The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[ReggieB]

so they shone a light on his ignorance and their hypocrisy, a job well done.

 

[Snappo]

so they shone a light on his ignorance and their hypocrisy, a job well done.

I don't think drawing a blank on Alpo hippo Maypo, um Aleppo, signifies ignorance, but it does shine a bright light once more on media's propensity for thriving on the "gotcha" ploy.

 

[TeeJay1952]

We are letting the cart drive the horse. The media thrives on controversy.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

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

No - with respect, I will NOT give "these guys a break" - they never give breaks, and they are out to savage the liveable world, IMO. No do-overs until we stop pretending that the major private interests have ANYTHING in common with us - the public - at all. First thing, we need to stop them from wrecking more shit until we can take stock and make some decisions as a people.

That means no more do-overs and mulligans

===

I don't think drawing a blank on Alpo hippo Maypo, um Aleppo, signifies ignorance, but it does shine a bright light once more on media's propensity for thriving on the "gotcha" ploy.

Really? You don't think that signifies ignorance? EXACTLY the sort of ignorance we've come to EXPECT from "libertarians" who know nothing and care less about the goings-on outside our borders? It's Trump's signature cluelessness, surely you've SEEN it?

 

[Farid]

Both are bad but the nyt isn't running for president...

The NYT looks way worse here because they were crtisizing Johnson for something they themselves got wrong... not once, not twice, but three times. At least Johnson admitted he didn't know anything. The NYT doesn't know the same information, but they are still willing to attack Johnson. Plus they were't on the spot, the people at the NYT have the ability to research before writing an article. Johnson was blindsided with a question about a specific foreign policy issue.

Just as an experiment I'd love to as FC members what they think is going on in Aleppo. Without googling it you cheaters! I bet the answers would vary hugely.

 

[Silat]

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.

Under libertarianism it is all well and good to be for "freeDUMB" but without a strong central government that "freeDUMB" is just a fantasy.
Without a strong government who will make sure that women can have choice? Who is going to make sure that clinics survive?
NO ONE. Under conservatism/libertarianism there is no government to ensure that you can get served at a restaurant etc....

 

[Farid]

Under conservatism/libertarianism there is no government to ensure that you can get served at a restaurant etc....

It's actually quite the opposite, granted Johnson isn't a traditional Libertarian.

 

[Silat]

It's actually quite the opposite, granted Johnson isn't a traditional Libertarian.

What is the opposite?

 

[CarolKing]

@ClearBlueLou Democrats definetly need a do over. With all the info that was put out right after the primaries were over. I feel there's been so much manipulation of our election this time around especially with all this belated info. All these emails being hacked but it's only the democrats. How convenient. I feel that Bernie Sanders would have won the primaries if we would have had all the info we have now.

I'm ready to throw my hands up and just not even vote. I have never done that. I feel cheated.

Edit
Lou I'm not sure what you are suggesting? We are left with some bad choices. Do we really want either for president? I'm sure a do over isn't going to be available for the American people. What would we do if Trump was our commander and chief. It's a nightmare that could happen.

This election has been nothing but a huge farce.

 

[ReggieB]

The NYT looks way worse here because they were crtisizing Johnson for something they themselves got wrong... not once, not twice, but three times. At least Johnson admitted he didn't know anything. The NYT doesn't know the same information, but they are still willing to attack Johnson. Plus they were't on the spot, the people at the NYT have the ability to research before writing an article. Johnson was blindsided with a question about a specific foreign policy issue.

Just as an experiment I'd love to as FC members what they think is going on in Aleppo. Without googling it you cheaters! I bet the answers would vary hugely.

They're both their own kind of bad in their own special way, whoever wrote the article looks bad but if you search nyt for 'aleppo' you'll see plenty of references to what's going on there, so the nyt itself doesn't look bad. imho it's a small thing but something he should be on top of, any president is going to have to deal with the rest of the world whether they like it or not.

 

[Farid]

@Silat You said quote: "Under conservatism/libertarianism there is no government to ensure that you can get served at a restaurant etc"

I posed a video of Johnson saying the exact opposite of that. That a person should not be able to deny service to somebody else because of personal reasons. His example of a Jewish baker and a nazi is extreme, but it illustrates the example well. He goes on to say that these laws could be used for discrimination against gays or Muslims. That's very different from most Libertarians, but we are talking about Johnson here.

 

[Gunky]

@ClearBlueLou Democrats definetly need a do over. With all the info that was put out right after the primaries were over. I feel there's been so much manipulation of our election this time around especially with all this belated info. All these emails being hacked but it's only the democrats. How convenient. I feel that Bernie Sanders would have won the primaries if we would have had all the info we have now.

I'm ready to throw my hands up and just not even vote. I have never done that. I feel cheated.

-snip-

What on earth are you talking about? We have an excellent, experienced, knowledgeable, seasoned candidate. Bernie - St. Bernie of the Vermont lakefront properties - was not a good candidate. He was a single issue protest candidate who became deluded by popular acclaim and made it more difficult to get the better-qualified candidate (Clinton) elected. The so-called Clinton 'scandals' are bullshit. Benghazi - bullshit. Emails - bullshit. The 'trustworthiness issue' - more stupid bullshit based upon the previous Benghazi and email bullshit. These daily laments from you are a kind of damning with faint praise, to put it generously. Whose side are you on? Quit helping Trump.

 

[CarolKing]

@Gunky both candidates are disliked by many voters not just myself. I have an opinion and I will give it. Just as you are entitled to your above opinion.

I also stated a few times that I didn't like Bernie saying bad things about Hillary that the other side could use ad a weapon after the primaries if she were to win.

Edit
@Gunky I reread what you said and deleted some of what i said. I still say yes they are both candidates disliked by many. It's just the way it is. The polls are actually tightening even though Trump is such a horrible candidate. No way is she in comparison to Trump in any way. Of course she is the better candidate. It looks like Gary Johnson won't be a strong enough candidate to be in the debates. You have definitely been a committed Hillary supporter and never wavering. I wish I had your trust and confidence.

 

[Farid]

What on earth are you talking about? We have an excellent, experienced, knowledgeable, seasoned candidate. Bernie - St. Bernie of the Vermont lakefront properties - was not a good candidate. He was a single issue protest candidate who became deluded by popular acclaim and made it more difficult to get the better-qualified candidate (Clinton) elected. The so-called Clinton 'scandals' are bullshit. Benghazi - bullshit. Emails - bullshit. The 'trustworthiness issue' - more stupid bullshit based upon the previous Benghazi and email bullshit. These daily laments from you are a kind of damning with faint praise, to put it generously. Whose side are you on? Quit helping Trump.

CK has said she's open to voting Clinton several times in this tread. You really shouldn't be attacking the people you are trying to win over by accusing them of "helping Trump". I know people like myself will never vote Clinton, but there are lots of people who are on the fence.

 

[Gunky]

@Gunky both candidates are disliked by many voters not just myself. I have an opinion and I will give it. Just as you are entitled to your above opinion. I am making comments about the candidates not about fellow FC members. Read the rules.

You keep repeating this Clinton is unpopular, people don't like Clinton mantra. Maybe for a moment stop worrying about Clinton's approval ratings in the polls, which have been both high and low over the last few years, and ask yourself if you support her policies, her competence, her steadiness.

This woman has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny. Tens of thousands of emails are being gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Everything she has ever said or done is constantly turned over. Congressional investigation after investigation. Intense media scrutiny. Endless drips of email releases. And they can't find much of anything! The best they can do is generate a cloud of suspicion even though they never found crap. Now let's compare that to Trump, shall we? Let's analyze his history and since he is running on his business acumen, let's look over his taxes and financial records. Oops, he won't release any of that. WTF! Where is your outrage over that? Why must you keep dumping on Clinton for the crime of 'unpopularity'. She's fucking competent, smart, brilliant even (not to mention sane). There is simply no comparison between the two candidates. Clinton has a public record and it has been scrutinized to death. Even her personal emails have been trolled through by earnest repub haters. Can't find anything. If they had found even one thing approaching Trump's payoffs to state attorneys general investigating him, or any number of other Trump outrages, can you imagine the stink? Mind how much you help Trump and by casting doubt on the primary election process (unmerited, by the way) you help Putin.

