The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[lwien]

Interesting that they see Rubio as the main threat to a Trump nomination.. Cruz is really losing momentum over the last two weeks, but Rubio, while on the rise, is still way below Cruz in most early state polls.. I wonder how those odds came to be?

I think it's because Trump and Cruz really occupy the same space were as Rubio is considered more moderate. If you really look at the early state polls from years gone by, they really don't reflect what the eventual outcome will be. Hell, during the last election cycle, they had Herman Cain as the eventual nominee so I think the oddsmakers take all the polling with a grain of salt.

 

[His_Highness]

I refuse to believe America elects a clearly bigoted carnival barker for President.

I also refused to believe America elects Trump....In the primary. I've said before that he's an embarrassment to all of America and his buffoonery is entertaining..... but when push comes to shove entertainment isn't enough. I thought it was the 'train wreck' syndrome. Nobody wants a train to wreck but most people will watch it.

Now I'm not so sure I didn't give the republicans and some independent Americans too much credit. They're not only watching the train, they seem ready to climb aboard! Many of my Republican friends can't even look me in the eye when I invoke his name and yet Trump continues to move forward. I'm no longer convinced that he can't win.

If he wins the primary ..... he can win the general. Not saying he will. Just saying the primary is the truth teller in terms of how serious the threat.

 

[lwien]

If he wins the primary ..... he can win the general. Not saying he will. Just saying the primary is the truth teller in terms of how serious the threat.

While I don't agree with that statement, I sure as hell hope that Democrats believe that to be true.

 

[cybrguy]

I think it's because Trump and Cruz really occupy the same space were as Rubio is considered more moderate.

And this is a mistake, because Rubio is not moderate at all. I'm not even sure he is much less extreme then they are. He is just baby faced. Don't let that fool ya...

I also refused to believe America elects Trump....In the primary.

Well, first of all, they haven't yet done that. But you also need to keep in mind it ISN'T AMERICA electing Trump in the primary if it is to occur, it is REPUBLICANS choosing Trump in the primary. And that is NOTHING like the same thing...

Lets also not forget that "The Republicans" is not a description of what it once was. HUGE numbers of what used to be called Republicans are now called Independents because they don't want to be associated with what claims to be their party today. So "Republicans" today are a distillation of the far right. Their numbers are WAY fewer than they have been before.

 

[CarolKing]

I'm not sure if all this change in the Republican Party is something to celebrate or be afraid of. Only time will tell. I'm not sure if I trust the polls, they have been off before.

Don't they get their information from random phone calls to voters that will actually answer their questions. A lot of folks don't even have landlines any longer. Where do they get their information? I'm sure that it's changing due to the Internet.

I still have a landline but I screen my calls with caller ID. I haven't talked to one person regarding who I'm voting for.

 

[lwien]

And this is a mistake, because Rubio is not moderate at all. I'm not even sure he is much less extreme then they are. He is just baby faced. Don't let that fool ya...

I said that he is "considered" more moderate. I did not say that I believe that he is more moderate.

 

[Chill Dude]

Rubio whether he's moderate or conservative he is the worst candidate as far as marijuana legalization is concerned. He has vowed to enforce the national laws and overturn the rights for states to pass their own laws as far as cannabis is concerned.. That might seem like a small issue, but Colorado is a big swing state and over 65% of the population wants to keep weed legal in the state.. That could be a real problem for Rubio if he were to win the nomination and face Clinton in the general election....

 

[cybrguy]

I said that he is "considered" more moderate. I did not say that I believe that he is more moderate.

I know you know. It's important that everyone knows. I think a lot of people have the wrong impression of Rubio and don't realize how conservative he is. Unless he is saying things like "No abortions for anyone, irrespective of even the life of the Mother, let alone rape or incest" people seem to miss who he is.

Rubio whether he's moderate or conservative he is the worst candidate as far as marijuana legalization is concerned.

With maybe the exception of Christy, who has promised to undo anything that has already been done to make cannabis available.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

I'm not sure if all this change in the Republican Party is something to celebrate or be afraid of. Only time will tell. I'm not sure if I trust the polls, they have been off before.

Don't they get their information from random phone calls to voters that will actually answer their questions. A lot of folks don't even have landlines any longer. Where do they get their information? I'm sure that it's changing due to the Internet.

All Solid points. Why celebrate over having only one choice? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to want the best of all possible choices be offered? I want the best of one parties ideas be examined by the other party that is looking to improve theirs. This is why we need to break up both monopolies. Now if you are one of the people who think Trump is a DEM plant put out by Hillary, then you should be disgusted by both, Not be jubilant that "My side won." If neither side refuses to focus on issues that affect us all and use shenanigans to get elected, We all lose regardless of political affiliation.

The Republican Party got Bush Jr elected because of phone calls and their snail mail campaign. While we are trying our best to remain current. But there are those who vote who are way behind that curve. To be polite. That shouldn't have any bearing whether they can vote. Just something more to understand come next election.

I mentioned very early on in this thread about polls and pundits as serving no function this early in the game. Now examine any poll OP ED piece about the election that was written within that time frame. It probably looks out of place compared to what it happening currently. No resemblance to what would actually play out later. The discourse got so bad this year, that I had to filter my News search. So much mouth breathing and cattiness in the headlines. Much less the articles. Remember what Twain said about statistics.

But the political junkie in me would still gamble on the Donald being the King maker in this reality TV show going on. He has brought in too much money to be completely taken to the woodshed by the RNC for his vitriol.

I'm not a Sanders fan, But if you are. Dig your heels in now and hold the DNC to task. No secret of the head of the DNC's relationship with Hillary.

 

[CarolKing]

Chris Christie would be a disaster for the cannabis community. A good thing he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination from the GOP.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Chris Christie would be a disaster for the cannabis community. A good thing he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination from the GOP.

I hope you are so right about him being unelectable. We don't need a throwback at this point in the game when nearly everybody is moving forwards. But some of the others could implode early. Making him seem more rational in comparison. I'm hoping he formally announces his withdrawal from the race, before any of that happens.
11 more months of tension and apprehension.

I like how others have been following the coffers of the candidates more closely and wanting more transparency. And you can thank that Mormen presidential candidate who's name I've already forgotten. Somebody please help jog my memory. Was it Koch? or Lehman? It'll come to me later.
Maybe if I go through all the co-operate names it will come to me. I do remember somebody saying something about corporations being people?

Remember to see if you are registered to vote in your primary race.

 

[grokit]

Somebody please help jog my memory.

"Mittens" Romney; he was definitely on the forgettable side.

 

[cybrguy]

Romney.

Right. Mr 47%. Car elevators. Olympic Hunter Jumpers. Drive a thousand miles with a dog on your roof. That guy...

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Romney.

I may have been having some fun with it. But yes I genuinely forgot his name and easily remembered his two biggest doners. Even worse, I knew at that time that I would forget his name. Kinda pathetic, eh? So perhaps I was correct to remember the Koch brothers more.

 

[Chill Dude]

With maybe the exception of Christy, who has promised to undo anything that has already been done to make cannabis available.

You're right, I forgot about Christy, but he's so far back that I don't think he has a chance in hell of getting the nomination..

Christie should know first hand that corn dogs and fries are much more dangerous to ones health than marijuana..

 

[cybrguy]

I hope you are so right about him being unelectable. We don't need a throwback at this point in the game when nearly everybody is moving forwards. But some of the others could implode early. Making him seem more rational in comparison.

I think there is still a good chance that BridgeGate has some blowing up to do. I believe a trial related to it (Wildman I think) is supposed to start in the spring.

Bridgegate is a Time Bomb.

I really don't think Christy is much to be concerned about...

 

[grokit]

Tell Hillary to Dump Monsanto's Lobbyists and Support Mandatory GMO Labeling!



While on the campaign trail in 2007, Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser at Monsanto's law firm in Washington DC titled "Rural Americans for Hillary" and even had the audacity to put a giant "Welcome Hillary" sign on the back of a soybean sprayer that sprays toxic chemicals like Monsanto's Roundup, which has been linked to cancer, on GMOs all across Iowa and the Midwest. Incredibly, Iowa has the highest rates of cancer in the Midwest and not surprisingly grows 97% GMO soy and 93% of GMO corn, which have been genetically engineered to survive being sprayed with massive doses of Monsanto's Roundup.

Now we've learned that Hillary has Monsanto lobbyists raising millions of dollars in campaign contributions to return her to the White House. One lobbyist in particular, Jerry Crawford, is a close personal friend of the Clinton's and a top Democratic party fundraiser who's known as "Monsanto's Man in Iowa". Since 2010, when Crawford was hired by Monsanto to stop a DOJ-USDA investigation of Monsanto's abusive monopoly on seeds, Monsanto has paid him more than $1.6 million to push Monsanto's corrupt policies on the American public. What do you think Monsanto expects in return?

Tell Hillary to Dump Monsanto’$ Money and Stand up for Mandatory GMO Labeling! We can’t have another Monsanto loving President in the White House. Every voice counts.
Click here to download Hillary's 2007 fundraiser at Monsanto's law firm and share with your friends.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/..._her_White_House/?t=3&akid=1797.446886.-ga7yk

 

[Farid]

This is a response to people who say I'm far left because I am voting for Bernie Sanders. I have yet to meet a person who identifies as “far left” who believes that military style automatic rifles should be accessible to the general public. I have yet to meet a person who identifies as “far left” or socialist who thinks that states should have control over their own programs, and that the federal government should not decide what is in a State's education curriculum.

Most people would consider me some type of Libertarian. Let me explain why a Libertarian leaning individual like myself would support a socialist, the antithesis of a Libertarian.

See I think that the Libertarian system only works when the playing field is equal. The whole idea is that pure unadulterated capitalism drives competition and allows small bushiness to thrive. Theoretically I don't disagree.

Likewise I agree that socialism when left unchecked can lead to big government institutions that can be just as corrupt and ineffective as a corrupt corporate system.

Now you might be wondering why a self identified Libertarian would vote for a socialist. Here's why: I think that if we were to adopt a Libertarian system now it would really benefit big corporations rather than small businesses as Libertarians insist. That is because we already have a rigged system. My belief is that pure capitalism or Libertarianism only works when there is balanced system already in place.

I think that the socialist changes proposed by Sanders' would even the playing field to eventually allow this balanced form of capitalism to prevail. I agree that if left unchanged, Sanders' vision of socialism could even get stale with time and corruption, but the nature of the American system is always to be changing, so I don't think that's a real risk – not to mention any risk of fascism is more likely from a corporate candidate like Trump than from a socialist system.

 

[CarolKing]

There's a few of us that are hoping for Bernie, we are all entitled to our opinion. Everybody just be nice and appreciate other's ideas.

 

[grokit]

We're already socialist, I mean just look at our highway system.
If you don't like it you can build your own road? At least we can pay the tolls!
In purely political terms sanders is really more "progressive/populist" than he is "socialist"

 

[Farid]

We're already socialist, I mean just look at our highway system.
If you don't like it you can build your own road? At least we can pay the tolls!
In purely political terms sanders is really more "progressive/populist" than he is "socialist"

That was the biggest problem with Ron Paul. He was so attached to his ideology and not deviating that his message was lost when he started talking about getting government out of institutions like public works. I definitely lean Libertarian, but I avoid labels because it means you have to defend a set of ideas which you do not necessarily agree with. That's why I'm so disgusted by the party system, they're both doing the same thing. And it saddens me when people say "that's just politics" cause it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

That was the biggest problem with Ron Paul. He was so attached to his ideology and not deviating that his message was lost when he started talking about getting government out of institutions like public works. I definitely lean Libertarian, but I avoid labels because it means you have to defend a set of ideas which you do not necessarily agree with. That's why I'm so disgusted by the party system, they're both doing the same thing. And it saddens me when people say "that's just politics" cause it doesn't have to be that way.

I've said nearly the same things myself. Ron Paul hasn't deviated his ideology for nearly 20 years. I can use his opinions as a sort of a barometer.
I'm all for the best ideas coming forward. But there is danger for laws being written based on some response to something as opposed to the mindset of writing every law as if it was never planned to be altered later. As if it was going to affect people with there circumstances 20 or even 50 years later.

Libertarianism by its very nature, wants a small federal government. But to play the game you have to compromise a few of those principles to get any traction. Why being slick will get you elected but baffle people who voted you in office and holding firm to an ideology will alienate you more with the people you need to compromise with. So I would say try to strike a balance and recognize early if a program is obsolete and have an exit plan that reduces it impact when removed. I'm willing to keep the programs that have a 'social' impact that can be measured to a degree. And try to have them run with less waste. That way, at the very least, they don't become a political football and a lot of time is wasted over false discourse. Then we can move the arguments forward.&

 

[lwien]

Ok, this is all getting a bit too serious. We need a break so without further ado, I present to you who I think should definitely open the Democratic National Convention regardless if it's Hillary or Bernie, although, for some strange reason, I think this would be more appropriate if Bernie won the primary:

 

[howie105]

That was the biggest problem with Ron Paul. He was so attached to his ideology and not deviating that his message was lost when he started talking about getting government out of institutions like public works. I definitely lean Libertarian, but I avoid labels because it means you have to defend a set of ideas which you do not necessarily agree with. That's why I'm so disgusted by the party system, they're both doing the same thing. And it saddens me when people say "that's just politics" cause it doesn't have to be that way.

Looking for purity in political philosophy is like looking for an absolutely good or evil individual, reality is dynamic and messy. So instead of chasing an ideal that may not or can't exist we may be better off going with policy that seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the citizens and not worrying about sources and labels. I don't care if Bernie is a socialist as long as he would get the job done, heck I don't care if we hired Trump as long as he put the needs of the and wants of the country first. Sadly we have reduced politics to trench warfare, no compromise, no prisoners and often no advancement just more blood, mud and stagnation. However we have no shortage of zealots who are easily convinced to go over the top one more time and raise hell for whatever or whoever they support regardless of the cost. On the up side the idiots who came before us didn't destroy the nation so the chances are the idiots of today won't be able to do so either. At least I really hope that is so.

There's a few of us that are hoping for Bernie, we are all entitled to our opinion. Everybody just be nice and appreciate other's ideas.

Thank you.

 

[His_Highness]

The issue is that all too often compromise is viewed as weakness by one side or both sides so neither will compromise. Nothing gets done.

Even when there is an attempt at compromise some folks feel the need to keep score of who is getting the better deal. We can strive for a win-win but rarely is a compromise going to result in a 50-50 win-win so again....no compromise occurs. Sometimes a win-win, where one side is getting 20% of the compromise and the other is getting 80% would be best viewed as a 20% win instead of a 100% loss. The scorecard is not your best friend but it doesn't mean the scorecard should not be kept. I've given a client a better deal than they were entitled to in the hopes or even the agreement that the next compromise I'll get the lion's share of the consideration.

As far as being entitled to an opinion. I've noticed its not what your trying to say that gets us in trouble around here. It's how you say it......using @lwien comic relief video above.....it's perfectly fine to debate a difference in opinion about playing the kazoo. Saying 'It's my opinion that you should consider playing the kazoo with your naughty bits' is fine.....saying 'Blow it out your ass'! would be confrontational.