The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[TeeJay1952]

@macbill Just talk one more person into voting. In here we are one choir trying to sing louder than another but IRL a co worker, a friend, a shop owner you never know where or who you might influence. (To do what they want)

 

[Silat]

This is a great bit that shows the farce that is the average Drumpf supporter.

 

[Snappo]

This is a great bit that shows the farce that is the average Drumpf supporter.

Actually, Trump supporters aren't quite that bright. Thanks for the laughs!

 

[Maitri]

Paul Ryan said "Trump has received more primary votes than any republican in history AND the primary count isn't over yet." Ryan also said "Trump has brought in a demographic that hasn't been seen in many years."

This is F'n nuts!

Heh, what demographic is that? The village idiot?

Well you say it is your own opinion but how did you get it? You didn't just come up with all this on your own.

Couldn't one ask the same of you?

Are you listening to yourself? You are faulting Hillary as power-hungry harpy because she tried hard to deliver universal health care to the public? What a selfish bitch Hillary must be to want to help everybody get health care!

Huh. Please help me understand how you know with any certainty whatsoever what motivated HRC's healthcare initiative. I am not claiming you (or anyone else) is right or wrong about the details. My concern is with folk's relationship with the details because pretty much every so-called fact I am seeing here looks far more like an opinion than fact or knowledge.

Is anybody beyond reproach? Let me know when you find someone like that. Bernie definitely does not qualify (and if you want evidence of that sign up for his campaign emails). The more important question is who are you gonna believe: Fox News psycho-analysing Hillary, or your lying eyes checking her record and her statements?

How on earth does HRC's record or statements tell us anything whatsoever about her intentions or motivations?

So do you know Hillary Clinton personally?.

Again, couldn't one ask the same of you?

There is a famous story in Chinese classical literature that runs along these lines. A farmer loses some sort of farming implement and believes it was stolen by the neighbor's kid. And when the farmer looked at the kid - the way he walked said he stole it. His manner said he stole it. The way he talked, his every behavior shouted: he stole it! Then one day the farmer found the missing implement somewhere he had forgotten to look. And now when he again looked at the boy, he discovered that, funny, the boy's walk no longer said he had stolen it. His manner, the way he spoke, his every behavior somehow now no longer seemed to indicate in the least that the boy had stolen it. Nowadays it's called confirmation bias.

Yes, exactly! How do you guard against the possibility of your own confirmation bias? For what it is worth, my concern here is far less about the content of your assertions (which for the most part seem pretty reasonable) and far more about your seemingly immutable certainty with your assertions. It seems to me that unless someone possesses 100% accurate mind reading skills, we can never know what anyone else's motivations or intentions are - and even the 100% accurate mind reading skills case has some pretty challenging philosophical challenges. You know, FWIW...

 

[Gunky]

Well you say it is your own opinion but how did you get it? You didn't just come up with all this on your own.

Couldn't one ask the same of you?

Read my posts. For the most part I am deconstructing received opinion like "HRC is a power-mad harpy only out for herself". I am not asserting a whole lot about Hillary Clinton myself besides she is qualified, has the support of her party (which is crucial) and has a fine record of public service going back a long way as well as excellent leftist bona-fides. Most of my comments are hardly opinions but rather analysis of what others have said. A lot of people believe fervently in these tropes but have no idea why they believe what they believe about Hillary. When I ask them why I have received projections of the prejudice onto events: the Hillary-basher sees this power-hungry narrative in events which in fact don't bear out the contention. When I objected to somebody's characterization of Hillary entering the NY senate race as power-seeking, only wanted a steppingstone to the white house, didn't care about the people of NY etc I brought up facts which I had observed real time which utterly destroy that thesis. This is not a matter of opinion. If you are familiar with the history here you know that the other poster was simply wrong. Hillary was interviewed at the time and was clearly surprised that her name had been proposed for the seat. There was a lot written about this at the time. Up to that point she was not a candidate for anything and nothing had ever been suggested about her being one by her camp or anyone else. Moynihan announced he was retiring, some talking head on tv or columnist suggested Hillary, a number of prominent dems like Charlie Rangel took up the cry and she decided to go for it, with Moynihan's blessing. As it happens, she served NY well and was considered an effective senator because of her advocacy for special needs of NY after 9/11. She is popular there, was re-elected as senator, and beat Bernie in the primary. It's important to realize that there is such a thing as the truth and it is different from me buying into a theory about what motivates a candidate and viewing their every word and deed through that lens.

My question - how did you come up with this idea that Hillary is power hungry and only out for herself - is a valid one. If you believe that you should definitely ask yourself: how do I know that? What's the basis for that? Read my posts. I frequently ask people bashing Hillary to try to separate facts from received, un-examined opinions.

 

[Maitri]

Read my posts.

Thank you, I did, which is how I was able to quote you.

I am not asserting a whole lot about Hillary Clinton myself besides she is qualified, has the support of her party (which is crucial) and has a fine record of public service going back a long way as well as excellent leftist bona-fides.

Yeah, it seems to me that you are making a lot of opinion based assertions. For example, the notion that HRC has the support of her party and that this support is crucial are both opinions, not fact. Ditto for the idea that she has a fine record of public service as well as excellent leftist bona-fides. Please note that I am not claiming your opinions are right or wrong - just that they are opinions rather than knowledge.

A lot of people believe fervently in these tropes but have no idea why they believe what they believe about Hillary.

Again, another opinion that seems to be the case - but I have no idea how you can know that for sure.

When I objected to somebody's characterization of Hillary entering the NY senate race as power-seeking, only wanted a steppingstone to the white house, didn't care about the people of NY etc I brought up facts which I had observed real time which utterly destroy that thesis. This is not a matter of opinion.

Yeah, I saw that and my impulse was to say something then but I decided to let it go. Your analysis was chock full of opinions and frankly it seemed unfair to CK.

If you are familiar with the history here you know that the other poster was simply wrong. Hillary was interviewed at the time and was clearly surprised that her name had been proposed for the seat.

I am quite familiar with the history and I can see why you would adopt your position - but your position is an opinion, not knowledge. Is it possible that HRC was acting/lying? It sure seems possible to me - and while your opinion might be remarkably consistent with reality, that is not enough for your belief to become knowledge.

There was a lot written about this at the time. Up to that point she was not a candidate for anything and nothing had ever been suggested about her being one by her camp or anyone else.

Yeah, great. Two things:

First, are you really claiming you have read virtually everything written on that subject? If so, wow - and if not, then your position sure seems like an opinion rather than knowledge.

Second, virtually every word written on the subject is irrelevant in the context of determining HRC's intent and motivation because no one but her can and will ever know for certain - and even she might not know for sure given our human biases.

She served NY well and was considered an effective senator because of her response to special needs of NY after 9/11.

Another opinion - to which I agree, BTW. The very structure of your statement seems to betray your argument:

"and was considered an effective senator"

The words, "was considered" indicates opinion, not knowledge, which means you are basing your so-called facts on opinions, which seems problematic to me.

"because of her response to special needs of NY after 9/11."

Another opinion. Sure some people likely thought that - but others probably did not either because they did not believe she responded well to special needs of NY after 9/11 or because they had other reasons to consider her an effective senator. I simply do not know. Do you? If so, how?

She is popular there, was re-elected as senator, and beat Bernie in the primary.

Any chance you can define the word, "popular" in a precise and quantifiable way? If so, please do! If not, then this statement is just another opinion.

It's important to realize that there is such a thing as the truth and it is different from me buying into a theory

Yeah, well put. But here's the thing: Somewhere between almost everything we humans think of as truth and virtually everything we humans think of as truth seems to be up for grabs because we simply do not have access to the metaphysical underpinnings of reality. At the end of the day, we cannot even prove cause and effect exists - and even it it does, we have no way of knowing if or how stable and reliable it is. Without because and effect, everything is up for grabs - starting with this sentence...

Wanna disagree? Great! Please offer me indisputable knowledge that is incontrovertibly not theory, opinion, or belief.

It's important to realize that there is such a thing as the truth and it is different from me buying into a theory about what motivates a candidate and viewing their every word and deed through that lens.

Yes, exactly. That is such a wonderfully skillful way to convey my concerns with your approach.

My question - how did you come up with this idea that Hillary is power hungry and only out for herself - is a valid one. I

Where on earth did I make that assertion? Please quote me directly. I have no idea whatsoever what her intentions or motivations are.

If you believe that you should definitely ask yourself: how do I know that?

Great advice...

I frequently ask people bashing Hillary to try to separate facts from received, un-examined opinions.

Fantastic. I am asking you to do the same.

 

[lwien]

@Maitri and @Gunky, we may be getting a bit off topic here and treading in dangerous waters being that the thrust of your debate is geared towards the validity of how one comes to their conclusions. Debates like these, at their core, are very personal.

Just a friendly heads up here.......

 

[CarolKing]

IMO @Maitri and @Gunky if you have that much to say to one another take it to the PM, please. We don't want this thread shut down.

Some of us enjoy it.

 

[Silat]

Maher pointed out that democrats are still at odds with each other, while 85% of republicans have united behind trump. After 58% said no way no how to the same guy. I think they smell blood in the water.

The Dem primary is not over. When it is then you will see Dems unite.

 

[Farid]

So those who think not voting for Clinton is handing a vote to Trump, I have a compromise. I won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, but a vote for Gary Johnson is more likely to hurt Trump than Hillary. If Johnson gets enough support, some on the fence Trump supporters might switch to supporting him.

This way I don't get attacked for not voting, but I still don't have to support a person who wants to invade Syria, Libya, Iran, and Iraq.

And this is assuming Sanders doesn't challenge Clinton for the Dem nomination.

 

[TeeJay1952]

@Farid The middle east seems (today and in the past) very passive aggressive. America is damned when they intervene and damned when they don't. There has always been trouble in that area since the dawn of civilization.
Much is made of our supporting the wrong people but there never seems to be a right people. I can't say I blame the refugees but unlimited birth rates, lack of jobs, inequality between different sects in various areas makes upheaval inevitable. To heck with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws how about ya'll standing your ground?
I suppose it would help if we sent something other than arms into restive regions. I don't want to derail Presidential talk but 3rd party instead of Big 2 is indeed a vote for other person.
3rd party needs to start way before bad choices are only ones left.
Trump (IMHO) will either blow up Middle East or sell it to Russia and it won't be his to sell.

 

[Gunky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/it-takes-a-policy.html

U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy.

And no, I’m not talking about the contrast between public posturing and personal behavior, although this contrast can be extreme. Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?

Instead, I’m talking about policy. Judged by what we actually do — or, more accurately, don’t do — to help small children and their parents, America is unique among advanced countries in its utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.

For example, almost all advanced countries provide paid leave from work for new parents. We don’t. Our public expenditure on child care and early education, as a share of income, is near the bottom in international rankings (although if it makes you feel better, we do slightly edge out Estonia.)

In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?

But can our neglect of children be ended?

In January, both Democratic candidates declared their support for a program that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to care for newborns and other family members. And last week, while the news media was focused on Donald Trump’s imaginary friend, I mean imaginary spokesman, Hillary Clinton announced an ambitious plan to improve both the affordability and quality of U.S. child care.

This was an important announcement, even if it was drowned out by the ugliness and nonsense of a campaign that is even uglier and more nonsensical than usual. For child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable — but nonetheless extremely important — initiative that could well be the centerpiece of a Clinton administration. So what’s the plan?

O.K., we don’t have all the details yet, but the outline seems pretty clear. On the affordability front, Mrs. Clinton would use subsidies and tax credits to limit family spending on child care — which can be more than a third of income — to a maximum of 10 percent. Meanwhile, there would be aid to states and communities that raise child-care workers’ pay, and a variety of other measures to help young children and their parents. All of this would still leave America less generous than many other countries, but it would be a big step toward international norms.

Is this doable? Yes. Is it desirable? Very much so.

When we talk about doing more for children, it’s important to realize that it costs money, but not all that much money. Why? Because there aren’t that many young children at any given time, and it doesn’t take a lot of spending to make a huge difference to their lives. Our threadbare system of public support for child care and early education costs 0.4 percent of the G.D.P.; France’s famously generous system costs 1.2 percent of the G.D.P. So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment.

And it would indeed be an investment — every bit as much of an investment as spending money to repair and improve our transportation infrastructure. After all, today’s children are tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers. So it’s an incredible waste, not just for families but for the nation as a whole, that so many children’s futures are stunted because their parents don’t have the resources to take care of them as well as they should. And affordable child care would also have the immediate benefit of making it easier for parents to work productively.

Are there any reasons not to spend a bit more on children? The usual suspects will, of course, go on about the evils of big government, the sacred nature of individual choice, the wonders of free markets, and so on. But the market for child care, like the market for health care, works very badly in practice.

 

[Farid]

@Farid The middle east seems (today and in the past) very passive aggressive. America is damned when they intervene and damned when they don't. There has always been trouble in that area since the dawn of civilization.
Much is made of our supporting the wrong people but there never seems to be a right people. I can't say I blame the refugees but unlimited birth rates, lack of jobs, inequality between different sects in various areas makes upheaval inevitable. To heck with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws how about ya'll standing your ground?
I suppose it would help if we sent something other than arms into restive regions. I don't want to derail Presidential talk but 3rd party instead of Big 2 is indeed a vote for other person.
3rd party needs to start way before bad choices are only ones left.
Trump (IMHO) will either blow up Middle East or sell it to Russia and it won't be his to sell.

How are we damned if we don't intervene? Give me an example of one case in the Middle East where we did not intervene in any way, and it came back to bite us. And before you say Syria, we certainly have been intervening there by giving arms and support to different factions.

And to say that there has been trouble in the region since the dawn of civilization is silly, since the dawn of civilization is often times said to have started in Babylon, current day Iraq.

The middle East in the 60s and 70s was very different from how it is today. Hell even if you compare the 90's to today it was vastly better then. There was hope for the future then. Today, many of the stable Arab states have been dismantled and replaced with Islamic insurgencies. If you can't see the difference the Iraq war had on the region, you're not looking closely enough at how the people in that part of the world think.

The US has a history of supporting nationalist dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi, then allowing Islamic extremists to gain power and replace those dictators. We do this because we fear nationalism more than Islamic terrorism. Since Saddam and Qaddafi make nationalism look bad to the people, the people turn to Islam as it offers the support the dictator's state does not offer. That's why we allow those dictators to reign for their entire lifespan. They serve the US while they live, but the chance of them being replaced by a more level headed pragmatist who puts nationalism before nepotism is too much of a risk to US interests.

Sanders and Johnson offer a different approach. Trump offers... who knows and I don't want to find out. Clinton offers more of the same, and I will not vote for that. Blame me if Clinton loses, I don't care. But no amount of convincing will get me to vote for that warmonger.

 

[TeeJay1952]

@Farid Please expouse Sanders & Johnson's ME platforms. What do you want to see? Is it abandonment or increased military presence? I feel there are no answers for ME from America. Just as it is with us in our lives, the answer lies within. You can't think we just picked wrong guy to support. The cast changes but the play remains the same.

 

[Farid]

I think we should stop giving Saudi Arabia and it's gulf allies so much money and weapons, and we should stop supporting Islamic insurgents in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and possibly Yemen. If that fucks with the oil situation we should be investing more in public transportation, railroads, and other fuel sources.

 

[lwien]

I think we should stop giving Saudi Arabia and it's gulf allies so much money and weapons, and we should stop supporting Islamic insurgents in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and possibly Yemen.

I think we should just get the hell out of the whole Middle East, period. Trying to influence countries that have been tribal for centuries is an exercise in futility. What's amazing is that we have failed to recognize that. The Soviet Unions foray into Afghanistan "should" have been the proverbial light bulb.

 

[CarolKing]

I feel sad for the people of the Middle East the innocent that are trapped within the fighting. They only want to live their lives and raise their families.

I agree the U.S needs to keep out of the wars in the Middle East. Sadly some of this was brought on by our involvement in Iraq. For many years the Soviet Union and the U.S have tried to get rid of the bad guys in Afghanastan and it's always been a quagmire.

 

[lwien]

The weird part about the whole Middle East issue is (and God help me for saying this), I am much, much more aligned with Trump on this issue than Hillary but I also gotta say that admitting that I am aligned with Trump even a little bit makes me....................

 

[CarolKing]

Far as a vote for which president weight your two options - which is worse? Who has more experience?

I don't agree with quite a few of Hillary's policies but I won't give the keys to the White House to Trump.

 

[lwien]

I don't agree with quite a few of Hillary's policies but I won't give the keys to the White House to Trump.

Neither will I.

 

[TeeJay1952]

http://presidential-candidates.insi...ry-Johnson-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

You choose.

 

[Adobewan]

How are we damned if we don't intervene? Give me an example of one case in the Middle East where we did not intervene in any way, and it came back to bite us. And before you say Syria, we certainly have been intervening there by giving arms and support to different factions.

And to say that there has been trouble in the region since the dawn of civilization is silly, since the dawn of civilization is often times said to have started in Babylon, current day Iraq.

The middle East in the 60s and 70s was very different from how it is today. Hell even if you compare the 90's to today it was vastly better then. There was hope for the future then. Today, many of the stable Arab states have been dismantled and replaced with Islamic insurgencies. If you can't see the difference the Iraq war had on the region, you're not looking closely enough at how the people in that part of the world think.

The US has a history of supporting nationalist dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi, then allowing Islamic extremists to gain power and replace those dictators. We do this because we fear nationalism more than Islamic terrorism. Since Saddam and Qaddafi make nationalism look bad to the people, the people turn to Islam as it offers the support the dictator's state does not offer. That's why we allow those dictators to reign for their entire lifespan. They serve the US while they live, but the chance of them being replaced by a more level headed pragmatist who puts nationalism before nepotism is too much of a risk to US interests.

Sanders and Johnson offer a different approach. Trump offers... who knows and I don't want to find out. Clinton offers more of the same, and I will not vote for that. Blame me if Clinton loses, I don't care. But no amount of convincing will get me to vote for that warmonger.

I think we should stop giving Saudi Arabia and it's gulf allies so much money and weapons, and we should stop supporting Islamic insurgents in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and possibly Yemen. If that fucks with the oil situation we should be investing more in public transportation, railroads, and other fuel sources.

I think we should just get the hell out of the whole Middle East, period. Trying to influence countries that have been tribal for centuries is an exercise in futility. What's amazing is that we have failed to recognize that. The Soviet Unions foray into Afghanistan "should" have been the proverbial light bulb.

I feel sad for the people of the Middle East the innocent that are trapped within the fighting. They only want to live their lives and raise their families.

I agree the U.S needs to keep out of the wars in the Middle East. Sadly some of this was brought on by our involvement in Iraq. For many years the Soviet Union and the U.S have tried to get rid of the bad guys in Afghanastan and it's always been a quagmire.

Where's the Multi-like x 1000 button?
We need to stay out of other peoples affairs and get our own house in order. If you want to influence the world, do it by setting a proper fucking example not by military force.
"If you build it , they will come!"

<Edit> But we don't seem interested in setting positive examples or making the world a safe democracy. We seem interested in acquisition. When that's not guided by some sense of morality we all become caveman(cavepeople, sorry). Unfortunately our leadership is Neanderthal heavy!

 

[His_Highness]

In response to my post that Paul Ryan said Trump is bringing a whole new demographic to the republican party.....

Heh, what demographic is that? The village idiot?

I can't say that I know for sure what 'New' demographic Paul Ryan is alluding to but I have a sneaking suspicion @Maitri may not be far off.

I may be stereotyping here ...... but perhaps part of the the demographic Paul Ryan meant is those who find Honey-Boo-Boo and the Celebrity Apprentice to be must see TV. This could be a large group and if they're TV habits are any indication.....they don't want to be bothered with facts. They are fans of the Trump train wreck reality (Think Gary Busey/Dennis Rodman) ....and if you can get them off the couch .........

 

[TeeJay1952]

"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

 

[cybrguy]

Thanks, Bernie...

Dems fear chaos at Nevada convention portends July mess
05/16/16 08:40 AM


On the surface, the results from the state Democratic convention in Nevada may not seem especially noteworthy. Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the state’s caucuses in February, and her supporters prevailed at Saturday’s party gathering where delegates to the national convention were chosen. None of this has much of an effect on the overall race.

At least, that’s the way it may look on paper. When activists gathered in Las Vegas on Saturday, however, Sanders supporters hoped to take advantage of Nevada’s complex process to give him the statewide edge in the delegate count, despite coming in second in February balloting.

The Washington Post published a good overview, explaining just how ugly the developments became.

Prior to the state convention, some Sanders supporters began an effort to shift the convention rules in a way that they viewed as more favorable to their candidate. One of those changes, the Las Vegas Sun reported, was a process for verifying voice votes; another took issue with the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, heading up the convention. Supporters at the event circulated petitions to the same end. The scene was set.

The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount – but this was simply a preliminary figure…. That was when the vote to approve the rules as written – Roberta’s Rules versus Robert’s Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them – was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed – which is when the room, in Ralston’s phrasing, “erupts.”

Determining exactly who was in the right and who was in the wrong is surprisingly difficult. Sanders’ supporters are absolutely convinced that the process was “rigged” to undermine the senator. Clinton supporters are equally convinced that they followed the rules and Sanders’ backers are throwing a tantrum because they came up short. I wasn’t there; I know little about the complex Nevada-based rules; and it’s tough to tell from reading the local reports which side has the stronger case.

What’s far clearer is how unruly the party gathering became. Nevada’s Jon Ralston reported that the convention ended with security shutting down the event, followed by pro-Sanders activists rushing the stage, “yelling obscenities,” and “throwing chairs.”

That’s obviously the kind of state convention officials like to avoid, but the larger concern among Democrats is what the mess in Las Vegas portends for the national convention in July.

The Wall Street Journal reported late last week that the Clinton campaign is eager to avoid an ugly and divisive convention, and to that end, people close to the Democratic frontrunner “predict she will give Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders much of what he wants on the party’s platform.”

At this stage, however, the article added that “the Sanders forces are itching for a fight,” anyway.

Up until fairly recently, many political observers assumed that the Republican convention would be chaotic, and perhaps even violent, with Trump raising the prospect of “riots.”

Note, however, the degree to which the political winds have shifted direction: the GOP nominating contest has wrapped earlier than expected, Republicans are rallying behind Donald Trump en masse, and those looking for convention unrest are more likely to find it Philadelphia than Cleveland.

The dynamic is a welcome surprise for the right: the Clinton campaign will spend the next month competing against Donald Trump and Sanders simultaneously, while Democrats prepare for a convention fight that probably won’t serve any practical purpose.