nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

[Deleted User]

It would appear that Hilliary Clinton will be the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016, but the potential Republican candidates are so many it's beginning to look like a horse race. As soon as the November 2014 mid-terms are over the candidates will start officially declaring and the race will begin.

Ran across a GOP 2016 Presidential Straw Poll that had 32 possible candidates, which seemed too many to me.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a moderate, has been successfully fundraising, and if he can overcome Bridgegate, may be one of the GOP front runners. He will definitely run in 2016.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a conservative, has the well known Bush family name with 2 former US presidents, but also the GW Bush Great Recessionary image problem (as well as having launched the 2 longest wars in US history). He may run, or he may sit this one out.

I cannot believe that this straw poll includes Sarah Palin, former half-term resigned Governor of Alaska and 2008 VP candidate. She now has her own cable show, and seems to draw a lot of Tea Party voters when she makes public appearances. I think she will drop hints that she's running, but at the last minute not appear.

The only straw poll candidate that looks interesting to me is South Dakota Senator John Thune. He defeated former Senator Tom Daschle (Democrat), who had been both minority and majority party whip in the US Senate. He is a conservative, and has a reputation for being honest (which may be a rare quality in today's Senate). According to the Huff Post he is not running in 2016.

Who do you think will declare presidential candidacy in 2016, for either the Republicans or Democrats? And if you be bold (or psychic), who do you think will win and why?

There have been several mod warnings on this thread about the quality of posting. This will be the final one. Posts which are newsdumps, smileys and pithy one liners will be deleted and their authors may face further mod action.

Thanks,
The Politics mods.

Find more posts tagged with

usa

hillary clinton

jeb bush

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Billy86 wrote: »

I believe so, yes.

But Bill Clinton is not the one running for president, or the one accused of repeatedly raping a 13 year old girl. Makes you wonder what else Trump has been getting up to behind the scenes if this is only getting out now...

Yea I know Bill is not running, but his wife is and its hardly in the interest of anyone backing her to bring up Epstein now is it ?.

As for what else has Trump been up to that's a good question, but if there is anything to it it had better come out soon so the GOP can get an plan B in place.

[Deleted User]

RobertKK wrote: »

FBI say Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" but they don't think she intended to violate law.
Looks like she broke the law but will get away with it.

Donald Trump's campaign sent multiple emails to foreign MPs in several countries soliciting monies for his 2016 presidential campaign. Official complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission, but it now appears that "they don't think [he] intended to violate the law. Looks like [he allegedly] broke the law but will get away with it."

RobertKK

Greg Gutfeld made a funny comment on Fox News in regards to the Clintons and the issues that follow them around, summed up as - Hillary's emails and Bill's females.
Strange that there were multiple servers involved and the servers had information deleted and the hard drives cleaned to make anything unrecoverable.
The FBI also said Hillary Clinton should have known better.
FBI said they will never know if her emails were hacked, and her emails were less secure than using gmail.

RobertKK

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump's campaign sent multiple emails to foreign MPs in several countries soliciting monies for his 2016 presidential campaign. Official complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission, but it now appears that "they don't think [he] intended to violate the law. Looks like [he allegedly] broke the law but will get away with it."

Maybe they didn't want to open a can of worms given Jordan's official news agency reported they were told by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia they they are funding Hillary Clinton's campaign.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

problem is what Jordan's official news agency, Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States. As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Greg Gutfeld made a funny comment on Fox News in regards to the Clintons...

I like how Fox News creates its own stories for its loyal listeners who will lap it up unquestioningly.

Inflate a minor issue into a massive scandal and then feign outrage when the victim "gets away with it".

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

...given Jordan's official news agency reported they were told by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia...

Okay... so a US conspiracy site is reporting that a Saudi Crown Prince has told a Jordanian news agency that a saudi arabian has given money to the clintons?

But its completely untraceable and there's no other evidence for it?

And presumably the fact that no reputable news source is touching the story means "the clintons" are getting away with it again?

At some point trump is going to have to start arguing actual policies. This is getting childish.

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

I like how Fox News creates its own stories for its loyal listeners who will lap it up unquestioningly.

Inflate a minor issue into a massive scandal and then feign outrage when the victim "gets away with it".

I hadn't watched Fox news in months, usually watch CNN.
The problem is all the news agencies have said Clinton lied when she was going around saying no classified information was in her emails.

Hillary has not come out well from all of this.

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

Okay... so a US conspiracy site is reporting that a Saudi Crown Prince has told a Jordanian news agency that a saudi arabian has given money to the clintons?

But its completely untraceable and there's no other evidence for it?

And presumably the fact that no reputable news source is touching the story means "the clintons" are getting away with it again?

At some point trump is going to have to start arguing actual policies. This is getting childish.

It is not a conspiracy website.

[Deleted User]

InTheTrees wrote: »

At some point trump is going to have to start arguing actual policies.

When Trump read his "incoherent speech on foreign policy" from the teleprompter last April, he almost put his audience to sleep. Trump will not talk substance, because he is really not qualified having ZERO experience in governance and diplomacy; and furthermore, his base doesn't want to hear it. Rather, they want to be entertained by their Celebrity Apprentice President.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

The emboldened clearly contradicts what you stated though. Her request was denied 1 month into her tenure as secretary so her actions with regard to security had nothing to do with her request being turned down.

It has been reported that she often used her private server when an urgent reply was needed so I won't be dropping that argument.

At the end of the day she was following standard practice. And at the end of the day it's clear that your problem isn't with what Clinton did but with the fact that Clinton did it. Any unbiased observer realises that this is nothing more than an overblown Republican witch-hunt which is why the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton.

Hilarious. She was denied a request for a personal phone to use to read emails. She turned down the offered laptop/ desktop. So, deciding that rules don't apply to her, she set up her own unsecured email server and went about doing whatever she pleased, rules be-damned. If there was an Olympic category for mental gymnastics, Clinton's apologists would be sure to medal.

"Urgent reply" Was Jack Bauer on the other end, world hanging in the balance? The fact that you state this flagrant disregard for the rules is/was standard practice tells you everything you need to know about how Clinton ran the DoS. I've stated multiple times that any individual exhibiting such behavior should be punished, as it poses a risk to national security and ultimately, peoples lives.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yea I know Bill is not running, but his wife is and its hardly in the interest of anyone backing her to bring up Epstein now is it ?.

As for what else has Trump been up to that's a good question, but if there is anything to it it had better come out soon so the GOP can get an plan B in place.

One candidate is married to a person who had an excellent term in the presidency, and has links to Epstein who was a very prominent person when said husband was president.

The other is accused of repeatedly raping a child and threatening to have her killed if she ever told. His connections with Epstein include admitting he knew Epstein 'liked them young', Epstein saying he and Trump hung out but pleading the fifth when asked if that was around underage girls, the two being subpoenaed for Epstein sex rings together, and Epstein recruiting from Trumps own underage staff members.

It's clear who this is most damaging to, so if the media are not reporting in it... who are they protecting? That's right, the man they supposedly hate - the alleged PAEDOPHILE RAPIST that is Donald Trump.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary has not come out well from all of this.

Weighed up against a guy facing charges and allegations of FRAUD and PAEDOPHILIC RAPE PLUS DEATH THREATS, the only people who will see Clinton in a worse light over her emails were never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to vote for her anyway.

[Deleted User]

Billy86 wrote: »

One candidate is married to a person who had an excellent term in the presidency, and has links to Epstein who was a very prominent person when said husband was president.

The other is accused of repeatedly raping a child and threatening to have her killed if she ever told. His connections with Epstein include admitting he knew Epstein 'liked them young', Epstein saying he and Trump hung out but pleading the fifth when asked if that was around underage girls, the two being subpoenaed for Epstein sex rings together, and Epstein recruiting from Trumps own underage staff members.

It's clear who this is most damaging to, so if the media are not reporting in it... who are they protecting? That's right, the man they supposedly hate - the alleged PAEDOPHILE RAPIST that is Donald Trump.

But can you not see how Hillary backers would be reluctant to make a big deal of it ?

Hillary is already under attack for "facilitating" Bill when it comes to affairs and alleged sexual assaults and the treatment of the women involved, the last thing they need is people looking into his relationship with Epstein.

Even though bringing up Epstein may hurt Trump, it may not help Hillary either.

[Deleted User]

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Even though bringing up Epstein may hurt Trump, it may not help Hillary either.

How low can this race for 2016 president go? It seems that as 8 November draws nearer, lower levels continue to be reached. It's in the sewer now, so how can the US presidency ever wash itself clean to where the office commands respect domestically and overseas by the 20 January 2017 inauguration?

TheDoctor

Into the final four months, the end is almost in sight........

[Deleted User]

Billy86 wrote: »

Here is another image made by the person who tweeted the picture of Clinton with a Star of David while linking her with money and corruption, that Trump's campaign retweeted. Clearly this is not a Swastika, and instead is just a Japanese throwing star, right?

It's open and shut that the Star of David was a racist image.

Sorry, what is meant to be conveyed by that?
Is it that Hillary is a Nazi and that's a good thing? Or that she's a Nazi and it's a bad thing.
If it's the latter then why would a right-wing anti-Semite dislike her for being a Nazi?
If it's the former then why would they use a Star of David to suggest corruption when they think she's a Nazi and like her for it?

TheDoctor

Bonehead seems an apt Twitter handle

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, what is meant to be conveyed by that?
Is it that Hillary is a Nazi and that's a good thing? Or that she's a Nazi and it's a bad thing.
If it's the latter then why would a right-wing anti-Semite dislike her for being a Nazi?
If it's the former then why would they use a Star of David to suggest corruption when they think she's a Nazi and like her for it?

It's a desperate anything-and-everything attempt to vilify her, facts and any form of reason be damned. Just like how Obama was a godless communist... who was also a Muslim extremist fascist... all at the same time!

It's what happens when you push and promote ignorance and decry knowledge as 'elitism' that the common man should take no part in, which has turned into the modus operandi for so many Republicans (hence the absolute hatred of talking about policy among almost all Trump fans), which in plays no small part is why the Republican messaging system has been so incoherent for several election cycles.

Mr Freeze

Billy86 wrote: »

Donald Trump Accused of Repeated Child Rape in 1990s on 13 Year Old Girl.

That is the last thing I expected to see during the campaign. Yikes.

I've only seen it mentioned here though, its not on any major news network so is there much to this at all?

Billy86

Mr Freeze wrote: »

That is the last thing I expected to see during the campaign. Yikes.

I've only seen it mentioned here though, its not on any major news network so is there much to this at all?

You do have to wonder, but the further evidence about how close the two were, how Trump had stated he knew Epstein 'liked them young', how Epstein testified that the two did hang out together in court but immediately plead the fifth when asked if this was in the presence of underage young girls, that both were subpoenaed together in relation to Epstein's paedophile sex rings, and that Epstein was recruiting underage girls from Trump's own businesses... it's doesn't bode well for him.

Given some of the tenuous, trivial stuff that the media has picked up on and run with in this campaign cycle and how much they supposedly 'hate' Trump, it is curious that they seem almost eager not to touch this one. Almost as if Trump, a huge media figure with a lot of connections and sway, isn't the perennial victim of the media that his fans are so desperately eager to paint him (and quite often, themselves) to be.

He is however quite possibly a paedophile child rapist.

Mr Freeze

Billy86 wrote: »

He is however quite possibly a paedophile child rapist.

I just think if there was any weight to this story that the media would all jump on it, maybe its early days yet.

[Deleted User]

Billy86 wrote: »

You do have to wonder, but the further evidence about how close the two were, how Trump had stated he knew Epstein 'liked them young', how Epstein testified that the two did hang out together in court but immediately plead the fifth when asked if this was in the presence of underage young girls, that both were subpoenaed together in relation to Epstein's paedophile sex rings, and that Epstein was recruiting underage girls from Trump's own businesses... it's doesn't bode well for him.

Given some of the tenuous, trivial stuff that the media has picked up on and run with in this campaign cycle and how much they supposedly 'hate' Trump, it is curious that they seem almost eager not to touch this one. Almost as if Trump, a huge media figure with a lot of connections and sway, isn't the perennial victim of the media that his fans are so desperately eager to paint him (and quite often, themselves) to be.

He is however quite possibly a paedophile child rapist.

You still don't believe that the media that "supposedly 'hate' Trump" (your words) are avoiding this is because the husband of the candidate they support also has a history with Epstein ?

Bringing up Trumps relationship with Epstein does not help Clinton because Bill Clinton also has a relationship with Epstein.

And arguing that Bill is not running of president and therefore its not relevant will not wash.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You still don't believe that the media that "supposedly 'hate' Trump" (your words) are avoiding this is because the husband of the candidate they support also has a history with Epstein ?

Bringing up Trumps relationship with Epstein does not help Clinton because Bill Clinton also has a relationship with Epstein.

And arguing that Bill is not running of president and therefore its not relevant will not wash.

No, the media supposedly hating Trump is actually one of the favourite mantras of Trump's fans.

And again, Clinton is not the one who may have repeatedly raped a 13 year old girl and threatened her life if she told anyone. That's the real story in this, the connection to Epstein is just further damning evidence that it very well could be true.

[Deleted User]

Billy86 wrote: »

No, the media supposedly hating Trump is actually one of the favourite mantras of Trump's fans.

And again, Clinton is not the one who may have repeatedly raped a 13 year old girl and threatened her life if she told anyone. That's the real story in this, the connection to Epstein is just further damning evidence that it very well could be true.

Thinking ahead
The reports are true and Trump pulls out.

A new GOP candidate if found.

New candidate goes after Hillary based on her husband's relationship with Epstein and all the other "facilitating" of Bill's activities through out the years while telling women that they should never be afraid to report sexual abuse.

Back to today
That's why this story does not have much traction, it hurts Hillary, you obviously are ignoring that but that's the reality.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thinking ahead
The reports are true and Trump pulls out.

A new GOP candidate if found.

New candidate goes after Hillary based on her husband's relationship with Epstein and all the other "facilitating" of Bill's activities through out the years while telling women that they should never be afraid to report sexual abuse.

Back to today
That's why this story does not have much traction, it hurts Hillary, you obviously are ignoring that but that's the reality.

The thing is, Clinton does not appear to have any incriminating relationship to him. Unlike Trump.

It would wash away like all the other desperate attempts to pin something on the Clintons, that's the problem with the GOPs strategy - they've cried wolf so often over Bill at this stage that the wider population have more or less just stopped listening. Clinton is not being accused of repeatedly raping a 13 year old child, which Trump may well have, and as best I know was not saying he knew Epstein was a paedophile before it was found out, nor does Epstein appear to have been hanging out with Clinton in the presence of underage girls. It's a big, big difference.

Beyond that, the GOP has nobody else electable outside of maybe kasich, but not a hope they'd put him up before Cruz. Ideology over pragmatism, and all that.

K-9

Mr Freeze wrote: »

That is the last thing I expected to see during the campaign. Yikes.

I've only seen it mentioned here though, its not on any major news network so is there much to this at all?

Well I knew dirt would be dug up on Trump, not quite that much but the Democrats would go through his life with a fine tooth comb! Said it myself a few times but it was dismissed by Trump sympathisers.

The Koch Bros. has groups that investigate Democratic opponents and the Democrats the same. This could be more a warning shot than anything else, go hard on Bill's sexual scandals and we've plenty of stuff to throw back at Trump, result both sides leave well alone.

[Deleted User]

K-9 wrote: »

This could be more a warning shot than anything else, go hard on Bill's sexual scandals and we've plenty of stuff to throw back at Trump, result both sides leave well alone.

This sounds like the Cold War strategy that existed between USA and CCCP (USSR), where both had plenty of weapons of mass destruction stockpiled, and if one launches, the other will launch, and there will be no winners, just total destruction of all. They called this mutual deterrence, which, by analogy may apply to using the Sex Bombs by either the side in this 2016 presidential election (i.e., Donald Trump's alleged past sexual behavior, or in like manner Bill Clinton's, and thereby condemning Hillary by association).

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

This sounds like the Cold War strategy that existed between USA and CCCP (USSR), where both had plenty of weapons of mass destruction stockpiled, and if one launches, the other will launch, and there will be no winners, just total destruction of all. They called this mutual deterrence, which, by analogy may apply to using the Sex Bombs by either the side in this 2016 presidential election (i.e., Donald Trump's alleged past sexual behavior, or in like manner Bill Clinton's, and thereby condemning Hillary by association).

Anyone got the launch keys so? Doesn't sound like a bad prospect, given the deplorable nature of both candidates.

[Deleted User]

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Anyone got the launch keys so? Doesn't sound like a bad prospect, given the deplorable nature of both candidates.

Continuing this analogy. Given the poor quality of Democratic and Republican candidates that began this presidential race last summer 2015, destroying the 2 remaining survivors with "Sex Bombs," and replacing them with earlier surrogates would not be a quick fix in the time that remains between now and 8 November 2016. What is needed is a complete disc wipe, and the installing of a totally new political system in America; not reinstalling the dysfunctional and corrupted 2-party system that national founder and 2nd president John Adams warned Americans about. Of course, that's not going to happen, and to abuse the meaning of the original statement by cliché: "the more things change the more they stay the same" in the American political system, no matter what is proclaimed by whom from their blustering political pulpit.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

Continuing this analogy. Given the poor quality of Democratic and Republican candidates that began this presidential race last summer 2015, destroying the 2 remaining survivors with "Sex Bombs," and replacing them with earlier surrogates would not be a quick fix in the time that remains between now and 8 November 2016. What is needed is a complete disc wipe, and the installing of a totally new political system in America; not reinstalling the dysfunctional and corrupted 2-party system that national founder and 2nd president John Adams warned Americans about. Of course, that's not going to happen, and to abuse the meaning of the original statement by cliché: "the more things change the more they stay the same" in the American political system, no matter what is proclaimed by whom from their blustering political pulpit.

Nothing will change without starting by eliminating private political donations. That and term limits for all branches of government.