US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[james0246]

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the upcoming US Presidential, Gubernatorial and Congressional elections in November 2016 (as well as and ballot you might be interested in). The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various candidates, their positions, and the various other positions being voted on across the country. All news and discussion of the upcoming election will be placed in this thread, and once the results are in a possible new thread dedicated to the 115th Congress could be made.

The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming or cyclical posting, try and provide sources when possible, etc), and try not to get too caught up in the News coverage of the elections (i.e., we all know the mainstream media is inherently biased (toward the right and the left), so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various elections). To clarify further, you can post any clips or excerpts you feel will add to this thread (as so long as they are actual news clips and not simply talking heads), but do not get too focused on the source of the information (which is partially irrelevant to the discussion topic)...

I will update this OP with recent information as it is presented (e.g., Presidential Candidiates; various primary results; and then finally Hilary vs...?; etc)

This is the "sequel" to the US Election 2008 thread, US Elections 2012 Part I and US Elections 2012 Part II.
Us Election 2016 Part I. Please visit those threads if you wish to learn how this discussion is held (or visit to read your old posts, and reminisce on happier times .)

---

Current Presidential Candidates:
Democratic Bids: Former Senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb; former Senator and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; former Republican Senator then former Democrat and Independent Governor Lincoln Chafee; former Governor Martin O'Malley; former Representative and current Senator Bernie Sanders; and probably (almost former) Vice-President Joe Biden...so far.

Republican Bids: former Governor Jim Gilmore; former Representative and current Governor John Kasich; Governor Scott Walker; Governor Chris Christie; Governor Bobby Jindal; Donald Trump ("businessman"?); former Governor Jeb Bush; former Governor Rick Perry; current Senator Lindsey Graham; former Governor George Pataki; former Senator Rick Santorum; former Fox News host (and also a former Governor) Mike Huckabee; neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Businesswoman Carly Fiorina; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Rand Paul; Senator Ted Cruz;...so far.

3rd Party/Independent: former Commissioner of Internal Revenue Mark Everson (not declared yet); Jack Fellure (Prohibition Party); Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party); Darryl Cherney...supposedly (Green Party); Robert David Steele (Libertarian); Gloria La Riva (Socialist); James Hedges (Prohibition); Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom); and various - Dan Bilzerian, Zoltan Istvan, Terry Jones, Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame), Vermin Supreme, Ted Williams, Deez Nuts...so far.

And here are the non-Presidential listings for the 2016 elections (as they currently stand by region, specifics will be added later):

2016 House of Representatives elections
2016 Senate elections
and
2016 Gubernatorial elections (technically there are still elections for Governor in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi scheduled for later in 2015).

Also, here is a fun website that details local and federal ballots and initiatives.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Where exactly did Trump advocate violence at his rallies?

Trump says protestors should be hurt; that there need to be consequences for protesting.
Trump responds to question about a protestor being punched, saying that's what we need more of.
Trump saying he'd defend those who attack protesters in court.
If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, 'knock the crap out of them'
Advocating roughing up a BLM protester for being "loud and obnoxious"

Originally Posted by frivolity

Personally, my line of reasoning isn't that "The media said it, so it must be wrong." It's "I will read the actual statements in full context myself and come to my own conclusion." That said, my first response to most articles about Trump is to give him the benefit of the doubt until I see his actual words, because the media is clearly favouring Hillary in this cycle.

There's video of it. You don't need to "read" it. It's very obvious what he's implying.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by GDB

Trump says protestors should be hurt; that there need to be consequences for protesting.
Trump responds to question about a protestor being punched, saying that's what we need more of.
Trump saying he'd defend those who attack protesters in court.
If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, 'knock the crap out of them'
Advocating roughing up a BLM protester for being "loud and obnoxious"

I'll agree on the last two, but the rest were either being sarcastic or were directed at the security folks instead of the audience.

There's video of it. You don't need to "read" it. It's very obvious what he's implying.

Your previous post was accusing others of having the mentality that, "The media said it, so it must be wrong." My point is that I will verify ("read" or "hear") what was actually said and come to my own conclusions rather than simply agreeing with the media's interpretation. I won't dispute the words if there's video evidence, but I will still come up with my own independent interpretation. This, in my view, is what everyone should do regardless of political inclination, because as the saying goes, three men make a tiger.

In this case, I read the full quote and disagree with the media's narrative. He was talking about the second amendment people having sufficient political power to perhaps have a chance to influence the Supreme Court appointments, no matter how small that chance may be. All this talk about supporting assassination is based on a highly contrived interpretation - as contrived as the interpretation that imputes violence into Obama's line long ago about bringing a gun to a knife fight with Republicans.

By the way, what's your opinion on the rest of my previous post:

And let's face it, the Democrat candidates are masters of calling the process rigged (and in actually rigging the process). Hillary's campaign is heavily focused on the so-called glass ceiling that rigs the process against women, Obama's campaign heavily focused on supposed institutional racism against blacks and how electing him would be a massive step towards unwinding it, while Sanders went on and on about how American society is rigged against the poor, though I'll give him a pass since the Democrat primaries were indeed rigged.

[monir]

Originally Posted by frivolity

In this case, I read the full quote and disagree with the media's narrative. He was talking about the second amendment people having sufficient political power to perhaps have a chance to influence the Supreme Court appointments, no matter how small that chance may be. All this talk about supporting assassination is based on a highly contrived interpretation.

I have a slight suspicion that perhaps you are misunderstanding about a how US president appoints a supreme court judge? Perhaps you are not, but just in case:

A president picks a supreme court judge by his or her choice. No one has any say in it. It is one of president's duty as outlined in our constitution.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by monir

I have a slight suspicion that perhaps you are misunderstanding about a how US president appoints a supreme court judge? Perhaps you are not, but just in case:

A president picks a supreme court judge by his or her choice. No one has any say in it. It is one of president's duty as outlined in our constitution.

Nah, I know how it works because it's the same in Australia. High Court judges are also appointed by the prime minister here, but the difference over here is that the Court is actually above politics with judges that are non-partisan.

In the case of the US, Supreme Court judges aren't truly non-partisan, as outlined by the discussion in the previous thread, so political pressure does play a role, though it may be small. Another source of political pressure is that the senate can veto the choice, but this probably isn't relevant since it's currently a Democrat senate.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I planned to write a reply, but stopped after reading the"2003 Iraq invasion started by the US as a reaction to the 9/11 bombings"....

It definitely was one of the reasons. Not the only one yes, but it certainly was there.

Also you have a history of blatantly ignoring other people's posts with an aggressive-condescending attitude based on faulty arguments. Let's not repeat that mistake again.

[monir]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Nah, I know how it works because it's the same in Australia. High Court judges are also appointed by the prime minister here, but the difference over here is that the Court is actually above politics with judges that are non-partisan.

In the case of the US, Supreme Court judges aren't truly non-partisan, as outlined by the discussion in the previous thread, so political pressure does play a role, though it may be small. Another source of political pressure is that the senate can veto the choice, but this probably isn't relevant since it's currently a Democrat senate.

Thanks for clarifying.

To me, this was a statement that should not have been made in such a way because it can be interpreted along those particular thought process. And there are people in this country that will make an attempt to act on certain views and interpretation violently. Not so long ago, when congress made an uproar about the Planned Parenthood after a certain video surfaced, a guy armed with a long gun took it upon himself to seek vengeance for all the dead babies. He managed to kill 3 and injured 9 others.

What Donald Trump meant to say should not have been left for interpretation considering how big of a problem gun-violence has been for this country for so long.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by frivolity

By the way, what's your opinion on the rest of my previous post:

Having the "process" rigged to favor the rich is different from rigging a national election. Rigging the primaries that you have control over and rigging a general election are two different things as well. All the glass ceiling stuff is identity politics, rather than any actual rigging that he's talking about.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

It definitely was one of the reasons. Not the only one yes, but it certainly was there.

Also you have a history of blatantly ignoring other people's posts with an aggressive-condescending attitude based on faulty arguments. Let's not repeat that mistake again.

Holy fuck. You really resort to counter my argument on US politics, by referring to an unrelated debate I made in Kancolle?


There you goes, all of the problem with 2016 US election within one post: lots of completely unrelated character attack to divert audience attention away from the complete void of substances

Originally Posted by GDB

Having the "process" rigged to favor the rich is different from rigging a national election. Rigging the primaries that you have control over and rigging a general election are two different things as well. All the glass ceiling stuff is identity politics, rather than any actual rigging that he's talking about.

