2016 US Presidential Election Pt. III

[Diemen]

Continue.

[bono_212]

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ml#post8012211

Nam: Since you live in Ohio, maybe you can help me here, because I've been wondering and need an explanation in simple terms.

Did Kasich really do as much as he says to help with the tremendous debt Ohio was in? Being in a neighbor state, I remember Ohio being in desperate, nearly dire straits for a while there. It does seem like the guy knows a thing or two about economics and making a system work, without taking things away (as you said, you still got health care). So I'm just looking for an inside perspective on that.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ml#post8012295

Ax: I don't think anyone is stopped from running, but as was mentioned, Nixon also ran a second time. The thing is, you can totally put your hat in the race. I just don't see Romney getting the people's votes in the primaries, since, yeah, he already lost once. I think there's a reason you're just hearing people say his name, and not actually seeing him in the ring.







And can I just say, I can't stand hearing people rant about basic civics (Huckabee) and then completely misunderstand how our government works. People who say that the same sex marriage decision created a new law are just about the most daft I've ever seen. It upheld a law. Then you have...Christie? I think it was Christie who was saying he was going to get the Supreme Court in line...that might've been one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Three separate powers. You don't order the Supreme Court around as president...I'm wondering if some of these people honestly know what the president does...


Oh and yeah, on that same topic, Paul schooling Christie on the pot thing, when Christie was banging his fist about states rights not just 10 minutes before .

[LuckyNumber7]

The value of paying of balancing a budget is overrated. For a government, that is.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

You don't order the Supreme Court around as president...I'm wondering if some of these people honestly know what the president does...

they do. most of these people know exactly what a president does. these are not dumb people on the stage. i'd argue that, on paper, Ted Cruz is the smartest -- he certainly has the academic pedigree.

but they know that the voters they are appealing to don't know what a president does. and thus, they pander. they toss out red meat. they tell them what they want to hear.

we get the leaders we deserve. the deep base of the GOP is terrifying to me for many reasons.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

they do. most of these people know exactly what a president does. these are not dumb people on the stage. i'd argue that, on paper, Ted Cruz is the smartest -- he certainly has the academic pedigree.

but they know that the voters they are appealing to don't know what a president does. and thus, they pander. they toss out red meat. they tell them what they want to hear.

we get the leaders we deserve. the deep base of the GOP is terrifying to me for many reasons.

Obviously I'm speaking hyperbolic, I do believe that these people are much better educated than they lead on. And of course Cruz is a genius. How else do you get where you are with a persona so dopey? Yes, they pander and they play on emotions and its upsetting.

But the hypocrisy was so strong last night, I couldn't at least scream about it for a sec.

[bobsaget77]

I was thinking a bit more about the debate last night and I became utterly disturbed. (Long ramble)
When I watch these debates (and politicians in general), there are three main things I focus on.
First, their respect to the other candidates. Fiorina, Trump, Christie show absolutely no respect for anyone else on the stage and are full of vile comments and ego jerking. That banter between Fiorina and Trump where they were jerking off their ego's and credentials really disgusted me. First of all, Trump is clearly more successful, Fiorina was desperate. She was one of the worst (maybe the worst) CEO of any major company in U.S. History. But either way, who freakin cares? That proved to me that both of them will be horrible and divisive leaders.
Moreover, Trump and Fiorina constantly interrupted the other candidates, and in Trump's case, made childish comments and insults. That is totally unnecessary. And Fiorina couldn't shut up at all. Just kept yapping on and on about God knows what. On the other hand, look at Rand Paul and John Kasich. They were both always respectful to the other candidates and didn't constantly interrupt. And sure enough, these happen to be the two candidates with rational foreign policy and they both seek diplomacy. Unlike Fiorina and Trump. Who probably want to start a nuclear holocaust and they both really don't care much about diplomacy.

Secondly, I look at the emotional appeals. On the topic of Planned Parenthood for instance. I am about as pro-life of a person you'll ever meet and I'm disgusted by PP. However, Fiorina attempted to exploit this in many, mostly evangelical, voters. She took this incident and added details that are not true to try and rile up the crowd. Nowhere in the video does it talk about ripping babies out of the womb and chopping them up on a table alive. Whether that happened or not, that has absolutely no place in that setting. But the fact is, that was insanely exaggerated to fire up the crowd. She tried to exploit a horrible situation by grabbing people's emotions and blatantly lying to them. Absolutely sickening. Obviously, Huckabee and some others try to do this as well, but they are completely irrelevant anyway. But that statement by Fiorina was the worst I've ever heard in a GOP debate.
Moreover, he foreign policy stances are just completely insane. She started whipping out all these military details to impress people (congratulations, I guess?). It was pathetic. And how about that great idea to completely ignore Putin and our enemies. Wtf. Thank you Rand Paul and John Kasich (again) for bringing some rational thoughts to the table. War should never be the first option. Ever. But rational thinking doesn't grab people's emotions, and thusly, they will go unrecognized.

Thirdly, I look at policies and hypocritical statements. Obviously, Christie is the king of hypocrisy. He preaches the bill of rights, but violates all of them. Rand Paul needs to lecture him on the constitution. I think actually that Rand has destroyed Christie on the 4th, 7th, 10th, and 14th amendments in both debate so far. Rand's stance on marijuana won't get a big standing O from the crowd, but he was spot on and gave a phenomenal argument. There were practically no rebuttles (expect from Christie, of course. Doesn't really count).
But mostly, I am disturbed by Republican voters and the fact that they are so easily toyed with by people like Fiorina and Trump. They are both clueless buffoons, yet they are currently making up 50% of the polls. When will stupid republicans wake up and realize that guys like Rubio and Kasich are very solid candidates and would give the party some much needed life. But no, they are only going to support the most radical people possible. The constant swings of support between whoever is in the media the most is just sad.
Both parties are becoming more and more radical every election. It's not as evident with the Democrats because they only have 2 real candidates right now and neither are close to moderate or rational.

I'm optimistic that Kasich and Rubio will be there till the end, but until the radicals pull their heads out of the cloud and think rationally, it won't happen.

If you actually read through this whole ramble, you deserve a trophy.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

But mostly, I am disturbed by Republican voters and the fact that they are so easily toyed with

You're not alone on that one.

[BVS]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politi...yaMobileDialog

Trump and his supporters keeping it classy


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BoMac]

__________________

[mikal]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

these are not dumb people on the stage.

Scott Walker is. Otherwise, I'd agree 100%

[LuckyNumber7]

I'd also argue that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are pretty fucking stupid.

Fellows like Jeb Bush and Ben Carson are not stupid by any means.

[Oregoropa]

As the field winnows out I can see some cohesion around Rubio. He is the bridge between the establishment and grassroots. I'm not sure who falters and when. I watched a focus group last night on Kelly File with some serious voters and they seemed more and more impressed with Rubio and Cruz. Trump faded in their eyes as well as Carson.

I'd like to see the next debates with less people involved.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'd also argue that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are pretty fucking stupid.

Fellows like Jeb Bush and Ben Carson are not stupid by any means.

Sometimes I'm a little confused by some of these people. Like, watching Ben Carson's defense of his flat tax proposal at the debate makes it really easy to forget that he's obviously a brilliant medical professional. And Ted Cruz was a star student at Princeton and whatnot.

It's not stupid to be a conservative. There are intelligent defenses of (many aspects of) conservatism. But it seems like candidates whom I would expect to have those smart defenses just often... don't.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by digitize

Sometimes I'm a little confused by some of these people. Like, watching Ben Carson's defense of his flat tax proposal at the debate makes it really easy to forget that he's obviously a brilliant medical professional. And Ted Cruz was a star student at Princeton and whatnot.

It's not stupid to be a conservative. There are intelligent defenses of (many aspects of) conservatism. But it seems like candidates whom I would expect to have those smart defenses just often... don't.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Smart people say stupid things and have stupid ideas.

Stupid people have good reputations and grades.

It's a tossup. An overall look at someone tells the story.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yeah, that's not how a private email server would work. This isn't gmail. It's her own thing. Her level of vulnerability isn't automatically high simply from having a private server.

How does it work ?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

How does it work ?

You get your own server, your own domain, your own certificate/encryption, your own staff knowing the Clintons... it's not like she signed into her hotmail account and sent emails. She had a highly sophisticated system set up in her house. The level of protection it has or had is indicative of the level of security the Clintons provided for it when they set it up/when they maintain it. It could be more secure than a government system. It could be less secure. I don't think anyone has talked about the level of security provided on the system.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I don't think anyone has talked about the level of security provided on the system.

Awhile ago I read that a former State tech employee was privately hired by Mrs. Clinton. Recently he chose to plead the Fifth Amendment.

I wonder if the gentleman could tell us about the secure private server he helped set up and maintain for Secretary of State Clinton.

[LuckyNumber7]

What's your point? It's a matter of what we "don't know" at the moment.

It's not as simple as saying the server was assumed insecure until proven otherwise. There's no assumption to be had. It's a bizarre situation. I'm not defending her... I don't even like her. Objectively speaking, what she did was wrong. But objectively speaking, we have zero gauge for the severity of her actions.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Awhile ago I read that a former State tech employee was privately hired by Mrs. Clinton. Recently he chose to plead the Fifth Amendment.



I wonder if the gentleman could tell us about the secure private server he helped set up and maintain for Secretary of State Clinton.

Were you just some IT guy, would you not also plead the 5th? Regardless of what you'd actually done or had been asked to do.

[Mrs. Garrison]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'd also argue that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are pretty fucking stupid.

Fellows like Jeb Bush and Ben Carson are not stupid by any means.

While i cannot fucking stand Ted Cruz, the man is not stupid by any means. His supporters might be a different story however...

Originally Posted by Bluer White

How does it work ?

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

You get your own server, your own domain, your own certificate/encryption, your own staff knowing the Clintons... it's not like she signed into her hotmail account and sent emails. She had a highly sophisticated system set up in her house. The level of protection it has or had is indicative of the level of security the Clintons provided for it when they set it up/when they maintain it. It could be more secure than a government system. It could be less secure. I don't think anyone has talked about the level of security provided on the system.

The truth is, you don't know, nobody knows...

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Awhile ago I read that a former State tech employee was privately hired by Mrs. Clinton. Recently he chose to plead the Fifth Amendment.

I wonder if the gentleman could tell us about the secure private server he helped set up and maintain for Secretary of State Clinton.

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

What's your point? It's a matter of what we "don't know" at the moment.

It's not as simple as saying the server was assumed insecure until proven otherwise. There's no assumption to be had. It's a bizarre situation. I'm not defending her... I don't even like her. Objectively speaking, what she did was wrong. But objectively speaking, we have zero gauge for the severity of her actions.

Not so fast. I do like her, but the truth is at every level of Govt we are taught the importance of safeguarding classified information. It is one of the things you will hear about constantly. So "if" her system wasn't secure that's a pretty big deal. "If" she was indeed sending classified information from her private server, that's a huge deal, as in she broke laws that normal people would be locked up for a long long time.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Were you just some IT guy, would you not also plead the 5th? Regardless of what you'd actually done or had been asked to do.

Hell yes! I think the people deserve to know the truth though...