The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Because she did not favor gay marriage when she was younger in no way suggests or implies that she was homophobic. Not supporting gay marriage means just that, that you don't support gays ability to formally marry. It doesn't mean you are afraid of gays or think they are bad people or even wrong. I have only fully supported gay marriage for a decade or so, while being friends with gay people and supporting their rights for all my adult life.
There is no doubt that Hillary has not always supported gay marriage, but there is literally NOTHING out there (that I have seen) that might suggests she has ever been afraid of or unsupportive (other than as regards marriage) of or in any way "anti gay" now or anywhere in her history. She has evolved, as many of us have, but she was never a gay bigot like Trump or most of his followers are.
I personally think she was only guilty of being snared in the same trap that many others have in believing that the bible was anti gay and deferring to it. She no longer supports that position.
There is no doubt that Hillary has not always supported gay marriage, but there is literally NOTHING out there (that I have seen) that might suggests she has ever been afraid of or unsupportive (other than as regards marriage) of or in any way "anti gay" now or anywhere in her history. She has evolved, as many of us have, but she was never a gay bigot like Trump or most of his followers are.
I personally think she was only guilty of being snared in the same trap that many others have in believing that the bible was anti gay and deferring to it. She no longer supports that position.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Donald Trump is a fucking time bomb. I cannot believe he has come so far and could be our next president. It is unreal! I think Hillary with all her flaws and lies is 10 times better.
KellyAnne Conway is a joke too. Trying to make Trump appear presidential. She is trying to form and smooth out Trump's rough edges. She was just saying that Hillary is trying to make this negative. He's the one who's been calling her Crazy Hillary. Conway has tried to tame the beast. What happens after the election? He goes back to what he was acting like 2 months ago. That was the real Trump.
KellyAnne Conway is a joke too. Trying to make Trump appear presidential. She is trying to form and smooth out Trump's rough edges. She was just saying that Hillary is trying to make this negative. He's the one who's been calling her Crazy Hillary. Conway has tried to tame the beast. What happens after the election? He goes back to what he was acting like 2 months ago. That was the real Trump.
lwien
Well-Known Member
I gotta take issue with this "evolved" kind of thinking or rather to put it into a different perspective, in this context, "evolved" means stating something that is in total contradiction to the way one personally believes in order to satisfy their political ambitions.
I don't know about you guys, but for me, I can't think of one instance where my core beliefs have "evolved" since I was a teenager. Have the years that I have spent being alive on this planet opened my eyes to other possibilities and have possibly caused me to question those core beliefs? Yup, but in the final analysis, they haven't changed in over 60 years.
Edit: Ok, after a bit of thinking, there is one core belief that has changed. I used to think that it was ok to believe that I was a victim at times because of things that happen to me. I no longer feel that way for I take 100% responsibility to whatever happens to me and to how I react to whatever happens to me. THAT is a core belief that has changed, but other than that, I can't think of another one.
Yup. Kinda like that guy who's head exploded in Scanners.
Last edited:
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
..................................................................................
Yes, "evolved" to a career politician often means "holy shit, more voters see it the other way so time to change, I mean evolve".
I mean Chris Christie just approved Med MJ for PTSD and his core belief is close to--- anyone with any amount of mj deserves life in the slammer
grokit
well-worn member
This is so off-base. You had me in the first paragraph with the rationale for killary's gay marriage flipflop. I used to be pro-civil union as well, because it seemed like a great compromise with the immoral minority. Killary is more of a follower than a leader on this issue, like she is on many, and that's okay with me.
Bernie supporters, unlike the blindly sycophantic fanboys of the red and blue teams, are not followers. They are visionary citizens that were ready to lead this country away from all of this chronically polarized bullshit with pragmatic change that works for all, guided by the president that had the best chance of finding a consensus with both parties, precisely because he is not a true-blue democrat, but an independent.
Bernie would have won in a landslide. He would have been a historically successful leader in the model of fdr, our first democratic champion of socialism and one of our greatest presidents. Fdr was great because he had guiding moral principles that transcended party lines, and he put the people of this country first.
