Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

American 2016 Presidential Election thread part three


Recommended Posts

Guest Mauro

No, one reason is that he (both really) hasn't faced much scrutiny or faced Republicans. That's the short version of that. The number reason though is electorally Dems already have a significant advantage. The dem nominee would only really need to win the state's they normally win + Florida to win.

Hillary Clinton hasn't faced scrutiny from Republicans?????!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 961
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ben Carson is heading Trump's VP selection committee, he let slip the short list in an interview:

Ted Cruz

John Kasich

Chris Christie

Marco Rubio

Sarah Palin (yes, really)

And he himself is not on the list.

Ben Carson is heading Trump's VP selection committee, he let slip the short list in an interview:

Ted Cruz

John Kasich

Chris Christie

Marco Rubio

Sarah Palin (yes, really)

And he himself is not on the list.

Little Marco Boobio has put out at least a few consistent solid/firm statements he does NOT want anything to do w/ Trump plus Trumps loons loathe Marco. Would make zero sense for him or Cruz considering how much they stepped into it 2gether during primaries. I'm almost 100% (like everything else w/ Trump) *he is one who let it 'slip' just...to keep people wondering and getting yet more media whoring attention. Rubio and Cruz are DC whores who are still young and all about themselves and careers. As much as I loathe them both, they do have plenty of time to recover from this insane campaign season and come back w/ out having to say they attached themselves to the orange insane beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost 100% (like everything else w/ Trump) *he is one who let it 'slip' just...to keep people wondering and getting yet more media whoring attention.

Yep. This list is a shit list just to get media attention. The VP for Trump will not be any of those mentioned. Trump is a showman, and he is putting on a show this entire election.

Hillary needs to take seriously the fact that she needs to make amends with progressives after this divisive primary season. She either needs Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as a VP (or someone similar). Michelle Obama wanted Biden to run. Michelle wanted Biden to be Barack's successor. Hillary needs to take these things in to consideration. She needs a VP that brings EXCITEMENT into the fold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. This list is a shit list just to get media attention. The VP for Trump will not be any of those mentioned. Trump is a showman, and he is putting on a show this entire election.

Hillary needs to take seriously the fact that she needs to make amends with progressives after this divisive primary season. She either needs Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as a VP (or someone similar). Michelle Obama wanted Biden to run. Michelle wanted Biden to be Barack's successor. Hillary needs to take these things in to consideration. She needs a VP that brings EXCITEMENT into the fold.

She won't go with Warren because Republican governor will be able to pick her replacement. She definitely won't pick Bernie because he'd be more useful to her in the Senate and will most likely be given a position on a committee instead. She will most like go for someone younger and from a swing state. Most likely picks would be:

1. Julian Castro

2. Tim Kaine

3. Tom Perez

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie loses, depending on how things go, She might need to win over the progressives by choosing one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Yep. This list is a shit list just to get media attention. The VP for Trump will not be any of those mentioned. Trump is a showman, and he is putting on a show this entire election.

Hillary needs to take seriously the fact that she needs to make amends with progressives after this divisive primary season. She either needs Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as a VP (or someone similar). Michelle Obama wanted Biden to run. Michelle wanted Biden to be Barack's successor. Hillary needs to take these things in to consideration. She needs a VP that brings EXCITEMENT into the fold.

lol, where on Earth did you get you get this inside information from? Michelle Obama holds no sort of power. For someone supposedly so exciting, Bernie Sanders can't turn it into votes. No way to Elizabeth Warren. America isn't ready for a two woman ticket, sad but true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie loses, depending on how things go, She might need to win over the progressives by choosing one.

Vast majority of Bernies progressive followers live in states that will turn blue anyways. Not dismissing them, but with regards to the electoral vote they're not solely the most consequential group. The Obama coalition (made up of a lot of progressives) is the base that Hillary will be energising.The VP choice will reflect the diversity of the Democratic Party. Clinton won swing stats such as North Carolina, Florida and Ohio by large margins on her own merit. Hillary will of course chose someone who holds strong liberal/progressive views, but that person will be someone who will help win swing states. Not to mention having Obama campaign for her will solve a lot of problems with Democratic progressives.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a normal or 'semi' normal campaign season absolutely someone like Tim Kaine is ideal. Still reasonably young, super experienced and smart, respected, likable, attractive and from VA BUT he's as sedating, textbook white man as you could get lol. It's ALL about personality and optics/ ethnic background etc..right now vs true solid qualifications. Not saying Castro and Booker (even more so) don't have 'experience' but Kaine is still technically a way better pick. That said, Warren positively has the 'personality and brains' for this year but most likely the wrong gender and esp. lack of true political experience. But look at Trump and even Obama! Big difference is they are men. Totally wrong but it's the way it still is. Would be a super, super risky move if she picked her (esp. w/ how unlikable Hillary is) and how much Warren is needed in the Senate. A loss would be devastating more for Warren than for Hillary who's on her last life politically after this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an article where it said politics has become more polarized and now it's important to shore up your base and get all your voters to be excited and turn out, and not worry so much about winning over moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. So this article said they think because of that Hillary will pick a progressive/liberal to shore up her support among the Bernie types and not a moderate.

