The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[CarolKing]

There have been some pretty stupid stuff coming out of Donald Trump's mouth.

“BECAUSE I DON’T WAN’T TO, GRETA.” This is our favorite Trump quote of all. Greta Van Susteren was asking why Trump wouldn’t share his Super Secret Plan to kill ISIL ISIS with Obama and America, and that was his answer.
He's always spouting something online like talking about how Barack Obama has ruined any other black person's chances for president because he's been so terrible.

Or, "I am the least racist person there is" and "Sorry losers and haters my IQ is one of the highest please don't feel insecure, it's not your fault". He says he would have won the presidential race against Barack Obama in 2012.

He comes across as being so mean, commenting about Steve Jobs. He said, "I've always been a fan of Steve Jobs especially after watching the stock collapse after his death. But is yaught is really ugly"

I'm tired of hearing him say that he's going to make America great again.

I hope others feel tired and disgusted with him soon. Come on Republicans you can do better than this.

I'm with Bill Maher. We can't assume that he has no chance to become president . Remember what happened the last time we had a Republican as president.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

"Small government". It's total bullshit. It's like tv ads for soap that tell you you get More! More than what they don't mention. But it's more. Same with 'small government'. People tout this nowadays. Smaller than what? It's a stupid conception of how to understand government or evaluate its effectiveness. Small good, big bad. Four legs good two legs bad. Note that this absurdity has no limits whatsoever. There is no small that would be too small. Small is just an absolute good in itself! It's the height of stupidity, which is being fed to you by the .1 percent. Why? Because they don't want any regulation and don't want to pay any taxes. Therefore the government must be tiny!

The "small" government envisioned by Rand Paul is not there when a Great Recession comes along and just as you were thinking about retiring you are wiped out by economic forces far outside of your control. There won't be any Social Security check for you, even though you lost your home and most of your savings in that last bust (the wealthy, of course, swooped in afterwards and acquired all the real estate homeowners had to shed and stocks they were forced to sell; the rich have no problem weathering boom and bust and came out richer), because small government means you are fucking on your own, pal.

Don't worry I'm a skeptic at heart. A person with good argument skills can argue for/against any position, not just their own. Plus I try to keep my eyes on the horizon.

Social security. I wish it was as simple as that. Name one government program that has eradicated a problem and then dissolved that said program. Yea, I couldn't find any either.
If any government program actually solved a problem, by it's very nature it makes that problem obsolete. That program is scrapped. Then a newer model is formed.

I would rather have people be angry with businesses and confront the problem head on, than have a program that will be used as a scare tactic on older people come election time and impede the inevitable solution. Not that business hasn't went after SS before. or that the US officials have ever tampered with the program. A good government program is good for about say 20 years before some senator has a 'brilliant' idea and starts draining from that coffer. Remember Al Gore's 'lock box?' Neither do most voters. It is now questionable if SS can even be sustainable when the boomers are fully retired. Why didn't someone in office plan for this? Even FDR saw this as a temporary solution in his New Deal.

There is also the choose your battle argument. Ideological vs the practical. Some Libertarians would look at this problem as being the last thing on their list and work on the more immediate problems that need to be sorted out. Like say undoing all the damage the Nixon administration did to our monetary system(removing the gold standard, printing paper money, inflation), draconian drug laws (DEA), and abuse of power. That might take two administrations to clean up that mess alone. At the very least, Most Libertarians are looking at previous failures as examples. Inflation is one of the reasons we have a minimum wage. Now imagine finding a $5 under you couch cushion. That dollar might be worth a little bit more then when
we lost it a year earlier, if we had no inflation, because there would be the less money per goods ratio. Any poor person could put smaller amounts in the bank and benefit. Any wage earner would have a small amount of clout. But as Nixon said. "We are all Keynesians now"

I will probably rely on SS unless I hit the lottery. But I would have preferred having more reasonable choices. Sadly both business and government have colluded already on this.
Thank you Big government. And what's so wrong with states having there own social program? Goes right back to my 50 state solutions argument. Sadly since we haven't confronted more problems like this head on, actual progress has been impeded and it is now a necessary evil. Which some politician will use as leverage on my wrinkly ass. And sadly I will be probably be senile enough to take the bait. Oh and thanks for the discussion.

It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea. Robert Anton Wilson.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― R. Buckminster Fuller

 

[Gunky]

You are repeating lie after big fat lie about social security. The program is not in danger. A very simple fix to the cap on taxable income for social security will fix any problems down the road. (Who is opposed to this fix? Rich people who like having most of their income exempt from SS). This program was created to save people who are not wealthy from what was a regularly occurring pattern of destitution from the bust phase of our boom and bust cycles. It is working extremely well.

To change our tax system to a flat 14.5% tax as Rand Paul wants to do is exactly what we need to accelerate the inequalities which have become rampant ever since that idiot Ronald Reagan introduced us to trickle down. Do that and in another generation we will be back to hereditary aristocracy and serfdom.

 

[CarolKing]

Also another way SS could do better is to not allow folks to abuse the system. I know a woman who makes $1100 a month on SS and works just to the limit so she can continue to collect even though she is no sicker than I am. I also have a cousin who is bipolar, there's no reason she can't work. She sits home on her ass and she collects monthly paychecks from the government. Her husband does the same, he's bipolar too. She maybe worked a year out of her whole life. She is 40 years old.

This type of story I hear over and over again. I sound like a Republican but these stories piss me off.

 

[Gunky]

Also another way SS could do better is to not allow folks to abuse the system. I know a woman who makes $1100 a month on SS and works just to the limit so she can continue to collect even though she is no sicker than I am. I also have a cousin who is bipolar, there's no reason she can't work. She sits home on her ass and she collects monthly paychecks from the government. Her husband does the same, he's bipolar too. She maybe worked a year out of her whole life. She is 40 years old.

This type of story I hear over and over again. I sound like a Republican but these stories piss me off.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...ttack-on-social-security-20150119-column.html

Travel obligations kept me from addressing until now the attack on Social Security disability recipients made last week by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), but it was too outstandingly ignorant and cynical to go unanswered.
Long story short: If Paul's words truly represent the Republican Party's approach to Social Security, then not just the disabled but everyone else with an interest in the program -- taxpayers, retirees and their survivors and dependents -- should start panicking now. We reported on the first shot fired at Social Security by the new GOP Congress here. Paul has now raised the stakes.


On Day One, the new Congress launches an attack on Social Security
Here are his words, delivered to an appreciative audience on Wednesday in the key presidential primary state of New Hampshire:

"The thing is that all of these programs, there’s always somebody who’s deserving, everybody in this room knows somebody who’s gaming the system. I tell people that if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn’t be getting a disability check. Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club. Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts? Everyone over 40 has a back pain."

Paul thus associates himself with a slander of disability recipients favored by Republican conservatives abetted by ill-informed journalists, who include the staffs of NPR and "60 Minutes." (We reported earlier on the latter's abandonment of journalistic standards in its disability coverage.
Leaving aside Paul's contempt for people suffering from these conditions ("Join the club"), his numbers are flagrantly wrong. The actual figures can be found in this table from the Social Security Administration. Start with "anxiety": The Social Security Administration classifies anxiety as a subset of mental disorders and places it in the catch-all category of "other," which constitute a total of 3.9% of all disability claims -- and that's all otherwise unclassified mental disorders, not just anxiety.

Social Security doesn't regard anxiety as lightly as Paul. According to its definitions, which can be found here, the category includes post-traumatic stress syndrome and phobias or compulsions that result in "marked difficulties" with working or living in society, or "complete inability to function independently outside the area of one's home." Paul wants his audience to think of "anxiety" as the mild sense of dread you might experience when contemplating a bad day at work, or perhaps an unpleasant visit with your family. He's lying about it.

As for back pain, no one gets disability for the kind of mild stiffness that Bayer aspirin claims to relieve in its TV ads. That's the condition Paul tries to evoke by saying "everyone over 40 has a back pain." But he shows no empathy whatsoever for the real sufferers of this condition -- those who get it not from laboring in a physician's office or in Congress, as Paul has, but from years of hard physical toil or workplace injury.

Social Security classifies back pain as a "disease of the musculoskeletal system." Some 30.5% of disabled workers fell into this category in 2013, according to the latest available figures. But that category covers a lot more than "back pain." It also comprises amputations, joint failures, leg and arm fractures, spine disorders and burns.

These are the official figures; no one has documented any others. Paul didn't cite a single source for his assertion that "over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts," so it's reasonable to conclude that he has no sources. But that's all right, because his goal isn't to offer a considered analysis of the pressures facing Social Security in general or its disability component in particular, but to rationalize an attack on the whole program by ridiculing disability recipients as a step toward legislating their benefits out of the system. Fabricated statistics are more than useful for that purpose.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

You are repeating lie after big fat lie about social security. The program is not in danger. A very simple fix to the cap on taxable income for social security will fix any problems down the road. (Who is opposed to this fix? Rich people who like having most of their income exempt from SS). This program was created to save people who are not wealthy from what was a regularly occurring pattern of destitution from the bust phase of our boom and bust cycles. It is working extremely well. To change our tax system to a flat 14.5% tax as Rand Paul wants to do is exactly what we need to accelerate the inequalities which have become rampant ever since that idiot Ronald Reagan introduced us to trickle down. Do that and in another generation we will be back to hereditary aristocracy and serfdom.

I may be incorrect or misinformed or even naive. But I don't lie. Sir. And if a better model of SS came, I would like to think I'd be open to it. What I said about Nixon did occur. I never said I was a Rand Paul supporter, but glad you can make a point for him. Even though you strongly disagree with him. The tax system is a whole other problem that I do recognize with you.
Al Gore was either correct or incorrect, but he did state it. (and made fun of for it.) Please tell me this article is incorrect. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780248

At the present moment their is at least a concern for it. Maybe your solution would correct it? But it hasn't been implemented. So the problem remains. If I am following your logic correctly.
But will it be left alone after that? Goes back to what I was saying earlier. This issue could have been a non-issue, if there was any forethought.

Also another way SS could do better is to not allow folks to abuse the system.

Another solid point. Every program like this cost money to go after those abusing the system. And how would you enforce it? Would you end up spending more for said enforcement then simply printing out the check? People are naturally going to go with their best interests within any type of system. Whether it is Big Business or it's own citizens. I don't blame anybody's cousin for wanting to get the most benefits in any system. Who doesn't want to live better? Just make that system work for it's intended purpose. But like my previous point earlier. Someone will come along and change the rules in mid stream. I don't believe bi-polar was a recognized condition in FDR's day. How did a program meant for retirees end up being used for other things like this anyway? Why wasn't this program fiscally responsible to begin with? Would it have mattered? Well it is a necessary evil now. So I say for now, either budget for it accordingly or come up with a better model if it is deemed obsolete.

 

[Gunky]

Don't let selfish demagogues hoodwink you into assenting to the destruction of the most successful government program ever created, and the only thing that stands between you and living on the street when push comes to shove. The program will not be able to pay 100% of benefits twenty years from now, they warn loudly, and their solution is to cut benefits now and start dismantling the program. You can't make this stuff up. Right now the max amount of taxable earnings for social security is $118,500. So if like Romney you have income to the tune of tens of millions per year, you just pay social security on the first $118,500 of your income. Sweet deal, isn't it? Most people's income is less than 118k so they pay social security taxes on the entirety of their income. For the wealthy, less than 1% of their income is taxable and for the super wealthy even less. Nicely rigged, isn't it? The 1% have increased their share of total wealth by leaps and bounds over the last few decades while everybody else treads water. Now they want to take away your safety net. We can't afford it, these billionaires whine. They are lying to you about the utility and the success of social security and what is needed to correct any shortfall down the line. They are also lying like crazy about the disability portion of the program. Don't be fooled.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Its time for a "real" president. And by real I mean not a rich politician that has no concept of what it is like to be the average American. Hillary, Jeb, Donny..... None of them can relate to what I go through in my daily life.

Bernie seems the closest to that IMO. Do I think he has a chance? No. But if he gets there he has my vote.

It never hurts to have a little hope and optimism.

Well he has a much greater chance than any independent. At the very least he can take lead of the arguments and change what Washington can think about there policy.
A female Vice president would help those intent of having a female president. Just one step closer than S.O.S Hillary.

If he really wanted to clinch that, He could mention often, that he would resign the 3rd year in his presidency And viola! Madame President. He could still advise and go to bat for her like all the former presidents. It would also be a bold statement that is isn't about the power but the results he is after. That would get everybody's attention. Elizabeth Warren could serve her 1 year and already being prepped (and vetted) for 3 years with Bernie. And it would change the role of the Vice president in his administration. Hillary could still be S.O.S if she wanted too and be third in line. or not.....

Hillary would look much more like the power monger that many Dems are all too aware of. If he did that tactic, It would even bring in a few from the right who feel left out.

It's tough breaking the power of status quo candidate in either party. Hillary is divisive to most voters and and her S.O.S position will become political fodder. But there is no staus quo in the Republican column at the moment. So, I wouldn't write him off just yet.

 

[grokit]

Republicans Address Marijuana at GOP Debate



During Wednesday’s GOP Debate, Republican hopefuls finally weighted in on marijuana legalization, thanks to a question from social media. All provided candid responses, with varying viewpoints.

Former Governor Jeb Bush admitted to using marijuana when he was younger. “Forty years ago, I smoked marijuana. I admit,” said Bush, the former Florida governor, after Sen. Rand Paul had called him out without naming him. “My mom’s not happy that I just did.”

Paul, who opposes strict laws punishing marijuana users, used Bush’s case to illustrate how the law treats wealthy drug users differently: “Kids who have privilege like you do don’t go to jail. But the poor kids in the inner city still go to jail.”

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has been a staunch opponent of marijuana legalization, said that if he were to become President he would use federal power to override some states’ laws to legalize recreational marijuana. “I am against the recreational use of marijuana,” Christie, saying that drug users’ families, employers and children are victims of the use.

Carly Fiorina spoke out against marijuana legalization, saying that it is more dangerous to users than alcohol. “We’re misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer. It’s not,” she said.

Of the four candidates who spoke out about marijuana during the debates, Rand Paul was definitely the most open to loosening marijuana laws. Bush came next in terms of being supportive of the cannabis community, while both Christie and Fiorina came across as the biggest marijuana opponents during the debate.

2 Responses so far

1. 
   Tebin said on Sep 18, 2015
   That debate was a joke and ultimately ended up being a "lets talk about Donald Trump" show. The 11 most popular candidates mentioned nothing about minimum wage increases or anything important. The first 4 however had some decent proposals but id never vote for them.
   
   
2. 
   drums said on Sep 20, 2015
   I liked Christie until he said that. "Gateway drug"? You mean beer? Rubio will be on the ticket for sure. Trumps insane, but I'd feel better with ANY of them in the WH over HRC. And minimum wage increase is "more important" than Iran nukes?? It would be #100 on my list.

 

[Gunky]

Bernie's policies are most in line with my thinking. However he has some huge obstacles to overcome, not the least among them the findings of a recent poll: fifty percent or so of Americans would not consider a 'socialist' for the office of president. It actually polls worse than atheist. So this tends to make Bernie a McGovern type of candidate. Possibly his support could grow and this won't be the case, but I fear it is so.

Meanwhile people are letting the press fascination with the supposed email 'scandal' and the resulting poll drop dominate their impression of Hillary. Hillary turns out to be a pretty interesting person, bright, accomplished, and possessed of a wicked sense of humor. Check out this article responding to Fiorina's gibe about Clinton: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

Fiorina's comment about Hillary is probably the most outrageous, mendacious, hypocritical, swift-boat of a statement so far in a Republican campaign which is already notable for bigotry, lies and villainy. Needless to say these are qualities republicans like in a candidate and she is moving up in the polls.

 

[Snappo]

Bernie's policies are most in line with my thinking. However he has some huge obstacles to overcome, not the least among them the findings of a recent poll: fifty percent or so of Americans would not consider a 'socialist' for the office of president. It actually polls worse than atheist. So this tends to make Bernie a McGovern type of candidate. Possibly his support could grow and this won't be the case, but I fear it is so.

Meanwhile people are letting the press fascination with the supposed email 'scandal' and the resulting poll drop dominate their impression of Hillary. Hillary turns out to be a pretty interesting person, bright, accomplished, and possessed of a wicked sense of humor. Check out this article responding to Fiorina's gibe about Clinton: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

Fiorina's comment about Hillary is probably the most outrageous, mendacious, hypocritical, swift-boat of a statement so far in a Republican campaign which is already notable for bigotry, lies and villainy. Needless to say these are qualities republicans like in a candidate and she is moving up in the polls.

I would agree, only to add that Bernie Sanders is Jewish, and as such not likely to gain majority favor enabling election of the first Jewish US President.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192931/bernie-sanders-story

 

[Silver420Surfer]

Don't let selfish demagogues hoodwink you into assenting to the destruction of the most successful government program ever created, and the only thing that stands between you and living on the street when push comes to shove. The program will not be able to pay 100% of benefits twenty years from now, they warn loudly, and their solution is to cut benefits now and start dismantling the program. You can't make this stuff up. Right now the max amount of taxable earnings for social security is $118,500. So if like Romney you have income to the tune of tens of millions per year, you just pay social security on the first $118,500 of your income. Sweet deal, isn't it? Most people's income is less than 118k so they pay social security taxes on the entirety of their income. For the wealthy, less than 1% of their income is taxable and for the super wealthy even less. Nicely rigged, isn't it? The 1% have increased their share of total wealth by leaps and bounds over the last few decades while everybody else treads water. Now they want to take away your safety net. We can't afford it, these billionaires whine. They are lying to you about the utility and the success of social security and what is needed to correct any shortfall down the line. They are also lying like crazy about the disability portion of the program. Don't be fooled.

This exactly^ The biggest threat to social security is those who wish to raid one of the last great US cash coffer.

THE ONLY WAY it will go away is if we let them take it from us!!!!!!! But when you brainwash millions of young people into believing LIES about SS, they may eventually accomplish their goal.

 

[grokit]

I would agree, only to add that Bernie Sanders is Jewish, and as such not likely to gain majority favor enabling election of the first Jewish US President.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192931/bernie-sanders-story

A Jew isn't as bad as a Jewish SOCIALIST, now that last part is fightin' words to many

 

[CuckFumbustion]

More sources for sources.

Topics in the News: Drug War

http://www.insidegov.com/

Following the money sources.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

http://www.followthemoney.org/

 

[CarolKing]

It looks to me that people are searching for the non politician for president. Bernie Sanders has always came across as the renegade politician and people like that. He goes against the grain and he's not in the pocket of big business.

I think that's why Donald Trump is doing so well with the republicans and so is Ben Carson.

At the last minute though folks could get scared and vote for the politician.

 

[grokit]

I'm conflicted on the orange guy. I want him to take down the gop, but his wave might be hard to stop if he gets nominated. If hillary has 'credibility issues' and bernie's a 'commie', then who's gonna stop herr trump.

 

[CarolKing]

Remember how stupid the country can be they elected George Bush Jr for president not just once but 2 times. Trump could very well get elected and that's troubling. At first I thought it was a joke now I'm getting worried. They are going to have to find out something really terrible about him or he says something even more stupid than he already has to turn folks off.

 

[Gunky]

Trump probably won't get the the republican nod and definitely could not win the general. His negatives are something like 70% among the general population. He is only popular among around 30-40% of the republicans (and the repubs are only about a third of the electorate).

 

[Snappo]

A Jew isn't as bad as a Jewish SOCIALIST, now that last part is fightin' words to many

Obama was heavily labeled a socialist early into his 1st campaign run a la Obamacare and much talk about redistribution of wealth, and look where that got him. Seems the perennial fear of socialism and cold war communism has gone the way of the prehistoric Dodo bird.

 

[macbill]

Five More Marijuana Studies Debunk Carly Fiorina’s Ignorant Reefer Madness Mindset

f Fiorina’s knowledge, or lack thereof, of the tremendous medical advances and research verifying the many, many medical benefits of cannabis is anything like her knowledge of running a giant tech business, it is no wonder she is an epic failure.

 

[Gunky]

Fiorina also has zero chance of winning the republican nomination. She's another Herman Cain or Ben Carson. Their speaking fees go through the roof after being in the debates. Fiorina perhaps also hopes to be picked for VP or a cabinet post. Trump, despite being the summer flavor favorite, is more or less in the same category. He does not expect to be nominated, let alone win, but it's great for business.

As Sherlock Holmes once remarked, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Ergo the Republican nominee will be Bush, Rubio or Kasich. All the rest are either vanity candidates like Trump, Fiorina, Carson, and Huckabee or their support is limited to such a tiny base (Cruz, Paul, Christie, Jindal etc) that they have no practical path toward winning the nomination.

 

[grokit]

Idk about trump being a vanity candidate. He is a tv personality yes, but he is also very appealing to those that feel alienated and disenfranchised by the current political class. My fear is that he espouses an openly dangerous ideology, and that he is the only candidate that can win the general election for the gop. His name recognition is off the charts, while 18-23 yo voters weren't even born yet when hillary entered the national scene. His trend line in the polls is flat now, but that is something of a victory in and of itself after the rest of the field ganged up on him in the last debate. He will undoubtedly get a boost tomorrow:

Trump's campaign has scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. on Monday in New York to announce a tax policy it said would offer "a major tax reduction for almost all citizens and corporations, in particular, those in the middle and lower income classes." Pressed about the specific numbers during an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Trump said: "I will say this, there will be a large segment of our country that will have a zero rate, a zero rate. And that's something I haven't told anybody."

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Political junkie time.
Trump will be a large fundraiser for the GOP and be declared the kingmaker. Whoever he supports will get the disenfranchised segment that he has accumulated and he will then do the talk show circuit promoting said candidate. Much like Palin was a gadfly in the last election, he will show up and dumb down the room for every event. This will be a tactic for the GOP.
That said candidate will do the normal abasement for clout and will be shaking hands for the camera with him often. It will be nauseating for us to watch it happen and the press will eat it up.
Why? The candidates who are closer to the beltway will remind him and/or bring up some dirt if he gets to close to being a viable candidate, like what was hinted at the debate.

Rubio is too green and unorganized enough to get the Hispanic vote, which is his biggest draw if he played his card right. He won't however. He can't even keep his own staff in line.

It will get closer to the truth when Jeb Bush and Cristie will take swings at each other. Then the mud will fly. Kaish or someone else who sat out on the debate will gain some prominence.
Hope I'm wrong about all of this. But that seems to be where things are headed.

 

[Gunky]

I'm pretty sure Trump won't win the nomination, but in a way I hope he does. It would signal the demise of the Republican party as we now know it. Some new replacement party would arise out of the chaos that had adults in charge and would actually be interested as much in governing the country as enriching the already super rich, enabling big energy to boil the planet, etc.

I agree Rubio is probably also unlikely to win nomination or the general. He is slick but very inexperienced. Unlike Obama he has no compelling vision.

One of the great ironies of the current election cycle is the way the repubs, who for 7 years have bitched and moaned daily about how Obama wasn't properly prepared for the presidency, are now entertaining candidates like Trump, Carson, and Fiorina (and Walker). Or Rubio, for that matter, who is certainly less well prepped than Obama, who had been a professor of constitutional law.

 

[Stu]

Rubio is too green and unorganized enough to get the Hispanic vote, which is his biggest draw if he played his card right.

I see what you did there...