The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[yogoshio]

I'll just leave this excerpt from Washington's farewell address here and I won't bring this topic up again:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

 

[macbill]

Beautiful words from a man who owned other human beings.

 

[cybrguy]

George Washington's personal belief notwithstanding, I am NOT a religious man, but I consider myself a very moral man. Would you, by virtue of your beliefs, deny me that bit of self awareness? Dare you even suggest I am NOT a moral man?

Not in person I am sure, but how bout from behind your nym?

Edit: On rereading this line I don't like the tone. What I mean is only that we often say things differently online than in person.

Again, we are way off our purpose here...

 

[Snappo]

The world would be a fine fine place with "Live and let live", The Golden Rule, and respect and protect all life and Mother Earth ... take away all religion and mankind will be on it's way to equality, prosperity, and far less bloodshed. The beastly nature of politics is bad enough without the co-mingling interference of religion. That's my opinion, over simplified as it may be.

 

[Vicki]

The world would be a fine fine place with "Live and let live", The Golden Rule, and respect and protect all life and Mother Earth ... take away all religion and mankind will be on it's way to equality, prosperity, and far less bloodshed. The beastly nature of politics is bad enough without the co-mingling interference of religion. That's my opinion, over simplified as it may be.

Fucking separation of church and state god damnit.

 

[grokit]

Dare you even suggest I am NOT a moral man?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...

 

[cybrguy]

Campaign manager believes ‘undercover Trump voters’ exist
08/24/16 12:50 PM—Updated 08/24/16 01:33 PM

By Steve Benen

When a presidential campaign is losing, it’s difficult for aides to answers questions about the polls. Usually, they try to either point to the calendar (“There’s plenty of time for the polls to change, and we’re optimistic about breaking through”) or they’ll downplay the importance of polling itself (“The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day”).

But occasionally we’ll see a more problematic posture: a candidate’s supporters will argue that the polls are somehow skewed.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who’s scheduled to be on “The Rachel Maddow Show” this evening, sat down with the U.K.’s Channel 4, which asked about the Republican candidate’s current deficit. Conway pointed to “hidden” Trump backers who’ve been excluded from surveys.

The dozens of recent polls that show Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump both nationally and in battleground states are, according to Conway, “cherry-picked polling numbers that are put out there by media outlets that are also bent on his destruction.”

“He performs consistently better in online polling where a human being is not talking to another human being about what he or she may do in the election,” she told Channel 4, in comments first flagged by MSNBC. “It’s because it’s become socially desirable, if you’re a college educated person in the United States of America, to say that you’re against Donald Trump.”

“The hidden Trump vote in this country is a very significant proposition,” she added.​

Asked if Conway, a longtime GOP pollster, has been able to quantify this, she said she has, but wasn’t prepared to discuss it publicly. “It’s a project we’re doing internally,” Conway said. “I call it the ‘undercover Trump voter,’ but it’s real.”

And while anything’s possible, it’s best to be skeptical about this.

We talked a bit last year about the so-called “Bradley Effect,” in which the public lies to pollsters about their true political preferences because they’re embarrassed to support unpopular candidates (or occasionally oppose popular candidates for embarrassing reasons). Some social scientists believe the phenomenon is real; others don’t. Your mileage may vary.

What matters in 2016, however, is that there’s no statistical evidence to bolster Conway’s assertions: “At the Huffington Post, David Rothschild outlined the data. In the primary, yes, online polls showed Trump with more support than live-caller ones. But that support was actually too high, Rothschild points out. And in the general election, the same split doesn’t exist.”

In fact, it’s worth emphasizing that the polling in the presidential race thus far has generally been quite good. Sure, pollsters famously got Michigan’s Democratic primary wrong, but this failure stands out precisely because it was so unusual: the rest of the results from the other major contests were largely correct.

And for Trump supporters, that spells trouble. To be sure, the Trump campaign isn’t the first to suggest the polls are overlooking its silent army of backers, but no modern presidential campaign has clung to this line and gone on to win.

