The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[vapebuddy13]

IMO....Hillary didn't shill for either side and Bernie's remarks weren't made with any kind of verbal strength.

Bernie tends toward a dramatic, impassioned delivery in terms of speech pattern.... once he takes off on a topic. His response to the MJ question was similar sounding to the way my kids answered when I would ask them to take out the trash....'Sure Dad, gimme second and I'll get right on it'. Not saying his words were non-committal....just saying the delivery was. Maybe he was already mentally crafting his next response to something else.

I was disappointed by Hillary in that she didn't commit more BUT I can't fault her logic. She has a point....the current state of legalization is all shiny and new at the state level...and could be considered an experiment of sorts because of it's newness. Why not take advantage of the experiment and let the experiments play out more and make your decisions based on the results. If I were looking for a roofer and several neighbors were getting their roof's done..... I'd probably wait to see how they make out before making my decision. It also makes for a nice middle of the road political approach....this way she won't be lining up with either camp and doesn't risk losing votes except for either side of the MJ extremist opinion who want a simple yes or no.

I took Bernie's response as more of a yeah legalize without a lot of verbal strength bc it seems almost trivial like why is it a question? kind of reply.

as for Hillary, my main issue with that is it hasnt proven to require the hesitation and worry that we are using to justify waiting and testing the waters even though it has been legal for over a year and way more + than - have occured. If it seemed potentially as harmful as alcohol and such then yeah we should wait and see but if alcohol can be legal and the drugs that are prescribed can be so even with the crazy side-effects they have then there is no reason to "hold off" on judgement any longer than has been imo

IMO her response was strictly a political move to not gain too much hate from either side

 

[Gunky]

Hillary said she was against legalization and said that she was most proud of Iran being her biggest enemy. My parents, my family, and I will not be voting for her under any circumstances. My father said if Bernie does not go on he will be voting for a third party candidate.

So this idea that Hilary has a better chance of beating the republicans is false when applied to people like myself and my family, as we will not vote for her under any circumstances. Bernie going all the way is the only thing that will get us voting for a democrat in the general election.

I am against her because she voted for Iraq. With the way she's talking about Iran it seems like shes preparing to throw out all the hard work Obama put into the nuclear deal, and I will do everything in my power to stop that. She's against diplomacy in favor of heavy handed international strong arming.

I disagree. Hillary put together the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. I don't see any daylight between her and Obama on the deal. I don't believe she meant the Iranian people, just the Iranian government and in that I agree with her. They are not good guys, they don't mean well toward us, they are a curse upon their own people, and there will continue to be trouble from these nasty jerks.

 

[Farid]

She openly is against the deal. Look she supports Saudi Arabia who is about to crucify a kid. She never questions that regime, or the support we give them in their war against Yemen. Yet she goes after Iran, who, let us not forget, is surrounded by Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the United States invaded in recent history.

In fact much of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan exist because we refused to work with other nations in the rebuilding process. Iran offered a plan for Afghan elections following the invasion, but the US refused, instead installing our guy Karzai.

What brought Iran to the negotiating table was internal politics, and the fact that Rouhani's government is much more liberal and open to negotiations with the west than Ahmadinejad. Hilary's anti Iran rhetoric did absolutely nothing to get Iran to the negotiation tables. Also the geopolitical situation changed with regards to Iraq, and the US has been forced to treat Iran differently because of their relationship with the Iraqi government.

I disagree about all the leaders of Iran being "bad guys". Rouhani has been pushing hard to reform his country, which is very difficult when foreign nations are trying to sabotage every advancement your country is trying to make.

Iran doesn't mean well towards us? How do you think they view us? Iran didn't invade Mexico and Candada and tell us we're next. Bush did the equivalent when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and included Iran and Syria in his axis of evil speech. That's much more of a direct threat than just "death to America."

When people bring up Iran being a threat, do they forget that Iran has not invaded a country in over 200 years?

 

[Gunky]

I'm sorry, but they really really are bad guys. They stone homosexuals to death regularly. They routinely spout hatred toward us. They sponsor terrorism. They supplied mines that blew up our soldiers in Iraq. They fund Hezbollah. Throw reporters in prison. Don't make me go on. They are just bad actors. We have to deal with them, but that doesn't make them or their savagery toward their own citizens good.

 

[Farid]

I am against their treatment of homosexuals, but it is not "regularly" that people are stoned to death. Saudi Arabia is worse with that, and Hillary has no problem supporting the crown.

I have no problem with funding of Hezbollah, as Hezbollah was created to protect Lebanon, and that's what they've done. They were a response to the Sabra and Shatila massacres - a way of saying never again. Their track record in Syria has shown that they're some of the best trained and most disciplined soldiers on the Syrian government's side. They recently engaged in a truce with rebels, which would not have happened between government forces and rebels.

Iran has agreed to stop sponsoring Hamas and PIJ, so they're not really supporting terrorism these days. Especially when you consider the amount of money they're putting into fighting ISIS.

I agree Iran has problems, just like any country. But to demonize them makes progress impossible.

 

[Gunky]

 

[cybrguy]

She openly is against the deal. Look she supports Saudi Arabia who is about to crucify a kid. She never questions that regime, or the support we give them in their war against Yemen. Yet she goes after Iran, who, let us not forget, is surrounded by Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries the United States invaded in recent history.

In fact much of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan exist because we refused to work with other nations in the rebuilding process. Iran offered a plan for Afghan elections following the invasion, but the US refused, instead installing our guy Karzai.

What brought Iran to the negotiating table was internal politics, and the fact that Rouhani's government is much more liberal and open to negotiations with the west than Ahmadinejad. Hilary's anti Iran rhetoric did absolutely nothing to get Iran to the negotiation tables. Also the geopolitical situation changed with regards to Iraq, and the US has been forced to treat Iran differently because of their relationship with the Iraqi government.

I disagree about all the leaders of Iran being "bad guys". Rouhani has been pushing hard to reform his country, which is very difficult when foreign nations are trying to sabotage every advancement your country is trying to make.

Iran doesn't mean well towards us? How do you think they view us? Iran didn't invade Mexico and Candada and tell us we're next. Bush did the equivalent when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and included Iran and Syria in his axis of evil speech. That's much more of a direct threat than just "death to America."

When people bring up Iran being a threat, do they forget that Iran has not invaded a country in over 200 years?

There have been few posts made in this forum that I disagree with more. This group is probably not the right place to go into why, point by point, so I will leave it at I think you are completely wrong and that The President and Hillary both are on the right path with Iran. And if you really think that Iran is ready to work diplomatically with the west you are not only wrong you are blind. Iran clearly wants to be the major power in the ME and will stop at NOTHING to become that.

Wait a minute, there IS another post I disagree with more. It is your NEXT post. Obviously your bias has control of your thinking.

And especially your next post. You win.

Lets go back to talking about the candidates please...

 

[Farid]

I agree with how Obama's been dealing with the negotiations. Couldn't ask for more. But Hilary just said on the debate her proudest adversary is Iran. That's not something somebody who is trying to negotiate says.

She is equally adversarial with the republicans, which likewise, isn't good for negotiation. Bernie on the other hand talks about bringing everybody together and finding solutions. Whether he would practice it or not is another thing, but he isn't nearly as adversarial.

And I'd be happy to see Iran overshadow Saudi Arabia in the ME. KSA has been sponsoring real extremist terrorism, the kind that attacked us on 9/11, and has an equally bad if not worse human rights record than Iran.

 

[Gunky]

Let's not get sidetracked on Iran.

 

[cybrguy]

So, the numbers are in and this debate has around 15.3 million tv viewers. That may seem small compared to the repub debates of around 23 million, but this one had no carnival barkers or reality TV stars. And no one was expected to say really stupid things (and they didn't). This was actually a political debate instead of an entertainment show, so I thought the turnout was pretty good. One and a half times the viewership of any Dem debate before it.

 

[grokit]

I missed the debate, but thanks to fuck combustion I feel fully informed

I think it may make a big difference, if it comes down to the wire between the two, who they might pick for running mate. Neither are spring chickens and while clinton is the younger of the two, she is the one that has had a recent health scare. She may be tempted to recycle biden (if he doesn't run himself) for continuity etc. Personally I would love it if sanders picked howard dean, but that may be too much vermont.

 

[His_Highness]

So, the numbers are in and this debate has around 15.3 million tv viewers. That may seem small compared to the repub debates of around 23 million, but this one had no carnival barkers or reality TV stars. And no one was expected to say really stupid things (and they didn't). This was actually a political debate instead of an entertainment show, so I thought the turnout was pretty good. One and a half times the viewership of any Dem debate before it.

Good comparison^^^^....The republican debates were like a circus with many of the participants vying for the job of ringmaster .... very entertaining but when it was over I felt like anyone with a modicum of intelligence should not only feel cheated but those who are registered republicans should feel sad as well. The few who were actually willing to try and participate as an intelligent adult didn't have the personality or leadership characteristics to pull it off.

With the democratic debate - at the early onset my first gut feeling was 'Oh look, adults are in the room'.

@grokit - There was a point where the body language between Bernie and Hillary made me think that Bernie might make a good VP with Hillary as the president

 

[vapebuddy13]

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reaso...-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/

It's so ridiculous how the media tries to twist anything political to what suits them best instead of talking about anything real...

 

[grokit]

I just googled the term, "bride of frankenfood".

It's pretty good readin'

 

[KimDracula]

The GOP is finished as a national party. They cannot win the White House by pleasing the 30% of white people that are pissed and on the wrong side of every issue. They have been allowed to run riot in red states where they have control, however, abridging abortion and simple healthcare rights for women, gerrymandering districts so that Democrats get many more votes but still lose, and of course, making sure it's quite hard to vote.

There seems to be a lot of rather amorphous Hillary hate out there even among Liberals (what was this nonsense about her opposing the Iran deal? She doesn't and never did), but she's likely going to be the candidate, and she should be. I love Bernie and him getting into the race has done exactly what it was supposed to: drag Hillary to the Left. I think we want him where he is in the Senate. What I am quite sure of is that any Republican that wins the candidacy would be a horrible disaster as POTUS. I just hope Democrats unite behind the nominee. To do otherwise would be terribly naive. There are many people who can be heard saying that there isn't any difference between these two parties these days but those people aren't paying close attention (edit: and they don't realize the importance of the Supreme Court).

 

[His_Highness]

The GOP is finished as a national party.
I just hope Democrats unite behind the nominee.

I'd say the first line IS TRUE... if..... the second line COMES TRUE. Otherwise we may have another result like the last set of elections. Never underestimate stupid and stubborn.

There are democrats who will vote for a democrat without even looking at the ballot or positions and there are republicans who will do the same. I know plenty of folks who are thrilled with ObamaCare and other democratic initiatives and would also readily admit that Bush was a moron and was a major reason for the demise of the republican party .... but they will vote republican because they always have. The independent, minorities and the young are the key here and if they can't be rallied for the dems, like Obama was able to do..........who knows how this ends up.

Kim mentioned the dislike for Hillary and I agree .... She seems to be considered part of the old political insider's which is far from in vogue whether you're democratic or republican. While I personally like her a lot it remains to be seen if she can rally the needed demographics.

 

[KimDracula]

Almost everyone is going to vote one way or the other. There are very few undecided people out there who will bother. Turnout is always the issue (along with voter suppression and other shenanigans - ahem, W) for Democrats. There are way more of us. Since we've got Bernie running and energizing the base and we're talking about a Presidential race, I think there's very little chance Dems lose. Republicans haven't had a chance at winning since W and the myth of compassionate Conservatism. He was able to wrangle Latino votes at least. That's not happening any more. It has also become ever more impossible for the GOP to rally their lunatic base and then try to pivot to rational-sounding positions in the general.

I think Hillary will pull through fine in the national election. She has the greater support among women and minorities, I think, and has the Clinton machine behind her. This insider/outsider thing is a trope that shows up in nearly every race. I don't put all that much stock in it when there's very little difference in policy between these candidates (especially considering what is actually possible) and the outsider is a Senator who's been there for eons. On the other hand, if Bernie is strong enough to win the Democratic nomination I think he's strong enough to take out whoever the Republicans put up, too.

Let's have a progressive 2016 however we can.

 

[cybrguy]

Almost everyone is going to vote one way or the other. There are very few undecided people out there who will bother. Turnout is always the issue (along with voter suppression and other shenanigans - ahem, W) for Democrats. There are way more of us. Since we've got Bernie running and energizing the base and we're talking about a Presidential race, I think there's very little chance Dems lose.

I don't disagree with you on principle, and I think you are probably right. But, in October of 2003, nobody thought America reelects George W Bush to the White House, and we all know painfully well what actually happened. If you want a particular result it is incredibly dangerous to get complaisant or drop your guard. Nothing is certain, and success comes from hard work...

 

[KimDracula]

Indeed, we must not get complacent. Barring historically low turnout for Dems, however, and given that W had far more support among some other demographics than current Republicans do, it's bound to go our way. Put another way, this is the Democrats' election to lose, just like the last two and at least the first time W ran.

 

[His_Highness]

Let's say it a little differently....lets change 'lets not get complacent' to 'Let's get busy NOW'. 'We must not get complacent' implies it's damn near a lock as long as we don't step in it and I don't think that's the case. What's the difference between Nov. 2014 and now?

Statement from Obama on Mid-Term Elections from Nov. 5, 2014:
Obviously, Republicans had a good night. And they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that, I’ll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterday’s results.
What stands out to me, though, is that the American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now. They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.

Still, as president, I have a unique responsibility to try and make this town work. So, to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.
*-------------------------------------------------*
I may be stereotypical and jaded in my view that older Americans will vote their party line, whichever it is, with blinders on while holding their nose. Hopefully the open minded will prevail BUT what concerns me is that there is a difference in the grass roots feeling for Hillary (or the dems in general) versus when Obama ran. Obama energized the base AND the undecided.

I see a difference in how the younger folks (Yeah-I know damn near everyone is younger than me....except maybe lwein) are reacting right now. They are not as engaged and many others are in the same boat. My kids couldn't wait to vote for Obama...they aren't nearly as excited this time.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

I wish both parties would dump ALL their candidates and start over. If it ends up being Hillary Vs Jeb, we should consider dismantling both parties, as if both parties were being run like monopolies. Too much power is held by the status quo candidates, thanks to campaign finances dominating who is electable. The primaries and election process should be more than an informal vetting for these two. Really, of all the hundreds of people who are electable for this office, we get another Clinton or Bush to choose again because of their name 'brand'. Despite all their failings, while they held an office. Some voters are willing to settle for the lesser of two evils because they/we somehow feel affiliated to a party. They attach a certain brand to that candidate. But, This belief will be challenged again this election. Some voters are actually getting wiser this time out.

Problem is many voters read from only one source or get their news from the TV and radio. So they get headlines and soundbites instead of comprehensive information.
And some only get their info from mailings sent around election time. But hopefully more people will have the tools to actually research what these candidates actual record has represented and will perhaps have a much longer memory this election cycle. Hopefully their will be more fact checking this time around too.
I still believe their is a few candidates in the shadows waiting to emerge. It is still 2015. Keep the pressure on this election and you just might get that up-and-comer this time out. That goes for both parties and independents too. This is as good a year as any to challenge the status quo.

 

[grokit]

It's pretty widely accepted that democrats have much better turnout in presidential elections. I believe that the right-wing church plays a role in motivating their "flock" to vote in the purely congressional (off-year) elections, and this is where the disparity comes from. And yes gerrymandering makes it much worse.

I have a bernie hat and mug and bumper sticker coming, but I will probably vote for hillary if she's nominated. The thing is she doesn't have any chance of getting my state's single electoral vote, so my ballot would only affect the popular vote. For me, it may be better symbolically to vote for an independent.

 

[howie105]

Well time for me to stick my head out of the bunker and take off my foil hat. I really don't see any of the candidates even remotely resembling most of the people they are supposed to represent. But then what else is new.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

It's pretty widely accepted that democrats have much better turnout in presidential elections. I believe that the right-wing church plays a role in motivating their "flock" to vote in the purely congressional (off-year) elections, and this is where the disparity comes from. And yes gerrymandering makes it much worse.

I have a bernie hat and mug and bumper sticker coming, but I will probably vote for hillary if she's nominated. The thing is she doesn't have any chance of getting my state's single electoral vote, so my ballot would only affect the popular vote. For me, it may be better symbolically to vote for an independent.

Yea, the electoral vote system does muddy up the waters. But If it is worthwhile to you, get in the primary election for your guy, if there time. then perhaps you can put that hat and cup to use.

But it would be nice to vote for someone who really represents you come election time, instead of all the political calculation needed, to see how much your vote is being represented in each state and district. Then we all have to wait for Florida, if it is a close election.

 

[cybrguy]

Well, truth be known, I will have no problem voting for Hillary for President. We actually agree on at least 80% of the issues, and I think that is pretty good. I would guess that I read something like 500-800 pages a month of political news and commentary from both sides of the aisle. Probably more politics than anything other than business related stuff.

And MJ stuff, obviously.