What is your opinion over the primary being rigged for Hillary?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

What is your opinion over the primary being rigged for Hillary?

One of many reasons I won't vote for her.

[risingstar3110]

This is what US has turned into btw:

Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated. #DNCLeak

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by frivolity

I'll agree on the last two, but the rest were either being sarcastic or were directed at the security folks instead of the audience

A sarcastic man doesn't sue the ONION over a satire piece and Bill Maher over a joke
~Akuma Kousaka, 2016

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Another source of political pressure is that the senate can veto the choice, but this probably isn't relevant since it's currently a Democrat senate.

Umm, no. The Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2014. If they were controlling the Senate today, Merrick Garland, or perhaps someone to his left, would be sitting on the Supreme Court.

I believe Trump was suggesting armed insurrection, not assassination, especially with his "horrible" comment at the end of his remarks. There's no plausible interpretation of his remarks that indicated it had anything to do with political pressure. Trump made a ridiculous and aggressive comment and was called on it. His campaign and surrogates are just engaged in damage control.

I have mixed reactions to Tom Friedman's columns, but I recommend reading this one about why events like this matter when you're running for President: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/op...nt-people.html

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Umm, no. The Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2014. If they were controlling the Senate today, Merrick Garland, or perhaps someone to his left, would be sitting on the Supreme Court.

I believe Trump was suggesting armed insurrection, not assassination, especially with his "horrible" comment at the end of his remarks. There's no plausible interpretation of his remarks that indicated it had anything to do with political pressure. Trump made a ridiculous and aggressive comment and was called on it. His campaign and surrogates are just engaged in damage control.

I have mixed reactions to Tom Friedman's columns, but I recommend reading this one about why events like this matter when you're running for President: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/op...nt-people.html

I'll have to check the numbers on the senate again, because last I checked, the Democrats in the currently constructed senate can veto a USSC judge nomination. Might have to check again though.

My logic in concluding that Trump was talking about political power is that he specifically said there's something the 2nd amendment people could do, which implied that there was something they could do that the average person couldn't. The only thing that the 2nd amendment group has that others don't is political power.

Interpreting the statement as assassination or armed insurrection doesn't make sense because everyone has access to the same weapons, not just the 2nd amendment group. Had the statement been, "You could use your 2nd amendment rights," or something to that effect, then I would agree with those interpretations.

What I agree with is that Trump should have framed it a different way, and that this statement is one of the many political gaffes that's hurting his campaign.

Originally Posted by GDB

Having the "process" rigged to favor the rich is different from rigging a national election. Rigging the primaries that you have control over and rigging a general election are two different things as well. All the glass ceiling stuff is identity politics, rather than any actual rigging that he's talking about.

My view is that identity politics and Trump's reference to rigging are all the same. They serve two purposes: to try and drum up support; and as an excuse for the losing candidate to blame the system instead of acknowledging his or her own shortcomings in the election.

Of course, carrying out actual rigging of elections is on a whole different level altogether.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by frivolity

My logic in concluding that Trump was talking about political power is that he specifically said there's something the 2nd amendment people could do, which implied that there was something they could do that the average person couldn't. The only thing that the 2nd amendment group has that others don't is political power.

Normal people vote just like Second Amendment People do. Note he didn't say gun lobbyists, he said Second Amendment People. People who have guns and advocate for the Second Amendment have no more political power than anyone else.

Know what they do have? Guns. And he referenced this after saying there'd be nothing you could do about her selections once she's elected. Unless you have guns, then maybe you can do something, he doesn't know.

If he was just calling on political power, why just call out the Second Amendment People? Why not call on all republicans? Or the GOP's old standby of state rights groups?

[monir]

Originally Posted by GDB

If he was just calling on political power, why just call out the Second Amendment People? Why not call on all republicans? Or the GOP's old standby of state rights groups?

Cause he's steadily losing support among the GOP voters as these polls are indicating? Even Georgia and Utah which have not voted Democrat since the mid sixties are now slightly leaning in that direction. If the Democrats had any other candidate, this election would have been called already in favor of the Democrats. It is Hilary's own flaw which is still keeping this race interesting. I was listening to Washington Journal as I was driving home from work and the topic of discussion was based on this particular Trump comment. I couldn't help but laugh at some of the suggestion by some of the callers that perhaps Donald Trump can make this sort of comments because he was/is involved with shady group of people (mafia and such) in his real estate dealings. To those callers, that is one of the many reason Trump will never release his tax return.

Originally Posted by frivolity

I'll have to check the numbers on the senate again, because last I checked, the Democrats in the currently constructed senate can veto a USSC judge nomination. Might have to check again though.

Once a president makes his/her pick a simple majority vote of the Senators present is required for the nomination to be confirmed. If Donald Trump is the president he can get his USSC pick confirmed through the GOP controlled senate without any issue. On the flip side, if Hilary is the president she will face the same obstacle as Obama is facing currently with his pick for the confirmation process. Republican senate majority leader is not even bringing up Obama's pick for a debate let alone held a vote. So yeah, if the Senate majority doesn't change where Republican keeps control for the next 4 years, Hilary can't appoint any Supreme Court Judge even if she is the president of the US.

[Ithekro]

Remember there are Constitutional procedures for any changes to the Constitution, and that includes changing any part of the Bill of Rights (which the Second Amendment is a part of). If the change cannot be made in Congress (that requires two-thirds in both houses to pass), than it has to go to the states and pass three-quarters of them to change the Constitution in that large a manner.

27 out of 33 constitutional amendments have been passed in the last 227 years. It takes a lot of effort and agreement nationwide to change the Constitution, and that is on purpose.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by GDB

Normal people vote just like Second Amendment People do. Note he didn't say gun lobbyists, he said Second Amendment People. People who have guns and advocate for the Second Amendment have no more political power than anyone else.

Know what they do have? Guns. And he referenced this after saying there'd be nothing you could do about her selections once she's elected. Unless you have guns, then maybe you can do something, he doesn't know.

If he was just calling on political power, why just call out the Second Amendment People? Why not call on all republicans? Or the GOP's old standby of state rights groups?

I disagree. Normal people vote like Second Amendment people do, but they do not have the same political influence. On the other hand, owning guns is a right that all Americans have, barring a few exceptions.

If he was indeed talking about armed insurrection, then he would have referred specifically to people who own guns (not all people who support the 2nd amendment have guns, and not all people who are against the 2nd amendment don't have guns), or he would have talked about the actual use of 2nd amendment rights.

The reason why he talked about Second Amendment people is, once again, because this is a group with high political influence who are also very passionate about the cause. He could have talked about state rights groups of course, but they aren't as powerful as the Second Amendment groups in terms of pushing for their cause.

In any case, the point is pretty clear. There are multiple valid ways of interpreting Trump's statement, and the media is - rightly or wrongly - jumping on the interpretation that suits their narrative. I fully agree with the point being made earlier that Trump should have been more explicit with his views instead of letting his words get twisted.

[yulinard]

2nd amendment people? Remind me someone recently who said he was an atheist, a liberal, a progressive but he can't vote for democrat just because 2nd amendment issue.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by frivolity

I disagree. Normal people vote like Second Amendment people do, but they do not have the same political influence. On the other hand, owning guns is a right that all Americans have, barring a few exceptions.

If he was indeed talking about armed insurrection, then he would have referred specifically to people who own guns (not all people who support the 2nd amendment have guns, and not all people who are against the 2nd amendment don't have guns), or he would have talked about the actual use of 2nd amendment rights.

The reason why he talked about Second Amendment people is, once again, because this is a group with high political influence who are also very passionate about the cause. He could have talked about state rights groups of course, but they aren't as powerful as the Second Amendment groups in terms of pushing for their cause.

In any case, the point is pretty clear. There are multiple valid ways of interpreting Trump's statement, and the media is - rightly or wrongly - jumping on the interpretation that suits their narrative. I fully agree with the point being made earlier that Trump should have been more explicit with his views instead of letting his words get twisted.

Someone with a history of advocating war crimes, threatening journalists, lack of reservation on using nuclear weapons, and advocating violence against protesters in his name will not be fudged out of his 2nd Amendment statement from his supporters