It also said geography doesn't matter anymore. Just because someone is from a certain state doesn't mean they can deliver that state. It's a national race so it's important to pick someone that works nationally, not in one region.

So because of all that, I think it's possible she may pick Elizabeth Warren.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

I was reading an article where it said politics has become more polarized and now it's important to shore up your base and get all your voters to be excited and turn out, and not worry so much about winning over moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. So this article said they think because of that Hillary will pick a progressive/liberal to shore up her support among the Bernie types and not a moderate.

It also said geography doesn't matter anymore. Just because someone is from a certain state doesn't mean they can deliver that state. It's a national race so it's important to pick someone that works nationally, not in one region.

So because of all that, I think it's possible she may pick Elizabeth Warren.

She won't. Warren doesn't play nationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an article where it said politics has become more polarized and now it's important to shore up your base and get all your voters to be excited and turn out, and not worry so much about winning over moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. So this article said they think because of that Hillary will pick a progressive/liberal to shore up her support among the Bernie types and not a moderate.

It also said geography doesn't matter anymore. Just because someone is from a certain state doesn't mean they can deliver that state. It's a national race so it's important to pick someone that works nationally, not in one region.

So because of all that, I think it's possible she may pick Elizabeth Warren.

yeah I think that makes sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary should pick AL Franken as her running mate. He could destroy Trump with one liners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She won't go with Warren because Republican governor will be able to pick her replacement. She definitely won't pick Bernie because he'd be more useful to her in the Senate and will most likely be given a position on a committee instead. She will most like go for someone younger and from a swing state. Most likely picks would be:

1. Julian Castro

2. Tim Kaine

3. Tom Perez

I don't think she'll pick Castro. He isn't dynamic enough. Your other two picks are ones to watch.

She needs to pick someone who will excite the base.

Trump is tricky, because he isn't the normal Republican. Hillary can't attack him in the normal ways.

He can attack her on trade issues that she normally wouldn't have to worry about with other Republicans.

He can attack her on her war hawkishness (she voted for the Iraq war.. and ousting Gaddafi that she normally wouldn't have to worry about with other Republicans.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parker: Viral video shows years of Hillary’s lyin’ ways

WASHINGTON — You could say that it all depends on how you define “lie.” Or, perhaps, that it’s hell to have a public record.

Either way, Hillary Clinton’s vast resume of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.

To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.

Most of the highlights would be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video, inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around.

If you’re looking for a fresh face or an anti-establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton isn’t it. But then, neither are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both of whom have been haunting the public square nearly all of their adult lives — one a raging radical, the other a radical rager.

Presumptive nominees Clinton and Trump are equally egregious in their misstatements, if in substantively different ways. Clinton is measured, poised, concentrated and studied when she revises her personal history. Trump just says whatever tiny thought penetrates his prefrontal cortex where
inhibitory functioning is obviously kaput, blurting absurdities and bromides the way pirates toss plastic beads from papier-mache ships at Mardi Gras.

Lacking a policy record to defend or reverse, Trump gets to sneer at his female foe. He did reverse himself on his irrelevant position regarding the Iraq War, but the number of real estate developers whose opinions entered into the nation’s military calculus in 2003 was exactly zero. Otherwise, his evil-clown act toward women, minorities, the disabled and others is apparently acceptable to the Republican Party.

Clinton’s record is something else. The woman who would be president promises a continuation of President Obama’s policies, even though she rejected many of them in 2008. The candidate who hates NAFTA almost as much as she now despises Wall Street is captured in several clips praising NAFTA.

A review of her bizarre accounting of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire in 1996 is almost entertaining. Audacious, really. Rather than ducking and dodging across the tarmac where no welcoming committee was present, film footage reminds us that she and daughter Chelsea Clinton calmly walked from the plane, posed for photographs with students there to greet them, and shook hands with a little girl.

No news here, just a rehash of history. One Web author who posted the video — sent to me by several readers — insists that it would be impossible to vote for Clinton after viewing the 13-minute montage. This may or may not be true given the alternative, but a refreshed memory does invite fresh consideration of Clinton’s character.

On questions of honesty and trustworthiness, Clinton consistently polls low, including among Democrats, which partly explains Sanders’ support. His economic plan may be fantastical, but at least he’s honest!

Well, maybe. With Clinton, there’s no maybe, as the 13 minutes make clear. For whatever reason, she simply can’t seem to stick to the truth, which, at times, needs neither embellishment nor denial. Wasn’t it enough to have gone to Bosnia to conduct the nation’s all-important soft diplomacy?

Clinton has been in public life long enough to have made some honest mistakes and even changed her mind a few times, which aren’t sins. But trustworthiness requires honesty, which often begets forgiveness.

After all these decades, Clinton still wants everything every which way, just never straightforward. Her lengthy tenure as a public figure has become her greatest obstacle. This isn’t only because of her lack of forthrightness, but also because, having lived under such intense scrutiny for so long, she seems incapable of allowing herself the ultimate dodge: She’s merely human.

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2016/05/parker_viral_video_shows_years_of_hillary_s_lyin_ways

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Trump said that she should be forgiven for her Iraq war vote.

Trump In 2006: Clinton Should Be Forgiven For Iraq Vote Based On Lies Given To Her

Shes very smart and has a major chance to be our next president, Trump said.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-in-2006-clinton-should-be-forgiven-for-iraq-vote-based

Based on lies given to her and all other representatives and senators by the Bush Administration that contradicted every single report released by the UN and the international community :rolleyes:

She's the ducking worst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

A bit of a prediction, expect Warren to be a prominent speaker at the convention. Probably she will give the keynote address.

Of course she will. She do a 30 minute set on Trump alone. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump Releases List of Potential SCOTUS Nominees – Who Are They?
GOP Presumptive Nominee Says There Are 11 People He'd Consider for the Nation's Highest Court

Donald Trump has released his highly-anticipated list of potential Supreme Court nominees. None of them are household names. All of them are white. Most are male. Most are federal appeals court judges appointed by President George W. Bush. Several are state supreme court judges appointed by current or former Republican governors. Three are women. One is the brother of a sitting conservative Tea Party Republican Senator. All are young enough to serve decades on the nation's highest court.

Overall, many on the list are judges who have ruled to oppose abortion and a woman's right to choose and to support efforts to curtail or interfere with abortion.

A quick review of the list by NCRM shows who appointed them and their current role in the judiciary. They include:

8th Circuit Court Judge Steven Colloton of Iowa (Bush 43, clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, worked for anti-Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr)

8th Circuit Court Judge Raymond Gruender of Missouri (Bush 43)
Authored an opinion that states female employees do not have a right to contraception, authored an opinion that laws mandating doctors to explain to patients what abortion does (an effort to reduce abortions) is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment, authored an opinion freeing Little Rock, Arkansas from federal desegregation rules

3rd Circuit Court Judge Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania (Bush 43),

6th Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kethledge of Michigan (Bush 43),

Michigan Supreme Court Judge Joan Larsen (Rick Snyder, and clerked for Scalia),

Colorado Supreme Court Judge Allison Eid (appointed by Gov. Bill Owens, tied to Bush 43, clerked for Clarence Thomas),

Thomas Lee, Associate Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court and brother of U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (appointed by Gov. Gary Herbert, clerked for Clarence Thomas)

Authored an opinion stating a fetus is a "minor child"

11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor of Alabama (Bush 43)
Wrote an opinion upholding a Georgia voter ID law

Minnesota Supreme Court David Stras (Appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, clerked for Clarence Thomas),

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes of Wisconsin (Bush 43),

Texas Supreme Court Judge Don Willett (appointed by Gov. Rick Perry)

The Associated Press, releasing the list, notes in March Trump "said then the list would include judges 'that everybody respects, likes and totally admires' and 'great conservative judges, great intellects, the people that you want.'"

Trump said the list "is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value" and said that, as president, he would use it "as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices."

His campaign stressed the list was compiled "first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership."

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_trump_releases_list_of_potential_supreme_court_nominees

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Trump SCOTUS Nominee Was Named 'Most Demonstrably Anti-Gay Judicial Nominee in Recent Memory'

pryor_1.jpg

Donald Trump's List of Potential SCOTUS Nominees Includes Anti-Gay, Anti-Women Extremists

Among the list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominees Donald Trump has just released is a federal circuit court judge who was named “the most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory” by Lambda Legal when opposing his nomination by then-President George W. Bush.

William Pryor, who now sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, has "made comparisons between the rights of gay people and 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia,'" according to the well-respected LGBT civil rights legal organization. Raw Story was the first to note the group's remarks today.

Upon his confirmation in 2005, Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart in a statement said Pryor "has a record of blatant hostility to fairness for gay people."

Cathcart has also called Pryor an "extremist," saying he "has compared our love to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. He says prohibiting antigay discrimination is giving us ‘special privileges.’ And he thinks one of our recent Supreme Court victories against antigay bigotry amounts to ‘new rules of political correctness.’"

Pointing to a 2003 amicus brief Pryor signed on to, Raw Story's Bethania Palma Markus reports Pryor argued "to uphold a Texas law criminalizing consensual LGBT sex," "argued that states should be free to prosecute gay people as criminals. He said the rights of LGBT people as a group are not protected by the Constitution," and "said homosexuality was harmful and that Texans needed protection from it."

In that brief Pryor compared sex between two people of the same gender to “polygamy, incest, pedophilia, prostitution, and adultery.”

He also wrote that the Supreme Court "has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy.”

“Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ that is ‘as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization,’” Pryor claimed.

“Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected,” Pryor's brief states.

Raw Story adds Pryor "argued there was 'no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy just because it is done behind closed doors… Because homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognized in this country as a right — to the contrary, it has historically been recognized as a wrong — it is not a fundamental right.'"

Quoting both a Washington Post editorial that called Pryor a "right-wing zealot" who "is unfit to judge," and an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial that also marked Pryor as "unfit to judge,"People for the American Way in 2003 wrote:

Much has changed in the past decade or so, but entrenched homophobia rewarded with a lifetime judicial appointment never will.

Pryor would deny gay men and lesbians the equal protection of the laws. He believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for expressing their sexuality in the privacy of their own homes and has voluntarily filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold a Texas law that criminalizes such private consensual activity. Pryor is also a staunch opponent of a woman’s right to choose. He has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history” and has supported efforts to erect unconstitutional barriers to the exercise of reproductive freedom.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump SCOTUS Nominee Was Named 'Most Demonstrably Anti-Gay Judicial Nominee in Recent Memory'

pryor_1.jpg

Donald Trump's List of Potential SCOTUS Nominees Includes Anti-Gay, Anti-Women Extremists

Among the list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominees Donald Trump has just released is a federal circuit court judge who was named “the most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory” by Lambda Legal when opposing his nomination by then-President George W. Bush.

William Pryor, who now sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, has "made comparisons between the rights of gay people and 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia,'" according to the well-respected LGBT civil rights legal organization. Raw Story was the first to note the group's remarks today.

Upon his confirmation in 2005, Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart in a statement said Pryor "has a record of blatant hostility to fairness for gay people."

Cathcart has also called Pryor an "extremist," saying he "has compared our love to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. He says prohibiting antigay discrimination is giving us ‘special privileges.’ And he thinks one of our recent Supreme Court victories against antigay bigotry amounts to ‘new rules of political correctness.’"

Pointing to a 2003 amicus brief Pryor signed on to, Raw Story's Bethania Palma Markus reports Pryor argued "to uphold a Texas law criminalizing consensual LGBT sex," "argued that states should be free to prosecute gay people as criminals. He said the rights of LGBT people as a group are not protected by the Constitution," and "said homosexuality was harmful and that Texans needed protection from it."

In that brief Pryor compared sex between two people of the same gender to “polygamy, incest, pedophilia, prostitution, and adultery.”

He also wrote that the Supreme Court "has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy.”

“Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ that is ‘as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization,’” Pryor claimed.

“Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected,” Pryor's brief states.

Raw Story adds Pryor "argued there was 'no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy just because it is done behind closed doors… Because homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognized in this country as a right — to the contrary, it has historically been recognized as a wrong — it is not a fundamental right.'"

Quoting both a Washington Post editorial that called Pryor a "right-wing zealot" who "is unfit to judge," and an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial that also marked Pryor as "unfit to judge,"People for the American Way in 2003 wrote:

Much has changed in the past decade or so, but entrenched homophobia rewarded with a lifetime judicial appointment never will.

And people wonder why I PLEAD with them on how important it is not NOT waste your vote this election on some 3rd party or write in Bernie, or some no name candidate just because Hillary is not the perfect candidate. . This is REAL folks that can have major implications for a generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I am fine with Bernie taking his fight to the end, but he needs to stop attacking the dem party and Hillary.

Trumps numbers are going up which is alarming, yet not all that alarming at the same time. He is the nominee and the party is starting to rally around him so its to be expected, but still scary as hell to watch.

Bernie should keep running but turn his sights MORE on Trump and how him or Hillary need to defeat him. There is a MAJOR disconnect in people brains going on when you have Bernie supporters so angry he isn't going to be the nominee that they are saying the will vote for Trump instead. Makes you wonder if they are even paying attention to things called issues or to Bernie himself, or are they just jumping on a popular bandwagon on their college campuses? Because anyone who is paying an ounce of attention would know Bernie would like to smack these people upside the head. Talk about a slap in the face to what Bernie is fighting for. Gee. Lets go with the guy that is the TOTAL opposite of Bernie. DER.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...