The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Polls are going to show a fickle electorate between now and the debates. I don't pay attention to the polls till after the debates. One thing happens in the debates and everything being blabbed about today turns out based on a false premise. The whole centrality of the almighty opinion poll to the current campaign process and media coverage is stupid and a substitute for actually exploring the candidates qualifications, policy proposals etc

I do notice that after Trump's birther announcement circus the other day the media have become less shy about calling out Trump's lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9dbbfe-7c49-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

grokit

well-worn member
Donald Trump's lead widens in USC/L.A. Times tracking poll, which points to likely turnout as key shift

600


Donald Trump's lead over Hillary Clinton in the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national tracking poll grew to nearly six percentage points on Thursday, his largest advantage since his post-convention bounce in July.

The biggest reason appears to be an increase in the likelihood of Trump supporters who say they plan to vote, combined with a drop among Clinton supporters on that question. The nominees are now roughly equal in the voting commitment of their supporters, erasing an advantage previously held by Clinton.

The poll shows Trump leading Clinton, 47%-41%.

The question of voter turnout should continue to loom large until election day, making Clinton's advantage in field organizing and fundraising crucial for her if the race remains tight.

Trump's overall advantage in the poll coincides with other polls that show him closing the gap with Clinton. Because of differences in methodology, Trump tends to perform about six percentage points better in the USC/L.A. Times poll than in other polls.

On average, Clinton leads Trump by a little more than two percentage points in national polls, according to Real Clear Politics. Clinton has a 64% chance of winning the election in the FiveThirtyEight election forecast.

Here's why the poll differs from others.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...aily-1473947034-htmlstory.html#nt=oft01a-3li2

:myday:
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html
Vote as if It Matters

Paul Krugman SEPT. 19, 2016

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

Does it make sense to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House — because one of them will. Second, you have to believe that America will be better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare — which is what the Libertarian platform calls for.

But do 29 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe these things? I doubt it. Yet that, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, is the share of millennial voters who say that they would vote for Mr. Johnson if the election took place now. And the preponderance of young Americans who say they’ll back Mr. Johnson or Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appear to be citizens who would support Mrs. Clinton in a two-way race; including the minor party candidates cuts her margin among young voters from 21 points to just 5.

So I’d like to make a plea to young Americans: your vote matters, so please take it seriously.

Why are minor candidates seemingly drawing so much support this year? Very little of it, I suspect, reflects support for their policy positions. How many people have actually read the Libertarian platform? But if you’re thinking of voting Johnson, you really should. It’s a remarkable document.
As I said, it calls for abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the government does, including education. “We would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not our problem.

What really struck me, however, was what the platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue: “Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong?

It’s really hard to believe that young voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary think any of this is a good idea. But Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein have received essentially no media scrutiny, so that voters have no idea what they stand for. And their parties’ names sound nice: who among us is against liberty? The truth, that the Libertarian Party essentially stands for a return to all the worst abuses of the Gilded Age, is not out there.

Meanwhile, of course, it does make a huge difference which of the two realistic prospects for the presidency wins, and not just because of the difference in their temperaments and the degree to which they respect or have contempt for democratic norms. Their policy positions are drastically different, too.

True, much of what Mr. Trump says is incoherent: in his policy proposals, trillion dollar tax breaks are here today, gone tomorrow, back the day after. But anyone who calls him a “populist” isn’t looking at the general thrust of his ideas, or at whom he has chosen as economic advisers. Mr. Trump’s brain trust, such as it is, is composed of hard-line, right-wing supply-siders — whom even Republican economists have called “charlatans and cranks” — for whom low taxes on the rich are the overwhelming priority.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are insincere, that she would revert to 1990s policies in office: What some are now calling the “new liberal economics” has sunk deep roots in the Democratic Party, and dominates the ranks of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.

Now, maybe you don’t care. Maybe you consider center-left policies just as bad as hard-right policies. And maybe you have somehow managed to reconcile that disdain with tolerance for libertarian free-market mania. If so, by all means vote for Mr. Johnson.

