Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[jim hardy]

skreeeeeech!

good luck finding impartial reporting.

i know you'll be researching.
i started here
https://www.bing.com/search?q=trump...id=842E7D665EC740328ECC9644C832D38B&FORM=QBRE

He stiffed them back in the 90's
from 12th link down on my search
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/donald-trump-relationship-bankers.html

Mr. Trump’s complicated history with Wall Street goes back to the early 1990s, when three of his casinos ran into financial trouble; the Trump Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. Creditors often ended up with pennies on the dollar, and the failures soured Mr. Trump’s relationship with a number of banks.

 

[OmCheeto]

Wow, George Will has left the Republican Party.http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/george-will-donald-trump-leaving-republican-party-election/

Interesting. I was only 5 in 1964, but Barry Goldwater always struck me as a really smart person. Had I been older, it's quite possible I would have been a lifelong member of the Republican party. (George was 23 that year)

He said he'd joined the Republican Party in 1964, inspired by Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a founder of the conservative movement and a key figure in the party then.
"I joined it because I was a conservative, and I leave it for the same reason: I'm a conservative," Will said.
"The long and the short of it is, as Ronald Reagan said when he changed his registration, 'I did not leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me,' " he said.

ps. Astro mentioned Will leaving the party, yesterday.

 

[jim hardy]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/george_will_takes_on_edmund_burke.html

[Edmund Burke's] advice was not to pay much attention to screaming headlines, but to put your trust in the intuitive good sense of the people.

Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate cool person, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.

Trump is a practical man. George Will is a classic intellectual. They don't need to fight each other, because a viable world needs both kinds of people.

But maybe it's time for conservative intellectuals to stop sulking and get with the program.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think he was elected only because he was black and re-elected only because he was black, I guess that is what you are saying.

This:

If memory serves me correctly, the Democratic and Liberal establishment implied very heavily that if you didn't vote for Obama you were a racist...matter a fact, friend of mine pretty much told me that in polite conversation.

 

[Evo]

This:

Well, I certainly never got the message, I would guess others didn't either. Got anything to back that up? Or is that just hearsay?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I certainly never got the message, I would guess others didn't either. Got anything to back that up? Or is that just hearsay?

Sure:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hate-obama-why.241143
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-birther-movement-racist-total-crap.493820/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/me-governor-says-obama-hates-white-people.706391/

You participated actively in that last one (the title of which suggests anyone responds with an answer "hates" Obama -- I reworded it in my response). I'll quote a post of mine:

And why the coddling of Obama? Don't you remember what it was like when Bush was President? It wasn't that long ago. Last week, CNN showed a scathing editorial of how despicable it was for a rodeo clown to wear an Obama mask:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/opinion/quest-rodeo-clown

Do people not remember Bush being portrayed as a monkey?
https://www.google.com/search?q=bus...xC8aAygHU8ID4DA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1267&bih=655

I suppose since Bush is white it is ok, since if he was black that would be racist.

Yes, it was a pretty standard/widespread argument to suggest that people who dislike Obama are racists.
[edit]
Here's a new article, looking back and saying the same thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-nelson/race-and-racism-in-the-ti_b_9285156.html

Here's a good one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2008/08/if_obama_loses.html
The title is "Racism is the only Reason Obama Might Lose"
That brings a memory back: I remember having conversations, mostly here, about how awesome Obama is and how obvious of a choice he was. Some people simply couldn't fathom a non-racism based reason why someone would vote against him.

 

[Evo]

Yes, it was a pretty standard/widespread argument to suggest that people who dislike Obama are racists.

If someone disparages Obama because he's black you might be a racist is not the same as "if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist".

 

[mheslep]

Conservative columnist George Will said Friday that he's leaving the GOP over Donald Trump's rise to becoming the party's standard bearer.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/prominent-conservative-columnist-says-hes-200253919.html

If only William Frank Buckley Jr. were still alive.

"Will suggested that a Democratic victory in the presidential election in November would be preferable..."

Before WFB passed he stated he didn't like Trump. But for WFB to say a Democratic victory preferable? And with this particular Democrat? No chance.

I like to read Will occasionally. But as others have said, Trump is a brawler and Will is none the less the guy who wears a bow tie and glasses in the school yard. We know how this is going to end.

 

[mheslep]

William Kristol may well follow him, based on what I've heard him say on talking-head TV and his failed attempt to get a viable conservative alternative to Trump. It's good to know the Republicans do still have some principled people, after Ryan turned spineless. Still, these talking head types are the elite that Trump's base hates so it's not going to slow him down any.

EDIT: oops. I see now that Kristol is vowing to keep up the good fight against Trump rather than quit the party.

Where are the principles among the Democrats, who have nominated the Hero of Bosnia, Hillary Clinton?

 

[russ_watters]

If someone disparages Obama because he's black you might be a racist is not the same as "if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist".

Agreed! So...I'm not sure you were following how we got here... The premise was that if Republicans nominated Condi and she lost, they could use the "you didn't vote for her because you are racist" stick to beat Democrats with -- just like they did with people who didn't vote for Obama.

