I've made my opinions of Trump clear many a time, but as a foreigner observer, I would caution Americans on one issue, which is this:
Trump will say and do anything to win the keys to the White House...
And that can often lead to big problems in the future. Two examples.
1) Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, is doing everything he can to win the EU referendum, even taking actions that will destroy the Conservative party for years to come. His short term actions are storing up long term problems for the Conservatives, but what does he care, he's gone in a year or two.
2) Scottish independence referendum 2014. The IN camp pulled every dirty in the book to win. And months later, the political parties in Scotland that backed IN faced near extinction at the election last year, with the pro-independent SNP winning nearly every seat at the General Election (federal level) and tomorrow, they will win by a landslide in Scotland's version of the states election.
Why didn't you vote for us? They wailed.
Well, you called me a Nazi for backing independence, threatened to block us if we wanted to join NATO/EU/ Any other international body, smeared us at every opportunity, and told people that sick children wouldn't be treated at English hospitals...should Scotland go independent...
and you wonder why we don't vote for you!
The point is that Trump, should he win, won't be able to call on the nation to back him, especially if he's slandered the people that didn't vote for him. People remember these things. His enemies in the Republican party will remember...
Long term, things may become grim for the GOP and the USA may be polarised on a level not seen since the 1960s.
Thats part of it. The real part is this, adn the same reason the only person on the planet old and crotchety enough as me gave HRC a hard run.
*People are hurting in this country. Our economy is turning into a South American one with lots and lots of lower class, and a very small elite. The supposed recovery did nothing but accelerate that. Both parties dither and dither, very content in how things are working-because the people that run them are the elites benefiting from it.
If the parties had worked to deal with this, or at least try to ameliorate the change, these guys would never have made it through the door.
HRC should not underestimate that anger. She represents "The Same." People are tired of the same.
For the same reasons the 30s brought Fascism and Communism through Europe, and semi dictatorship here under FDR, Trump/Sanders gained power.
This pretty much sums it up Frazz. People aren't just tired of the same, they want someone they know who will aggressively fight "The Same". However, I am not sure that these groups have a unified vision on what 'The Change" should look like, hence the division between Bernie and Trump. Lefties who want change want more Socialism, while Righties who want change want the 1950s again. The only thing they agree on is that "The Same" doesn;t cut it.
However, it is this difference in "The Change" 's desired outcomes that will essentially mean that "The Same" will triumph yet again.
I think the long con might have just finally caught up with the GOP.
For decades the Republican Party has managed to trick people into voting against their own best interest. Poor, common, everyday people have been voting for the party that is in favor of cutting benefits and services to the poor, common, everyday people while at the same time making live easier for job creators, business owners, and the elite.
But the poor, common, everyday people didn't see themselves ad poor, common, everyday people because the GOP has been telling them that they are just elite job creators that haven't made it big yet. The GOP is like a pyramid scheme, and the people have had enough.
People keep saying 'Trump Will say anything to get in the White House', you mean just like every other Presidential we've had in my lifetime?
How many issues has BHO done a 180 on? HRC just got confronted by coal miners about her comments wanting to shut their industry down and she is desperately trying to walk that back.
They all 'will say anything' to get votes.
America is doomed regardless who our next President is
It is only a choice of who gets blamed for the downfall.
Obama has been pretty consistent regarding what he wanted to accomplish in his terms- the majority of "about-faces" on issues has been more the result of his desires being untenable due to the national/global political climate (Obamacare, closing Gitmo etc) then an actual change of heart.
The proof in the pudding regarding people like Trump is that they can't even keep their stances consistent through the election. I'm still somewhat convinced Trump is a Democrat plant, purely because some of the stances he's taken during this election are radically at odds with beliefs he's expressed before. It really does feel like he's playing Conservatives like a fiddle.
Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?
IME it runs deeper than that. The Republican voters have rejected the traditional Republican platform. The Republican Party is sure to adapt or jettison those old positions to fall in line with their voters, as evidenced by the coalescion currently underway around Trump as the nominee.
Best thing for traditional conservatives to do now is start a third party to represent their interests, because they've lost the GOP Civil War, and they lost it badly.
Dreadwinter wrote: Holy crap, this is getting really depressing fast.....
Meh...almost every poll has Clinton beating Trump by double digits. And the demographics haven't really changed. The Republicans still need to make improvements with Latinos and women in order to win, and the hand may already be dealt for Trump with those voting blocks, particularly Latinos.
As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.
I think with the dropouts, we are entering a period of major decline for the GOP. Sad, because there are a lot of conservative ideals that I support, but in the whole I'm glad it is happening.
Not because it is 'beating' them or out of any particular love for HRC, but because I hope this serves as a motivation for the GOP to get introspective and pull itself out of the political mess it has made over the past 15 or so years.
curran12 wrote: I think with the dropouts, we are entering a period of major decline for the GOP. Sad, because there are a lot of conservative ideals that I support, but in the whole I'm glad it is happening.
Not because it is 'beating' them or out of any particular love for HRC, but because I hope this serves as a motivation for the GOP to get introspective and pull itself out of the political mess it has made over the past 15 or so years.
Anybody want to bet that they'll go with the "Our candidates weren't conservative enough to beat Trump so we need to go even more conservative!" route instead?
curran12 wrote: I think with the dropouts, we are entering a period of major decline for the GOP. Sad, because there are a lot of conservative ideals that I support, but in the whole I'm glad it is happening.
Not because it is 'beating' them or out of any particular love for HRC, but because I hope this serves as a motivation for the GOP to get introspective and pull itself out of the political mess it has made over the past 15 or so years.
Anybody want to bet that they'll go with the "Our candidates weren't conservative enough to beat Trump so we need to go even more conservative!" route instead?
The partyisn't conservative.
But, the salient point is that the GOP platform needs serious re-jiggering. And no, that doesn't necessarily means "be more liberal".
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.
All I can say is: It's about time for John K to drop out (not that I support Donald Trump, which I don't, I support Bernie)
It's time for Bernie to drop out, as well. It's practically impossible that he will get nominated, yet he's leading his supporters on that he still has a chance...and presumably still accepting their money.
Ustrello wrote: Yeah he needs to start campaigning for her to help fuse the party together so it will be a much easier win.
Either that or start campaigning exclusively against Trump, instead of against both Clinton and Trump.
Sanders would be a valuable ally for Clinton, and I wonder if he's trying to develop some kind of mandate to try and demand the VP slot from Clinton....just a thought. A Clinton/Sanders ticket would ruin Trumps slim chances, because those young voters who would otherwise consider Trump when Sanders gets beat would still have a reason to vote Democrat instead of go Trump or stay at home.
Ustrello wrote: Yeah he needs to start campaigning for her to help fuse the party together so it will be a much easier win.
Either that or start campaigning exclusively against Trump, instead of against both Clinton and Trump.
Sanders would be a valuable ally for Clinton, and I wonder if he's trying to develop some kind of mandate to try and demand the VP slot from Clinton....just a thought. A Clinton/Sanders ticket would ruin Trumps slim chances, because those young voters who would otherwise consider Trump when Sanders gets beat would still have a reason to vote Democrat instead of go Trump or stay at home.
Why would he want the VP slot? He'd have less influence as VP as he would as a Senator. If Hillary wins she's going to run for re-election so Bernie would be putting off another run for the White House until 2024. As a sitting Senator he'd have distance from the Clinton administration and be able to run again in 2020. VP slots should be used balance the ticket with either an elder statesment or young politician with a promising future. The VP slot is the death of near future PotUS aspirations.
Ustrello wrote: Yeah he needs to start campaigning for her to help fuse the party together so it will be a much easier win.
Either that or start campaigning exclusively against Trump, instead of against both Clinton and Trump.
Sanders would be a valuable ally for Clinton, and I wonder if he's trying to develop some kind of mandate to try and demand the VP slot from Clinton....just a thought. A Clinton/Sanders ticket would ruin Trumps slim chances, because those young voters who would otherwise consider Trump when Sanders gets beat would still have a reason to vote Democrat instead of go Trump or stay at home.
Why would he want the VP slot? He'd have less influence as VP as he would as a Senator. If Hillary wins she's going to run for re-election so Bernie would be putting off another run for the White House until 2024. As a sitting Senator he'd have distance from the Clinton administration and be able to run again in 2020. VP slots should be used balance the ticket with either an elder statesment or young politician with a promising future. The VP slot is the death of near future PotUS aspirations.
It was just a thought. I acknowledge that Clinton needs Sanders more than Sanders needs Clinton. I guess I'm just speculating as to reasons why he might be staying in when it's crystal clear that he's going to lose.
curran12 wrote: I think with the dropouts, we are entering a period of major decline for the GOP. Sad, because there are a lot of conservative ideals that I support, but in the whole I'm glad it is happening.
Not because it is 'beating' them or out of any particular love for HRC, but because I hope this serves as a motivation for the GOP to get introspective and pull itself out of the political mess it has made over the past 15 or so years.
Anybody want to bet that they'll go with the "Our candidates weren't conservative enough to beat Trump so we need to go even more conservative!" route instead?
The partyisn't conservative.
But, the salient point is that the GOP platform needs serious re-jiggering. And no, that doesn't necessarily means "be more liberal".
Agreed, they don't need to " be more liberal ". I would argue that if the GOP really wants to survive and thrive, they need to be less religious. Go back to being the party that championed science and gave us NASA, and stop being the party that relies on an invisible man in the sky for explaining everything. Stop trying to be godly and work on just being good.
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.
Well, she is an elitist and corporatist does that count? It also describes both national parties.
So do you go with the corrupt status quo that has been selling America for decades at the expense of the middle class, or go with Trump as a desperation play to give the middle finger and burn it down? Scenic route or bullet train to hell.
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.
And HRC is a Republican, not a Democrat.
You mis-perceive. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party.
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.
And HRC is a Republican, not a Democrat.
You mis-perceive. He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party.
You are referring to his status as an Independent. Gotcha.
I thought he had joined the party in order to run. No?
Ustrello wrote: She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right
No... that isn't right.
She represent the contemporary Democrat party.
One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.
However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.
EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.
The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.
Indeed.
Here's the deal... I put the blame squarely on the voters. We're an instant gratification society and so we'd lose interest fast. You can't do that in politics.
Both parties suffers from this, but moreso the GOP now than the Democrats.
The truly sad thing, is that the GOP voters overlooked every gain made over the last few cycles via the Tea Party movement... and then traded it in to a lying huckster democrat for some magic beans.
Spoiler:
WALL!
CHYNA SUCK!
JIBBER JABBER!
Now... I get to batten down the hatches and get ready for the suckage.
Ustrello wrote: She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right
No... that isn't right.
She represent the contemporary Democrat party.
One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.
However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.
EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.
The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.
Well, if we believe Trump, republicans are pro-abortion/anti abortion, pro war/antiwar, prohealthcare/antihealthcare, and evidently anti ugly people.
"Its about the jobs, so many jobs, you won't believe how many jobs, and how are you going to believe Hillary? Look at that face, and you know her grandfather killed Lincoln right? "
Ustrello wrote: She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right
No... that isn't right.
She represent the contemporary Democrat party.
One *could* argue that there isn't much separating the Democrats from the Republicans.
However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.
EDIT: ninja'ed by jmurph a bit.
The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.
Well, if we believe Trump, republicans are pro-abortion/anti abortion, pro war/antiwar, prohealthcare/antihealthcare, and evidently anti ugly people.
"Its about the jobs, so many jobs, you won't believe how many jobs, and how are you going to believe Hillary? Look at that face, and you know her grandfather killed Lincoln right? "
I think among his supporters, her Grandfather killing Lincoln would sound like a good thing.
GWB and "his team" never really addressed those criticism head-on, instead, mostly employed the strategy of "I'm not going to dignify that with a response".
whembly wrote: However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.
The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.
Well, what would you call these stances?
Supports a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother.
Didn't support gay marriage until 2013.
Would support military action against Iran.
Voted for the Iraq war
Supports sending weapons to rebels in Syria
Co-sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning
Voted to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.
Deeply religious and says her faith guides her
Advocates for the death penalty.
Pushed for 3-strikes laws
Supported keeping the Cuban embargo in place
Pledged more support for Israel
Would not ask Israel to stop building settlements
Supported removing habeas corpus for foreign detainees
Voted for the Patriot Act, and then voted to re-authorize it.
The only reason she's not considered a moderate Republican is because in the last few years, the brakes have come off the Republican crazy-train. Despite that, I'm already seeing people say that the only reason that they're in trouble is that they're just not being conservative enough. I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.
I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.
Darth Vader. He's a hit among the militant Neo Cons, the Law and Order Crowd, and his faith based philosophy is a real hit with the evangelicals. We'd have to see what his stance is on gun control though.
I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.
Darth Vader. He's a hit among the militant Neo Cons, the Law and Order Crowd, and his faith based philosophy is a real hit with the evangelicals. We'd have to see what his stance is on gun control though.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side" #writeinHan #frommycolddeadhands #NeverVader
You also believe that someone who had a voting record nearly identical to Sanders' when she was a senator is basically a Republican. I'm not sure what you believe is a relevant barometer for anything.
From the British perspective there's never been a lot of blue water between Republican and Democrat. An old saying is that the Republicans are a bit like our Conservative party, while the Democrats are a bit like our Conservative party.
The key difference is that in the past 20 years or so, the Republicans seem to have attracted a spectrum of (from our perspective) seriously way out fringe operators; Creationists, anti-gay rights people, gold standard loonies, climate change deniers and so on.
The Democrats haven't.
All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected? To be sure, he would wreck all the good Obama did in resuscitating America's PR image abroad from the disastrous Bush years, but does that matter? Traditionally Americans don't give a crap what everyone else thinks of them anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected?
He would definitely be able to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, and more likely two. Maybe more - some are really old at this point, 83, 79, 77.
That's a pretty big deal, they are lifetime appointments and the effects will be felt for decades.
Otherwise, the POTUS has very wide powers with regards to the military and foreign excursions.
Those are the only real big ones, in my opinion. I mean, don't get me wrong, the office can technically DO tons of stuff - there is a lot of power through the way the executive guides it's various departments - but I think those are the ones where he would have the most latitude to do what he wants in the face of a presumably hostile congress. On issues of budget or otherwise, Congress is more likely to interfere with any plans they don't like.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected?
He would definitely be able to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, and more likely two. Maybe more - some are really old at this point, 83, 79, 77.
That's a pretty big deal, they are lifetime appointments and the effects will be felt for decades.
Otherwise, the POTUS has very wide powers with regards to the military and foreign excursions.
Those are the only real big ones, in my opinion. I mean, don't get me wrong, the office can technically DO tons of stuff - there is a lot of power through the way the executive guides it's various departments - but I think those are the ones where he would have the most latitude to do what he wants in the face of a presumably hostile congress. On issues of budget or otherwise, Congress is more likely to interfere with any plans they don't like.
While I certainly don't want Trump picking one or two SCOTUS justices as PotUS I can't think of any candidates for SCOTUS that would garner enough support with both parties in Congress to get confirmed. The campaign between Trump and Clinton is going to be extremely contentious and likely very dirty. I can easily imagine that the upcoming election is going to see very low turnout by the time Trump and Clinton are done spending months eviserating each other in the media and reminding everyone in the country how awful partison politics can be. We're going to have an even more polarized Congress and even within the Republican party there will be members of Congress strongly opposed to Trump. Congress is going to create a new level of gridlock after this year's election.
Prestor Jon wrote: While I certainly don't want Trump picking one or two SCOTUS justices as PotUS I can't think of any candidates for SCOTUS that would garner enough support with both parties in Congress to get confirmed.
it depends on who has control of the Senate come 2017. Regardless, I don't see Congress scuttling very many nominations unless something serious shows up in the background check.
All I can say is: It's about time for John K to drop out (not that I support Donald Trump, which I don't, I support Bernie)
It's time for Bernie to drop out, as well. It's practically impossible that he will get nominated, yet he's leading his supporters on that he still has a chance...and presumably still accepting their money.
Something to consider. Conventions and convention delegates aren't just about the nomination, they are also about putting together the party platform plank by plank. Bernie claimed he was running on issues and wanted to move the party tot he left. The more delegates he can send to the Convention the more he can theoretically do that.
However, I am unclear if this is his motivation still. If it was, you think he would start funneling some of his campaign money into making grass-roots organizations and supporting down ticket races. he hasn;t really done that in any meaningful way that I am aware of. At this point, I am not really sure what Bernie is trying to do.
Kilkrazy wrote: From the British perspective there's never been a lot of blue water between Republican and Democrat. An old saying is that the Republicans are a bit like our Conservative party, while the Democrats are a bit like our Conservative party.
The key difference is that in the past 20 years or so, the Republicans seem to have attracted a spectrum of (from our perspective) seriously way out fringe operators; Creationists, anti-gay rights people, gold standard loonies, climate change deniers and so on.
The Democrats haven't.
All that being said, how much damage could Trump actually do in four years if elected? To be sure, he would wreck all the good Obama did in resuscitating America's PR image abroad from the disastrous Bush years, but does that matter? Traditionally Americans don't give a crap what everyone else thinks of them anyway.
***Shall we play a game?
***How about Global Thermonuclear War?
***Fun
Ouze is right. The powers of the presidential office in the US is quite limited (compared to other presidential systems). Trump may flavour the late 2010's, but he wont change the society, unless the gop gets on board with him, and they wont.
The best he is likely to do is to build an alliance that defeats ISIS.
whembly wrote: However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.
The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.
Well, what would you call these stances?
Spoiler:
Supports a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother.
Didn't support gay marriage until 2013.
Would support military action against Iran.
Voted for the Iraq war
Supports sending weapons to rebels in Syria
Co-sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning
Voted to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.
Deeply religious and says her faith guides her
Advocates for the death penalty.
Pushed for 3-strikes laws
Supported keeping the Cuban embargo in place
Pledged more support for Israel
Would not ask Israel to stop building settlements
Supported removing habeas corpus for foreign detainees
Voted for the Patriot Act, and then voted to re-authorize it.
The only reason she's not considered a moderate Republican is because in the last few years, the brakes have come off the Republican crazy-train. Despite that, I'm already seeing people say that the only reason that they're in trouble is that they're just not being conservative enough. I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.
I think you may have missed my point, which was not that Clinton is either liberal or conservative, but that comparisons to Republicans are almost meaningless now, because what it means to be a Republican now is largely unknown.
The Republican voters chose as their leader a candidate who (a) is not conservative on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, (b) does not believe in small government, (c) does not believe in free markets and free trade, and (d) does not support, for lack of a better phrase, US military hegemony.
These four issues (social conservatism, small government, free trade, and military dominance) have been core Republican platforms since I've been aware of the GOP, but they just got rejected soundly by Republican voters.
Ustrello wrote: She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right
No... that isn't right.
She represent the contemporary Democrat party..
I beg to differ. It's really still Obama who represents contemporary Democrats. He's pretty much in the middle of Sanders and Clinton, and maybe what we're seeing with the prolonged campaign is the tension between the liberal and conservative factions within the Democratic Party.
So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.
That's the Sanders path to victory at this point. I heard on the radio that he'd have to win each of the remaining states by 25 points or more to secure the nomination.
Co'tor Shas wrote: For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.
That's how things are done these days isn't it?
After all, Michelle Obama freed all those girls in Africa that way.
Co'tor Shas wrote: For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.
That's how things are done these days isn't it?
After all, Michelle Obama freed all those girls in Africa that way.
Oh, wait...
Hashtags are the prayers of the social media age. You get to feel like you're doing something, while actually doing feth all.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.
That's the Sanders path to victory at this point. I heard on the radio that he'd have to win each of the remaining states by 25 points or more to secure the nomination.
Dont listen to the radio. They consistently dont add the 500+ superdelegates who can vote for whovever they choose. If they see Sanders have momentum or Clintons poor health (according to scott adams!) they can pretty much choose which candidate should become presidential candidate.
Dreadwinter wrote: Holy crap, this is getting really depressing fast.....
Meh...almost every poll has Clinton beating Trump by double digits. And the demographics haven't really changed. The Republicans still need to make improvements with Latinos and women in order to win, and the hand may already be dealt for Trump with those voting blocks, particularly Latinos.
As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.
Your kidding right?
And I wouldn't be so sure about Latino's being locked up. A lot of Latino's don't want more Latinos in America. And I am pretty sure some women out there don't see Hillary as a paragon of women's issues after covering for philandering Bill.
And I wouldn't be so sure about Latino's being locked up. A lot of Latino's don't want more Latinos in America. And I am pretty sure some women out there don't see Hillary as a paragon of women's issues after covering for philandering Bill.
You're probably right on both of those counts.... but it still doesn't change anything of what was written above. It's been shown time and again that the Latino and Women's voting blocs are in large majority, swinging AWAY from Trump.... I'd venture to say that those two groups as a whole may be more vehemently #AnyonebutTrump than any other voter group.
jasper76 wrote: As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.
Your kidding right?
Today I learned graduating Yale Law, serving as a congressional legal advisor, writing a book that spent 18 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list (3 weeks at #1), winning a Grammy, getting elected US Senate and then serving as Secretary of State somehow are not accomplishments.
I would say that's like a swing and a miss, but it's more like a swing, a miss, and your pants fell down, while the waa waa waaaa sound played.
jasper76 wrote: As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.
Your kidding right?
Today I learned graduating Yale Law, serving as a congressional legal advisor, writing a book that spent 18 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list (3 weeks at #1), winning a Grammy, getting elected US Senate and then serving as Secretary of State somehow are not accomplishments.
I would say that's like a swing and a miss, but it's more like a swing, a miss, and your pants fell down, while the waa waa waaaa sound played.
I don't think anyone isn't asserting that HRC hasn't been successful in her career.
The issue here is that those "accomplishments" you've listed isn't what's defining HRC.
Take Trump (or any GOP candidate for that matter) out of the picture for a moment - Do you consider HRC a 'good candidate' for President by whatever definition you deem reasonable?
Someone posted she was "an accomplished woman". SickSix asked if that person was kidding, repeating a popular idea first espoused by perpetual Washington outsider/failure hobbyist Carly Fiorina that Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing.
Now, you wish to shift to conversation to "oh, not those accomplishments". I'm not sure why we're doing that, other than you feel the reflexive need to help out someone on the red team.
16 senators have gone on to become president, so why are we just discounting that (alone) out of hand? Because facts are inconvenient?
Ouze wrote: Someone posted she was "an accomplished woman". SickSix asked if that person was kidding, repeating a popular idea first espoused by perpetual Washington outsider/failure hobbyist Carly Fiorina that Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing.
Now, you wish to shift to conversation to "oh, not those accomplishments". I'm not sure why we're doing that, other than you feel the reflexive need to help out someone on the red team.
Now who's tugging the goalpost now?
You've listed those accomplishments above. I'm not arguing that it's not an achievement.
Which of those do you think prepared her for the WH?
The only one I would say, is that she has had 4 years of Secretary of State. But even then, we'd have to discuss Benghazi.
But, in a weird way, I think her being the First Lady in Bill Clinton's administration prepared her for the job more than anything.
At least she has a clue. (don't take that as a ringing endorsement. )
16 senators have gone on to become president, so why are we just discounting that (alone) out of hand? Because facts are inconvenient?
Where did I say it wasn't? I've harped for Rubio (and held my nose for Cruz). o.O
Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.
Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.
Yeah, because actually doing something about deficit spending, having economic policies that didn't hurt jobs markets (ya know... unemployment actually went down under big O), murders are down (not really attributable to him) but gun sales are booming....
Yep, all those are the hallmarks of a terrible president. But then again, we all know that because he's "Team Blue" you're gonna reflexively say that he's terrible and destroying the country.
Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.
Yeah, because actually doing something about deficit spending,
Yeah, thanks the GOP House for that ya'know?
having economic policies that didn't hurt jobs markets (ya know... unemployment actually went down under big O),
Labor Participation is lower than the '70s. Not something you'd want to push.
murders are down (not really attributable to him) but gun sales are booming....
Weird. Obama's is a vigilante taking on the bad guy?
Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!
Yep, all those are the hallmarks of a terrible president. But then again, we all know that because he's "Team Blue" you're gonna reflexively say that he's terrible and destroying the country.
He's terrible... except that he strengthened the Blue Team by stacking the lower courts with liberal justices. So, by that measure, he'll have a lasting impact.
Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!
Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!
Whatever gets the job done, amirite?
Sure. I just won't give Obama credit for this, 'cuz that'd be asinine.
Somehow I doubt that a conservative watchdog group can get anything out of her or her people that a congressional hearing can't. But I guess you really want choose between a socialist and a fascist, huh.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Somehow I doubt that a conservative watchdog group can get anything out of her or her people that a congressional hearing can't. But I guess you really want choose between a socialist and a fascist, huh.
A Sanders vs. Trump election would be waaaay more interesting than a Clinton vs. Trump.
...
But even after adjusting for the aging population there are still millions more people neither working nor looking for work than when the recession began. Many experts feared they would never come back.
...
Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...
Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...
I do seem to recall when ACA was new and shiny, some users, perhaps even yourself were claiming that ACA was "forcing" employers to shift over to more part-time positions..... and others clearly showing that that trend was happening, whether ACA happened or not.
Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...
I do seem to recall when ACA was new and shiny, some users, perhaps even yourself were claiming that ACA was "forcing" employers to shift over to more part-time positions..... and others clearly showing that that trend was happening, whether ACA happened or not.
Part of it is the government re-classifying what's "full time".
It used to be 40 hours.
Then, it got shifted to 38 hours (some states had their own twists)...
Under ACA, it's now 30 hours a week. You work at least 30 hours, you're considered "full time".
Lowering that threshold put many business under pressure to reduce the number of fulltimers on staff to avoid being shoehorned under the mandatory requirements.
Hence the phrase, it's an increasingly Part-Time Employment Market.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So businesses that have a lot of full time employees have to get them health insurance. I don't get the big problem?
Great way to shake up the labor cost!
So, do you believe business will simply allow that to eat into their profit margins? Raise the good & services they provide to cover the increase costs?
Or, do you think it's likely that, as rational business operators, they'll play the game of not offering fulltime employment... increase the number of parttimers (29 hrs or less / week) to skirt this requirement?
See why this is just one poorly thought out design of the PPACA?
You know what. I'm gonna give him props. It takes balls to do something I think he hates doing, because he has to face the reality that this guy might actually somehow maybe become president of America.
LordofHats wrote: You know what. I'm gonna give him props. It takes balls to do something I think he hates doing, because he has to face the reality that this guy might actually somehow maybe become president of America.
Really, we're the real villains here XD
Mexico may have rolled up the white flag, but here in Britain, David Cameron refuses to apologise for calling Trump an idiot, and up here in Scotland, moves are still afoot to ban Trump from entering Scotland!
Should President Trump wish to send in the Marines, I've got my trench dug, and my grandfather's steel helmet on standby
whembly wrote: Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?
That's a big part of it, sure. Thing is, there were lots of accusations thrown around about Obama - he was a socialist, he had ties to terror organisations, he wasn't a naturally born American citizen. The reason McCain and Romney didn't 'fight' and use those accusations is because they were absolute nonsense. Neither candidate was a shameful liar nor insane, so they didn't use them.
Trump, of course, was a major figure in the birther nonsense. Because he is a shameless liar. Not just then, but now - did you see just the other day Trump was repeating the tabloid claim that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK assassination?
So yeah, a large portion of the GOP base wants Trump's kind of fight. The problem, though, is that it won't be a fight based on policy or national vision, it'll just be Trump repeating a bunch of utterly stupid rumours he read on the internet.
Which unfortunately is exactly what a large portion of the Republican base want. They've been immersed in lies and nonsense from the fringes of the right wing for decades now, they've bought in to every part of it. And now there's enough of them that they've actually managed to secure someone like that as the Republican presidential nominee.
This really should be a big wake up call for the Republicans, but then a lot of things should have been.
whembly wrote: Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?
That's a big part of it, sure. Thing is, there were lots of accusations thrown around about Obama - he was a socialist, he had ties to terror organisations, he wasn't a naturally born American citizen. The reason McCain and Romney didn't 'fight' and use those accusations is because they were absolute nonsense. Neither candidate was a shameful liar nor insane, so they didn't use them.
Trump, of course, was a major figure in the birther nonsense. Because he is a shameless liar. Not just then, but now - did you see just the other day Trump was repeating the tabloid claim that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK assassination?
So yeah, a large portion of the GOP base wants Trump's kind of fight. The problem, though, is that it won't be a fight based on policy or national vision, it'll just be Trump repeating a bunch of utterly stupid rumours he read on the internet.
Which unfortunately is exactly what a large portion of the Republican base want. They've been immersed in lies and nonsense from the fringes of the right wing for decades now, they've bought in to every part of it. And now there's enough of them that they've actually managed to secure someone like that as the Republican presidential nominee.
This really should be a big wake up call for the Republicans, but then a lot of things should have been.
The last time the Republican went down that route, they got steamrolled by LBJ. I can see HRC doing something similar to Trump, assuming of course some scandal doesn't derail her.
Frazzled wrote: *People are hurting in this country. Our economy is turning into a South American one with lots and lots of lower class, and a very small elite. The supposed recovery did nothing but accelerate that. Both parties dither and dither, very content in how things are working-because the people that run them are the elites benefiting from it.
I think you're making a big mistake in assuming there - the widening divide isn't a plot by any kind of 'elites'. People like to think the wealthy plot to take from the working class, the reality is that the wealthy are indifferent to the working class.
The growing inequality, the shortage of jobs that pay a livable wage, these are all driven by basic changes in the economy. Here’s a wonderful quote that sums it all up perfectly;
“The automatic machine... is the precise equivalent of slave labour. Any labour which competes with slave labour must accept the economic conditions of slave labour.”
That quote was from a guy called Norbert Weiner, from the 1950s. He was right 60 years ahead of time – anything which can be done by machine will displace a worker, unless that worker accepts wages close to zero.
Everything that causes so much angst, international trade, migration (either legal or illegal), is all just a distraction from this basic reality about the modern world – automation is replacing human labour.
If you don’t believe this just look at the angst over the supposed decline of US manufacturing. Except US manufacturing is bigger than its ever been – it’s more than 2 trillion a year. There’s no shortage of things being made in the US. What’s disappeared is manufacturing jobs – replaced by automation.
That’s the issue with Trump – he is right that people are anxious, but he is dangerously wrong in what the actual problem is.
Your reservation here was exactly how I felt prior to Obama winning.
This is the problem with the extreme rhetoric of the Republican party during the Obama administration. You spent so long calling a perfectly ordinary politician like Obama a dangerous radical that you lost the ability to see a genuinely dangerous crazy when he ran in the Republican primary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Don't be happy if thats so. One party states are dictatorships.
If the Republicans were to come apart or otherwise stop competing at the national level, then the Democrats will split in to two parties soon enough. Similarly if the Democrats ever stopped being competitive, the Republicans would quickly form in to two new parties. Americans wouldn't tolerate that lack of choice for too long, it's in your cultural DNA.
triplegrim wrote: Dont listen to the radio. They consistently dont add the 500+ superdelegates who can vote for whovever they choose. If they see Sanders have momentum or Clintons poor health (according to scott adams!) they can pretty much choose which candidate should become presidential candidate.
They can... but the idea that 'poor momentum' or anything else will get Sanders to convince the super-delegates to flip to him is the delusions of a man who it turns out wants to be president way more than anyone realised.
Baby boomers account for most, and most of the rest is accounted for by the growing number of college entrants. You can see this is if look restrict both the upper and lower ages, so you're looking at people just in their prime working years.
And the best thing about that graph - France has you guys owned. Turns out favourable conditions for working women, and limiting work hours do wonders to draw more people in to the economy. Damn socialists with their sensible and well constructed working conditions.
Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...
That's a tired and very, very mistaken conservative myth. PPACA didn't impact part time jobs at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!
The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.
People keep saying that, and yet when asked it just goes back to Whitewater, Vincent Price, Benghazi! and emails.
I'm not saying its a perfect method, but I figure if people can only ever come up with bs to attack someone, there might only be bs to attack them over.
I think the fact this exists tells you everything you need to know about what sort of nonsense has been thrown at the Clintons, and the reason most people think it's bunk.
If there is a labor statistics people should point out, it would be wage stagnation. But that's an area Republicans don't want to touch, so they focus on bogus numbers instead.
Mexico may have rolled up the white flag, but here in Britain, David Cameron refuses to apologise for calling Trump an idiot, and up here in Scotland, moves are still afoot to ban Trump from entering Scotland!
Should President Trump wish to send in the Marines, I've got my trench dug, and my grandfather's steel helmet on standby
Bring it on America!
Lol, depending on who they send, it could very well be like that scene in Braveheart when the Irish show up.... we're all charging at each other, blood and guts and all that, and right at the last minute it's slowing down for hugs, handshakes and warm welcomes all around
And the best thing about that graph - France has you guys owned. Turns out favourable conditions for working women, and limiting work hours do wonders to draw more people in to the economy. Damn socialists with their sensible and well constructed working conditions.
While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If there is a labor statistics people should point out, it would be wage stagnation. But that's an area Republicans don't want to touch, so they focus on bogus numbers instead.
That's because the Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the bogus idea that trickle down works. Naturally their biggest donor base is going to be against this topic coming up, so naturally the Republicans (and by extension, any politician who's received large sums of money from business interests) are going to avoid this topic.
Everything that causes so much angst, international trade, migration (either legal or illegal), is all just a distraction from this basic reality about the modern world – automation is replacing human labour.
If you don’t believe this just look at the angst over the supposed decline of US manufacturing. Except US manufacturing is bigger than its ever been – it’s more than 2 trillion a year. There’s no shortage of things being made in the US. What’s disappeared is manufacturing jobs – replaced by automation.
That’s the issue with Trump – he is right that people are anxious, but he is dangerously wrong in what the actual problem is.
Automation isn't exactly the issue. Building machines so that people can make the same amount of stuff for less work is a great idea from a worker's perspective. The problem is that production is not done to fulfil need, production is done to create profit. Capital has been driving the development of automation because they want to make fewer people work longer hours to produce even more to be sold at a greater profit margin. If people did not need to work for a wage then automation would be one of our greatest allies.
Trump does understand that people are anxious. Mainly it's white americans who can see the decline of white supremacy to demographic pressure and are very much unhappy about it because it means that they'll be subjected to the same conditions as any other worker and won't have their guaranteed employment with raises and promotions.
That's because the Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the bogus idea that trickle down works. Naturally their biggest donor base is going to be against this topic coming up, so naturally the Republicans (and by extension, any politician who's received large sums of money from business interests) are going to avoid this topic.
When you explain it that way, Trickle Down economics does work for Rs!
Mexico may have rolled up the white flag, but here in Britain, David Cameron refuses to apologise for calling Trump an idiot, and up here in Scotland, moves are still afoot to ban Trump from entering Scotland!
Should President Trump wish to send in the Marines, I've got my trench dug, and my grandfather's steel helmet on standby
Bring it on America!
Lol, depending on who they send, it could very well be like that scene in Braveheart when the Irish show up.... we're all charging at each other, blood and guts and all that, and right at the last minute it's slowing down for hugs, handshakes and warm welcomes all around
And the best thing about that graph - France has you guys owned. Turns out favourable conditions for working women, and limiting work hours do wonders to draw more people in to the economy. Damn socialists with their sensible and well constructed working conditions.
While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If there is a labor statistics people should point out, it would be wage stagnation. But that's an area Republicans don't want to touch, so they focus on bogus numbers instead.
That's because the Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the bogus idea that trickle down works. Naturally their biggest donor base is going to be against this topic coming up, so naturally the Republicans (and by extension, any politician who's received large sums of money from business interests) are going to avoid this topic.
In many ways the USA only has its self to blame. You had a nice parliamentary system, and if you had stuck with it for a few more years, you would have gotten your freedom and ended up being Canadian!
Instead, you allowed yourself to be influenced by dangerous ideas like freedom. Rootbeer. Constitution.
So some friends of mine who are republicans but are not voting for trump explained how his rise of power came.
White Working class and middle class are PISSED and tired of being ignored. They are seeing their benefits slashed, their children are paying more for school than they did and getting in dept. But they see all these special benefits given to people that come over here illegally(Like the DREAM ACT) or special treatment to minorities and jobs just going away. They work hard but reap none of the benefits of their tax money that is given to lazy freeloaders.
Just though it was interesting. Their grips are not necessarily small ones.
skyth wrote: Don't you mean 'scandal'? The Republicans love manufacturing fake scandals to accuse the Clintons of...
It's now to the 'boy who cried wolf' point.
There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!
The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.
I have a feeling most of those skeletons were manufactured by the right wing spin machine. Tell a lie often enough, and all that. I'd be surprised if the Clintons were so legally lax those decades under intense enemy scrutiny. Anything they did that migh be ethically grey will almost certainly be kosher with the legal team.
skyth wrote: Don't you mean 'scandal'? The Republicans love manufacturing fake scandals to accuse the Clintons of...
It's now to the 'boy who cried wolf' point.
There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!
The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.
I have a feeling most of those skeletons were manufactured by the right wing spin machine. Tell a lie often enough, and all that. I'd be surprised if the Clintons were so legally lax those decades under intense enemy scrutiny. Anything they did that migh be ethically grey will almost certainly be kosher with the legal team.
From the top of my head, Bill Clinton faced possible impeachment because he had been having 'liasons' with somebody called Monica, and Hilary Clinton made a claim about being under fire from snipers when she visited Bosnia in the 1990s, which later turned out to be bullgak, so there's two things, amongst many, to attack the Clintons with.
Apparently a Trump supporting tow truck driver in South Carolina claimed a Religious Freedom exemption and refused to tow a disabled woman because she was a Bernie supporter.
skyth wrote: Apparently a Trump supporting tow truck driver in South Carolina claimed a Religious Freedom exemption and refused to tow a disabled woman because she was a Bernie supporter.
The right wing have been after the Clintons for over 20 years. There clearly isn't any serious traction in these accusations for whatever reasons, and they are only any use in addressing the already committed anti-Clintonites-- preaching to the choir, in other words.
d-usa wrote: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for having an affair.
But the point remains - there's plenty of ammo for opponents of the Clinton's to attack them with, so I'm not buying the argument put forward by others that the Republicans are manufacturing stuff.
d-usa wrote: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for having an affair.
But the point remains - there's plenty of ammo for opponents of the Clinton's to attack them with, so I'm not buying the argument put forward by others that the Republicans are manufacturing stuff.
For clarification as this get confused quite a bit...
Bill Clinton was impeachedby the House for perjury.
The Senate was unable to *remove* Clinton from office.
That's basically the process to remove people from office for most Executive/Judicial positions. It's just that it's rare...
skyth wrote: Apparently a Trump supporting tow truck driver in South Carolina claimed a Religious Freedom exemption and refused to tow a disabled woman because she was a Bernie supporter.
“He goes around back and comes back and says, ‘I can’t tow you,'” McWade said. “My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car, and he says, ‘No, you’re a Bernie supporter.’ And I was like, ‘Wait — really?’ And he says, ‘Yes ma’am,’ and just walks away.”
Shupe offered a supernatural explanation for his decision to leave the 25-year-old McWade, who suffers from arthritis and other health conditions, alongside I-26.
“Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and He just said, ‘Get in the truck and leave,'” Shupe said. “And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed.”
The Donald Trump supporter then offered a more earthly explanation for stranding the customer....
skyth wrote: Apparently a Trump supporting tow truck driver in South Carolina claimed a Religious Freedom exemption and refused to tow a disabled woman because she was a Bernie supporter.
“He goes around back and comes back and says, ‘I can’t tow you,'” McWade said. “My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car, and he says, ‘No, you’re a Bernie supporter.’ And I was like, ‘Wait — really?’ And he says, ‘Yes ma’am,’ and just walks away.”
Shupe offered a supernatural explanation for his decision to leave the 25-year-old McWade, who suffers from arthritis and other health conditions, alongside I-26.
“Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and He just said, ‘Get in the truck and leave,'” Shupe said. “And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed.”
The Donald Trump supporter then offered a more earthly explanation for stranding the customer....
Still not a claim of using Religious Freedom...
:shrug:
He's a dick hole, but hey... party affiliation isn't a protected class. If he truly didn't want to deal with Sander's supportors, he could've at least called another tow truck for her...
d-usa wrote: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for having an affair.
But the point remains - there's plenty of ammo for opponents of the Clinton's to attack them with, so I'm not buying the argument put forward by others that the Republicans are manufacturing stuff.
Ammo that old doesn't fire any more.
What scandalous things have they done since 2000? Or are we just going to hear the golden oldies on repeat until November?
If the Republicans had anything they would have used it by now. Benghazi and emailgate are weaksause attacks that make them look pathetic and her look like more of an innocent victim than any politician ever should. Frankly, the huge amount of irrational Hillary hate everywhere comes across as ignorant, which saps any credibility the Hillary detractors would have had. People talk about her like she's pure evil, and when asked why point to scandals so petty they are meaningless.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
1.
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
2.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
3.
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
5.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
6.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
7.
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
8.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
10.
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
such as:
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Ben
#WeCanDoBetter
#GiveUsMoreChoices
Lost me as soon as he started ranting that a concensus candidate would be more conservative than either of the two 'Liberal' front runners. A person that calls Hillary or especially Trump a Liberal has views that have no basis in reality.
skyth wrote: Lost me as soon as he started ranting that a concensus candidate would be more conservative than either of the two 'Liberal' front runners. A person that calls Hillary or especially Trump a Liberal has views that have no basis in reality.
But he trusts that farm town more than some city with learnin'. Farm town Walmart is where good governance is born.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So some friends of mine who are republicans but are not voting for trump explained how his rise of power came.
White Working class and middle class are PISSED and tired of being ignored. They are seeing their benefits slashed, their children are paying more for school than they did and getting in dept. But they see all these special benefits given to people that come over here illegally(Like the DREAM ACT) or special treatment to minorities and jobs just going away. They work hard but reap none of the benefits of their tax money that is given to lazy freeloaders.
Just though it was interesting. Their grips are not necessarily small ones.
OFTEN we disagree, but sir, you have nailed it in one.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
1.
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
2.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
3.
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
5.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
6.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
7.
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
8.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
10.
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
such as:
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Ben
#WeCanDoBetter
#GiveUsMoreChoices
Thanks bro.
So... he's calling for a 3rd party run by conservatives.
Cool. But talk is cheap...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Lost me as soon as he started ranting that a concensus candidate would be more conservative than either of the two 'Liberal' front runners. A person that calls Hillary or especially Trump a Liberal has views that have no basis in reality.
Right... 'cuz Hillary is a "Republican" has basis in reality.
Nevermind that more than 60% of GOP primary voters voted against Trump.
skyth wrote: Lost me as soon as he started ranting that a concensus candidate would be more conservative than either of the two 'Liberal' front runners. A person that calls Hillary or especially Trump a Liberal has views that have no basis in reality.
But he trusts that farm town more than some city with learnin'. Farm town Walmart is where good governance is born.
skyth wrote: Apparently a Trump supporting tow truck driver in South Carolina claimed a Religious Freedom exemption and refused to tow a disabled woman because she was a Bernie supporter.
“He goes around back and comes back and says, ‘I can’t tow you,'” McWade said. “My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car, and he says, ‘No, you’re a Bernie supporter.’ And I was like, ‘Wait — really?’ And he says, ‘Yes ma’am,’ and just walks away.”
Shupe offered a supernatural explanation for his decision to leave the 25-year-old McWade, who suffers from arthritis and other health conditions, alongside I-26.
“Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and He just said, ‘Get in the truck and leave,'” Shupe said. “And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed.”
The Donald Trump supporter then offered a more earthly explanation for stranding the customer....
While he has the legal right to refuse service, if he worked for a company and I was his boss I'd fire thats son of a faster than you can say get off my property you trash*
*Frazzled's new favorite phrase last shouted into the face of his trash neighbor saturday.
He 'may' have had the legal right to refuse service, but he shouldn't have the ability to. Tow trucks are actors of public safety (especially in this case where the woman had health issues).
skyth wrote: He 'may' have had the legal right to refuse service, but he shouldn't have the ability to. Tow trucks are actors of public safety (especially in this case where the woman had health issues).
-They aren't actors of public safety (even the police have no duty to protect you and they work for you)
-Why is it lefties always want to force people to do something, instead of properly calling his phone line 5,000 times with why he should be fired.
skyth wrote: He 'may' have had the legal right to refuse service, but he shouldn't have the ability to. Tow trucks are actors of public safety (especially in this case where the woman had health issues).
-They aren't actors of public safety (even the police have no duty to protect you and they work for you)
Indeed. But the tow operator should've called in another operator at the minimum.
-Why is it lefties always want to force people to do something, instead of properly calling his phone line 5,000 times with why he should be fired.
Because they subscribe to the notion that the government can and should dictate to people what arrangements they make in private employment - rather letting market forces address it, like you'd suggested by blowing up his boss' phone.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But the point remains - there's plenty of ammo for opponents of the Clinton's to attack them with, so I'm not buying the argument put forward by others that the Republicans are manufacturing stuff.
What people have been saying is that the other side has been throwing ammo at the Clintons for so many years there isn't any left, and a lot of the ammo they had to begin with was bogus and embarrassed the people throwing it more than the target. A lot of people in the electorate are pretty immune to "look what Clinton did" at this point. The boy cried wolf too many times.
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
Well...even if he isn't breaking the law, he certainly didnt do himself or his political affiliations nor chosend candidate any favors. Now he gets to be the face of Trump supporters,"the people who leave disabled women stranded on highways".
That'll look greeeeaaat.
Also, if he doesn't face a civil suit, I'll be shocked.
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
All framed no doubt by the Clinton NWO secret mafia goons.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
It's the hairstyles and clothing we wear that you really regret
FWIW I think he should indeed have gone.
Not for having a/however many affairs -- hardly the 1st there and as time has shown the opposition weren't any better -- but because he did lie under oath.
And the President does have to be better than that.
One appreciates there will be times it's necessary to lie -- do we have plans to bomb XXXX tomorrow .. no of course not etc etc -- but when it's crunch time, you gotta follow the law.
That said it was somewhat ridiculous that things got as far as they did one supposes.
Because they subscribe to the notion that the government can and should dictate to people what arrangements they make in private employment - rather letting market forces address it, like you'd suggested by blowing up his boss' phone.
There's one small problem with what you're suggesting: the "market forces" you describe, have shown time and time again that they are absolutely gakky at addressing problems.
Because they subscribe to the notion that the government can and should dictate to people what arrangements they make in private employment - rather letting market forces address it, like you'd suggested by blowing up his boss' phone.
There's one small problem with what you're suggesting: the "market forces" you describe, have shown time and time again that they are absolutely gakky at addressing problems.
Clearly you have yet to learn that business owners are exceptional, and you should bow down and worship them without question for they are the chosen few who can lead us to greater profit! Educate yourself;
One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that there is a moral duty to care for other people and conservatives don't.
skyth wrote: One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that there is a moral duty to care for other people and conservatives don't.
I wouldn't go that far. I think conservatives think there's a moral duty to care for other people too. They just don't think it's the government's responsibility to make them care via tax and law.
The real difference is we've already been down the road Conservatives want to travel, and it wasn't pretty the last time we were there and I really feel no incentive to go back. Could be wrong. Maybe it'll work out this time. But I think my odds are a lot better not trusting individual actors with no accountability to anyone but themselves to not be donkey-caves. At least I can vote for government.
Because they subscribe to the notion that the government can and should dictate to people what arrangements they make in private employment - rather letting market forces address it, like you'd suggested by blowing up his boss' phone.
There's one small problem with what you're suggesting: the "market forces" you describe, have shown time and time again that they are absolutely gakky at addressing problems.
And so are compelled government "solutions".
The problem that nobody wants to address is people. Power breeds a lack of accountability. Doesn't matter how they get there, if they are not accountable, they abuse the position. Free markets don't work because large market actors don't want the accountability, risk, and cost of a free market so will collude, influence legislation, etc. Vesting power in the government doesn't really help if those market actors can just buy access to that power. Even if they can't, governments seem to have a knack for swinging towards petty bureaucracy or out right tyranny (usually with the very best of stated intentions).
The check on American government (elections) is just as illusory as "free markets". Hence we are now here. A corrupt morass crushing a productive middle class into an increasing underclass to feed the top. You know, just like just about every large civilization ever. It's almost like humans follow patterns or something....
skyth wrote: One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that there is a moral duty to care for other people and conservatives don't.
Conservatives consistently donate more to charity than liberals do.
The real divide is whose role it is to care for people - liberals are more inclined to expect the government to do so, conservatives are more inclined to see it as the responsibility of private organizations/religious organizations.
Conservatives consistently donate more to charity than liberals do.
The real divide is whose role it is to care for people - liberals are more inclined to expect the government to do so, conservatives are more inclined to see it as the responsibility of private organizations/religious organizations.
Are you counting churches as "charity" in that?? Because if so, I'd call BS on that.
And the big reason why left leaning people "expect" the government to care for and support people, is precisely because conservatives think that private citizens and religious organizations do such an awesome job at it.
skyth wrote: One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that there is a moral duty to care for other people and conservatives don't.
They want to control who the donations go to so they go to the 'right' people. It's not a moral duty to care for people(in general), it's wanting to only help out certain people. Plus there is no moral duty to help out other people. That some do is irrelevant.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Are you counting churches as "charity" in that?? Because if so, I'd call BS on that.
I would too, but I'm an atheist who leans liberal. However, do conservatives honestly believe religious organizations are a good source of charity? I think that's fair to say. I mean, these aren't my metrics, you can google it - I believe there have been several studies all showing more or less the same thing: conservatives donate religiously, liberals donate secularly, conservatives donate more total. The idea that conservatives don't believe there is a moral duty to care for other people is provably false.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And the big reason why left leaning people "expect" the government to care for and support people, is precisely because conservatives think that private citizens and religious organizations do such an awesome job at it.
Sure, these are the basics of conservative and liberal ideology. Nothing really controversial here I don't think.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Are you counting churches as "charity" in that?? Because if so, I'd call BS on that.
I would too, but I'm an atheist who leans liberal. However, do conservatives honestly believe religious organizations are a good source of charity? I think that's fair to say. I mean, these aren't my metrics, you can google it - I believe there have been several studies all showing more or less the same thing: conservatives donate religiously, liberals donate secularly, conservatives donate more total. The idea that conservatives don't believe there is a moral duty to care for other people is provably false.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And the big reason why left leaning people "expect" the government to care for and support people, is precisely because conservatives think that private citizens and religious organizations do such an awesome job at it.
Sure, these are the basics of conservative and liberal ideology. Nothing really controversial here I don't think.
I'm also atheist, and pretty left-leaning... Obviously, I am of the camp that says giving to a church/religious organization does not equal giving to charity... There are far too many churches who don't really do much charity work at all.... and where a number of them do, it is tied to proselytizing, or moral judgements (ie, you cannot receive aid from us if we deem you are unworthy), which completely negates in my eyes, the idea behind charity.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There are far too many churches who don't really do much charity work at all.... and where a number of them do, it is tied to proselytizing, or moral judgements (ie, you cannot receive aid from us if we deem you are unworthy), which completely negates in my eyes, the idea behind charity.
I agree 100%, but I also think that's not how conservatives see it. I think they believe in good faith that donating to religious organizations is helping people. As such, I'd qualify it as charity, by the motivations of people who donate. I doubt when most people pass the plate or take up collections at their church, they intend for proselytizing to be attached to said aid, that just happens later.
skyth wrote: He 'may' have had the legal right to refuse service, but he shouldn't have the ability to. Tow trucks are actors of public safety (especially in this case where the woman had health issues).
-They aren't actors of public safety (even the police have no duty to protect you and they work for you)
Indeed. But the tow operator should've called in another operator at the minimum.
I agree completely. This is unprofessional in the extreme. If I were the local constabulary I would 1) ban him from all accident tows; 2) take a personal interest in making sure he completely follows ALL traffic laws at all times with suitable tickets...hourly.
In the immirtal words of that wimp Sergeant Barnes "I'm going t take a personal interest in seeing them suffer."
skyth wrote: They want to control who the donations go to so they go to the 'right' people. It's not a moral duty to care for people(in general), it's wanting to only help out certain people. Plus there is no moral duty to help out other people. That some do is irrelevant.
If by right people, you mean the specific groups being targeted by those charities then yes.
I guess I am one of those evilz ones who only want my money going to the right people ***Wink wink nudge nudge***
like
St. Judes Children Hospital
Star of Hope Missions
Central Texas Dachshund Rescue
Grey Muzzles
Diamond Dachsies Rescue
Austin Humane Society
Citizens for Animal Protection
you know wink wink nudge nudge "the right people"*
No party, no "wing" owns the charity gig. Both have people who care, and people who don't.
*This ad has been brought to you by TBone, Lord of All Dogs and Herald of the Great Wienie. He wasn't just an advocate of (CTDR) he was a client.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
1.
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
2.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
3.
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
5.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
6.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
7.
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
8.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
10.
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
such as:
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Ben
#WeCanDoBetter
#GiveUsMoreChoices
I don't believe either of them are honourable people, but I believe Trump is a useless loudmouth gakker, who actually is fairly unintelligent and of low education, and Clinton is a shrewd, intelligent, well-educated, experienced political operator.
Ouze wrote: I doubt when most people pass the plate or take up collections at their church, they intend for proselytizing to be attached to said aid, that just happens later.
But the people who report those donations as charitable deductions almost certainly do.
skyth wrote: They want to control who the donations go to so they go to the 'right' people. It's not a moral duty to care for people(in general), it's wanting to only help out certain people. Plus there is no moral duty to help out other people. That some do is irrelevant.
If by right people, you mean the specific groups being targeted by those charities then yes.
I guess I am one of those evilz ones who only want my money going to the right people ***Wink wink nudge nudge***
like:
...
The counterargument to your list would be that it leaves a lot of people uncovered: elderly, temporarily unemployed, etc etc etc.
The argument for charity via taxes would be that instead of only benefiting a very select group of people, your money, pooled together with everyone else's money, can then affect everybody that has a need.
Personally, I do agree with that argument to an extend. But I would want a larger chunk of money to stay at the city, county, and state level to meet our needs locally rather than going to DC. Although that does raise the risk of having poorer states end up with less resources to help themselves because they don't make as much in taxes because they are poorer even though they have a greater need because they are poorer.
And I'm sure that if we would plug every state as well as the federal government into one of those "how much money is spend on overhead and how much makes it back to the actual cause" charity evaluation websites none of us would like what we saw .
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.
If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:
1) Who is the other person?
2) Is POTUS being blackmailed
3) Is this a risk to national security?
As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...
Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...
A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...
The sooner we all drop the broad brush us vs them thinking the better. "They" aren't all the same any more then "we" are all the same.
Exactly. Note my original post was intended as a humorous redirect to endlessly calling their employer, a favorite tactic of activists on all sides to legally have changes made for stupidity such as that. Plus its way more fun.
Some of the stuff done:
♦ removing the historical door knobs
♦ cutting all the electronic cabling
♦ stealing items (lots of stuff)
♦ writing vulgar messages on the White House office walls
♦ spray painting the walls
♦ destroying furniture
♦ slicing chair cushions
♦ ripping phones out of walls
♦ gluing desk drawers closed
♦ carving into desk tops
My two favorites so far are:
♦ switching around the fax machines and location addressed telephones
♦ removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.
If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:
1) Who is the other person?
2) Is POTUS being blackmailed
3) Is this a risk to national security?
As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...
Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...
A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...
There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.
The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.
The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.
Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.
Talk about bringing up gak that was talked to death in 2000, when it happened, and then talked to death again 2008, when it was back in the news as a counterpoint to how disciplined GWB's transition to Obama was.
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.
If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:
1) Who is the other person?
2) Is POTUS being blackmailed
3) Is this a risk to national security?
As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...
Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...
A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...
There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.
The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.
The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.
Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.
I suggest you don't vote for Bill Clinton for president then.
reds8n wrote: How are the people who led the impeachment doing ?
If I recall, the chief proponents driving the moral outage over Bill Clinton having an affair were serial philanderer Newt Gingrinch (who was actually having an affair at the time), serial philanderer Bob Livingston, and serial child molester Dennis Hastert.
So, I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll repeat it. At the time the Bill Clinton affair thing happened, I was pretty young, and I thought it was a terrible scandal. I was a real strident jerk about it, and thought he should resign. I got into this huge rolling debates with my friend's dad, who was really liberal - he said the whole thing was nonsense, I said a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants shouldn't have his finger on the button. Man, I'm still embarrassed by how dumb I was then. Now that I'm older, I realize that when he was asked about the affair, he should have told them to mind their goddamn business.
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder how dumb I'll feel about the stuff I'm saying now in 20 years.
In many respects, you're correct - a private affair is nobody's buisness, but when you're POTUS, there's no such thing as a private life, for as long as you remain in office.
If POTUS is having an affair, then 3 questions logically arise:
1) Who is the other person?
2) Is POTUS being blackmailed
3) Is this a risk to national security?
As an historic example, we had a massive scandal in Britain in the 1960s when the defence minister had an affair with somebody...who had also been having an affair with somebody from the Russian embassy...
Needless to say, the gak hit the fan...
A similar event is unlikey to happen in America, but you never know...
There are parts to the Clinton impeachment.
The first is the affair itself. While immoral in most people's opinion affairs aren't an impeachable offense. The fact that Lewinsky was a federal employee and Clinton was a higher ranking federal employee with the power to influence Lewinsky's job and career was a HR/labor law problem the same it would be for any other federal employees in a similar power relationship having an affair but that still probably wouldn't have resulted in any criminal charges.
The second part is that Clinton lied under oath about the affair. The lying under oath is the illegal act and impeachable offense that he committed. The affair was just the reason behind the lying. If Clinton hadn't perjured himself there would still have been a scandal but it's unlikely that he would have ever been impeached.
Politicians and the media being what they are of course they played to the cameras and put the spotlight on the salacious affair much more so than the perjury offense. Personally, I care far more about a President that deliberately sidesteps a legal obligation to tell the truth in court than I do about whether or not a President steps out on his wife.
So...
Isn't it time to have an official White House Harem?
If it's sanctioned, wouldn't that remove those Honey Trap scenarios with threats of extortion?
The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.
d-usa wrote: The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.
99 times out of 100 I'd agree with you, but perception is very important in politics.
Here's an easy line of attack for the Republicans:
Remember what happened the last time the Clintons were in the White House? The scandals...and now we have HRC, who wants to be C-in-C of the most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, she didn't even know what her husband was up to half the time. Do you trust her with the nation's security? Do you trust her with the red button?
Iran Contra damaged Reagan, not because of the scandal, but because the perception was created that Reagan didn't know what was happening in his own office half the time.
If people think HRC hasn't got a grip on things, the support for her could slide...
d-usa wrote: The amazing part about this thread is that right after multiple posters have pointed out that the Republican Machine is going to spit out the same old crap that they have been spitting out for the past two decades, and that nobody will care because the scandals from the 90s have been overplayed for the past two decades, the Republican Machine comes along and posts about crap from two decades ago and then complains that nobody cares.
99 times out of 100 I'd agree with you, but perception is very important in politics.
Here's an easy line of attack for the Republicans:
Remember what happened the last time the Clintons were in the White House? The scandals...and now we have HRC, who wants to be C-in-C of the most powerful nation on Earth, and yet, she didn't even know what her husband was up to half the time. Do you trust her with the nation's security? Do you trust her with the red button?
Iran Contra damaged Reagan, not because of the scandal, but because the perception was created that Reagan didn't know what was happening in his own office half the time.
If people think HRC hasn't got a grip on things, the support for her could slide...
Actually, it'll bubble up *because* people either forgot or simply do not know.
There'll be a 16 year gap between Bill Clinton presidency to Hillary's presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.
Again. I don't know how simply I can ask this...
Of all the scandals, from whitewater, rape enabler, FBI enemy list, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc... all of it, we ignore it from this point forward for HRC.
Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...
It's hard to ignore something that has been shoved down the public's throat for the past 20+ years.
There is a difference between "don't talk about this" and "you've bitched and moaned and screamed and kicked everybody for the past 20+ years, during those two decades we fething get that you guys hate everything Clinton, maybe in another two decades you will get that nobody fething cares, so just shut up about it already because there is nothing you can add to the same bitching and moaning that has been going on since the 90s and it's getting a bit old already".
skyth wrote: There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.
Technically, the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation is from 1978, when Bill Clinton was still Governor. So, clearly these allegations, which didn't sway the public from electing Bill Clinton President - twice - will be super effective when recycled against someone who isn't Bill Clinton, 38 years later.
All you can do is shrug, and laugh a sad little laugh. It's the political ammunition equivalent of pocket lint.
whembly wrote: Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...
I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.
whembly wrote: Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...
I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.
Okay... I will grant you that the current streams of vomit coming out of Trumps mouf does indeed warrants attention.
I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.
Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.
When I was younger, there was a skating rink that was the center of a small scandal - it was 2 years of repairs that somehow stretched out over 6, and the cost ballooned from 9 million to 13 million and counting - they were going to have to start over. Trump proposed to have it finished in 4 months for 2.5 million, and then he finished it a month early and under budget.
If I had a nickel for every time my grandmother went on about that rink and how Trump saved it, I am sure I could buy at least a burrito.
A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!
Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.
plastictrees wrote: A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!
Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.
Don't know about Cruz, but the story I heard about Kasich from a couple of places was that he was on the plane from Ohio to DC to speak to donors, looked at his staff, told them "you know....I don't think my heart is in this anymore", and turned the plane around.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.
And according to a documentary on it after he joined and pushed for the move to compete with the NFL he quit after they moved it and then it failed. He takes no responsibility but the documentary was less convinced of this and showed evidence. It wasn't some unknown either it was an ESPN documentary.
plastictrees wrote: A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!
Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.
Don't know about Cruz, but the story I heard about Kasich from a couple of places was that he was on the plane from Ohio to DC to speak to donors, looked at his staff, told them "you know....I don't think my heart is in this anymore", and turned the plane around.
That reminds me a lot of how I decided to quit training in hamster style.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.
And according to a documentary on it after he joined and pushed for the move to compete with the NFL he quit after they moved it and then it failed. He takes no responsibility but the documentary was less convinced of this and showed evidence. It wasn't some unknown either it was an ESPN documentary.
Lol, I've seen the same documentary... I think we all know that naturally, he'd never take any blame on himself so long as he has fingers and toes remaining to point at someone else
Vincent Price? Where did I even get that from? I didn't know it was the name of an actor.
Anyhow... Vince Foster. The Clinton admin guy who killed himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?
Maybe, I don't know if that is true or a stereotype. You certainly raise a good point that we shouldn't ever just point to another country and say 'they are objectively good and what we should aspire to'. Countries are complex, systems always have good and bad bits, and while we should
So uh yeah, I'm not saying that people should emulate France, because just saying 'we should do what they're doing' is almost always too simplistic to be useful. But at the same time, it is funny that so many Republicans will bash Obama style policies as socialist, and reducing the incentive to work. But then you compare to a country with genuinely socialist policies, and the participation rate is so much higher.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?
Maybe, I don't know if that is true or a stereotype. You certainly raise a good point that we shouldn't ever just point to another country and say 'they are objectively good and what we should aspire to'. Countries are complex, systems always have good and bad bits, and while we should
So uh yeah, I'm not saying that people should emulate France, because just saying 'we should do what they're doing' is almost always too simplistic to be useful. But at the same time, it is funny that so many Republicans will bash Obama style policies as socialist, and reducing the incentive to work. But then you compare to a country with genuinely socialist policies, and the participation rate is so much higher.
Lol, I was being very tongue in cheek... I happen to agree with you. Though I lived in Germany, and was somewhat shielded from the "full reality" of living within the German system, I didn't dislike what I saw. As I continue through my education, the more I'm seeing the academic aspects of what Germany and other European countries do and I think, "we could and should do that, though we would probably tweak things a bit."
Rosebuddy wrote: Automation isn't exactly the issue. Building machines so that people can make the same amount of stuff for less work is a great idea from a worker's perspective. The problem is that production is not done to fulfil need, production is done to create profit. Capital has been driving the development of automation because they want to make fewer people work longer hours to produce even more to be sold at a greater profit margin. If people did not need to work for a wage then automation would be one of our greatest allies.
Sort of. Swap out the word ‘need’ for ‘want’ and most of the real situation should fall in to place. It is not merely profit that drives greater and greater production, but basic human nature, both of workers and employers – we want more stuff. As automation has increased productivity, we haven’t worked less, we’ve produced and consumed more. Not just because employers want more profit, but because we want bigger houses and nicer cars.
But we’re now hitting ecological and technological limits to that process. While the oil glut from frakking has distracted people, the long term trend of increasing costs of remains true and unavoidable. And perhaps the bigger issue is technological – it used to be that workers displaced by technology could find work in new industries producing new products (in an indirect way), but the new industries we see today employee very few people. Whatsapp was bought for $22 billion, it employed a few hundred people. The new IT world will not replace workers lost to automation.
That’s how its going to be, and we haven’t even begun to recognise it as a problem, let alone start to really think about solutions that are politically viable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.
I wonder if that was the turning point in the Republican party. The point at which they began their march to crazy town.
Because it’s interesting to read about the Starr investigation and how it evolved over time. It started with Whitewater, but as that came up with nothing it starting fishing around for anything else, with more resources poured in along each step. It morphed from being about the president’s prior financial arrangements (which would have been relevant if there was any illegal behaviour), and in to his sexual relations (which are utterly irrelevant). And the thing is I can actually sympathise with how that investigation turned. You take public money for a highly public investigation, you need to deliver something or you and everyone who backed you will absolutely hammered.
But the Republican leadership never stopped, never took stock of what was being delivered and said ‘no, this is not how you govern, false moralising about sex achieves nothing for no-one’. They took the political option, and put a president under oath to ask him about his sex life. It was absurd, and the Republican Leadership went along with it, because they hoped it was how they’d beat Clinton.
The Republican party wasn’t lost from that point, but it isn’t hard to see how each immoral decision made since then, from the swift boat lies, to birtherism, to the scare campaign over ACA, to Trump’s eventual nomination, it isn’t that hard to see all those things as links in a chain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: ♦ removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards
All the rest is dickish nonsense, but that is hilarious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
plastictrees wrote: A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!
Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.
Most early guesses said Indiana would go to Cruz - they were guesses rather than polls because polling the state before the NY primary was really spotty. When polls came in they broke heavily for Trump, but before that most thought Indiana would be a strongpoint in the Stop Trump campaign.
Once NY and the surrounding primaries broke for Trump as heavily as they did, and then Trump won in Indiana, there was no plausible way for Cruz to stop Trump getting to 1,237 votes and secure the nomination on the first round.
At that point Cruz probably saw it was better to drop out now and have another crack in 2020. His concession speach touched on Reagan a lot for a good reason (Reagan lost the primary in 1976, and then in 1980 returned to win the primary, the general, and the heart of every true American).
Once Cruz was out Kasich's chance went from theoretical to 'no'. His only play was to stop Trump reaching 1,237, and then hope despite meagre delegte count that the delegates would say no to Trump beccause they hate him, then not to Cruz because they hate him, and then Kasich would be the only guy left. With Cruz out there was no way he could stop Trump by himself, and so that was the end of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Lol, I was being very tongue in cheek... I happen to agree with you.
Sure, I just didn't want it to sound like I falling in to the trap of talking about socialist utopias elsewhere. I've had more than enough of 'in Scandanavia they do this and its awesome'.
Though I lived in Germany, and was somewhat shielded from the "full reality" of living within the German system, I didn't dislike what I saw. As I continue through my education, the more I'm seeing the academic aspects of what Germany and other European countries do and I think, "we could and should do that, though we would probably tweak things a bit."
Yeah, there's definitely a lot to be learned looking at how other countries operate, and especially from living in them. I guess it's just the difference between 'they do this awesome, we should copy it' and 'here's an idea that seems to be working in other countries, how do you think we could apply that idea to our system?'
And Germany is a good model for lots of things. Most countries are. Including the US. There's lots of things the US does really well that the rest of us have or should copy.
In somewhat more realistic rumour mongering that should give Whembly a heart attack, Nikki Haley's name has surfaced as a possible running mate...for Clinton. It goes against prevailing wisdom (that she will try to shore up the Sanders crowd in this manner) but it does make a certain amount of sense. Haley aligns much more with Clinton's philosophy than the Sanders crowd, it could end up turning SC to Dems, it would put the independent crowd firmly in her corner and likely pull some GOP, and it would show a willingness to work with the opposite side (something she actually was complimented for during her time in the Senate).
Gordon Shumway wrote: In somewhat more realistic rumour mongering that should give Whembly a heart attack, Nikki Haley's name has surfaced as a possible running mate...for Clinton. It goes against prevailing wisdom (that she will try to shore up the Sanders crowd in this manner) but it does make a certain amount of sense. Haley aligns much more with Clinton's philosophy than the Sanders crowd, it could end up turning SC to Dems, it would put the independent crowd firmly in her corner and likely pull some GOP, and it would show a willingness to work with the opposite side (something she actually was complimented for during her time in the Senate).
Haley won't do that as it'll destroy her brand. I can see her taking on a Senate seat though...
I would say Haley is much more likely to accept a VP nom from Clinton than Romney (he doesn't seem like a second fiddle guy, like at all, but I could see him endorsing her just to stick it to Trump) or Sanders for Trump (talk about ruining a brand--the guy is all about sticking to his principles and sticking it to "the man". Is there any more perfect example of "the man" than big hands Trump?). I do think Haley could be persuaded. The goodwill she received from the African American community with her flag decision really seemed to affect her.
Clinton's smart likely choice would be Booker, Castro or Warren, though I don't think she likes/can trust Warren to toe the line. I still think Franken would be Clinton's perfect choice.
I can see Trump picking Rubio in the delusion that it might help with FL or "the Hispanics" and Rubio seems to have more ambition than logic, so he might take it.
I think Warren would likely think that she would actually have less power and influence on policy and legislation as VP than she currently has, much like Sanders. I wouldn't expect either to accept a VP offer.
She should just pick her husband. We all know that would be the most gloriously amusing thing ever: and you can hardly deny that the guy has some helpful experience to offer!
d-usa wrote: I think Warren would likely think that she would actually have less power and influence on policy and legislation as VP than she currently has, much like Sanders. I wouldn't expect either to accept a VP offer.
Yep. It's gonna be someone who isn't in office *now*.
I just really, really hope she picks some 6/10 looking male intern and has him go down in the Oval Office. Then the story breaks and Bill has to just "stand by her" and take it.
feeder wrote: I just really, really hope she picks some 6/10 looking male intern and has him go down in the Oval Office. Then the story breaks and Bill has to just "stand by her" and take it.
Clinton's smart likely choice would be Booker, Castro or Warren
I think Booker would be an excellent choice, though Im not so sure he'd take that opportunity. But, I will say that I think he'd make an excellent president when/if Clinton gets whacked
This is of course, based on very limited exposure to Booker. But that exposure has all pointed to someone who is like Sanders in a number of ways.
Clinton's smart likely choice would be Booker, Castro or Warren
I think Booker would be an excellent choice, though Im not so sure he'd take that opportunity. But, I will say that I think he'd make an excellent president when/if Clinton gets whacked
This is of course, based on very limited exposure to Booker. But that exposure has all pointed to someone who is like Sanders in a number of ways.
Charles Rampant wrote: She should just pick her husband. We all know that would be the most gloriously amusing thing ever: and you can hardly deny that the guy has some helpful experience to offer!
No it screams out that he has some serious health problems. Ironically I like the Nikki Haley pick. It a shame she's not running on the Republican Pres side.
Clinton's smart likely choice would be Booker, Castro or Warren
I think Booker would be an excellent choice, though Im not so sure he'd take that opportunity. But, I will say that I think he'd make an excellent president when/if Clinton gets whacked
This is of course, based on very limited exposure to Booker. But that exposure has all pointed to someone who is like Sanders in a number of ways.
No $20 US says it will be Castro from San Antonio. He's been groomed for it for several years now.
Why would she pick Pataki? She already has the NE locked up and he won't bring any GOP voters since none of them footed for him in the primary anyway. He did run, right?
The only downside to Castro is that he doesn't really help her that much. I don't think TX will be in play, even Trump can't lose that, right? And Trump himself will make the Hispanic voters turn out for her already.
It’s hardly any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has a "mind meld" with his boss, the president. According to a David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday and already posted to the website, Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is contemptuous of "the American foreign-policy establishment." What Obama calls the "Washington playbook" dictating the sorts of responses available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the "Blob."
The Blob includes "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker," etc. It also encompasses, according to Rhodes, Obama's former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the administration's first defense secretary Robert Gates. Presumably Leon Panetta, former Pentagon chief and CIA director, who goes on the record to criticize Rhodes and the president, is also part of the Blob, alongside "other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East." In other words, the emotion driving the administration's foreign policy is contempt—contempt for allies, colleagues, and the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII international order, ensuring relative global stability, and peace and prosperity at home.
Samuels's profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He's a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother's connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies—what Rhodes and others call a "narrative"—that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.
"Like Obama," writes Samuels:
Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer's tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama's foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.
As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
In Rhodes's "narrative" about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an "echo chamber" in the press. "[Al Monitor reporter] Laura Rozen was my RSS feed," says Tanya Somanader, the 31-year-old who managed @TheIranDeal twitter feed. "She would just find everything and retweet it."
"In the spring of last year," Samuels writes:
legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. "We created an echo chamber," [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."
When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America's future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. "In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this," he said. "We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked." He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. "We drove them crazy," he said of the deal's opponents.
It's not clear whether or not Panetta supported the deal, but he admits he was wrong about Obama's willingness to take all measures to stop Iran from getting a bomb.
As secretary of defense, he tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "They were both interested in the answer to the question, 'Is the president serious?' " Panetta recalls. "And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they're developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen."
Panetta stops.
"But would you make that same assessment now?" I ask him.
"Would I make that same assessment now?" he asks. "Probably not."
Rhodes tells Samuels that Don DeLillo is his favorite novelist. "That's the only person I can think of who has confronted these questions of, you know, the individual who finds himself negotiating both vast currents of history and a very specific kind of power dynamics," he tells Samuels. "And that's what it's like to work in the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus in 2016."
So that's it. For the last seven years the American public has been living through a postmodern narrative crafted by an extremely gifted and unspeakably cynical political operative whose job is to wage digital information campaigns designed to dismantle a several-decade old security architecture while lying about the nature of the Iranian regime. No wonder Americans feel less safe—they are.
Obama’s foreign policy was being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist, a fabulist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them...
Teh Narratives™.
Main Stream Media should be embarrassed, and asked to state their position.
Is Bill Richardson still around? He use to be the Governor of New Mexico and lost a few primaries to be President. If I recall he was a loyal Clintonista. Plus, he is not currently in office.
Franken won't be the guy as he is actually a pretty serious Senator from MN, and MN is NOT in play this election season. The R's here voted for Rubio! They are not interested in Trump, and this reliably D state is a lock now.
There were rumors of Trump going with Fallin, our esteemed governor from Oklahoma, and if he actually had a chance at winning he would be welcome to her just so we wouldn't be stuck with her for two more years.
Easy E wrote: Is Bill Richardson still around? He use to be the Governor of New Mexico and lost a few primaries to be President. If I recall he was a loyal Clintonista. Plus, he is not currently in office.
Sarouan wrote: In others news, Trump is supporting the Brexit. Which is not surprising, but I guess it will please Do_I_Not_Like_That.
On any other day, I'd welcome this news, but I live in Scotland...
and Scotland took back Trump's honoury university degrees.
And we stopped him from being a trade ambassador for us...
And we had a petition to ban him from entering...
And this man could be commander in chief of the world's most powerful nation.
Now, I'm not worried about the 101st Airborne - my flames of war Panther company can tie them up, and the US Marines will get bogged down by my Bolt Action Japanese, but the girl scouts of America?
Sarouan wrote: In others news, Trump is supporting the Brexit. Which is not surprising, but I guess it will please Do_I_Not_Like_That.
On any other day, I'd welcome this news, but I live in Scotland...
and Scotland took back Trump's honoury university degrees.
And we stopped him from being a trade ambassador for us...
And we had a petition to ban him from entering...
And this man could be commander in chief of the world's most powerful nation.
Now, I'm not worried about the 101st Airborne - my flames of war Panther company can tie them up, and the US Marines will get bogged down by my Bolt Action Japanese, but the girl scouts of America?
A cruel and merciless enemy!
But what a glorious death... drowning in Thin Mints.
Romanian Hacker ‘Guccifer’ Just Gave Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination
There’s only one Democratic candidate not linked to an ongoing FBI investigation, and his name is Bernie Sanders. Vermont’s Senator will become Democratic nominee for many reasons, but a cyber hacker named “Guccifer” just solidified the fact only one candidate can type an email without scandal. Superdelegates exist so that Republicans like Donald Trump won’t use FBI investigations and foreign hackers against a Democratic nominee.
Forget about foreign hackers for a moment, and listen to the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. These words are highlighted in a Hill article titled Ex-Pentagon chief: Iran, China or Russia may have gotten to Clinton server:
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he believes foreign countries like Russia, China and Iran may have hacked the private email server Hillary Clinton used while secretary of State.
“...I think the odds are pretty high,” he said
Gates said he agreed with former acting CIA Director Mike Morell’s claim that the server had probably been hacked by either Russia, China or Iran.
He added that the fact that classified intelligence has been found on the server was “a concern for me.”
“I never used email when I was head of CIA or head of the Department of Defense,” Gates said.
Gates believes other nations most likely compromised Clinton’s server. If you don’t trust the recent statements of a Romanian hacker (I believe him), do you trust the views of President Obama’s former Defense Secretary?
Furthermore, imagine if anyone else had endured a year-long FBI criminal investigation. As The Wall Street Journal stated in March, “The criminal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email setup is clearly progressing, leaving some officials hopeful the case could wrap up in a matter of months.”
If a foreign hacker claimed to have hacked into Senator Barack Obama’s emails in 2008, Clinton would have won the election that year. Similarly, if Bernie Sanders owned a private server as Vermont’s Senator, there’s no doubt the Clinton campaign would have labeled him a modern-day Aldrich Ames. I addressed this phenomenon, and why Hillary Clinton is able to dodge endless political controversy, during this appearance on CNN New Day.
First, it’s important to note that Hillary Clinton has not been cleared by the FBI. In fact, the FBI hasn’t made any statements, nor has the DOJ issued a verdict on potential indictments. The Daily Banter recently reported that “according to an exclusive CNN report, sources familiar with the FBI probe of Clinton’s private e-mail server are saying that as the investigation nears the end, so far ‘investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.’”
However, “sources familiar with the FBI probe” does not mean the FBI.
It simply means the same anonymous sources Fox News quotes (saying Clinton will end up in jail after this investigating is over) have been asked their opinion. “Sources familiar” with Saddam Hussein helped Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld justify the Iraq War, so we know why this type of journalism leads to chaos. Ultimately, the only recent facts that can’t be disputed involve Huma Abedin and other top Clinton aides being interviewed by the FBI.
Again, if the top aides of Obama in 2008, or Sanders in 2016, were interviewed by the FBI, just imagine the political fallout.
Also, the future Commander in Chief according to the smartest people in the room didn’t “willfully” violate laws, so this means Clinton is qualified to run the country. What they ignore is the reality that owning a server for “convenience” is almost certainly an outright lie. Every defender of Hillary Clinton’s email use, including the unnamed sources “close” to the FBI investigation, assume Clinton’s server was only used for convenience.
In addition, not “willfully” breaking laws doesn’t mean no laws were broken. It’s a sad day for American democracy when supporters of a presidential candidate are proud that no laws were “willfully” broken. Nonetheless, even if Clinton seriously believed a private server was convenient, and there was no political motive, “gross negligence” is enough to prosecute under the Espionage Act.
Hillary Clinton deleted 31,830 emails, and most likely, not all of them were about yoga. Any government records deleted, and that’s a crime.
Then there’s the recent claims of a Romanian hacker named Marcel Lehel Lazar, also known as Guccifer. His statements are addressed in an NBC News article titled Hacker Guccifer Claims He Got Into Hillary Clinton’s Server:
The Romanian hacker who first exposed Hillary Clinton’s private email address is making a bombshell new claim — that he also gained access to the former Secretary of State’s “completely unsecured” server.
“It was like an open orchid on the Internet,” Marcel Lehel Lazar, who uses the devilish handle Guccifer, told NBC News in an exclusive interview from a prison in Bucharest.
“There were hundreds of folders.”
...As political opponents charged that national security was compromised and the FBI launched an investigation, Clinton maintained that the server was safe and there were no security breaks.
“It was a lie, clearly,” Lazar said.
NBC News asked Chris Tarbell, who broke open the Silk Road case, to review Lazar’s explanation of how he got into the server.
“It’s plausible,” Chris Tarbell said, adding that Lazar’s conviction for hacking in Romania showed he had the know-how to carry it out.
Tarbell added that he could not imagine why Lazar would make up a claim that could get him in very hot water.
“To go on television and admit to a felony you didn’t commit seems a little silly,” he said.
Guccifer is likely telling the truth, and former FBI agent Chris Tarbell states “To go on television and admit to a felony you didn’t commit seems a little silly.”
Most importantly, didn’t Clinton ever expect to send or receive Top Secret intelligence as Secretary of State? I explain here why America’s national security was likely compromised by Clinton’s server and why Guccifer just handed the nomination to Bernie Sanders.
But this is H. A. Goodman, it’s hyperbole!
When you evaluate Guccifer’s claim, alongside the viewpoint of Secretary Gates, a former FBI agent, and the head of Obama’s Defense Intelligence Agency (who believes Clinton should “drop out”), then also remember the 22 Top Secret emails. These emails are highlighted in a CNN piece from January titled State Department will not release 22 ‘top secret’ Clinton emails:
The State Department announced Friday that it will not release 22 emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because they contain “top secret” information, the highest level of government classification...
If another Guccifer somewhere in the world accessed these emails, would he or she have publicized their findings?
Guccifer’s relevance in 2016 is enormous. Touching upon this impact, The Daily Beast has a brilliant article by Shane Harris titled Hillary’s Secret Email Was a Cyberspy’s Dream Weapon:
The private email address for Hillary Clinton, which became the talk of Washington this week and created her first major speed bump on her road to the White House, has actually been freely available on the Internet for a year, thanks to a colorful Romanian hacker known as Guccifer.
On March 14, 2013, Guccifer—his real name is Marcel-Lehel Lazar—broke into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a journalist, former White House aide to Bill Clinton, and personal confidante of Hillary Clinton. Lazar crowed about his exploits to journalists, disclosing a set of memos Blumenthal had written to Clinton in 2012, as well as the personal email address and domain she’s now known to have used exclusively for her personal and official correspondence...
Her email account was the ultimate hacker’s lure. It’s a common technique to impersonate a trusted source via email, in order to persuade a recipient to download spyware hidden inside seemingly innocuous attachments.
Since hackers often “impersonate a trusted source via email,” there are so many ways Clinton’s private server could have been compromised.
While Hillary supporters are dancing in the streets after hearing anonymous sources stating she didn’t “willfully” break laws, the FBI hasn’t formally concluded anything. I explain how the Clinton campaign, and its supporters, view the FBI in the following YouTube segment. Ultimately, this viewpoint, combined with the likelihood that Guccifer did indeed compromise Clinton’s server, will give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination.
So... if the DOJ refuses to indict based on an FBI recommendation, and high-profile FBI folks resign in protest... the Super Delegates have to throw their support behind Sanders... right??!?
Wow, this guy is really conducting some wishful thinking. If the hacker had hacked her email, he would have provided some proof, like he has done every other time he has claimed to have hacked somebody. Even moreso to try to get a plea agreement for whatever he is awaiting trial for. Nope, it looks like you are going to have to put up with at least four (probably eight with the damage Trump will do) years with another Clinton in the White House.
Unlike some people who just cannot let things go, super delegates have no requirement to ignore the results of investigation and go with opinion pieces and random claims on the Internet instead.
Obama’s foreign policy was being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist, a fabulist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them...
A failed novelist who got far more education than you did by the time he turned 18.
Obama’s foreign policy was being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist, a fabulist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them...
A failed novelist who got far more education than you did by the time he turned 18.
Is that necessary?
Besides... if you want to bring up Rhode's education, can you point to me what education/experience he has with regards to Foreign Policy?
Or, is it sometimes an Administration just need a fictionalist's deft touch to craft storylines and heroes for you to root for? Because this Administration just keeps getting bitch-slapped foreign policy wise and need them "filtered" for public consumption.
Let me know when the Obama administration has a useful idiot write tons of op-eds endorsing the fact that a county totes is developing nuclear weapons, culminating in Obama landing on an aircraft carrier with a giant MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner in the background. That's the kind of narrative you're talking about right, inventing villains and heroes? Maybe labelling a few countries as part of an Axis of Evil or something like that?
FFS, I don't even know what to say. I read the article twice and I'm still not even sure what the alleged lie is. Pancetta isn't sure any more if we would have gone to war with Iran to stop them from developing a bomb?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, this guy is really conducting some wishful thinking. If the hacker had hacked her email, he would have provided some proof, like he has done every other time he has claimed to have hacked somebody. Even moreso to try to get a plea agreement for whatever he is awaiting trial for. Nope, it looks like you are going to have to put up with at least four (probably eight with the damage Trump will do) years with another Clinton in the White House.
It may be hard to give proof from inside a Fed Pen with no access to any computers...
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, this guy is really conducting some wishful thinking. If the hacker had hacked her email, he would have provided some proof, like he has done every other time he has claimed to have hacked somebody. Even moreso to try to get a plea agreement for whatever he is awaiting trial for. Nope, it looks like you are going to have to put up with at least four (probably eight with the damage Trump will do) years with another Clinton in the White House.
It may be hard to give proof from inside a Fed Pen with no access to any computers...
You don't think the FBI can get the man a computer in order for them to conduct their investigation? You don't think they could just ask him about some of the info he allegedly obtained? Of course, that depends on whether or not you believe they are conducting a fair investigation and are looking for answers. If you don't, then it doesn't really matter what they conclude as you won't believe it anyway. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Guccifer hacked Candace Bushnell, and immediately leaked her emails and the first 50 pages of her screenplay.
Guccifer hacked George W Bush's sister, and immediately leaked family photos.
Guccifer hacked George W Bush, and immediately leaked the pictures of his paintings.
Guccifer hacked Colin Powell, and immediately leaked his emails, forcing Powell to deny having an affair with a foreign diplomat while serving as secretary of state.
Guccifer hacked Sidney Blumenthal, and immediately leaked his private memos
Guccifer hacked Carl Bernstein, and took screen grabs and mailed them to the press.
Guccifer hacked John Negroponte, and took screen grabs and mailed them to the press.
Guccifer hacked Mariel Hemingway, and immediately defaced her website and Facebook page.
Guccifer hacked Tina Brown, and used her account to harass her employees.
Guccifer hacked Hillary Clinton, and told no one, and posted nothing.
I'm not saying it's impossible but it definitely seems unlikely in my opinion given his track record.
Also, what's the over under on him getting an under the table pardon in return for working "as a consultant" for the US?
But, I thought it was a myth that the MSM favored Democrats?!??!
They favor whatever will get them clicks, viewers, browsers, retweeters, basically anything that will let them sell more ads. They MSM doesn't have an agenda other than to make money for themselves and their stockholders. The individual reporters sure do have their own biases, but their first bias is keeping a paycheck, and thus see above. It's why Trump is even a thing and has gotten billions in free coverage. It's why people have a false perception about how the divorce rate is at its highest point every, teens are popping out babies more than ever, and crime is rampant across the land.
But, I thought it was a myth that the MSM favored Democrats?!??!
I'm have no idea how what you're saying in any way is a rebuttal to anything I posted.
You're upset because someone in the Obama administration is a "failed author", which doesn't seem salient but that's a big element of this story for some reason, somehow manipulated the media into helping them sell their agenda to the public. I'm not sure where the scandal is, presumably every administration in the history of this country has done so. In the history of every country that has a media, probably. But anyway, it sort of implies he made the country less safe via untruthfulness, which sounds like now we're getting somewhere, except we never actually get there. The only apparent "lie" is that Pancetta is no longer sure that Obama would have ordered military action against Iran. I'm not sure where the lie is there, even if it's true.
At this point the argument has become completely incoherent to me. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like it's just disjointed noise now.
But, I thought it was a myth that the MSM favored Democrats?!??!
I'm have no idea how what you're saying in any way is a rebuttal to anything I posted.
That some reporters are willing participants in their gullibility, maybe? If not then I don't know.
Ouze wrote: You're upset because someone in the Obama administration is a "failed author", which doesn't seem salient but that's a big element of this story for some reason...
I'm personally not upset to find this out, surprised I'll admit, but it does seem to explain (at least partially) why the Obama administration approaches foreign policy decisions in such a dangerously naive way.
People on the left like to chant, "Bush lied, people died." Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?
As I understand the argument, Obama got a low level SF or Fantasy author or someone like that and had him write some scenarios that the US government and military authorities then used as the basis for carrying out a series of wars and actions in the middle east?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, this guy is really conducting some wishful thinking. If the hacker had hacked her email, he would have provided some proof, like he has done every other time he has claimed to have hacked somebody. Even moreso to try to get a plea agreement for whatever he is awaiting trial for. Nope, it looks like you are going to have to put up with at least four (probably eight with the damage Trump will do) years with another Clinton in the White House.
It may be hard to give proof from inside a Fed Pen with no access to any computers...
You don't think the FBI can get the man a computer in order for them to conduct their investigation? You don't think they could just ask him about some of the info he allegedly obtained? Of course, that depends on whether or not you believe they are conducting a fair investigation and are looking for answers. If you don't, then it doesn't really matter what they conclude as you won't believe it anyway. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Fox News, the folks he is 'leaking' this info to and who are reporting the story can't get him a computer to allow him to prove anything. The FBI is not going to release any proof, they are holding what they gather for possible indictment/trial.
skyth wrote: If you seriously believe something like this from Fox 'news' (ie the company that fought in court to be able to lie), I have a bridge to sell you...
Did I claim to believe it?
No, I did not.
What I did do was point out Fox and the hacker are in no position to provide proof. Do you disagree with that statement?
No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.
skyth wrote: No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.
The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.
But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.
skyth wrote: No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.
The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.
But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.
But see this is exactly the issue with Clinton's numerous "scandals " that was brought up a few pages ago. People start claiming things with little to no actual evidence, then they get repeated ad nauseum and endless hearings ensue until they eventually become truth in the public eye, whether or not there was any truth to them in the first place. (See all the people Clinton supposedly had killed a few pages ago). When they are finally disproven, the narrative has moved on to the next "scandal." I see that you were saying it was FOX not being able to get evidence, not the FBI (thanks for clarifying btw), but the FBI has stated they think there is no evidence to the claims. Why bring up the FOX report then with your interjection that they couldn't get him a computer in prison?
Look at North Africa, ISIS, Syria, and so on. I wonder how many people died because this guy's input was acted on?
So your contention is that the US should have invaded Syria, all of North Africa, and whatever you define as "ISIS"?
I wonder if that trillion dollar war stopped it from doing so, British ex-pat.
Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
Rhodes is the Gruber of this Administration's Foreign Policy PR wing.
@thread: The issue isn't that this administration (or any other for that matter) would want favorable media allies, the issue is that journalists would trade in their integrity for access. Thusly, when Rhodes crafted a policy, he used his "force multipliers" to Forge the Narratives™ and truth be damned. Just like what happened during the drafting of the PPACA and the policy lies that Jonathan Gruber engineered.
The kicker here is that both Gruber & Rhodes admitted to this.
Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.
The Obama Administration has done many things in the middle ground, including bomb Libya. It is becoming quite clear that American conservatives don't like the middle ground.
Right... because our only two options were "do nothing" and "invade" No middle ground at all. Good to know.
The Obama Administration has done many things in the middle ground, including bomb Libya. It is becoming quite clear that American conservatives don't like the middle ground.
Um... you call *that* the middle ground?
How 'bout having a fething plan being the middle ground?
No... that has nothing to do what conservatives want. It has everything to do with the sheer incompetence of this administration.
skyth wrote: No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.
The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.
But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.
It's not a straw man. Fox has no problem propegating lies with no evidence. Thus, until there is actual evidence from a reliable source, the item shouldn't even be mentioned. It's not news, but propeganda.
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.
Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.
:shakes head:
Point being all of this makes sense.
What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).
Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.
If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.
skyth wrote: No, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with what I posted. Fox 'news' has proven themselves to be dishonest and thus if there is no proof other than claims from Fox...it shouldn't even be brought up.
The claims are not from Fox, they are from the hacker. Fox has played a recording of him claiming to have hacked the Clinton server.
But do go on. I'm not sure the straw man your building is big enough yet.
It's not a straw man. Fox has no problem propegating lies with no evidence. Thus, until there is actual evidence from a reliable source, the item shouldn't even be mentioned. It's not news, but propeganda.
I don't know, "World RenownedHacker Claims to Have Hacked Clinton Server" is a story most news organizations would run with if said hacker gave them the scoop. And in fact MANY news organizations have run with this story. So regardless of your hatred of Fox, this IS news.
@thread: The issue isn't that this administration (or any other for that matter) would want favorable media allies, the issue is that journalists would trade in their integrity for access.
Wait... you think journalists have integrity??
In all seriousness, I think that we haven't really moved very far past the heady days of William Randolph Hurst and Yellow Journalism. The difference is now, that journalist schools are teaching them how to do it better. That, and with the internet, as we've seen time and again, there is literally so much gak out there that it is all too easy for BS to become "fact" simply because the right/wrong person reads and believes it.
Gotcha.
faster than you can say get off my property you trash*
