The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

C

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
If Sanders is going to have a good chance at the nomination and success in the general, I think he needs three things to happen:

First off, he's going to have a very strong ground game going into South Carolina and beyond to Super Tuesday. Most of those states in the south have a very heavy presence of African American voters on the democratic side. Right now Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls with African Americans( of all ages). Through African American endorsements and an extensive outreach program tailored to the fact that Bernie is the best candidate to fight for the issues important to the African americans as well as other minorities.

Secondly, Sanders will have to give a detailed explanation about what exactly "Democratic Socialism" is and why his policies will help the poor, the working class and the middle class in America. Democratic Socialism is not anything like "Socialism" as presented in high school and college political science courses where the government completely takes over the means of production and takes ownership of all private property trying to create a classless utopia.. The republicans will try to define Bernie as a Cold War style whacko socialist with crazy hair who wants to raise taxes to 90% and take all property and wealth and redistribute it to the masses. But, that couldn't be further from the truth..

A democratic Socialist believes in our system of capitalism, but thinks it has become too corrupt due to many factors: large corporations should not be able to buy off politicians for their special interests, the minimum wage should be raised to make sure lower end workers are getting their fair share of the profits of corporations, corporations should pay penalties for moving operations overseas taking away from workers wages here, Wall Street speculators profits should be taxed at an appropriate rate so the money could be used for health, education and needed infrastructure improvements etc......

Lastly, but the most important question he needs to address is EXACTLY how he would pay for all of the free stuff. He needs to present this in real numbers and in a way the average voter would understand. For instance:

Exactly how will you pay for universal healthcare?

Exactly how will you pay for free education?

Exactly how much will taxes be raised for every income bracket? Present it using real numbers not just generalities.. Show exactly how any tax increases on the middle class will actually be a savings to the middle class due to all the "free stuff"..

I'm totally behind Bernie, but if he can't articulate a detailed and reasonable way he can pay for all the free stuff to achieve his proposals and overall vision for the United States ; then the republicans will rip him to shreds...

Bernie, please articulate the dramatic difference between "Socialism" and "Democratic Socialism". If you can't do that...you can't win!

Get on it Bernie... "I'm feeling the BERN":rockon:
 
Nooky72

Nooky72

Dog Marley
kso5pvW.jpg
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
rtx25isr__1454698768.jpg

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on stage before the start of the Democratic presidential debate sponsored by MSNBC at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, N.H., Feb. 4, 2016.
Photo by Carlo Allegri/Reuters
The big winner in the fiery New Hampshire debate? Democrats
By Steve Benen
Those hoping for some fireworks in last night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire weren’t disappointed. In their first one-on-one debate of the cycle, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were fierce advocates of two competing approaches to politics and policy.

But to perceive their aggressive confrontations as some kind of election-year food fight would be a mistake. As MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald reported overnight:
Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC offered the clearest, rawest, and most specific examination of two fundamentally different philosophies about the character and future of the Democratic Party voters have seen yet. […]

Clinton represents one view, calling for continuity and pragmatism, while Sanders represents the polar opposite, with his outspoken calls for “revolution.”​
Sanders specifically called for a “political revolution” three times last night, while Clinton made clear from the outset, “I’m not making promises that I cannot keep.” Pressed by Rachel Maddow why, in light of some of the more moderate parts of Clinton’s record, liberal Democrats should support her, Clinton responded, “Because I am a progressive who gets things done. And the root of that word, ‘progressive,’ is ‘progress.’”

It’s “theory of change” debate at its core: one candidate intends to fight for progress through incremental gains; the other candidate believes a president can uproot the existing political system and replace it, institutional limits be damned.


Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders met on Thursday for their first debate since Martin O’Malley dropped out of the race.

As good debates often do, last night’s discussion helped expose the weaknesses and the strengths of both candidates. Clinton, for example, continues to face criticism over Wall Street, which she hoped to rebut by emphasizing her ambitious policy agenda that would further restrict the financial industry.

Sanders, meanwhile, continues to face pressure over foreign policy in general. Chuck Todd noted at one point, “You know, Senator Sanders, nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven’t given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn’t sound like … foreign policy is a priority.” The senator stresses some key positions – Sanders continues to emphasize his 2002 opposition to the war in Iraq – but it’s an area of his platform clearly lacking in depth.

So, who won? As is nearly always the case, it’s a subjective question and I don’t think there’s any real consensus about one candidate dominating the other. That said, Political Wire’s Taegan Goddard, who described the debate as “truly great” and “easily the best of the campaign so far,” made a comment that stood out for me.

“The real winners were Democratic voters,” Goddard wrote overnight. “Anyone who watched learned a lot. It made the Republican debates look like over-produced game shows.”

I think that’s both true and important. I don’t doubt that Clinton’s and Sanders’ backers can make spirited cases why their candidate prevailed, but I hope they won’t miss the forest for the trees: for two hours, Americans saw two very capable candidates engage in a deeply substantive, engrossing discussion that mattered.

In the aftermath of the Republican debates, it’s hard not to ask, “What’s wrong with these people?” Last night, however, I found myself thinking, “These two are good.”

Towards the very end of the debate, Sanders said, “You know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect [Secretary Clinton] very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”

“That’s true,” Clinton added a moment later. “That’s true.”
 
gangababa

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Listen up everyone who says there isn't an iota of difference between voting Democratic or Republican or not voting!

The Presidency is only part of the struggle. The Republican/regressive/anti-intellectual world has been, for decades, politically working from school boards on up to take back their country to about 1789.
There are Republicans who want to overthrow the constitution.

With Republicans controlling as many statehouses (by fraud) as they do, if the House, Senate and Presidency were in their hands, it is not just marijuana, contraception, safe abortion, health care, voting rights, women's rights, equality of marriage, equality of birth (your genetics), the future of all youth, the Supreme court and MORE--but the American way of constitutional-democracy that is in danger.

The Republican corporation could become the permanent party ruler of America by changing the constitution itself.

"Americans have already suffered six years of Republican destruction and obstruction since the 2010 midterm debacle. Unless centrists and liberals get out the vote in the states, they will suffer from a new Constitution created in the biblical corporate image of the religious right and the Koch brothers. Yes, the presidential race is important, but Democrats, progressives, and liberals are being crushed in the states and the consequences could not possibly be more Constitution shattering."

"... the conservatives are just 7 state majorities away from giving the Koch brothers and their corporate cohorts, as well as evangelicals, exactly the corporate and theocratic law of the land they have lusted after for decades."...

"Any pie-in-the-sky liberal who claims it can never happen in America is unaware that there are already 27 states that have non-expiring active calls for an Article V convention to create a Koch dream; a balanced budget amendment that forces the federal government to pass budgets that do not create national debt. It is noteworthy that since its founding, America has had a national debt."...

"Republicans have intimated repealing, or at least revisiting, the 1st Amendment to abolish the religious clause prohibiting Congress from establishing a state (Christian) religion. They have also called to abolish the 14th Amendment to justify denying millions of Americans their current Constitutional equal rights and abolish citizenship rights. Equally high on their list is repealing the current Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” effectively neutering federal government and Supreme Court authority entirely."...

The 2nd amendment however is no danger. It will be moved to first place in the new constitution of the Republic Confederacy of Corporate Christian States (formerly called USA)
'Section1- Rights of Sovereign Citizens'
'Section 2- Duties of Sovereign Citizens- DELETED'
 
Last edited:
gangababa,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
howie105

howie105

Well-Known Member
gangababa said:
Listen up everyone who says there isn't an iota of difference between voting Democratic or Republican or not voting!

The Presidency is only part of the struggle. The Republican/regressive/anti-intellectual world has been, for decades, politically working from school boards on up to take back their country to about 1789.
There are Republicans who want to overthrow the constitution.

With Republicans controlling as many statehouses (by fraud) as they do, if the House, Senate and Presidency were in their hands, it is not just marijuana, contraception, safe abortion, health care, voting rights, women's rights, equality of marriage, equality of birth (your genetics), the future of all youth, the Supreme court and MORE--but the American way of constitutional-democracy that is in danger.

The Republican corporation could become the permanent party ruler of America by changing the constitution itself.

"Americans have already suffered six years of Republican destruction and obstruction since the 2010 midterm debacle. Unless centrists and liberals get out the vote in the states, they will suffer from a new Constitution created in the biblical corporate image of the religious right and the Koch brothers. Yes, the presidential race is important, but Democrats, progressives, and liberals are being crushed in the states and the consequences could not possibly be more Constitution shattering."

"... the conservatives are just 7 state majorities away from giving the Koch brothers and their corporate cohorts, as well as evangelicals, exactly the corporate and theocratic law of the land they have lusted after for decades."...

"Any pie-in-the-sky liberal who claims it can never happen in America is unaware that there are already 27 states that have non-expiring active calls for an Article V convention to create a Koch dream; a balanced budget amendment that forces the federal government to pass budgets that do not create national debt. It is noteworthy that since its founding, America has had a national debt."...

"Republicans have intimated repealing, or at least revisiting, the 1st Amendment to abolish the religious clause prohibiting Congress from establishing a state (Christian) religion. They have also called to abolish the 14th Amendment to justify denying millions of Americans their current Constitutional equal rights and abolish citizenship rights. Equally high on their list is repealing the current Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” effectively neutering federal government and Supreme Court authority entirely."...

The 2nd amendment however is no danger. It will be moved to first place in the new constitution of the Republic Confederacy of Corporate Christian States (formerly called USA)
'Section1- Rights of Sovereign Citizens'
'Section 2- Duties of Sovereign Citizens- DELETED'
Click to expand...

Fear and loathing, in every national election (state ones too if you look in the right places) we get similar pieces and yet we are still here.
 
howie105,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
lwien

lwien

Well-Known Member
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Can someone explain to me all the bruhaha about Hillary Clinton's speeches? She had been the SoS for 4 years and had a lot of knowledge about International affairs. She had a good handle on how we are viewed by the world and what and how our relationship to certain countries and leaders best serves the country. ANYONE who has been in that positions is a great get for economic and political conferences. Because the knowledge they have helps inform people on how THEY want to deal with the world. This is nothing new, it has always gone on. Why all of a sudden is it a big deal?

Almost all former presidents and cabinet members do paid speeches. Colin Powell, Condy Rice, GWB, Carter, Tim Geightner, Bernake, everybody does it and there is nothing wrong with it. If someone offered you 6 figures to give a speech wouldn't YOU do it? Of course you would. You probably won't be paid as well, but you can't blame Hillary for that.

So, what is the big fucking deal. It's politics, that is all it is. It is Bernie trying to stinkeye Hillary without looking guilty.

Guess what, he looks guilty to me...
 
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: Gunky
CarolKing

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think @cybrguy its because the speech was at a college and Bernie Sanders said that he wanted to cut the cost at colleges and universities. You are right a lot of people in high profile have spoken at universities and have been paid large amounts of money. I don't see anything wrong with folks speaking for free, such as donating their time. I like that idea much better. I know that doesn't happen but it's a nice idea.
 
C

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
cybrguy said:
. This is nothing new, it has always gone on. Why all of a sudden is it a big deal?

Almost all former presidents and cabinet members do paid speeches. Colin Powell, Condy Rice, GWB, Carter, Tim Geightner, Bernake, everybody does it and there is nothing wrong with it. If someone offered you 6 figures to give a speech wouldn't YOU do it? Of course you would. You probably won't be paid as well, but you can't blame Hillary for that.

So, what is the big fucking deal. It's politics, that is all it is. It is Bernie trying to stinkeye Hillary without looking guilty.
.
Click to expand...

You're right by saying "it's nothing new, it has always gone on", ....but should it??

You say "It's just politics, that's all it is", ....but should it be that way?

That's exactly what Bernie talks about... A revolution against polititions being bought by corporate America. It doesn't matter if it's Hillary's $225,000 1 hour speeches to Goldman Sacks or the millions she's raised from Wall Street... IMO, it's naive to assume these corporations don't want something in return... Of course they do... I don't care if the speech was about Foreign policy or domestic policy or violence in schools...it's still $225,000 for a one hour speech...

Whether it's speeches or political contributions... It is wrong, it's corrupt and takes the power from the people and gives it to corporate America..

Hillary can talk all she wants about campaign finance reform, but her actions shows she's really not for it at all. In fact, she's part of the problem taking huge contributions from Goldman Sacks and
others..

This is one of the main points of Bernies revolution of change!!!
 
Gunky

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Hillary does speaking as a business. That's how she and Bill make money. I don't see the problem. If it's ok for her to charge 200 grand to a school for a speech, then it's ok for similar at Goldman Sachs, in my view.
 
Gunky,
howie105

howie105

Well-Known Member
You can go to most of those campus speeches and find out what was said on the other hand the Goldman Sachs speeches were private and both Clinton and Goldman Sachs have declined to release the transcripts. Its not that she is in violation of any laws and she has a perfect right to refuse but you have to accept the follow ons when you do.
 
C

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Gunky said:
Hillary does speaking as a business. That's how she and Bill make money. I don't see the problem. If it's ok for her to charge 200 grand to a school for a speech, then it's ok for similar at Goldman Sachs, in my view.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. Campaign finance reform is the only way to take the power away from the corporations and special interests and give it back to the people.. Politicians should be servants of the people not corporate America...

It's fine for politicians to give speeches as a business, but only when they are no longer campaigning or actually holding political office. Now, giving speeches after their political career is over to make money...that's fine with me, but not a current Senator, congressmen or presidential candidate...
 
Gunky

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Chill Dude said:
I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. Campaign finance reform is the only way to take the power away from the corporations and special interests and give it back to the people.. Politicians should be servants of the people not corporate America...

It's fine for politicians to give speeches as a business, but only when they are no longer campaigning or actually holding political office. Now, giving speeches after their political career is over to make money...that's fine with me, but not a current Senator, congressmen or presidential candidate...
Click to expand...
I would enjoy living in your ideal world but in the one I live in, this sort of thing is quite ordinary. I am not sure what you expect out of work politicians to do besides speaking engagements and writing gigs. By this logic if she writes something and somebody publishes it she is beholden to the publisher.

I think the point here is: she has plenty of customers, it's not like in speaking to wall street players she caves to their influence or has to have their patronage. It's a business. She has an agent who arranges the gigs. I am sure she'll do Bar Mitzvahs if you can come up with the cash.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: cybrguy
howie105

howie105

Well-Known Member
Gunky said:
I would enjoy living in your ideal world but in the one I live in, this sort of thing is quite ordinary. I am not sure what you expect out of work politicians to do besides speaking engagements and writing gigs. By this logic if she writes something and somebody publishes it she is beholden to the publisher.

I think the point here is: she has plenty of customers, it's not like in speaking to wall street players she caves to their influence or has to have their patronage. It's a business. She has an agent who arranges the gigs.
Click to expand...

With respect, there is a difference between a published book and a secret meeting.
 
CarolKing

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think when you are still working as a representative of the people or you are a congress person or a senator you need to be careful who you do speaking engagements for. You are working for the people. When you retire what you do is your own business. I think there needs to be rules set in place.
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Unless I missed something somewhere Hillary was not doing these speeches while under our employ. She was a private citizen at the time.

I think a lot of people conflate speaking gigs with lobbying which are completely different. Lobbying is when someone pays you to wield your influence to get people to do things.
Lobbying to me is sleazy by its very nature, but it is a "legitimate business" that many politicians engage in. K Street is among the best examples. That is something that I believe should be addressed by congress, tho I have little hope that it ever will be.
Speaking gigs are a completely different kind of event that include someone sharing their expertise or knowledge, for a fee, just like a teacher or visiting professor or convention presenter or Dog Whisperer or any number of other speaking industries. There is nothing wrong with it. Does anyone think Hunter S Thompson wasn't highly paid when he made an appearance (if you could get him out of the bar)?
I think all this talk of her speaking fees is all heat and no light, and I think Bernies campain knows exactly what they are doing.
 
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
My mind has been made up for almost a decade now. When bernie said "too big to fail is to big to exist", I knew I had found my champion; I've been saying that since gwb started the bail-outs. We need to enforce the laws already on the books, starting with the sherman antitrust act. "Progressive" hillary really needs to come around on repealing glass-steagall, but the bankers writing her those fat checks won't allow it.
 
Last edited:
C

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Gunky said:
I would enjoy living in your ideal world but in the one I live in, this sort of thing is quite ordinary.

I think the point here is: she has plenty of customers, it's not like in speaking to wall street players she caves to their influence
Click to expand...

That's why I want to change the world and invite you to live in it, and that's why I'm voting for Bernie as he's the only one running who will make a major push for campaign finance reform.. We need to take back our government from the powerful and corrupt corporations and special interest groups. As you say " this sort of thing is quite ordinary", ...but should it be?

You say " it's not like in speaking to Wall Street players she caves to their influence " oh really? Then I guess in your view we don't need campaign finance reform because no one is influenced by the millions of dollars given by large corporations to corrupt the system...

Personally, I think the system is broke and it doesn't work for the people and it has gotten much worse over time.. Bernie will fix it:tup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom