The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[His_Highness]

The Donald Trump Abortion comments.......did you guys watch the debate?? Clearly the media articles posting him up as the devil did not.

The question was: "IF abortions were illegal......"

That bothers me. The amount of misconstruing.

I watched the debate and all I can say is.....The actual conversation was: 'Do you believe in punishment for abortion AS A PRINCIPLE'? Trump Response: 'There has to be some form of punishment'. The next question was 'For the woman'. Trump Response: 'Yes'.

There is no misconstruing those quotes.

Please watch the youtube video of the debate and find me the 'IF'. I can't locate it.

 

[Msek]

Welcome to FC. Hell of a first post and I agree 100%

Appreciate the welcome, this forum has eased the steep learning curve to catch up after forty some years. (I'm retired now woohoo)

Thanks to you for posting the WA petition for folks to access, Larsen should be swinging by the local area soon for meetings/coffee. (dug out his last email and sent a heads up) I will take time to discuss my dismay.

Larsen has been on the House Armed Services Committee for the last fifteen years, and as a member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which oversees our nation's intelligence programs he is well aware what; "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available means.

 

[CarolKing]

@HellsWindStaff Abortions are not illegal. It would be a huge deal if they weren't legal any longer. Women and girls would be desperate and be forced to go to back allies and hotel rooms to get the operation done. Read a little history of dirty illegal abortions back in the 1960s and before. Plenty of women died due to unsterile equipment. There's a reason that abortions need to be done in a type of medical setting.

That's one thing that I would protest and fight for, if it ever becomes illegal. I'm sure plenty of men wouldn't want abortions illegal either. Most of the time it's the man that starts to panick when his wife or girlfriend gets pregnant and it's a surprise and unplanned.
You can't tell me Trump never requested a girlfriend to get an a abortion.

I remember I was a teenager when abortions became legal. Many women would fight for the right to keep it legal so watch out republicans if you want to go down that route.

Chris Mathews is a good journalist and Trump fell right in his trap. I'm sure of Mathews colleagues were patting him on the back afterwards. Three hours later Trump recanted his statement but the damage was already done. Many republican women won't vote for him. Trump didn't want to piss off the evangelicals, so he pissed off everybody.

Sounds like Trump needs to do a little studying on a lot of issues, including giving the OK for everybody to have nuclear missiles. What an idiot.

Trump wants this country to regress 45 years or more. His polls are dropping like a led balloon.
Cheers to the democrats. There's a lot of material for anti Trump commercials.

 

[His_Highness]

In case I can help locate the 'IF'. Start at the 9:40 mark in the video link below. I realize abortion is not illegal so the 'IF' could be implied but when the questioning starts with 'What should the law be on abortion' it sounded more to me like 'What is your position'.

 

[Magic9]

Here is the transcript of the town hall beginning with the question that set it off.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...t-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/

---
Edit*

Is the pressure getting to Clinton? Or is she unaware of the reports on this matter?

"I am so sick. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it."

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

https://news.vice.com/article/fossi...ons-of-dollars-into-hillary-clintons-campaign

 

[Redrod]

Donald Trump 2016-2024

"a problem with Democrats is that they try to clean up their own mess"

 

[CarolKing]

Funny, Cruz called Trump the Khardashian of the presidential candidates. Sitting on Twitter making comments and not having the know how to get things done.

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting Donald Trump had with the leader of the RNC on Thursday. Especially after Trump's comments about abortion and nuclear missiles. Trump said the meeting was "terrific."

Last night Hillary lost it with Sander's protesters during her speech. Seems like it was about her support and money from oil and gas companies.

 

[howie105]

Funny, Cruz called Trump the Khardashian of the presidential candidates. Sitting on Twitter making comments and not having the know how to get things done.

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting Donald Trump had with the leader of the RNC on Thursday. Especially after Trump's comments about abortion and nuclear missiles. Trump said the meeting was "terrific."

Last night Hillary lost it with Sander's protesters during her speech. Seems like it was about her support and money from oil and gas companies.

Clinton is in a bad spot, she wants to be seen as the sane alternative not only to the republicans but to Sanders as well. Sadly for her the republicans are getting more press and Sanders refuses to die, it seems like its starting to be bothersome. She should thank her lucky stars the DNC is in her corner otherwise this would be a real fight.

 

[Gunky]

Hillary was correct: The Sanders camp is basically lying about this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/

But note: Both Democrats have received money from "the oil and gas industry." The total for Clinton's campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders's, it's about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.

As a percentage of all the money campaigns have raised, both Clinton and Sanders have only raised a fraction of their totals from that industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

 

[Magic9]

Clinton is wrong. Hillary is basically lying about this.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

https://news.vice.com/article/fossi...ons-of-dollars-into-hillary-clintons-campaign

The Greenpeace activist asked Clinton, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?”.

Her response, "I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil-fuel companies. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I'm sick of it."

In the words of the activist herself (excerpt below),

"Today, I said to Hillary, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?” I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to Fix our Democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked Hillary Clinton the question. In fact, last night, over 40 activists gathered outside of a Hillary Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for. She did not cross the street to talk to us.

To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign"

What is the lie that Sanders is telling? Is the Greenpeace info wrong? Has she not received $4.5m in the 2016 election cycle?

At this point, she owes Sanders an apology. I don't think that will be coming as I expect her to go negative soon to try to beat him back on the ground he's gaining in NY. Panic mode is setting in for them.

If she can't handle the tone of Greenpeace...

 

[Gunky]

Clinton is wrong. Hillary is basically lying about this.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

https://news.vice.com/article/fossi...ons-of-dollars-into-hillary-clintons-campaign

The Greenpeace activist asked Clinton, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?”.

Her response, "I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil-fuel companies. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I'm sick of it."

In the words of the activist herself (excerpt below),

"Today, I said to Hillary, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?” I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to Fix our Democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked Hillary Clinton the question. In fact, last night, over 40 activists gathered outside of a Hillary Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for. She did not cross the street to talk to us.

To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign"

What is the lie that Sanders is telling? Is the Greenpeace info wrong? Has she not received $4.5m in the 2016 election cycle?

At this point, she owes Sanders an apology. I don't think that will be coming as I expect her to go negative soon to try to beat him back on the ground he's gaining in NY. Panic mode is setting in for them.

If she can't handle the tone of Greenpeace...

The Greenpeace hit piece fails to distinguish between contributions received by Clinton and those received by Clinton-supporting PACs. PACs are outside her control, she is legally prohibited from coordinating with them.

This is what they said:

First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of 3/21/16; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.

As I said above, the attempts by the Sanders camp to smear Clinton are essentially lies, bullshit and hypocrisy. Sanders appears to have pivoted from arguing about policy to denigrating the sources of his opponent's campaign donations and the integrity of his opponent. It stinks but a lot of Sanders true believers - including many on this board - are going for it. Not only are they wrong about it, they are really screwing with the ultimate nominee for no good purpose. Sanders, who has had a salutory effect on the campaign til now for the most part, is beginning to show signs of shitty, selfish, unscrupulous ambition.

 

[His_Highness]

Sanders appears to have pivoted from arguing about policy to denigrating the sources of his opponents donations and the integrity of his opponent. It stinks but a lot of people on this board are going for it.

Count me in as someone on this board who is going for it AND Sander's hasn't pivoted - he's been on this topic since day one. I'll concede that he's becoming a tad more vocal about it but Hillary's sensitivity to the topic because it's a working thorn is upping the ante and adding even more visibility.

Who/What contributes to Hillary's campaign and in what denominations is a sore point because the basis for comparison with Bernie is so striking. It's gotta sting when the comparison is to someone who would not accept the same contribution that Hillary does. She can't debate that point so it's getting to be a real pain in the ass for her.

So the 'Who/What' contributes can't be debated and won't go away. The 'Why' they contribute is the only debate point available and is not making anything clearer or better. When the reason for accepting such contributions is 'this is the way it works but there is no impropriety' it just makes me feel better about feeling the Bern.

 

[Gunky]

Total bs. Why isn't Bernie refusing to take the contributions he got?

The pac contributions are outside of Clinton's control, so that portion is total bs. The rest is what, a bit over 1 million from lobbyists or bundled by lobbyists? Do you realize what a pittance that is in the scheme of things? She got an equal amount from the American Federation of Teachers.

On the personal donations, ok she got 300,000 and Bernie got 50,000 from fossil fuel industry employees. Pot calls kettle black!

 

[gangababa]

OMG I have been composing mind dialog for this idea as a Trump October surprise to the mind-numbingly, deliberately ignorant American "trump-pets"

Jimmy Kimmel Live!, 3/31/16

See hear here
“Nine months ago, I announced my candidacy for president,” says a pretty good Trump impersonator, in a voiceover. “The journey has been an unbelievably interesting one — and fascinating. But, it’s also been a real wakeup call.”

As video plays of violence at Trump rallies, he continues: “Our country is totally divided. There’s so much hatred — so, that’s what I made my campaign about! I said the craziest things I could think of.”

After a brief montage of “things you never heard a candidate say,” he continues: “But I will tell you this — and I can say it with certainty: I had no idea it would go this far. No matter how insane I got, millions of you showed up to support me. Me! The guy who hosted The Apprentice; and sold steaks. But enough is enough. It has be stopped; it has to be stopped now.”

“April Fools, America!” declares ‘Trump. “I’m not really running for president. It was a joke! You’re so stupid, it’s mind-boggling. It really is. Now go vote for my friend Hillary Clinton, and Make America Great Again.”

“I can’t believe you bought these crappy hats.”

 

[Adobewan]

Sanders, who has had a salutory effect on the campaign til now for the most part, is beginning to show signs of shitty, selfish, unscrupulous ambition.

Unlike Hillary.

 

[His_Highness]

Total bs. Why isn't Bernie refusing to take the contributions he got?

Well.....my guess is the letterhead didn't say Enbridge, Exxon or Chevron.

 

[Magic9]

The Greenpeace hit piece fails to distinguish between contributions received by Clinton and those received by Clinton-supporting PACs. PACs are outside her control, she is legally prohibited from coordinating with them.

If she received the contributions directly, it would have been illegal. The PAC thing is interesting. $3.2m went to Priorities Action USA. David Brock is a board member on that PAC. He is also the founder of another Clinton superPAC named Correct the Record.

The Clinton campaign and Correct the Record superPAC have been coordinating "through a novel legal arragement".

From the headline of the Greenpeace "hit piece",

"Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry."

It seems they did distinguish that both her campaign, and her superPAC received money.

[Gunky]As I said above, the attempts by the Sanders camp to smear Clinton are essentially lies, bullshit and hypocrisy. Sanders appears to have pivoted from arguing about policy to denigrating the sources of his opponent's campaign donations and the integrity of his opponent.[/quote]

Facts are neither lies, bullshit, or hypocrisy. This issue directly ties into the policy of removing corporate money from politics.

 

[His_Highness]

The pac contributions are outside of Clinton's control, so that portion is total bs. The rest is what, a bit over 1 million from lobbyists or bundled by lobbyists? Do you realize what a pittance that is in the scheme of things?

I imagine it must seem like a pretty big pittance to someone who's campaign financing is being run like Bernie's.

 

[Gunky]

That's your argument: Hillary demonic because fundraising, she took one whole million from lobbyists... Desperate, stupid, shortsighted and self-defeating.

 

[Adobewan]

That's your argument: Hillary demonic because fundraising, she took one whole million from lobbyists... Desperate, stupid, shortsighted and self-defeating.

Easy Bro.
This isn't the only issue that has people skeptical of Hillary.

 

[His_Highness]

That's your argument: Hillary demonic because fundraising, she took one whole million from lobbyists... Desperate, stupid, shortsighted and self-defeating.

No...my argument is more like....I appreciate that Bernie walks the walk and talks the talk.

BTW - I don't think Hillary is demonic. I think she is what you have implied she is in previous posts....'An old school politician versus Bernie's visionary political approach .... Unfortunately an old school politician who will take money from those she says she is going to reign in isn't what I'm looking for this election .... unless the visionary loses.

 

[Magic9]

There is no argument.

Greenpeace compiled data and found that, "Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry."

This is either true, or it isn't. It's true.

Neither Greenpeace, nor Sanders lied about it.

 

[Gunky]

Unlike Hillary.

When Obama vanquished Hillary in the primaries, Hillary came on board and campaigned for Obama, became his secretary of state, etc. How about Bernie? Is he going to practice scorched earth in the primaries and then what, be a staunch supporter in the general? Ambition is one thing. Shitty, selfish ambition that doesn't give a damn about anything unless he gets the nod is another.

 

[His_Highness]

When Obama vanquished Hillary in the primaries, Hillary came on board and campaigned for Obama, became his secretary of state, etc. How about Bernie? Is he going to practice scorched earth in the primaries and then what, be a staunch supporter in the general? Ambition is one thing. Shitty, selfish ambition that doesn't give a damn about anything unless he gets the nod is another.

Scorched earth in the primary? C 'mon .... this is about as polite a campaign as can be. If you think this is scorched earth you better get a hazmat suit for the general....

 

[Magic9]

Truth isn't a scorched earth campaign. The idea that Sanders is running a negative campaign is "ridiculous" according to both the WaPo and Vox.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tive-to-debate-hillary-clinton-is-ridiculous/

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11333606/clinton-sanders-debate

This isn't the first time they've used this tactic this year. They tried it in January.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/is-bernie-going-negative/433998/