The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
I dislike the Libertarian principles as being too 1776 and not enough 2016. Mechanization, Internationalism, Class Warfare and Poverty are all beyond personal solutions and require group thinking.
Other than the Pot stance what is it that you like about where they want to go? Individual freedoms often require allowing others the suffer the consequences of bad luck or poor choices. For example: The fentanyl epidemic caused by opioid addiction. The despised DEA does (accidently) does Public Good when they attempt to interdict.
I like Federal Air and Water standards. I like quality inspections. I think kids in public schools deserve a minimal national standard.
Build more Parties and interest in Politics but the friend of my enemy is all so my friend is a somewhat false premise. That is what brought us Palin and Trump.
Farid
Well-Known Member
Ok... you dislike Libertarians, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed in the debate. Don't you think any added voice is better than just Clinton and Trump?
Gary Johnson is the only candidate who is anti war (I do not count Stein because to win a 3rd party you need to pull votes from both sides). That is more important to a lot of people than any economic or social platform.
Also, your point about fentanyl is absurd. If a libertarian were in charge drugs would be legal, and drug addicts would be able to get morphine from a clinic without worrying about the law. This would eliminate the market for fentayl and there would be fewer heroin deaths. Its when opiates are illegal that fentanyl has a market.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
No, if you can discount stein then you can discount johnson, people either have a voice or they don't. There is a reason for having a threshold, it's so that you don't get 100 parties all demanding they be included, the libertarians aren't any more special than any other party.
Farid
Well-Known Member
No, I don't count Stein because she isn't even close to 15%. She will only take voters who are far left, and demographically that will not get her enough. Johnson has the vote of lots of people who are far left, such as members of my family, and my friends. I have never met a Republican who would vote Stein, but I have met lots of Republicans and Democrats who are willing to vote Libertarian.
It's basic what I'm saying:
Libertarian party is more liberal than Republican party, more conservative than Democratic party (in some ways, in other ways they are more liberal).
Green party is more Liberal than either party, and that is why they will not get anywhere.
It's basic what I'm saying:
Libertarian party is more liberal than Republican party, more conservative than Democratic party (in some ways, in other ways they are more liberal).
Green party is more Liberal than either party, and that is why they will not get anywhere.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
but if he doesn't have the required number to meet the threshold then they have as much right to be in the debate as stein does. Just because you and some people you know wish it to happen doesn't mean it should, I'm not trying to be reactionary here, if they're going to be in the debates, they need to be more popular.
Farid
Well-Known Member
I never said Stein shouldn't be allowed in the debate. I just said she is not a viable candidate. I am not disagreeing with the 15% threshold either, I am just trying to convince people that Johnson would be better than Clinton or Trump. And for what it's worth there are issues where I agree with Stein but disagree with Johnson. But this election, to me, is bigger than those issues. It's about not allowing Clinton or Trump into the white house, as either one would be like a blow in the stomach of this country. I can imagine my liberal and conservative friends being convinced to vote Johnson, as he can appeal to either in different ways. Stein only appeals to my far left friends, and some of them are still bent on writing in Bernie.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
Vermin Supreme want a few moments of our time as does David Duke.
GetLeft
Well-Known Member
Nicely put.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
While I can appreciate your interest in a third party it is way past time for anyone other than Clinton or Trump to have any chance at this election. Way past time.
This is a binary decision. You are going to have to choose Clinton or Trump for your vote to influence the election. You can choose to vote for Stein OR Johnson if you like, but you may as well vote for Spiderman if you do. Or Ironman... Hmmm... Tony Stark...
This is a binary decision. You are going to have to choose Clinton or Trump for your vote to influence the election. You can choose to vote for Stein OR Johnson if you like, but you may as well vote for Spiderman if you do. Or Ironman... Hmmm... Tony Stark...
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I'm thinking of writing in my next door neighbor's Chihuahua as a protest vote. Chalupa was born in this country and regardless of what Trump thinks he will not be influenced by his heritage.
My only concern is that Chalupa is 18 years old and may not make it till election day.
My second choice is HRC.
My only concern is that Chalupa is 18 years old and may not make it till election day.
My second choice is HRC.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Fact-Checking the Media Narrative About Hillary Clinton
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 8, 2016 12:14 PM
Brian Beutler has written an interesting article on a topic a lot of people are talking about: how the media is handling coverage of Clinton and Trump. But as I was reading it, something jumped out at me. It wasn’t because what he wrote was unique – rather it was because it has become standard conventional wisdom for how to describe the two presidential candidates.
If you’ve read/listened to much of the coverage of this election, that’s about as good as it gets from most media sources who aren’t part of the right wing bubble. In other words, Beutler captured the media narrative that has developed about both candidates.
I remember noticing how durable these narratives have been when Dick Cheney was constantly described as the serious experienced one in relation to George W. Bush – the candidate everyone wanted to have a beer with. We all remember how that one turned out. But it’s the kind of thing that happens every presidential election. Pardon me for saying so, but it’s also the lazy short-hand that is often embraced without asking too many questions.
It might be interesting then, to do a bit of a fact-check on the current media narrative about Hillary Clinton. Beutler used three words to describe her: conventional, flawed and unpopular. Let’s take a minute to think about those.
Perhaps the word conventional is another way of saying “establishment.” If we mean that Clinton has embraced the idea of pushing for change from within the system rather than outside of it – that would be an apt description. It’s also true that describing Clinton as a conventional politician in contrast to her opponent – who is the complete opposite – hits the mark.
But it is difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea of calling the first female candidate for president from a major party “conventional.” Hillary Clinton’s life has been full of personal and professional experiences that have not been shared with any other major party nominee in the history of this country. Her election would be historic. It is difficult to connect that reality with any concept of conventional.
The word that intrigues me the most in that description is “flawed.” Just a moment’s thought about it’s use raises an awful lot of questions. Does it mean that Hillary Clinton is flawed in the same way that all candidates are because of the fact that they are human beings – or is it meant to signal something much bigger? I suspect that it’s the latter – otherwise it wouldn’t be worth saying. But then you have to wonder how Hillary is more flawed than previous candidates who have run for president – like her husband Bill, or Bob Dole, or Al Gore, or George W. Bush, or John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama. Surely they all had flaws as candidates. Was that word used to describe them?
Beyond that, one has to wonder what is flawed about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Is it about the policies she has proposed or the kind of campaign she has run? I don’t think so. In both of those regards, her candidacy has been exemplary, rather than flawed. I suspect that it is meant to refer to personal flaws. Things that have been bandied about over the years about her include that she is overly protective (and possibly defensive) about her privacy and that she’s not an inspirational public speaker. There are facts that back up those critiques, but they hardly rise above the kinds of flaws we’ve seen in other candidates. She also gets criticized for being untrustworthy and ambitious – but those come from a combination or right wing smears and sexism. In other words, they are either not actually flaws or they’re not fact-based.
In the end, it seems to me that we can call any candidate (or human being for that matter) flawed. I just don’t see how it fits for Clinton anymore than it does for anyone else.
The word that we hear the most when talking about Hillary Clinton is “unpopular.” The fact that backs that one up is her unfavorable rating in the polls. Right now the RCP average has it at 54.8 (compared to a favorable rating at 41.4). There is no disputing that this part of the narrative is true.
