Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Better man than Ted Nugent. Better than the Donald Trump and Dick Cheney as well

Sen. Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during Vietnam War - Strange Bedfellows ? Politics News

"Sanders, 73, came out of a background of anti-war and civil rights activism at the University of Chicago, belonging to such groups as the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union.

The Burlington Free Press, in the town where Sanders was mayor, has reported in a profile that his application was eventually turned down, but by that time Sanders was too old to be included in the draft.

The issue came to light over the weekend, when a Hillary Clinton supporter named Steve Wikert wrote in the Des Moines Register: “My question as a Vietnam veteran is: How on earth could a person claiming to be a conscientious objector become Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world?”

Sanders was elected to Congress in 1990 and opposed U.S. military intervention in Gulf War I. “I think we could have gotten Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in a way that didn’t require a war,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

He did, however, support U.S. use of military force in Afghanistan, as part of an allied coalition, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and damaged the Pentagon.

“I believe that the United States should have the strongest military in the world,” he said at the time. “We should be working with other countries in coalition. And when people threaten the United States or threaten our allies, or commit genocide, the United States should be prepared to act militarily.”

The main war issue raised in the Democratic Party, in recent years, was then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2003 vote to authorize the Bush administration to use military force against Iraq, as the administration made untrue assertions that Saddam Hussein was far along in developing weapons of mass destruction.

Sanders drew a crowd of 15,000 to a local rally last month. Seattle was a center of opposition to the Vietnam War — Vice President Hubert Humphrey was relentlessly heckled at a 1968 rally — and saw thousands march between St. Mark’s and St. James cathedrals in protest on the eve of both Gulf Wars. The anti-war protests were the largest in the country.

The two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, did not serve in the military. Clinton became embroiled in controversy early in the 1992 campaign with revelation of measures he took to avoid being drafted into military service during a war he fervently opposed".

Jim Webb declares war on DNC - Minneapolis Conservative | Examiner.com

"Friday, Martin O'Malley said that the DNC was rigging the process in Hillary Clinton's favor before saying that "We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party." That isn't the only eruption during the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis. Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia and now a Democratic presidential candidate, is upset with the DNC, too.

Sen. Webb's spokesman said that "talking to the Democratic National Committee is 'about as useful as sticking one’s hand into a wood chipper.'” Clearly, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doesn't care about remaining neutral. She's made up her mind that she'll do whatever it takes to tip the race in Hillary Clinton's favor.

According to BuzzFeed's reporting, Sen. Webb "didn’t attend the DNC’s summer meeting Friday, partly in protest of the DNC setting up a joint fundraising agreement with his rival Hillary Clinton." Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn't even attempting to appear impartial. She's fine with playing political hardball with candidates like Sen. Webb and Gov. O'Malley because they aren't strong candidates.

Still, Wasserman-Schultz's actions are sending the unmistakable signal that the Democratic Party isn't interested in moderates like Jim Webb. They're signalling that the DNC is only interested in Hillary Clinton's coronation even if she isn't a top tier candidate.

Make no mistake about Hillary Clinton's deficiencies. She's entangled in a pair of ethical scandals that she can't extricate herself from. This week, the Washington Post wrote about Huma Abedin's use of her State Department email address to put together a meeting in Dublin, Ireland. Attending the meeting were past contributors to the Clinton Foundation and to Hillary's presidential campaign. That's in addition to Hillary's Clinton Foundation scandal that's rotten to the core.

These scandals are why she's getting beat by Marco Rubio in the major swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Iowa. Those states have 95 electoral votes. Combine those electoral votes with the base of 199 electoral votes that Republicans always start with and you've got a GOP presidential win with 294 electoral votes".

^ Conscientious objector IMHO puts Sanders in a totally different category than GWB, Cheney, Romney, Clinton, etc.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Then there are her financial backers.

This. Beholden to big business.

This is the reason I voted for Obama in the primaries last go round and will vote for Sanders this time.

However, when it comes to Clinton vs. any of the Republicans from the 2016 clown car, I vote Clinton.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Jim Webb declares war on DNC - Minneapolis Conservative | Examiner.com

"Friday, Martin O'Malley said that the DNC was rigging the process in Hillary Clinton's favor before saying that "We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party." That isn't the only eruption during the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis. Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia and now a Democratic presidential candidate, is upset with the DNC, too.

Sen. Webb's spokesman said that "talking to the Democratic National Committee is 'about as useful as sticking one’s hand into a wood chipper.'” Clearly, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doesn't care about remaining neutral. She's made up her mind that she'll do whatever it takes to tip the race in Hillary Clinton's favor.

According to BuzzFeed's reporting, Sen. Webb "didn’t attend the DNC’s summer meeting Friday, partly in protest of the DNC setting up a joint fundraising agreement with his rival Hillary Clinton." Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn't even attempting to appear impartial.

This is why - at the moment - I am for anyone that is NOT Hillary.

I cannot stand here. She's an elitist who pretends to be a populist, panders to ethnic groups, and is a Neo-Con.

Isn't it a pyrrhic victory if a Dem gets elected president and both houses are in the hands of Republicans?

Originally Posted by panama hat

Isn't it a pyrrhic victory if a Dem gets elected president and both houses are in the hands of Republicans?

No, because it will stop the republitards running amok and giving even more money to their paymasters.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by panama hat

Isn't it a pyrrhic victory if a Dem gets elected president and both houses are in the hands of Republicans?

No, because it will stop the republitards running amok and giving even more money to their paymasters.

Sure, but if the situation continues and the mantra of the neo-cons remains to be as obstructive as possible on any issue then you'll have a stalemate again for the foreseeable future.
Added to which, imagine the invective if Hillary is president . . . the knuckledraggers will have fits

Originally Posted by panama hat

Isn't it a pyrrhic victory if a Dem gets elected president and both houses are in the hands of Republicans?

The Exec and Houses of Congress have been controlled by the 2 different parties and some like it.

It's more common during the Mid-Term elections to have a "split."

As for individual voting I don't think most individual voters think on the large scale when voting for their Congress Critter or Senator.

And, when one party is in control of the Exec and Both Houses they seem to become more out of touch and corrupt.

The Dem control over Congress for 40 years ending with many scandals, a change in 1994 to the Repubs and Speaker Foley losing his election.

Then, after the Rebubs controlled both Houses in the late 2000s, many lost elections after scandal after scandal.

Same circus, just different clowns.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Same circus, just different clowns.

I'd like to think the Liberals would be better but you're probably right

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Same circus, just different clowns.

I'd like to think the Liberals would be better but you're probably right

Both are terribly corrupt.

They are elites, the Exec admin and Senate.

They are a part of the club.

The Congress is a littledifferent when it comes to junior Congressman in many cases. But this does not last long if they stay in office a while.

Originally Posted by misskit

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Then there are her financial backers.

This. Beholden to big business.

This is the reason I voted for Obama in the primaries last go round and will vote for Sanders this time.

However, when it comes to Clinton vs. any of the Republicans from the 2016 clown car, I vote Clinton.

If it does come down to HRC vs any of the Republicans the single most important issue that will sway my vote is ... SCOTUS appointments. Who she picks to be the VP is important to me as well before I can commit.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Conscientious objector IMHO puts Sanders in a totally different category than GWB, Cheney, Romney, Clinton, etc.

Yeah, it means he's honest enough to take a principled stand instead of manipulating the system like so many did.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Conscientious objector IMHO puts Sanders in a totally different category than GWB, Cheney, Romney, Clinton, etc.

Yeah, it means he's honest enough to take a principled stand instead of manipulating the system like so many did.

Absolutely. Much respect to Bernie.

As Trump and Sanders rise, the two major parties fall - LA Times

Does the 2016 presidential campaign seem chaotic? For good or ill, that's because it is. The rise of Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left is proof that the country's two major political parties have lost their grip on the nominating process. They can still provide two guaranteed spots on the ballot, for a self-identified "Republican" and a self-identified "Democrat." But that's pretty much all..

It wasn't too long ago that party bosses picked candidates at the national conventions, in proverbial smoke-filled backrooms. The two parties also controlled everything crucial for winning the presidency: The money needed to fund a campaign, and the organization needed to build support.

Primaries and caucuses of course killed the conventions; for at least 35 years they've been purely ceremonial. The 1976 GOP convention fight in which Ronald Reagan challenged President Ford for the nomination was the last time there was any suspense in the outcome for Republicans. Nothing dramatic has happened at a Democratic National Convention since 1980, when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy sought a change in party rules to open a challenge on the floor to President Carter.

Lately, technological change has disrupted fundraising and networking as surely as the primary system disrupted the conventions.

In the 2004 cycle, Howard Dean stunned the Democratic Party by using the still fairly primitive Internet to demolish the party record for fundraising — set by President Clinton in his 1996 reelection campaign — and communicate with supporters. (I was Dean's campaign manager.)

Yes, Dean failed. But four years later, Barack Obama succeeded using the same techniques: leveraging online fundraising and nascent social media to defeat the Democratic establishment's chosen candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He brought in more money — half a billion dollars from millions of Americans giving less than $100 each online — and attracted more volunteers than any party-backed pol before him.

“None of this is to say that the establishment candidates will lose in 2016, but This campaign season, a combination of small-dollar giving over the Internet and "super PAC" funding is sustaining the largest Republican field in history. Long-shot candidates typically do not leave the field because they are low in the polls; they leave because they can't afford an airplane ticket to the next debate or the next state. But the Republican Party can't cut off Ted Cruz's tea party revenue stream or prevent Rand Paul from soliciting money over Twitter.

The parties can also do nothing to stop disfavored candidates from attracting attention. On the Democratic side, Sanders is a self-avowed democratic-socialist and independent senator from Vermont who has never before run as a Democrat. Running for the Democratic nomination is just the easiest path to a spot on the ballot in the general election. The establishment may not like his style, but, with Internet buzz, who needs an endorsement from party regulars?
Or... People will realize that who the President is has relatively little impact on their day-to-day lives, and that state and local government is where their involvement can make a real difference. And, people will realize in the future that artificial distinctions like race,...
Candidates relying on and playing to the party establishment are failing, while candidates adept at breaking party norms are gaining ground or taking the lead. That's in part because the parties' loss of control over the nominating process has coincided with the decline in their brands. People are almost embarrassed to call themselves Democrats or Republicans, so even candidates avoid party labels and are instead building their own brands.

Brand Sanders is rolling. The Democratic Party couldn't stop his money or kill the energy in his campaign if it tried; and if it did try, it would only help Sanders raise more money and generate even more energy.

Likewise, the master of personal branding, Trump, is dominating the fight for the GOP nomination. The establishment can react in horror when he insults crucial constituencies —

Latinos, women — but his supporters rush to defend him on social media and Trump goes up in the polls. Now Ben Carson is surging, riding word-of-mouth to join Trump as co-front-runner in Iowa.

None of this is to say that the establishment candidates will lose in 2016, but whoever wins won't have the establishment to thank. Jeb Bush or Clinton or whoever will win on the strength of a personal brand. The party brands have run out of steam.

The only thing surprising about this situation is that it seems to have come as such a surprise to party leaders. Somehow they have been blind to how vulnerable they are to insurgents, and even more blind to a successful third-party independent candidacy at some point soon. If any candidate surprises in Iowa or New Hampshire, he or she will have millions of dollars within hours and hundreds of thousands of volunteers signing up within days — and like it or not, that is something the parties can no longer stop.

Some are comparing the 2016 campaign with a circus. This isn't a circus. This is just what it looks like when political parties lose power".

Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails - CNNPolitics.com

"A former State Department employee who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server has informed Congress that he will invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and in response to other Congressional inquiries related to the server.

On Monday, Mark MacDougall, the attorney for former State Department employee Bryan Pagliano, sent a letter to House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy indicating that Pagliano would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on September 10, 2015. A copy of the letter was obtained by CNN.

MacDougall also says that Pagliano would likewise "decline to produce documents that may be responsive to the subpoena." In the letter, MacDougall defends the decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment by expressing concern about "the current political environment" surrounding Clinton's email use.

Pagliano is a former IT staffer who worked for Clinton and assisted with her email and server. On August 11, Gowdy issued a subpoena for his deposition. A Democratic committee source says there was "no debate or vote by the select committee" about the decision to issue Pagliano subpoena.

Responding to additional requests regarding Clinton's private server from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's staff, Pagliano's legal counsel also said yesterday that "he would plead the 5th to any and all questions if he were compelled to testify" before the Judiciary Committee, according to a spokesman for the senator.

Benghazi panel set to grill top Clinton aides

In a letter to Democratic members of the Select Committee on Benghazi defending Pagliano's decision, Democratic committee staff wrote "Despite the lack of any evidence of criminal activity, it is understandable that attorneys for Mr. Pagliano have advised him to assert his Congressional right not to testify given the onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct the continue to be made by many Republicans."

The staff noted that "Although some commentators may use the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege to assert that a criminal investigation may now be underway, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not imply the existence of a criminal investigation."

Additionally, the Democratic committee staff cited multiple statements from Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress implying the existence of criminal activity or a criminal investigation as proof of the "current political environment" referenced in Pagliano's letter. Thus far, no criminal investigations or criminal charges have been brought against Clinton over the private server.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Democratic ranking member on the Select Committee, also issued a statement defending of Pagliano's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, saying, "Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness' attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, Members of Congress, and others based on false leaks about the investigation."

Cummings added, "Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious Congressional effort."

The Select Committee is also set to interrogate two of Clinton's top aides from her time as Secretary of State this week: former chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills on Thursday, and former top aide Jake Sullivan on Friday. Questions are expected about the server and internal communications between Clinton's staff".

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails - CNNPolitics.com

"A former State Department employee who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server has informed Congress that he will invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and in response to other Congressional inquiries related to the server.".

Gowdy knows there is an FBI investigation underway. This is just more redneck showboating in the kangaroo court.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Some are comparing the 2016 campaign with a circus. This isn't a circus. This is just what it looks like when political parties lose power".

Correction: Many are comparing the 2016 Republican campaign to a circus, primarily because of the 17 clowns participating.

Now a Hillary Aide Also Claims He Doesn't Know What the Words "Wipe a Server" Mean.



Do these people really believe their own shit?

I'm not sure why you find that so surprising. You yourself constantly display a lack of understanding of words and terms you use.

Would you know how to wipe a server Booners?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Nice hit piece. Actually, it's very bad.

And a LIE.

There won't be any repeals of federal gun laws and you know this.

And he would not try to repeal them. And, he if tried it would not work.


You cherry picked a generic political statement (which I think he is BSing on) and then you (the video) applied to to a hypothetical things (repeal) that will NEVER happen.

Bullsh*t.