2016 Election

Quote: RonC

The question was simple and I will rephrase it even more simply--if a Republican candidate was surrounded by so much scandal of various sorts (some real, some partially real, and some false), would you ignore it or attack them for being touched by so many scandals?

Jesus Christ would be nailed to a cross if it was up to a Republican committee investigation. If he was a Democrat.

Quote: RonC

Try...just try...for a few minutes to flip the circumstances...Hillary is now a Republican and you are still you. I know, it is out there, but just think of it for a minute. Let the idea wash over you.

GIve it a minute....

This Republican, Hillary Clinton, wife of a former Republican President, has been on the edges of scandals for years...

Whitewater
Livestock deals
Covering up for an impeached President
Attempting to vandalize the White House and auction off taxpayer purchased goods for political contributions
Filegate
Deputy Chief of Staff with possible Muslim Brotherhood times
Vince Foster's untimely "suicide"
Benghazi
Email servers
Travelgate

...and oh so many more little things...some are something, some are very little, some may be nothing, but everyone knows there is SOMETHING shady in the family...

What would you, as a Democrat, say about that Republican candidate?

The difference between my position and that of others is that I would like to see as much evil rooted out of government as possible. Evil comes with both letters--"D" and "R"...some people think only the other side has evil. They are all wrong.

Ok
Hmm
Lets look at the Kenedys in the learly 60's
A lot of problems with that family just as the Clintons
I would still vote for JFK

Quote: SanchoPanza

It is not "micro-managing" when repeated begging from the most vulnerable diplomatic outpost in the world for security is consistently denied by the secretary and her staff. Anyway, as her campaign shows every day, she is among the world champion micro-managers.

How many diplomatic outposts are there?.
Hundreds.?
Dont they all want more security
Is there an outpost that does not want more security?

Quote: SanchoPanza

It is not "micro-managing" when repeated begging from the most vulnerable diplomatic outpost in the world for security is consistently denied by the secretary and her staff. Anyway, as her campaign shows every day, she is among the world champion micro-managers.

I'm not really fond of beating dead horses, but wasn't there a fair amount of evidence that Congress had significantly cut the funding for embassy security, and they had only what they could afford, not what they felt they needed? Wasn't there also a fair amount of information about the Ambassador routinely going out on his own or with less than recommended or required security in order to be more effective with the locals? Seems like this was not a simple "Hillary effed up" situation where you can draw a straight line between their deaths and some kind of malfeasance by the SOS, no matter who it was.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm not really fond of beating dead horses, but wasn't there a fair amount of evidence that Congress had significantly cut the funding for embassy security, and they had only what they could afford, not what they felt they needed? Wasn't there also a fair amount of information about the Ambassador routinely going out on his own or with less than recommended or required security in order to be more effective with the locals? Seems like this was not a simple "Hillary effed up" situation where you can draw a straight line between their deaths and some kind of malfeasance by the SOS, no matter who it was.

The administration requested about $270 million more than it got in that year. Approved budgets are often less than what is requested. You can argue that they should have approved more, but that is really way off point. The budget is what it is; the leaders have to make it work as best they can.

It isn't as if the issue of security came from just anyone; Hillary's Chief of Staff noted a problem with security in an email to her:

"One cautionary email sent to her long before the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack came from longtime aide Huma Abedin. The April 24, 2011, note cited reports that hotels in Benghazi were being targeted for attack."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-benghazi-emails-to-be-released-by-state-department-1432309888

At some point, things are brought to your attention that need to be looked over and fixed. No, you don't manage every operation at every outlet, but you are responsible for what happens under your watch. Even if you aren't paying attention. Your job is to take the budget you have and make it work in the best way possible. Somehow security got cut where more was needed. That is poor leadership.

If a Navy ship runs aground in the middle of the night with some ensign at the helm, the Captain gets fired. He is responsible. Hillary was the Captain at State.

