Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

It's really sad. His fear of China aside, he was probably the only non-cringe inducing candidate for the Democrats.

To me, he's always seemed like an Eisenhower-era Republican.

Well I'd like to give the liberal media and establishment democrats the middle salute. If you paid close attention to the benghazi hearings it is now widely known hillary clinton knew this was a premeditated terrorist attack from the beginning but lied and said it was about a video so obama could get re-elected. If they had admitted to terrorism he wouldn't have. They let four people die. Literally the only person to report this is Megyn Kelly though. This is just complete bullshit. A criminal is gonna be our next president. Not a socialist or a real estate developer, a fucking criminal. Do those voters need to take the red pill? This makes watergate look like petty theft. Nobody cares though.

Mind giving me a direct quotation from Clinton? All I can find is one saying that others were calling it that (not her saying that it was, just that that's what others are saying).

Obviously the anti christ hillary isn't going to confess so they had to find out through her emails. But like I said only Megyn Kelly reported it.

That's not what I meant. I know about the e-mail, I'm just wondering if she herself actually ever said, straight up, that it was a spontaneous attack?

Did you watch the video? In her email she called it terrorism but she told the public it was a protest because of a video.

So since making a separate thread for specific political opinions is off-limits so long as this thread exists because mods say so:

What are your specific opinions of individual presidential candidates?

Hillary Clinton seems like a wax-figure establishment candidate with no intention to seriously grow beyond what Obama already has done.

Bernie Sanders seems like he wants to change things greatly and would most aggressively attempt to improve things for middle/lower class people.

Donald Trump is turning people into angry idiots and could potentially lead the whole party to ruination if he gains enough influence.

Hillary is a blatant criminal. She should pull out and flee to Brazil while she has the chance.

Trump is an independent populist running for a Republican ticket with big ideas that are unlikely to get past Congress, but would benefit the country if they were implemented correctly.

Bernie is the liberal populist with big ideas that are unlikely to get past Congress, but would actually destroy what's left of the economy if implemented.

The more Ben Carson speaks the more craycray he seems. Not like liberal crazy or conservative crazy, like insane in the membrane straight cray.

Ditto Cruz although Cruz at least has some political experience thus can put his crazy into context.

Rubio is the establishment's last chance because Jeb is going down fast.

And Jeb, while somewhat more moderate than his family, is still your standard mold Republican.

> Implying Donald Trump doesn't want to improve things for the middle/lower class.

No, I didn't. I got the relevant part of the transcript of the video from Breitbart. What I'm asking is when and what did she say in the first place? Where's the quotation of her saying it was definitely a spontaneous attack?

I like Rubio. I differ from Republicans on a lot of issues, but he's one I wouldn't be too dissapointed with being president.
I don't like Carson, Trump, or Fiorina simply because of their lack of experience. I'm sorry, I can't approve of someone with no political experience having the highest office in the nation.
Cruz is a little…. nuts for me, I think. I haven't looked into him nearly as much as the others though.
Rand Paul matches my views closest, although it's still a ways off.
Jeb – no thank you.
Hillary – Ew. No.
Bernie… at least he's genuine.

She said it in 2012 right after it happened.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/sec-clinton-attack-benghazi-shock-people-faiths-17217956
About seven minutes in.

Here she talks about it too.

Ę̭͍̪p̠̞̍ͪy͎̹ͅc̱͔͗̍ W̼̯͉̐͞y̛̦̦nͧͪ̍ said:

What are your specific opinions of individual presidential candidates?

Trump: a blowhard who would make a Buchanan-tier President. He has no diplomatic skills, resorts to petty insults, and can't successfully run a business. I'll probably go full Libertarian and possibly screw over SCOTUS if he gets the nomination.

Cruz: the establishment warhawk who wants the US to be Interpol. Would continue to horribly bloat our defense budget while infrastructure continues to rot and Social Security/Medicare slowly kill us from the inside out.

