2016 Presidential Election Thread

[iasonas]

President Bill Clinton, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton with Jimmy Kimmel at the

Clinton Global Initiative 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLJvXz71Cc

[Bellenger1981]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RddoaBHBe08

I know that I'm in the minority here, but I will not be supporting Hillary in 2016 if she runs. I agree with Krystal and Kyle.

[iasonas]

No one said she is a champion of left wing politics. She is a business friendly centrist with even some neo-con elements and very keen on military engagements, but also a compassionate individual who understands the importance of a strong middle class and always fights for Social Security, fair taxation, healthcare, minority rights etc.. Her extremely rich record speaks for itself. The woman has balls, is smart and very respected abroad like her husband. She is exactly what America needs.

Nobody has a resume like hers. A successful lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator of NY elected two times, Secretary of State and soon President of the United States.

It's politics. We have to be realistic and diplomatic in order to get what we want. I find Krystal Ball's comment a bit ignorant and attention seeking. You were a massive Hillary fan in 2008 and now all of a sudden you're not? Bitch please. Sure, Elizabeth Warren is an amazing politician, but let her do what she's doing now successfully. Representing MA and catching bankers. She cannot win the presidency. Of course it would be nice for someone to challenge Hillary from the left in the primaries so that some issues could be highlighted.

Also, can you imagine having Bill back in the White House?

[Skin]

I think Elizabeth Warren is excellent, but I don't think she would have a shot of winning. If she does decide to run though, good for her and I would wish her all the best and of course would vote for her if she were the nominee.

Again though, like in the case with Obama. You can run on all these wonderful ideas that sound amazing to people like us on the left, but running and governing are two totally different things. Obama only had TWO out of his 8 years to get a lot of things done, because like I said once the republicans took back the House it was game over.

Having Warren as President would be nice, but if Congress doesn't fall back into the hands of dems by a healthy margin its going to be by and large an unproductive administration no matter how passionate Warren would be as President. It will once again be a President (this time Warren) offering up ideas to move this country forward and republicans once again saying no to everything.

[Bellenger1981]

Currently, I would support Elizabeth Warren as long as she remains free to lead -- that is, not taking money from Wall Street. In fact, I support any candidate who is not tied to money coming from corporations and lobbyists. Get the money out of politics. For this reason, I will more than likely be voting for an independent candidate, one who is not tied to Wall Street, come next election. Sorry, Hillary!

Having Warren as President would be nice, but if Congress doesn't fall back into the hands of dems by a healthy margin its going to be by and large an unproductive administration no matter how passionate Warren would be as President. It will once again be a President (this time Warren) offering up ideas to move this country forward and republicans once again saying no to everything.

I agree completely.

[Skin]

Currently, I would support Elizabeth Warren as long as she remains free to lead -- that is, not taking money from Wall Street. In fact, I support any candidate who is not tied to money coming from corporations and lobbyists. Get the money out of politics. For this reason, I will more than likely be voting for an independent candidate, one who is not tied to Wall Street, come next election. Sorry, Hillary!

I agree completely.

You mean vote for an independent in the general election or during the primary?

I mean you have the right to vote for whoever you want, but for me personally voting an independent that has no chance is pretty much throwing your vote away and probably taking away votes from the dem, depending on the views of said independent. Might as well just vote for the republican.

If it wasn't for Ralph Nader we probably could have been without 8 years of Bush.

I just don't see the logic unless there is a real independent that stands a chance. That is obviously never the case though.

[iasonas]

2008 - First Black President.

2016 - First Woman President and First Latino Vice President.

[Bellenger1981]

You mean vote for an independent in the general election or during the primary?

I mean you have the right to vote for whoever you want, but for me personally voting an independent that has no chance is pretty much throwing your vote away and probably taking away votes from the dem, depending on the views of said independent. Might as well just vote for the republican.

If it wasn't for Ralph Nader we probably could have been without 8 years of Bush.

I just don't see the logic unless there is a real independent that stands a chance. That is obviously never the case though.

I am voting for a candidate who is not tied to Wall Street -- whether in the general election or during the primary. Elections have become not about the issues but about who can raise the most money. Sad. Nothing is going to change with Citizens United in effect. As for wasting a vote, yes, I suppose that I am. I am annoyed that, in this country, most everyone votes for either democrat or republican without giving a third party a look. If he ultimately runs for president, I will be supporting independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/ Realistically, the guy does not really stand a chance in hell in winning because, unlike Hillary or the republican candidate, he will not be tied to the money and the special interests. He would depend on public financing, like all candidates should. The rich should not be able to buy elections. His latest video below (from March 27, 2014) is one reason why I support him over Hillary.

[Skin]

I totally understand your point of view, and it would be nice if most Americans were on board with these things. And I agree that Corporations United is an abomination, but if we are in a situation where its going to be a really close election between the republican and democratic candidate, I personally could never vote for a 3rd party. To me keeping a republican out of the White House trumps anything else in my book no matter what.

At least until the republican party (if ever) becomes more moderate and stops licking the ass of the mental Tea Party right wing. Until then my main goal is not to vote the more "perfect" candidate in, but to keep the most mental one out.

[iasonas]

All the Supreme Court judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted AGAINST Citizens United. So you can't say that Dems and Republicans are the same on this issue. There is a huge difference.

4 judges are in their late 70s or 80s right now so pretty soon they're gonna die or retire. We can't afford a Republican president after 2016. That could impact the Court for generations to come.

[Skin]

All the Supreme Court judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted AGAINST Citizens United. So you can't say that Dems and Republicans are the same on this issue. There is a huge difference.

4 judges are in their late 70s or 80s right now so pretty soon they're gonna die or retire. We can't afford a Republican president after 2016. That could impact the Court for generations to come.

Exactly.

Like I said, republicans are too mental right now by and large to throw votes away on independents. Now is not the time.

Too much at stake.

[Bellenger1981]

Well, I voted for Obama again in 2012 just to keep Mitt "corporations are people, my friend" Romney out of the White House. I was going to vote for Jill Stein (www.jillstein.org) of the Green Party. Now she is what I consider an ideal candidate. But, in the end, I had to vote for Obama because Romney annoyed me so much, not necessarily because I wanted Obama in office again. Therefore, I totally understand what you are stating, but I don't think that I'm going to change my mind this time. The election is still a few years away, so we'll see what happens between now and then.

[Nessie]

The funny thing is that most americans have been tricked into thinking that they have a democracy. The US, however, are the furthest from it.

On February 15th 2003, millions of people worldwide took to the streets (the largest protest in human history) to protest against the Bush regime, who wanted to go to war on manufactured grounds. Majority of the world voted against this. As usual they went forward with their pre-planned war and ignored the majority. Real democracy is when the majority of people make a decision and it's upheld. Now people might say Bush was horrible and Obama's really great, but in reality they're both as bad as each other. They both support the same regime. Obama's advisers are drawn from the same Wall Street banksters as the "so called" opposition. His presidency was paid for by the same lobbyists and corporations that sponsored all the other presidents that preceded him. This is where they've planted a false image of democracy. The fact that americans have a choice between two different candidates, when clearly they are being run by the same interests. Despite what most are being led to think, there's a single party system in the US, the "demo-republican" party, which is under the guys of the two parties: Democrat and Republican.

No matter which party you vote for, you're actually, in fact, voting for the Demo-Republican party. You're given meaningless slogans to chant like "Yes we can" and "Time for change" to make it seem like it's a democracy. Meaningless because, in reality, the president you've elected will do exactly what he's told to do by his corporate masters. Spending all of the country's taxpayers' money on supporting this joke of a war on terror and Israeli occupation of Palestine when they could be using it to help americans that are unemployed, working without healthcare, or homeless. Is this a democracy? I think not!

[Nightshade]

The funny thing is that most americans have been tricked into thinking that they have a democracy. The US, however, are the furthest from it.

On February 15th 2003, millions of people worldwide took to the streets (the largest protest in human history) to protest against the Bush regime, who wanted to go to war on manufactured grounds. Majority of the world voted against this. As usual they went forward with their pre-planned war and ignored the majority. Real democracy is when the majority of people make a decision and it's upheld. Now people might say Bush was horrible and Obama's really great, but in reality they're both as bad as each other. They both support the same regime. Obama's advisers are drawn from the same Wall Street banksters as the "so called" opposition. His presidency was paid for by the same lobbyists and corporations that sponsored all the other presidents that preceded him. This is where they've planted a false image of democracy. The fact that americans have a choice between two different candidates, when clearly they are being run by the same interests. Despite what most are being led to think, there's a single party system in the US, the "demo-republican" party, which is under the guys of the two parties: Democrat and Republican.

No matter which party you vote for, you're actually, in fact, voting for the Demo-Republican party. You're given meaningless slogans to chant like "Yes we can" and "Time for change" to make it seem like it's a democracy. Meaningless because, in reality, the president you've elected will do exactly what he's told to do by his corporate masters. Spending all of the country's taxpayers' money on supporting this joke of a war on terror and Israeli occupation of Palestine when they could be using it to help americans that are unemployed, working without healthcare, or homeless. Is this a democracy? I think not!

Excuse me while I dismantle part of your argument...

1. The majority of the world is not the U.S. Several polls done in the U.S. around the time the war started show a narrow majority favoring it which is why Congress authorized military action. Obviously, it was a mistake and the Bush propaganda machine whipped up enough public fervor to pressure reluctant Democrats (including Hillary) to vote for it, however a large number of Americans thought the invasion was justified. I was not one of them, and there were sizable numbers of people who disagreed, but we didn't have an opportunity to do much about it until later.

2. Obama is different from Bush, and Democrats are MILES away from Republicans. If corporate masters were running the show, Romney would be our President, the Bush tax cuts for people making over $400,000 would still be in place, and we probably would've invaded Ukraine already. Bush nor Romney would've supported gay marriage, or expanded Medicaid for the poor. They also would've privatized social security if given the chance. The Republican Party of today is about corporate masters, the Democrats (largely) are not. Do they both seek campaign spending from the wealthy? Yes.

You know, I realize that some things between our Presidents are similar - we are still sending drones to kill people without a trial, but seriously, on a domestic front our parties are very far apart. I do believe we are teetering on an oligarchy, but democracy still exists here for now. If not, we'd be competing with Brazil for 30% poverty and an astronomical housing deficit.

[Nessie]

Excuse me while I dismantle part of your argument...

1. The majority of the world is not the U.S. Several polls done in the U.S. around the time the war started show a narrow majority favoring it which is why Congress authorized military action. Obviously, it was a mistake and the Bush propaganda machine whipped up enough public fervor to pressure reluctant Democrats (including Hillary) to vote for it, however a large number of Americans thought the invasion was justified. I was not one of them, and there were sizable numbers of people who disagreed, but we didn't have an opportunity to do much about it until later.

2. Obama is different from Bush, and Democrats are MILES away from Republicans. If corporate masters were running the show, Romney would be our President, the Bush tax cuts for people making over $400,000 would still be in place, and we probably would've invaded Ukraine already. Bush nor Romney would've supported gay marriage, or expanded Medicaid for the poor. They also would've privatized social security if given the chance. The Republican Party of today is about corporate masters, the Democrats (largely) are not. Do they both seek campaign spending from the wealthy? Yes.

You know, I realize that some things between our Presidents are similar - we are still sending drones to kill people without a trial, but seriously, on a domestic front our parties are very far apart. I do believe we are teetering on an oligarchy, but democracy still exists here for now. If not, we'd be competing with Brazil for 30% poverty and an astronomical housing deficit.

And then you have Obama now suddenly trying to justify the war in Iraq at his press conference in Brussels: "We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain” “Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.” Pointing, and also lying, that: “the US sought to work within the international system."

Sounds fishy, isn't it? He is the man who bragged about being against the war in the first place while he was a US senator, but now, at the presidency, he is willing to review his positions. It clearly shows that he is not in charge at all! He is doing what he is told to do as every president that preceded him! This is the corporate masters behind it! Its a tumor deeply buried in the US overall policy!

Obama just differs from the Republicans on basic aspects of internal affairs, like the healthcare system, gay marriage, gun laws, but the overall policies are exact the same, specially international relations which hasn't changed at all! The US still spies everyone, still instigates coups, still bombs foreign nations (now with drones), still pursues an imperialist agenda! I think its a very bold statement from you to say that the Democrats (largely) are not also aligning with the corporate interests that runs the show, just as much as the Republicans do. Everything happening under the current presidency points that Obama sold himself to it, and no matter which candidate be elected next, this overall policy will probably continue, this is why it feels like the country is being ruled by a single "Demo-Republican" party.

[Nightshade]

And then you have Obama now suddenly trying to justify the war in Iraq at his press conference in Brussels: "We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain” “Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.” Pointing, and also lying, that: “the US sought to work within the international system."

Sounds fishy, isn't is? He is the man who bragged about being against the war in the first place while he was a US senator, but now, at the presidency, he is willing to review his positions. It clearly shows that he is not in charge at all! He is doing what he is told to do as every president that preceded him! This is the corporate masters behind it! Its a tumor deeply buried in the US overall policy!

Obama just differs from the Republicans on basic aspects of internal affairs, like the healthcare system, gay marriage, gun laws, but the overall policies are exact the same, specially international relations which hasn't changed at all! The US still spies everyone, still instigates coups, still bombs foreign nations (now with drones), still pursues an imperialist agenda! I think its a very bold statement from you to say that the Democrats (largely) are not also aligning with the corporate interests that runs the show, just as much as the Republicans do. Everything happening under the current presidency points that Obama sold himself to it, and no matter which candidate be elected next, this overall policy will probably continue, this is why it feels like the country is being ruled by a single "Demo-Republican" party.

I still don't understand your point. Why aren't we still actively promoting a war in Iraq if Obama is the same as Bush? Why didn't we do a full invasion of Syria or Libya since they are following the same masters? If our democracy is irrelevant then nothing should've changed.

It's easy to say "corporate masters" without identifying who or what you are talking about. And frankly, the internal affairs do matter to the citizens of this country. The parties are quite different, and I live here so unless you are subject to life in this country, all you have is whatever media outlet you listen to. Supporting equal rights and expanding health care for people who cannot otherwise afford it is a good thing, and it's more than we got under the GOP regime. I am also smart enough to know that I don't know everything and it's possible that once Obama got into office he found out some serious shit that made him want to continue a fight against terrorism that was a harder line than he originally promised. It's quite easy to say "Oh they're the same" but really, do you know? If you had knowledge that a terrorist cell was about to get its hands on a dirty bomb but they were in a country that would not extradite them - even if they were apprehended - would you take the option of just letting it happen? Or would you move to protect your citizens with whatever resources you had, including drones? I realize and accept that sometimes leaders in many nations have to make the best choices they can with what information they have. They are not all-knowing or all-powerful. They make decisions that would be hard for anyone to make.

Anyway, you can believe they are all the same if that's what makes you feel comfortable. I live here and they are not.

[ADUSTIO]

Excuse me while I dismantle part of your argument...

1. The majority of the world is not the U.S. Several polls done in the U.S. around the time the war started show a narrow majority favoring it which is why Congress authorized military action. Obviously, it was a mistake and the Bush propaganda machine whipped up enough public fervor to pressure reluctant Democrats (including Hillary) to vote for it, however a large number of Americans thought the invasion was justified. I was not one of them, and there were sizable numbers of people who disagreed, but we didn't have an opportunity to do much about it until later.

2. Obama is different from Bush, and Democrats are MILES away from Republicans. If corporate masters were running the show, Romney would be our President, the Bush tax cuts for people making over $400,000 would still be in place, and we probably would've invaded Ukraine already. Bush nor Romney would've supported gay marriage, or expanded Medicaid for the poor. They also would've privatized social security if given the chance. The Republican Party of today is about corporate masters, the Democrats (largely) are not. Do they both seek campaign spending from the wealthy? Yes.

You know, I realize that some things between our Presidents are similar - we are still sending drones to kill people without a trial, but seriously, on a domestic front our parties are very far apart. I do believe we are teetering on an oligarchy, but democracy still exists here for now. If not, we'd be competing with Brazil for 30% poverty and an astronomical housing deficit.

Bravo! Poor Nessie and his blind hatred of the U.S.A. (MADONNA's COUNTRY) Is laughable : rotfl: he should be looking at his own country if he really wants to fix the world.

[Nessie]

Oh God i don't hate the U.S.A! God forbid me! you people are insane!

[spazz]

Oh God i don't hate the U.S.A! God forbid me! you people are insane!

me too I dont hate the country. just the politicians. and in the other thread he's telling me we're giving you money FUCk!

[Nessie]

It's easy to say "corporate masters" without identifying who or what you are talking about.

You want names? I have a few names for you: Ben Bernanke, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Martin Feldstein, just to name a few. Those are some of the very same people behind the previous presidencies that continued with the Obama administration upon until very recently. Look it up!

All of them are or were financial advisors or key components of Obama's administration at some point of his presidency!

All of them Wall Street banksters!

[Skin]

From what I am reading Elizabeth Warrens new book is selling REALLY well.

A taste of things to come maybe?

Shows people are at least interested in what she has to say.

[Nightshade]

You want names? I have a few names for you: Ben Bernanke, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Martin Feldstein, just to name a few. Those are some of the very same people behind the previous presidencies that continued with the Obama administration upon until very recently. Look it up!

Obama kept a number of those people because they were familiar with the crisis and had the knowledge to implement the changes he was seeking. Also, Geithner actually opposed extension of the Bush tax cuts, so wouldn't that make him an enemy of corporate CEO's? He wanted their taxes to go up for Christ's sake.

Also, only 3 Senate Republicans voted for the Dodd-Frank Reform Act which put new regulations in place in the financial industry. ZERO House Republicans voted for it, and 223 House Democrats voted in favor it. And while I would agree the bill did not go far enough, the Republicans fought it tooth and nail which leads me to believe it did implement more consumer protections than we had previously - including a new agency that Obama wanted Elizabeth Warren (the biggest economic progressive in Congress right now) to spearhead until her nomination was derailed in the Senate.

So please continue to tell us that both parties serve the same masters.

[Nightshade]

From what I am reading Elizabeth Warrens new book is selling REALLY well.

A taste of things to come maybe?

Shows people are at least interested in what she has to say.

I am very happy about the interest in populist economics right now. Not only her book, but also Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

I am hopeful that people will start educating themselves on the horrendous imbalance of wealth in our country and do something about it.

[Bellenger1981]

I am hopeful that people will start educating themselves on the horrendous imbalance of wealth in our country and do something about it.

Have you seen Robert Reich's "Inequality For All"? I just finished watching it, and it does a wonderful job covering the income inequality.

[ADUSTIO]

Hillary is not going to happen, the new Benghazi e-mails prove the White House and administration lied and the repukes were right.

[Ciccone's Cheeks]

To think this woman only had a few months left in her post before Benghazi happened :/ Regardless, I never thought she was shoe-in for the presidency even w/out Benghazi. I'd def. vote for her (if she runs and gets the nom.) but am and always felt really indifferent towards her. I'm still not even convinced she *truly* wants it like she did in 2007! Her demeanor during her last few years as Sec. Of State were of someone who wanted OUT! Yes, she's smart and def. knows the DC system to a tee (unlike Obama) which is why she should've f*cking won in 2008! lol . I 'get' why people voted for Obama (they wanted anything but another Bush or Clinton). If she had a different last name and/or carried herself like she did at the tail end of the campaign from the start (by 'connecting' w/ the middle working class and independents), as she started winning state after state at the end, she def. would've won. It was too late as Obama already walloped her earlier w/ too many consecutive victories . If there's major shit coming against her let it happen sooner than later,. I reeally want the 'machine$$' to get behind Elizabeth Warren! 'She' positivey has the it factor to be the first female president- not stale, tired Hillary

[Skin]

I still say Hillary can do it.

The general public DOESNT CARE about Benghazi. It was a story the right wing hammered away at for months and months and it didn't make a single dent.

[Nightshade]

I still say Hillary can do it.

The general public DOESNT CARE about Benghazi. It was a story the right wing hammered away at for months and months and it didn't make a single dent.

Agreed.

If the House Republicans had any minute shred of evidence that remotely tied her to the failures of Benghazi, they should just indict her as they completely control that chamber and the investigation process. If such evidence existed, or even if they had some balls, they could really drag her through the mud for awhile - but they don't have anything and they know it. I don't know if anyone even knows this, but House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (a Republican) actually defended Hillary and the State Department's response to the attacks.

I certainly think that Elizabeth Warren is closer to my personal economic beliefs - moreso than Hillary - but Warren is fine where she is right now. Hillary has had more experience and exposure to win the general election, in fact, she's the best "warrior" the Democrats have right now. She knows how to kick some ass and break legs when she has to. Warren is relatively a novice to winning elections. Maybe in 10 more years. I'd actually love a Corey Booker/Elizabeth Warren ticket some day.

[Skin]

Couldn't agree more.

http://youtu.be/uEu836Fzu-E

Stop trying to make Benghazi happen!

Its not going to happen!

[SOS]

i only have two words: GO HILLARY