Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Vanadium 50]

one of those Latin phrase things.

It is Latin for "[towards a] Spring bath", though.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Has this already been posted? From the BBC:

US election 2016: Trump and his Central Park Five defiance

I agree with the article that this deserves more attention, as it is about scientific fact and its role in justice.

Also, I give Senator McCain (see the bottom of the article) a lot of credit for his honest reaction.

 

[Astronuc]

Has this already been posted? From the BBC:

US election 2016: Trump and his Central Park Five defiance

I agree with the article that this deserves more attention, as it is about scientific fact and its role in justice.

Also, I give Senator McCain (see the bottom of the article) a lot of credit for his honest reaction.

I heard about his statements, so there was no surprise. His statement is further evidence that the guy is unfit to be president. It's hard to fathom that someone who brags about violating women would be seriously concerned about protecting the liberties of others.

At this point, I think the public is fatigued from Trump's vulgarity.

 

[mheslep]

I imagine the public is fatigued with being told what the public thinks.

 

[mheslep]

Other opinions on the the fitness of would be Presidents: (Oct 7)

Andrew Jackson unfit:

... establishment figures again wrung their hands during Andrew Jackson’s campaign. The former general became a hero for his stunning victory over the British at New Orleans in 1815, ... But Jackson’s rivals called him a “military chieftain” and warned that he would subvert the American republic as Caesar had subverted its Roman forerunner...In retirement, Jefferson shook his head in worry as Jackson appealed directly to voters. “I feel very much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General [Andrew] Jackson president,” he told Daniel Webster. “He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions…He is a dangerous man.”

Thomas Jefferson unfit:

... opponents [of Thomas Jefferson] branded him a mad Jacobin for his support of the French Revolution and warned that his election would place the country’s morals in grave peril. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,” an anti-Jefferson paper predicted in the fall of 1800. “The air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

2008 Campaign, Michelle Obama, speaking to women. Hillary Clinton unfit:

...one of the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like. Any my view is that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House

 

[mrspeedybob]

Neither one of these candidates is fit for the presidency because neither one seems to have much respect for the Constitution. Both of their agendas I think are going to be harmful to the long term health of the country. All the vulgarity and accusations of cover-up are beside that main point.

I see Trump as a vulgar buffoon, and Clinton as an evil genius.
Think Jabba the Hutt vs. Darth Sidious.

 

[OmCheeto]

It might be a challenge, but through positive and constructive engagement. If one wishes to change the hearts and minds of someone, then one has to find a positive way, knowing that it may not work in all cases. One can address the issues without denigrating the other.

Have you personally had any luck with that?
My sister, a Trump supporter, called me two days ago, and talked my ear off.
My head started spinning with all of the numbers she was throwing at me.
So I decided to try and capture their essence, typing one handed:

sanctuary cities
$75,000,000 to mexico for wall
$100,000,000 soros mexico isis
crime rates going up 93%
12 year old raped in idaho falls by immigrant
ss nazi police
$770,000,000 obama fix worlwide mosques
san bernardino isis
florida gay nightclub isis
$1.7 billion to iran
$400 million in cash to iran so it's untraceable

trump supporters
police
military

After my nap, I researched everything, and basically found it all to be numbers whipped up into hysterical conspiratorial nonsense.

Of course, I didn't use such words, in my very lengthy email response, but referenced numerous sites which refuted her allegations. I received the response I expected.

I don't trust snopes.
...
By the way, snopes is a left wing liberal site - "And of course emphasizing that very point is the popular myth-busting website Snopes, which apparently was caught with its biases exposed, or perhaps more to the point the author and fact checker describing herself as a liberal..."
Snopes is given too much credit in its objectivity to facts.
...
Which site do you want to believe? The pattern is there.
...
Bottom line - I just can't understand how adding this up does not paint a picture of corruption by following the events. It is a scary time. America having open borders, Clinton's email lies, Clinton ridiculous charity. She is crazy as far as I'm concerned.

Ok then...

Since the email thread got almost unreadable over the next 48 hours, I asked her what her sources of information were, and I was again not surprised.
And she probably was not amused when responded, after my "let's take this one topic at a time" comment, and shredding her "Sanctuary City" point to pieces, with multiple references;

But just for fun, I checked out your second reference. When doing that, I usually look at who’s running the place before reading the article:

"The Center for Immigration Studies is one of the network of anti-immigration groups founded by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings”

Ummmm….. I don’t usually accept anything from neo-Nazis as reference material.

Probably a "denigrating" remark, on my part. Ooops.
But, at least I shut her up.
Her final response:

It is interesting how different the views are between the east and the west coast. Conservatives vs liberals. I will leave you with your opinions.

 

[mheslep]

...found it all to be numbers whipped up into hysterical conspiratorial nonsense.

I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.

If you're actually interested in more constructive engagement as you say, it might help if you allow me to note what I see above in the summary of the response to your sibling. First, not a single word of actual evidence. Yes I gather you don't want to repeat it all here. But you do find room to say you shredded her, that you "shut her up", and the only detail you provide is that one of her references has racist connections.

 

[CalcNerd]

When I heard that commie pinko Iran enabling ISIS loving current President Odumbo gave Iran $1.4 billion, I decided to crunch the numbers myself. First, why did we give them thar Iranians anything at all. The right wingers suggested it was bribe to get our Navy sailors back, plain and simple. A payoff! Why that yellow belly Obama!
.
However, it takes time to gather up $1.4 billion and why was it $1.4 billion when President Odumbo /Oblamo or whatever derogatory name these SOS Hannity believers latch onto. Well, as I understand it. We (America) froze Iranian assets in the good ole US of A since 1979-1980 when their mobs attacked our embassy. Certainly not an unreasonable action considering any attack on an embassy can be considered a legitimate act of war. That we didn't declare war, nor did we actually sue for keeping this money, we owed it back to Iran at some point.
.
Well, just pay them the $400 million then. But is that fair? Actually the money sat in our banks (or was in our governments trust and out of circulation, so a loan to us of sorts). What is that worth? Well, if you think maybe let's just say, 3.5%. Well 3.5% compounded annually for 35 years = 333% growth on $400 million. Comes out to 1.3+ billion dollars. Regardless of our own beliefs, the Good ole US of A should kind of set the standard of world trade and NOT screw the other guy over, just because we can (especially if we just got a treaty agreement, whether fair or not). The numbers and the timing suggest that our military just happened to have an operation at an inopportune time for Presidential PR. On the flip side, though, the Iranians (and our own Military) probably knew that these sailors were bound to be released rather than tip over THAT apple cart.
.
Getting back to the US of A's good name. It doesn't get to keep that good name by raping and pillaging foreign countries for their oil, just because we can. One of our presidential candidates (who wasn't for the war, but since we were there) says we should take it as it is right and convenient to do so. I got to admit, it would help balance our budget due to some people who find a way to underpay their taxes.
.
While I am all in favor of a smaller and more money conscious government, I don't believe that reducing taxes for the top 1% will actually get us there as one of our candidates promises to do (don't know why, it sounds like he already has great tax rates!). As for the other candidate, I wish I could believe her, but I suspect she has promised one thing to wall street and then told us what we want to hear.
.
But getting back on track, the far right seems to be very weak with their math. I hear SOS Hannity tell me every night that 95 million Americans are out of work and on the welfare line. If he had an ounce of intelligence and could even use a four function calculator, it might help him develop a more credible set of numbers. But noooo, he goes for sensationalism, at the expense of everything else, including any claim of credibility. And as SOS Hannity seems to say so often... YOU OWN IT! Well, he seems such a loyal Donald Trump endorser, and his followers are, that they do NOT now have, nor could they get a real conservative to run. Donald is/was a RINO (that is another ironic thing, as I hear SOS Hannity bad mouth many real Republicans). I don't think that was so bad, it's just that he is also not quite as qualified on paper as any of his opponents. This other crap/news happens because he took his campaign into the crowded cow pasture of politicking. You're bound to step in somethin...
.
But I will have to pick one. No, I won't vote my conscious as I don't feel I can afford myself that pleasure. So, I will be voting for a scumbag. I just am not voting for a crazy scumbag.

 

[phinds]

Oh, @CalcNerd, here you are trying to bring facts and logic into the current political discussion when it's been clear for some time that that's not what it's about on either side and neither facts nor logic will get you anywhere. The other side isn't listening. I do agree w/ your conclusion.

By the way, Sleazy Sean is going to be the number 2 winner in this election no matter how it turns out. If Trump wins, he's now the White House's favorite reporter and if Clinton wins, he'll be top "news"caster on the new Trump/Ailes/Breitbart "news" channel that will likely be formed.

 

[mrspeedybob]

...So, I will be voting for a scumbag. I just am not voting for a crazy scumbag.

Crazy scumbag will never get enough cooperation from congress to get any of his scumbagging done.
Intelligent scumbag has some allies and will likely be able to coerce cooperation from others, hence, more scumbagging will get done.

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

 

[OmCheeto]

I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.

If you're actually interested in more constructive engagement as you say, it might help if you allow me to note what I see above in the summary of the response to your sibling. First, not a single word of actual evidence. Yes I gather you don't want to repeat it all here. But you do find room to say you shredded her, that you "shut her up", and the only detail you provide is that one of her references has racist connections.

I would have quoted her sources, but I'm pretty sure my post would have been deleted, with; "Those sources are banned at PF".

 

[OmCheeto]

Crazy scumbag will never get enough cooperation from congress to get any of his scumbagging done.
Intelligent scumbag has some allies and will likely be able to coerce cooperation from others, hence, more scumbagging will get done.

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.

Obummer seems to have done a lot with a totally obstructionist opposition. Imagine what Trump could do!

'Merka!

 

[RonL]

And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.

Obummer seems to have done a lot with a totally obstructionist opposition. Imagine what Trump could do!

'Merka!

I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.

What on god's green Earth is "impeachment"?
I've not heard that term since Nixon.
(google google google)

per wiki; Impeachment in the United States, is an expressed power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which Congress has impeached and convicted officials partly for prior crimes. The actual trial on such charges, and subsequent removal of an official upon conviction, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate. ​

So the only person within our lifetime, to be semi-impeached, was Bill. And what was that for?
(google google google)

Oh good god.

"The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones."​

People need to get their own lives...

 

[OmCheeto]

In deference to Astro's "we should really try and talk this out" comment, I further responded to my sister with;

Glad to hear you acknowledge that these are just opinions.
Any idea, since we don’t agree on sources, where to get “the facts”?
I don’t like casting my vote, based on opinions, or feelings.
Hillary gives me the creeps too, but I read the wiki entry on her time as Secretary of State, and if I ignore her face, demeanor, and husband, she strikes me as someone quite capable of running the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#U.S._Secretary_of_State​

Not sure if I'll get a response back, in this lifetime.

 

[olivermsun]

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

 

[OmCheeto]

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?

As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."

[ref]

 

[olivermsun]

Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?

As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."

[ref]

Not to belabor the obvious, but there's much more that could be accomplished in the next 4 years than just waging wars.

 

[russ_watters]

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

Hi, I'm a Republican. Have we not met?

 

[mrspeedybob]

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

Because every time the federal government does something, they screw it up and make things worse instead of better. This is due to the fact that the skills needed to get elected are not the same skills needed to perform the duties of public office. The solution to this problem would be for the elected officials to surround themselves with competent advisors. Our next president is not going to do that.

If Clinton is elected, she will likely surround herself with those who she owes political favors to, those she wants political favors from, and those who have influence in places she wants influence. If Trump is elected, he'll surround himself with people who agree with him and will stroke his ego.

Since it is highly unlikely that the federal government will do anything positive in the next 4 years, the next best thing is for them to do nothing at all.

 

[mrspeedybob]

Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?

As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."

To be fair, GW didn't have much choice but to do something in Afghanistan. An act of war was committed against the US. The Afghan government was protecting the perpetrators. GW showed a lot more restraint than I probably would have.

 

[olivermsun]

Because every time the federal government does something, they screw it up and make things worse instead of better.

Every time, huh?

 

[mrspeedybob]

Every time, huh?

Pretty much. There may be rare exception.
Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).

If someone else has more free time then I do and can beat me to it, go for it.

 

[russ_watters]

Every time, huh?

Even if "every time" is an exaggeration, you should at least recognize (and not be surprised to hear) that wanting government to do less is pretty much the fundamental component of what a conservative/Republican believes. So when you swap exaggerations, your "very little to nothing", whether strictly true or not, is indeed preferable to the liberal/Democrat status quo, to a Republican.

Indeed, if you define the baseline as what we have now, your typical Republican wants those currently in government to do less than nothing - which is to say, reduce government intervention.

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty much. There may be rare exception.
Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).

If someone else has more free time then I do and can beat me to it, go for it.

If we focus on what happened during the last 4 years, where "nothing" meant gridlock where regulations were neither added nor removed, that's a better result to me (and, clearly, you) than early in the Obama Presidency, when Obama had control of Congress and pushed through major - and expensive - policy initiatives.

We can compare/contrast that with what happened when Clinton was President and also had a hostile Republican Congress. While Congress used many of the same tactics as the current one, Clinton, unlike Obama, played ball with them, which helped enable the budget surpluses of the late '90s. It was Obama's choice whether to play ball with Congress or not and he chose not to. Given a choice between that and him (or the next Democrat) just getting whatever he wanted, I'd take gridlock every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[mheslep]

what was that for?

The two approved articles of impeachment for Clinton were Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, period. That he was guilty is not in serious dispute; Clinton lied in front of a federal judge. Me, I'm inclined not to let that go. Removal from office for these acts was very much in dispute. The Senate said no. Clinton was later disbarred.

 

[olivermsun]

you should at least recognize (and not be surprised to hear) that wanting government to do less is pretty much the fundamental component of what a conservative/Republican believes.

Smaller government is a fundamental component of what many conservative Republicans believe. It is by no means clear that it is the fundamental component, especially when it comes to expansion of government programs that align with other typically conservative stances. Military spending and homeland security come to mind immediately.

Indeed, if you define the baseline as what we have now, your typical Republican wants those currently in government to do less than nothing - which is to say, reduce government intervention.

It's one thing to want a reduction in the size of the government's job. It's a very different thing to want the government to be prevented from doing the job it currently has.

 

[olivermsun]

Pretty much. There may be rare exception.
Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).

Sounds like an interesting exercise. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a weekend, though.

 

[Evo]

Ok, this has gone WAY off topic, back to the 2016 election or the thread gets closed. We no longer have a politics forum, I've only left this thread open for the sake of keeping the 2016 election posts in one place.

 

[OmCheeto]

The two approved articles of impeachment for Clinton were Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, period. That he was guilty is not in serious dispute; Clinton lied in front of a federal judge. Me, I'm inclined not to let that go. Removal from office for these acts was very much in dispute. The Senate said no. Clinton was later disbarred.

$70,000,000 to find out a politician lied.
I can do that for 1/10th that amount. Just stand one in front of me.

But in the interest of stimulating the economy, we should vote for Trump.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/ [Politifact]

Clinton's statements by ruling

True           65
Mostly True    73
Half True      58
Mostly False   40
False          28
Pants on Fire   6

Trump's statements by ruling

True           12
Mostly True    33
Half True      40
Mostly False   55
False         102
Pants on Fire  51

And be sure and call me for the job.

ps. Politifact won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for their coverage of the 2008 election. I did not know that.
hmmm... I wonder if either of those two is a left wing liberal organization.

2009 Pulitzer Prizes

JOURNALISM

National Reporting

Staff of St. Petersburg Times

For "PolitiFact," its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters.​

 

[mrspeedybob]

back to the 2016 election or the thread gets closed. We no longer have a politics forum...

May I ask for clarification?
How do we discuss the 2016 election without discussing politics. What aspects are OK or taboo?
Could you perhaps cite some post numbers where you consider the content in bounds and some where you consider the content out-of-bounds to give me a sense of what's what?

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't see the distinction you're making and I want to understand so that any future contributions I might make are in-bounds.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Ok, this has gone WAY off topic, back to the 2016 election or the thread gets closed. We no longer have a politics forum, I've only left this thread open for the sake of keeping the 2016 election posts in one place.

Referring to the title of this thread, I think that the 2016 POTUS Race has pretty much broken itself down.

 

[OmCheeto]

May I ask for clarification?
How do we discuss the 2016 election without discussing politics. What aspects are OK or taboo?
Could you perhaps cite some post numbers where you consider the content in bounds and some where you consider the content out-of-bounds to give me a sense of what's what?

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't see the distinction you're making and I want to understand so that any future contributions I might make are in-bounds.

Are you referring to your comment from post #1354?

Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).

If you take my sister's "stream of consciousness" rant as an example:

sanctuary cities
$75,000,000 to mexico for wall
$100,000,000 soros mexico isis
crime rates going up 93%
12 year old raped in idaho falls by immigrant
ss nazi police
$770,000,000 obama fix worlwide mosques
san bernardino isis
florida gay nightclub isis
$1.7 billion to iran
$400 million in cash to iran so it's untraceable

you should ask yourself; "What does any of this have to do with Donald or Hillary?"

If the answer is "nothing", then you should probably start a new thread.

And even then, you should limit it severely, to something like; "What's the worst thing the feds have done in the last 20 years?", as even single laws passed are so complicated, their analysis could take years. (Example: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act)

Just my humble opinion.

And to bring us somewhat back to topic, my primary concern in this election, is for the welfare of America.

As I once said;

post #488 Feb 26, 2008
I posted my research of Obama's voting record on key bills last month in the "Why is anyone supporting Obama?" thread. He voted the same way I would have. He therefore represents my values. I will therefore vote for him, regardless of what he says. Because it's been my experience that in order to get elected, all successful politicians will say whatever they think you want to hear.

Hence, I never listen to any of them.

I haven't bothered yet to check out Hillary's voting record as senator, as, well, her opposition probably doesn't have anything to compare it to, as he's been too busy "grabbin' 'stuff'".

 

[Evo]

May I ask for clarification?
How do we discuss the 2016 election without discussing politics. What aspects are OK or taboo?
Could you perhaps cite some post numbers where you consider the content in bounds and some where you consider the content out-of-bounds to give me a sense of what's what?

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't see the distinction you're making and I want to understand so that any future contributions I might make are in-bounds.

It's fairly easy, this forum is now "Current News Events". Just make sure that whatever you post about the election has a current news story from an acceptable mainstream source associated with it. Even current news will go back and dredge up ancient issues if that is what is being discussed. And that is what is allowable.