Carson: 7/10 would vote for. Not the best candidate out there, with his soft spoken demeanor and no political experience that could be bad for diplomacy, but he's still not bad.

Cristie: the NSA did nothing wrong. Like Cruz and Trump had a morbidly obese baby. Then there's all that New Jersey corruption and closet skellingtons. Would probably not vote for but he's so low in the polls I don't have to worry.

Paul: the guy I really want to vote for. His conservative/libertarian view gel quite nicely with mine. It'd be nice if he had waited till next election to build up a little more experience and power base, but it'll be a good dry run for the future. Sadly, the Republican Party Establsihment is firmly entrecnhed, so it's a pipe dream he'll actually get in. Maybe in a decade when the Libertarians have built up their support enough.

Bush III: whatever possible boast he might give the Latino vote, he's wooden and lifeless. Nothing but the stereotypical politician all the billionaires are rooting for. They had their chance with Romney in 2012 and look how well that turned out.

Rubio: sort of Cruz-lite. Still on the defense spending side of the party, but not as severely. Would vote for if nominated. I think his minority appeal makes him a much better VP candidate, though.

Fiorina: she didn't seem to run HP incredibly well, so that works against her, but I haven't seen anything from her that would make me throw away my vote.

Kasich: honestly, probably one of the better candidates. He's got some experience, seems to not make wild promises to voters, and has a sensibility to him that could lend itself to bipartisanship. I'd not be at all upset if he became the nominee.

Clinton II: horseshoe theory in action. She's like a warhawk Republican, only spouts some populist liberal rhetoric every few speeches to try and appeal the left's votes. She's like a sail, constantly shifting and changing her "strongly held views" in the direction the voting winds blow. She'll do more to disillusion Democratic voters than a dozen Republican presidencies in a row would.

Sanders: the liberal version of Ron Paul. All the young, enthusiastic voters flock to him and will quickly be stomped under the party establishment's boot. He rails on big money and inequality so much I wonder if there's anything else to his platform. His socialism democratic socialism runs 180 degrees to my views of government. He's very passionate, though. Which is more than you could say about a lot of politicians.

Every other candidate: literally who?

ProfessorRivers said:

Where’s the quotation of her saying it was definitely a spontaneous attack?

UN Ambassador Rice was the one to specifically kick that off,

…what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where…

Clinton did bring up the "Islam video" excuse in a press statement she released shortly after the attack, which strangely, has since been deleted from the State Department's site,

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney then doubled down on the video excuse,

The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive.

Can't find anything where she, specifically, states it was a spontaneous attack, but it was definitely the running commentary of the State Department and Obama Administration immediately following the attack.

@Bateman The ABC video, according to the transcript below, says, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest. That took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday. As a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Specifically, Cairo in that. It won't let me skip forward on the video for some reason, but I'm assuming the transcript is right as "Benghazi" and "Cairo" are very, very different sounding. The second video doesn't mention any specific attack, but multiple, nonspecific protests. Neither of these are very strong evidence to say that she specifically believed Benghazi was a spontaneous attack.
@xTSG Thanks, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. Susan Rice (the one who made that quote) is an ambassador, and thus under the Secretary of State, so that's the closest we have to actual evidence Clinton believed that it was spontaneous. I'm thinking however she pulled a politician and purposely avoided a direct quotation (it does seem odd we can't find anything). That doesn't mean she's impeachable under the current evidence, I don't think.
Also, it's nice to see another (truly) small-government believer here.

Adding on a few other candidates I missed:
O'Malley: As SNL pointed out, he did such a good job in Baltimore they made two shows about Baltimore – Homicide and The Wire. So no thank you, even apart from his political views.
Christie: Any candidate that supports what the NSA has and is doing is off my list of acceptable candidates.
Kasich: I kinda like him, but that whole thing where he was very condescending to students really sets me off.
Huckabee: Wayyyy too much of a neocon for my tastes.
I think I got them all this time…

xTSGx said:

Trump: a blowhard who would make a Buchanan-tier President.

In further testament to how literally insane Carson is, he now has a 14 point lead on Trump in Iowa.

Donald Trump pans Iowa poll, says Carson 'super low-energy' Carson's popularity in Iowa seems to be because he is very popular with evangelicals.

Carson responds to Trump, says he was 'volatile' as a teen He gave an interview where he talked about his teenage years, saying he "would go after people with rocks and bricks and hammers" and tried to stab a friend once.

Who is winning the lisalombs primary tho?

Judging by her previous comments, I'd say Rubio, but I'm not her.

bruh my vote is fucked since Walker dropped out, I have no idea at this point. I'm just going to keep watching the debates and attending campaign stops here. I'm considering trying to get off work to go see Trump on Thursday, I want to see how he talks to a smaller crowd (especially since he specifically chose to stop in Sparks, it's not exactly the UNR campus/casino stageshow that the other candidates who have stopped in Reno put on). I was just off two days last week with strep though and I need to pay my rent.

but yeah I'm now officially a swing vote.

There's still time to cleanse yourself of your sins and feel the bern.

rip Walker, he would have been a solid nominee. Kasich and Rubio seem like the most electable Republicans now IMO. Conservatives don't seem to like Kasich though.

Most GOP voters think Trump is the most electable, which blows my mind since he is extremely unpopular with most Latino voters.

I don't think electable to them means "best chance of winning the presidency", rather he is most electable "to them".

Some are saying Rubio has the best chance of getting the nomination so far (34% is what one group gave, if I remember correctly), and he seems to be a fairly regular Republican with no major places to attack at, as far as I'm aware. Kasich seems to be weak so far, but he's ever so slightly more moderate than average, so if he or Bush could pull ahead in these next few months they could also be strong options.
Question, what are the differences between Rubio and Walker that makes you not instantly jump to Rubio?

Clinton: "Its just when women talk, some people think we're shouting"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRhz45B5omk

I wouldn't mind Hillary so much if she wasn't so sexist herself. She plays the "i'm a woman" and "sexist" card constantly.

Oh, and her supporters are equally as sexist
13% of her supporters support her simply for being female.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/281213317/Cbs-Nyt-Poll-Dem-Toplines-9-15-15

She needs to stop acting like her gender is such a big deal when its not.

Rubio is less likely to run a semi-moderate 10th Amendment campaign. Walker passed an abortion term limit I find reasonable, Rubio wants to overturn RvW. Walker is open to conservation-oriented environmental policy, Rubio doesn't even want to invest in solar. Abortion is a key issue for me because Rubio would be crucified in a Presidential debate, where Walker can argue he put together a compromise. All we need is Hillary to get up there and start raving about all the babies she wants to kill while Rubio goes on some religious life rant, I would literally drown myself in whatever I was drinking at the time.

Very good reasons, imo. I, personally, think he has the best chance at getting elected (both in the primary and general) and isn't a half-bad option.

She plays the "i'm a woman" and "sexist" card constantly.

I hated how she did that in the Democratic Debate. What in the world? Just being a woman doesn't make you different from Obama, and you are not an outsider because of it.

No major places to attack at… Unless you're a staunch conservative. Rubio currently seems to be a "Democrat's Republican"; on the conservative forums I frequent, though, he's universally panned for being a part of the Gang of Eight. Donald Trump has made immigration the #1 issue of 2016 and Rubio's record marks him as an anti-Trump to a lot of conservatives. I witnessed Rubio going from "possible VP choice" to "literally unelectable" in the eyes of a lot of conservatives in the past few months.

Ę̭͍̪p̠̞̍ͪy͎̹ͅc̱͔͗̍ W̼̯͉̐͞y̛̦̦nͧͪ̍ said:

James Buchanan or Pat Buchanan?

James Buchanan. The literal worst President in history. Anyone who says otherwise is being hyperbolic since no other President sat on his hands while the nation imploded in on itself.

{ No major places to attack at… Unless you’re a staunch conservative. Rubio currently seems to be a “Democrat’s Republican” }

In what way is the GOP establishment's last hope, who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, the "Democrat's Republican"? His foreign policy is the only thing moderate about him, which mostly comes as immigration reform.

I didn't say that :u

Don't attribute things I said to Epyc Wyn. Also Carter did the same thing with the Iran hostage crisis and Hoover during the great depression. And don't even get me started on Andrew Johnson.(Though I'm not defending James Buchanan. Except his hair. Also Trump is only a candidate, you can't say he's not going to do anything.)

I mentioned that Trump has turned immigration into the GOP's #1 issue for 2016 for a reason, didn't I? Entire campaigns have ended because of it – Walker's Canadian wall gaffe was likely one of the things that cost him his Presidential run.

One position doesn't make someone the opposite party's ideal though, literally all of his other views are "staunchly conservative" and beyond.

Walker couldn't generate moderate conservative support because they're all on Trump's bandwagon. Walker is too willing to compromise on social issues for the evangelical right, so moderates and borderliners are all he had. If Trump wasn't running Walker would be in his polling position, which is where he was before Trump took center stage.

+ such a minor "gaffe" would never derail a campaign. See: PolitiFact's In Context coverage of the interview

That implies that strongly conservative media and voters tend to care about his other views, though. Almost every Freeper thread and Breitbart article published about Rubio since Trump declared has been about his stance on immigration; those that weren't were turned into immigration discussions as a result of the comments section. EDIT: Convenient example, published a day ago. Note what I said about Rubio being painted as an anti-Trump to hardcore conservatives.

I never implied it was the only thing. Trump's command of the spotlight + Walker's pretty average showing in the debates = no new donors, money runs out, standard campaign death spiral.

Uhhh he made national headlines when his abortion stance was reconfirmed this cycle, his immigration views are far from the only things voters care about. idk why Breitbart and Freeper are what you'd pick to base this on.

Hardcore conservatives who haven't abandoned Jeb are gathering around Carson for the time being. Rubio and Cruz have been pretty consistently in the middle of the pack for months, that's why dubbing him the Democrat's Republican seemed odd.

…I picked them because they represent the most influential media elements of the core conservative demographic?

Following your remarks I decided to look for an example of Rubio making a stand against abortion on Breitbart. Turns out they published an article in late August where Rubio called Planned Parenthood "probably illegal". Solid stuff, right? Well, the comments section thought differently. Some of the top comments:

{ the most influential media elements of the core conservative demographic }

lmao what? Breitbart and an Internet forum are "the most influential media elements" for conservatives??? Maybe look it up on a site that gets more than 60k hits a day?

You don't even know if the anonymous top comments are actually conservatives or anything other than your typical news comment trolls. Especially on Breitbart, it's a section that still wants to see Obama's birth certificate ffs.

The MSM alphabet networks, as biased as they may be, are still where the VAST majority gets their news regardless of party.

Are you suggesting that the alphabet networks are advocacy outlets for conservative causes? I'm talking about the "conservative media".

At least one of them is… FOX doesn't exactly lean left. Goes to show how much mainstream liberal media bias we're constantly surrounded by.

The "conservative media" includes FOX, just like the liberal media includes CNN. You can find liberals pretending to be far right and conservatives pretending to be far left on articles from both. I'm js the comments section is not where I'd go to find representative opinions, or even real opinions.

Even Drudge, the conservative news aggregate of choice with 20 million+ hits per day, links primarily to MSM reports.

I wouldn't call FOX "hardcore" in any conservative sense, though. Surely you saw when Breitbart declared war on FOX over its treatment of Trump during the debate?

Yeah but you wouldn't call CNN hardcore either, if you're comparing it to Mother Jones. Breitbart is steadfastly against the MSM in general anyway, it's not like they were friends with FOX before then. Drudge (the aggregate) is probably the news source most frequented by "hardcore" conservatives, can't think of anywhere else that even comes close to those page views outside the MSM, but all he writes are headlines.

Lets remember that we're still several months and 8ish debates from the end of the primaries. While Trump may have made immigration a huge deal, Carson overtook him and he isn't nearly as focused on immigration rather, his focus seems to be gaffes. As the debates rage on, Republicans will likely come to realize Trump is way too left for the "staunch conservatives". If not, we may be looking at a political realignment in the near future, which will be an entirely different pleasure to watch. The debates will likely help people to realize Rubio is more right-wing than Trump.
Slightly related note, I'm expecting Trump to fall sometime soon. We're a long ways from election day and the primaries and he's way too out of place to get elected.

Not all of the Republicans are staunch conservatives. Though the media has focused on them, Trump hasn't been running his campaign and its stops with inflammatory statements, that's legitimately why you don't hear much about them from the media. It's why I'm so interested to see him myself on Thursday. The big controversial remarks that launched his campaign aren't why he's gathering and keeping voters, I wouldn't be so sure that they'll inevitably ditch him for someone more conservative. Trump is a conservative fiscally and in his foreign policy, the conservative voters that are in their 40s (and younger) are very willing to concede on social issues, if they don't already lean moderate on them anyway, in return for someone actually on their side in the WH.

I know they aren't. I was getting the idea from PM that she was focusing on the "staunch conservatives" who like Trump and dislike Rubio for their immigration policies.

Oh, I was gonna say, this past week I have never before seen so many media sources publishing "Trump might actually win" pieces.

{ Eighty-one percent of Republican insiders say the likelihood that Trump becomes their party’s nominee is more today than it was a month ago, and 79 percent of Democrats said the same. That’s according to the POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of top strategists, operatives and activists in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. }

I know about that. I still harbor doubts, though. A lot can happen in twelve months.

Particle Mare said:

Well, the comments section thought differently.

And HuffPost's comment section thinks Hillary's a corporate shill who'll be BTFO by Sanders. This despite the fact most "mainstream" Dems like her. The point is, most news sites attract certain leaning groups. Huffpost is more far-left so it's comments will love Sanders and hate Clinton; Breitbart's far-right and so its comments will rally around Trump and hate the "RINOs."

…core conservative demographic?

I wouldn't consider Breitbart "core." They've always seemed like an internet fringe to me. Like the conservative Think Progress or MoveOn. Fox News is usually the standard for conservative media. Maybe WSJ, although I'm not totally sure about them.

It's not a done deal by any means, for sure. I think they're all simply coming to terms with the fact that the campaign they were POSITIVE would not last through the first debate, the campaign they were SO SURRRRE would die "this time" again and again, is the campaign that refuses to relinquish its lead. It's kind of great. Extremely satisfying, even. I'm sure he's cackling away over it right now in the Ultimate Trump Tower or wherever he lives.

Can somebody make a picture of Trump laughing in a diabolical looking "Ultimate Trump Tower"? Thanks in advance.
On topic, that's exactly what I mean. I'm not denying he's lasted longer than everyone expected. I'm just saying that it's not like we have a time machine to confirm that Trump is the 45th president of the United States.

I wouldn’t consider Breitbart “core.”

They are in the sense that its readership and the readership of similar sites (WND and Right Wing News, for example) is exactly the demographic that mostly strongly backs the likes of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz.

On the other side of the conservative spectrum, you have National Review, FOX, Wall Street Journal, and occasionally Reason, that support the more pro-establishment candidates ranging from Walker to Paul.

If Breitbart's readership is "fringe" then you're implying that that roughly 50-55% of Republicans (the total support of the three anti-establishment candidates) are fringe. (I'm sure liberals would agree with that, though this isn't about them, is it?)