 

[Gunky]

I think we are about due for another Trump eruption. This appears to be Trump's idea of how to campaign: don't bother with the traditional staff, pollsters, data analysis, local ground offices etc, just say something really outrageous about once a week. It's The Donald Show.

 

[t-dub]

Just once/week? Seemed like more to me.

For balance . . .

 

[Nooky72]

Trump is a Grade A goon

 

[His_Highness]

@t-dub and @Nooky72 - thanks for those last two posts. I've been trying to lose weight and now I've lost my appetite....................... For food and our political system.

 

[Silat]

being wrong is NOT THE SAME as lying, but I remember my kids having trouble w/ that one

====
Almost CERTAINLY not true: they have found NOTHING to charge her with, despite years of digging at public expense (doesn't that seem...WASTEFUL to you, as a taxpayer?). THEY LITERALLY HAVE NOTHING. AT ALL.

Imagining that she's about to be indicted is frankly stupid. Sorry.

Not aimed at you.
Just some facts for those who do not know the facts.
BENGHAZI - YES THE VIDEO WAS PART OF IT
A Year Later, We Finally Have a Pretty Good Idea What Happened in Benghazi

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-have-pretty-good-idea-what-happened-benghazi

=============================================
A Comprehensive Guide To Benghazi Myths And Facts
After nearly four years of right-wing myths about the September 2012 attack on an American diplomatic compound and CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, and as Republicans and Democrats on the House Select Committee on the attacks release their reports, Media Matters has compiled a list of more than 50 myths and facts regarding the origin of the attack, the security surrounding the compounds, the Obama administration’s handling of the attack during and after its occurrence, attacks on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other lies and misinformation regarding the Benghazi attack.
http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240

False. The FBI admitted they found multiple chargeable offenses, but recommended no charges. Very different. If this was CEO with gov. info they would be in prison right now. Political class almost always gets away with it.

Links to the FBI saying they found chargeable offenses and did not prosecute please.

 

[Joel W.]

Here are the 3 we know of. Old news..

1. Mishandling Classified Information
Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). See above.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. "

"I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/fbi-director-recommends-no-charges-be

Yes, laws were broken but there was no "intent" (bullshit) to break them, so they decided not to charge her.


"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" -Mark Twain

Just thinking of all the laws I never intended to break and yet I was still charged.. Quite the list...(not convicted)

Edit:.
Her intent was privacy, and that is against the law.

So , I say she fully intended to break the law when she lied and said she got approval for the server, when now we know she did not.

 

[cybrguy]

Ha ha ha ho ho ho hee hee hee...

Ann Coulter and Trump’s Can of Worms
by Martin Longman
August 25, 2016 8:49 AM

I learned a long time ago not take any bait Ann Coulter is offering because that’s how she makes herself rich. But it’s kind of fun to see Josh Marshall having so much fun at her expense. The way Trump “softened” his immigration stance at the same moment that Coulter’s new book was launching was kind of exquisite, considering that the book praises Trump above all for his hardline anti-immigrant stance. Even so, I’d let this whole episode pass without noting if it didn’t tie into something else that was in the news yesterday.

Here’s how Marshall characterizes Coulter’s discomfort:

Just today her new book In Trump We Trust was released, a genuflecting, tour de force of leader principle obsequiousness. As many have noted, in the book itself she writes that Trump can do anything, change his position on anything – none of it matters. She and they are that devoted. Everything except shift on immigration.

So today, the very day her book comes out he shambles his way to embracing the Rubio/Bush ‘Amnesty’ agenda he spent the last year railing against and using as a cudgel to destroy the Republican establishment’s favored ones. She even had an opening book party hosted by Breitbart.

Already at the book party, photos snapped by Twitters journos showed a sad visage and perhaps a growing thunder …​

That thunder is something Glenn Beck is warning about in his typical apocalyptic tones. He invited Trump voters to call into his show yesterday and explain their support for him, and he seems to have been badly rattled by the experience. He even agreed to go on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show last night to talk about it. I guess Beck has a variety of concerns about Trump and his fans, but what’s really got him going is the realization that there are hordes of people out there who took Trump seriously about his mass deportation promises, and they’re going to be irate if Trump doesn’t follow through. To demonstrate the point, let’s look at a caller named “Nate from Virginia.”

