The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[TeeJay1952]

For me it is sort of a Logic Bomb.
Am I or do I want to be a politician? No, why not?
I don't want to compromise, make deals, give tit for tat and hang out with people I disagree with so I can manipulate them.
What did H do?
All the above.
She did it so I don't have to.
Did she do it for her and hers or general welfare?
My goodness, she has sacrificed her life hanging out with Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich. Fighting the good fight.
You go Girl!

 

[psychonaut]

@grokit date is wrote in an incorrect format, document is null and void =)

 

[grokit]

@grokit date is wrote in an incorrect format

How un-american of her

 

[KimDracula]

Those of you who continue to simply assume that Clinton is dishonest and corrupt despite the lack of any evidence have a bias that makes you cast doubt on everything, which is what her opponents want, just like those Merchants of Doubt referred to by that article on the last page. She's not innocent until proven guilty to you; her guilt simply hasn't been found yet. That should be adequate proof of your own bias. The very fact that her enemies have so little to go on after so much effort should go some distance to exonerating her.

You owe it to yourselves to at least find good reasons for opposing the one qualified candidate for the job. This shouldn't be hard, btw. She's a career politician who has wielded a lot of influence and power in the government of the most powerful nation which does lots of controversial and questionable things all over the world yet those who hate her are grousing about what exactly she recalls about her security training and flogging her over her charity.

So many Hillary haters and yet so few real reasons given for it.

 

[grokit]

For me it's always been about the body count. She panders to people of color to get the votes she needs at home, while dropping bombs on and enabling our partners to do the same to people of color abroad.

"I'm not a big fan of regime change."

 

[KimDracula]

For me it's always been about the body count. She panders to people of color to get the votes she needs at home, while dropping bombs on and enabling our partners to do the same to people of color abroad.

"I'm not a big fan of regime change."

Thank you. This is an entirely legitimate criticism which I share. I don't think we really have a choice in this matter, however. I don't expect Trump to be exactly dovish and Congress continues to let the White House pretty much do whatever it wants to. I do wish more time was spent on these kinds of real criticisms, though. It seems awfully lazy to me that opponents are going after nonsense. Then again, Republicans are pretty complicit when it comes to the body count so maybe that has something to do with it.

EDIT: I guess I read grokit's post quickly and missed the part about pandering. I don't really agree with that and think the accusation about dropping bombs is overly broad and lacks nuance. I do agree with the peace-loving nature behind the sentiment wholeheartedly, however.

 

[ReggieB]

It's an unfortunate effect of having to adopt a regime of your own when you come to power, if the world was perfect when she got there then I'd say all of it was fair criticism, clearly some issues she and obama own but the past has a habit of being involved in the future of the people that come next...

 

[KimDracula]

It's an unfortunate effect of having to adopt a regime of your own when you come to power, if the world was perfect when she got there then I'd say all of it was fair criticism, clearly some issues she and obama own but the past has a habit of being involved in the future of the people that come next...

Definitely. This is why I would hesitate to blame any one leader for the entire state of affairs (although W's administration certainly did us no favors by creating the vacuum in Iraq it's not even like that was the cause of everything wrong). It's not really about assigning blame for me; I just wish we were able to focus our foreign policy in a way that we could be more proud of. It often gets complicated when humanitarian aid means military conflict and the unintended consequences that follow but it's pretty hard to rationalize the constant loss of innocent life. It's something that always seems to happen. When powers fight the powerless end up suffering.

 

[cybrguy]

I find it implausible that she can't remember if she got the training or not. Can you? I mean, we all forget things but forgetting a training on security issues when those security issues are so paramount to the job that you are doing?

If you never got the training, you say, "I never got the training". You don't say, "I don't recall.", 'cause that statement leaves room for doubt.

While I don't find it implausible I do find it unlikely. And whether she got the official briefing or not, there were certainly people on her staff who would/should have discussed it with her at some point.
I also realize that she is a lawyer and knows how to answer questions without implicating herself, as all lawyers do.

On the other hand, I don't really care if a few documents with some classified info made it into email chains that she was a part of unless we were talking about something that may have mattered greatly or put someone or something at risk. If that was what we were taking about this would be a whole different conversation. It is not.

I am quite certain if you did an audit of virtually ANYONE in the diplomatic core you will find some slippage in communications. Especially given the tendency in the intelligence community to classify huge volumes of information that is no risk to anything in an overabundance of caution. And the fact that most if not practically all the items in question were classified after the fact.

All that being said, it still concerns me if Clinton wasn't using the proper level of caution in her communication and it is a lesson learned that is now unlikely to be repeated. At this point I am perfectly fine with that. I think continuing to beat her up over it serves no purpose other than to try and make her a scarier prospect than Trump, and that is not really possible.

I would also remind folks of where much of this (earlier) info even came from. In the age of wikileaks and Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, the fact that Hillary has all this attention for some accidental slips in protocol is somewhat comical.

 

[Snappo]

How un-american of her

For me, the format of the date makes the entire document suspect as to authenticity, as does the signature. North Americans born & raised typically don't write the numeral day before the month, and signatures are copy/pasted onto documents from innumerable internet image sources such as the one linked below. And I don't believe HRC ever signs with "H R Clinton - it is either Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary R Clinton, or just Hillary, depending on the officiousness of the document or book.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+Clinton+signatures+images&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirtIzt4PPOAhXBGx4KHdrdC_kQsAQIHQ&biw=729&bih=285

 

[cybrguy]

She panders to people of color to get the votes she needs at home, while dropping bombs on and enabling our partners to do the same to people of color abroad.

I tried not to reply to this but I can't ignore it. Pandering is what Donald Trump does. Lying to your audience about what you have done and intend to do for them is pandering. Making promises you have no intention of keeping is pandering.

Hillary Clinton has actively supported children, women and minorities for her entire adult life. She has tried to help the middle class. She has tried to reduce gun violence and she has tried to promote healthcare including the ACA and her own attempts as first lady. Hillary doesn't pander, she actually does shit for her constituents. There is a HUGE difference. HUGE!

 

[CarolKing]

Trump needs to get a huge segment of the minority voter, he's not going to be able to do that. I think some white college age men may go with a third party.

IMO I think those sitting on the fence will wait until the last minute or just decide not to vote.

Actually Trump looked ridiculous pandering to the Hispanics and black voter over the last week. Yes I said pandering and no I don't think Hillary panders to minorities.

Low income families can get free medical for children - black, white or brown because of Hillary Clinton. That happened back in the 1990s. Not sure if all the Governors take advantage of this? It's there for families that need it. The schools in my state make sure families know about it.

Edit
Bill Maher brought this to my attention. There are Republican governors that won't allow Obama care to help their poor citizens of their state. So these folks don't have medical insurance which would have cost them nothing. People have died in these states because of it. Now that is a CRIME IMO.

My drug addicted, homeless son has medical insurance now because of Obamacare. I know some of you haven't been helped by low cost or free medical insurance. I feel better knowing at least my son can get rehab if he chooses. This has been a weight off my shoulders.

 

[grokit]

... the constant loss of innocent life.

To the tune of 13 dead innocent yemeni civilians per day, or 10,000 and counting.
That's just in yemen, for those keeping score.
We destroyed a fourth doctors without borders hospital in the last 10 months, yea team.

U.N. warns of "appalling levels of human despair" in Yemen,
while the U.S. stands by its "key ally" Saudi Arabia


Yemenis carry the body of a child they uncovered from under the rubble of houses destroyed by Saudi airstrikes near Sana'a Airport, Yemen on March 26, 2015 (Credit: AP/Hani Mohammed)

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/de...r-day-u-s-reaffirms-support-for-saudi-arabia/

 

[ReggieB]

better to have their ear and try and reform them from the inside, instead of attacking from the outside... Do you think that figure will go up or down if you condemned them?

 

[cybrguy]

@CarolKing mentions this above, but I think more info is better...
-------------------
Citizens United chief takes leadership role on Team Trump
09/02/16 12:47 PM—Updated 09/02/16 01:19 PM

By Steve Benen
When Steve Bannon signed on as the CEO of Donald Trump’s campaign, it marked a stunning development in Republican politics: Breitbart News was effectively in charge of the Republican presidential nominee’s national operation. It was emblematic of the GOP’s fringe taking over.

Perhaps, then, it shouldn’t have come as too big of a surprise to see David Bossie join the same team in a leadership role. The Washington Post reported:

David N. Bossie, the veteran conservative operative who has investigated the Clintons for more than two decades, has been named Donald Trump’s deputy campaign manager. […]
Bossie participated Thursday in strategy sessions at Trump Tower where he was introduced to campaign aides and Trump associates, according to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. Conway said Bossie would be assisting her with managing day-to-day operations and with strategic planning.​

The challenge is knowing where to start.

For those who were politically engaged in the 1990s, Bossie’s name may sound familiar: he rose to prominence as a relentless Republican congressional staffer, hell-bent on tearing down the Clintons at all costs. After Bossie was caught engaging in unethical behavior, House GOP leaders forced his ouster.

Former George H.W. Bush famously rejected Bossie’s work, dismissing his “filthy campaign tactics.”

The Republican operative eventually parlayed that notoriety into his own organization, called Citizens United Not Timid. The name may sound clumsy, but Bossie chose the wording based on its vulgar acronym.

Of course, Citizens United’s work was also the subject of a historic Supreme Court case that ultimately opened the door to greater corporate influence in American political campaigns. Washington Monthly’s Nancy LeTourneau noted the irony of Trump, who used to denounce super PACs, hiring the guy who was responsible for creating super PACs.

But perhaps most interesting of all is the Republican megadonor that ties multiple, seemingly disparate threads together.

The Washington Post’s report noted that Bossie is “a friend of Bannon and Conway whose political projects have often overlapped with his own. He is close to the secretive Mercer family, who have funded his organizations and been major backers of Trump’s candidacy.”

That’s no small detail. As Rachel noted on the show last week, hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer financed a super PAC that Kellyanne Conway used to run; Mercer is also reportedly the single largest funder of Breitbart News, which was led by Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon; and now Bossie has joined Team Trump by way of Mercer-backed organizations.

The Post added, “That leaves three Mercer allies – Bannon, Conway and Bossie – atop the Trump campaign.”
----------------
The first 15 minutes of Rachel's show last night are worth a look, especially if you weren't watching in '92'...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-hires-life-long-clinton-attacker-757313603951

 

[Snappo]

 

[cybrguy]

Good thing that isn't a vid. We might not like what comes next...

Seriously cool lizard nonetheless...

 

[Snappo]

One of our world's GREATEST MINDS and TALENTS (the website link takes forever to load... it is clunky but worth the wait):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...p-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html

 

[grokit]

"She was already slipping in the polls —
this could turn out to be very damaging for her and very good for Trump."


The 5 most outrageous things Hillary Clinton said in her FBI interview

Hillary Clinton was already having a bad week as polls show Donald Trump closing the gap between them and, in a few polls, even pulling ahead. It got worse Friday after the FBI released Clinton's answers to investigators' questions over her use of a private email server, revealing some pretty damaging responses from the former Secretary of State.

Here are five of the most outrageous statements Clinton made in that three-and-a-half hour FBI interview:

1. She cited her 2012 concussion as the reason that she cannot remember details of briefings during her "transition out of office."
2. She said she never even thought whether emails she exchanged on a future U.S. drone attack should be classified.
3. She said she thought the "C" before a paragraph indicated alphabetical order. The C actually stands for "classified."
4. She said no one ever raised concerns to her about her use of a private email server.
   
5. She said she could not recall any training on how to handle classified information.

What's more, Clinton aides told the FBI that the Secretary of State frequently replaced her Blackberry phone and the whereabouts of her old device would become "unknown." The FBI report suggests there were at least 13 different devices used.

You're going to hear on the mainstream media all weekend a lot of supposedly objective pundits insist the above revelations offer no "smoking gun." And that may be true from a legal standpoint, but we're in the middle of an election and these statements are poison for Clinton and cannon fodder for Donald Trump.

She conducted official State Department business while suffering from a concussion that may have impaired her memory? The report suggested she was only working for a few hours a day at the point based on doctor's orders but if it was that bad that she couldn't remember important briefings, she should have been on medical leave.

No. 2 stretches the limits of credulity. We're supposed to believe Clinton never even considered a discussion about a future drone attack should be kept secret? Saying "I never thought," basically sounds like a dodge on a charge of possible pre-meditation.

As for the claim that no one ever talked to her about any concerns about the private server, that's dangerous territory. Because it's probably not going to be hard to find someone at the State Department, or formerly at the State Department, to contradict this claim. In fact, there are many statements just now released from this FBI interview that are likely going to be refuted and in short order.

The "I could not recall" response to the question about prior training is a classic defendant's dodge. It works great because even if Clinton did get training, it can be argued that it doesn't matter because she doesn't remember it. But while it's a good legal dodge, it's potentially lethal in the midst of an election where you're trying to look like a competent and alert leader.

FBI Director James Comey may have decided not to indict Clinton, but the public revelation of this transcript today does a lot of damage. While you can expect most of the mainstream media pundits to pour cold water on the severity of the facts contained in them, the transcripts put the email scandal right back into the center of the news cycle. The last time that happened, Clinton's poll numbers wilted badly and it took a series of Trump missteps to reverse the decline.

(emphasis mine)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-most-outrageous-things-hillary-191229840.html

 

[cybrguy]

It doesn't matter if any of this crap is true or not; perception is king

And here we have exactly the point.

Congratulations. And welcome to the Republican Party of 2016.

 

[grokit]

welcome to the Republican Party of 2016.

I'm a progressive, peace-loving democrat.
Even better, a democratic socialist

Too bad there's nobody like that running for president.

 

[cybrguy]

Hey, the Republicans have a big tent now. Haven't you heard?

 

[Farid]

better to have their ear and try and reform them from the inside, instead of attacking from the outside... Do you think that figure will go up or down if you condemned them?

I don't think you understand the relationship we have with Saudi Arabia. The best thing we could do to get Saudi Arabia to stop treating women, Shias, and non Muslims like garbage is to stop giving them weapons and stop buying their oil. Clinton has NEVER put any pressure on Saudi Arabia. If anything Clinton has put pressure on the United States to be more pro Saudi Arabia.

 

[Snappo]

With regard to the Saudi's, how has the U.N. factored into human rights intercession, or in any other regard how has the U.N. been effective? Just inquiring... not intimating anything.

 

[Farid]

It is my understanding that the UN can offer condemnation, but they hold little power when it comes to instituting change.

Also, the problem in Saudi Arabia is not something that a foreign power could just come in and change. It's going to take serious social change within the Kingdom. The Royal Family and the Religious authorities both play a role in that social structure, but neither one is solely to blame for how things have become. Eliminating the Royal family would appease much of the population, but it would hand the country over to Al Qaeda. Eliminating the religious authorities would upset the balance of power, and would likely cause a significant portion of the population to resent the government.

The problem is there is no venue for democracy in Saudi Arabia. It's laughable that people like Clinton talk about how Bashar Assad in Syria is supressing democracy while she supports the religious monarchy in Saudi Arabia. It's even funnier when you consider that at least Syria has multiple parties, and elections. Even if those Syrian elections are rigged (which is something we are dealing with here in the US we should note), it's still more democratic than what they have in Saudi Arabia, where there is NO venue for democracy.

This year the Saudis executed Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a Saudi shia who was a vocal peace activist and promoter of social change in Saudi Arabia. Nimr was not a Shia extremist, he was even vocally critical of Syrian president Bashar Assad for his role in Syria's ongoing violence.

And Clinton supports giving weapons to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the Middle East, so they can use them against Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.