The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Silat]

If you want to avail yourself of whistle blower protections, you have to do it from here. You can't run away to Russia and try and use them from there. Take your stand with it's risks.

Snowden is not a whistle blower. He is a traitor and has cost lives and seriously damaged diplomatic efforts of the US all over the world. I have zero sympathy for him.

I think not..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-damage_n_5448035.html
I think the security agencies torturing people has done 1000 times more damage than Snowden.
And Snowden showed us the criminal activities of our country.

 

[grokit]

I am no lover of the cults of religion but the K0CHs have been buying influence at public Universities and private education centers. They want to re-educate the frontal lobe deprived youth into libertarian bots.

Hillary Rejects Koch Support -- So Why's She Taking Their Lobbyist Money?

It's a tale as old as time with Hillary Clinton:
She says one thing, yet her actions demonstrate the complete opposite...

When pushed by Karl about whether he could see himself supporting Hillary Clinton, Koch hesitated, “Well... we would have to believe her actions will be quite different from her rhetoric, let’s put it that way.”

 

[thisperson]

"He" doesn't matter now: the Republican party has been setting frankly abysmal standards for candidates in recent years, and either Karl Rove or Grover Norquist semi-famously said they weren't looking for a leader, just someone who could and would sign his name on the laws they handed him.

Shorter: the "Republican"/"Conservative"/"patriot" party wants a stooge president who will obediently sign what he's told to sign, and damn the rest. This is WHY the bar is set so low - and why they haven't achieved it: such obvious pandering and toadying are in fact disgusting to the greater part of the citizens, and have accomplished nothing for the party. The Republican party is bleeding support as Trump's revolting spectacle grinds ever closer to a halt: even the most corrupt can turn a blind eye only so long....I think we are seeing a both a swell of support for Clinton vis Trump, and a painful self-examination on the part of those who thought a nouveau-riche buffoon and faker like Trump would succeed where RMoney failed...but then again, these are the people who thought Dan Quayle would be a perfect draw for "the female vote"....

I really don't know what it will take for people to realize that whatever problems the Democrats have (and they have an effing raft of 'em - I could give you a list), they're nothing to the clueless imposition of the usual sales-pitch for wealth and power that is the constant drum-beat of the so-called 'right'

man, are you CRAZY??? That's how we got INTO this mess....

===
Iceland has become a beacon of hope and freedom in recent years by refusing to allow corrupt bankers to take over their nation, even prosecuting some bankers and sending them to jail for breaking the law. Why shouldn’t America be able to do the same?

Lots of reasons. for one, Iceland doesn't have our multi-century history of industrial racism and our innate certainty that we're better than everyone else.

For another, Iceland didn't present sexy enough resource monopolies when the Younger Sons went traveling the earth, so they kept moving. Oil, sugar, slaves, timber, hemp, cotton, beef, furs, mining - the Younger Sons have done just fine for themselves, and continue to sit at the pinnacle of USA's oldest, wealthiest and most powerful families...to whom the Waltons and Icahns and Trumps of the world are the new kids.

For a third, Iceland never had our waves of immigrants, and so it's less settled, less 'citified', less "layered" and without the social and political complications that arise from the constant challenge that immigrants always present.

At least, that's what I can see from here...

I googled that term, younger sons. Where does it originate from if you don't mind my asking. If it's from a book I'll read it. Assuming it's not batshit crazy!

Edit: On the subject of whistle blowers. Having read the protections in the Bill of Rights, I view those three as heroes. We take that knowledge for granted, and we accept it as a necessity for protection from threats. After all, if they are scanning the major avenues of communication they are bound to to find something treacherous afoot, but I believe we should have voted something like that into law instead of just a shadow program enacted by Bush. We'll just agree to disagree on Assange, Manning and Snowden.

And by we, I mean the citizens. Not the Patriot Act by our representatives. They've shown no backbone with few exceptions.

I long for Iceland's Pirate Party here.

I've given such a system thought on my own time. I fully believe you need real time voting. By that I mean that at any time, if public opinion on a law changes, you can go in and change your previous vote to update the law in real time.

 

[grokit]

alert!
I don't agree with all this paranoia, but... there's a lot of this going around.
Drumpf supporters causing/reacting to violence at the voting booth?
I was going to post the whole article but
Food for thought anyways


ANALYSIS: Election outcome scenarios reveal 95% chance of widespread post-election violence... streets of America to run red with blood

 

[cybrguy]

Jesus Christ what crap.

Are you related to Alex Jones?

 

[grokit]

Are you related to Alex Jones?

This is information wars pure and simple;
no I'm not a fan of that guy, but many drumpf voters obviously are.

 

[Msek]

Michael Moore
"F—ck You"

 

[Stevenski]

Working for a large American company for many years I developed a fairly broad cross section of American people in my networks. Two things I am curious about & maybe someone can enlighten me with
insights?

The number of Democrats so disengaged with their parties representative they are withdrawing from the election rather than personally compromise their integrity by voting Clinton. Add to them the millennials that are still sulking over Bernie & there is a pretty fair chunk of people who would traditionally vote Democrat who are now not voting.

The growing number of disaffected primarily male voters who don't traditionally vote out of apathy/ignorance but finally have a candidate who appeals to their resentment & anger at the hand life has dealt them.

Could these groups be the deciding factor in who is appointed President? One thing is for sure & that is there will be a whole bunch of angry people with their noses out of joint.


Say this did happen

mass riots breaking out everywhere. Obama can then use this to declare Martial Law and, if he wishes, postpone the transfer of power to Donald Trump

there would be protest & counter protests involving armed citizens, does anyone think Obama would instruct his staff to commit multiple large scale massacres of his own people? Would the UN get involved? Will it mean civil war like my Balkan friends never expected in the 1990's?

 

[cybrguy]

The number of Democrats so disengaged with their parties representative they are withdrawing from the election rather than personally compromise their integrity by voting Clinton. Add to them the millennials that are still sulking over Bernie & there is a pretty fair chunk of people who would traditionally vote Democrat who are now not voting.

Personally I think the numbers that still are not going to vote for Hillary in the face of Trump are far fewer than people may have thought. Particularly among the millennials. As Trump has more time to immolate the number continues to decline.

I'll leave the fear mongering to you and whoever might engage.

 

[wunderkind]

uh oh, this just showed up on my timeline guys...

 

[GetLeft]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[Farid]

I still need somebody to explain the Tim Kane choice to me. Was it to win over Catholics? Was it to make Hillary look more likable (that worked for me, I think Kane makes Clinton look like a well articulated genius). I mean you have to a special kind of stupid to get your ass kicked by Mike Pence in a debate.

 

[Tranquility]

No shit. New CNN poll has the gap narrowing with Clinton now ahead by 5 instead of 12.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/

This is like watching the stock market.

The polls ALWAYS close at the end--even if there is no real difference. The purported reason is that no pollster wants to be an outlier as it hurts chances to be taken seriously in the future if wrong.

The real worry is the Bradly Effect. (For reasons other than race.)

Trump wants to change the constitution. WTF?

Donald Trump suggested in an interview Sunday that America's protections for the press might go too far and that the country's libel and slander laws would be better if they were changed to resemble the United Kingdom's.

If Trump gets his crowds too riled up against the media, they will decide not to televise them. Trump has gotten way more media coverage than Hillary Clinton. The media is basically just televising Trump and what he's saying and the crazy idiots at his rally's. Nobody needs to make anything up.

The difference between the U.S. and the U.K.'s libel laws are not really constitutional. Although there are cases that re-define defamation laws based on the constitution, the reality is that ALL laws against intentional misrepresentations that cause damages are problematical. (Congress shall make no law...)

The issue will be what is known as "actual malice". In the U.S., to be actionable, one must have actual malice in making a false and defamatory statement against a public figure where in the UK does not. While the difference is sourced from the constitution because of Times v. Sullivan, many feel we could shift to UK theory of defamation by statutes.

However, the real differences gets to the burden of proof and has no constitutional source. (Other than in general under due process protections.) In the U.S., the plaintiff (The one suing and claiming they have been defamed.) generally has to make a prima facie case a statement is false and then the defense can prove any of a number of defenses like Truth of the statement. In the UK, the plaintiff only has to prove damages and then the burden shifts to the defense.

Even taking every jot and title of the article to be true, it is no where near an illustration of a desire to change the constitution.

 

[CarolKing]

@Stevenski if I lived in the middle of Trumpland I might think he's a head too. I'm not ready to give up on the American people. Would or could we would vote such an idiot as commander and chief? I guess anything is possible, maybe that is why I want this elections to be over. I'm worried something will come out the day before the election and folks will vote for the crazy, stupid person for president.

Trump is dangerous to America and everywhere else. I really don't think he wants to be president. If he looks like he's a head he will say something that will sabotage himself. Of course I could be wrong.