But don’t vote for a minor-party candidate to make a statement. Nobody cares.

Remember, George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but somehow ended up in the White House anyway in part thanks to the Nader vote — and nonetheless proceeded to govern as if he had won a landslide. Can you really imagine a triumphant Mr. Trump showing restraint out of respect for all those libertarian votes?

Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly — which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America.

Here is another interesting (astonishing, really) column today in the Washington Post. Jennifer Rubin was a reliable spin-meister/apologist for W, and pushed Romney really hard. A true believer in the supply-side, orthodox republicanism of a few years back and up till recently a die-hard defender of Paul Ryan. She is now pronouncing the republican party dead and declares her crush on Ryan over. Here is part: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/19/the-gop-died-this-weekend/
To top it off, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus , who has carried Trump’s water and defended his egregious remarks, on Sunday threatened “penalties” would be enacted on the Republican nominees (e.g., Ohio Gov. John Kasich) who refused to endorse the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, pathological liar. In light of that, let’s look at the three questions above. No matter what Hillary Clinton’s faults — and they are many — it is hard to seriously argue that a man who would lead a racist conspiracy theory and then try to blame his opponent is fit to be president. Trump, like a small child caught misbehaving, simply denies the evidence or blames someone else or lashes out in anger. (He also this weekend called former defense secretary Robert Gates a “clown” in response to Gates’s well-reasoned argument that Trump is unfit to serve as commander in chief.) Again and again he’s proven his views so extreme (e.g., rounding up 11 million people), his judgement so egregious (e.g., embracing Vladimir Putin) and his character so twisted that only someone in deep denial or blinded by partisanship could defend him and insist he is worthy of the office.
As for the fate of the GOP, the evidence mounts that it cannot go merrily on its way after the election. A party that would sanction people who call out a racist deserves to go out of business. A party whose congressional leaders remain supportive of a nominee who incites violence, perpetuates racism, blatantly, and traffics in conspiracy theories loses the moral authority to govern.
In essence, birtherism is a lenient dividing line. Any who excuse Trump’s involvement in birtherism and defend his current lies should not have a seat at the center-right political party. That still allows reconciliation with those Republicans who felt Trump was “better than Hillary” (patently wrong, but earnestly felt). That still allows embrace of Republicans who meekly put party above country by endorsing Trump. (From a personal standpoint many of us in the #NeverTrump camp could not personally vote for anyone who fell into any of the categories — be it Speaker of the House Paul Ryan or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio or Indiana Gov. Mike Pence; others are surely entitled to conclude differently.) Actively defending, excusing, covering up and minimizing Trump’s birtherism puts Republicans in the exact camp as David Duke, the alt-right and other white supremacists. They should not be welcome in whatever party follows the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
If Trump Wins
by D.R. Tucker
September 18, 2016 2:30 PM

It could happen.

It could happen.

In his 2009 book The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989, right-wing author Steven Hayward describes the aftermath of President Carter’s defeat on November 4, 1980:

By Thursday the magnitude of the election was starting to course through the news cycle. “The election was a shocker,” Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote in a front-page article with the banner headline “A Sharp Right Turn.” “The conservative victory could hardly be more complete.” For establishment Washington it was as if a barbarian horde had sacked the city…Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts summed up the election’s meaning in one sentence: “Basically, the New Deal died yesterday.”​

Reagan’s election was a body blow from which the United States has yet to recover. Twenty years later, Bush’s selection by the United States Supreme Court broke the country’s jaw. Now, if Donald Trump wins on November 8, this fighter we call America will be carried out of the ring on a stretcher, barely conscious, covered in welts and bruises, having lost its championship glory.

When you go out on the street tomorrow, take a look at the people walking around you, and think about how those people will be in severe jeopardy if Trump wins.

Think about the beautiful young Muslim lady heading to work, and how a President Trump would treat her as nothing more than a terrorist-in-training. (You just know Trump assumed, without any evidence at all, that a Muslim must have been responsible for the explosion in New York City last night.)

Think about the worried young Mexican man in line for breakfast. He may be undocumented, but he’s unwavering in his love for this land of opportunity, and is scared to death that in a Trump administration, heavily armed federal agents will harm him–or worse–as they chase him out of this country (undocumented Irish immigrants will probably be left alone, of course).

Think about the nervous young woman on the train, who just learned that she is pregnant. Will she be able to bring an end to this unwanted and unplanned pregnancy before reproductive rights are further restricted by federal judges who think like Trump and Mike Pence?

Think about the young climate activist heading to a rally to express support for the Native American water protectors in North Dakota. His efforts to protect our precious planet will all be in vain if a President Trump undoes President Obama’s courageous efforts to combat carbon pollution. Climate scientists often talk of a tipping point when it becomes impossible to avoid the worst impacts of human-caused climate change; as my colleague David Atkins observed last month, Trump’s energy policies, if fully implemented, could make it impossible to prevent Earth from being bedeviled by more extreme weather events and ever-rising sea levels.

Think about the mothers and fathers taking their children to kindergarten. How will they be able to teach their kids that hate is wrong if the country elects a man who thinks hate makes one strong? As President, Trump could send a message to our impressionable youth that racism is righteous, that contempt for citizens of color is copacetic.

Think about the young black college student walking down the street, wearing a hooded sweatshirt with his school’s logo. He’s scared that some cop will assume that he’s a thug. He’s scared that some cop will assume that a person with his complexion couldn’t possibly be a student at an elite school. He’s scared that some cop will shoot him for no good reason–and that if Trump is President, the Justice Department will pay no attention to such slaughter.

Then, think about yourself, your children, your friends. Do you really want to live in a country where Donald freakin’ Trump is the Commander-in-Chief?

It could happen.

It could happen.

Future generations will call it a crime and a sin.

What will you call it…if Trump wins?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I have a thought experiment for you all. The President just spoke, about the terrorist attacks in NY and NJ and MN, but also about terrorism in general and the UN assembly meeting in NY.

I want you to see the President speak on this issue. Watch his manner and think about what he is saying. Watch him closely, and try an imagine what he thinks he needs to do.

Then I want you to imagine President Trump in exactly the same situation. What would HE be saying? What does HE think his job is? What would HE be communicating and what would HIS manner be like?

And then tell me how we would be served to have Donald Trump as POTUS...
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Oy... Scared yet?

489851141_3_0.jpg


Mike Pence’s VP role model: Dick Cheney
09/19/16 10:00 AM

By Steve Benen
In 50 days, Americans will have a new vice president-elect, and the honor may go to Indiana’s right-wing governor, Mike Pence. ABC News’ Martha Raddatz talked to Donald Trump’s Republican running mate about his vision of the job.

GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence said his role model for the number two spot is the last Republican to hold the job – Dick Cheney.

“I frankly hold Dick Cheney in really high regard in his role as vice president and as an American,” Pence said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Let’s not brush past this too quickly, because Cheney’s tenure in national office was one of the more important fiascoes in modern political history. Cheney’s time as vice president was marked by scandals, consequential lies, deadly misjudgments, and routine incompetence.

This was a vice presidency of undisclosed locations, a man who saw himself as his own branch of government, and an official who told a cordial senator, “Go f*** yourself.”

Cheney left office with a 13% approval rating – roughly half the support Richard Nixon enjoyed at the height of Watergate.

In private correspondence, former Secretary of State Colin Powell described Cheney as an “idiot.”

This is Mike Pence’s role model for the office to which he aspires.

In the same ABC interview, the Indiana governor added that, like Cheney, he hoped to be “a very active vice president.”

If Trump’s Republican ticket succeeds, Pence is likely to be “very active,” indeed. In May, a leading Trump surrogate reportedly reached out to a senior adviser to Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) about possibly serving as running mate. At the time, Kasich was told Trump’s vice president “would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.”

President Trump would prefer to focus solely on “making America great again,” while his VP did all the substantive work.

It makes Pence’s Cheney admiration that much more significant.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
a terrible thing, to go from the friend of the world to the only remaining serious bully on the planet...
 
ClearBlueLou,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
a terrible thing, to go from the friend of the world to the only remaining serious bully on the planet...

Lets not forget his good buddy Putin. They could tag team... :mad::bang:

On another subject, we knew THIS was coming... :)

Chris Christie faces new allegations in ‘Bridgegate’ scandal
09/19/16 12:45 PM—Updated 09/19/16 12:54 PM

By Steve Benen
In May 2015, Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) longtime ally, David Wildstein, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy, stemming from his role in the “Bridgegate” scandal. At the time, the Republican governor reiterated his longtime position: “I had no knowledge or involvement in the planning or execution of this act.”

One of the enduring mysteries of this controversy is that we don’t know whether or not Christie’s claim is true. In May 2015, Wildstein’s lawyer told reporters, “There is a lot more that will come out.” He added that the governor “knew of the lane closures as they occurred” and that “evidence exists” that proves it.

Keep this in mind when reading about this morning’s developments. The New York Times reported:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey knew that his close associates were involved in a plan to shut down lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge as it was happening and that the closings were intended to punish a local mayor for declining to support him, prosecutors said on Monday.

It was the first time Mr. Christie, a Republican, has been accused of knowing about the scheme as it unfolded. The prosecutors made the assertion during opening statements in the trial of two former Christie administration officials charged with closing the lanes in 2013 and then covering it up.​

Remember, Christie’s posture has evolved over time on this story. For months, the Garden State governor insisted the entire controversy was absurd and that his office would never conspire to punish Christie’s own constituents as part of some petty and unnecessary partisan vendetta.

When evidence proved that Christie’s office really did conspire to punish the governor’s own constituents as part of a petty and unnecessary partisan vendetta, he claimed ignorance. Sure, top members of Christie’s team orchestrated and executed the plan, but the governor, his reputation for micromanaging notwithstanding, insisted he had no idea what was going on with his own top aides who were abusing their power in his name.

According to the U.S. attorney’s office, Christie’s second line was as wrong as his first.

NJ.com added this morning that Assistant U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna, in his opening argument, told jurors that David Wildstein and Bill Baroni “bragged” to the governor directly about the scheme to close lanes onto the George Washington Bridge in order to cripple Fort Lee deliberately.

Christie, it’s worth emphasizing, was not indicted in this case. The opening arguments pertain to criminal charges against Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, two former top aides to the governor.

Nevertheless, if there’s compelling proof that Christie knew about the scheme, did nothing, and later lied about his knowledge, it seems likely that the Democratic-led legislature would at least consider impeachment proceedings against the governor, who would face renewed pressure to resign.

Christie was a finalist for Donald Trump’s running mate on the 2016 Republican ticket. It’s safe to say quite a few GOP officials are relieved this morning that the New Jersey governor didn’t make the cut.
 

grokit

well-worn member
we knew THIS was coming... :)

Chris Christie faces new allegations in ‘Bridgegate’ scandal
09/19/16 12:45 PM—Updated 09/19/16 12:54 PM

By Steve Benen
In May 2015, Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) longtime ally, David Wildstein, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy, stemming from his role in the “Bridgegate” scandal. At the time, the Republican governor reiterated his longtime position: “I had no knowledge or involvement in the planning or execution of this act.”

One of the enduring mysteries of this controversy is that we don’t know whether or not Christie’s claim is true. In May 2015, Wildstein’s lawyer told reporters, “There is a lot more that will come out.” He added that the governor “knew of the lane closures as they occurred” and that “evidence exists” that proves it.

Keep this in mind when reading about this morning’s developments. The New York Times reported:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey knew that his close associates were involved in a plan to shut down lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge as it was happening and that the closings were intended to punish a local mayor for declining to support him, prosecutors said on Monday.

It was the first time Mr. Christie, a Republican, has been accused of knowing about the scheme as it unfolded. The prosecutors made the assertion during opening statements in the trial of two former Christie administration officials charged with closing the lanes in 2013 and then covering it up.​

Remember, Christie’s posture has evolved over time on this story. For months, the Garden State governor insisted the entire controversy was absurd and that his office would never conspire to punish Christie’s own constituents as part of some petty and unnecessary partisan vendetta.

When evidence proved that Christie’s office really did conspire to punish the governor’s own constituents as part of a petty and unnecessary partisan vendetta, he claimed ignorance. Sure, top members of Christie’s team orchestrated and executed the plan, but the governor, his reputation for micromanaging notwithstanding, insisted he had no idea what was going on with his own top aides who were abusing their power in his name.

According to the U.S. attorney’s office, Christie’s second line was as wrong as his first.

NJ.com added this morning that Assistant U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna, in his opening argument, told jurors that David Wildstein and Bill Baroni “bragged” to the governor directly about the scheme to close lanes onto the George Washington Bridge in order to cripple Fort Lee deliberately.

Christie, it’s worth emphasizing, was not indicted in this case. The opening arguments pertain to criminal charges against Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, two former top aides to the governor.

Nevertheless, if there’s compelling proof that Christie knew about the scheme, did nothing, and later lied about his knowledge, it seems likely that the Democratic-led legislature would at least consider impeachment proceedings against the governor, who would face renewed pressure to resign.

Christie was a finalist for Donald Trump’s running mate on the 2016 Republican ticket. It’s safe to say quite a few GOP officials are relieved this morning that the New Jersey governor didn’t make the cut.
Off topic...
but why didn't baroni and/or kelly get a chance to cop a plea and flip on christie?
They would've had to indict him and they didn't, too late now?
The nj da... :disgust:

:myday:
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Off topic...
but why didn't baroni and/or kelly get a chance to cop a plea and flip on christie?
They would've had to indict christie and they didn't, too late now?
The nj da... :disgust:

:myday:
This isn't over yet, and there is no reason Christie can't still be indited on any number of things. Remember, David Samson, the Christie confident who was running the Port Authority at the time, has yet to be sentenced for his bribery conviction.

There are still plenty of shoes still waiting to drop...

I think Christie stuff is still on topic as long as he remains a major surrogate of the Donald...
 

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
The accusations against Christie that are being leveled here are of the same sort and caliber against HRC but they get summarily dismissed? Clinton's staff get caught doing this that and the other but Clinton is exhonarated. Christie's staff gets caught doing this that or the other and he should be hanged. They all should be held equally accountable no matter party affiliation.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton Is Pretty Overwhelming
Sep. 19, 2016 7:45 AM
Kevin Drum

For a lot of liberals, the most important goal of this election is to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. And since Trump naturally sucks up most of the political oxygen, that means lots of blogging about Trump and not so much about Clinton.

But a lot of lefties aren't happy about that. They want a positive argument in favor of voting for Clinton, not just a negative one for voting against Trump. That's fair enough, so I figured I'd put one together.

But I should be crystal clear here: Nobody should take this as an attempt to demonstrate that Clinton is perfect or to persuade you to vote for her. If you think she's too instinctively hawkish—as I do—that might be reason enough for a liberal to vote for someone else. On some issues—supporting the Iraq War, supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, voting for the Patriot Act, etc.—she's taken positions that might be flat deal killers. On other issues, you might think she's not strong enough, or that it took her too long to get to the right place. Finally, on a personal level, she's often oversecretive, overly lawyerly, and sometimes skates a little close to some ethical lines. She distrusts the press and withholds information too often. And she is, plainly, an establishment politician, with all the flaws that implies.

On the other hand, no successful politician is ever perfect. Franklin D. Roosevelt signed on to lots of compromises that liberals detested. Ronald Reagan did the same with conservatives. Clinton will too. There are just too many competing interests in a pluralistic country like America to expect anything else. But all that
blog_clinton_obama_110th_congress.jpg
said, the liberal case for Clinton remains pretty overwhelming. The following list is by no means exhaustive, but here it is:

  1. In 1995, despite strong pressure from diplomats and White House aides to remain low-key, she went to China and said, "Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights."
  2. She worked her heart out for health care reform in 1993.
  3. She now supports Obamacare, and supports expanding it.
  4. She supports increasing the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour. This is good for workers, but less likely to have downsides than a national level of $15.
  5. She supported comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 and continues to support it.
  6. She was a prime mover behind the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and was a key figure in finding compromises that allowed it to pass after partisan bickering nearly sank it.
  7. Sen. Sherrod Brown: "As much as we want to move this country forward, you gotta cajole, persuade, work with, whatever it takes. And I think she does that better than about anybody I know."
  8. She supports LGBT rights.
  9. She worked with Attorney General Janet Reno to create the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women.
  10. She was one of the prime movers behind SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, eventually signed into law by Bill Clinton.
  11. She pushed the Adoption and Safe Families Act through Congress.
  12. She was instrumental in the founding of the Center for American Progress.
  13. She has been the target of countless baseless attacks but has always rebounded and kept on working anyway.
  14. President Barack Obama: "What sets Hillary apart is that through it all, she just keeps on going, and she doesn't stop caring, and she doesn't stop trying, and she never stops fighting for us—even if we haven't always appreciated it."
  15. She voted against both of George Bush's tax giveaways to the rich.
  16. blog_hillary_clinton_politifact.jpg
    She favors closing the carried-interest loophole.
  17. Jill Abramson, who covered Bill and Hillary Clinton critically for more than two decades, first in the Washington bureau of the Wall Street Journal and later at the New York Times, says this about Hillary Clinton: "Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy…There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor."
  18. She supports legislation to end racial profiling at all levels of government.
  19. She wants to clean up the toxic lead remaining in soil, water, and paint.
  20. As secretary of state, she was tireless in traveling the world to repair the damage to our reputation from the Bush years.
  21. German chancellor Angela Merkel: "I admire her strategic thinking…Whenever I was able to work with Hillary Clinton, it was a great pleasure."
  22. She wants to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses.
  23. She voted for TARP.
  24. She was the principal author of the sanctions on Iran that brought them to the bargaining table.
  25. She then began the secret negotiations with Iran that eventually led to the treaty stopping their work on nuclear weapons.
  26. She supports Dodd-Frank.
  27. At the age of 29 she co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families advocacy group.
  28. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.
  29. She supports a higher tax rate on the very rich.
  30. She supports the Paris Climate Agreement and has endorsed a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050.
  31. She wants to restore voting rights to felons who have served their sentences.
  32. She was one of the original co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have implemented card check.
  33. She has literally spent her entire adult life advocating for children and women.
  34. Sen. Barbara Boxer: "She is authentic. Hillary is Hillary, and she's not going to become a cheerleader with pom-poms."
  35. She supports automatic voter registration at age 18.
  36. She has a lifetime score of 94 percent from the AFL-CIO and 98 percent from AFSCME.
This list goes to 84, but I can't get it to post, so here is the link...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/progressive-case-hillary-clinton-overwhelming
 
Last edited:

Wtfanyway

Member
The accusations against Christie that are being leveled here are of the same sort and caliber against HRC but they get summarily dismissed? Clinton's staff get caught doing this that and the other but Clinton is exhonarated. Christie's staff gets caught doing this that or the other and he should be hanged. They all should be held equally accountable no matter party affiliation.
I don't think Clinton's assistants or staff ever shutdown aNY bridges that tens of thousands of people used everyday get to work and school for political Revenge, did they?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Will College-Educated White Women Vote for a Sexist?
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 19, 2016 1:33 PM

With the release of a maternity leave policy (no matter how flawed), it is clear that Kellyanne Conway is trying to present an alternative Trump that will appeal to suburban (mostly college-educated) white women. It is important to note that – after Labor Day – the campaign is still trying to make their candidate appealing to people who have traditionally voted Republican. A huge poll this month by the Washington Post points out the challenge.

Among white college graduates, Clinton leads Trump in 31 of the 50 states, and the two are about even in six others. Trump leads among college-educated whites in just 13 states, all safe Republican states in recent elections.

Across 49 states where the poll interviewed at least 100 white college-educated women, Clinton leads Trump with this group in 38 states and by double-digit margins in 37. Averaging across all states, Clinton leads by 23 points among white women with college degrees.​

A 23-point margin with college-educated white women is massive. Conway certainly has her work cut out for her. To counter her efforts, it is important to remind these women of the candidate she’s trying to sell to them.