 

[CarolKing]

Hillary I'm expecting will destroy Trump in the debates. The debates will determine what happens. So will whatever comes out about Hillary's emails. What will come up? Maybe some pretty horrible stuff will come out about Trump. He will probably say some more stupid stuff that will keep even the republicans scratching their heads.

I support mainly democratic ideas. I've always voted democrat. I don't like all these loose ends floating out there, it's hurts the democrat's chances.

 

[reklaw420]

I'd rather have a president that openly asks "what is Aleppo" than a president that was Secretary of State and doesn't know that a C means classified or a president who doesn't know what a nuclear triad is but acts like he does. Or thinks there are 12 articles in the Constitution.... Gary Johnson is our best bet.

 

[Melting Pot]

 

[BD9]

I've been staying out of this conversation because it's taken a 'personal' and 'argumentative' direction, but, because my opinion is so valuable , I had share this thought.

This is one the problems I have with alternate parties. They have no foreign policy.
Gary Johnson did great things for New Mexico that's undeniable but...............
I feel that any candidate running for the office of president should have knowledge of world events, world leaders, and a strong knowledge of international goings on. Look, I get it, I myself am awkward, odd, and take for ever to finish a sentence, and probably couldn't find Belarus on a map, but I'm not running for public office. Johnson's slip, brain fart, whatever you want to call it is inexcusable for a potential world leader.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

@ClearBlueLou Democrats definetly need a do over. With all the info that was put out right after the primaries were over. I feel there's been so much manipulation of our election this time around especially with all this belated info. All these emails being hacked but it's only the democrats. How convenient. I feel that Bernie Sanders would have won the primaries if we would have had all the info we have now.

I'm ready to throw my hands up and just not even vote. I have never done that. I feel cheated.

Edit
Lou I'm not sure what you are suggesting? We are left with some bad choices. Do we really want either for president? I'm sure a do over isn't going to be available for the American people. What would we do if Trump was our commander and chief. It's a nightmare that could happen.

This election has been nothing but a huge farce.

Carol, I see I was more rough'n'ready than clear - my apologies!

I was specifically referring to the media tendency to overlook the vital flaws in "conservative" candidates while super-magnifying the less-than-vital 'flaws' of others: even more specifically, I was referring to the now-staple ignorance of "libertarian' politicians regarding the rest of the world, and the roles played by our actions in (de-)stabilizing that world. Didn't intend to specifically tackle Johnson, but I'm tired of "you KNOW what he meant!" from the "conservative" side yet never taking no for an answer when they're on the attack (the sheer weight and extent and expense of partisan republican witch-hunting aimed at her alone - JUST FOR ONE EXAMPLE).

I am not inclined to give ANY breaks at all to the bullies who work against the public, from atop the public payroll - that includes the rolling focus-group search for an "approach" that will avoid all the obvious toxicities & permit the nose-holders to pretend the poison has been removed & to therefore vote against their own and the national interest once "the message" has been sanitized.

No secret that I preferred - and STILL prefer - Sanders, but I will vote for Clinton, because I do not want to die fighting the Fourth Reich on my own soil. THIS is the battle of the moment: other battles must wait, or proceed concurrently by their own internal pressure (the Dakota Access Pipeline War).

Attacking candidates no longer in the running is a profoundly stupid and completely useless distraction, and definitely makes one's ass look BIG.... Likewise lying - and endlessly repeating the lies of others counts - about one candidate to the near-exclusion of all else is not shooting one's self (or one's candidate) in the foot, but in the HEAD.

I comment a lot on other comments; not usually so much for the whole statement-of-purpose post, but I'll stand up to be counted:

I will NOT vote for the end of the America I grew up in and still love: I WILL NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP - or for anyone who supports him...and I will henceforth question the intelligence of anyone who can't see the blizzard of bullshit being thrown by the owned agents of wealth and power. It shouldn't even matter what they're trying to obscure, there's a ton of shit flying and it stinks in here...and it's all coming from the same direction.

===
Aaannnd looks like I'm not done: Farid, a LOT of what's obviously broken in our electoral process this time is the result of a deliberate language make-over dating from the 70s but really got kicked into gear under the Reagan regime. One of the victims of the onslaught against meaning is the term "libertarian" - almost as badly abused, misused and confused as "love" itself.... First came the "conservatives" who were "sympathetic" to "libertarian principles"; then came the social Darwinists, who began muscling out everyone who wasn't first and foremost in favor of the divine right of money to do whatever the f@ck it wants; Then we got the Pauls...who aren't really libertarians, they're states-rights bible-idolators....

Because any idiot can say any damn thing on the gnetz, let me add that I came by all this long pre-ignore-gnetz by virtue of being a libertarian, a Libertarian, and originally quite conservative (in the sense of, y'know, conserving things) - I got deeply involved by '78, worked and voted and argued libertarian up into the '92 election. Anyhow, "libertarian now shares Damon Knight's famous definition of "science fiction": "it's what I'm pointing at when I say "libertarian"...".

For actual THINKING on the topic, I urge you to read Murray Rothbard's "Toward a New American Liberty. NOT stupid stuff...and not yet hijacked, derailed, pushed-over & set on fire...

===
Final note to Carol: PLEASE, DON'T GIVE UP!
The bad guys pretty much count on us giving up....

I understand wishing that we could have the primaries that we wanted - me, too, but that's inside party business, and we'll never change it from the outside. What we CAN DO is REMEMBER, STAY MAD, and push for changes where we can get them - and come back to VOTE AGAIN in 2 years: my 'personal' project is to push for federal regulation and oversight of elections in the USA - clean-drawn district apportionment, polling places per electoral district, eligibility, hours, access, registration, et cetera. I am also dedicated to removing our two plantation consiglieri from the Senate, one of whom is on the block this year, and the other next election ('18).

 

[reklaw420]

Johnson's slip, brain fart, whatever you want to call it is inexcusable for a potential world leader.

@BD9 what about the fact that when she was Secretary of State, Clinton didn't know that an email marked with a "C" means it's classified.... Or that Trump thought there were 12 articles in the Constitution? While I do agree that Johnson needs to brush up on foreign policy, I don't think this makes him look less presidential than Clinton and Trump...

 

[cybrguy]

Congrats to Washington Post on Following the Facts
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 9, 2016 9:21 AM

Like a lot of other people, I’ve been pretty hard on the media lately in terms of how they are covering the so-called “scandals” about Hillary Clinton. Because of that, it is important to notice and point out when one of the biggest news sources in the country gets it right. So I want to give a shout-out to the editorial board at the Washington Post. They published on op-ed titled: “The Hillary Clinton email story is out of control.”

The criticisms many of us have had about how the stories about the Clinton Foundation were handled were not about the investigations into the questions that had been raised. They were about the seeming unwillingness to come to a conclusion about those questions based on the facts that were uncovered.

In writing about Clinton’s email issues, the editors at the Washington Post pointed out facts that came to light yesterday. The first is a memo from FBI Director James Comey to his staff saying that anyone who is second-guessing their decision to not recommend charging Clinton doesn’t know what they’re talking about. There are those who are implying corruption of the FBI in this matter and he is having none of that.

The second piece of evidence that surfaced yesterday came from an email exchange from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton that was released by House Democrats. You might remember that Clinton had formerly said that Powell had advised her about using a private server and he had reacted rather defensively by saying that she was trying to pin this controversy on him. It turns out that Clinton was right. Here are some of the excerpts from Powell’s email:

“I didn’t have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers,” Powell, who served as secretary of state for four years under President George W. Bush, wrote in a January 2009 email to Clinton.