“As long as he does the basic things, the foundational things, which is build a wall, he’s not going to have people like me coming after him,” Nate responded.

“So if he doesn’t build a wall like China, then he’s in trouble?” Beck said.

“Oh, he’s in so much trouble,” the caller quickly shot back. “You don’t even understand the backlash of us, the ones who are so frustrated and angry and tired of all the political stuff. We’re going to come after him personally. You know what I mean? We’re going to get him.”​

The caller later seemed to soften his stance a little, somewhat going along with Beck’s suggestion that impeachment might be a sufficient punishment. Still, Beck pressed him to clarify that he wasn’t recommending violence, and the response was “Well, I mean, hey, you yourself said he’s condoned violence in the past, hasn’t he?”

And then the caller further explained his position:

“I’m just saying, he’s appealing to people who are very frustrated and angry. Their frustration and anger can only be subsided if he makes his promises true,” Nate said. “And he has a lot on his shoulders. Maybe he himself doesn’t even know how much. But if he doesn’t come through for us, he’s going to have bigger problems, bigger problems than what you know.”​

Yeah, I know that this is just one caller to the radio show of an unhinged shock jock, but I don’t bring it up to cherrypick.

As a political matter, Trump may win more votes than he loses by adopting a more status quo/mainline stance on immigration and undocumented workers, but there are a lot of people who didn’t care about any other issue in his whole campaign. There’s a reason why a slew of white supremacists have praised Trump not only for his positions but for making white supremacy respectable again.

They probably can live with Trump losing, but having Trump betray the cause before the first ballot has been cast?

That might be more problematic. For Trump.

Either way, though, Trump opened a can of worms and perhaps even Pandora’s Box. He can pivot away from the issue that got him to this point, but he can’t undo the damage he’s already done.

 

[His_Highness]

Ha ha ha ho ho ho hee hee hee...


That thunder is something Glenn Beck is warning about in his typical apocalyptic tones. He invited Trump voters to call into his show yesterday and explain their support for him, and he seems to have been badly rattled by the experience. He even agreed to go on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show last night to talk about it. I guess Beck has a variety of concerns about Trump and his fans, but what’s really got him going is the realization that there are hordes of people out there who took Trump seriously about his mass deportation promises, and they’re going to be irate if Trump doesn’t follow through. To demonstrate the point, let’s look at a caller named “Nate from Virginia.”

“As long as he does the basic things, the foundational things, which is build a wall, he’s not going to have people like me coming after him,” Nate responded.

“So if he doesn’t build a wall like China, then he’s in trouble?” Beck said.

“Oh, he’s in so much trouble,” the caller quickly shot back. “You don’t even understand the backlash of us, the ones who are so frustrated and angry and tired of all the political stuff. We’re going to come after him personally. You know what I mean? We’re going to get him.”​

The caller later seemed to soften his stance a little, somewhat going along with Beck’s suggestion that impeachment might be a sufficient punishment. Still, Beck pressed him to clarify that he wasn’t recommending violence, and the response was “Well, I mean, hey, you yourself said he’s condoned violence in the past, hasn’t he?”

And then the caller further explained his position:

“I’m just saying, he’s appealing to people who are very frustrated and angry. Their frustration and anger can only be subsided if he makes his promises true,” Nate said. “And he has a lot on his shoulders. Maybe he himself doesn’t even know how much. But if he doesn’t come through for us, he’s going to have bigger problems, bigger problems than what you know.”​

Yeah, I know that this is just one caller to the radio show of an unhinged shock jock, but I don’t bring it up to cherrypick.

As a political matter, Trump may win more votes than he loses by adopting a more status quo/mainline stance on immigration and undocumented workers, but there are a lot of people who didn’t care about any other issue in his whole campaign. There’s a reason why a slew of white supremacists have praised Trump not only for his positions but for making white supremacy respectable again.

They probably can live with Trump losing, but having Trump betray the cause before the first ballot has been cast?

That might be more problematic. For Trump.

Either way, though, Trump opened a can of worms and perhaps even Pandora’s Box. He can pivot away from the issue that got him to this point, but he can’t undo the damage he’s already done.

Interesting point of view. Irony and karma all rolled up into one. What happens when you're own creation turns on you. I'm having visions of the Island of Dr. Moreau or is that Frankenstein?

 

[yogoshio]

Let's just all ignore the post that confirms Clinton's perjury...

 

[Silat]

Did you read the link you used?
"evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
Only statutes and regulations were POTENTIALLY violated. Those are not the same thing as you are implying.
And for the record, Comey is a REPUBLICAN.

 

[cybrguy]

The sad thing for the Hillary haters is that she could be guilty of nearly all the things they accuse her of and still be a MUCH better choice for POTUS than Donald Trump. MUCH BETTER and certainly much more prepared and knowledgeable.

There is NO argument FOR Donald trump. None.

 

[yogoshio]

Who cares about party affiliation when laws and statutes are violated? That's a systemic issue, not a partisan one.

And the term "potential" is used as a legality, as saying it specifically "is" (irony that this distinction was brought about by another Clinton investigation) is considered a liable statement. Saying potential means Clinton can't sue.

This would be more than enough for any normal citizen to be indicted and law enforcement involvement.

 

[CarolKing]

Trump is aligning himself with a large group of racist people. Not sure what he's thinking having Stephen Bannon on his team. All this info regarding the ALT Right Movement, it's associated with anti Semitic and racial viewpoints. I've been reading up about them. It works out well for the democrats. Why would Trump be calling Hillary a bigot? That's calling the kettle black. It makes Trump look foolish.

Hilary's next campaign add will blow Trump out of the water it looks like.

It was funny, I was listening to Trump yesterday, he was making fun of the celebrities that were backing Hillary. They were all washed up. Unlike the celebrities that Trump had at his convention, like Chachee from Happy Days. He is a damn cartoon character. Only 75 more days left until the election I think I saw today. Looking forward to the end.

Edit
I find myself tuning out all the stuff he's saying about Hillary because he's such a liar. The things he's saying are so outlandish. He gets a little piece of info and he puts the Trump spin on it - basically telling lies. Like she will do away with the Second Amendment.

I do think some of the info that they are getting from the emails look bad tsken out of context. Trump is too horrible of a person for most people to vote for him. That's what I'm telling myself. I really don't want to lose faith in the American people.

 

[KimDracula]

The accusations against Clinton are not really concerning. They're just not. If you don't like her then it's light ammunition to use in arguments but that's pretty much it. If her biggest opponents are able to find nothing but the appearance of potential impropriety then they may as well declare her as trustworthy as any politician that has to operate in the system we have. There is no quid pro quo on evidence anywhere and if you're worried about her e-mails then you should probably do some research on how effective our government is as a whole when it comes to state-of-the-art communications and security protocols. As CarolKing points out additionally: when the opponent is Donald Trump these rumors and baseless accusations mean less than nothing.

 

[Silat]

Who cares about party affiliation when laws and statutes are violated? That's a systemic issue, not a partisan one.

And the term "potential" is used as a legality, as saying it specifically "is" (irony that this distinction was brought about by another Clinton investigation) is considered a liable statement. Saying potential means Clinton can't sue.

This would be more than enough for any normal citizen to be indicted and law enforcement involvement.

Again: NO LAWS WERE BROKEN.
There is nothing here but the same 25 yr old reich wing machine that tries to destroy Dems with falsehoods.

 

[CarolKing]

Bologna

 

[His_Highness]

Hillary calls on the maker of the Epipen to lower the price immediately and calls the pricing explosion outrageous. Couldn't agree more.

Anyone seen the articles regarding the increase in ACA premiums for 2017 along with way less choice in insurers? How about a little righteous indignation for that too?

 

[Silat]

Vladimir Putin, the most interesting man in the world and beloved conservative macho man, riding his sparkle pony, while the right and the media worry about Whitewater, email, Hillary murdering people and a charitable foundation.

And he actually said it as a sign of respect to his right wing base: