lwien
Well-Known Member
I'm totally with you on this. He's playing these primaries like a finely tuned instrument but I still don't think he's going to end up being the GOP's nominee.
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
I'm totally with you on this. He's playing these primaries like a finely tuned instrument but I still don't think he's going to end up being the GOP's nominee.
lwien
Well-Known Member
I believe that that was strictly a strategic move to get the base on his side and it worked. I also think that as time goes on, he will move from the far right towards the center and you will see him act a bit more presidential being that he is going to have to do this to set himself up for the general.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
My money is on his being completely unable to help himself. Wanna take that bet?
As soon as he feels threatened or offended he pulls out his dick looking for someplace to urinate. Do you really think Hillary's legs are safe?
This is who he is. I don't think a debate coach can help him with that.
lwien
Well-Known Member
The problem that he has though is that all of the things that he has said during the primaries are there on record and WILL be used against him during the general. Can he overcome that by saying that he just did what he had to do to win the primaries? Will he actually win the primary? Stay tuned.........
I'm not totally convinced of that but even if it is who he is, does he have the ability to reign it in to win the general?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I don't know. I don't think anyone in the past has had the stones to admit it. He might, and it might even work given what he's already gotten away with...
howie105
Well-Known Member
The problem that he has though is that all of the things that he has said during the primaries are there on record and WILL be used against him during the general.....All those Trump balloon poppers and many others are already out there but nobody has pulled the string on them. The question is why not, its not that his same party opponents don't want him gone enough.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Turnout has been low in the Democratic primaries and high in the Republican counterparts. That can't be helpful. When it comes to Presidents I always have to live with some horrible crap but I really don't feel like going through a Trump administration.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Or a Cruz administration - think of the Supreme Court after that. Many of us would be stuck with those justices the remainder of our lives. Or a Rubio amateur hour boy robot administration either. There is some serious shit going on in the world right now and we actually do need somebody who is prepared for this.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
How about a little comic relief....
Other than being able to rally the lowest common denominator what else does Trump bring to the table....potentially one of the finest looking first ladies ever.
There really hasn't been much focus on the potential first ladies yet. Can't wait to hear what Slovenian born Melania's pet political project's will be. Ok...maybe I can wait.
Other than being able to rally the lowest common denominator what else does Trump bring to the table....potentially one of the finest looking first ladies ever.
There really hasn't been much focus on the potential first ladies yet. Can't wait to hear what Slovenian born Melania's pet political project's will be. Ok...maybe I can wait.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Ya know, that Doonsbury cartoon really does have it right. How are these evangelicals who (tend to ) lead with their religion on nearly everything supporting the guy whose character leans the furthest from their religious ideals. This would have been very hard to imagine before it happened. What is their rationale? Their bigotry is stronger then their religious zeal? Whats up with that?
grokit
well-worn member
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.
I did not come to bring peace but a sword”
~ Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:32-34)
howie105
Well-Known Member
Its America were everyone (is supposed to) gets their vote and if our choice fails (not shot or wrongly torpedoed) we are still expected to be good citizens and contribute to the country. Sadly we have strayed from that precept along with our leaders and its turned into a "MY WAY OR NO WAY" situation for some folks. We have national gridlock when we need action at the national level and sadly even the ruled are at best distrustful of each others and often treat and regard each other much worse. I mean when was the last time one can remember a candidate saying something like , Here is my plan for working with the other side to get something important done. not too often but there is no shortage of name calling and belittling. We as voters tolerate this school yard trash and end up paying the price. Screw dogma.
howie105
Well-Known Member
I agree with your assessment to a point and to whatever point it is then we as citizens need to be make peace with ourselves even more. What was that thing about united we stand, divided we fall.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Some of the reasons I don't think I can vote for Hillary Clinton.
1. Cannabis. She wants to reclassify as schedule II. Better than currently, but still thinks we're on the same level as cocaine, meth, and PCP.
2. Civil liberties. She has voted for the Patriot Act three separate times.
3. Foreign Policy. I cut her some slack on the Irag War Authorization (lies were abundant then), but she supported the war in Afghanistan, and she pushed hard as Secretary of State for action in Libya and Syria. She has aligned herself to carry on the Obama administration of bombing the shit out of places.
4. TPP (and other trade agreements). She called it the "gold standard". She knew what was in it. She shopped it around to the other countries. Now she opposes it. This is not even the first trade agreement she has reversed position on.
5. Gay marriage and immigration. She eventually came around, but what new information changed her mind?
6. Death penalty. She supported the crime bill that allowed for the death penalty to be enacted against non-violent drug crimes (trafficking).
7. Her economic advisor is Alan Blinder. This is just bad judgement. Not to mention the rest of her pro-Wall St. team.
8. She calls the Wall St. fraud "shenanigans".
9. 20 years ago (at age 48), she believed in "super predators".
----------
I have other concerns, but I'm short on time, so I'll cut this list short. I'm just not sure if I can support another multi-millionaire moderate/neoliberal/New Democrat that is posing as a progressive to get elected. Better than the GOP side? Probably, but that is a very low bar.
1. Cannabis. She wants to reclassify as schedule II. Better than currently, but still thinks we're on the same level as cocaine, meth, and PCP.
2. Civil liberties. She has voted for the Patriot Act three separate times.
3. Foreign Policy. I cut her some slack on the Irag War Authorization (lies were abundant then), but she supported the war in Afghanistan, and she pushed hard as Secretary of State for action in Libya and Syria. She has aligned herself to carry on the Obama administration of bombing the shit out of places.
4. TPP (and other trade agreements). She called it the "gold standard". She knew what was in it. She shopped it around to the other countries. Now she opposes it. This is not even the first trade agreement she has reversed position on.
5. Gay marriage and immigration. She eventually came around, but what new information changed her mind?
6. Death penalty. She supported the crime bill that allowed for the death penalty to be enacted against non-violent drug crimes (trafficking).
7. Her economic advisor is Alan Blinder. This is just bad judgement. Not to mention the rest of her pro-Wall St. team.
8. She calls the Wall St. fraud "shenanigans".
9. 20 years ago (at age 48), she believed in "super predators".
----------
I have other concerns, but I'm short on time, so I'll cut this list short. I'm just not sure if I can support another multi-millionaire moderate/neoliberal/New Democrat that is posing as a progressive to get elected. Better than the GOP side? Probably, but that is a very low bar.
Even charles koch is to the left of hillary on our holy grail precious weed.
Irks me that American politics seems to be heavily divided (don't even start me on Australian politics and their lack of difference!) left- democrats right- republicans. Seems one can not support the idea of a deregulated economy without being some sort of religious conservative who hates weed and homosexuals and one can't be socially progressive without being some sort of gun hating wealth redistributer.
In Australia the two majors are very similar ideologically (similar in there lack of distinct ideology and having any idea for sale)
There is only two parties with gun friendly stance, one ultra libertarian whom I like but may not get back in, and another party with two members who also happen to be anti-immigration, think video games are hurting the youth and want to see increased sentences for drug crimes.
In Australia the two majors are very similar ideologically (similar in there lack of distinct ideology and having any idea for sale)
There is only two parties with gun friendly stance, one ultra libertarian whom I like but may not get back in, and another party with two members who also happen to be anti-immigration, think video games are hurting the youth and want to see increased sentences for drug crimes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Most of this is stuff that happened decades ago. Some is lame as points against her, like she took too long to be in favor of gay marriage. On cannabis she has spoken approvingly of sentencing reform and allowing states to legalize; she is somewhat behind the curve but not problematic, IMO. I think she is making a mistake by not being a little more out front on this because it would help with her youth vote problem.
howie105
Well-Known Member
If the country is going to effectively deal with corruption its going to need as many people as possible on board first, not just the left or the right but everybody including the moderates of both parties. Ok I am also hoping that we as citizens haven't been bought out or dazzled by all the bull shit to the point that we can't join up and deal with our shared problems.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Gunky said:
Other than #6 (which she still supports the death penalty currently) and #9, this stuff is all within the last decade.
Gunky said:
You left out that I included immigration in there. Both issues she has recently changed positions on.
To me, equal rights for all isn't lame. She changed her opinion in recent years. Why does she support now, when as recently as 2012 she didn't? What new info came to light to change her mind? It's not that she took too long, it's that her beliefs are shaped by how they benefit her politically.
Gunky said:
She wants to reclassify as a Schedule II. If you don't see why classifying it in the same class as cocaine, meth, opiates, and PCP, is problematic, then you must not see the problem with people being arrested for possession. Again, this is a position that she adopted recently.
As a Clinton supporter, you may find my concerns "lame", but you've offered no counter points to them.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
I think the the people are not nearly so ideologically divided as the politicians themselves. When it comes to deep core beliefs where things like religion get involved there is a deep divide but most of the problems that plague us have nothing to do with those things. We have our ideologies but are able to see common needs. It's the money that calcifies the party line and makes things like the current form of absolute Republican obstruction (which necessarily requires the Democrats to take almost as hard a line on them) valuable to some careers as opposed to actually doing the business of government. We can't have politicians who are only concerned about making life hell if the other party wins. I'm starting to babble some, but my point is just that people who aren't paid to push a certain philosophy can get an awful lot done before they get to the brick walls like abortion or gun control (hell, when it comes to the big stuff like background checks, most people agree on that latter one, too).
grokit
well-worn member
I really hope bernie gets the nod.
If anything's gonna get trump elected it's this.
Especially if the fbi waits until the generals to indict her
MSNBC: FBI’s Hillary Investigation ‘Far More Advanced’ Than Public Knows
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Friday that sources have told him that the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton is “far more advanced than we the public knows.”
Friday on “Morning Joe,” panelist Cokie Roberts predicted that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, her run for president would be “over.”
“Most of us around this table are hearing from multiple sources … that the Hillary Clinton investigation [by] the FBI is far more progressed,” Scarborough said. “Mika and I have been hearing it from the top officials in the Obama administration for actually several months now, and we can’t go to a meeting in Washington where we don’t hear this.”
“All of our sources high up are telling us … that this investigation is far more advanced than we the public knows,” Scarborough added.
Panelist Mark Halperin said, “Well, there are three things that people are keying off of. First of all, there are a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents, many of whom have never been big fans of the Clintons. But a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something is happening here.”
“Second is from a legal point of view, you look at the recent developments that we’ve talked about on the program, it’s hard to see now how the Justice Department, the FBI, doesn’t want to interview Secretary Clinton,” Halperin said.
“And that interview alone, short of an indictment, short of anything else, that would be a huge political development,” Halperin insisted. “It would undermine confidence in some Democrats in the notion of going forward with Secretary Clinton.” (RELATED: Report: FBI Now Investigating Hillary’s State Department For Corruption)
POLL: If Hillary Clinton Is Indicted, Would Obama Pardon Her?
Yes No
Halperin explained that even some in the White House have begun to discuss the investigation. “It’s not clear whether they know what’s happening or it’s just their intuition, but the body language among some Obama administration officials is this is more serious and something is going to happen. Again, the timing of it could be if not cataclysmic, pretty bad for Secretary Clinton if Sen. Sanders is still alive.”
NPR’s Cokie Roberts, also a panelist on “Morning Joe,” said, “Look, if there’s an indictment, it’s over. [Clinton’s] out. And then [the Democrats] go find you know the ‘break glass in emergency’ box, and I suppose what happens then is you see Joe Biden.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/29/m...tigation-far-more-advanced-than-public-knows/
[VIDEOS]
also:
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/267269-fbis-clinton-investigation-not-letting-up
and:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-becom_b_9289066.html
If anything's gonna get trump elected it's this.
Especially if the fbi waits until the generals to indict her
MSNBC: FBI’s Hillary Investigation ‘Far More Advanced’ Than Public Knows
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Friday that sources have told him that the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton is “far more advanced than we the public knows.”
Friday on “Morning Joe,” panelist Cokie Roberts predicted that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, her run for president would be “over.”
“Most of us around this table are hearing from multiple sources … that the Hillary Clinton investigation [by] the FBI is far more progressed,” Scarborough said. “Mika and I have been hearing it from the top officials in the Obama administration for actually several months now, and we can’t go to a meeting in Washington where we don’t hear this.”
“All of our sources high up are telling us … that this investigation is far more advanced than we the public knows,” Scarborough added.
Panelist Mark Halperin said, “Well, there are three things that people are keying off of. First of all, there are a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents, many of whom have never been big fans of the Clintons. But a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something is happening here.”
“Second is from a legal point of view, you look at the recent developments that we’ve talked about on the program, it’s hard to see now how the Justice Department, the FBI, doesn’t want to interview Secretary Clinton,” Halperin said.
“And that interview alone, short of an indictment, short of anything else, that would be a huge political development,” Halperin insisted. “It would undermine confidence in some Democrats in the notion of going forward with Secretary Clinton.” (RELATED: Report: FBI Now Investigating Hillary’s State Department For Corruption)
POLL: If Hillary Clinton Is Indicted, Would Obama Pardon Her?
Yes No
Halperin explained that even some in the White House have begun to discuss the investigation. “It’s not clear whether they know what’s happening or it’s just their intuition, but the body language among some Obama administration officials is this is more serious and something is going to happen. Again, the timing of it could be if not cataclysmic, pretty bad for Secretary Clinton if Sen. Sanders is still alive.”
NPR’s Cokie Roberts, also a panelist on “Morning Joe,” said, “Look, if there’s an indictment, it’s over. [Clinton’s] out. And then [the Democrats] go find you know the ‘break glass in emergency’ box, and I suppose what happens then is you see Joe Biden.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/29/m...tigation-far-more-advanced-than-public-knows/
[VIDEOS]
also:
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/267269-fbis-clinton-investigation-not-letting-up
and:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-becom_b_9289066.html
Last edited: