• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Armitage72 said:
A group of Ben Carson supporters used CafePress to create t-shirts that support his campaign, with "Ben Carson for President 2016" and other phrases.

How did he respond? He sent his lawyer to demand that all such items be removed for “trademark infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of name and likeness, privacy rights infringement.” The lawyer also claimed that “The aforementioned action is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, The Lanham Act, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Copyright Infringement, state misappropriation and privacy laws.”

"How dare you support me. I'll sue."

He's not actually running for President. He's just securing his income stream and can't have his brand diluted.
Click to expand...

Were they actually sending the proceeds from these T-shirt sales to the Carson campaign?

IOW, are they genuine supporters or just opportunists looking to make a buck? Because if people bought the T-shirts with the idea that they were doing something to support his campaign, and in fact the money was going to someone else, that would seem to be deceptive sales tactics, and they would have a reason to take action (although I'm not sure about legal grounds, not being a lawyer). Not sure what the DCMA has to do with it though.

Interesting legal question.
 
Puppycow said:
Were they actually sending the proceeds from these T-shirt sales to the Carson campaign?

IOW, are they genuine supporters or just opportunists looking to make a buck? Because if people bought the T-shirts with the idea that they were doing something to support his campaign, and in fact the money was going to someone else, that would seem to be deceptive sales tactics, and they would have a reason to take action (although I'm not sure about legal grounds, not being a lawyer). Not sure what the DCMA has to do with it though.

Interesting legal question.
Click to expand...


B. Carson's brand is money... his money. That's the whole reason he's "running for president" (other than just plain ego tripping). That's why he's got to come down hard on any copyright violators. If he doesn't protect it now, then he has a reduced case for bringing action against someone else later. I defend him on that, except for the DMCA abuse, which is truly evil and inconsistent with the values of our constitution, making him ineligible to be president, like a Muslim.
 
Foolmewunz said:
This frees up a whole lot of money. I haven't seen any tracking of the major candidates heading up the mountain to pray(prey?) at the Koch aerie. Anyone got any inside dope on where those billions are going to be heading?
Click to expand...

If candidates head up the mountain to see the Koch's;it will be in the middle of the night. The lesson is that being seen openly as the Koch's puppet the way that Walker was is not a good thing....not in the rabid anti establishment mood the GOP electorate seems to be in.
That is why many members of the GOP "Billionaire's Club" don't have a high opinion of the Koch brs: if you are going to be a power behind the scenes you have to remain behind the scenes,and not get hooked on publicity the way the Koch's have.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
B. Carson's brand is money... his money. That's the whole reason he's "running for president" (other than just plain ego tripping). That's why he's got to come down hard on any copyright violators. If he doesn't protect it now, then he has a reduced case for bringing action against someone else later.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true for trademark, not copyright. (Trademark can be diluted; copyright cannot.)
 
GOP
C. Christie •
M. Rubio •
J. Bush •
M. Huckabee •
S. Walker •
D. Trump (Really?) •
R. Paul (le fils) •
R. Santorum (GOP first) •
R. "T." Cruz •
P. "B." Jindal •

J. Kasich •
B. Carson •
C. Fiorina •
L. Graham •
G. Pataki •
J. Gilmore •

Looks like I can scratch off half of my Republican list now. Currently Rubio and Fiorina are my "top" options. Bush is in third and the remainders are uncertainties on my opinion book due to lack of familiarity. Let's see if the trio makes it to primaries.

On the Democratic side, I can't decide between Clinton and Sanders now. The remaining candidates don't seem to have a chance in hell of breaking the Clinton Machine during the primaries and Sanders is currently the only remotely viable alternative - but he would be a hard left swing for me. I would only vote for him if my alternatives are almost equally crazy with a massive dose of ego - per the saying "your ego is not your amigo"

In other news... Grizzly has to wait until a candidate makes it to the nomination to decide on his lesser of two evils. All candidate choices currently presented are idealistic

ETA: List is of candidates I am or have considered.... not the current running candidates
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
GOP
C. Christie •
M. Rubio •
J. Bush •
M. Huckabee •
S. Walker •
D. Trump (Really?) •
R. Paul (le fils) •
R. Santorum (GOP first) •
R. "T." Cruz •
P. "B." Jindal •

J. Kasich •
B. Carson •
C. Fiorina •
L. Graham •
G. Pataki •
J. Gilmore •

Looks like I can scratch off half of my Republican list now. Currently Rubio and Fiorina are my "top" options. Bush is in third and the remainders are uncertainties on my opinion book due to lack of familiarity. Let's see if the trio makes it to primaries.

On the Democratic side, I can't decide between Clinton and Sanders now. The remaining candidates don't seem to have a chance in hell of breaking the Clinton Machine during the primaries and Sanders is currently the only remotely viable alternative - but he would be a hard left swing for me. I would only vote for him if my alternatives are almost equally crazy with a massive dose of ego - per the saying "your ego is not your amigo"

In other news... Grizzly has to wait until a candidate makes it to the nomination to decide on his lesser of two evils. All candidate choices currently presented are idealistic

ETA: List is of candidates I am or have considered.... not the current running candidates
Click to expand...

On the Republican side my top choice would be Pataki, I'd second him with Christie. On the Democratic side it will be Sanders, but if he loses in the primary, I'll chose a straight independent ticket and feel good with my choices.
 
Have to see. I haven't felt strongly about any prospects of him (christie) being POTUS.

Trakar said:
On the Republican side my top choice would be Pataki, I'd second him with Christie. On the Democratic side it will be Sanders, but if he loses in the primary, I'll chose a straight independent ticket and feel good with my choices.
Click to expand...
Sanders might would narrowly edge out Clinton for me.... mostly because of the social issues he makes a lot of sense. His tax policies will make me very skittish though and I'm not sure if his stance on social issues will override that with me or not.
 
Last edited:
All these predictions Sanders will win fail to look at the demographics of his followers. It's too narrow and unless it begins to expand, and it hasn't, he won't win the primary.

If Clinton really did start to fail, and she hasn't, Biden will run. If not, I doubt he will.
 
Puppycow said:
Didn't Biden say he'd make a decision by the end of this month? It's almost the end of the month.
Click to expand...

Maybe by the 13th?
NEW YORK (AP) — CNN says it will allow Vice President Joe Biden to participate in the first Democratic presidential primary debate even if he decides that day to be a candidate.

The network released its criteria for the Oct. 13 debate on Monday. Since Biden has achieved an average of one percent support in three polls — even though he isn't a declared candidate — CNN said he needs only to file the necessary paperwork or say he will that day to be in the debate.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb have already been invited. Anderson Cooper will moderate the Las Vegas debate. Dana Bash, Don Lemon and CNN en Espanol anchor Juan Carlos Lopez also will question the candidates.

Biden aides have cited the CNN debate as one of the major factors in the vice president's timing in making a decision. They have described it as an important opportunity, if he runs, to establish him as an alternative to Clinton.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/cnn-biden-game-day-decision-debate-134753516--politics.html#
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Have to see. I haven't felt strongly about any prospects of him (christie) being POTUS.
Click to expand...

My impressions are, that out of the Republican field, these are the two (Pataki and Christie) candidates that Progressive could most tolerate and live within, depending upon the details, of course.

Clinton or Biden, might as well vote for Pataki or Christie.

Sanders would be an interesting and potentially revolutionary candidacy and administration, particularly if he can keep the ground team activism active and enthused throughout his one-term presidency,...and then turn it over to VP Warren for the next eight. Talk about progressorgasm! ...I may need a smoke after that.

The Independent thing, isn't so much a nose thumbing as it is building votes and support for independent candidates, but voting for independents from all spokes of the political wheel is nothing unusual in Oregon.
 
It's late, I'm tired, but my brain just had a crazy thought that I feel, at least at the moment, might be an interesting distraction worth pondering. Let's say, that moment comes, where the Democratic Party sees the writing on the wall all too clearly, and turns it's back on Hillary, would SHE make a 'third party run' of it? This one will be her last chance at her life long dream, would she accept having the opportunity taken from her graciously? Or would she 'go rogue'?
Meanwhile, across town, the Republicans have had their fill of Trump's hot air on steroids and show him the door too. We all know the piece of paper he signed isn't worth the ink printed on it, so he decides he's having too much fun to quit now and goes for a different third, or would that be forth now, party run.
So we end up with, say, a Biden vs. Rubio vs. Clinton vs. Trump, four way race to the finish... We always hear that a third party run is a victory for the Democrat's, but what about the above scenario?
Is this impossibility even a remote possibility? How would such an unlikely event shake out in the end? How would the Electoral College apply in such a case?
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
...
Perot was.
Click to expand...


It is often noted that Perot caused Clinton's win over Bush in 1992. Exit polling indicates otherwise. Perot voters, asked whom they would have voted for in a two-way race between Bush and Clinton, split between then 38% each, with 24% saying they would not have voted. If anyone has any other actual data to bring to bear on this, I'd love to see it. But, until then, I reject the popular notion that Perot threw the '92 election to Clinton.

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
 
Third parties hurt the party they are most ideologically similar to, or the one they split from, which are usually the same.
T. Roosevelt hurt the Republicans, his former party, and Wilson became president.
George Wallace hurt his former party, the Democrats, and Nixon became president.
Nader made Bush president by taking even a small number of votes in a close race.

An exception would be the Dixiecrats in 1948, who hurt the Democrats they split from but Truman won anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom