The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Gunky]

I think you're reminding me of someone with a devil may care attitude. I'll tell you why we want to do things based on how it should be and not how they are. Because if Bernie doesn't win we're going to have to swallow massive corporate cock for generations to come. Key is overturning citizens united.

I think you're reminding me of an unscrupulous person who thinks the ends justify the means. Someone who upon losing under the rules of the game established before the contest thinks the rules should be changed after the contest so he can win. And no, Bernie is not the essential linchpin for overturning the Citizens United decision - doing that requires democratic majorities in the House and Senate - nor is he the only candidate who wants to overturn it. If having a president who wants to overturn it were all it took Obama would have overturned it long ago.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

... The crowds are complicit, but Trump is their leader. .......he knows it. GUILTY!

A leader in the sense of being the catalyst for the unrest, but these are people protesting against Trump at the rallies, a he said/she said of who throws the first punch at each rally will be impossible, but both sides should allow the other to support in peace. But, is there violence at Clinton or Sanders rallies? Genuine question, but if there is it seems like a lot less. Why is that? I'd think there would be unrest, since both sides would be clashing in either situation, but it only seems to be at Trump rallies. Why?

One could say that Trump supporters are more peaceful. They are not participating in riots at Clinton and Sanders conventions, unlike the Clinton/Sanders supporters who are anti Trump and proceed to riot (at least as the media covers it) but you bring up an interesting point...

The fact that he knowingly riles people up is a bad look to say the least, and he most definitely does. He baits them, and they fall for it hook line and sinker and give him the desired response, he wants nothing more than for the riots, and that is definitely disgusting.

Great points buddy, its not often I have a deep change of perspective, but that all resonated with me quite a bit.

 

[CarolKing]

A lot of the folks that were peacefully protesting in New Mexico were Hispanics. They didn't want that racist bastard (trump) in their state.

Later others started rioting throwing bottles and rocks at police. They weren't all Hillary or Bernie supporters. They were people just wanting to hurt the police and cause trouble.

Edit
It seems like no matter where there is a peaceful protest there are these other folks that show up that want to cause harm and violence.

 

[thisperson]

I think you're reminding me of an unscrupulous person who thinks the ends justify the means. Someone who when he loses under the rules of the game established before the contest thinks the rules should be changed after the contest so he can win. And no, Bernie is not the essential linchpin for overturning the Citizens United decision - doing that requires democratic majorities in the House and Senate - nor is he the only candidate who wants to overturn it. If having a president who wants to overturn it was all it took Obama would have overturned it long ago.

Yeah. I do want Bernie to win. And I do hope he makes a good case before the superdelegates. I can see when the rules are put to favor a select few.

I want the rules to change for the next election, things like open primaries for all with a voting day and vote by mail ballots, as well as a verifiable counting system, even if it's just stacking the ballots placing a brick over them to see who has more. What you're describing, changing the rules after the contest, is what the Clinton people did in Nevada. Bernie has been playing by the rules, and asking the superdelegates to go against the "popular" vote candidate because she may be indicted is fair game. That's one of the reasons they were made. Didn't you read the article making the case for the superdelegates for bernie a few pages back. Ketchup!

 

[Gunky]

There is a tendency these days for violent types to show up at all sorts of protests. Let's not tar all protesters with the same brush.

 

[Snappo]

A leader in the sense of being the catalyst for the unrest, but these are people protesting against Trump at the rallies, a he said/she said of who throws the first punch at each rally will be impossible, but both sides should allow the other to support in peace. But, is there violence at Clinton or Sanders rallies? Genuine question, but if there is it seems like a lot less. Why is that? I'd think there would be unrest, since both sides would be clashing in either situation, but it only seems to be at Trump rallies. Why?

One could say that Trump supporters are more peaceful. They are not participating in riots at Clinton and Sanders conventions, unlike the Clinton/Sanders supporters who are anti Trump and proceed to riot (at least as the media covers it) but you bring up an interesting point...

The fact that he knowingly riles people up is a bad look to say the least, and he most definitely does. He baits them, and they fall for it hook line and sinker and give him the desired response, he wants nothing more than for the riots, and that is definitely disgusting.

Great points buddy, its not often I have a deep change of perspective, but that all resonated with me quite a bit.

Trump, like most badly spoiled & behaviorally disorder children and adults, will take any and all attention they can get, good or bad - doesn't matter - whatever - attention is attention, for their own narcissistic emotionally disordered fulfillment. Trump is deeply behaviorally & psychologically disordered IMO. I have seen the likes of his behaviors every day for the last 40+ years in my Behaviorally Disordered Special Education classrooms... FWIW!

 

[Gunky]

What you're describing, changing the rules after the contest, is what the Clinton people did in Nevada.

Nope, it isn't. Bernie lost the vote! Afterward his supporters tried to change the rules so they could grab more delegates. The Clinton supporters out-organized them and foiled them. Meanwhile we have rampant Berniebro hypocrisy (led by Bernie himself): when they thought Bernie could win if there were no superdelegates they were against superdelegates. Now when Bernie lost the fucking vote (!) they want the superdelegates to take away the will of the people and hand it to Bernie. Nah.

 

[Snappo]

Nope, it isn't. Bernie lost the vote! Afterward his supporters tried to change the rules so they could grab more delegates. The Clinton supporters out-organized them and foiled them. Meanwhile we have rampant Berniebro hypocrisy (led by Bernie himself): when they thought Bernie could win if there were no superdelegates they were against superdelegates. Now when Bernie lost the fucking vote (!) they want the superdelegates to take away the will of the people and hand it to Bernie. Nah.

NO MORE SUPER DELEGATE SYSTEM... it is a bought and paid for good ol boy crooked system. Put ALL votes in the hands of the common people. SUPER DELEGATES BE GONE!!!

 

[Gunky]

I actually think the superdelegates are not a bad idea for party candidate selection. If the repubs had had them this year they could have dispensed with Trump. What the superdelegates do is add another, lesser force to the voice of the primary electorate: the vote of the candidate's peers in party and government officialdom. Elected officials who actually know the candidate well can weed out some hopeless candidates who manage to excite voters through demagoguery or mendacity or appeals to their hatreds and prejudices.

 

[thisperson]

Nope, it isn't. Bernie lost the vote! Afterward his supporters tried to change the rules so they could grab more delegates. The Clinton supporters out-organized them and foiled them. Meanwhile we have rampant Berniebro hypocrisy (led by Bernie himself): when they thought Bernie could win if there were no superdelegates they were against superdelegates. Now when Bernie lost the fucking vote (!) they want the superdelegates to take away the will of the people and hand it to Bernie. Nah.

What do you define as "the people"? Just democrats? There were people who would have had to change their registration long before they ever heard of Bernie. Thanks to the media blackout. The first real mainstream clips of Bernie I saw for longer than a brief intro was on Morning Joe, but they air very early in the morning and that's not evening news.

Also RE: Nevada, please see this, specifically the part regarding delegate apportionment based on Tier systems.

 

[Snappo]

What the superdelegates do is add another, lesser force to the voice of the primary electorate: the vote of the candidate's peers in party officialdom.

"Lesser force"???!!! Bullshit!!!

 

[thisperson]

There are people who believe the American populace is too stupid to govern itself, but we know those people are just seeking their own benefit at the cost of ours.

 

[Snappo]

There are people who believe the American populace is too stupid to govern itself, but we know those people are just seeking their own benefit at the cost of ours.

If we eliminate many of the distracting political & media influences that prey on people's weaknesses, maybe we can fortify the intelligence that lurks in the peopled majority within. Sadly we are a soap opera mentality populace who need to get real.

 

[CarolKing]

The super delegate system is something that needs to be done away with. If the people vote for someone than that is the person that wins. Same goes for Trump. I don't agree with him as the republican choice but that is who the people chose. Can you imagine if he wins fair and square and then their vote means nothing, it's taken away.? A recipe for disaster. The people wouldnt stand for it and I wouldn't blame them.

If Trump (or whoever) does something horrendous while he or she is running or after he is chosen as the candidate there needs to be some way to make him or her unqualified.

 

[Gunky]

The super delegate system is something that needs to be done away with. If the people vote for someone than that is the person that wins. Same goes for Trump. I don't agree with him as the republican choice but that is who the people chose. Can you imagine if he wins fair and square and then their vote means nothing, it's taken away.? A recipe for disaster. The people wouldnt stand for it and I wouldn't blame them.

If Trump (or whoever) does something horrendous while he or she is running or after he is chosen as the candidate there needs to be some way to make him or her unqualified.

Well, the Trump situation is different than the dem side. Trump did not win a majority of votes. He got the largest plurality but more people voted for someone else than for Trump. Bring in the superdelegates and squash this bug, I say. The dem side is different. At the end of the day Hillary will have won a majority of primary votes (the universe of which is determined by the existing rules prior to the contest beginning). Any superdelegate trying to snatch that away would be thwarting the clear will of the electorate. I am pretty certain if Bernie were to win a majority of votes, the superdelegates would yield to that decision. Likewise, they are not now going to take it from Hillary and give it to Bernie because of some special pleading and whining from the Bernie camp. But the Trump situation is not the same: the verdict of the electorate is ambiguous.

 

[Snappo]

I am pretty certain if Bernie were to win a majority of votes, the superdelegates would yield to that decision. Likewise, they are not now going to take it from Hillary and give it to Bernie because of some special pleading and whining from the Bernie camp. But the Trump situation is not the same: the will of the electorate is somewhat unclear.

My wish for the eradication of the super delegate system doesn't stem from the "special pleading and whining from the Bernie camp" as you put it, but from the camp of common sense, fairness, and decency.

 

[Gunky]

Suppose, for example a lot of candidates stayed in, there were write-ins and other oddities and at the end you had 4 or 5 but none with more than 22% of the vote. The electorate can't make up its mind. Bring on the super d's!

Super D's in effect resolved a tie in 2008.

 

[Snappo]

Suppose, for example a lot of candidates stayed in, there were write-ins and other oddities and at the end you had 4 or 5 but none with more than 22% of the vote. The electorate can't make up its mind. Bring on the super d's!

Super D's in effect resolved a tie in 2008.

I stand firm... fuck the Super D's! Let the 22% preside, and flip a fucking coin for the deciding .00001% tie breaker. NO MORE GOOD OL BOYS!!! Squash that bug! End of story.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Superdelegates and the other forms of last minute chicanery plus how each state handles its delegates shouldn't weigh into my decision. Nor second guessing how I should counter vote against all those forces. Superdelegates aren't some form of protection from the uninformed electorate from electing a monarch. Look at how Cruz was going around 'stealing' delegates (according to Trump), Technically he was outmaneuvering him and working the system and that was in the RNC where there was no Superdelegates to be persuaded.

I should be able to vote for a representative that represents a platform. Not weigh how my district will vote. Like, I did for this primary. I don't agree with Bernie, but he (and Kasich) can continue there platform until the end, because there is always a chance that the head candidate could drop out. Not to be cynical, but this election someone could potentially be tied up in the courts in either party. A lot can happen in a New York minute with both of their histories and the public perception.
I do agree with the last part of J.Oliver segment. After the election there should be a re-examination of both parties Plus I would add what are the provisions of each state to have a third party candidate. So there is less threats of going independent if you don't want to go with a brand.

Any thoughts about this whole 'silent' Trump voter phenom? Is it a thing?

 

[Gunky]

Typically what happens after every presidential election is the parties try to fix the perceived shortcomings of the process that just occurred. Last time the repubs had way too many candidates and for months they had an undignified circus with a flavor of the month candidate who could not close the deal. This was thought to have hurt Romney, the eventual candidate, in the general election. So they instituted repairs to winnow the field which made the process more winner-take-all and the result was that a huckster like Trump could game the system and get the nomination with only a third of the primary vote. I have no doubt that after Trump loses they will attempt to prevent a recurrence of this particular nightmare, but the scenario next time will probably present a new problem.

 

[CarolKing]

Cleveland is concerned about the RNC convention in July. They are just buying mountain bikes now and training their officers. Trump is creating a hardship for the communities no matter where he goes. What a nightmare if he gets in office. I keep saying that! I think it's therapy to talk about it.

Both parties keep changing the rules all the time. Rules need to be set for both parties.it needs to be the same in every state IMO.

I will say again super delegates need to be done away with. Not because of Hillary but because it's not a good system. It's not because of Bernie either. It's because I think it's a bad idea and unfair. The voters to be able to choose who they want. There needs to be rules that would disqualify folks if they do something horrible though.

Edit
Rubio said he would speak at the convention on Trump's behalf? WTF? What a weak person. That does him more harm than good for his brand. If there hadn't been the getting into the gutter debate then maybe. Rubio said such terrible things about Trump.

If Bernie wins CA there might still be hope.

 

[Gunky]

I will say again super delegates need to be done away with. Not because of Hillary but because it's not a good system. It's not because of Bernie either. It's because I think it's a bad idea and unfair. The voters to be able to choose who they want. There needs to be rules that would disqualify folks if they do something horrible though.

People keep saying it's so unfair but how? The candidate with the large majority of votes is going to win this time. There has never been a case where superdelegates snatched the nomination away from someone with a majority of the popular vote (unless of course Bernie somehow manages to do that this time). You are worrying about a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...imaries_aren_t_supposed_to_be_democratic.html

Why should the Democratic Party cater to a candidate who won’t commit to the party? And why should the Republican Party support a candidate who doesn’t support half of its platform? In choosing a nominee, a party has two logical priorities. One is to pick someone who can get elected. The other is to make sure that the nominee is loyal to the party and its beliefs. Otherwise, the party becomes just a vehicle for personal ambition. The party has no obligation to make its nomination process unbiased, democratic, or open to all voters. That’s the job of the general election.
So don’t cry for Trump or Sanders. Like anybody else, they can run for president in the fall. For now, the candidates are seeking the nominations of the two major parties. And it’s the parties—state committees, superdelegates, and all—that get to choose the process and the candidates that will represent them best.

 

[His_Highness]

@Gunky - I pointed out the same thing about super delegates never having been the deciding factor in a previous primary. BUT the potential exists and there is no denying the 'something isn't right' feeling the situation gives off ..... I think we should just do away with it.

 

[thisperson]

@Gunky

Bernie's platform is straight outta FDR's playbook. I don't know why you are saying he isn't loyal to the party. It's the party that decided to go all corporatists and shun the people. He's loyal to the beliefs of the party prior to the hijacking. The Koch progression, Libertarian funding to tea party then just republican shows that parties can be hijacked. Wall St hijacked the democratic party. Oh look, now the Koch's are saying they might back Hillary. That should tell you something.

Edit: I just found this and thought you should watch it Gunky. That opening question! I haven't finished watching it.

Apparently doesn't pick up again until 5:40 after the first segment.

 

[Gunky]

I don't click on Bernie propaganda videos any more. Frankly I've watched enough of them already. In the beginning of the campaign I liked Bernie very much and then over time as I came to see the totality of Bernie's shtick, I found myself disliking him more and more. His positions are facile, paper thin and often poorly researched. Far from being a leader in congress, he has made a career out of being a gadfly and kibitzer and sometimes spoiler. Bernie is good at many of the same things Trump is good at: sloganizing, reductionism, over-simplification, and demonizing some group - for Trump it's foreigners, Muslims, women, etc and for Bernie it is the rich, banks, business, capitalism, etc. I suppose as a youth I would have been on board with that sort of thinking. A lifetime of thinking about these things, a decade in the far east, visits to Europe, varied experience in the workforce have given me an appreciation of the dynamism and genius of American capitalism, flawed though it may be. I am more in line with Obama's thinking about constantly fine tuning, developing and extending the great things of our system; creating a more perfect union. Don't get me wrong, I still think the rich ought to pay Eisenhower era tax rates, but I don't long for socialist revolution any more. Often it seems to me that Bernie partisans conflate the gridlock and stupidity created by the repubs with 'establishment democrats'. They dismiss Obama as ineffectual, but whose fault is that? Only if we stop electing a congress dominated by troglodyte repubs can Obama or Hillary (or Bernie, whatever) move ahead.