The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Just spent 15 minutes or so trying to convince the guy who was recharging our fire extinguishers that Donald is NOT a "truth teller". It wasn't wasted time, but there was NO chance he was going to hear anything I said. Everything he knows he has learned from Fox and Drudge. And he wasn't shy about telling me so.
Late 20s, ex military, no college. Not a news consumer, other than Fox. Perfect for Trump.
Nice kid but completely unreachable, by me. I wish he was less common than he is. Is there anyone who can speak to guys like this? Who might they believe?
Late 20s, ex military, no college. Not a news consumer, other than Fox. Perfect for Trump.
Nice kid but completely unreachable, by me. I wish he was less common than he is. Is there anyone who can speak to guys like this? Who might they believe?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
It boggles my mind how anyone that has been in the military could be for a candidate that thinks Putin is a strong leader? He's not a president he's a dictator and kills people that disagree with him. I guess Trump admires behavior like that.
To me Trump doesn't look all that healthy. He's overweight for one and he only sleeps 4 hours a night. It's not good for your heart to get such little sleep. It wouldn't surprise me that he could have high blood pressure. He also gets so red in the face when he gets pissed off during his speeches.
I'm getting so tired of the press reminding everyone that Hillary didn't tell us about her pneumonia. So what, it was her choice to make for Christ sakes. Donald Trump does all kinds of crazy stuff and nobody even blinks. A big double standard far as I'm concerned.
There is no comparison who is ready to be president. It's not even close. I don't believe the polls are so close. I think Hillary is much higher in the polls.
In the future taxes need to be available for voters to see. If they don't want to release them, don't run for prez.
Trump is going to be on the Dr. oz show. Let the clown have his audience.
To me Trump doesn't look all that healthy. He's overweight for one and he only sleeps 4 hours a night. It's not good for your heart to get such little sleep. It wouldn't surprise me that he could have high blood pressure. He also gets so red in the face when he gets pissed off during his speeches.
I'm getting so tired of the press reminding everyone that Hillary didn't tell us about her pneumonia. So what, it was her choice to make for Christ sakes. Donald Trump does all kinds of crazy stuff and nobody even blinks. A big double standard far as I'm concerned.
There is no comparison who is ready to be president. It's not even close. I don't believe the polls are so close. I think Hillary is much higher in the polls.
In the future taxes need to be available for voters to see. If they don't want to release them, don't run for prez.
Trump is going to be on the Dr. oz show. Let the clown have his audience.
Last edited:
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
imho it's smoke and mirrors because it's relatively low level, it's no secret that some senior republicans think trump is an extremely undesirable candidate. Maybe dcleaks got handed the emails to see if they'd take them and do something or bury them?
With the "not denying it", maybe the republicans wanted the leak to happen and this is the push back from top repubs that democrats have been waiting for?
grokit
well-worn member
If it holds with other credible polls, that's a big swing with a 5% lead.
And now florida's reportedly in play as well.
The interesting part to me is 3rd parties, polling at 10%.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The way they do polls are very outdated. I can't imagine getting an accurate poll using landline phones. People don't live like that anymore and most people with landline phones have number ID.
I haven't been included on any polls and probably many of you haven't either.
I live in WA state so our state usually goes democrat. I've spoken to very few people that are voting for Trump. Most people can't stand him that I've talked to. Other parts the the U.S are different. We are having a booming economy here. We under 6% unemployment. We probably have 10% of the population that don't want to work. They would rather be unemployed.
I haven't been included on any polls and probably many of you haven't either.
I live in WA state so our state usually goes democrat. I've spoken to very few people that are voting for Trump. Most people can't stand him that I've talked to. Other parts the the U.S are different. We are having a booming economy here. We under 6% unemployment. We probably have 10% of the population that don't want to work. They would rather be unemployed.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I get polled on the phone at least a couple times a month or more. I'm sure I am on a list somewhere that says I will acquiesce to being polled. They probably call it the sucker list.
I get polled by both sides, btw. And by some that don't give it away or claim to be nonpartisan...
I get polled by both sides, btw. And by some that don't give it away or claim to be nonpartisan...
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
It says much about the inability of the Dems to message.
They could learn much from what the reich has accomplished through its propaganda.
For instance. Why have not the Dems made it clear that Gary Johnson is a kissin cousin to the Libertarian K0CH GOP? He is not something ultimately different from the conservative movement.
?
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
There's an irony in being HRC......
One of her worst traits is holding her cards too close to the vest. People like that are generally considered untrustworthy because they are hiding something and it must be bad.
The irony is .... if the world was constantly looking up your skirt you'd eventually become closed off and wary of letting anyone know about anything too.
The above could even lead to keeping a personal email server, even if you know you're not supposed to, so you feel like you have some control.
Don't get me wrong though .... if you choose the public life you gotta take the good (fame, front of the line, millions of dollars in speaking fees) with the bad (family secrets don't remain a secret and always being under the microscope).
I don't think HRC was cleared of having broke a law with regard to her personal email server. I think Comey decided there was no malicious intent which is a far cry from not having broke the law. If I ever get caught for MJ and prosecuted I'm going to try and use the 'no malicious intent' approach. I don't think it will work for me though. And as far as I remember....claiming to not know the law....is no excuse. At least it wasn't the last time I got in trouble....
One of her worst traits is holding her cards too close to the vest. People like that are generally considered untrustworthy because they are hiding something and it must be bad.
The irony is .... if the world was constantly looking up your skirt you'd eventually become closed off and wary of letting anyone know about anything too.
The above could even lead to keeping a personal email server, even if you know you're not supposed to, so you feel like you have some control.
Don't get me wrong though .... if you choose the public life you gotta take the good (fame, front of the line, millions of dollars in speaking fees) with the bad (family secrets don't remain a secret and always being under the microscope).
I don't think HRC was cleared of having broke a law with regard to her personal email server. I think Comey decided there was no malicious intent which is a far cry from not having broke the law. If I ever get caught for MJ and prosecuted I'm going to try and use the 'no malicious intent' approach. I don't think it will work for me though. And as far as I remember....claiming to not know the law....is no excuse. At least it wasn't the last time I got in trouble....
gangababa
Well-Known Member
"Trump now leads in Ohio"
The Ohio poll may not have polled ANYONE under 50 years old. If so, it is bogus.
When the exit polls vary widely from the reported results, the pundits say the polls are unreliable.
Why should we put ANY credence in any polls?
I guess polls are good for media and spinners. Remember how certain Bush's brain was about the 2012 results? He was totally in denial on TV when the election results did not go as he knew they would because his team had the polling (and expected their vote-reporting-fraud to work nationally, not just at State levels).
The Ohio poll may not have polled ANYONE under 50 years old. If so, it is bogus.
When the exit polls vary widely from the reported results, the pundits say the polls are unreliable.
Why should we put ANY credence in any polls?
I guess polls are good for media and spinners. Remember how certain Bush's brain was about the 2012 results? He was totally in denial on TV when the election results did not go as he knew they would because his team had the polling (and expected their vote-reporting-fraud to work nationally, not just at State levels).
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Reporting on the 'horse race' in the polls is a substitute for actual journalism - you know, digging into the history of the candidates, their policies and the presumed effects of their policies, fact-checking, etc. You know, actual news analysis? A lost art these days. Trump is shitty in his grasp of the workings of government and as a thinker, policy-maker, politician etc but he is fairly skilled at working the media. He is like a disease to which current journalism has not developed antibodies and he preys mightily on a fat, lazy, weakened journalism and media.
Farid
Well-Known Member
I get along very well with ex military guys. I am into military simulation, so I know lots of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets, as well as lots of Vietnam vets. I also get along well with people who did not go to school, since many of the people in my classes are adults who are going to college for the first time - lots of ex military people and people with a blue collar background. I also am not voting for Clinton, so any criticism I have of Trump comes off as less agenda based.
It's not about convincing them to vote for your candidate. It's about convincing them not to vote for Trump out of fear of Clinton (and convincing Clinton supporters not to vote for her out of fear of Trump as well.
Fear is used as a tool to control people.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Herr Drumpf is not going to win but he is doing harm to the country.
281 polls from 38 trackers
http://whichpolls.com/
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Ivanka Trump Is Like Her Father, Only With a Softer Voice and Nicer Smile (and better hair)
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 14, 2016 5:09 PM
Obviously Kellyanne Conway’s attempt to create an alternative Trump that will appeal to white suburban women continues. That is precisely why they rolled out a maternity leave policy this week. I’ll leave it to others to explain how it doesn’t add up because I’m more interested in the fact that they brought Ivanka Trump back into the spotlight to be their spokesperson on this one.
That started last night when Ivanka introduced her father and plagiarized one of Hillary Clinton’s most common statements in reference to maternity leave. She said, “This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.” How many times have we heard Hillary say that?
Afterwards, Ivanka was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News and told a blatant lie.
She said that there were no policies on Clinton’s web site related to child care or maternity leave. You can actually find comprehensive policies on those issues here, here and here.
Next Ivanka went on Good Morning America. At about 1:55 in this video she starts to lie about Hillary Clinton again.
When confronted with the fact that Clinton’s web site does, in fact, outline policies related to maternity leave and child care, Ivanka said that Hillary has been around for decades and there is no policy for fathers or mothers on paid leave. Perhaps Ivanka would like to explain how the Secretary of State has a role to play in promoting family leave. When she was the United States Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton introduced the Quality Child Care for America Act, the Military Family and Medical Leave Act and the Choices in Child Care Act. It is also interesting to note that the first legislation signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 was the Family and Medical Leave Act.
I suppose that Ivanka learned from her father that it is OK to lie about the record of someone who has spent their entire career working on behalf of children and families. It’s true that she does it with a softer voice and a nicer smile. So I suspect that – unless they are told the truth – some people will believe her. But obviously what Ivanka is trying to avoid is a comparison between her father’s maternity leave policy and the ones proposed by Hillary Clinton. She knows that theirs doesn’t add up. So instead of dealing with that, she smiles and lies.
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 14, 2016 5:09 PM
Obviously Kellyanne Conway’s attempt to create an alternative Trump that will appeal to white suburban women continues. That is precisely why they rolled out a maternity leave policy this week. I’ll leave it to others to explain how it doesn’t add up because I’m more interested in the fact that they brought Ivanka Trump back into the spotlight to be their spokesperson on this one.
That started last night when Ivanka introduced her father and plagiarized one of Hillary Clinton’s most common statements in reference to maternity leave. She said, “This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.” How many times have we heard Hillary say that?
Afterwards, Ivanka was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News and told a blatant lie.
She said that there were no policies on Clinton’s web site related to child care or maternity leave. You can actually find comprehensive policies on those issues here, here and here.
Next Ivanka went on Good Morning America. At about 1:55 in this video she starts to lie about Hillary Clinton again.
When confronted with the fact that Clinton’s web site does, in fact, outline policies related to maternity leave and child care, Ivanka said that Hillary has been around for decades and there is no policy for fathers or mothers on paid leave. Perhaps Ivanka would like to explain how the Secretary of State has a role to play in promoting family leave. When she was the United States Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton introduced the Quality Child Care for America Act, the Military Family and Medical Leave Act and the Choices in Child Care Act. It is also interesting to note that the first legislation signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 was the Family and Medical Leave Act.
I suppose that Ivanka learned from her father that it is OK to lie about the record of someone who has spent their entire career working on behalf of children and families. It’s true that she does it with a softer voice and a nicer smile. So I suspect that – unless they are told the truth – some people will believe her. But obviously what Ivanka is trying to avoid is a comparison between her father’s maternity leave policy and the ones proposed by Hillary Clinton. She knows that theirs doesn’t add up. So instead of dealing with that, she smiles and lies.
grokit
well-worn member
The nyt polling average still has killary up by three points.
It doesn't seem to include the cnn poll.
It doesn't seem to include the cnn poll.
Stevenski
Enter the Dragon
Putin is ex KGB & is full of bravado with a willingness to do what it takes to achieve his aims. He has restored pride in Russia & brought them back to international relevance whereas America has been losing ground steadily internationally since they invaded & further destabalised multiple sovereign nations.
Putin invades Ukraine & rather than do anything about it Obama & the west politely ask him to please go home. Their inaction on the issue fuels his strongman stance & validates his course of action to the Russian people. They threatened sanctions so he threatened to cut off the natural gas to Europe & guess who backed down with a quickness?
That is one example of being a string leader. He takes strong, decisive action & that is what Russia wants & needs if they want to remain relevant in a ever changing world.
When it comes to being a cunning manipulative leader who always comes out on top there is few better than Putin. Watching the way he carries himself vs a aged shell of illness or a loudmouthed braggart is like watching someone play chess whilst the other plays checkers & the chess player is always thinking several moves ahead. This is a man who knows the long game extremely well.
I will be clear that Putin is about as far from a good person I can think of but he is the definition of a strong leader who displays his strength on a ongoing basis.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@Stevenski do you live in America? I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you. Obama was speaking about Putin yesterday and he had it right. Saddam Hussein was a strong leader. I rest my case. Killing people that disagree with you doesn't make a great leader.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done. He has high approval ratings. He is liked and admired and I think most Americans are sad to see him go.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done. He has high approval ratings. He is liked and admired and I think most Americans are sad to see him go.
Stevenski
Enter the Dragon
No, I live in Australia so I am more distant from the daily election saturation & have no vested interest in seeing one party or another elected. If anything I feel America deserves to be punished as there was the opportunity to elect a champion of all the people in Sanders & that was thrown away by people who can't see the forest for the trees. That is sad & I should not think that way but I believe in a fair go for everyone & Bernie was given anything but a fair go. You guys should be sad to see Obama go as for his faults he is immeasurably better than the swill you can vote for in November.
In my country we tend to hold Obama in pretty high regard as a statesman & leader even if he is as weak as piss when it comes to decisive action. That can't be said about Putin whatsoever & he is despised by all Australians. Unfortunately Putin comes from the classic despot school of "might is right" & history shows that is usually the case. The strongest & most willing come out on top with a sickening consistency. Hussein, Qaddafi & Assad are all grade A+ arseholes who managed to retain their countries leadership over significant periods of time. That is not by accident but by virtue of establishing strength & ensuring complicity through fear of consequences.
gangababa
Well-Known Member
I will posit that there is a difference between a war-lord winner of the king-of-the-hill game, and a leader.
A war lord rises from the fomentation of deplorable disturbance.
A leader doesn't guide the governed into disaster and destruction.
A leader is followed.
A war lord drags willing deserters to doom.
A war lord rises from the fomentation of deplorable disturbance.
A leader doesn't guide the governed into disaster and destruction.
A leader is followed.
A war lord drags willing deserters to doom.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Are we discussing effectiveness or likability? Obama was effective (considering what he had to work with party wise) and likable. Putin on the other hand is just effective.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The economy in Russia is in the toilet. He is high in the polls because the polls are manipulated by the government. Folks don't live a free life in Russis because it's run by a dictator not a president. We experience freedom here - basically we can say or do what we want as long as it's not against the law. We also have a constitution that allows freedom of speech.
Im really freightened. This whole election will be over soon. We will have a angry crazy person as a president, plus a liar. With Hillary we get a liar.
North Korea is a real threat to my side of the U.S. I hope people realize the stakes in this election. It's not just the Supreme Court at risk.
Im really freightened. This whole election will be over soon. We will have a angry crazy person as a president, plus a liar. With Hillary we get a liar.
North Korea is a real threat to my side of the U.S. I hope people realize the stakes in this election. It's not just the Supreme Court at risk.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
It's basically a criminal businessman con-artist liar vs. a pathological obfuscating con-artist politician.
Or as colin powell puts it:
"Donald Trump is "a national disgrace and an international pariah" who gave voice to a "racist" movement to question President Barack Obama's citizenship, former secretary of state Colin Powell tapped on his keyboard.
"Hillary Clinton, he typed in an email to another friend, is a "greedy, not transformational" figure who messes up everything she touches because of her "hubris" and has a husband still, well, entertaining "bimbos" while she is away.
"Former vice president Richard Cheney and his daughter are "idiots" flacking their new book, and the Iraq war was mishandled from the get-go by the Defense Department's top officials."
Or as colin powell puts it:
"Donald Trump is "a national disgrace and an international pariah" who gave voice to a "racist" movement to question President Barack Obama's citizenship, former secretary of state Colin Powell tapped on his keyboard.
"Hillary Clinton, he typed in an email to another friend, is a "greedy, not transformational" figure who messes up everything she touches because of her "hubris" and has a husband still, well, entertaining "bimbos" while she is away.
"Former vice president Richard Cheney and his daughter are "idiots" flacking their new book, and the Iraq war was mishandled from the get-go by the Defense Department's top officials."
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Imagine Romney’s first term was nearing its end right now
09/15/16 12:59 PM
By Steve Benen
We couldn’t have known at the time how important the quote would turn out to be. About six months before Election Day 2012, Mitt Romney sat down with Mark Halperin, who asked, “Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?”
The Republican nominee conceded he couldn’t “predict precisely,” but Romney added, “I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the polices that we put in place, we can get the unemployment rate down to 6%, perhaps a little lower.”
At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.2%. Now, as we near what would have been the end of Romney’s first term if he’d won, the unemployment rate is 4.9% – far better than the GOP candidate’s projection for his own success.
I thought of this today reading Vox’s Ezra Klein’s counterfactual about 2016 politics if the 2012 election had gone the other way, specifically in light of the latest Census Bureau data.
Is there any doubt that Ezra’s correct?
This is usually the point at which conservative readers email to remind me it’s folly to believe the president is responsible for the direction of the planet’s largest economy. It’s a perfectly fair argument.
But let’s not dismiss the political circumstances too quickly.
This week’s Census Bureau data was widely celebrated and for good reason: income growth last year was the fastest on record; poverty rates saw their largest one-year drop since 1968; and the number of Americans without health insurance dropped to the lowest point ever recorded in the United States. New York’s Jon Chait added soon after, “It is almost impossible to overstate how thoroughly this data nullifies the central charges made against the administration’s policies.”
Even if you’re inclined to dismiss the idea that a White House’s agenda is responsible for macroeconomic performance, part of the problem for Republicans in this scenario is that they made fairly specific predictions: the Recovery Act wouldn’t help end the Great Recession; President Obama’s auto rescue wouldn’t help the auto industry; the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t lower the uninsured rate; and the Obama administration’s broader agenda related to taxes, spending, and regulations would stifle incomes and make poverty worse.
Republicans made these predictions based on their unshakable ideological beliefs, which should create a real problem for conservatives interested in a little self-reflection: every economic prediction the GOP made about Obama’s policies was wrong. Not just a little off, either – Republicans got the entire picture backwards.
To Chait’s point, if it’s “almost impossible to overstate how thoroughly” Obama’s record “nullifies the central charges made against the administration’s policies,” it’s every bit as destructive to the central tenets to conservative assumptions about economic policy.
Looking at the latest data, it’s hard to deny the fact that if Romney had put together Obama’s results in his first term, he’d be hailed as a conquering hero worthy of Mt. Rushmore. Heading into the 2016 elections, the question wouldn’t be whether Romney would win, but how huge his margin of victory would be.
What’s more, conservatism would be celebrated as the only governing model that produces widespread prosperity.
But Romney lost and Obama delivered results Republicans said were impossible. Perhaps Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell could take a moment sometime over the next eight weeks to reflect on what they’d be saying right now if there were a GOP White House – while also explaining why and how the Republican Party has been so very wrong.
09/15/16 12:59 PM
By Steve Benen
We couldn’t have known at the time how important the quote would turn out to be. About six months before Election Day 2012, Mitt Romney sat down with Mark Halperin, who asked, “Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?”
The Republican nominee conceded he couldn’t “predict precisely,” but Romney added, “I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the polices that we put in place, we can get the unemployment rate down to 6%, perhaps a little lower.”
At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.2%. Now, as we near what would have been the end of Romney’s first term if he’d won, the unemployment rate is 4.9% – far better than the GOP candidate’s projection for his own success.
I thought of this today reading Vox’s Ezra Klein’s counterfactual about 2016 politics if the 2012 election had gone the other way, specifically in light of the latest Census Bureau data.
Here’s a thought experiment. What if Mitt Romney had won in 2012? What if it was his economy that was seeing sub-5 percent unemployment, falling poverty, and the largest median wage gains since the Census Bureau began keeping records?
There would be parades in the streets. President Romney would be hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan – or maybe even better! Progressivism would be discredited. The fundamental wisdom of conservatism would be affirmed.
There would be parades in the streets. President Romney would be hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan – or maybe even better! Progressivism would be discredited. The fundamental wisdom of conservatism would be affirmed.
Is there any doubt that Ezra’s correct?
This is usually the point at which conservative readers email to remind me it’s folly to believe the president is responsible for the direction of the planet’s largest economy. It’s a perfectly fair argument.
But let’s not dismiss the political circumstances too quickly.
This week’s Census Bureau data was widely celebrated and for good reason: income growth last year was the fastest on record; poverty rates saw their largest one-year drop since 1968; and the number of Americans without health insurance dropped to the lowest point ever recorded in the United States. New York’s Jon Chait added soon after, “It is almost impossible to overstate how thoroughly this data nullifies the central charges made against the administration’s policies.”
Even if you’re inclined to dismiss the idea that a White House’s agenda is responsible for macroeconomic performance, part of the problem for Republicans in this scenario is that they made fairly specific predictions: the Recovery Act wouldn’t help end the Great Recession; President Obama’s auto rescue wouldn’t help the auto industry; the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t lower the uninsured rate; and the Obama administration’s broader agenda related to taxes, spending, and regulations would stifle incomes and make poverty worse.
Republicans made these predictions based on their unshakable ideological beliefs, which should create a real problem for conservatives interested in a little self-reflection: every economic prediction the GOP made about Obama’s policies was wrong. Not just a little off, either – Republicans got the entire picture backwards.
To Chait’s point, if it’s “almost impossible to overstate how thoroughly” Obama’s record “nullifies the central charges made against the administration’s policies,” it’s every bit as destructive to the central tenets to conservative assumptions about economic policy.
Looking at the latest data, it’s hard to deny the fact that if Romney had put together Obama’s results in his first term, he’d be hailed as a conquering hero worthy of Mt. Rushmore. Heading into the 2016 elections, the question wouldn’t be whether Romney would win, but how huge his margin of victory would be.
What’s more, conservatism would be celebrated as the only governing model that produces widespread prosperity.
But Romney lost and Obama delivered results Republicans said were impossible. Perhaps Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell could take a moment sometime over the next eight weeks to reflect on what they’d be saying right now if there were a GOP White House – while also explaining why and how the Republican Party has been so very wrong.