A negotiated political endorsement of his opponent with the caveat that drumpf needs to be stopped and citizens united needs to be reversed is not the same as an enthusiastic one; bernie's supporters get this.
Last edited:
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
I used to be a pacifist. Turn the other cheek. They hold nothing. Violence solves nothing.
Now I have evolved to we put down mad animals. Better you than me. Let survivors write the history. Sort of fellow.
(I liked me more before, but I am trying to keep it real)
Now I have evolved to we put down mad animals. Better you than me. Let survivors write the history. Sort of fellow.
(I liked me more before, but I am trying to keep it real)
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Given that Hillary was a flaming leftist radical in those days, is it so surprising she (and Obama and damn near everyone else) tailored their position to come out publicly a bit further back from the edge of what public opinion will bear? Didn't you notice that I used scare quotes on 'evolved'? It's a given that neither Clinton nor Obama really evolved in their personal positions. The public evolved and the pols made sure not to get too far out ahead of their public. So, many liberals threaded the needle by favoring functional equality, civil unions, benefits for civil union partners, etc without actually going all the way to gay marriage. They had a finger up in the air testing the wind and it was not going to fly yet. Their position shifted to become more liberal as public acceptance of such a position improved. Hello? This is what pols do. If it shocks you, you need to get out a bit. There is this naive cult of purity nowadays. Some people are going to say well if she favored gay marriage and didn't say so she lied. Well there is lying and then there is malicious lying. This is more in the nature of a tactical, transitory position which attempted to confer rights and benefits, if full marriage equality was not yet feasible. Politics is the art of the possible. It is not generally a sphere where the ideal is achieved in one fell swoop.
It should be added that this is all quite different from Gary Johnson's position on global warming. He thinks uh, yeah, maybe there is global warming, and um, possibly it might be caused by human activity, but our governments should do nothing about it. We should trust to the same market magic that led private enterprise to properly regulate pollution and acid rain all by itself. He refuses to regulate CO2 emissions, period. This is not a tactical positioning for a future virtuous move - he is just pushing a moronic policy that fits his laissez faire ideology, helps energy companies and poses grave dangers for the safety of our descendants.
It should be added that this is all quite different from Gary Johnson's position on global warming. He thinks uh, yeah, maybe there is global warming, and um, possibly it might be caused by human activity, but our governments should do nothing about it. We should trust to the same market magic that led private enterprise to properly regulate pollution and acid rain all by itself. He refuses to regulate CO2 emissions, period. This is not a tactical positioning for a future virtuous move - he is just pushing a moronic policy that fits his laissez faire ideology, helps energy companies and poses grave dangers for the safety of our descendants.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I think that is unreasonable. Evolving in this sense is incorporating more experience with gay people, more conversations and greater understanding of what they think and how they see the world, into your decision making process. We are born with nothing, and only become knowledgeable about life based on our experience with it. If everything you believe today is just exactly what you believed when you were 20, I would suggest you have had your brain turned off. I suspect that is not the case.
And, btw, how I feel about "homosexuals" is not what I would consider a "core belief" in my world. I don't categorize people in that way. How I might feel ABOUT ANYONE I DON'T KNOW might qualify as a core belief, but my core doesn't separate out gays.
lwien
Well-Known Member
My "core" beliefs have not changed other than the one that I stated, and......you are correct. My brain has never turned off, which at times, I wish it had.
I do, but in the context of my feelings about others who are different than myself, be it sexual preference, race and or religion.
lwien
Well-Known Member
So much bs, just another day...
"List of top DNC donors who also got plum ambassadorships…"
Isn't that how the majority of ambassadorships have occurred since the very beginning....of time?
Last edited:
I'm with @lwien on core beliefs, which essentially don't change all that much throughout ones life span... but on my coming to terms (more or less), as I have, later in life with the realization that I am responsible for all that befalls me good or bad (a core belief - or maybe just a badge I polish now & then), I equivocate - yes, at my core, I accept the premise that I am 100% responsible for all the good and bad in my life, but still my emotions and behaviors follow a different compass, along with my finger that points at others who've done me wrong, or a handshake with those who've done me right. I guess that makes me a conflicted hypocrite, and human to a fault. I view our candidates as flag poles, whose core poles run deep and hold firm, while their flags wag whichever way the winds blow.
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
New Roundups Of Trump’s Lies Prove Why Fact-Checking Is Vital During Presidential Debates
Blog ››› 26 sec ago ››› TYLER CHERRY
The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico all independently published on September 24 and 25 reviews of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s “blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies” in just the last week. Given that Trump’s “mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration” is so “frequent,” these reports of Trump’s “untruths” bolster the case for debate moderators to fact-check the candidates during the presidential debates.
Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton are set to debate on September 26 in the first of three meetings. Given that Trump has a startling penchant for lying and that Trump’s debate prep team is filled with conspiracy theorists and disreputable political operatives, journalists and veteran debate moderators have called on the moderators to hold the candidates to a high level of truth-telling and fact-check their inaccurate statements.
Media Matters has also called on the debate moderators to fact-check the candidates in real-time, so a debate over settled fact does not become a “‘he said, she said’” situation. Failing to fact-check Trump’s lies during the debate will also feed into the growing media tendency to lower the bar for Trump and hold the two candidates to different standards.
Those calls for asking “tough follow-up questions” have been given even more importance with these new studies. Trump, according to a five-day Politico analysis of his most recent remarks, “averaged about one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds.” The Politico analysis found 87 different lies of Trump’s, including on issues such as the economy, health care, national security, immigration, and Clinton, among others. The study also noted Trump’s September 16 lie that “he was not the person responsible for the birtherism campaign to delegitimize Barack Obama’s presidency.”
It comes down to who lies the least and who would be able to be the one with their finger on the "button."
CK
Blog ››› 26 sec ago ››› TYLER CHERRY
The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico all independently published on September 24 and 25 reviews of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s “blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies” in just the last week. Given that Trump’s “mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration” is so “frequent,” these reports of Trump’s “untruths” bolster the case for debate moderators to fact-check the candidates during the presidential debates.
Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton are set to debate on September 26 in the first of three meetings. Given that Trump has a startling penchant for lying and that Trump’s debate prep team is filled with conspiracy theorists and disreputable political operatives, journalists and veteran debate moderators have called on the moderators to hold the candidates to a high level of truth-telling and fact-check their inaccurate statements.
Media Matters has also called on the debate moderators to fact-check the candidates in real-time, so a debate over settled fact does not become a “‘he said, she said’” situation. Failing to fact-check Trump’s lies during the debate will also feed into the growing media tendency to lower the bar for Trump and hold the two candidates to different standards.
Those calls for asking “tough follow-up questions” have been given even more importance with these new studies. Trump, according to a five-day Politico analysis of his most recent remarks, “averaged about one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds.” The Politico analysis found 87 different lies of Trump’s, including on issues such as the economy, health care, national security, immigration, and Clinton, among others. The study also noted Trump’s September 16 lie that “he was not the person responsible for the birtherism campaign to delegitimize Barack Obama’s presidency.”
It comes down to who lies the least and who would be able to be the one with their finger on the "button."
CK
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
If Facts Don’t Matter, Presidential Debates Are Just a Reality Show
by David Atkins
September 25, 2016 3:09 PM
Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates has declared that the debates should be a fact-check-free zone:
This is terrible on many levels. Debates are supposed to illustrate how the candidates would respond to a variety of policy challenges. Those challenges depend on having a shared set of facts: a 10% unemployment rate would create a very different policy environment from a 5% unemployment. If each candidate is claiming different unemployment statistics, you don’t have a debate. You have a noisy argument that sheds a lot of heat and no light. It’s a useless exercise.
Moreover, the example she gave is frankly bizarre. It’s one thing to dispute, say, models of economic growth or the efficacy of various foreign policy approaches. But the unemployment rate? That has a single reliable source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is literally the only legitimate source for unemployment numbers. There is a small debate within economic circles as to whether the BLS unemployment statistics appropriately reflect the reality of economic pain within the country, in terms of not counting people who stopped looking for work or potentially ignoring too many of the underemployed. Some people use a U6 model for unemployment rather than a U3 model. But the starting point for any reasonable discussion of the unemployment rate is the official BLS number.
If one candidate says that unemployment is at 5% and the other candidate says it’s much higher, it’s absolutely the job of a moderator to inform the public that the official BLS statistics support one candidate’s assertion. The candidate trying to claim an alternate reality should then be pressed to say why they disbelieve the BLS, proving either that they’re a conspiracy monger, or potentially that they have a sophisticated critique of the government’s economic model–which would certainly be an interesting and informative conversation, but one that can only happen in the context of a single, authoritative factual source acknowledged by both candidates.
Republicans are still furious that Candy Crowley fact-checked Mitt Romney’s lies about Benghazi in 2012. But Crowley did precisely the right thing. When the candidates are presenting not just different perspectives but different versions of easily verifiable reality, it’s up to the press to ground the debate in fact.
Otherwise it’s just a spectacle, and one that damages the fabric of the country further as our country’s ideological tribes inhabit not just different cultures and geographies, but different understandings of reality entirely. That serves no one, and it’s the opposite of objective.
by David Atkins
September 25, 2016 3:09 PM
Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates has declared that the debates should be a fact-check-free zone:
“I think personally, if you start getting into fact-checking, I’m not sure. What is a big fact? What’s a little fact? And if you and I have different sources of information, does your source about the unemployment rate agree with my source? I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the moderator into essentially serving as the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
This is terrible on many levels. Debates are supposed to illustrate how the candidates would respond to a variety of policy challenges. Those challenges depend on having a shared set of facts: a 10% unemployment rate would create a very different policy environment from a 5% unemployment. If each candidate is claiming different unemployment statistics, you don’t have a debate. You have a noisy argument that sheds a lot of heat and no light. It’s a useless exercise.
Moreover, the example she gave is frankly bizarre. It’s one thing to dispute, say, models of economic growth or the efficacy of various foreign policy approaches. But the unemployment rate? That has a single reliable source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is literally the only legitimate source for unemployment numbers. There is a small debate within economic circles as to whether the BLS unemployment statistics appropriately reflect the reality of economic pain within the country, in terms of not counting people who stopped looking for work or potentially ignoring too many of the underemployed. Some people use a U6 model for unemployment rather than a U3 model. But the starting point for any reasonable discussion of the unemployment rate is the official BLS number.
If one candidate says that unemployment is at 5% and the other candidate says it’s much higher, it’s absolutely the job of a moderator to inform the public that the official BLS statistics support one candidate’s assertion. The candidate trying to claim an alternate reality should then be pressed to say why they disbelieve the BLS, proving either that they’re a conspiracy monger, or potentially that they have a sophisticated critique of the government’s economic model–which would certainly be an interesting and informative conversation, but one that can only happen in the context of a single, authoritative factual source acknowledged by both candidates.
Republicans are still furious that Candy Crowley fact-checked Mitt Romney’s lies about Benghazi in 2012. But Crowley did precisely the right thing. When the candidates are presenting not just different perspectives but different versions of easily verifiable reality, it’s up to the press to ground the debate in fact.
Otherwise it’s just a spectacle, and one that damages the fabric of the country further as our country’s ideological tribes inhabit not just different cultures and geographies, but different understandings of reality entirely. That serves no one, and it’s the opposite of objective.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Hillary Clinton needs to take the high road. She shouldn't get down in the mud with the insults during the debate. Trump should be be held to telling the facts not these outlandish lies and exaggerations.
I really think it would be a slap in the face to the American woman for the U.S to vote Trump into office. With all his insults over the years and the degrading alone. I don't want my grand daughters to have Trump as a president. I don't want them to see that it's OK to treat woman and minorities that way. He needs to be a role model. Donald Trump is not a role model for anyone. He has never been held accountable for anything and he never apologizes.
Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman says he thinks Trump will win. He's predicted ever since 1984. I sure hope he is wrong. He's saying Gary Johnson, Hillary Clintons personality and baggage, problems in the DNC, Bernie Sanders supporters among many other factors. He bases his reasoning on certain factors.
He said though he could be wrong because we've never had a candidate like Donald Trump.
Trump can talk about Hillary's health all he wants but he looks like a heartbeat away from a heart attack.
I really think it would be a slap in the face to the American woman for the U.S to vote Trump into office. With all his insults over the years and the degrading alone. I don't want my grand daughters to have Trump as a president. I don't want them to see that it's OK to treat woman and minorities that way. He needs to be a role model. Donald Trump is not a role model for anyone. He has never been held accountable for anything and he never apologizes.
Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman says he thinks Trump will win. He's predicted ever since 1984. I sure hope he is wrong. He's saying Gary Johnson, Hillary Clintons personality and baggage, problems in the DNC, Bernie Sanders supporters among many other factors. He bases his reasoning on certain factors.
He said though he could be wrong because we've never had a candidate like Donald Trump.
Trump can talk about Hillary's health all he wants but he looks like a heartbeat away from a heart attack.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
I'm still leaning toward the turd sandwich, but this is part of the reason I have to hold my nose.
"Most of Hillary Clinton’s emails retrieved during the FBI’s investigation into her use of a private email server while at the State Department will not be released to the public until after the November election, according to a new timeframe set by a federal judge on Friday.
"Judge James Boasberg decided [on friday that] the State Department must release 1,050 pages of emails out of what could be 10,000 pages total by Nov. 4, just four days before the presidential election, leaving potentially 9,000 pages of content still unknown to voters."
"Most of Hillary Clinton’s emails retrieved during the FBI’s investigation into her use of a private email server while at the State Department will not be released to the public until after the November election, according to a new timeframe set by a federal judge on Friday.
"Judge James Boasberg decided [on friday that] the State Department must release 1,050 pages of emails out of what could be 10,000 pages total by Nov. 4, just four days before the presidential election, leaving potentially 9,000 pages of content still unknown to voters."
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
And what would it show? Other than him doing exactly what we all do, pay as little as possible in taxes?
Is it supposed to make people say he's too rich or not as rich as he said? We all know he's wealthy enough and also a gigantic ass liar, so woopty do there as well.
Of all the reasons not to vote for Trump, I'd say that ranks sooooo low, especially for those inclined to vote for him. The only people that would really care are those who already aren't voting for him.
The only reason Trump is doing as well as he is has everything to do with Hillary being his opponent. His hard base might be the ones you see in videos making true asses of themselves (although I have seen many intelligent supporters as well, I just can't understand the rationale), but there are countless more who hate Hillary more than Trump.
Is it supposed to make people say he's too rich or not as rich as he said? We all know he's wealthy enough and also a gigantic ass liar, so woopty do there as well.
Of all the reasons not to vote for Trump, I'd say that ranks sooooo low, especially for those inclined to vote for him. The only people that would really care are those who already aren't voting for him.
The only reason Trump is doing as well as he is has everything to do with Hillary being his opponent. His hard base might be the ones you see in videos making true asses of themselves (although I have seen many intelligent supporters as well, I just can't understand the rationale), but there are countless more who hate Hillary more than Trump.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
It might expose even more of his fibs and/or where he truly stands on things like ..... manufacturing outsourcing, charity, business ventures in Russia, China, etc.
I could care less how much he spends on taxes......
EDIT: Maybe that loan to David Duke would show up
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Show me?
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
The next time you hear a journalist decry this because of his company stuff, just remember the only reason we don't know is because they chose not to try.
The next time you hear a journalist decry this because of his company stuff, just remember the only reason we don't know is because they chose not to try.