The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Baron23

Well-Known Member
t was king nixon, our first modern gangster president and his merry band of watergate plumbers that started the show, in reaction to the democrats daring to impeach him for his crimes against our democracy.

Really, I see a lot of what we are dealing with as originating in two indicents:

1. Robert Bork - not my favorite guy but the nature of the attacks during his hearing was a real first for this country and was brought to us by the Democrat party which double downed on Clarence Thomas' hearings

2. On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.

Now, there is a lot on the Republic Party side to list also....but I always get this vague impression from committed Dem liberals that they are the angels in the white hats and are above dirty machine party politics. Which is complete and utter BS, in my view.

Have a great day, folks.
 

grokit

well-worn member
:cool: This is an interesting development, from our leading third party...

Libertarian VP Candidate Concedes Defeat – Urges Voters To Support Hillary Clinton

hillary-clinton-thumbs-up.jpg


The Libertarian vice-presidential nominee, Bill Weld, has recognized his party’s presidential bid is doomed and has indirectly urged supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, will remain on the ticket through election day, but in a Tuesday statement he told undecided voters not to vote for Trump out of “fear for our country.”

In his statement, Weld listed the many reasons Donald Trump is unfit to lead the nation:

“I would like to address myself to all those in the electorate who remain torn between two so-called major party candidates whom they cannot enthusiastically support. I’m speaking particularly to those Republicans who feel that our President should exhibit commonly accepted standards of decency and discipline.

Mr. Trump has some charisma and panache, and intellectual quickness. These qualities can be entertaining. Yet more than charisma, more even than intellectual ability, is required of a serious candidate for this country’s highest office. A serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States must be stable, and Donald Trump is not stable.

Throughout this campaign, Mr. Trump has demonstrated an inability to handle criticism or blame well. His first instinct is to lash out at others. When challenged, he often responds as a child might. He makes a sour face, he calls people by insulting names, he waves his arms, he impatiently interrupts. Most families would not allow their children to remain at the dinner table if they behaved as Mr. Trump does. He has not exhibited the self-control, the discipline, or the emotional depth necessary to function credibly as a President of the United States.

From the beginning of his campaign, Mr. Trump has conjured up enemies. First it was eleven million criminals in our midst, all bent on obtaining the benefits of citizenship, at our expense. Over time, the enemies became any trading partner of the United States. He says they are nothing but foreigners seeking to threaten our livelihoods. Now we have reached the point where his idea of America’s enemies includes almost anyone who talks or looks different from him. The goal of the Trump campaign, from the outset, has been to stir up envy, resentment, and group hatred.

This is the worst of American politics. I fear for our cohesion as a nation, and for our place in the world, if this man who is unwilling to say he will abide by the result of our national election becomes our President.

This is not the time to cast a jocular or feel-good vote for a man whom you may have briefly found entertaining. Donald Trump should not, cannot, and must not be elected President of the United States.”

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/10/libertarian/

:myday:
 

grokit

well-worn member
Really, I see a lot of what we are dealing with as originating in two indicents:

1. Robert Bork - not my favorite guy but the nature of the attacks during his hearing was a real first for this country and was brought to us by the Democrat party which double downed on Clarence Thomas' hearings

2. On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.
These incidents could still be construed as a reaction to the watergate debacle, which dragged what used to be the political discourse and debates of our great nation through the mud, in a race to the bottom. Here we are decades later, wallowing in the entirely predictable results of this malfeasance on both sides :2c:


My understanding is a Tea Party member, at his core, is for limited Constitutional government. (Which includes free markets and fiscal responsibility. It was Bush's wild spending without taxation that vastly increased the debt that made the Tea Party.) I know there are many flavors of "Tea Party" like express, patriots and .org and they seem to disagree at times as they are not a single organization but many grass roots organizations. The power brokers have tried to gain control over them and have had some success. But, it is not really a "party" in that there is a top-down organization that can speak for the members.
The tea party and the libertarians seem to have a lot in common, if they merged they could become a formidable force. But my impression is that the power brokers you speak of have corrupted them.

:myday:
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
The tea party and the libertarians seem to have a lot in common, if they merged they could become a formidable force. But my impression is that the power brokers you speak of have corrupted them.
While I agree in general, there is still a specific problem between the two practically. It seems a lot of Tea Party members are also Christians. (I was going to write "religious", but it is not that as some may only be culturally "Christians" and not those who attend services regularly and/or have strict rules that they follow...um...religiously.) In the South, many local organizations may have a majority of Christians as members. That group also wants social conservative principles as a great focus on what they want (Or, not want.) from government.

Bringing together those people in an organization like the Tea Party in a national level with other local organizations that might be more populist or more libertarian is difficult as the populist may or may not care about the social issues and the libertarian has the exact opposite opinion on them. The only way to get them to agree is to limit the principles to only the things they agree on. This keeps them from being a real "party" in that they only focus on some issues and not all
 

jay87

Well-Known Member
:cool:

“Mr. Trump has some charisma and panache, and intellectual quickness. These qualities can be entertaining. Yet more than charisma, more even than intellectual ability, is required of a serious candidate for this country’s highest office. A serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States must be stable, and Donald Trump is not stable.

Throughout this campaign, Mr. Trump has demonstrated an inability to handle criticism or blame well. His first instinct is to lash out at others. When challenged, he often responds as a child might. He makes a sour face, he calls people by insulting names, he waves his arms, he impatiently interrupts. Most families would not allow their children to remain at the dinner table if they behaved as Mr. Trump does.
He has not exhibited the self-control, the discipline, or the emotional depth necessary to function credibly as a President of the United States.


http://samuel-warde.com/2016/10/libertarian/

:myday:

Many people disagree with the bolded parts.

I've heard many people say they are OK with Donald's lack of intellectual ability, his lack of seriousness, and his lack of emotional stability.

That right there is the part of the debate that cannot be argued. Either you think it's OK or you think it's completely unimaginable for a president to have those kinds of deficiencies.

I don't know how to convince people about the mental stability and self control issues that Donald has because if they just deny everything then there is no argument or debate. :shrug:
 

grokit

well-worn member
While I agree in general, there is still a specific problem between the two practically. It seems a lot of Tea Party members are also Christians. (I was going to write "religious", but it is not that as some may only be culturally "Christians" and not those who attend services regularly and/or have strict rules that they follow...um...religiously.) In the South, many local organizations may have a majority of Christians as members. That group also wants social conservative principles as a great focus on what they want (Or, not want.) from government.

Bringing together those people in an organization like the Tea Party in a national level with other local organizations that might be more populist or more libertarian is difficult as the populist may or may not care about the social issues and the libertarian has the exact opposite opinion on them. The only way to get them to agree is to limit the principles to only the things they agree on. This keeps them from being a real "party" in that they only focus on some issues and not all
I hadn't thought about the tea party in religious terms, because they seem so intolerant. But intolerance is a hallmark signature of the "religious right" (which imo is neither), even if it's not what jesus preaches.

After sussing through a few huffpost headlines like:
I found a less sensational source of information, the pew institute. It's still confusing...

An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about “the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right”; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree. More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it).
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea-party-and-religion/

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance going on with these tea partakers :uhh:

:myday:
 
Last edited:
grokit,

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
Really, I see a lot of what we are dealing with as originating in two indicents:

1. Robert Bork - not my favorite guy but the nature of the attacks during his hearing was a real first for this country and was brought to us by the Democrat party which double downed on Clarence Thomas' hearings

2. On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.

Now, there is a lot on the Republic Party side to list also....but I always get this vague impression from committed Dem liberals that they are the angels in the white hats and are above dirty machine party politics. Which is complete and utter BS, in my view.
Citations, please - hand-waving establishes no points without them!

I'll confess I was not as attentive to the Bork hearings as I could have been (new father & all @ the time), but I noticed nothing especially irregular about them, beyond his philosophical extremity and general combativeness. We dodged a bullet w/ him.

BTW...first, the "Democrat" Party - now the "Republic" party?
No wonder you think 'liberals' are smug - 'remove the board from your own eye', remember?
 
ClearBlueLou,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance going on with these tea partakers :uhh:
What do you mean by "cognitive dissonance"? If I like pizza best and go to a hamburger convention because I ALSO like hamburgers, I don't see any dissonance there. Even if the pizza people and the hamburger people generally don't know the others exist.

Citations, please - hand-waving establishes no points without them!
Who is he to cite for his opinion other than himself?
 
Tranquility,

zor

Well-Known Member

Presidential election every four years
But neither man we can see or hear
Urgent cries for society
But we can see the blood on him

Do you see?
Do you see it's too much for me?
Try that with our oligarchy,
Oligarchy, Oligarchy

State the policy to me
Reap your followers' currency
What is right, what do we try?
I'm afraid I can't decide
 
zor,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Camille Paglia is feminist of the highest order. I have tried to read her books and, with the exception of her more accessible ones like "Sex, Art and American Culture" and "Vamps and Tramps" (Both of which tends towards short stories and essays.), she writes well above my head.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

Her opinion on the election in general:

Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Somehow I just don't see the attraction of a complete collapse of all the institutions that America depends on for its day to day operation and local and national viability.

I have never been a believer in anarchy as a solution to organizational instability. It would seem to me that a better idea is to try and improve the institutions than to burn them to the ground.

But what do I know? I'm just one of the millions who will have to live with it...
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Some would say we are already in collapse. Personally, I don't see how we're getting out of our financial problems. There is no way to fulfill all the promises that have been made.

But, "anarchy"? I don't think having the democrats or republicans or the news media have their processes disrupted and their prejudices laid bare is a bad thing or something that leads to anarchy. Let me know if its the same when officials have to decide as to if they will cut a check to the cop on the beat or to the two others who have long since retired.
 
Tranquility,

RUDE BOY

Space is the Place
I have never been a believer in anarchy

I know this has nothing to do with today's presidential candidates but...

I always had a laugh back in the late '70s/early '80s at those students who were running around painting "viva la Anarchy" on everything. They were the people who wouldn't have had a clue how to get by without their Mommy & Daddy's credit cards and would have been among the first to die if our nation's political and economic system failed.

Talk is cheap.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

grokit

well-worn member
What do you mean by "cognitive dissonance"?
I was speaking about the huffpost articles I posted:

The poll shows that less than a quarter of conservative Christians identify as being in the Tea Party. Yet somehow, the conclusion being drawn by this poll is that the "Tea Party Is Much Like the Religious Right." Of course, around 1 in 5 Tea Party members voted for Obama, so by that same logic, I guess this poll also shows that the "Tea Party Is Much Like Democrats."

When conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck warned churchgoers to "run as fast as you can" if their pastors preach about "social justice," was he also encouraging them to run from the Bible? That's what some progressive Christian leaders are arguing as battle lines are drawn for the 2010 mid-term elections. They say Beck and his Tea Party followers are, in a word, unbiblical.

:myday:
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
This Is Not What a Change Election Looks Like
by Nancy LeTourneau
October 27, 2016 2:22 PM

When she launched her presidential election, Hillary Clinton had an important decision to make. Would 2016 be a “change election?” Or would voters be more interested in building on the successes of the Obama presidency? Given that the two had been pretty bitter rivals in 2008, it wasn’t clear which direction Clinton would go. Obviously she placed her bet on the latter.

Initially, as the campaigns of Trump and Sanders took off, a lot of people wondered if she had made the right choice. The meme that this was the year of the angry voter was ubiquitous. But in the Democratic primary, Clinton built a firewall with women and people of color who validated her decision. As Matt Yglesias wrote, they were the “silent majority” who were often drowned out in the media by the voices of rage.

As Steve Benen wrote today, the people who were convinced that 2016 was going to be a “change election” often pointed to polling numbers on the question of whether this country is on the right track or the wrong track. The problem with that question is that the “wrong track” number rose precipitously during the George W. Bush presidency and has dropped only slightly during the Obama years. It is impossible to fold that into any real common thread of exactly what voters are saying.

CNN asks this question a bit differently and found an interesting result in their latest numbers.

More Americans than at any time in Barack Obama’s presidency now say that things in the United States are going well, a sharp uptick in positive views and the best reviews of the country’s trajectory since January 2007, according to the latest CNN/ORC poll.

Overall, 54% say things in the country today are going well, 46% badly. That’s a reversal from late July when 54% said things were going poorly and 46% said they were positive.​

What grabbed my attention about those results isn’t just that a majority of Americans think things are going well. It’s also the big flip since July. What has changed in the last 3 months? Here’s the kicker:

The improvement in impressions of the country’s path stems largely from shifts among Democrats and independents. Among Democrats, 85% say things are going well, up from 76% in late July. Among independents, 51% now say things are going well, up 9 points since this summer. There’s been no significant shift, however, among Republicans: 21% now say things are going well, not significantly different from the 17% who said so in July.​

I’ll simply note that the July poll was done immediately following the conclusion of the two partys’ conventions. Since then, more Democrats and Independents have decided that things are going well, while Republicans remain in a funk. Those numbers mirror Obama’s rising approval numbers.

The new poll also finds Obama’s approval rating holding at 55%, matching the high-point for the President’s second term reached earlier in October. Voters behind Trump and Clinton are sharply polarized in their reviews of Obama’s handling of the presidency, with 93% of Clinton’s supporters saying they approve of Obama while 91% of Trump’s backers disapprove…

Obama’s approval rating now outpaces Ronald Reagan’s 51% approval rating at this time in 1988 and is nearly on par with Bill Clinton’s 57% mark in October 2000. The positive reviews for Obama and the direction the country’s heading suggest a positive electoral environment for Democrats heading in to the elections next month.​

All of that validates the decision Hillary Clinton made at the beginning of this election – although none of it was obvious at the time. What is even more interesting is that a candidate who has talked about building on the successes of her predecessor could very well win in a landslide. That might be yet another way this election is breaking all the molds.
 
cybrguy,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
I was speaking about the huffpost articles I posted:

The poll shows that less than a quarter of conservative Christians identify as being in the Tea Party. Yet somehow, the conclusion being drawn by this poll is that the "Tea Party Is Much Like the Religious Right." Of course, around 1 in 5 Tea Party members voted for Obama, so by that same logic, I guess this poll also shows that the "Tea Party Is Much Like Democrats."

When conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck warned churchgoers to "run as fast as you can" if their pastors preach about "social justice," was he also encouraging them to run from the Bible? That's what some progressive Christian leaders are arguing as battle lines are drawn for the 2010 mid-term elections. They say Beck and his Tea Party followers are, in a word, unbiblical.

:myday:
I'm still not quite sure of the point being made. Is it that a guy said one should take what their pastor says critically? Is it the thought "social justice" beliefs comport with biblical beliefs?

What are the contrary beliefs that must be reconciled?
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: nosmoking

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Re-opening the HRC email investigation due to NEW emails couldn't happen at a worse time. It's like a bad Taco Bell fart in a Mini Cooper with the windows closed......it's gonna have some serious hang time because it won't get resolved before the election.
 

t-dub

Vapor Sloth
I remember a guy named Richard Nixon. Watergate happened during the summer but he wasn't taken down until after his inauguration.

Also, Julian Assange is claiming that next weeks info dump will get HRC arrested. Interesting coincidence that the FBI is reopening the investigation. Also very interesting that we are learning about the Clinton's enriching themselves through their "charity" to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

A theory going around right now is that it isn't the Russians doing the hacks but kim.com. I have no idea on this one yet . . . :sherlock:

Edit: I'm not ready to collect my virtual poker chip (no cash value) yet, but we are getting closer.
 
Top Bottom