News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter bballwaterboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016 Issues Race
AI Thread Summary
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are currently the leading candidates for the 2016 presidential election, with their character and qualifications being significant issues among voters. The crowded field includes 36 declared Republican candidates and 19 declared Democratic candidates, with many others considering runs. Major topics of discussion include nationalism versus internationalism and the stability of the nation-state system versus global governance. Recent polls show Trump as the front-runner, although his support has decreased, while Carly Fiorina has gained traction following strong debate performances. The election cycle is characterized as unusual, with many candidates and shifting public opinions on key issues.
  • #951
phinds said:
That point of view totally ignores my main point, which is that he lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. As I said, I DO understand how people can dislike Hillary and yes, I think we all recognize that people are fed up with our gridlocked congress and bankers than crash the economy and walk away with bonuses instead of jail sentences, and other serious issues, but again that does not make Trump a reasonably alternative. Fact checkers have said over and over that something like 75% of everything he says is completely divorced from reality.
Doesn't matter that Trump is divorced from "reality" - whatever that is. What matters is the reality voters are confronted with, and their corresponding urge to change things. This is not about Trump, an opportunist of a high order, but about the people. The reality is that they are angry.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #952
Dotini said:
Doesn't matter that Trump is divorced from "reality" - whatever that is. What matters is the reality voters are confronted with, and their corresponding urge to change things. This is not about Trump, an opportunist of a high order, but about the people. The reality is that they are angry.
No argument there.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #953
phinds said:
I don't get the bolded part at all.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I just thought you interpreted his post as being pro-Trump, which I didn't read it as. As far as the bolded phrase, it's just saying that be careful of being too reactionary to your opponents policies. Trump's blanket ban on all Muslims entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on" (whatever that means) is overly vigilant, but to react to that radical policy by being "underly" vigilant is equally un-wise.

Oh, and to add, dotani's comment:

Dotini said:
Let me say this simply. Most Americans don't like the way things are going.

Let me say this simply, most Americans never like the way things are going; that's why we have elections every 4 years and why the party leadership in the country continually oscillates from republican to democrat every 8 years with few exceptions. My point is that the fact that most Americans don't like the way things are going doesn't really mean anything, at all. And I mean this sincerely. Again, as I stated above there are exceptions, as when your standing in a food line in 1931 in NYC and living in a "Hooverville." Ok, then I'll agree with you. But since then, the dissatisfaction of Americans with the status quo is not about that, it's about being the first go to hype-rhetoric that any challenger of the incumbent office uses as a springboard for their campaign. The trained eye will recognize this and not take it too seriously. The problem with Trump is that, at least from my vantage point, he is so unsophisticated at exploiting this springboard that it's almost comical. He simply calls everything a "disaster." C'mon, can't you be a little more creative here. The military is a disaster. The economy is a disaster. Obama is a disaster. I mean, really? You know what a disaster is? A disaster is a Japanese sub sinking the Indianapolis and suddenly you find yourself swimming with the sharks, That's a disaster. Not the current state of our military.

So the point I'm making is to be careful buying into clearly hyperbolic sentiments such as the disaster's Trump like to paint. These are red flags about a person's character and intentions for the future of our country (IMHO), not reasons to rally behind him (or her).
 
  • #954
DiracPool said:
I wasn't talking about you specifically, I just thought you interpreted his post as being pro-Trump, which I didn't read it as. As far as the bolded phrase, it's just saying that be careful of being too reactionary to your opponents policies. Trump's blanket ban on all Muslims entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on" (whatever that means) is overly vigilant, but to react to that radical policy by being "underly" vigilant is equally un-wise.
I completely agree.
 
  • #955
DiracPool said:
So the point I'm making is to be careful buying into clearly hyperbolic sentiments such as the disaster's Trump like to paint. These are red flags about a person's character and intentions for the future of our country (IMHO), not reasons to rally behind him (or her).
So I'm guessing that you don't buy his argument that his having worked hard and built buildings is a "sacrifice" equal to that of the Khans who lost a son who was fighting for our country. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes DiracPool
  • #956
Actually some 30% if not more of Americans really think the military is a disaster and everything that has happened is a disaster , it's not like Trump entirely makes this up.He has some backing , the fundamental reason for this is that there is this sort of "new" America and old one , the old one being those who hold classically conservative views , like Christian based society , classic capitalism , were each pays and earns his own life and death , hence all the fuss on Republicans about Obamacare or any other social welfare for the less lucky , and that the country has been a disaster lately , Trump simply amplifies and bites into this rhetoric.
Many conservatives dislike all these rather new liberal wins , like same sex marriage , etc , I think they genuinely feel the US is not what it once was and to a degree they are correct , indeed things have changed.
I find it funny that Trump lately has said in his speeches that he will defend the L G B T Q (I'm typing the way he would pronounce the word) community which comes rather funny given his earlier and the republican overall policy on the matter , I guess he too feels that he might not get enough voters behind him.

Some of you already voiced this concern here , I just want to say that a country or empire or any other man made form of government is only as strong as the people of that country.
A democracy is a fragile mechanism that requires constant looking after and care , constant vigilance on part of everyone not just the FBI.
I don't want to sound like the bell ringer for apocalypse but in human history we have seen the demise of many once great nations and civilizations and quite frankly the US has many of the signs and symptoms of a superpower going out of steam.And I'm not saying this in a Trump's "it's a disaster , oh by the way a YUGE one" point of view , I'm saying this from a rather deep and fundamental point of view , I've been watching politics and elections and tendencies of society and economy for years and many many red flags stick out.It would be too long to writethem all down here but they are there.

The very fact that people like Trump have gotten so far is one of those red flags for some deeper inner problem , I don't think he is just a voice for some otherwise happy but spoiled Americans who simply want to kick the can around a bit for their own amusement.

Some of the nominees that Trump surpassed were actually much wiser and seemed more intelligent than Trump and yet they never ever even picked up steam along the way.More about what I just said I have thought about Europe too in this light and I think that all modern and open societies experience a turning point sometime after they have advanced enough and lived long enough in a developed society.
For example after WW2 or any other time in human history in hard times or after disasters people first think about what to eat , how to work and how to do the basic stuff in life , in such conditions it is easier to solidify society and move in a certain direction , but in our modern times when in the western world most of us have what we need to survive we turn our sights to less fundamental issues like woman's rights and gay rights and immigration etc.But we have to be careful because these more advanced things can make us less unified and as we become less unified we risk making the wrong choices and as we do so we risk the very fundamental values and pillars on which the very culture and society is built.
I'm not entirely against liberalism but one has to be careful while working on a standing structures fundaments as they hold the very structure.
It's a sort of like a Trojan horse thing.Seems modern liberalism at first but can turn out a WW3 at worst.

If you think the WW3 part was too much look at history and how the previous two world wars started.
A small flame can't do much in the wrong place or in moist surface , but in the right conditions any lucky tiny spark can ignite an inferno.

P.S. Hope you understand what I meant with this.
 
Last edited:
  • #957
phinds said:
So I'm guessing that you don't buy his argument that his having worked hard and built buildings is a "sacrifice" equal to that of the Khans who lost a son who was fighting for our country.

Exactly. And the purple heart thing was disgusting, in fact, a "disaster." A real disaster. You'd rather get a purple heart from someone giving it to you than by earning it? I just don't get that. I personally would not accept a purple heart from someone willing to give me one simply out of respect for the medal. I didn't earn it and I don't deserve it, period. Both of my grandfathers served in WW2. On my dad's side, my grandpa received a purple heart from having his side ripped open by the shrapnel from a grenade in the European theater (France I think). I remember as a kid seeing it on the wall in his house and asking him about it. It was a fascinating conversation piece and although neither of my grandpa's liked to talk about the war much, I remember him telling me his story behind his purple heart.

Can you imagine this Christmas when the Trump family sit's around the fireplace and Ivanka asks daddy how he received his purple heart? That's going to be a special moment :angel:
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #958
With all due respect Dirac i don't think a man giving a purple heart to someone is in itself wrong , after all he earned it and if he loves someone or respects someone so much and wants to make it a personal gift I say let it be , a gift is a gift.You don't question it.
I think it's rather Trump's character and his absurd public profile that makes us mad when he receives some honor otherwise meant for people who sacrificed themselves for a higher goal.

If someone so wanted to thank me as to give me his honors and medals I would accept them out of respect for that persons intentions , I would simply not brag about that later and keep it to myself.At some point I even think that maybe Trump is more sincere than Hillary and really wants to be a great president but I think his Ego is so large beyond any measurable reference that it simple overshadows any slightest seed of intelligent thought that he might have and it definitely makes him unable to properly respond to any accusation or even the slightest criticism.
Putin knows this so no wonder he says only good things and verbal appreciations towards Trump because he knows that due to his absurd Ego he doesn't need no money to bribe Trump , all he needs is a few good words to make the POTUS candidate his ally.
Imagine how easy is that.
The Russians spend their money carefully , they won't just pay someone whom their not sure will make the job done so i think as of now Trump has received the help in two forms , one is compliments and the other is DNC hacking with the help of the KGB (modern FSB)
But the hacking is probably done not just because to boost Trump but to destabilize the election in general , I bet the people making world affairs in Kremlin are far smarter than any of us trying to figure this out here.
So whatever they do it probably is well thought out.
On the other hand I doubt of what many democrats are implying that Trump campaign is the "Manchurian candidate" in terms of Moscow being directly involved as such direct sponsorship and intelligence backing would be far too suspicious and they would risk a high chance of blowing their cover.
Especially with a man like Trump , he would probably make a terrible agent.
Imagine someone saying to him that he is not fit for clandestine information and then he would just blow off steam by revealing that he is so clandestine and yugely secret that Russia made him their spy only to say Oops at the end of this sentence... :D
 
Last edited:
  • #959
What I would have done would have been to bring that man up on the stage, thank him deeply for the honor and then pin it back on his chest, telling him he earned it and I didn't and thank him for his service and ask the audience to give him a round of applause.
 
  • Like
Likes RonL
  • #960
You have a good sense of how to earn peoples love there phinds , maybe you should go for the 2020 election ? :D:D

I bet many such great ideas of managing your PR have been given to Trump yet he is the way he is.Surely it's much better if you understand that yourself because you have a feeling for respect and love towards those who have fought the battles of life.

Edit: Off topic and outdated material removed by moderator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #961
Salvador said:
If someone so wanted to thank me as to give me his honors and medals I would accept them out of respect for that persons intentions , I would simply not brag about that later and keep it to myself.

In all due respect, I disagree with that sentiment. The whole idea of a medal of valor or sacrifice is that it is identified with the individual who made that sacrifice or demonstrated that valor. By definition it doesn't belong to anyone else other than the individual that earned it. That said, as you alluded to I would certainly accept the medal(s) of someone only under certain circumstances and only in the capacity or role as being a protector or guarantor of those medals. I wouldn't say something like thanks, "I always wanted a purple heart, this was much easier." I mean, really?

I encourage you, everyone to watch the 150 or so short videos on this you-tube channel of US congressional medal of honor recipients:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MedalOfHonorBook

I am in general (no pun intended) a military history buff, but especially a WW2 buff. These are great short war stories.

To add to my sentiment above, the one thing that is remarkable about these stories is the consistency behind them. I've watched every one of them. Some more than once, and each one is truly inspiring. But the theme behind essentially all of them is a sort of guilt on the behalf of the recipients that they were just there doing their job, they didn't feel of themselves as being a hero, and that anyone of the platoon at the time of the incident could have received the medal equally as valid. And again, they basically say that they only accepted the medal in the spirit to honor those equally brave soldiers who died or whose valor was simply not witnessed, as those who receive the medal do so by being nominated from fellow soldiers that were there during the said incident.

So, to get back to your initial statement, I don't think that these medals of valor or sacrifice are "transferable," as they say.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #962
On most parts you are morally right , I would agree , I simply said my viewpoint because I have had people who want to share their honor with someone they themselves honor and love , like my relatives or close friends. But as I said I keep that to myself , it;'s personal.

In the end of the day it's not about medals or honors or money , it's about sacrifice and true sacrifice shows true love and respect.We could do well without the medals and gold but we surely can't do without a society willing to sacrifice for the better for a better tomorrow whatever form it may take in whatever obstacles.
Sadly so much of how our world works is built around fake sacrifices and fake honor and respect.
This election is no different.

P.S. Check out my last post :)
 
  • #963
Salvador said:
You have a good sense of how to earn peoples love there phinds
Ha! I take it you have not read many of my posts :smile: I'm the cranky old guy

walter small.JPG


But seriously, thanks for the kind words.

This is one area where I'm a bit more sensitive than my normal cranky self because my dad won his purple heart in WWII and was buried with full military honors at Arlington a couple of years back.
 
  • Like
Likes RonL
  • #964
Oh no phinds , I do have kept your replies here at PF in my memory actually and I do remember you being a bit like what your posted picture seems. :DEdit by mod: Off topic remarks removed. This isn't the Politics forum anymore, This is Current News Events, the new rules are posted at the top of this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #965
phinds said:
Ha! I take it you have not read many of my posts :smile: I'm the cranky old guy

walter-small-jpg.104508.jpg

That's right, Salvador, and I'm the (somewhat) younger "misunderstood" guy..

maxresdefault.jpg


So we should get that straight so you know who your dealing with here :wink:
 
  • #966
that's a very blurry picture of what I think looks like Jim Morrison , the lead singer of The Doors.At least was.
I like their songs. Although Jim's persona was no less shocking at his time than Trump's is now...
The only difference is that many of the things Jim did on stage can be attributed to drug use and artistic personality while Trumps circus is known to be substance free and until this point hasn't produced any artistic value.
 
  • Like
Likes DiracPool
  • #967
The United States presidential election of 2016, scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016, will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election.

89.5 more days. Arrrggghh! This is cruel and unusual punishment.Meanwhile - Dan Rather, Joe Scarborough join chorus condemning Donald Trump’s ‘2nd Amendment’ remarks
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rather-scarborough-trump-second-amendment-000000700.html

Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

and despite some media reports that the Secret Service has talked to Trump about his remarks (some say contacted his campaign)
A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W
And some climber was caught at the 21st floor of Trump Tower.
The daredevil climber who attempted to scale Trump Tower Wednesday is a 20-year-old man who traveled to Manhattan from Virginia and staged his stunt in the hopes of winning a meeting with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, police said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #968
Of all the things bias of opinion is probably the biggest enemy of truth , just a small example would be that in a "Current news events" thread it's rather impossible to talk something "currently' happening with one of the candidates if we fully ignore that candidates past up until the very last months he or she started in the race.
Then all we can say is mere small facts of no value like , Trump walked down the stairs while Hillary took the elevator.

Please don't take down this remark.And while Trump has made like half of his adult life while in the presidential race , Hillary is actually quite harder to judge simply by looking at her while she has been in the race.If anyone seriously wanted to talk Hillary here he would more or less have to look back through the years of her public service and her outside office activities,
after all if someone is like one way in real life he probably won't turn the completely other in office.

But hey , I understand you folks and actually agree with you , I understand why ranting about Trump is more allowed than about Hillary , and even more welcomed. After all your hands are tied this time and so is your choice , it's literally no choice at all.Like I said I think this election is already done , unless all the crazy folks come together somehow and literally push Trump across the line.

To be quite honest sometimes it feels like Hillary has made a secret pact with Trump to get her elected , as if Trump really wants to be POTUS , then why is he cutting the very tree on which he sits , like who in their right mind would do that.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #969
@Astronuc the thing is , Trump is actually right when he says that they will "love him" no matter what he says or does as long as he says it's for a better America.
The problem for him is that those true followers or disciples of him are not enough to get him to POTUS.The same thing goes for Hillary , her hardcore fans are not enough to get her to office , so each of them has to have their fanatic core base + some and by some I mean quite a lot of independents or opponent's supporters by their side , and this is the problem for Trump, he is so less likely to take any Hillary's supporters or Bernie ones by his side or even independents.

I think he must know this and understand this , so then the question is , what kind of game is he actually playing ? I don't think he is so dumb and downright foolish to not realize this , so it's either he can't get over his big ego or there is something else at play.
I know this is speculation but admit it , you have thought about it too , maybe he realizes he can't beat Hillary after all and be POTUS so he plays a game of stirring up the whole country and trying to divide it , again who benefits ?
And let's remember Trump apart from his strive for fame is also a man who loves money and to brag about it.Maybe this whole election thing get's him money even if it doesn't land him into the White House
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #970
Salvador said:
@Astronuc the thing is , Trump is actually right when he says that they will "love him" no matter what he says or does as long as he says it's for a better America.
The problem for him is that those true followers or disciples of him are not enough to get him to POTUS.The same thing goes for Hillary , her hardcore fans are not enough to get her to office , so each of them has to have their fanatic core base + some and by some I mean quite a lot of independents or opponent's supporters by their side , and this is the problem for Trump, he is so less likely to take any Hillary's supporters or Bernie ones by his side or even independents.

I think he must know this and understand this , so then the question is , what kind of game is he actually playing ? I don't think he is so dumb and downright foolish to not realize this , so it's either he can't get over his big ego or there is something else at play.
I know this is speculation but admit it , you have thought about it too , maybe he realizes he can't beat Hillary after all and be POTUS so he plays a game of stirring up the whole country and trying to divide it , again who benefits ?
And let's remember Trump apart from his strive for fame is also a man who loves money and to brag about it.Maybe this whole election thing get's him money even if it doesn't land him into the White House
Everyone knows Trump is an imperfect vessel to carry the hopes and fears of the American people. But carry them he does. Surely he will lose if only because of a lack of tact, an essential part of every politicians armory. But did you notice how he handily crushed the massive field of Republican hopefuls, smugly said to be the greatest field of Republicans ever assembled in the history of the Republic? That means the Republican party is smashed and must be remade by new personalities , all modeled after Trump but more tactful, more suited to high office. After eight years of circular firing squad, the GOP its revolutionized the hard way - by destroying it. Kudos to Donald Trump for doing this. His fame and legacy are already assured. A populist moment has arrived. It will die down only after achieving its will, or it could be bought off with enough good jobs and money, money, money, the good old fashioned bottom line.
 
  • #971
Donald's method of operation has always been to shock and awe, so to speak. Any PR is good PR as long as the final end game gets him in position to exploit the circumstances. Remember the Megan Kelly debacle. Well, he actually turned it around and overshadowed the missed debate by his absence.
.
So, he can be as controversial as possible, sling mud where ever he can, be the same obnoxious debater he has been and at the last moment (two weeks before) of the election, suddenly transform into a reasonable and sane candidate. American's don't seem to have a long memory (two weeks anyone?). He can lay out a simple budget and other straight forward ideas (none to deep, remember it needs to be simple and defendable on the surface for two weeks!). And then throw a heaping pile of dung at Hillary (sadly, most of it could be true), and then ride the elephant into the election day for a big win. As an unconventional candidate, he has broken all sorts of unwritten rules and still survived (even thrived! I might add).
.
As for his veiled 2nd amendment reference, the networks have actually read that correctly, but as far as I am concerned it is something that everyone and especially every politician should be aware of. If big brother (or sister, in Hillary's case) ever become to big of burden on the American public, we do have the recourse of resorting to the unlawful act of treason, because our founding father's felt that any government could evolve into a monstrous body of authority. That second amendment isn't about hunting, although that is often alluded to by the liberal lefties (my side of the aisle). That we have crazies with guns is certainly a concern, but as long as our governing bodies know that they serve a well armed citizenry, there are lines they dare not cross! (and it is a good argument for our government to fund more aid for mental health :wink:)
.
So, am I a member of the NRA, no. I don't even have a slingshot at home. However, I fear the day when the ratio of gun owners falls below some level that our governing bodies feel secure in any of their decisions and not have to worry about their next re-election no matter how blatantly they dis-enfranchise the American citizenry. So, yes, I do feel appalled at all of the senseless gun violence, but I also adhere to one of the wise founding fathers, Ben Franklin who said,"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
.
Does the above argument mean I have changed my opinion of Donald? Not in the least, I will still be voting for the hag on a broom, only because I am aware of all of Donald's many accomplishments and deeds (and I am VERY aware of who Hillary is too!). Both are poor choices, but Hillary will bring in some competent help (admittedly cronies and other nefarious political animals) vs Donald may very likely run his circus by himself with a bunch of butt kissing toadies (remember, he does like to fire people that don't share his genius intellect, though Hillary's bunch will only be a smudge better). I readily admit, he will shake up the apple cart (and it is full of rotten apples). But Donald may not save a single apple.
 
Last edited:
  • #972
Well , I tried to bring in some form of Clinton's past in this thread , but that got edited out my the mods with the excuse of not being on topic.Since I don't want to start a fire for something I have no control of I just say let it be.
Although if one wants to see the real side of Hillary , the famed woman's rights activist and social guru , one simply needs to follow the money and to follow the money one needs to look no further than her family foundation and things around it.
But hey I get it , vote Hillary or face the real threat of the destruction of the US or at best an impeachment.And let's not overlook the dangers of a man who is often too sure about himself in his decisions.
look no further than Cameron's Brexit. I think his face in the pictures taken after the referendum show a man scared and in disbelief of what his idea brought to his own country an idea he used I believe only to gather more voters behind him.
Although it's still an ongoing story so the real consequences whether good or bad we will see only with time.I too am slow to judge this one.As for the NRA , @CalcNerd I understand your position but you also need to remember one thing , back in the 18th century the government had essentially what the citizens had , maybe a few cannons more, we now live in the 21st century, the government has everything from fighter jets to tanks to anti aircraft missiles to nuclear warheads mounted on submarines, airplanes and missiles and they have units of armed men with laser pointers night vision heavy armor and tactical assault weapons , now think about this for a second , do you really think a bunch of rednecks and others with guns are a real threat to the government if it ever decided to turn into this giant monster that suddenly turns to it's own citizens ? First are we thinking we will now somehow stop a corrupted public figure by firing him from office with guns ?
We have laws for that or otherwise it might easily descend into chaos.

So basically on daily basis the only real reasons for ordinary folks to own military style weapons is for some their big ego, for others some mental disability for some pure fun and for some a great tool to wage Jihad on a country which allows everyone to have a dangerous toy in his house.

Don't take this personally it's not meant to but I simply don't see the "good guy with a gun" saving the day law at work anywhere in the US anytime in the last decades.
Maybe some few isolated cases and that's it , the major statistics show quite the opposite , it shows that much more people would be alive if the US would do as some old and advanced European democracies do, without guns.
I live in a country which cannot be considered an old democracy and we can't have anything more than a hand gun or a hunting rifle etc.And we have literally no gun related deaths at all , maybe a few over the year and they are usually related to hardcore criminals.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #973
In case people did not see it. THIS IS NOT POLITICS! This forum is CURRENT NEWS EVENTS. Going forward, the rules need to be followed or posts will be deleted if they do not meet the rules. There are PLENTY of Current News Events surrounding the candidates every day. And as we have seen, some of these new articles discuss past events, in that case it is ok to post these.
 
Last edited:
  • #974
Astronuc said:
...
Meanwhile - Dan Rather, Joe Scarborough join chorus condemning Donald Trump’s ‘2nd Ame...

I doubt the pronouncements of Dan 'phony documents' Rather qualifies as a Current Event, nor as a member a chorus. Self important noise perhaps.

And the opinion piece from Waldman, didn't Evo just delete references to opinion pieces?
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint
  • #975
mheslep said:
And the opinion piece from Waldman, didn't Evo just delete references to opinion pieces?
I fixed it, but there is a whole lot that needs fixing, but I am letting it go, but I placed notice in the thread and will be enforcing going forward.
 
  • #976
A potential President acting in this manner? No thank you.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11692049

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who yesterday accused President Barack Obama of establishing Isis (Islamic State), has been asked to watch what he says by the United States Secret Service.

Disgraceful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #977
No official SS contact on the subject, yesterday:

Reuters
A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms...
 
  • #978
mheslep said:
No official SS contact on the subject, yesterday:

Reuters
Depends what they mean when they say they did not "formally" talk. They did not deny talking.

A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

Honestly it doesn't matter if the SS spoke to his campain or him formally or informally.

We've moved on to Trump claiming Obama & Hillary formed and head ISIS.

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/
 
Last edited:
  • #979
Evo said:
We've moved on to Trump claiming Obama & Hillary formed and head ISIS.
So, Trump is a crackpot. No surprise there.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #980
Max Boot is a lifelong Republican and consultant to a number of presidential candidates. He's been neverTrump since the beginning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-obama-founder-isis-000000523.html
According to Max Boot, senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is undercutting what could be an effective critique of the Obama administration’s record on terror.

“I think Donald Trump is basically delegitimizing all legitimate criticism of President Obama or his track record in office,” Boot told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday afternoon. “I am somebody who has been critical of what President Obama has done in Iraq and Syria. He has left a vacuum of power that has allowed ISIS and Hezbollah and other radical groups to flourish.

“That is a legitimate criticism,” Boot continued. “What Trump is saying is not a legitimate criticism. What he is saying is just plain nuts.”
 
  • #981
Even though he's considered a "neocon" and was advisor to Rubio, Boot has a point there .

deleted
 
Last edited:
  • #982
Last edited:
  • #984
Evo said:
Please remember that this is Current Events and that your article is both current and acceptable. Yours is neither.
Evo, there go those figners again. I think the "is" should have been "should be"
 
  • #985
phinds said:
Evo, there go those figners again. I think the "is" should have been "should be"
I have had no sleep all night thanks to psycho dog and thunder storms. Thanks "figners" :-p
 
  • #986
Evo said:
Please remember that this is Current Events and that your article is both current and acceptable. Yours is neither.

fixed - article turned out to be a bait and switch

sorry about that
 
  • #987
Evo said:
I have had no sleep all night thanks to psycho dog and thunder storms. Thanks "figners" :-p
Ouch. My wife's sister had exactly the same problem. Dog once jumped through the screen of an open window (during a thunderstorm) and went bonkers in the street. My sympathy.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #988
I'll
jim hardy said:
fixed - article turned out to be a bait and switch

sorry about that
Don't worry about it, I know you try. :smile:
 
  • #989
Evo said:
I'll
Don't worry about it, I know you try. :smile:
I agree. He's very trying :-p
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #990
phinds said:
I agree. He's very trying :-p
:oldlaugh:
 
  • #991
phinds said:
I agree. He's very trying :-p

Fair Anne agrees with both of you. .. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint, RonL and Evo
  • #992
re Astronuc's link
“ Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is undercutting what could be an effective critique of the Obama administration’s record on terror...
“That is a legitimate criticism,” Boot continued. “What Trump is saying is not a legitimate criticism. What he is saying is just plain nuts.”

Boot is right on with his " He has left a vacuum of power that has allowed ISIS... to flourish."
so as Boot told Ms Couric , Trump has a grain of truth behind his hyperbole but he missed the mark
I highly recommend this eye opening PBS Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/
which shows it would be more correct to credit Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney with sprouting Isis and Obama/Hillary with nurturing it.

Memo to Trump: Quit trying to be a comedian. If you want good political parody hire Jon Stewart. You just can't compete.

old jim
 
  • Like
Likes Averagesupernova, RonL, edward and 1 other person
  • #993
With Bernie Sanders Out, Young Adults See Third-Party Appeal (POLL)
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/bernie-busted-young-adults-see-third-party-appeal-150505312--abc-news-topstories.html

Many young voters, like many older voters, are dissatisfied the presidential nominees from both major parties.
Just 22 percent say they’re satisfied with a choice of Clinton and Trump, with a majority “very” dissatisfied. Twice as many of those 30 and older are satisfied, 43 percent.

That dissatisfaction could influence turnout, often a concern with young adults. They account for 21 percent of all adults but just 14 percent of likely voters in the survey, produced for ABC News by http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1472265127/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5sYW5nZXJyZXNlYXJjaC5jb20A/RS=%5EADAZUkAlmBrEjU45CTvUZVNxeHInYs- .

It also encourages a look elsewhere. When Libertarian Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1472265127/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL2FiY25ld3MuZ28uY29tL3RvcGljcy9uZXdzL3VzL2dyZWVuLXBhcnR5Lmh0bQA-/RS=%5EADAU.lVB1EeVOPH1F2B4OscOXRQcJA- are included, Clinton leads Trump by 19 points among under-30s, 43-24 percent, with 16 percent supporting Johnson and 10 percent supporting Stein – their best among any age group.
So hopefully, they'll show up at the polls in November.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #994
I saw something astonishing (to me, at least) on the local TV news tonight. A poll gives Trump only a 2% lead in South Carolina. South Carolina? :wideeyed:

Trump, Clinton nearly tied in new South Carolina poll (WYFF-TV, Greenville)

New poll: Clinton, Trump ‘virtually tied’ in SC (The State, Columbia)

This poll was commissioned by the state Democratic party, so Trump's people are dismissing it. But the state Republican chairman sees this as a sign that his party needs to take this race seriously. I'm skeptical myself, even though I'm a Democrat. SC has been solidly Republican in Presidential elections the whole time I've lived here. You have to go back to 1976 to find a Democrat (Carter, from neighboring Georgia) winning SC.

1976: Ford (R) 43%, Carter (D) 56%
1980: Reagan (R) 50%, Carter (D) 48%, Anderson 2%
1984: Reagan (R) 64%, Mondale (D) 36%
1988: Bush 41 (R) 62%, Dukakis (D) 38%
1992: Bush 41 (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 40%, Perot 12%
1996: Dole (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 44%, Perot 6%
2000: Bush 43 (R) 57%, Gore (D) 41%
2004: Bush 43 (R) 58%, Kerry (D) 41%
2008: McCain (R) 54%, Obama (D) 45%
2012: Romney (R) 55%, Obama (D) 44%

Also, the percentages in this poll are 41% Trump, 39% Clinton, 5% Johnson (Libertarian), 2% Stein (Green). That leaves a lot of undecided voters.
 
Last edited:
  • #995
jtbell said:
South Carolina? :wideeyed:
Some time ago I saw an interview of former long term Democratic US Senator from South Carolina, Fritz Hollings ('66-'05), about SC politics. IIRC, he was asked a question about how he raised money in SC. His answer was something like, "I can't raise any money in South Carolina! I have to go out to Hollywood or the like for money"
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #996
Found the interview (Bill Moyers 2008)

...
FRITZ HOLLINGS: That’s right. We didn’t go home on the weekends. We tried to get out Thursday afternoon or night or at least early Friday morning to go to the West Coast for fundraisers. That’s why Hollywood and that’s why Wall Street has got that much influence. I’m not going to South Carolina. They got no money for a Democrat. I have to travel all over the country.
...

Hollings was proof that a democrat can be elected to national office from SC in these times, but I'd also say a GOP candidate really has to work at screwing it up to lose there.
 
  • #997
Another independent candidate for president. An unusual election becomes more unusual.

There is the Libertarian and Green parties, and now Independent candidate Evan McMullin since 5 days ago.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/evan-mcmullin-donald-trump-cia-000000164.html
“There are a lot of Americans out there who are really, really struggling. They’re struggling under wage stagnation, a lack of other economic opportunities, and at the same time they don’t feel as if the government is hearing them,” he said. “That’s real. Donald Trump has tapped into that in a way that other candidates did not. What he did, though, is he took it a step further and combined that frustration with people’s darkest prejudices and deepest fears.”

“This is a guy who does not care about Americans the way you need to care about Americans in order to lead them, in order to be their president,” McMullin said. “The president of the United States should care about the struggles of Americans. He or she should care about their aspirations. This is what leadership is.”
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

Evan McMullin, the former chief policy director for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, will offer discontented members of his party an option this November by launching an independent, conservative bid for president.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-run-226784

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/evan-mcmullin-independent-candidate.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37067149

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-...ndependent-presidential-bid/story?id=41201256
McMullin was born in Provo, Utah, and earned a bachelor’s degree in international law and diplomacy from Brigham Young University and a master’s in business administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Six things to know about independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pendent-presidential-candidate-evan-mcmullin/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #998
Astronuc said:
Another independent candidate for president. An unusual election becomes more unusual.

There is the Libertarian and Green parties, and now Independent candidate Evan McMullin since 5 days ago.
He has no plans on how he's going to do anything except he's opposed to women's rights.
 
  • #999
Just saw an article in Time magazine where the OpEd writer opined some like this: I don't think Hillary is crooked but she has such an unwavering belief in her own righteousness that she does things that are wrong but does not see them as wrong.

Personally, I think it goes beyond that because when confronted with her sins, she, like Bill, just avoids the issue and starts parsing words and splitting hairs instead of admitting any wrongdoing.

She is her own worst enemy, as Trump is his (although he takes it to a whole 'nother level).
 
Last edited:
  • #1,000
It was claimed by Rand Paul in an interview with Fox News that Clinton's emails revealed the location of ambassador Stevens who was killed in the Benghazi attack.

Edit by Mod: Inaccurate opinion piece deleted, these are against the new Current Events rules, thank you for looking up the information.

I had not heard about this and wanted to know how true it is. According to PunditFact it is half true.

Napolitano said emails released to the public show Clinton discussed "the location of Ambassador Stevens, who of course was murdered, in Libya."

To clarify, Stevens was not the ambassador to Libya at the time, and the emails occurred about 18 months before the Benghazi attacks that killed him.

Clinton received at least six emails that discussed Stevens’ location in Libya, though the terms are vague -- for example, saying he was in Benghazi at an unidentified hotel.

The context of Napolitano’s statement gives the impression that the emails contain information that would have been damaging if released, but it was widely noted in the media at the time that Stevens was in Benghazi, and on at least one occasion, reporters encountered him at the hotel where he was living and working.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

Please note that the video link, or a similar one, was included in a previous post by mheslep, which was deleted. The interview appears to be only three days old, so I don't think it would have been the reason for deletion. However, if it was then no problem with deleting it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Evo

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
340
Views
31K
Back
Top