (surging support for T among committed white racists); I see I failed to get you to think about anything beyond a self-imagined attack on you, so my bad: FTR my comment to you included NO snark, no "ill spirit", and no name-calling. You made IMO an intellectually lazy remark about your indifference to any consequences from your choice, and I confronted you on it. And on your falsely-equivalent view of the two pole represented by the candidates.

And, as I say, as you seem uninterested in how your nation and your fellow citizens are likely to suffer if you (and those who 'agree' with you) can't make it out of bed on election day, what's the difference between you and an ACTUAL Tramp supporter? SERIOUS question, and no snark (or name-calling).

====

Just curious @ClearBlueLou , you don't cite any references for the posts where you give your thoughts. Why is it I am the only one who has to throw up links, etc.?

Thanks for assuming I can be 'fixed.' Makes it pretty clear your ideas about those who happen to disagree with you. I thought that kind of approach was only for those who voted Republican?

And if because I hate Hilary you think that means I'm defacto Trump, even though the only thing I ever said remotely positive was the one time he said he doesn't care about weed, then that's your problem. I don't argue against Trump on here because everyone agrees, so there's no need for argument. The argument I bring forth is that Hilary is just as bad in similar and different ways.

I ask you to throw up links because you frequently say things that are almost impossible to respond to without more context than you initially provide - guessing what you (or anyone) mean rarely builds a productive conversation, so when I want to respond but need context, I ask you to provide it.

I don't put up links because I:
- try to provide context for responders in my reasoning;
- draw heavily on 50 years of watching US elections play out from all angles;
- am comfortable building arguments to support my points of view based on logic, reason, observation and experience;
- DO post links to supporting opinions/analyses/etc. when I have them, but...
- DON'T waste people's time & attention by linking to things that are not on point.

I did not say you were broken, or that you needed fixing: I said you seem to depend on lousy news sources; I also said your political conversations all seem to be with the same 'side' - meaning you post here as if you were talking with a different crowd on a different board.

I said THOSE THINGS are fixable, and they are. All I would get out of that would be more clarity from you in these conversations, and I think that would be good. It would make your posts easier to comment on productively, and that would IMO make for a better discussion.

As for Trumpish sentiments: my point was that you attack Clinton as if her election would be in any way comparable to Trump's - and you don't attack Trump. Fine, nothing interesting about bashing Trump: one can either see what's wrong with Trump as a candidate and likely president or one can't; but whatever Clinton's shortcomings - and I've got one hell of a list of them - none of them rise, individually or in concert, to the level of threat Trump and his base pose to the electoral process itself, and to public order, and to our ongoing self-government.

Far as I'm concerned you can host a Two-Minute Hate for Hillary every single day - but if you can't see how that could result in real disaster for the country by encouraging a Trump win, then maybe you could think about it some more...which is really all I wanted.

Stu, If I'm being disruptive or counter-productive, I will certainly bow out rather than seeing the thread close

 

[lwien]

bad is bad, period, end of story

Not the end of story. There are many kinds of bad, many steps between a little bad, kinda bad, bad, and lotsa bad. Hitler is on one end of the "bad" scale and a child telling a lie is on the other end with TONS of space in-between.

Yeah, I get that withholding my vote is possibly a vote for the other guy, but somehow that argument still isn't compelling enough for me to get out of bed on election day.

Snap, to me, the only way your stance would make any sense would be if you find the "bad" of Trump totally equal to the "bad" of Hillary. Do you?

self-imagined attack on you

You made IMO an intellectually lazy remark

CBL, I totally get your motivation in regards to your response to Snap, but you ARE being snarky with those comments. You can challenge Snap without pushing his buttons, eh? "Self-imagined" and "intellectually lazy", is labeling someone with negative traits and a response from Snap could either get you both banned from the thread or get the thread shut down. Neither one is an outcome that I'd like see.

 

[Snappo]

Everybody's a qualified personal judge and expert in all things, but they really have no idea...
That's life, that's politics...

 

[Gunky]

I confess to not understanding how anyone could hear Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the country and for special monitoring of Muslims etc. and not want to vote strategically to deny him the office. This goes against the constitution and the clear intentions of the founding fathers. It's just wrong. It doesn't matter which groups he is bigoted toward; whatever group or ethnicity he is blaming and persecuting, I'm one of them. My people have been blamed the same way in the past and I won't go along with it.

I've focused on one issue and that would be enough by itself but there are numerous issues about Putin's poodle which would make me vote strategically even if I weren't all that enchanted with the alternative. For example, Trump does not seem to realize that if one day the Russians decided to roll tanks westward across Europe there is pretty much nothing stopping them except the threat of US retaliation. He flirts with inviting them into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. They just grabbed Crimea and other parts of the Ukraine! Is he insane?

 

[cybrguy]

I confess to not understanding how anyone could hear Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the country and for special monitoring of Muslims etc. and not want to vote strategically to deny him the office.

Presumably you mean anyone other than another bigot. But I have to acknowledge that there may be a subset of Americans who are just afraid, and Donald gives them a target for their fear. They may not really be bigots in the traditional sense arising out of as belief that their target is inferior to them or wants to hurt them or take their stuff, but instead their fear (or ignorance) makes them susceptible to manipulation by someone who needs a boogeyman as a recruiting tools to get them to support HIS bigotry and agenda.

These are the folks who's minds and behavior can be changed by good argument or just by meeting, or better coming to know people of the targeted class. Call them bigots lite, or bigots by association. Their lack of experience with the targeted class makes it easier to see them as "the other" or "those guys" and not "one of us" when someone else is making them the scapegoat.

It is hard to blame people for being ignorant, but it is up to the rest of us to help them see that one doesn't need to be "like us" to be good valuable people deserving the same rights and love and support as the rest of us.

I think there may be a lot of folks who think they may vote for Trump who are not bad guys. They just don't get it (several possible its). And I think many of them have minds that can be changed.

 

[His_Highness]

Part of me wishes it were November already and another part of me wishes this would drag on longer since Trump can't help screwing himself.

 

[cybrguy]

I think there is still plenty of time for Trump to continue screwing himself.

I just hope it has a cumulative effect...

 

[Gunky]

Well he appeals to the tribal instincts of working class whites who happen just now to be part of a global dislocation resulting from global trends which are producing less employment for low skill/education workers. His solution is to eradicate the liberties that made us great and elevate one tribe above others. No wonder he sees a soulmate in the hegemonist Putin.

Make America great again, my foot. Make America grate again.

 

[Joel W.]

Talking with my right leaning bigoted in-laws a bit more and they seem to have 3 main issues they care about.

1. They are anti-abortion/pro life.
2. They are against gay marriage.
3. They are for anyone but Hillary.

There really does not seem to be any way for me to open their minds, on any of the above topics. There is no compromising or middle ground with them.

 

[lwien]

Talking with my right leaning bigoted in-laws a bit more and they seem to have 3 main issues they care about.

1. They are anti-abortion/pro life.
2. They are against gay marriage.
3. They are for anyone but Hillary.

There really does not seem to be any way for me to open their minds, on any of the above topics. There is no compromising or middle ground with them.

It has been my observation that at their very basic core, one of the primary differences between the mindsets of liberals and conservatives is that conservatives see the world in black an white while liberals see the world in shades of gray, therefore, for conservatives, there is no middle ground while liberals see a wide swath of gray between black and white. It's this difference that makes it seem like we are talking two different languages.

And, btw, this world view goes wayyyy beyond politics. It's almost as if our brains are wired differently and I think it has just as much to do with genetics, much like any personality trait does, as it has to do with what we're exposed to.

 

[Joel W.]

It has been my observation that at their very basic core, one of the primary differences between the mindsets of liberals and conservatives is that conservatives see the world in black an white while liberals see the world in shades of gray, therefore, for conservatives, there is no middle ground while liberals see a wide swath of gray between black and white. It's this difference that makes it seem like we are talking two different languages.

And, btw, this world view goes wayyyy beyond politics. It's almost as if our brains are wired differently and I think it has just as much to do with genetics, much like any personality trait does, as it has to do with what we're exposed to.

There is another observation that I have noticed and that is they seem to lack the ability to empathize with the other side or put themselves in someone else's shoes to explore the view.

 

[lwien]

There is another observation that I have noticed and that is they seem to lack the ability to empathize with the other side or put themselves in someone else's shoes to explore the view.

When you see the world in black and white, that inherently cancels out empathy, eh, unless of course, when one empathizes with someone who has the exact same view as theirs.

 

[Bdubbdiblets]

2 quick things:

Pence said there's no room for name calling and that what Obama said was unfortunate..demagogue? WTF? Is he even listening to his boss speak or is he doing that thing we did as kids when our parents would tell us something we didn't wanna hear...u know..hands plug ears and u go lalalalalala I can't hear you...

Also, trumps speech got more ratings so here we go with his spin. First of all Id like to say that this stat is meaningless. I and many of my buddies watched his speech with beer in hand...occasionally yelling at the TV. I know for a FACT that not all of those buddies watched hill dogs speach but they WILL be voting for her..train wreck syndrome. Gotta watch.

It's Saturday morning and I'm already trumpset

Back to my hoppers

 

[Silat]

Everybody's a qualified personal judge and expert in all things, but they really have no idea...
That's life, that's politics...

The train analogy:

 

[Silat]

It has been my observation that at their very basic core, one of the primary differences between the mindsets of liberals and conservatives is that conservatives see the world in black an white while liberals see the world in shades of gray, therefore, for conservatives, there is no middle ground while liberals see a wide swath of gray between black and white. It's this difference that makes it seem like we are talking two different languages.

And, btw, this world view goes wayyyy beyond politics. It's almost as if our brains are wired differently and I think it has just as much to do with genetics, much like any personality trait does, as it has to do with what we're exposed to.

Good post.
I have posted something about the issue of mindsets and conservative and liberal brains before and think I need to do it again.
This is not posted AT you my friend
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
https://braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492
http://www.alternet.org/election-20...conservatives-have-different-brain-structures

 

[cybrguy]

After reading the first link, I am entirely too depressed to read any further...

 

[CarolKing]

You would think since the republicans claim they are the more Christian party that they would act more Christian. Have more empathy for others and want to help the down and out. They constantly want to get rid of social programs that help the poor and sick.

The republicans contradict themselves on so any levels. Now they have decided on a candidate who acts like an evil dictator who seems to line himself up with the devil more than God. Where in the hell is the logic?

 

[lwien]

Where in the hell is the logic?

I don't think logic and emotion can occupy the same space. For the most part, I think people choose what they want rather than what they need. (and yeah, Mick, I hear ya.....)

And because of that, the thing that scares me the most about Trump is that fear is the most dominate emotion, and when I say that, I am totally aware of the merry-go-round thought that I just stated.

 

[TeeJay1952]

 

[grokit]

Trump does not seem to realize that if one day the Russians decided to roll tanks westward across Europe there is pretty much nothing stopping them except the threat of US retaliation.

That and actual us retaliation, by the nato troops already in europe. For russia, nato isn’t defensive. Since 1999, nato has launched wars in kosovo, afghanistan and libya. Each one ended in regime change.

It's almost as if our brains are wired differently

Not so much genetics but the parenting; check out the strict father vs. nurturant parent schools of thought as it relates to the political persuasion of the child. The resulting "liberals and conservatives" usually not only disagree with one another, but view the "other side" as largely incoherent. Moreover, they use the same language to mean different things, and they make different issues the focus of their campaigns.

A "nurturant parent" family is one that revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other family member, with open communication between all parties, and with each family member pursuing their own vision of happiness. In contrast, the "strict father" family revolves around the idea that parents teach their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined through "tough love".

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)

 

[lwien]

Not so much genetics but the parenting

I think that genetics plays a HUGE part in how we view the world and so it stands to reason that it would also play a huge part in how we parent our kids.

Can environment and conscious thought alter our genetic predispositions? Sure they can but it's an uphill battle, kind of akin to breaking an addiction.

 

[grokit]

To this I say:

what the world needs now
is another folk singer
like I need a hole in my head

I think that genetics plays a HUGE part in how we view the world and so it stands to reason that it would also play a huge part in how we parent our kids.

Can environment and conscious thought alter our genetic predispositions? Sure they can but it's an uphill battle, kind of akin to breaking an addiction.

We're going to have to disagree on this. When it comes to our psychology, it's all nurture. Unless our genetics are defective in a certain area, they have no bearing on our eventual neural connections.

edit: a quick overview of how this can play out in our politics
- the movie trading places makes a similar point