Note, the "because he's black" thing isn't part of it. The connection has been made even in the absence of racial content to the objections.

I added some to the previous post while you were replying. The last was a direct statement on the issue. Democrats believed that Obama was so far superior to McCain that they couldn't fathom a non-racism based reason for supporting McCain instead.

 

[Evo]

Agreed! So...I'm not sure you were following how we got here... The premise was that if Republicans nominated Condi and she lost, they could use the "you didn't vote for her because you are racist" stick to beat Democrats with -- just like they did with people who didn't vote for Obama.

Note, the "because he's black" thing isn't part of it. The connection has been made even in the absence of racial content to the objections.

I added some to the previous post while you were replying. The last was a direct statement on the issue. Democrats believed that Obama was so far superior to McCain that they couldn't fathom a non-racism based reason for supporting McCain instead.

Ok, you win, my dog is having seizures due to the weather, so I can't do this.

 

[russ_watters]

...my dog is having seizures due to the weather, so I can't do this.

Oy, sorry to hear that!

 

[mheslep]

Here's a good one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2008/08/if_obama_loses.html
The title is "Racism is the only Reason Obama Might Lose"
...

Well that last one's not fair; Slate is the official publication for the delusional. They might just as well have said "Alien Body Snatchers are the only reason...", in fact probably did so on the first draft only to find "alien" was not allowed by the Slate style guide.

 

[Astronuc]

The House Benghazi Committee has released its findings on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/28/48383...lts-military-response-to-2012-attack-in-Libya

In a statement, the chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the panel conducted its investigation "in a manner worthy of the American people's respect" and urged Americans to read the report.

Two other Republicans on the panel, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, released their own "additional views," saying then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "paid special attention to Libya," but that she "missed her last, clear chance to protect her people."

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

 

[OmCheeto]

The House Benghazi Committee has released its findings on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/28/48383...lts-military-response-to-2012-attack-in-Libya

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

pfft!

“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”

The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long...

Simply asking 300,000,000+* people to read an 800 page long report?
I couldn't even make it through the 1 page website.
And it's my humble opinion, that most Americans can't tolerate reading more than a 10 word meme.

This kind of reminds me of when my sister-in-law came back from Washington DC, a couple of decades ago, and said how sad she was, to view all of the 50,000 names on the wall of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. Having just recently watched "Mindwalk", I made the mistake of becoming "Dougy Downer", and asked her if she knew that that many children die every day, around the world.

Benghazi, is a little sorrow, in the big scheme of things, IMHO.

The NPR article kind of sums up, as to why I won't even open the 800 page long report; "The most damaging aspect of the investigation for Clinton may have been the discovery that she used a private email server while she was secretary of state".

woo.

ps. I've only read one of the "longest novels" on wiki's list: Atlas Shrugged. 1088 pages. And it took me days to finish.

*Ok. That may be a bit exaggerated. I'm sure not all of us are old enough to read.

 

[mheslep]

...Benghazi, is a little sorrow, in the big scheme of things, IMHO.

The NPR article kind of sums up, as to why ...

Mission accomplished National Public Radio

 

[OmCheeto]

Mission accomplished National Public Radio

hmmm...

What did Fox News have to say about it?
(google, google, google)

SHEPARD SMITH (HOST, [Fox News]): The House committee investigating the deadly terror attack in Benghazi today released its report. After a two-year, $7 million investigation the eighth investigation to date, the authors of the report make no new accusations and provide no new evidence of wrongdoing against the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

[Ref: From the June 28 edition of Fox News’ Shepard Smith Reporting]

Thank you, Fox News, for also confirming that reading the 800 page report, would be a waste of my time.

hmmm... $8,750 per page seems pretty sweet. Perhaps I should go into the "report writing" business.

 

[Dotini]

White House Watch: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/historical_data/clinton_trump_matchup_trends since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.

Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.

(More below)

Clinton appears to have emerged relatively unscathed from the release this week of the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s report on her actions as secretary of State in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans by Islamic terrorists in September 2012. Rasmussen Reports will be releasing new numbers on Clinton and Benghazi at 10:30 a.m. Eastern today.

Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook.

The latest terrorist carnage - this week in Istanbul, Turkey - also may be helping Trump who is arguing for a harsher response to radical Islam than Clinton. Voters remain lukewarm about President Obama's national security policies and expect more of the same if Clinton moves back into the White House next January. Trump, if elected, will definitely change things, voters say, but not necessarily for the best.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rasmussen is the outlier. Everyone else has the numbers reversed, with ABC showing Clinton leading by 12 points. The RCP average has Clinton up by 4.8. Even Fox has her up by over 4 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

That she isn't leading by 20 points is terrifying. And I don't even like Clinton!

 

[mheslep]

White House Watch: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump...

Yes, Rasmussen is polling likely voters while the other polls promote registered voters surveys. Rasmussen's numbers are also more recent, 28-29 June.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, Rasmussen is polling likely voters while the other polls promote registered voters surveys. Rasmussen's numbers are also more recent, 28-29 June.

No worries, it's only a small amount of rot, a few termites. Our house will be fine.

 

[OmCheeto]

...And I don't even like Clinton!

I was trying to figure out why I didn't like Clinton, either. Even though, when I take the test, I agree with her 95-98%

I think it was two days ago, when I was reminiscing about that "Obama" thing, that I realized, that, after 240 years, of having "dads" let us have "free" reign over the country, she looked a little bit too much like mom, who was about to beat us, for being bad.

Bernie looked like the grandpas I never new, who would give me everything I wanted.

hmmmm... I wonder if this is why people like Trump. He looks and sounds like a whacko uncle, that will give you booze, when you're about 7.

hmmmmmm...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was trying to figure out why I didn't like Clinton, either. Even though, when I take the test, I agree with her 95-98%

I can probably find areas of significant disagreement but that isn't the problem. I don't know that she has done anything seriously out of line. For all of the partisan smoke for the last twenty years we have yet to find any fire. And the Benghazi investigation was partisan and admittedly so even by members of the committee. I think she is capable, qualified, in fact highly qualified, and highly intelligent. However, she has the same problem that GHWB had - she needs to get "the vision thing" [an actual Bush quote]. She doesn't seem to have a grand vision, or any vision. She isn't inspirational. And she doesn't come across as a leader. I would expect her to have a blah Presidency with no real significant changes. That of course feeds right into the Trump voters. But I'll take "lacking inspiration" over dread fear any day of the week.

 

[Astronuc]

And I don't even like Clinton!

Senator Mike Lee (R - UT) doesn't like Clinton either, nor Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-lee-donald-trump-rant-000000119.htmlNate Silver calculates the probabilities - Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/five...llary-clinton-wins-election/story?id=40213871

So who is the 1% candidate?

 

[rootone]

So who is the 1% candidate?

Some kind of space alien shape shifting reptile?

 

[Dotini]

So who is the 1% candidate?

Biden/Sanders/A. N. Other in case Clinton is detained by the FBI?

Or maybe Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate. He could get maybe 10% of the popular vote, but likely nothing in the electoral college.

 

[rootone]

...in case Clinton is detained by the FBI?

For being a bit of an idiot in the field of computer security?
It's not illegal to do stuff which is stupid.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
So who is the 1% candidate?

Apparently:

13% of Americans say they would rather vote for a ‘giant meteor hitting the earth’ than Trump or Clinton

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am really curious about Bill Clinton's surprise visit with Loretta Lynch in her airplane. Reportedly he surprised her by boarding her aircraft unannounced. And they talked for something like 30 minutes. By meeting her he has compromised her position in the email investigation and she may have to recuse herself due to optics. I have to wonder if that wasn't intentional. Bill had to know this was a highly controversial thing to do. I don't think he makes mistakes like that.

But then he could have just been hitting on her.

 

[Astronuc]

The Daily Show talked to Bernie-turned-Trump supporters. It was …
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12077846/daily-show-sanders-trump-jessica-Williams

Hmmmmm.

 

[jim hardy]

Hmmmmm.

There's a widespread perception of widespread corruption in both party establishments.

Same as Brexit - man on the street has become distrustful of the folks in charge.
I made a hundred of this bumpersticker for the 2014 elections

I doesn't help Hillary's image that State Dep't wants a 27 month delay in releasing the emails. It feeds the conspiracy buffs.

One of the more sane articles out there:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 

[mheslep]

For being a bit of an idiot in the field of computer security?
It's not illegal to do stuff which is stupid.

For violation of US Code 2701, to start
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/pushback-on-hillary-emails-falls-short-203418

According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which Schmidt provided in an email, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."[ /quote]IG report, page 27:

At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails before leaving government service, and because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the federal records act

For being a bit of an idiot in the field of computer security?
It's not illegal to do stuff which is stupid.

For violation of US Code 2701, to start
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

IG report, page 27:

At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails before leaving government service, and because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the federal records act

 

[russ_watters]

For being a bit of an idiot in the field of computer security?
It's not illegal to do stuff which is stupid.

Yes it is, when the stupid stuff deals with protection of classified materials: it is an affirmative responsibility.

I'm not sure even that applies, though: one of the recovered emails showed her instructing a subordinate to circumvent communications security because it was inconvenient. That's not stupidity, it is an on-purpose felony.

Other emails documented other people telling her what she was doing was wrong. There was even an email where SHE instructed her staff not to use personal email for government business. So even if the "stupid" defense were available it would still be demonstrably false.

It does continually tickle me, though, how eager people are to accept the "stupid" defense from people who we trust to be smart and have a literal army of advisors to assist them at it.

 

[OmCheeto]

For being a bit of an idiot in the field of computer security?
It's not illegal to do stuff which is stupid.

IMHO, it depends, on who's in power, and how much they hate you, and don't want to see you succeed.
I'm curious, if Hillary were not running for president, would this be an issue?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm curious, if Hillary were not running for president, would this be an issue?

No, I suspect not. I suspect if she weren't running for President, she'd already have plead-put and we wouldn't be paying attention to it.