Some of the Trump signs in my area have been destroyed. I see a couple of people that have their Trump signs high in the air so folks can't reach them. One is standing high with a crane holding it up ha ha ha.

Bad timing with a Obamacare going sky high for some people. Low income people won't have to worry. It's the working person that suffers. 22% is a lot of money. We need a single payer system.

Edit
It depends on where you live but in WA state Obama's recovery has helped out our area. Unemployment is under 6%. I knew folks that lost their homes in the mortgage meltdown and it destroyed their credit. Things are looking positive for them now. I can't imagine a Trump presidency and I don't want to find out.

I sent my ballot off yesterday and the Sec of State's office will get it today. We have a lot of safeguards to guard against voter fraud. Maybe Trump needs to read up on it.

It's pretty bad when the average American voter is smarter than a presidential candidate. Maybe that's why some folks like Trump - he's just like them - stupid and clueless. Sorry if I offended anyone.

@jay87 I just read your post and it sure does matter who gets in to be president. Think about it if abortions were outlawed, just for one example and there are a tons of other reasons.

 

[Farid]

I live in MA, and I have seen WAY more Trump signs and bumper stickers than Clinton stickers. I think that has to do with more enthusiastic support for Trump, but Clinton has lots of lukewarm supporters that are definitely still voting for her. That said I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls show.

 

[His_Highness]

I live in MA, and I have seen WAY more Trump signs and bumper stickers than Clinton stickers. I think that has to do with more enthusiastic support for Trump, but Clinton has lots of lukewarm supporters that are definitely still voting for her. That said I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls show.

How close depends on whether we're talking popular vote or electoral. It's not close at all electorally speaking.

It didn't take much convincing from me for 'my millennials' to state their intention to vote for HRC when they had supported Bernie during the primary. I thought it would be tougher because they were so upset about the way Bernie was treated during the primary. I owe Trump for making it so easy because he was a huuuuggggeeee help in saving me from additional speech-a-fying to 'my millennials'. The topic came up yesterday when they asked me if I was voting early (they're voting early) and I said "Oh hell no...I want to vote, in person, on Nov. 8th. This is going to be historical and hysterical and I want to see it up close and personal in my republican stronghold of a state.

I have seen a few signs in my neighborhood for Trump and a few for HRC but having talked to many of my neighbors it's obvious they're voting for HRC.

I haven't seen any Trump signs damaged and I hope I don't. It would bother me to think HRC supporters would lower themselves like that.

 

[Msek]

Suppose WikiLeaks and Project Veritas are wrapping presents today for Hillary's Birthday tomorrow?

Wow, looks like some folks are upset:
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...orporate-u-s-media-has-weaponized-against-us/

 

[cybrguy]

One can only hope there are consequences for the Donald for putting us through all this...

It’s not just his campaign: Trump’s ‘brand’ may never be the same
10/25/16 08:00 AM—Updated 10/25/16 08:13 AM

By Steve Benen
In late June, the day after the “Brexit” vote, Donald Trump hosted a press conference in Scotland, against the backdrop of one of the most important political moments in the modern history of the United Kingdom. As we discussed at the time, the Republican presidential candidate spoke at great length, and in great detail, about … his new golf resort.

Tomorrow, the GOP nominee will do it again, leaving the campaign trail to promote the opening of his new hotel in Washington, D.C. – a venue Trump has touted on multiple occasions from the campaign stump, blurring the lines between candidate and salesperson.

It’s a reminder that while Trump almost certainly wants to be president, he also remains committed to his lucrative business enterprise. What he may not fully appreciate, however, is the degree to which one is affecting the other. The New York Times ran an interesting report overnight on some of the many people who suddenly want nothing to do with Trump’s “brand.”

At three large rental buildings emblazoned with gold letters spelling out T-R-U-M-P P-L-A-C-E on the Upper West Side, the lobby rain mats embossed with the same name are being replaced, tenants say. The new versions, they have been told, will proclaim the buildings’ addresses, 140, 160 or 180 Riverside Boulevard.

At the same buildings, they say, the doormen and concierges have been measured for new uniforms that will no longer carry the Trump name. And 300 people, most of them tenants, have signed an online petition titled “Dump the TRUMP Name” in less than 10 days.
​

The article noted that Trump, throughout his career, has boasted that slapping his name on a building increases its value, apparently because consumers are supposed to associate “Trump” with luxury and high quality. But it’s not exactly a secret that his presidential campaign has changed public perceptions about the New York Republican, and for many, his name is now more closely associated with misogyny and ethno-nationalism.

And as a consequence, the Trump “brand” is not only taking a severe hit; it may never be the same.

MBC News reported last week, for example, that the presidential nominee’s “actions out on the campaign trail don’t seem to be doing much for occupancy rates at his chain of five-star Trump-branded hotels.” As consumers avoid anything associated with the candidate, room rates at some Trump hotels have been reduced.

By some accounts, Trump’s company is now moving forward with plans to build new hotels without his name on them.

Complicating matters, the anti-Trump backlash isn’t just undermining the candidate’s business: Slate reported that the “Ivanka Trump Collection” is facing pushback as well.

It’s easy to imagine Trump thinking to himself that if he loses the presidential campaign, as is expected, he can simply return to his private-sector ventures. What he may not have anticipated, however, how much damage his candidacy is doing to everything that falls under the Trump umbrella.

 

[Msek]

 

[cybrguy]

I get a big kick out of all the folks on the right hoping that the Devil is really a prophet...

 

[jay87]

I feel badly about this election because it's proven my underlying fears about how fragile our institutions are and how easy it is to manipulate millions of people even in this modern age.

I have a hope that given enough information every person has the ability and willingness to analyze information and come to a logical conclusion. What I've learned is that millions of people will ignore any amount of information and come to any illogical conclusion that they wish.

Hillary Clinton and especially Donald Trump are both worrying candidates, but I'm much more worried about what comes next.

I am worried because these two easily indictable candidates can still manipulate millions of people to forgo all logic thereby creating legions of fanatics.

I'm worried because I honestly believe that if Donald Trump were replaced by a person who was much more intelligent but with the same exact attitudes, beliefs, and actions, that person would win this election in a land slide.

I truly hope that all of my worries are in vain but it is still so disconcerting to see such ignorance displayed by such a huge number of people.

 

[grokit]

 

[His_Highness]

@grokit - The latest electoral polls are a bit more one-sided.....Clinton would win the election in a landslide with 347 electoral votes to Trump's 191 -- the same as the past two week's polling results. It requires 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Two questions for ALL who frequent this thread:

1.) I heard an HRC supporter say on CNBC "Trump is making one of his biggest mistakes to date when he continuously tells his base that the election is rigged. They believe anything he says and he's telling them voting is a waste of time because its a rigged system. Many of them won't even bother to vote now." Do you think the Trump supporters who believe him won't bother to vote in a perceived, rigged system?

2.) Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense? If so, is the reason there are no indictments is because wiki-leaks are illegal and therefore inadmissible and any evidence that comes from a wiki-leak is 'poison fruit' and is also inadmissible? I'm not a lawyer but there are so many folks who believe some of the leaks expose an illegality that I'm wondering why there is no prosecution.

 

[grokit]

@grokit - The latest electoral polls are a bit more one-sided.....Clinton would win the election in a landslide with 347 electoral votes to Trump's 191 -- the same as the past two week's polling results. It requires 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Two questions for ALL who frequent this thread:

1.) I heard an HRC supporter say on CNBC "Trump is making one of his biggest mistakes to date when he continuously tells his base that the election is rigged. They believe anything he says and he's telling them voting is a waste of time because its a rigged system. Many of them won't even bother to vote now." Do you think the Trump supporters who believe him won't bother to vote in a perceived, rigged system?

2.) Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense? If so, is the reason there are no indictments is because wiki-leaks are illegal and therefore inadmissible and any evidence that comes from a wiki-leak is 'poison fruit' and is also inadmissible? I'm not a lawyer but there are so many folks who believe some of the leaks expose an illegality that I'm wondering why there is no prosecution.

The results I posted are from this morning.

The IBD/TIPP poll — is a collaboration between Investor's Business Daily (IBD) and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP) — and it has been the most accurate poll in recent presidential elections. The latest results for the IBD/TIPP Presidential Election Tracking Poll will be released each morning by 6 a.m. ET.

1.) No. What they believe is that they need nothing short of a landslide to overcome the "rigging".

2.) There were crimes committed, but the political climate would have to change completely for these crimes to be prosecuted in any meaningful way.

edit:

I get a big kick out of all the folks on the right hoping that the Devil is really a prophet...

I don't think they are hoping for that at all...

 

[His_Highness]

@grokit - but isn't the IBD/TIPP poll a 'popular vote' based poll? If so, it's not really a good barometer for who will win the election.

I guess you could make a case that Trump's 'rigged election' statements could motivate those who support him but might not have voted.

You don't think there are republican supporters who would indict HRC if the leaks were indictable?