2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

So Martin O'Malley is angry at the lack of debates being organized by the DNC.

It doesn't seem all that bad, even when the Debbie Wassermann Schultz (Chairwoman of the DNC) admitted that she decided everything to with the debates, and does not want any more added. But when I saw that she was part of Hillary's campaign in 2008, this just made me sick.

O'Malley has a point when he claims that the DNC is rigging the nomination. Hillary has set everything up to suit her; even having the former national co-chair of her campaign in charge of the DNC. I'm finding it very hard to like this woman.

Black Swan

Could a Biden-Warren ticket beat the Clinton Machine for the Democrat nomination? Earlier on Elizabeth Warren said she would not run for the Executive in 2016, but then again she could be drafted; i.e., encouraged to change her mind. Other than an occasional humourous gaff, I am unaware of any skeletons in Joe Biden's closet. Of course Warren would be the conservatives worst nightmare if elected. Biden and Warren used to be economic adversaries, so to bring them together on the same ticket would be quite a political compromise.

Wompa1

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So Martin O'Malley is angry at the lack of debates being organized by the DNC.

It doesn't seem all that bad, even when the Debbie Wassermann Schultz (Chairwoman of the DNC) admitted that she decided everything to with the debates, and does not want any more added. But when I saw that she was part of Hillary's campaign in 2008, this just made me sick.

O'Malley has a point when he claims that the DNC is rigging the nomination. Hillary has set everything up to suit her; even having the former national co-chair of her campaign in charge of the DNC. I'm finding it very hard to like this woman.

I guess the big thing this time around is that the DNC are not only still just having 6 debates but they are prohibiting Democratic candidates from speaking at any non-DNC debates. Over here it's being talked about that Hillary is barely talking about anything substantial. She's appearing and making cute small talk with locals and using vague rhetoric because she doesn't need to say anything that might get her caught out or targeted.

She's leading. The other candidates don't have a platform or coverage. She knows she can sit back for now. If someone somehow carves out massive support, she can start. The word over here is that Sanders is not a serious candidate. That no Republican would vote for him and half of the Democrats wouldn't vote for him.

Black Swan wrote: »

Could a Biden-Warren ticket beat the Clinton Machine for the Democrat nomination? Earlier on Elizabeth Warren said she would not run for the Executive in 2016, but then again she could be drafted; i.e., encouraged to change her mind. Other than an occasional humourous gaff, I am unaware of any skeletons in Joe Biden's closet. Of course Warren would be the conservatives worst nightmare if elected. Biden and Warren used to be economic adversaries, so to bring them together on the same ticket would be quite a political compromise.

Other than his creepy and borderline inappropriate behavior around women and children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4OYPiV1GsY

There's a longer compilation. I'd be happy with anybody that can take on Hillary

Hande hoche!

Well the next Republican debate is being held by CNN on the 16th September, with the participants being finalized on the 10th. Surprised that some such as Graham haven't dropped out yet.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/

Overheal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/martin-omalley-blasts-debbie-wasserman-schultz-fro/

A feud within the Democratic Party spilled into the open Friday at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Minneapolis, as presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley used his speech to the convention to publicly chide DNC leaders for limiting the number of presidential debates.

Mr. O'Malley said that DNC officials had not only silenced debate among Democratic candidates but silenced the party’s ability to respond to Republican presidential candidates, whose recent TV debate reached more than 20 million Americans.

“They malign our president’s record of achievement, they denigrate women and immigrant families. They doubled down, on trickle down, and they tell their false stories,” he said. “And, we respond — with crickets, tumbleweeds, a cynical move to delay and limit our own party debates.”
...
Mr. O'Malley’s criticism of his party officials was greeted with applause and cheers from the crowd of state party chairman in the ballroom of the Hilton Minneapolis.
...
“Four debates. Four debates?” Mr. O'Malley asked with incredulity. “Four debates, and four debates only we are told, not asked before the voters in our earliest states make their decision. This is totally unprecedented in our party history. This sort of rigged process this has never been attempted before.”

The diatribe was punctuated by enthusiastic applause from DNC members.

He continued: “Who’s decree is this exactly? Where did it come from? To what end? For what purpose? What national or party interest does this decree does this serve? How does this tell the story of the last eight years of Democratic progress? How does this promote our Democratic ideas for making wages go up and household incomes go up again, instead of down?”

“How does this help us make our case to the American people? One debate in Iowa? That’s it? One debate in New Hampshire? That’s all we can afford?” Mr. O'Malley asked. “And, get this, the New Hampshire debate is cynically wedged into the high-pint holiday shopping season. So, as few people watch it as possible.”

Later, as the meeting was about to adjourn for the day, a state party official interrupted the proceeding to offer a motion that the DNC members vote on increasing the number of debates.

Cecil Benjamin, state chair of the Democratic Party of the U.S. Virgin Islands, offered a motion, igniting a burst of cheers and applause from the ballroom.

His attempt to put the chair’s debate edict to a vote was quickly derailed by a ruling by Ms. Wasserman Schultz that his motion was out of order.

wth, like

Overheal

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well the next Republican debate is being held by CNN on the 16th September, with the participants being finalized on the 10th. Surprised that some such as Graham haven't dropped out yet.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/

He probably won't drop out if he can help it before February I'd bet, there's a debate in his home state after all:

https://www.gop.com/rnc-announces-debate-schedule-sanctions-9-debates/

KingBrian2

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well the next Republican debate is being held by CNN on the 16th September, with the participants being finalized on the 10th. Surprised that some such as Graham haven't dropped out yet.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/

Same day the rugby world cup starts.

Harry Palmr

Oh dear.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/aug/30/building-border-wall-with-canada-is-legitimate-issue-scott-walker-video

MightyMandarin

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Oh dear.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/aug/30/building-border-wall-with-canada-is-legitimate-issue-scott-walker-video

Whatever Scott Walker says goes in one ear and out the other as far as I'm concerned. The man is just a puppet for the Koch's, whose deluded views can be seen in their little manifesto from 1980.

In this case though, I think he's just trying to hop on the 'fear' that Trump has spread about the dirty Mexicans, or in Walker's case, Canadians.

MightyMandarin

Wompa1 wrote: »

I guess the big thing this time around is that the DNC are not only still just having 6 debates but they are prohibiting Democratic candidates from speaking at any non-DNC debates. Over here it's being talked about that Hillary is barely talking about anything substantial. She's appearing and making cute small talk with locals and using vague rhetoric because she doesn't need to say anything that might get her caught out or targeted.

She's leading. The other candidates don't have a platform or coverage. She knows she can sit back for now. If someone somehow carves out massive support, she can start. The word over here is that Sanders is not a serious candidate. That no Republican would vote for him and half of the Democrats wouldn't vote for him.

Well they're hardly going to vote for Hillary, are they? :pac:

But yeah, the DNC being led by a former co-chair of Hillary's campaign just reeks of scheming and corruption of an otherwise fair process.

I'm also sick of Hillary trying be 'hip' and acting like a cool 67 yr old. Taking selfies with Kim Kardashian was just pure cringe. I think for a lot of people it's vote Bernie, Biden (if he runs) or just don't vote.

To be honest, the only candidates I'm paying attention to are Bernie, because he's awesome, and Trump, because he always makes me laugh.

Edit: Bernie's also just 7 points off Hillary in Iowa according to this poll.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Chris Christie was caught sending Govt. emails from his private account, after he and every other Republican has slaughtered Hillary for doing essentially the same thing.



http://www.wnyc.org/story/christie-sent-government-emails-private-account/?utm_source=/story/chris-christie-through-looking-glass/&utm_medium=treatment&utm_campaign=morelikethis

Help me out here. What is the secret code hidden in the email that indicates it includes Top Secret/Classified information?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

According to Fortune: "Former Alaska governor and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin will interview Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for conservative broadcasting network One America News Friday evening."

Not "just the Black Swan" ... Sarah Palin is talking Trump too. What a coincidence.

Interesting isn’t it, how it’s ancient history that she keeps popping up here over. Now, after many years, she’s just a celebrity and about a gazillion heartbeats away from the presidency... unless of course we face a zombie apocalypse, in which case I’d want her covering my six, and think she’d make a fine president for the times.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Help me out here. What is the secret code hidden in the email that indicates it includes Top Secret/Classified information?

Stop being an apologist for every GOP who has broken the same ethics as Hillary. It's getting really old.

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Sometimes Amerika I think you are running the longest and biggest troll in boards history and you are taking us all for idiots.

What is your big problem with teleprompters was it a childhood accident. I am sure the president makes one or two speeches a year but more than likely 100's what the big deal, give it up

Contrary to popular misconception, Tea Party conservatives actually exist in real life, who believe in small government, separation of powers, and that our Constitution is not some free-spirited document to be bastardized by the big government loving ideologues and Sal Alinsky minions. And although I may think some here are idealistic and ill informed about Americans and their politics, I would never consider anyone here idiots, ever!

The TelePrompter thing remains current topic as the American people need to be reminded they twice voted into office a person with little experience, and who has done nothing for the country except make just about everything worse, purely because of his ability to deliver written speeches placed in front of him in a charismatic manner. IMO.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Please explain to me how Hillary's actions should be almost seen as a mortal sin, if you believe most Republicans, but Christie's actions are acceptable and totally incomparable.

See post #1512.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So Martin O'Malley is angry at the lack of debates being organized by the DNC.

It doesn't seem all that bad, even when the Debbie Wassermann Schultz (Chairwoman of the DNC) admitted that she decided everything to with the debates, and does not want any more added. But when I saw that she was part of Hillary's campaign in 2008, this just made me sick.

O'Malley has a point when he claims that the DNC is rigging the nomination. Hillary has set everything up to suit her; even having the former national co-chair of her campaign in charge of the DNC. I'm finding it very hard to like this woman.

The DNC foolishly put all their eggs into one basket and nothing shall stand in the way of a Hillary Clinton coronation, methinks.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Could a Biden-Warren ticket beat the Clinton Machine for the Democrat nomination? Earlier on Elizabeth Warren said she would not run for the Executive in 2016, but then again she could be drafted; i.e., encouraged to change her mind. Other than an occasional humourous gaff, I am unaware of any skeletons in Joe Biden's closet. Of course Warren would be the conservatives worst nightmare if elected. Biden and Warren used to be economic adversaries, so to bring them together on the same ticket would be quite a political compromise.

There really is not much of a difference between Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. A Biden/Warren ticket certainly would make things interesting, but I think the only chances it would have against the Clinton machine would be if Hillary’s campaign continues to self implode. And then I think it still would be a long shot as it is probably too late in the game for him to jump in at this point.

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

Other than his creepy and borderline inappropriate behavior around women and children.

Joe Biden seems to get the customary pass from the media for any actions that would normally cause them to go into full scale attack mode. "It's just Joe being Joe."

Amerika

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well the next Republican debate is being held by CNN on the 16th September, with the participants being finalized on the 10th. Surprised that some such as Graham haven't dropped out yet.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/

Really pisses me off that Carly Fiorina is being excluded from the debate because CNN picked some old poll date that is meaningless at this point. Fiorina is way up in the polls at this point and shouldn't the debate be comprised of the most current top candidates?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Stop being an apologist for every GOP who has broken the same ethics as Hillary. It's getting really old.

The truth is never "old."

Overheal

Oh you wouldn't like where that game goes.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

The truth is never "old."

Yup, you're a real 'truther' Amerika.

Tell me though, how do you explain the stats about income inequality I showed you a few days ago? Do you still believe low taxes, deregulation and cutting welfare is the solution to economic inequality, let alone the cause of it?

Don't forget to tell the truth now, I've seen enough Tea Party propaganda in this thread.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Joe Biden seems to get the customary pass from the media for any actions that would normally cause them to go into full scale attack mode. "It's just Joe being Joe."

All I got from that was "Why can't poor Donald call the Mexican's 'rapists' and say that McCain was 'not a war hero because he was captured'? Ugh, screw you liberal media"

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

All I got from that was "Why can't poor Donald call the Mexican's 'rapists' and say that McCain was 'not a war hero because he was captured'? Ugh, screw you liberal media"

And the media castigated him for it. All I want is equal treatment from the media, regardless if a person has a (R) or (D) (or now (I)) behind their name.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yup, you're a real 'truther' Amerika.

Tell me though, how do you explain the stats about income inequality I showed you a few days ago? Do you still believe low taxes, deregulation and cutting welfare is the solution to economic inequality, let alone the cause of it?

Don't forget to tell the truth now, I've seen enough Tea Party propaganda in this thread.

I think they will help to even out income inequality. Both parties are to blame for the sad condition our country is in. Going forward though, all the Democratic candidates will only exacerbate the countries problems IMO, and seemingly rely on upping the minimum wage as their only economic policy (which would be utterly disastrous). The Republicans candidates would actually help in correcting a level of our problems by stimulating economic growth and in job creation, but struggle to address income inequality in a way that connects with middle class voters.

Black Swan

Wompa1 wrote: »

Other than his creepy and borderline inappropriate behavior around women and children

I'm not a Biden fan, but in fairness, should ALL stumbling political "baby kissing" OPs for ALL candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) going back several years be compared (thousands of pics and vids) to see if something may appear "creepy and borderline inappropriate," then post the worst here for ALL candidates, or just those highly selective OPs that pertain to Joe Biden?

This Super Power presidential 2016 race is looking more like a Super Farce, with little substantive domestic or international policy content being discussed by candidates. Telly entertainer billionaire Trump knows this, and leads the pack in providing what the news media (ratings) and audience wants: not content, rather ENTERTAINMENT. What a craic!

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I'm not a Biden fan, but in fairness, should ALL stumbling political "baby kissing" OPs for ALL candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) going back several years be compared (thousands of pics and vids) to see if something may appear "creepy and borderline inappropriate," then post the worst here for ALL candidates, or just those highly selective OPs that pertain to Joe Biden?

This Super Power presidential 2016 race is looking more like a Super Farce, with little substantive domestic or international policy content being discussed by candidates. Telly entertainer billionaire Trump knows this, and leads the pack in providing what the news media (ratings) and audience wants: not content, rather ENTERTAINMENT. What a craic!

Sorry for going off topic, but your post reminded me of one of the funniest political pictures ever.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Going forward though, all the Democratic candidates will only exacerbate the countries problems IMO, and seemingly rely on upping the minimum wage as their only economic policy (which would be utterly disastrous). The Republicans candidates would actually help in correcting a level of our problems by stimulating economic growth and in job creation, but struggle to address income inequality in a way that connects with middle class voters.

In summary, Democrats = bad, and Republicans = good. If we were to dig up and resurrect John Adams, I believe that he would see BOTH parties as equally bad, Adams being one of the top critics of the US 2-party system (for good reasons too, looking at the sad state of 2-party performance). This presidential race reminds me of when the Trojans play the Bruins during the NCAA season. It's a grudge game: my team right or wrong, but always my team no matter what!

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

In summary, Democrats = bad, and Republicans = good. If we were to dig up and resurrect John Adams, I believe that he would see BOTH parties as equally bad, Adams being one of the top critics of the US 2-party system (for good reasons too, looking at the sad state of 2-party performance). This presidential race reminds me of when the Trojans play the Bruins during the NCAA season. It's a grudge game: my team right or wrong, but always my team no matter what!

In 2014, 30% of voters were Democrats, 26% were Republicans, and 43% were Independents. I mostly agree with what you state regarding the majority of registered Democrats and Republicans, but it doesn’t fit the majority voters in America which are registered as pseudo "Independent." What do you think Adams would think of the fact that the majority of voters (I like to say 'party," but it is better stated the "non party") don't even bother to put up good candidates?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I think they will help to even out income inequality. Both parties are to blame for the sad condition our country is in. Going forward though, all the Democratic candidates will only exacerbate the countries problems IMO, and seemingly rely on upping the minimum wage as their only economic policy (which would be utterly disastrous). The Republicans candidates would actually help in correcting a level of our problems by stimulating economic growth and in job creation, but struggle to address income inequality in a way that connects with middle class voters.

Republican candidates will fail to address income inequality point blank. How can you expect low earners to close the gap on top earners when top earners own the businesses who'll record big profits under a GOP President, especially when they'll pay less taxes and low earners will still earn a pittance? It's just not possible to expect the rich to pay low earners more money when they're not forced to.