Why Hillary will win in 2016

[candycorn]

I do not share your perspective that John McCain, for one, is a member of a "permanent ruling class". Nor the Kennedys, Clintons or Bush families for that matter.

I look at it as a job interview. You hire a person to do a job--represent you in Congress. I'm happy to have people who are owed favors, willing to reach across the aisle, see the larger picture (at times) and have respect for the institution where they serve.

If you think that every 2 years someone from your hometown should get a chance to "go up there and see what they can do"....fine; you are entitled to your opinion. I'll stick with the the guy who is effective over the "golly gee whiz" type every day.

Do we presently have a 'permanent Ruling Class'?

No.

Are we headed in that direction if we do not cease electing sons and brothers and spouses and children of other Presidents?

Quite possibly.

To my mind, it's not worth taking such a risk.

Nobody is saying that we need Joe the Plumber in Washington.

Folks with a modicum of higher education and insight into domestic and economic and foreign policy will do very nicely.

But, unlike you, I don't want them making a 30 or 40 year-long career out of it.

And I don't want their kids and siblings and spouses going to the head of the line, in vetting prospects for the next round of Public Servants.

I want folks with serviceable credentials to be continually gleaned from amongst The People, so that they REMAIN Public Servants, and not the precursors of a genuine Ruling Class that could surface over the next few generations if we do not take the longer-viewed approach and watch ourselves with respect to nepotism and family dynasties.

Do not make the mistake of believing that I want Joe the Plumber to represent me.

Then again, you knew that when you wrote what you did, didn't you?

What I want is for us to glean reasonably well-qualified candidates from amongst The People without resorting to these unimaginative Dynastic Name-Dropping exercises.

And, for the sake of our Republic and its long-term viability and political health, I sure-as-hell hope that we can avoid such a mistake, as continuing to create Dynasties.

That goes for Clinton AND Bush.

Better be sure you have another pitcher warming up in the bullpen.

There is a "ruling class" in this country. It is just not so obvious. 99% of the country is being rules by the 1% with the majority of wealth. Their methods and tactics are not so obvious as to cause the 99% concern, at this point. But you can wager that the 1%ers are controlling the economic wealth of this nation.

It began in earnest with RR. His "trickle down" "voodoo" economic gave a signal to the 1%ers that the floor was not theirs. The trend has been nearly impossible to stop as we continue to see the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

Call me a Socialist if you want to, but all the economic statistics prove this continuing trend.

Excellent example of what I try to get across to people every single day concerning their votes. "The Ruling Class", or "elite", or "powerful", or "influential", or "wealthy", determine the names on ballots, and we, the voters, choose between those preselected for us. In other words, the game is to place only those that have been approved of by "The Ruling Class" on the ballots, thus pre-determining the outcome of elections. This is very difficult to get folks to see and understand. Money, power, and influence select our representatives in government, thus the reason behind our decline and ruin. The very top echelon, the elite, put our government in power. And, from there, they, "The Ruling Class", determine the course this nation takes, concerning every aspect of our lives.

Now, try to explain this to voters and see how far you get. Most voters are under the illusion that they actual select the president, and members of Congress. When in reality, the very short list of choices on ballots were preselected long before election day. "The Ruling Class" know far in advance the ones that'll be "puppets", and those that wont be "puppets". The easily controlled and handled make ideal puppets, therefore have the greater chance of having their name appear on ballots come election day. It's a corrupt system that works due to the gullibility of the voters. All that's needed to pull this scam off election after election, is the non-stop propaganda machine spewing patriotic words and catch phrases such as "Constitution", "freedom", "liberty", "rights", "I'll fight for you", "together, we'll return America to her rightful place", "no new taxes", "better jobs and lower taxes", "better education", "health care", "no more war", "bring our troops home", "transparency in government", and others that have become hollow, meaningless, and low-grade rhetoric.

The old saying, "money talks", is a truism that rules the process and the political machine. Money enables those with it, to greatly multiply what they already have. Money buys influence in government, thus the corrupt nature of those entrusted with the power to legislate and to enact policy. Yet, voters will turn a blind eye to this, argue for their choice, and swear that everyone else running for office is anti-America, a crook, and unfit to hold office. They just can't bring themselves to believe that they're all crooks, all anti-America, and all unfit to hold office. To voters, their choice is unlike the rest of the pack, not dishonest, is very much pro-America, and would never stoop low enough to sell their political influence. This is the short explanation for America's steady decline. Those with power and wealth, increase their power and wealth by controlling the puppets that make up "The Washington Brotherhood". And, "The Washington Brotherhood" is the entity created through the gullibility of the American voter.

Anyone needing a good laugh, need only to pay attention to the arguments and conversations between die-hard Democrats and die-hard Republicans on public forums such as USMB. You'll see just how gullible and misinformed voters actually are, and their lack of knowledge concerning the political machine, how it works, and who actually controls and runs this once great nation. Also, you'll see such worn out and pathetic statements such as, "the lesser of two evils", and "I'm not going to waste my vote". Little do they know that this is music to the ears of professional politicians that survive by public division and party loyalty. In addition, this type of reasoning among voters, plays right into the hands of "The Ruling Class" which doesn't really care which puppet wins an election, so long as a puppet of any label wins. And, the reason that "The Ruling Class" doesn't care which one wins, is because the deck was stacked in their favor long before election day.

The person receiving the most votes wins. Nothing is pre-selected

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

 

[candycorn]

If some Muslim guy wearing the Muslim garb with the long beard comes out on the stump, the left will go nuts about him and vote for him basically because....well....he is some Muslim guy wearing the Muslim garb with a long beard....

They prefer voting for the minority....not the mainstream type of person....it makes them feel good.

332-206
The left is the mainstream

I did not say the left was not the mainstream.

Based on the fact that the left went for Obama big time despite his lack of leadership experience, it seemed quite apparent that it was the fact that he was a black man as the reason he was elected.

This time around, they are all over Hillary. A woman. She proved to be a poor leader and trouble identifying her accomplishments as a leader (I mean....really....she needed an independent evaluator to tell her that it is not a good idea to have a low level staffer to unilaterally decide on security requests by an Ambassador in the most dangerous region in the world?)....

and the fact that she is not only the front runner....but the only runner, further solidifies that.

Yep....bring in a Muslim with the garb and the beard who is articulate and intelligent.....Hillary will have a run for her money.

No...

He ran a superior campaign to Hillary in 08 and was the better candidate in 12.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Do we presently have a 'permanent Ruling Class'?

No.

Are we headed in that direction if we do not cease electing sons and brothers and spouses and children of other Presidents?

Quite possibly.

To my mind, it's not worth taking such a risk.

Nobody is saying that we need Joe the Plumber in Washington.

Folks with a modicum of higher education and insight into domestic and economic and foreign policy will do very nicely.

But, unlike you, I don't want them making a 30 or 40 year-long career out of it.

And I don't want their kids and siblings and spouses going to the head of the line, in vetting prospects for the next round of Public Servants.

I want folks with serviceable credentials to be continually gleaned from amongst The People, so that they REMAIN Public Servants, and not the precursors of a genuine Ruling Class that could surface over the next few generations if we do not take the longer-viewed approach and watch ourselves with respect to nepotism and family dynasties.

Do not make the mistake of believing that I want Joe the Plumber to represent me.

Then again, you knew that when you wrote what you did, didn't you?

What I want is for us to glean reasonably well-qualified candidates from amongst The People without resorting to these unimaginative Dynastic Name-Dropping exercises.

And, for the sake of our Republic and its long-term viability and political health, I sure-as-hell hope that we can avoid such a mistake, as continuing to create Dynasties.

That goes for Clinton AND Bush.

Better be sure you have another pitcher warming up in the bullpen.

There is a "ruling class" in this country. It is just not so obvious. 99% of the country is being rules by the 1% with the majority of wealth. Their methods and tactics are not so obvious as to cause the 99% concern, at this point. But you can wager that the 1%ers are controlling the economic wealth of this nation.

It began in earnest with RR. His "trickle down" "voodoo" economic gave a signal to the 1%ers that the floor was not theirs. The trend has been nearly impossible to stop as we continue to see the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

Call me a Socialist if you want to, but all the economic statistics prove this continuing trend.

Excellent example of what I try to get across to people every single day concerning their votes. "The Ruling Class", or "elite", or "powerful", or "influential", or "wealthy", determine the names on ballots, and we, the voters, choose between those preselected for us. In other words, the game is to place only those that have been approved of by "The Ruling Class" on the ballots, thus pre-determining the outcome of elections. This is very difficult to get folks to see and understand. Money, power, and influence select our representatives in government, thus the reason behind our decline and ruin. The very top echelon, the elite, put our government in power. And, from there, they, "The Ruling Class", determine the course this nation takes, concerning every aspect of our lives.

Now, try to explain this to voters and see how far you get. Most voters are under the illusion that they actual select the president, and members of Congress. When in reality, the very short list of choices on ballots were preselected long before election day. "The Ruling Class" know far in advance the ones that'll be "puppets", and those that wont be "puppets". The easily controlled and handled make ideal puppets, therefore have the greater chance of having their name appear on ballots come election day. It's a corrupt system that works due to the gullibility of the voters. All that's needed to pull this scam off election after election, is the non-stop propaganda machine spewing patriotic words and catch phrases such as "Constitution", "freedom", "liberty", "rights", "I'll fight for you", "together, we'll return America to her rightful place", "no new taxes", "better jobs and lower taxes", "better education", "health care", "no more war", "bring our troops home", "transparency in government", and others that have become hollow, meaningless, and low-grade rhetoric.

The old saying, "money talks", is a truism that rules the process and the political machine. Money enables those with it, to greatly multiply what they already have. Money buys influence in government, thus the corrupt nature of those entrusted with the power to legislate and to enact policy. Yet, voters will turn a blind eye to this, argue for their choice, and swear that everyone else running for office is anti-America, a crook, and unfit to hold office. They just can't bring themselves to believe that they're all crooks, all anti-America, and all unfit to hold office. To voters, their choice is unlike the rest of the pack, not dishonest, is very much pro-America, and would never stoop low enough to sell their political influence. This is the short explanation for America's steady decline. Those with power and wealth, increase their power and wealth by controlling the puppets that make up "The Washington Brotherhood". And, "The Washington Brotherhood" is the entity created through the gullibility of the American voter.

Anyone needing a good laugh, need only to pay attention to the arguments and conversations between die-hard Democrats and die-hard Republicans on public forums such as USMB. You'll see just how gullible and misinformed voters actually are, and their lack of knowledge concerning the political machine, how it works, and who actually controls and runs this once great nation. Also, you'll see such worn out and pathetic statements such as, "the lesser of two evils", and "I'm not going to waste my vote". Little do they know that this is music to the ears of professional politicians that survive by public division and party loyalty. In addition, this type of reasoning among voters, plays right into the hands of "The Ruling Class" which doesn't really care which puppet wins an election, so long as a puppet of any label wins. And, the reason that "The Ruling Class" doesn't care which one wins, is because the deck was stacked in their favor long before election day.

The person receiving the most votes wins. Nothing is pre-selected

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

 

[candycorn]

There is a "ruling class" in this country. It is just not so obvious. 99% of the country is being rules by the 1% with the majority of wealth. Their methods and tactics are not so obvious as to cause the 99% concern, at this point. But you can wager that the 1%ers are controlling the economic wealth of this nation.

It began in earnest with RR. His "trickle down" "voodoo" economic gave a signal to the 1%ers that the floor was not theirs. The trend has been nearly impossible to stop as we continue to see the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

Call me a Socialist if you want to, but all the economic statistics prove this continuing trend.

Excellent example of what I try to get across to people every single day concerning their votes. "The Ruling Class", or "elite", or "powerful", or "influential", or "wealthy", determine the names on ballots, and we, the voters, choose between those preselected for us. In other words, the game is to place only those that have been approved of by "The Ruling Class" on the ballots, thus pre-determining the outcome of elections. This is very difficult to get folks to see and understand. Money, power, and influence select our representatives in government, thus the reason behind our decline and ruin. The very top echelon, the elite, put our government in power. And, from there, they, "The Ruling Class", determine the course this nation takes, concerning every aspect of our lives.

Now, try to explain this to voters and see how far you get. Most voters are under the illusion that they actual select the president, and members of Congress. When in reality, the very short list of choices on ballots were preselected long before election day. "The Ruling Class" know far in advance the ones that'll be "puppets", and those that wont be "puppets". The easily controlled and handled make ideal puppets, therefore have the greater chance of having their name appear on ballots come election day. It's a corrupt system that works due to the gullibility of the voters. All that's needed to pull this scam off election after election, is the non-stop propaganda machine spewing patriotic words and catch phrases such as "Constitution", "freedom", "liberty", "rights", "I'll fight for you", "together, we'll return America to her rightful place", "no new taxes", "better jobs and lower taxes", "better education", "health care", "no more war", "bring our troops home", "transparency in government", and others that have become hollow, meaningless, and low-grade rhetoric.

The old saying, "money talks", is a truism that rules the process and the political machine. Money enables those with it, to greatly multiply what they already have. Money buys influence in government, thus the corrupt nature of those entrusted with the power to legislate and to enact policy. Yet, voters will turn a blind eye to this, argue for their choice, and swear that everyone else running for office is anti-America, a crook, and unfit to hold office. They just can't bring themselves to believe that they're all crooks, all anti-America, and all unfit to hold office. To voters, their choice is unlike the rest of the pack, not dishonest, is very much pro-America, and would never stoop low enough to sell their political influence. This is the short explanation for America's steady decline. Those with power and wealth, increase their power and wealth by controlling the puppets that make up "The Washington Brotherhood". And, "The Washington Brotherhood" is the entity created through the gullibility of the American voter.

Anyone needing a good laugh, need only to pay attention to the arguments and conversations between die-hard Democrats and die-hard Republicans on public forums such as USMB. You'll see just how gullible and misinformed voters actually are, and their lack of knowledge concerning the political machine, how it works, and who actually controls and runs this once great nation. Also, you'll see such worn out and pathetic statements such as, "the lesser of two evils", and "I'm not going to waste my vote". Little do they know that this is music to the ears of professional politicians that survive by public division and party loyalty. In addition, this type of reasoning among voters, plays right into the hands of "The Ruling Class" which doesn't really care which puppet wins an election, so long as a puppet of any label wins. And, the reason that "The Ruling Class" doesn't care which one wins, is because the deck was stacked in their favor long before election day.

The person receiving the most votes wins. Nothing is pre-selected

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

The "norm" is whomever gets the most votes wins. For President, we have the EC. There is no pre-selected person....otherwise we would be talking about who is going to take over for Hillary in 2016.

And we would have all remembered President Gore fondly.

Does it require resources to win...yes. But the winner is chosen by those who show up. There are no shadowy figures deciding who wins regardless of your cartoonish views of our system.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Hillary will win in 2016 because she is a proven leader. She has what it takes to conduct foreign policy, and it show in this clip being under fire in wars abroad. Hillary is what we need in 2016!

In the wake of liars like Brian Williams who lost his job for lies about being under fire, it's nice to see someone who actually tells the truth for a change.

Why hasn't Obama endorsed her? If she is so affective then why hasn't obama came out and endorsed her?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Excellent example of what I try to get across to people every single day concerning their votes. "The Ruling Class", or "elite", or "powerful", or "influential", or "wealthy", determine the names on ballots, and we, the voters, choose between those preselected for us. In other words, the game is to place only those that have been approved of by "The Ruling Class" on the ballots, thus pre-determining the outcome of elections. This is very difficult to get folks to see and understand. Money, power, and influence select our representatives in government, thus the reason behind our decline and ruin. The very top echelon, the elite, put our government in power. And, from there, they, "The Ruling Class", determine the course this nation takes, concerning every aspect of our lives.

Now, try to explain this to voters and see how far you get. Most voters are under the illusion that they actual select the president, and members of Congress. When in reality, the very short list of choices on ballots were preselected long before election day. "The Ruling Class" know far in advance the ones that'll be "puppets", and those that wont be "puppets". The easily controlled and handled make ideal puppets, therefore have the greater chance of having their name appear on ballots come election day. It's a corrupt system that works due to the gullibility of the voters. All that's needed to pull this scam off election after election, is the non-stop propaganda machine spewing patriotic words and catch phrases such as "Constitution", "freedom", "liberty", "rights", "I'll fight for you", "together, we'll return America to her rightful place", "no new taxes", "better jobs and lower taxes", "better education", "health care", "no more war", "bring our troops home", "transparency in government", and others that have become hollow, meaningless, and low-grade rhetoric.

The old saying, "money talks", is a truism that rules the process and the political machine. Money enables those with it, to greatly multiply what they already have. Money buys influence in government, thus the corrupt nature of those entrusted with the power to legislate and to enact policy. Yet, voters will turn a blind eye to this, argue for their choice, and swear that everyone else running for office is anti-America, a crook, and unfit to hold office. They just can't bring themselves to believe that they're all crooks, all anti-America, and all unfit to hold office. To voters, their choice is unlike the rest of the pack, not dishonest, is very much pro-America, and would never stoop low enough to sell their political influence. This is the short explanation for America's steady decline. Those with power and wealth, increase their power and wealth by controlling the puppets that make up "The Washington Brotherhood". And, "The Washington Brotherhood" is the entity created through the gullibility of the American voter.

Anyone needing a good laugh, need only to pay attention to the arguments and conversations between die-hard Democrats and die-hard Republicans on public forums such as USMB. You'll see just how gullible and misinformed voters actually are, and their lack of knowledge concerning the political machine, how it works, and who actually controls and runs this once great nation. Also, you'll see such worn out and pathetic statements such as, "the lesser of two evils", and "I'm not going to waste my vote". Little do they know that this is music to the ears of professional politicians that survive by public division and party loyalty. In addition, this type of reasoning among voters, plays right into the hands of "The Ruling Class" which doesn't really care which puppet wins an election, so long as a puppet of any label wins. And, the reason that "The Ruling Class" doesn't care which one wins, is because the deck was stacked in their favor long before election day.

The person receiving the most votes wins. Nothing is pre-selected

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

The "norm" is whomever gets the most votes wins. For President, we have the EC. There is no pre-selected person....otherwise we would be talking about who is going to take over for Hillary in 2016.

And we would have all remembered President Gore fondly.

Does it require resources to win...yes. But the winner is chosen by those who show up. There are no shadowy figures deciding who wins regardless of your cartoonish views of our system.

I fully realize that truth is a hard pill to swallow. Obviously you still believe that elections are on the up and up, and everything is according to rules, laws, and popularity. Don't feel bad, millions fall for the same misconceptions as you do. This is also obvious by the number of voters repeating the same scenario every election cycle, then complaining for the next four years. You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

 

[candycorn]

The person receiving the most votes wins. Nothing is pre-selected

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

The "norm" is whomever gets the most votes wins. For President, we have the EC. There is no pre-selected person....otherwise we would be talking about who is going to take over for Hillary in 2016.

And we would have all remembered President Gore fondly.

Does it require resources to win...yes. But the winner is chosen by those who show up. There are no shadowy figures deciding who wins regardless of your cartoonish views of our system.

I fully realize that truth is a hard pill to swallow. Obviously you still believe that elections are on the up and up, and everything is according to rules, laws, and popularity. Don't feel bad, millions fall for the same misconceptions as you do. This is also obvious by the number of voters repeating the same scenario every election cycle, then complaining for the next four years. You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

Which is the likely reason you haven't swallowed it.

Your scenario is rather comical that these elite folks would all get together and come up with this group of candidates? Then...on top of that silly scenario, some of these rich folks like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson--knowing the winner is already picked--decide to squander millions backing people already selected to lose?

Yeah buddy...whatever you say.

Perhaps someday you'll realize how foolish you sound both in terms of blaming the outcome on some shadowy figure pulling strings from behind a curtain but also that the only thing you have presented ad proof of your thesis is your own sour grapes at the recent outcomes.

It's a state of advanced Romnesia....that somehow there must be something crooked because otherwise the results would mean that the platform was rejected...and that would mean the ideals are out of step....and that would upset the prerogative altogether.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

She was going to sweep the 2008 election... how'd that work out again?

Gee...you would figure that these mythic shadowy boogie men would have installed Hillary 8 years ago and Gore before her.... I guess they took those two elections off?

Well, I'm not sure what the hell that means... but my point is you guys were all but moving her into the WH before the primaries... and then you threw her under the bus for an heretofore unknown community agitator.

 

[candycorn]

She was going to sweep the 2008 election... how'd that work out again?

Gee...you would figure that these mythic shadowy boogie men would have installed Hillary 8 years ago and Gore before her.... I guess they took those two elections off?

Well, I'm not sure what the hell that means... but my point is you guys were all but moving her into the WH before the primaries... and then you threw her under the bus for an heretofore unknown community agitator.

The dems had 2 gold medal winners and only one medal to award.

If you would pay attention to the 08 primary...Hillary ran a sorry campaign with infighting, over spending on the Senate contest just before it, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the proportional distribution of delegates. Nobody threw her under a bus...she ran a poor race and lost.

You'll never believe that because it would require you learn something. Read "Game Change", surprise us all and learn something.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

She was going to sweep the 2008 election... how'd that work out again?

Gee...you would figure that these mythic shadowy boogie men would have installed Hillary 8 years ago and Gore before her.... I guess they took those two elections off?

Well, I'm not sure what the hell that means... but my point is you guys were all but moving her into the WH before the primaries... and then you threw her under the bus for an heretofore unknown community agitator.

The dems had 2 gold medal winners and only one medal to award.

If you would pay attention to the 08 primary...Hillary ran a sorry campaign with infighting, over spending on the Senate contest just before it, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the proportional distribution of delegates. Nobody threw her under a bus...she ran a poor race and lost.

You'll never believe that because it would require you learn something. Read "Game Change", surprise us all and learn something.

So, you are telling me that a junior senator, with little to no experience at anything was better than HRC, who you now tell us is the most qualified person to be president? HRC who since 2008 has amassed a pretty abysmal resume? How'd the reset go? How'd Libya go? How're our policies in Iraq? Afghanistan?

You're basically saying that you support Clinton due to her qualifications while you rejected her before for a guy with no qualifications.

Do you realize how stupid that is?

 

[Redfish]

HRC will not be the democrat nominee in 2016. Her past lies and corruption will finally catch up with her and her party bosses will dump her in the trash heap where she belongs.

 

[Jarhead]

If some Muslim guy wearing the Muslim garb with the long beard comes out on the stump, the left will go nuts about him and vote for him basically because....well....he is some Muslim guy wearing the Muslim garb with a long beard....

They prefer voting for the minority....not the mainstream type of person....it makes them feel good.

332-206
The left is the mainstream

I did not say the left was not the mainstream.

Based on the fact that the left went for Obama big time despite his lack of leadership experience, it seemed quite apparent that it was the fact that he was a black man as the reason he was elected.

This time around, they are all over Hillary. A woman. She proved to be a poor leader and trouble identifying her accomplishments as a leader (I mean....really....she needed an independent evaluator to tell her that it is not a good idea to have a low level staffer to unilaterally decide on security requests by an Ambassador in the most dangerous region in the world?)....

and the fact that she is not only the front runner....but the only runner, further solidifies that.

Yep....bring in a Muslim with the garb and the beard who is articulate and intelligent.....Hillary will have a run for her money.

No...

He ran a superior campaign to Hillary in 08 and was the better candidate in 12.

Of course, that is a matter of opinion.

If I had a nickel for every person I knew who knew I was a conservative who gave me crap for "not being able to vote for a black man", I would be pretty freaking comfortable right now.

You realize, of course, that the reason they said that was because they saw themselves as voting for a black man.

My own sister who is a progressive called me a racist for not voting for Obama....and she knows I am a conservative through and through.

Sure, he ran an excellent campaign. But he ran on nothing tangible. He used rhetoric, charisma and the color of his skin to win.

In my opinion.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. But, how did that person get their name on the ballot to begin with? Would I be correct in saying that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, enabled that name to be on the ballot? How do names get on ballots? The names are preselected for us. We choose between the candidates that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place on the ballots. We have a predetermined list to choose from, do we not?

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

The "norm" is whomever gets the most votes wins. For President, we have the EC. There is no pre-selected person....otherwise we would be talking about who is going to take over for Hillary in 2016.

And we would have all remembered President Gore fondly.

Does it require resources to win...yes. But the winner is chosen by those who show up. There are no shadowy figures deciding who wins regardless of your cartoonish views of our system.

I fully realize that truth is a hard pill to swallow. Obviously you still believe that elections are on the up and up, and everything is according to rules, laws, and popularity. Don't feel bad, millions fall for the same misconceptions as you do. This is also obvious by the number of voters repeating the same scenario every election cycle, then complaining for the next four years. You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

Which is the likely reason you haven't swallowed it.

Your scenario is rather comical that these elite folks would all get together and come up with this group of candidates? Then...on top of that silly scenario, some of these rich folks like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson--knowing the winner is already picked--decide to squander millions backing people already selected to lose?

Yeah buddy...whatever you say.

Perhaps someday you'll realize how foolish you sound both in terms of blaming the outcome on some shadowy figure pulling strings from behind a curtain but also that the only thing you have presented ad proof of your thesis is your own sour grapes at the recent outcomes.

It's a state of advanced Romnesia....that somehow there must be something crooked because otherwise the results would mean that the platform was rejected...and that would mean the ideals are out of step....and that would upset the prerogative altogether.

You've totally misunderstood what I said, misread it, and obviously have added intent that I never said nor implied. FITST: NO elite folks get together, none! SECONDLY: No one knows the winner ahead of time, no one! THIRDLY: No one is selected to lose, no one!

Please do NOT add what you think I mean to what I actually said and meant. What I said was self-explanatory, and I never said nor implied what you're accusing me of saying and implying.

Please listen carefully, and please try a little reading comprehension. First, I said that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place candidates on the ballot. This reasoning is due to the obvious enormous sums of money and other backing of candidates. And, it's also obvious that no one that can not raise enough money to fund a campaign, gets their name on a ballot. Please try hard to connect the dots here. There are NO groups that decide winners and losers, none. Some people back one candidate, and other people back other candidates. But in the end, all candidates are backed by enormous sums of money and influence. Each backer hopes that the person they have backed and funded wins. And, I think the reason for that is obvious. Every person of power, wealth, and influence, and even corporations and Wall Street, hopes to gain influence in Washington politics. We see this with Lobbyists that represents special interests.

Those that have been abled to raise enough money to effectively run a campaign, and have gathered enough endorsements and outside influence, stand the best chance of having their name on ballots and the best chance to win an election. Are you still following me here? I hope so. Stay with me, please. So, now it follows that those that have raised a lot of money, gathered enough endorsements and used outside influence, have certainly made promised behind closed doors, promised favors, and all but guaranteed considerations " IF " elected to office. This means each backer, supporter, power broker, and influential person or entity, "HOPES" that their candidate wins the election. It's called buying influence and favors. It's a common practice in the political arena. Thus the efforts to legislate campaign finance reform so that the playing field is level, or at least, as level as possible with money and influence controlling elections.

Still with me? I hope so. I'm trying hard to break this down into its simplest form you. Bear with me, please. Thanks. Now, John Q. Public can NOT finance elections, campaigns, nor candidates. The general public is just not wealthy enough, have enough spendable income, nor have enough power or influence. So, it follows that candidates are backed by those with the means to do so. And, it also follows that these individuals with the means, want some kind of return on their investment. They are not going to spend $Millions backing a candidate unless an arrangement is made with the candidate being backed. Or, the candidate is perceived to be easily influenced and used. Ok, still with me? This is nothing more than common sense.

Now, the finale. Since we have established the fact that candidates are basically bought before an election, and owe favors even before taking office, should they be elected, it follows that candidates are preselected by the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. The winner is NOT preselected, but the names on the ballots ARE. In other words, you and I wouldn't stand a chance getting our names on a ballot.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Charles Koch We like 5 GOP candidates in primaries

Charles Koch: We like 5 GOP candidates in primaries

WICHITA, Kan. — Charles Koch said he is considering throwing his political might into the Republican presidential primary for the first time and is likely to provide financial help to several contenders before settling on a single candidate.

Koch, his brother David and their team have identified five candidates who have the right message and "a good chance of getting elected," he told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview at Koch Industries' headquarters. They are Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida.

"Those are the ones we have talked to the most and who seem to be the possible leaders," he said.

"What we've told them all is that right now, we're not supporting anyone," Koch said. "We're telling them that if they want our support, one way to get it is articulating a good message to help Americans get a better understanding and a better appreciation of how certain policies … will benefit them and will benefit all America."

 

[mudwhistle]

Agreed.

How far we have fallen....Dirty Harry Truman walked with Bess from the White House to the train station unaccompanied, when he left office.

JFK had his brains blown out in Dallas

Lady Bird blew LBJ in the oval office....

...I bet you wish you could have taken her place.

?

You need to check your history book...sonny.

Did you forget the presidents assassinated well BEFORE dirty Harry and JFK....see Dishonest Abe, James Garfield and the warmonger McKinley???

Are you somehow advocating for assassination, or did you just forget to check your meds today?

Because this exchange between yourself and Rightwinger looks absolutely batshit crazy to any sane person in the world. It also has nothing to do with the OP, which is:

Why Hillary will win in 2016
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02...ally-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
Here, in this case, the author of the OP is exercising a thing called sarcasm.

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola
Hillary is in violation of her position as US Senator and State Department official. If the Justice Department was doing it's job, Hillary would be in serious trouble right now for accepting cash from foreign governments in return for favors. The Justice Department has indicted a Democrat Senator for the same offense simply because he was against Obama's policies. Justice Department Indicts Sen. Bob Menendez on Corruption Charges - WSJ

Just another example of a lawless Administration.

 

[JoeB131]

Hillary is in violation of her position as US Senator and State Department official. If the Justice Department was doing it's job, Hillary would be in serious trouble right now for accepting cash from foreign governments in return for favors. The Justice Department has indicted a Democrat Senator for the same offense simply because he was against Obama's policies.

Just another example of a lawless Administration.

The argument is that the State Department gave out favors (namely, just approved routine things) to people who gave to a charity.

And the best case they came up with was someone who had a stake in the XL Pipeline- which didn't get approved.

Some pretty weak tea there.

 

[Statistikhengst]

JFK had his brains blown out in Dallas

Lady Bird blew LBJ in the oval office....

...I bet you wish you could have taken her place.

?

You need to check your history book...sonny.

Did you forget the presidents assassinated well BEFORE dirty Harry and JFK....see Dishonest Abe, James Garfield and the warmonger McKinley???

Are you somehow advocating for assassination, or did you just forget to check your meds today?

Because this exchange between yourself and Rightwinger looks absolutely batshit crazy to any sane person in the world. It also has nothing to do with the OP, which is:

Why Hillary will win in 2016
Here, in this case, the author of the OP is exercising a thing called sarcasm.

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola
Hillary is in violation of her position as US Senator and State Department official. If the Justice Department was doing it's job, Hillary would be in serious trouble right now for accepting cash from foreign governments in return for favors. The Justice Department has indicted a Democrat Senator for the same offense simply because he was against Obama's policies. Justice Department Indicts Sen. Bob Menendez on Corruption Charges - WSJ

Just another example of a lawless Administration.

You do understand the flaw in your logic, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

Lady Bird blew LBJ in the oval office....

...I bet you wish you could have taken her place.

?

You need to check your history book...sonny.

Did you forget the presidents assassinated well BEFORE dirty Harry and JFK....see Dishonest Abe, James Garfield and the warmonger McKinley???

Are you somehow advocating for assassination, or did you just forget to check your meds today?

Because this exchange between yourself and Rightwinger looks absolutely batshit crazy to any sane person in the world. It also has nothing to do with the OP, which is:

Why Hillary will win in 2016
Here, in this case, the author of the OP is exercising a thing called sarcasm.

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola
Hillary is in violation of her position as US Senator and State Department official. If the Justice Department was doing it's job, Hillary would be in serious trouble right now for accepting cash from foreign governments in return for favors. The Justice Department has indicted a Democrat Senator for the same offense simply because he was against Obama's policies. Justice Department Indicts Sen. Bob Menendez on Corruption Charges - WSJ

Just another example of a lawless Administration.

You do understand the flaw in your logic, right?

Actually your logic is flawed if you think something illegal and unethical isn't going on with the Hillary Clinton Foundation......

 

[candycorn]

Factually incorrect. Candidates pay a fee and put an organization in place to collect names on a petition.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Arizona - Ballotpedia


You really should study the subject.

And, you should really pay closer attention what is actually going on and happening in the political arena. What I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT, in every sense of the word. If what I have said is incorrect, then why the fuss over campaign finance reform? Why do donors make very large contributions to political campaigns? Why do people around the world make large contributions to our political candidates? Why do influential people endorse certain candidates? Why do candidates have fund raisers?

Excuse me, but you and I are obviously talking about a different process. You are talking about the LEGAL requirements to get a name on a ballot, and I'm talking about how a candidate gets his/her name on a ballot on election day. Yes, you are correct. ALL candidates must register through the legal process, I totally agree.

FYI - Candidates rise according to the support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential, period. This is in addition to going through the legal process of registering. FYI - Politics is much deeper than legal requirements necessary to get one's name on a ballot. In order to be successful in any public election, a candidate MUST have the backing and support of the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. Rarely, in some community and local elections, candidates win solely on their platform. It's not unheard of for a relatively unknown to win a local election. But, I'm talking about a national election for a seat in Congress, or for the oval office.

My comments are solely intended to reflect the norm in national elections, and not local elections. Also, my comments are referencing what takes place outside the legal process of registering.

The "norm" is whomever gets the most votes wins. For President, we have the EC. There is no pre-selected person....otherwise we would be talking about who is going to take over for Hillary in 2016.

And we would have all remembered President Gore fondly.

Does it require resources to win...yes. But the winner is chosen by those who show up. There are no shadowy figures deciding who wins regardless of your cartoonish views of our system.

I fully realize that truth is a hard pill to swallow. Obviously you still believe that elections are on the up and up, and everything is according to rules, laws, and popularity. Don't feel bad, millions fall for the same misconceptions as you do. This is also obvious by the number of voters repeating the same scenario every election cycle, then complaining for the next four years. You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

Which is the likely reason you haven't swallowed it.

Your scenario is rather comical that these elite folks would all get together and come up with this group of candidates? Then...on top of that silly scenario, some of these rich folks like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson--knowing the winner is already picked--decide to squander millions backing people already selected to lose?

Yeah buddy...whatever you say.

Perhaps someday you'll realize how foolish you sound both in terms of blaming the outcome on some shadowy figure pulling strings from behind a curtain but also that the only thing you have presented ad proof of your thesis is your own sour grapes at the recent outcomes.

It's a state of advanced Romnesia....that somehow there must be something crooked because otherwise the results would mean that the platform was rejected...and that would mean the ideals are out of step....and that would upset the prerogative altogether.

You've totally misunderstood what I said, misread it, and obviously have added intent that I never said nor implied. FITST: NO elite folks get together, none! SECONDLY: No one knows the winner ahead of time, no one! THIRDLY: No one is selected to lose, no one!

Please do NOT add what you think I mean to what I actually said and meant. What I said was self-explanatory, and I never said nor implied what you're accusing me of saying and implying.

Please listen carefully, and please try a little reading comprehension. First, I said that the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place candidates on the ballot.

And I showed you how that is factually incorrect. Can you not read? Call up any State's SOS office and they will explain it in terms so basic you can understand them how anyone can get on the ballot.

This reasoning is due to the obvious enormous sums of money and other backing of candidates. And, it's also obvious that no one that can not raise enough money to fund a campaign, gets their name on a ballot.

That portion of your insanity is true. I takes resources to run a campaign. It takes resources to advertise a business, go to college, even land a job. But nobody is selecting anyone for you....if you think Joe Blow can do better than Joe Snow, get him to run for office and back him. Get others to vote for him. You may not win but if Joe Snow realizes he has a fight on his hand in this precinct and that precinct, a politician (professional or not) will do what they can to move in the direction of what voters wan to hear. That is how you win elections.

So...you say that the rich select who is on the ballot.
You're simply incorrect.

So...you say that it takes enormous amounts of money to run a campaign.
You're correct about that. Congratulations; you've realized what 4 year olds everywhere already knew.

But in the end, all candidates are backed by enormous sums of money and influence. Each backer hopes that the person they have backed and funded wins. And, I think the reason for that is obvious. Every person of power, wealth, and influence, and even corporations and Wall Street, hopes to gain influence in Washington politics. We see this with Lobbyists that represents special interests.

Wow, another stunning discovery. Here is something you're ignoring, of course, for everyone on the "other side" who has a lobbyist, there is likely someone lobbying in favor of stuff you care about. The only persons in the world without a constituency in Washington are the poor. Why? Because their resources are such that they do not get the ears of lawmakers. Shocking..I know!!!

Now, the finale. Since we have established the fact that candidates are basically bought before an election, and owe favors even before taking office, should they be elected, it follows that candidates are preselected by the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential

No....you've established what you think happens. Reality is much different than your fantasy. Sorry.

The winner is NOT preselected, but the names on the ballots ARE.

Again....no. Doesn't happen.

In other words, you and I wouldn't stand a chance getting our names on a ballot.

Ever heard of Harry Browne? Probably not. He ran for office. Gee, he received 485,000 votes. Somehow...I think he got on the ballot.

Lyndon LaRouche is on the ballot all the time. Somehow he got on the ballot.

Maybe you can look at this copy of the famous butterfly ballot that installed Bush as President in 2000....

Ever Met Monica Mooreheador Gloria La Riva....they are on the ballot. Just look.

How you can sit there with a straight face and say that nobody gets on the ballot without some elite backing them is a testament to either your blissful ignorance or Botox.