What is interesting about it though, is to take a look at this one over the course of Clinton’s time on the national stage. It’s striking that her favorability rating during her tenure as Secretary of State was more than 20 points higher (low to mid 60’s) than it is today. So she hasn’t always been unpopular. Most rational people would ask “what changed?” I suspect that actual data to answer that question is more difficult to come by. We can all fashion our own assumptions, but they’d be very difficult to prove. The one thing I’d like to know is whether or not that drop in favorability is based on anything Clinton actually did or if it has to do with how she is portrayed in the role of Secretary of State vs presidential candidate – which brings us right back to the media’s narrative that she is conventional, flawed and unpopular. See how that works? It’s a classic case of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 8, 2016 12:14 PM
Brian Beutler has written an interesting article on a topic a lot of people are talking about: how the media is handling coverage of Clinton and Trump. But as I was reading it, something jumped out at me. It wasn’t because what he wrote was unique – rather it was because it has become standard conventional wisdom for how to describe the two presidential candidates.
An ignorant, unethical, racist authoritarian who horrifies the political leaders of his party on the one hand; and a conventional, if flawed and unpopular politician on the other.
If you’ve read/listened to much of the coverage of this election, that’s about as good as it gets from most media sources who aren’t part of the right wing bubble. In other words, Beutler captured the media narrative that has developed about both candidates.
I remember noticing how durable these narratives have been when Dick Cheney was constantly described as the serious experienced one in relation to George W. Bush – the candidate everyone wanted to have a beer with. We all remember how that one turned out. But it’s the kind of thing that happens every presidential election. Pardon me for saying so, but it’s also the lazy short-hand that is often embraced without asking too many questions.
It might be interesting then, to do a bit of a fact-check on the current media narrative about Hillary Clinton. Beutler used three words to describe her: conventional, flawed and unpopular. Let’s take a minute to think about those.
Perhaps the word conventional is another way of saying “establishment.” If we mean that Clinton has embraced the idea of pushing for change from within the system rather than outside of it – that would be an apt description. It’s also true that describing Clinton as a conventional politician in contrast to her opponent – who is the complete opposite – hits the mark.
But it is difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea of calling the first female candidate for president from a major party “conventional.” Hillary Clinton’s life has been full of personal and professional experiences that have not been shared with any other major party nominee in the history of this country. Her election would be historic. It is difficult to connect that reality with any concept of conventional.
The word that intrigues me the most in that description is “flawed.” Just a moment’s thought about it’s use raises an awful lot of questions. Does it mean that Hillary Clinton is flawed in the same way that all candidates are because of the fact that they are human beings – or is it meant to signal something much bigger? I suspect that it’s the latter – otherwise it wouldn’t be worth saying. But then you have to wonder how Hillary is more flawed than previous candidates who have run for president – like her husband Bill, or Bob Dole, or Al Gore, or George W. Bush, or John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama. Surely they all had flaws as candidates. Was that word used to describe them?
Beyond that, one has to wonder what is flawed about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Is it about the policies she has proposed or the kind of campaign she has run? I don’t think so. In both of those regards, her candidacy has been exemplary, rather than flawed. I suspect that it is meant to refer to personal flaws. Things that have been bandied about over the years about her include that she is overly protective (and possibly defensive) about her privacy and that she’s not an inspirational public speaker. There are facts that back up those critiques, but they hardly rise above the kinds of flaws we’ve seen in other candidates. She also gets criticized for being untrustworthy and ambitious – but those come from a combination or right wing smears and sexism. In other words, they are either not actually flaws or they’re not fact-based.
In the end, it seems to me that we can call any candidate (or human being for that matter) flawed. I just don’t see how it fits for Clinton anymore than it does for anyone else.
The word that we hear the most when talking about Hillary Clinton is “unpopular.” The fact that backs that one up is her unfavorable rating in the polls. Right now the RCP average has it at 54.8 (compared to a favorable rating at 41.4). There is no disputing that this part of the narrative is true.
What is interesting about it though, is to take a look at this one over the course of Clinton’s time on the national stage. It’s striking that her favorability rating during her tenure as Secretary of State was more than 20 points higher (low to mid 60’s) than it is today. So she hasn’t always been unpopular. Most rational people would ask “what changed?” I suspect that actual data to answer that question is more difficult to come by. We can all fashion our own assumptions, but they’d be very difficult to prove. The one thing I’d like to know is whether or not that drop in favorability is based on anything Clinton actually did or if it has to do with how she is portrayed in the role of Secretary of State vs presidential candidate – which brings us right back to the media’s narrative that she is conventional, flawed and unpopular. See how that works? It’s a classic case of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
grokit
well-worn member
Killary's only headlines lately seem to be showcasing her reaction to something that drumpf has said.
This is not good for her, as it makes drumpf the driver and killary the passenger. The media seems to be trying to make this more of a race than it should have been. Killary's lack of political acumen helps.
This is not good for her, as it makes drumpf the driver and killary the passenger. The media seems to be trying to make this more of a race than it should have been. Killary's lack of political acumen helps.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
There is a constant false equivalency and double standard working here. Trump is somehow elevated to the same level as Clinton while she is held to a higher standard. It is completely irrational.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Hey, Gary Johnson, people in Aleppo don't know who you are - The Washington Post
Washington Post › news › 2016/09/08
1 hour ago - [Gary Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was. ... But Aleppo is a city at war, and for a politician not to know the name of this city, it is very shocking to me,” said Abdulkafi al-Hamdo, a teacher in ...
I know what Aleppo is and what's going on. Maybe just a brain fart? I can't imagine him really not knowing. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Im sure this was an "oh no" moment. This could have ruined any chances that he could have had. There seems to be a different set of rules for one of the candidates. I feel terrible for him.
CK
Washington Post › news › 2016/09/08
1 hour ago - [Gary Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was. ... But Aleppo is a city at war, and for a politician not to know the name of this city, it is very shocking to me,” said Abdulkafi al-Hamdo, a teacher in ...
I know what Aleppo is and what's going on. Maybe just a brain fart? I can't imagine him really not knowing. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Im sure this was an "oh no" moment. This could have ruined any chances that he could have had. There seems to be a different set of rules for one of the candidates. I feel terrible for him.
CK
Last edited:
I feel the media pundits are making too too much of this. Trumpasshat wouldn't have known about this either, but we'll never hear that now that he's brushed up on it to cover his ass should he now be asked. More proof that the media leads the sheep by the nose. I had a brain fart on this one too... just like Johnson, might've been an acronym reference of sorts... just didn't register. Too much shit going on in the world to know it ALL at first blush when being asked!
Last edited:
Farid
Well-Known Member
If you think it's bad Johnson did't know what Aleppo was, the New York Times didn't either. In an article criticizing Johnson they first called Aleppo the ISIS capital. Then they tried to correct it to an ISIS stronghold (which Aleppo is not). Then they tried to correct it to the capital of Syria. 3 tries and they still couldn't figure out what Aleppo is. Worst part was that this was all part of an article slamming Johnson for not knowing the same thing they messed up.
https://twitter.com/HKFrese/status/773877656798564355
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi..._an_embarrassing_error_ny_times_calls_aleppo/
https://twitter.com/HKFrese/status/773877656798564355
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi..._an_embarrassing_error_ny_times_calls_aleppo/
lwien
Well-Known Member
Hey, at least they didn't think it was a brand name of dog food, eh?
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
too bad, this trend of not paying anyone anything ('cept in "exposure"): makes it hard to employ the right people....
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
Both are bad but the nyt isn't running for president...
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
If I hadn't been watching CNN all the time I wouldn't have known. I can see Johnson having
a momentary brain freeze. Give the poor guy a break. The media and some of the voters
have given Trump so much leeway and press it's ridiculous. Trump shouldn't even be considered as a serious candidate - except for all the votes he got in the primary. It's just too unbelievable.
I wish the Democrats would have voted for Bernie. He would have been a stronger candidate
agsinst Trump. All the negative info being released about Hillary as the primary was over. I
question the timing as political manipulation.
We need a do over. Cancel the election in Nov. IMO
Last edited: