The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[KimDracula]

What's your deal? Stop quoting me and then reducing what I'm saying into something glib. It's unproductive and rude.

 

[GetLeft]

Politics are little other than theater for the masses paid for by the folks who want to keep us distracted while they conduct their business.

Strangely enough, politics still matter for around 99% of us. (In the US that is -- can't speak with confidence for others.)

And they tell us things like: regardless of how scarey trumpness is (trump may be a relatively new phenomenon but 'trumpness' is not), it is going away.

In time we'll actually be led largely by people who have known oppression, not by people who have known only priveledge.

 

[t-dub]

What's your deal? Stop quoting me and then reducing what I'm saying into something glib. It's unproductive and rude.

Well, I'm glad you finally showed what you are about with that post.

Reducing topic volume with evolving vocabulary, and understanding of shared concepts, is essential in modern communication evolution and discourse. It flows.

 

[Silat]

Yes you are obviously correct. However, when @Silat comes up with his own set of facts regarding the history of the Clinton's I feel I can object to that part of his argument.

Please tell me what I made up. I need a good laugh.

 

[Gunky]

Hey, civil disobedience is a fine old American tradition. Don't knock it. Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay about it in 1849. My generation, which came of age during the Vietnam war draft era, was forged in the fire of civil disobedience. The civil rights movement involved a good deal of civil disobedience and law-breaking and Martin Luther King was arrested and jailed numerous times. If you think that makes him a bad guy we have nothing to talk about.

It's funny to hear the absolutism and puritanism of the young these days. Hillary says something somewhat inaccurate and there are banshee screams: SHE TOLD A LIE! OMG! It's as though these people have lost all ability to rank things in a spectrum of important - trivial. Some of you absolutists would benefit from reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln or seeing the film.

 

[t-dub]

Please tell me what I made up. I need a good laugh.

@Silat - not going over this yet again with you. I have outlined my points, they are legally irrefutable. You need to just move on to another point and recognize that Clinton did get caught and there may be more coming with H.

 

[Silat]

Its not about lying about sex. He lied under oath in court. He entered into a deal with miss Lewinsky to have her lie as well to subvert the legal system. He tried to get his secretary to lie under oath for him but she refused and reported it.

So its more than lying about sex. Hell I'm with you. He can lie to the American people all he wanted, I don't care, but, the line should be drawn at perjury, corrupting and influencing witnesses, and subverting the legal system.

It was his choice but he had to do it. If he didn't what would have happened would have been terrible.

WOW. You accused me of making things up. So I guess I can do the same to you.
Provide evidence that he made a deal with Monica to have her lie.
Make my day.

@Silat - not going over this yet again with you. I have outlined my points, they are legally irrefutable. You need to just move on to another point and recognize that Clinton did get caught and here may be more coming with H.

Of course you are not going over it again. You accused me and cannot back it up.

 

[grokit]

So the deleted emails were merely civil disobedience?
Why didn't I think of that !

 

[t-dub]

Provide evidence that he made a deal with Monica to have her lie.

Its in the official reports that you do not care to read. Monica admitted it! Look it up yourself, its a matter of public record. I have already provided links in this thread for source materials well and beyond what you guys do. And I have no left/right/altright/whatever agenda.

 

[Gunky]

So the deleted emails were merely civil disobedience?
Why didn't I think of that !

I was replying to this:

Ahhhhhh . . . now I understand. So you say that the social contract between you and the government no longer exists because they offended you in some way. Thanks for clarifying that.

So you respect laws that you like but do not obey laws you don't like. Thanks, I get you now.

However I suspect you knew that and opted for a cheap shot anyway.

All these law-abiding purists are breaking federal law every time the vape cannabis. By their lights they should be in jail now. No ifs ands or buts. Break the law - do some time.

 

[t-dub]

However I suspect you knew that and opted for a cheap shot anyway.

Well you never know. If it works for the Clinton's I can blur the lines as well eh?

 

[Gunky]

Well you never know. If it works for the Clinton's I can blur the lines as well eh?

Aren't you blurring the lines regularly by blowing dope? Get over yourself, Mr. Selective Rectitude. When it suits you, you are happy enough to break rules. Nobody else is granted that luxury, however, which is hypocrisy.

Mod note: The disrespectful and accusatory tone of this post is flirting with a warning point.

 

[t-dub]

Aren't you blurring the lines regularly by blowing dope?

Ummm . . . no . .. . I am in full compliance with the laws of my state. For what reason would you be bringing up this subject?

Edit:

When it suits you, you are happy enough to break rules. Nobody else is granted that luxury, however, which is hypocrisy.

Now I see your full cognitive error. You are trying to accuse me of hypocrisy in a legal matter that does not exist. You better know what you are talking about if you want to pursue this. Your total argument is void as far as I am concerned.

 

[Gunky]

Ummm . . . no . .. . I am in full compliance with the laws of my state.

By your logic everything you are accusing Hillary of doing wrong is actually also in full compliance with the laws of your state. Just like you, she broke no state laws. So what is your problem?

I remember Richard Lee talking about cannabis use at a lecture at Oaksterdam University in Oakland a few years ago. There were a couple of graceful, four feet tall vegging plants in the room under a light. Richard told us just being there in the presence of the plants, we were engaging in civil disobedience. Feds had raided the place a couple times in the preceding year. Every time we take a hit - civil disobedience. Federal law prohibits it, in case you weren't paying attention.

 

[t-dub]

I believe everything you are accusing Hillary of doing wrong is actually also in full compliance with the laws of your state. So what is your problem?

Oh . . . very clever, however what she did is federal in nature and not state oriented. There is NO state law that could do anything here with regards to what she has done. Its not the state's job here so thanks for pointing that out. Her federal crimes will come into focus soon.

 

[Farid]

"Unjust laws are meant to be broken" is not an excuse to pick and choose which laws you want to follow. It means that people should break unjust laws, face the punishment, and if enough people don't follow the law, it will lose credibility.

It only works on laws which are universally accepted as antiquated or outdated. It does not apply to perjury, which will never be socially acceptable.

For Christs' sake we're talking about impeachment here. If you Clinton bots were facing a Trump presidency, would you be saying the same thing about impeachment? No, you'd be trying to get Trump impeached, and the other side would be accusing you of using impeachment to fulfill partisan desires. That's the thing about the two party system- it works both ways to fuck us. The sad thing is that Clinton supporters are so blindly trusting of their candidate that they will not see how the party system has screwed this country this election.

 

[ReggieB]

I'd like to think people are just a bit more trusting of clinton than they are of trump (3500 lawsuits and counting, well documented non-payer, constant flip-flopping on issues but I don't see anyone putting out daily posts that trump should be in court over trump U) and most here know that it is a lesser of 2 evils game but then, in a 2 party system, isn't it always?

But wait, what's that? It's a 4 party race?

 

[Farid]

When Dr. Jill Stein is tweeting stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/769972901428748289

Followed by this:
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/770244900289974276

Which highlights how out of touch she is. She doesn't realize that Harambe is a meme, and that is why her tweet got so much media coverage. If she doesn't have advisers telling her this kind of thing, how could she run a country?

I think it's fair to say it's a 3 party race at best. The Democrats versus the Frankenstein Republicans versus the Libertarian party. And I agree with Stein's stances on so many issues, but she is just not presidential material.

 

[ReggieB]

nope, you have 4 candidates up for election of president, whether they're electable is another matter entirely.

 

[Farid]

I'm not entirely sure that both will be on the ballot in all 50 states. If so, this is the first election in which that is the case. Either way, you know exactly what I am talking about. Third parties are not even allowed in the debates most of the time, so it is certainly a 2 party system, and I will stick with that statement.

 

[ReggieB]

This is how fledgling parties start out, with low support, again, there are 4 candidates up, if they can't garner enough support to get on the ballot in 50 states, who's fault is that? The voters or the candidates? I'm not trying to be contrary just pointing out that if there was enough sustained support for more than 2 candidates then there would be more then 2 on all 50 ballots.

We have loads of parties over the pond, it doesn't particularly solve the 2 party race but it does allow everyone a platform, not all of them get on the debates but if you pony up the money, you can stand for election as an MP, all your party has to do is get enough votes in all of the other seats to gain a majority, even the monster raving looney party has a chance to rule.

 

[lwien]

SHE TOLD A LIE! OMG!

Drives me absolutely nuts when Trump accuses her of lying when he seems to be lying in just about every sentence.

The sad thing is that Clinton supporters are so blindly trusting of their candidate....

Same thing can be said of Trump here, eh?

Hypocrisy in politics. I don't think one can exist without the other.

 

[Joel W.]

There are 5 major (lol) political parties here but you really never hear about the libertarians, Green or Constitutional parties.

Trump has a way of getting all the coverage for free.

 

[TeeJay1952]

The horserace has become more important than the horses.

 

[His_Highness]

Any attempt to equate Bill's impeachment and subsequent lies under oath with illegal MJ use is a real stretch. It's not about what caused someone to lie under oath.... It's just about lying under oath.... perjury.

Why isn't it the same? I hope I never get caught but if I did......I would not lie under oath. I know the laws I'm breaking and lying would just compound the issue. Someone mentioned civil disobedience....If you're practicing civil disobedience you wouldn't lie under oath because you're trying to shine a light on an unjust law and that requires you own it.

I could plead guilty and/or refuse to incriminate myself just like Bill could have. If asked to incriminate others .... nope.... plead guilty, take your licks and otherwise keep quiet. Bill f'd up when he decided to make things worse by perjuring himself. As a lawyer.....He literally chose to break the law and take that risk.
Read my lips.....I did not have a session with that vape. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?