Quote: RonC

If a Navy ship runs aground in the middle of the night with some ensign at the helm, the Captain gets fired. He is responsible. Hillary was the Captain at State.

So we should have ousted Bush at what point in his 8 year term?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/06/forgotten-bush-scandals.html

To me, a lot of this looks like partisan shenanigans. For instance , if you really like Fiorina you find reasons why she wasn't so bad a CEO. If you don't it's easy to see the opposite.

Quote: Gandler

As if the left does not revel in mistakes from Republicans decades ago.

If Clinton were a Republican secstate under Bush, the left would be drilling into her for years to come for both Benghazi and her email server.

Any proof of this? Or just more random both sides are bad. There have been multiple investigations all turning up no wrong doing yet the GOP continues investigating. The investigations have lasted longer than any previous congressional investigation. This investigation has gone on longer than cases where there was definite malfescence for instance the Iran Contra affair.

So no I doubt the Democrats would continue to go after her if she was a Republican because there is no precedent for it. There was no investigations for any of the embassy attacks under Bush or Reagan. You say there was an Ambassador killed so it is different, but there was no widespread investigation in any of the other cases where ambassadors were killed. Feel free to prove me wrong though and show me evidence that the Democrats would do the same thing.

Quote: RonC

The question was simple and I will rephrase it even more simply--if a Republican candidate was surrounded by so much scandal of various sorts (some real, some partially real, and some false), would you ignore it or attack them for being touched by so many scandals?

Depends on if the scandals are legitimate or nonsense like the Hillary "scandals."

Take Chris Christie and Bridgegate for example - looked really really bad for him when the story first broke. But they never really found anything to directly connect him to it. Do I attack him for it? Nope. I've moved on.

Quote: Twirdman

Any proof of this? Or just more random both sides are bad. There have been multiple investigations all turning up no wrong doing yet the GOP continues investigating. The investigations have lasted longer than any previous congressional investigation. This investigation has gone on longer than cases where there was definite malfescence for instance the Iran Contra affair.

So no I doubt the Democrats would continue to go after her if she was a Republican because there is no precedent for it. There was no investigations for any of the embassy attacks under Bush or Reagan. You say there was an Ambassador killed so it is different, but there was no widespread investigation in any of the other cases where ambassadors were killed. Feel free to prove me wrong though and show me evidence that the Democrats would do the same thing.

Nancy Pelosi says Democrats may stop cooperating with the Beghazi committee after the presumptive Speaker's comments.

I hope they do!

Hillary was supposed to testify later this month. I hope she reconsiders. She has no reason to give them the time of day after his admission.

Quote: rxwine

So we should have ousted Bush at what point in his 8 year term?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/06/forgotten-bush-scandals.html

To me, a lot of this looks like partisan shenanigans. For instance , if you really like Fiorina you find reasons why she wasn't so bad a CEO. If you don't it's easy to see the opposite.

I'm not saying that she should have been fired. However, just like Bush and his time in the White House, she is responsible for what happened under her watch as Secretary of State. She is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen. It is basic to leadership...something our politicians are not very good at. Neither flavor.

Quote: ams288

Nancy Pelosi says Democrats may stop cooperating with the Beghazi committee after the presumptive Speaker's comments.

I hope they do!

Hillary was supposed to testify later this month. I hope she reconsiders. She has no reason to give them the time of day after his admission.

I hope she refuses, too. I hope Nancy talks them into not cooperating. The only worse leaders in Congress recently than Boehner and McConnell are Pelosi and Reid.

Congress' ratings are always in the tank. The rule about Congress is most people like their guy, but hate Congress in general. Congress as a whole always seems to poll around 20% or below, but then you ask what they think of the Representative that represents their district, they tend to have favorable feelings toward that guy.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Wasn't there a fair amount of evidence that Congress had significantly cut the funding for embassy security, and they had only what they could afford, not what they felt they needed?

Not according to the Congressional testimony of the top-level officials in charge of that:
"Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who fielded security requests from the Libya U.S. diplomatic officials had said that money wasn’t the reason for the slim security in Libya. Consider this exchange from the congressional hearing on Libya last week:

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said Lamb. realclearpolitics

Quote: beachbumbabs

Wasn't there also a fair amount of information about the Ambassador routinely going out on his own or with less than recommended or required security in order to be more effective with the locals?

Not according to the testimony of Greg Hicks, the DCOM and the person most intimately tied to Stevens's every move.

Just read Benghazi is now a longer investigation than Watergate.

Guess Hillary is just too tough for them or they've been wasting time and money all along.

Quote: rxwine

Just read Benghazi is now a longer investigation than Watergate.

Guess Hillary is just too tough for them or they've been wasting time and money all along.

At least 4 to 8 more years
Why
Obviously politics
If Clinton loses the nomination, committee fades away
Clinton wins the nomination, committee "investigates" for the next 4 to 8 years.

Just saw Jeb Bush on O'Reilly. Is there anything
more boring than listening to him never stop
talking about what he did in Fl? Who cares.

Quote: EvenBob

Just saw Jeb Bush on O'Reilly. Is there anything
more boring than listening to him never stop
talking about what he did in Fl? Who cares.

I spent some extra time/space to watch the interview. I was was not inspired by Jeb. But then things got more interesting...Water's World!
Edit: See Misc Discussion Thread....

Never know what you're going to see.

"“Political ignorance could also help explain why Trump has won the support of a large share of the generally conservative Republican primary electorate, despite his long history of liberal stances on issues such as health care, taxes, government spending and property rights. Relatively ignorant voters rarely pay close attention to issue positions and are likely unaware of the details of Trump’s record.”

This is credited as being in Sunday's USA Today in a column by Ilya Somin, a Law Professor at George Mason University...

https://rawconservative.com/2015/10/trumpusatoday/

Political ignorance is everywhere. It was a large part of what got the President elected. He said what a whole bunch of people wanted to here and got elected. I guess it is worse when one side is ignorant and okay when the other is...

This thread sure has died. 3 posts in 3 days
and 2 of them are by me.

I subscribe to a Google news feed that every
time a story comes along about a Trump poll,
I get notified.

It's entertaining, I get alerts all day. A lot of
them are Trump's Fading articles, while
just as many are Trump Has Strong Lead.
It's obvious nobody really knows what's
happening from one day to the next.
Trump is already covering his ass by saying
he'll get out if he falls behind, which he
knows will inevitably happen.

I wish I could get a good bet on Trump to NOT win the GOP primary. The only line I've seen is:

Yes: +470
No -810

810 is too much to lay, not to mention tie up for months.

In case you're wondering, Jeb is the favorite and Rubio second.

Prediction time: Trump drops out when his poll numbers drop to under 8%.

Quote: RonC

Political ignorance is everywhere. It was a large part of what got the President elected. He said what a whole bunch of people wanted to here and got elected.

What about all the people who voted against Obama based on nonsense falsehoods perpetrated by the right such as "he's a Muslim!" or "he's gonna take all our guns away, better stock up!"

In your opinion, how does their political ignorance compare to that of those who voted for him?

Quote: ams288

If Carly Fiorina really wants to shut down Planned Parenthood, she should become their CEO.

As if the enterprise would allow that!!!

Quote: SanchoPanza

As if the enterprise would allow that!!!

Yes, thankfully due to her track record there aren't many enterprises in America who want to be in the Carly Fiorina-business.

Thanks to my allies in the media.

Quote:

Fiorina attacked “the left and their allies in the media” for a critical report released Monday that says her 2010 California Senate campaign mismanaged money and failed to pay vendors for their work.

More than four years after her failed campaign for California’s senate campaign, Fiorina still owed nearly half a million dollars to 30 entities. The Republican presidential candidate didn’t pay off her debt until January of 2015, just a few months before she launched her presidential bid.

One of the outstanding payments due was to her political strategist Joe Shumate who died one month before Election Day as first reported by The Washington Post.

“We projected that there would be debt, and figured we would deal with it after the election,” Martin Wilson, Fiorina’s former campaign manager, told NBC News.

But Martin added that Fiorina was very slow in dealing with it. “We had suggested several remedies to Carly after the election to discharge the debt. She just couldn’t really focus on it, I guess,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carly-fiorina-defends-late-payments-2010-senate-bid?google_editors_picks=true

Quote: ams288

What about all the people who voted against Obama based on nonsense falsehoods perpetrated by the right such as "he's a Muslim!" or "he's gonna take all our guns away, better stock up!"

In your opinion, how does their political ignorance compare to that of those who voted for him?

The ignorance of all of them is not good. The ones on Trump's side that aren't really looking and the ones on Obama's side that didn't look.

The media may pay more attention to one than the other, but neither is good. We're busy finding new ways to do math every couple of years instead of worrying about raising people who can consider the facts and decide where they stand.

Quote: rxwine

Thanks to my allies in the media.




http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carly-fiorina-defends-late-payments-2010-senate-bid?google_editors_picks=true

Big deal, failed political campaigns stiff everyone from the consultant to the landlords all the time. Nothing to see here.

For example........

A wise man asked today how much louder would the outcry be if Bush had bombed a hospital by mistake? This guy gets a pass from the media on everything. They have no shame.

Quote: AZDuffman

Big deal, failed political campaigns stiff everyone from the consultant to the landlords all the time. Nothing to see here.

For example........

Well, it erodes her claim to being better than Hillary. That's all I care about.

If you can't do better, you're not better.

Quote: ams288

thankfully due to her track record there aren't many enterprises in America who want to be in the Carly Fiorina-business.

Tell that to Tom Perkins.

Quote: rxwine

....Well, it erodes her claim to being better than Hillary. .....
If you can't do better, you're not better.

That would depend on what her definition of is, is. : )

Quote: Wizard

I wish I could get a good bet on Trump to NOT win the GOP primary. The only line I've seen is:

Yes: +470
No -810

810 is too much to lay, not to mention tie up for months.

In case you're wondering, Jeb is the favorite and Rubio second.

Prediction time: Trump drops out when his poll numbers drop to under 8%.

Are you suggesting this from the standpoint of a gambler/mathematician, or someone who follows politics?

There are three true candidates to the GoP race, 2 true candidates for the Democrats as of right now. Trump, Bush, Rubio vs. Clinton and Sanders.

Now here's the thing. The very same "change" democrats that spearheaded the movement to put Obama into office, are going to be the very same "change" democrats who continue the movie to put a woman into officer, after all, how much more change could there than to put a white female into office? Especially one with our beloved formerly impeached president, Bill Clinton. The south would vote to put Bill back in office, if they had no other legitimate candidate to vote for, they loved him. Sanders is the most viable candidate, but he isn't the most popular with the most funding. Clinton wins this one in a close race to face the winner in the GoP. The GoP is going to push hard initially for a "foundation" to build support on, which means they will riiiiiiiiiiiide the popularity and showmanship of Trump to push ratings and agendas. Bush is sadly the most viable candidate for office, but he carries a bad stigma about him, he's a bush. The US didn't like the last bush in office, and the one before that went to war in the middle east, and with rising tensions in the middle east and the eastern bloc, I just don't see America getting enough votes going towards the republican side for another bush whose family is big in the oil industry, and whose agenda might be leaning more towards the foreign oil industries like the middle east and Russia, surprised? Not really. Rubio will draw a lot of the youthful votes, as well as the minority votes, but poised against Hillary, probably couldn't pull enough of the "voting population"'s votes, as they will likely see him as young, inexperienced, and not willing to gamble the nations poor economic status and struggling foreign affairs on a guy who wasn't even of legal voting age when half of his competition was just starting out in politics in a "major" capacity. Lastly, there's Trump. He's not socially or politically correct enough to really draw the super-old voting population, but he'd command every bit of the 18-35 demographic by large, insurmountable margins. If he can carry the full support of the GoP behind him, with someone like Rubio/Bush (if he'd take the VP) as his running mate. It would be almost impossible for Clinton to draw enough votes against Trump to win an election, and the Dems know that, they fear that the most. Since the polls started coming out, the only person who the polls suggest could contend with Clinton, is Trump. The Dems think they have this one in the bag and will use Sanders "truthmongering" as a way to draw attention from the popularity of Trump's platform, to boost the "side" of the democrats, because the youth of the nation wants truth right now, and the "Grown ups" want a stable economy, and nobody wants a war in the eastern bloc. The fact that the Dems know this, is why you'll see a lot of lateral movement and "slams" from Dems to GoP right now, wayyyy earlier than normal. If they can defeat Trump now in the polls and get him to give up his place in the running, they'll have won already, which is why Trump now and over the next 3-6 months is going to go under a lot of heat and scrutiny, especially from a "misogynistic" perspective, the Dems want the women voters to view him as nothing but a woman hating suit, who wants nothing more than more power and more greed to sell more of his books and tv shows, and its possible it might work.

As of right now, I'd put the % chances like this.

Clinton 65% chance of Dem nomination
Trump 45% chance of GoP nomination
Bush 25% chance of GoP nomination
Sanders 25% chance of Dem Nomination
Rubio 20% chance of GoP nomination

The rest are for the long shots.

About the only thing I'm certain of on the Republican side is which candidates at the bottom are probably dropping out.

But I suppose even that could change if we get an unexpected dropout of one of the poll leaders.

Quote: rxwine

About the only thing I'm certain of on the Republican side is which candidates at the bottom are probably dropping out.

But I suppose even that could change if we get an unexpected dropout of one of the poll leaders.

Rand Paul is my guess for the next one to drop out.

I say Santorum, Huckabee, and Christie have no chance and should also drop out but they are all stubborn so they'll hang in there for too long.

Quote: ams288

Rand Paul is my guess for the next one to drop out.

I say Santorum, Huckabee, and Christie have no chance and should also drop out but they are all stubborn so they'll hang in there for too long.

I am surprised that candidates are dropping out due to polls rather then wait for the voters to decide in the Primaries
Polls lately have been extremely unreliable. Ask Eric Cantor, he was supposed to be a lock, he lost.

Quote: terapined

I am surprised that candidates are dropping out due to polls rather then wait for the voters to decide in the Primaries

No reason to be surprised at this, common thing. What was uncommon was how many jumped in, however I find that a good thing. The question is should they have "former POTUS candidate" after their name on the news if they never made a primary?

Presidential republican Candidate Mike Huckabee went on a rant about rainbow doritos
He is demanding a boycott
hmm
Is he practicing economic terrorism?
That was how he described a chick-a fil boycott by gays as economic terrorism.

By the way the rainbow doritos were so popular, they sold out :-)

I don't gamble online but if I did I might consider betting on a Trump/Cruz ticket. I'm convinced they're allies. Never any attacks between the two and Donald made a comment a while back that seemed like their buds.

Quote: terapined

Presidential republican Candidate Mike Huckabee went on a rant about rainbow doritos
He is demanding a boycott
hmm
Is he practicing economic terrorism?
That was how he described a chick-a fil boycott by gays as economic terrorism.

By the way the rainbow doritos were so popular, they sold out :-)

Who cares? A candidate with very little chance coming out against rainbows and leprechauns.

Quote: terapined

By the way the rainbow doritos were so popular, they sold out :-)

Nothing like healthy foodstuff: "The limited-edition chips were only available through a special website, which raised $100,000 for the It Gets Better Project." ontopmag

Quote: ams288

What about all the people who voted against Obama based on nonsense falsehoods perpetrated by the right such as "he's a Muslim!" or "he's gonna take all our guns away, better stock up!"

In your opinion, how does their political ignorance compare to that of those who voted for him

Quote: RonC

The ignorance of all of them is not good. The ones on Trump's side that aren't really looking and the ones on Obama's side that didn't look.

The media may pay more attention to one than the other, but neither is good. We're busy finding new ways to do math every couple of years instead of worrying about raising people who can consider the facts and decide where they stand.

How do you feel about it when it is your side?

I just don't get the Obama is a muslim
I watched the moving eulogy at the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston
This a Christian church that Black Christians know well
Obama sang an incredibly moving version of Amazing Grace.
What is it with white Christians, the black church does not count?

Quote: RonC

How do you feel about it when it is your side?

I don't care, to be honest. A dem vote is a dem vote. We need all we can get with all the voter suppression measures coming from the Right.

Quote: ams288

I don't care, to be honest. A dem vote is a dem vote. We need all we can get with all the voter suppression measures coming from the Right.

And before any rightie jumps down my throat pretending that the voter ID laws aren't about suppressing the vote of certain groups, do me a favor and try to defend this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/06/alabama-clarifies-voter-confusion/qYHKjeGSURhMaxeYtJG6dI/story.html

Quote: ams288

I don't care, to be honest. A dem vote is a dem vote. We need all we can get with all the voter suppression measures coming from the Right.

I figured as much. I'd rather (if I had a choice) have all the people be smart enough to make a good decision--without me telling them their decision--but you'd just as soon have idiots to vote your way over a well educated population. It is certainly easier to lead the sheep that way; no minds of their own.

"Voter suppression"? Again, a pile of crap. People that routinely need IDs for stuff suddenly can't be bothered to get a free ID in order to vote. Yes, I said free...and easy to get...if Dems were so against "voter suppression" they would make sure it was easy and free for everyone so that every voter could be properly identified, not subject to any thing that could even look like a poll tax, and allowed to vote. That is what I want from voter ID...every legal vote counted.

Quote: terapined

I just don't get the Obama is a muslim
I watched the moving eulogy at the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston
This a Christian church that Black Christians know well
Obama sang an incredibly moving version of Amazing Grace.
What is it with white Christians, the black church does not count?

It has nothing to do with the black church. Has to do with Obama's history, actions, and outlook. I don't really care how well he sings what.

Quote: Exoter175

Clinton 65% chance of Dem nomination
Trump 45% chance of GoP nomination
Bush 25% chance of GoP nomination
Sanders 25% chance of Dem Nomination
Rubio 20% chance of GoP nomination

Here are my personal predictions, not based on anything on the market:

Clinton 50% chance of Dem nomination
Biden 45% chance of Dem nomination
Sanders 5% chance of Dem nomination
Trump 15% chance of GoP nomination
Bush 45% chance of GoP nomination
Rubio 40% chance of GoP nomination

Quote: AZDuffman

It has nothing to do with the black church. Has to do with Obama's history, actions, and outlook. I don't really care how well he sings what.

He's been a Black Christian that attended a Black church for decades in Chicago
Again
What is it with white Christians, the Black Christian church does not count?

Quote: RonC

"Voter suppression"? Again, a pile of crap. People that routinely need IDs for stuff suddenly can't be bothered to get a free ID in order to vote. Yes, I said free...and easy to get...if Dems were so against "voter suppression" they would make sure it was easy and free for everyone so that every voter could be properly identified, not subject to any thing that could even look like a poll tax, and allowed to vote. That is what I want from voter ID...every legal vote counted.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/06/alabama-clarifies-voter-confusion/qYHKjeGSURhMaxeYtJG6dI/story.html

Not a pile of crap.

Reality. (Admittedly a hard concept for some on the right to grasp).

Quote: terapined

He's been a Black Christian that attended a Black church for decades in Chicago
Again
What is it with white Christians, the Black Christian church does not count?

Not going to keep repeating all of this.

In any case, Obama sure does not think much of white Christians.