“I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels,” he added…

In his email to Clinton, Powell did warn her about the potential for her personal emails to become public.

“However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it (sic) government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law,” he wrote. “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”​

The third piece of evidence came in the form of the release by the FBI of the 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during their investigation. Prior to their release, the existence of these emails had provided the merchants of doubt with fodder for the kinds of “questions” that fuel these so-called “scandals.” But upon their release, we learned that only one was previously undisclosed and it was an email from the then-ambassador to Brazil praising Clinton for her handling of the Benghazi attack and aftermath.

Those are the most recent facts that the editorial board of the Washington Post relied on to reach this conclusion:

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.​

We all know that this will not silence those who have already decided that Hillary Clinton is “crooked” and are determined to be the merchants of doubt regardless of the evidence. But at least one major media publication has reviewed the facts and stated a conclusion. In a better world, that wouldn’t be praiseworthy. But based on the one we actually live in, I’ll simply say, “Congrats,” and, “More of this please!”

 

[lwien]

@BD9 what about the fact that when she was Secretary of State, Clinton didn't know that an email marked with a "C" means it's classified

@reklaw420, you're new here so I need to qualify what I'm about to say while at the same time, apologizing for the old-timers here who have heard this all before.

When I was in the Air Force, I was an intercept/cryptographic analyst that required a Top Secret Cryptographic Clearance. During my stint in the AF, I was stationed in Pakistan intercepting Russian radar communications and was also stationed at FT. Meade, Maryland while the AF had me working at the NSA so I am TOTALLY familiar with intelligence document classifications.

EVERY document that I had to work with had a heading at the top of each page along with a sub-label at the bottom of the same page, which was either marked Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Along with those words, in the same heading and the same size font was a codeword designating if it was signet (signal) intelligence, cryptographic intelligence, etc etc. Those headings were typically in a 36 to 48 size font. If anything came across my desk that was not marked with those headings, the assumption was that the document was not classified. The heading label indicated the highest classification that was present within the document.

The portion markings, U, C, S, and TS are only used to identify specific sentences, paragraphs, charts or pictures WITHIN the labeled document.

I can easily see that if a document did not have ANY classified headings at both the top and bottom of the page, one could easily overlook those portion markings as the assumption would be that the document is not classified.

Edit: One more thing. The portion marking "C" does not mean classified, but rather, confidential, which is the lowest of classifications.

 

[BD9]

@BD9 what about the fact that when she was Secretary of State, Clinton didn't know that an email marked with a "C" means it's classified.... Or that Trump thought there were 12 articles in the Constitution? While I do agree that Johnson needs to brush up on foreign policy, I don't think this makes him look less presidential than Clinton and Trump...

I see your point, but, I was discussing Johnson's foible. Clinton and 'orange dick through a pancake's' short comings seem to be a deflection from the point that Johnson was not well prepared for this interview. I think lack of knowledge about world events does make him less presidential. Especially when it comes to Syria.
I have been critical of both Clinton and trump in past posts.

 

[reklaw420]

I can easily see that if a document did not have ANY classified headings at both the top and bottom of the page, once could easily overlook those portion markings as the assumption would be that the document is not classified.

I can totally see that too. I mean she's only human. BUT, she did say a few days ago that she either couldn't remember or didn't know what the "C" meant at the beginning of a paragraph. Don't quote me on this, but she also said something like she thought the "C" was just a marker marking the paragraphs in alphabetical order.. Now I personally wouldn't have known what the "C" stands for, but a person in her position should have. Does this make her unfit to be president? Probably not. But I don't think Gary Johnson is any more unfit than Clinton is for not recognizing the term Aleppo. And hey, this might be a good thing. Every media outlet covered Johnson yesterday which has NEVER happened to my knowledge. Yesterday was the first time I've ever see Gary trending on Facebook, it said 310K people were talking about him which is nuts to me!

I didn't think I'd be joining this forum to talk politics..... lol

Any who, thank you for your service Iwian!