My thoughts immediately went to what I think is the most inflammatory thing Trump has said about women in one of his many appearances on Howard Stern’s radio show. It is often used to demonstrate his disregard for people who served in the military. But as a woman, I find it appalling.

Donald Trump, who had five draft deferments, never had to fight in the jungles of Vietnam.

But he had a different sort of war record, as he told radio host Howard Stern years ago: He slept with many women without getting STDs. “It is my personal Vietnam,” he said. “I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” What’s more, Trump added: “This is better than Vietnam. It’s more fun.”

Said Stern: “Every vagina is a landmine. Haven’t we both said that in private?”

Trump concurred: “I think it is a potential landmine. There’s some real danger there.”​

It’s hard to know what else to say about a man who thinks he’s a “great and very brave soldier” for his record of maneuvering the “potential landmine” of women’s vaginas.

But the list of offenses to women is long and sordid. If Ivanka Trump wants us to believe that all of the sudden this man actually cares about children, she’s had trouble explaining why their maternity leave policy applies only to women. The answer is pretty clear. Trump considers that to be women’s work. Here are just a few things he’s said about his own children:

“Do you actually change diapers?” host Anthony Cumia asked Donald Trump on the Opie and Anthony show in November 2005.

The then-59-year-old businessman, whose wife Melania was pregnant with his fifth child and her first, responded bluntly: “No, I don’t do that.”

“There’s a lot of women out there that demand that the husband act like the wife, and you know, there’s a lot of husbands that listen to that,” Trump added. “So you know, they go for it.”…

“I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park,” Trump said in the interview. He repeated the same sentiment to Stern two years later, saying, “Melania is a wonderful mother. She takes care of the baby and I pay all of the costs.”…

Trump added of his current wife, Melania: “She would take great care of the child without me having to do very much.”​

Josh Marshall has accurately described Donald Trump’s world view as being all about dominance. Obviously that comes into play in how he sees women and the role of wives. Take a look at the language he uses to describe Ivana in his book, “The Art of the Comeback:”

“My big mistake with Ivana was taking her out of the role of wife and allowing her to run one of my casinos in Atlantic City, then the Plaza Hotel. The problem was, work was all she wanted to talk about. When I got home at night, rather than talking about the softer subjects of life, she wanted to tell me how well the Plaza was doing, or what a great day the casino had. I really appreciated all her efforts, but it was just too much. . . I will never again give a wife responsibility within my business. Ivana worked very hard, and I appreciated the effort, but I soon began to realize that I was married to a businessperson rather than a wife.”​

Apparently for Trump, men are allowed to be a businessperson rather than a husband.

When a man has to endure a woman who is not supportive and complains constantly about his not being home enough or not being attentive enough, he will not be very successful unless he is able to cut the cord [ie, divorce her].”​

As the Trump campaign tries to make their candidate more appealing to white college-educated women, it is important to keep in mind what Franklin Foer said about this candidate six months ago.

Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it economic populism. Despite many years of arguing the necessity of taxing the rich, he now wants to slice their rates to bits. Trump has claimed his nonlinear approach to policy is a virtue. Closing deals is what matters in the end, he says, not unbleached allegiance to conviction. But there’s one ideology that he does hold with sincerity and practices with unwavering fervor: misogyny.​
 
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: Silat

Farid

Well-Known Member
I'm starting to realize the real comedy of this election:

That Clinton supporters are up in arms about how Trump could possibly win, but the only reason he has a chance is because their candidate is so disliked. It's almost like she's paying for rigging the primary by not having enthusiastic support in the general.
 

ReggieB

Well-Known Member
I'm starting to realize the real comedy of this election:

That Clinton supporters are up in arms about how Trump could possibly win, but the only reason he has a chance is because their candidate is so disliked. It's almost like she's paying for rigging the primary by not having enthusiastic support in the general.
yeah, cos it couldn't be anything to do with the campaign of lies and hate the republicans have waged against her, could it?
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I'm starting to realize the real comedy of this election:

That Clinton supporters are up in arms about how Trump could possibly win, but the only reason he has a chance is because their candidate is so disliked. It's almost like she's paying for rigging the primary by not having enthusiastic support in the general.
When did you stop beating your wife?

When you begin with a false premise, anything is possible.

Hillary didn't rig anything. Bernie lost the primary because he wasn't/isn't a Democrat, and there was no way he was going to convince most of us, especially those that have followed politics for decades, that he was a dem or gave a shit about the Democratic party. The fact that he got so far is remarkable, but he couldn't win and thank the stars.

The majority of Bernie supporters were new to politics and didn't have a clue how it was supposed to work. They and people who were so frustrated they were willing to take a chance on someone with relatively little chance of winning the general. Or had Clinton derangement syndrome. There were never going to be enough for him to win.

I think most of those people understand that Trump can not be allowed to destroy America and will vote for Hillary in the end. And Trump continues to help.

Thanks Don.
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Clinton under oath said:
I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall.

39x fyi..

The Republican do not need to say anything for her to lose this race. She has said/done enough, all by her self..

No one else to blame here but her and the DNC. Maybe the State Dept. and the FBI also.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
When did you stop beating your wife?

When you begin with a false premise, anything is possible.

Hillary didn't rig anything. Bernie lost the primary because he wasn't/isn't a Democrat, and there was no way he was going to convince most of us, especially those that have followed politics for decades, that he was a dem or gave a shit about the Democratic party. The fact that he got so far is remarkable, but he couldn't win and thank the stars.

The majority of Bernie supporters were new to politics and didn't have a clue how it was supposed to work. They and people who were so frustrated they were willing to take a chance on someone with relatively little chance of winning the general. Or had Clinton derangement syndrome. There were never going to be enough for him to win.

I think most of those people understand that Trump can not be allowed to destroy America and will vote for Hillary in the end. And Trump continues to help.

Thanks Don.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the majority of what you wrote here but in answer to.... When did someone stop beating their wife? I believe the answer may have been 'After HRC took care of her for sleeping with Bill'. ;)
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
When did you stop beating your wife?

When you begin with a false premise, anything is possible.

Hillary didn't rig anything. Bernie lost the primary because he wasn't/isn't a Democrat, and there was no way he was going to convince most of us, especially those that have followed politics for decades, that he was a dem or gave a shit about the Democratic party. The fact that he got so far is remarkable, but he couldn't win and thank the stars.

The majority of Bernie supporters were new to politics and didn't have a clue how it was supposed to work. They and people who were so frustrated they were willing to take a chance on someone with relatively little chance of winning the general. Or had Clinton derangement syndrome. There were never going to be enough for him to win.

I think most of those people understand that Trump can not be allowed to destroy America and will vote for Hillary in the end. And Trump continues to help.

Thanks Don.

Wow!
There's a whole lotta wrong in that post. Hillary was the choice of democrats for a long, long, time. She may not have had a 'direct' hand in the way the DNC handled things but there is no denying that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders to promote their candidate. That is a proven fact told, perhaps unwillingly, by the DNC themselves. Sanders ran as a Democrat and should have been given the same courtesy as Clinton.
Saying that Bernie Sanders supporter's are young, or naive is offensive and inaccurate. I speak only for myself, but there may be others here that feel the same way, and many here, who are and were pro Sander's people that have been involved in politics for a long time.
No matter your view of polls, every poll showed Sanders as the candidate to beat trump. HRC is choking and the election may be lost to someone that i feel barely qualifies as human.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I didn't expect to get much love in here for my post, it is pretty clear there were many Bernie fans here. We are unlikely to agree on any of this, but I believe it to be true.

But if you are offended by the post you need to work on your reading comprehension.
The majority of Bernie supporters were new to politics and didn't have a clue how it was supposed to work. They and people who were so frustrated they were willing to take a chance on someone with relatively little chance of winning the general. Or had Clinton derangement syndrome.

Of course, you can choose to be offended anyway, but that's on you not me.
 
Top Bottom