Well, it does have something to do with the fact that the DNC has a super-delegate system to "keep things fair" and "protect against grassroots movements"
In fairness when your party's delegates refuse to back you it may be a fair point.
Also the Democrat nomination is a two horse race, the Republican nomination has 3+ candidates so the percentages will not be an apples to apples comparison
On vacation for a few days and just getting caught up
It's almost like you don't want to believe what he actually said. In case you missed it;
(source: Associated Press)
“the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
If you want to believe the article and claim that he was "bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process" then that is your right, but he was clear and unequivocal in what he said. What he did say, and this is where people mistakenly believe that he did not mean what he said, was that if the President works with the Senate (or nominates a favorable candidate) then it would be passed. Essentially holding the selection process hostage to nominating a candidate favourable to the opposition party, or instead of using his Constitutional powers to nominate someone instead changing the rules to negotiate. Refusing to schedule confirmation hearings is still very much on the table based on Biden's statement.
In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today.
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
On vacation for a few days and just getting caught up
It's almost like you don't want to believe what he actually said. In case you missed it;
(source: Associated Press)
“the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
If you want to believe the article and claim that he was bemoaning "bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process" then that is your right, but he was clear and unequivocal in what he said. What he did say, and this is where people mistakenly believe that he did not mean what he said, was that if the President works with the Senate (or nominates a favorable candidate) then it would be passed. Essentially holding the selection process hostage to nominating a candidate favourable to the opposition party, or instead of using his Constitutional powers to nominate someone instead changing the rules to negotiate. Refusing to schedule confirmation hearings is still very much on the table based on Biden's statement.
No, you ignore the context.
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
I do not, it's just that I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and don't remember it being addressed in this thread (it have been, but I missed it).
To be fair, this is probably a good thing. Otherwise you end up with Donald Trump and the Tea Party before him tearing your party apart, and that's just not good electoral politics
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
I do not, it's just that I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and don't remember it being addressed in this thread (it have been, but I missed it).
Your point was already addressed in my prior post.
**edit to clarify my position**
The context that you have posted actually bolsters my position, rather than undermines it. To whit;
"In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today. "
The threat is still very much there to punt a SC nomination until the next POTUS is in office
To be fair, this is probably a good thing. Otherwise you end up with Donald Trump and the Tea Party before him tearing your party apart, and that's just not good electoral politics
Not good for the two party system that runs out country...which our founding fathers warned against and feared.
Alright, can you not see the difference between "if you work with us, we will vote your candidate, who we both agree on, in." and "We will not vote, nor even hold hearings, on any candidate", than you re obviously too far into this for anything I say to make a difference.
d-usa wrote: He also appointed someone to the Supreme Court during his final year.
Did he threaten to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination?
Did his VP say that no SC replacement should be named in an election year?
You should at least have the courtesy to read the thread if you are going to repeat the same stupid crap that has already been addressed on multiple pages.
But I understand that wouldn't be your style, so just continue to swoop-and-poop in threads as your heart desires.
Alright, can you not see the difference between "if you work with us, we will vote your candidate, who we both agree on, in." and "We will not vote, nor even hold hearings, on any candidate", than you re obviously too far into this for anything I say to make a difference.
You may continue to tilt at windmills until such times as you decide to read what I actually wrote. In no less than two posts I said;
"In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today. "
d-usa wrote: He also appointed someone to the Supreme Court during his final year.
Did he threaten to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination?
Did his VP say that no SC replacement should be named in an election year?
You should at least have the courtesy to read the thread if you are going to repeat the same stupid crap that has already been addressed on multiple pages.
But I understand that wouldn't be your style, so just continue to swoop-and-poop in threads as your heart desires.
If you are going to accuse someone of not having the courtesy of reading a thread it would behoove you to not engage in the conduct that you are accusing others of.
Some of them warned against and feared it. The rest then proceeded to build it (thanks Hamilton and Madison, you're little splat blew up and now look where we are)
Electoral systems that filter the influence of grassroots movement isn't why we have a two party system. We have a two party system because every time an third has a chance to get going, the main two co-opt its political positions into their own. It's why American Politics, while right of the most of the rest of the world, have tended to result in fairly centrist government policy. The American Political parties being so similar on so many things that really matter is part of why we have such a sensationalist mass media (that I understand you aren't fond of ). That sensationalism is practically needed for the parties to differentiate themselves from one another ideologically, as the reality is they have a lot in common.
If a grass roots movement has become significant enough that it has a real effect on an election, you can bet that the Dems or the Pubs will co-opt it. The Democratic Party's primary structure largely benefits us by allowing the party to filter and ignore fringe politics, such as those that have currently begun to tear the Republican party apart, which is where you find the majority of grassroots movement. Grassroots does not automatically = good (Hitler #godwin). It also very rarely translates into coherent national policy, as by definition grassroots movement start at the local level and it's hard to coalesce local interests into a national movement. Most grassroots don't last long because by they're very nature they are doomed to collapse after a few years. Why would any party want to risk hitching it's band wagon to public sentiments that won't translate into real votes come election season? Which isn't to say the system is flawless. That rule was instituted by the Dems back when they were super racist and were afraid that they'd be infiltrated by do gooders who wanted to end Jim Crow.
Our electioneering system doesn't help. The FPTP system means that we will always, eventually, end up with two parties. And rampant gerrymandering further enforces the parties' control.
Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
Exactly. In fact, the bigger crime here is that someone(s) must have been willfully stripping away the classification markings before sending it on, or, worse, that such material was never getting marked in the first place. The executive order requires a classification authority to review the material, determine the classification level(s) for the contents, AND determine the conditions under which the material will be declassified. Yes, there are things that should and must be classified, but until the classifying authority has done their job on it, other people can't necessarily be held accountable for not knowing what is and isn't classified. Now, while HRC can't be expected to recognize that every bit of unmarked classified material she received was supposed to be classified, she should have been able to recognize such material that fell directly within her area of responsibility (and that is one things she can and should get hit for).
You know, given recent events, this may never have been an issue if Hillary had just used an iPhone.
Tanner... that presumes that HRC and her staff doesn't know how to handle classified information.
So which is it? They were too ignorant of this and thus didn't know what they were doing? (even though 'ignorance of the law isn't a defense')
Or...
They knew exactly what they were doing, and did this to keep control unwanted review of their communications.
Neither doesn't bode well for the Clintons.
Like I've said before, too many people, including yourself, are laser-focused on Hillary alone in all of this. The problem is much, much wider in scope, and her's may very well be the least part in it. Someone was sending her the stuff. Someone was removing the classification markings. Or someone wasn't classifying it properly in the first place. Those are the names you should be clamoring for, and it isn't necessarily "her staff" alone, either.
You keep claiming the classification markings (and lack thereof) are a "red herring" when they are, in fact, a very real problem themselves, and a symptom of the larger issue of the general mishandling of classified information at the highest levels in our government (something which, I am sure, is more widespread than you probably want to know).
edit: spoilered the quote pyramid for size.
I am yammering for everyone involved. But this ordeal is MUCH bigger. We're about to hand over the god-damned military to someone who doesn't give a gak about America's security... only that *she's* taken precedent. In other words... in her mind, it isn't "The United States of America"... it's "The United States of Clintonland".
The big baddies *is* HRC. It's *her* server.
As far as I'm concerned, the mere existence of this server *is* the smoking gun.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating an instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
And for the second point, that's what instant runoff does. In an instant runoff system, there can be no winner without over 50% of the vote. How instant runoff works is that instead of voting on one candidate, you number the ones you would like to see elected (i.e 1 for your first choice, 2 for your second, ect). After the "1" votes are tallied, if no candidate has more than 50%, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the next line of votes of the votes for that candidate (in this case the "2" votes), are counted instead, and applied to the votes of the remaining candidates. This continues, with the lowest vote candidate being eliminated each time until one candidate has a majority.
Is "factually incorrect" the current version of "truthiness"?
If people want to go the "yeah, what he said was different, but it means the same thing in my mind" route then that's fine I guess, just don't expect the rest of the folks to be too stupid to see through it.
d-usa wrote: Is "factually incorrect" the current version of "truthiness"?
If people want to go the "yeah, what he said was different, but it means the same thing in my mind" route then that's fine I guess, just don't expect the rest of the folks to be too stupid to see through it.
So for all your fisking... you can't find something factually incorrect there.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
Are we the United States of America?
What?
Let me emphasize something.
We are the United STATES of America.
The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.
Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?
Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.
The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.
Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?
Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.
Because every vote still matters. It means that the D's still get votes from TX and the R's still get votes for CA.
It would actually do the exact opposite, as states candidates generally don't campaign in, because they are viewed as "safe", would still be important to all candidates.
In NY, Romney got 35% of the popular vote. If you got rid of EC, those 2.5M votes for him would still matter. But, because of the EC and how districts work, Obama got all the "votes" from the state, where as Romney got none.
As well as the important thing that, as long as it is possible for a president to win without winning the popular vote, the system is broken.
Co'tor Shas wrote: EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
A straight, popular vote gives states like California and New York tremendous influence over the election. Other regions of the country would such as the upper west would effectively be shut out of the process completely. The EC isn't perfect and isn't a system that I would have designed but it is better than the popular vote.
d-usa wrote: I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember a scenario where you can with the electoral college with an insane percentage of the total votes.
d-usa wrote: I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember a scenario where you can with the electoral college with an insane percentage of the total votes.
Co'tor Shas wrote: EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
A straight, popular vote gives states like California and New York tremendous influence over the election. Other regions of the country would such as the upper west would effectively be shut out of the process completely. The EC isn't perfect and isn't a system that I would have designed but it is better than the popular vote.
How does that work? People are people and vote however they want, not by state. All votes are equal.
It is getting awfully close to the point where just about everyone who has posted in the last 2 pages or so is going to get a warning and/or a suspension.
Co'tor Shas wrote: EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
A straight, popular vote gives states like California and New York tremendous influence over the election. Other regions of the country would such as the upper west would effectively be shut out of the process completely. The EC isn't perfect and isn't a system that I would have designed but it is better than the popular vote.
How does that work? People are people and vote however they want, not by state. All votes are equal.
The interests, needs, and culture of the Eastern seaboard is sharply different than that of the Rocky Mountain states. The same is true with the Bible Belt states and the Pacific Northwest. The EC mitigates power of the most populous states and that provides a bit of a balance of power.
Remember, you do still need to with the popular vote within a State in order to win that State's EC delegates.
How does that work? People are people and vote however they want, not by state. All votes are equal.
Well, in the previous example of California, and New York.... both of those states are extremely Democrat leaning. This means that in california with a population (according to google) of 38 million, you're going to be getting a sizable "head start" as it were in a straight vote count over states like Wyoming and Idaho, who are each fairly red states with lower populations.
I mean, even if we use basic math numbers, if it were a straight vote count, and 10% of voters in California voted Republican, that's only 3.8 million people, with 35 million or so voting for the D candidate. Combine that with NY's 19 million population, if again, we go with 10% (Romney apparently took 14% last time round), you're looking at around 18 million Democrat votes. Now, 53 Million votes isn't insurmountable, but how much of Texas' 26 million people are realistically Democrats? 10%, 20% maybe more? We know from demographic studies that Democrats tend to be more urban and suburban people, which means your greater population centers are gonna swing that way. And since the 20th Century, when we shifted from an Agrarian people to Industrial, we've shifted from having less than half in cities to well over half living in citites today.
Yes, all votes are equal, but what the EC is supposed to do, is remove that demographic divide that we can see looking from rural to urban. I agree that it needs reworking because needing that 22% popular vote to get into the WH is a bit daft if you ask me.
Continuing on my last post, getting rid of EC would actually give big states less power.
If you think in terms of 1D vote and 1R vote canceling out (which, for a strait majority with only two candidates, it very much does) it's quite interesting. In NY, obama won, and thus got all the deligates (100%), but if you cancel out the votes, only 28.601% of the votes matter. In CA it's 23.75% for Obama, in FL it's 0.88% for Obama, and in TX it's 16.02% for Romney.
Edit: here's another good example. Obama won by 23.42% of the EC, but a mere 3.93% of the popular.
(on bottom, first dropdown "United States presidential election, 2012" and then the last sub-dropdown "state results")
I used the very easy (for a graphing calculator) formula (winner-looser)/(winner+looser)*100% to figure out the percentage left. The (winner-looser) finds the number of votes more that the winner got, and (winner+looser) finds total votes.
How does that work? People are people and vote however they want, not by state. All votes are equal.
Well, in the previous example of California, and New York.... both of those states are extremely Democrat leaning. This means that in california with a population (according to google) of 38 million, you're going to be getting a sizable "head start" as it were in a straight vote count over states like Wyoming and Idaho, who are each fairly red states with lower populations.
I mean, even if we use basic math numbers, if it were a straight vote count, and 10% of voters in California voted Republican, that's only 3.8 million people, with 35 million or so voting for the D candidate. Combine that with NY's 19 million population, if again, we go with 10% (Romney apparently took 14% last time round), you're looking at around 18 million Democrat votes. Now, 53 Million votes isn't insurmountable, but how much of Texas' 26 million people are realistically Democrats? 10%, 20% maybe more? We know from demographic studies that Democrats tend to be more urban and suburban people, which means your greater population centers are gonna swing that way. And since the 20th Century, when we shifted from an Agrarian people to Industrial, we've shifted from having less than half in cities to well over half living in citites today.
Yes, all votes are equal, but what the EC is supposed to do, is remove that demographic divide that we can see looking from rural to urban. I agree that it needs reworking because needing that 22% popular vote to get into the WH is a bit daft if you ask me.
Not only are those numbers wrong (Romney won 37% in CA and 35% in NY, and Obama won a surprisingly large 41% in TX), you also appear to be misunderstanding something. If getting rid of the EC, T would remove winning states entirely, meaning that whoever got the most votes, total, wins. Where a vote was cast would have no meaning.
Co'tor Shas wrote: EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
A straight, popular vote gives states like California and New York tremendous influence over the election. Other regions of the country would such as the upper west would effectively be shut out of the process completely. The EC isn't perfect and isn't a system that I would have designed but it is better than the popular vote.
How does that work? People are people and vote however they want, not by state. All votes are equal.
The interests, needs, and culture of the Eastern seaboard is sharply different than that of the Rocky Mountain states. The same is true with the Bible Belt states and the Pacific Northwest. The EC mitigates power of the most populous states and that provides a bit of a balance of power.
Remember, you do still need to with the popular vote within a State in order to win that State's EC delegates.
And, given the state I live in, the EC system means my vote means precisely squat. Yay, democracy!
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the 2000 election yet; Gore got more votes, Bush becomes president. Ultimately hinging on a supreme court decision no less.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
Still incorrect. As an example:
Those satellite photos HRC had came from NGA. They were and still are TOP SECRET. Only the NSA has the authority to declassify that information.
It should NOT have been in HRC's email server and she/her staff should of noticed the spillage and dealt with it appropriately.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
Still incorrect. As an example:
Those satellite photos HRC had came from NGA. They were and still are TOP SECRET.
As has been pointed out, multiple times, how can most people be expected to recognize that fact upon viewing such a thing? What would visually set these satellite photos apart from any other satellite photos (like Google Maps, for example), to tell someone they're supposed to be classified? That is why the classification markings are so fething vitally important, so that every person who handles it knows what the feth their handling, because not every fething person knows every fething source or every fething thing to be classified.
But you know what? I give up. You're too biased on this topic. You just want Hillary to burn, and you don't give a damn if nothing happens to anyone else over this issue. Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Mine was apparently one of those positively known to have been stolen... so while I may not mention it in threads here, yeah, there are people out there who still care
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
Still incorrect. As an example:
Those satellite photos HRC had came from NGA. They were and still are TOP SECRET.
As has been pointed out, multiple times, how can most people be expected to recognize that fact upon viewing such a thing? What would visually set these satellite photos apart from any other satellite photos (like Google Maps, for example), to tell someone they're supposed to be classified? That is why the classification markings are so fething vitally important, so that every person who handles it knows what the feth their handling, because not every fething person knows every fething source or every fething thing to be classified.
But you know what? I give up. You're too biased on this topic. You just want Hillary to burn, and you don't give a damn if nothing happens to anyone else over this issue. Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Tanner... they're trained to handle classified information and trained on how to recognize what is/isn't classified. It's. Their. Jobby. Job.
Please take the time to read how classifications are done here.
In casually disregarding basic security, Secretary Clinton harmed our country and helped our adversaries
Every few days, another bombshell appears in the media illustrating just how poorly Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as our nation’s foreign policy boss, handled communications security. By now, we have a complex portrait of someone whose mishandling of our nation’s secrets, by herself and her staff, beggars belief for anyone versed in such matters. EmailGate isn’t going away, no matter how much Ms. Clinton’s supporters want it to.
The number of “unclassified” emails that turn out to be classified, some of which transited Ms. Clinton’s unencrypted server of bathroom fame, now surpasses 1,300 and may go higher still. A couple weeks ago I explained howMs. Clinton’s emails included highly classified information from the National Security Agency, based on signals intelligence about Sudan at the Top Secret Codeword level (see this for an explanation of such classifications). How they got there has yet to be explained.
We’ve since learned Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails also included Top Secret information from the Central Intelligence Agency, including espionage from a compartmented Special Access Program. SAPs, as they are called in the Intelligence Community, represent “crown jewel” information. Even for holders of Top Secret Codeword clearances, the highest in the U.S. Government, access to SAPs requires special permissions, on a strict need-to-know basis.
How such highly classified information from both NSA and CIA wound up in Ms. Clinton’s personal email is a messy question that the FBI is currently unravelling. Don’t expect pretty answers. That her staff at Foggy Bottom treated classification as a nuisance is already apparent, and such guidance, which was flagrantly illegal, could only have come from “the boss.”
Just what a sinkhole of secrets the Secretary of State’s office was during President Obama’s first term, when Ms. Clinton occupied that chair, is frighteningly apparent. Allegations are swirling that her staff systematically copied Top Secret Codeword information off separate, just-for-intelligence computer systems and cut-and-pasted it into “unclassified” emails. This, if true, is an unambiguous felony. There is reason to be cautious about this claim, which is unsubstantiated so far, and would indicate a complex degree of intent: moving Top Secret Codeword information into unclassified emails is not simple, rather a multi-step process, and would leave an audit trail.
Nevertheless, the casual approach of Ms. Clinton and her staff to classified information is already abundantly clear. Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff at Foggy Bottom, was using her personal Blackberry for work, including the transmission of classified email. That alone is a crime. Then, in a move worthy of a dark comedy, Ms. Mills proceeded to lose that Blackberry. This would be a career-ender, at best, for any normal U.S. Government employee. Ms. Mills, a longtime Clinton insider, naturally suffered no penalties of any kind for this astonishing security lapse.
Of course, the loss of classified information is bound to happen when the nation’s top diplomat refuses to use government communications systems for government business, as Ms. Clinton did, intentionally rejecting State.gov email, as has been established, and her staff did the same, with awful consequences.
Why Ms. Clinton and her staff refused to use State Department email for official business is an open and important question. Suspicion inevitably falls on widespread allegations of pay-for-play, a corrupt scheme whereby foreign entities gave cash to the Clinton Global Initiative in exchange for Ms. Clinton’s favors at Foggy Bottom. The FBI is investigating this matter in connection with EmailGate.
Regardless of whether Ms. Clinton was engaged in political corruption, she unquestionably cast aside security as Secretary of State. She can’t quite keep her story straight on why that was, and she is at pains to deny that there is any real issue here at all, suggesting that it’s just another right-wing propaganda ploy. Ms. Clinton is veering hazardously close to her infamous “What difference at this point does it make?” claim, which she touted about the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Yet, as any seasoned intelligence professional will tell you, it matters a great deal—just not in ways visible to the American public. The communications of America’s top diplomat are closely monitored by dozens of foreign spy services, and anything sent out unencrypted, as Ms. Clinton’s email was, should be assumed to be read by numerous countries, including some who are not our friends.
John Kerry, her successor at Foggy Bottom, admitted that Russia and China are almost certainly reading his unclassified emails. Bob Gates, Obama’s first defense secretary, recently asserted it’s very likely that Russia, China, and Iran were inside Ms. Clinton’s homebrew email server. Mr. Gates is a career intelligence officer who served as CIA director, and he simply stated what any espionage professional knows.
To take just the Russians: their plus-sized embassy in Washington, D.C. is conveniently located on a hill overlooking the city, with an impressive antenna field on its roof aimed downtown. That is where Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails went. The Russians care so much about State Department information they’ve been caught planting bugs inside a conference room just down the hall from the Secretary of State’s office. “Of course the SVR got it all,” explained a high-ranking former KGB officer to me about EmailGate (the SVR is the post-Soviet successor to the KGB’s foreign intelligence arm). “I don’t know if we’re as good as we were in my time,” he added, “but even half-drunk the SVR could get those emails, they probably couldn’t believe how easy Hillary made it for them.”
Any foreign intelligence service reading Ms. Clinton’s emails would know a great deal they’re not supposed to about American diplomacy, including classified information: readouts from sensitive meetings, secret U.S. positions on high-stakes negotiations, details of interaction between the State Department and other U.S. agencies including the White House. This would be a veritable intelligence goldmine to our enemies. Worse, access to Ms. Clinton’s personal email likely gave foreign spy agencies hints on how to crack into more sensitive information systems. Not to mention that if Clinton Inc. was engaged in any sort of illegal pay-for-play schemes, our adversaries know all about that, as well as anything else shady that Ms. Clinton and her staff were putting in those unencrypted emails.
The State Department has a longstanding reputation for being less than serious about security, and its communications have often wound up in foreign hands. It’s something of a tradition at Foggy Bottom, to the chagrin of the Intelligence Community, and history records numerous examples. To take a big one, in early 1917 British intelligence intercepted the infamous Zimmermann Telegram, Germany’s ham-handed effort to get Mexico to attack the United States, and shared it with President Woodrow Wilson. Shocked, Mr. Wilson used this to get America into the First World War on Britain’s side. What he didn’t realize, and neither did anybody else in Washington, was that London got their hands on the Zimmermann Telegram by intercepting and decrypting classified State Department communications.
Even by these low standards Hillary Clinton is an outlier. Her willful disregard for basic security has harmed our country, though it may take decades to discover exactly how. As a top French diplomat explained in exasperation, “You cannot say just anything on just any network!”—a reality-based viewpoint wholly absent when Ms. Clinton ran the show at Foggy Bottom.
As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton had access to a wide array of government-supplied communications systems, ranging from lightly encrypted to deeply so, at varying levels of classification, all intended to protect our nation’s secrets. She chose not to use them, and it’s not Hillary Clinton who’s paying the price for that.
All this angers Americans with experience in our military and intelligence services who understand what Ms. Clinton and her staff did—and that they would be held to far harsher standards for attempting anything similar. They know that brave Americans have given their lives protecting Top Secret Codeword information. They know that in every American embassy around the world, our diplomatic outposts that worked for Hillary Clinton, Marine guards have standing orders to fight to the death to protect the classified information that’s inside those embassies. That Hillary Clinton gave similar information away, by choice, is something she needs to explain if she expects to be our next Commander-in-Chief.
And yes, for the record, I'm still pissed at the OPM hack that ID's federal employees.
Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Mine was apparently one of those positively known to have been stolen... so while I may not mention it in threads here, yeah, there are people out there who still care
Same here, including two copies of my finger prints.
I don't know if it's related, but shortly after the hack the number of spam calls to my telephone number has increased dramatically. For a while I was blocking multiple new numbers a day.
The Democrats have Hillary locking the nomination even before the election season started with no other contenders having any real chance. On the other hand, the Republicans have had their nomination process turned into a three ring circus by a millionaire with hair so bad everyone thinks its a hairpiece.
It makes for an interesting case study. Which is better, to have a group of insider "Super" delegates control which candidates get nominated? Or allow pure democracy decide who your party's candidate is?
Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
Tannhauser42 wrote: That is why the classification markings are so fething vitally important, so that every person who handles it knows what the feth their handling, because not every fething person knows every fething source or every fething thing to be classified.
But you know what? I give up. You're too biased on this topic. You just want Hillary to burn, and you don't give a damn if nothing happens to anyone else over this issue. Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
This is a particularly crazypants argument: That anyone who gets information that may or may not be classified kind of gets to make that determination themselves, and if it's non-classified and they decide, screw it, it's classified, which apparently is totally OK and within their discretion - no problem. But if it's non-classified and they determine sure, the stamps are OK, and it's non-classified, which apparently also is your discretion, congratulations - you're a felon and should go to jail (for what someone else sent you). Ta-da!
The thought of 8 more years of this is just exhausting in advance.
So far as the OPM hack, My wife's information was stolen, so yes, still pretty pissed about that.
Breotan wrote: Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
On this, there is consensus. This is easily the worst electoral lineup I've seen in my life, IMO.
Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
Please take the time to read how classifications are done here.
Off the bat, you’ll notice the report’s overall classification, TOPSECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN, in big and bold letters at the top and bottom, which reflects the highest classification levels of anything incorporated in the assessment.
No, the problem is that only Hillary is being vilified for this. Who cares about everyone else who does this? This is just another witch hunt without real basis.
skyth wrote: No, the problem is that only Hillary is being vilified for this. Who cares about everyone else who does this? This is just another witch hunt without real basis.
Who else involved is also running for presidency right now?
Please take the time to read how classifications are done here.
Off the bat, you’ll notice the report’s overall classification, TOPSECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN, in big and bold letters at the top and bottom, which reflects the highest classification levels of anything incorporated in the assessment.
Yep that's part of it, the other part which you continue to ignore is that the information itself is classified, the markings only reflects the classifications of whats incorporated it doesn't determine the classification of whats incorporated. And yes when you are briefed into a compartment you are told what and why the information is classified and of your legal responsibilities associated with it. What has been leaked that was in those emails is information that no one with access to that information could have mistakenly assumed was not classified.
skyth wrote:No, the problem is that only Hillary is being vilified for this. Who cares about everyone else who does this? This is just another witch hunt without real basis.
No the problem is that anyone else who had gone this far over the line would have already been hammered. Please don't try to push the false equivalency Powell/Rice BS that her camp was trying to stir up. If Hillary only had a handful of emails in the grey area and had made a bad assessment then what you're saying would be relevant however given the depth and breadth even what Petraeus did pales in comparison so please find an equivalent and show me they got off scott free.
Breotan wrote: Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
On this, there is consensus. This is easily the worst electoral lineup I've seen in my life, IMO.
Ouze wrote: TIL having someone email you classified information is worse than literally giving it to your (uncleared) mistress.
With that, I realize I once again have become Charlie Brown, chasing a football of derp.
No , receiving 100s of classified emails, not reporting the spillage and forwarding some of them to someone who was uncleared is worse than taking your classified notes home and improperly storing them. There's a reason he wast charged with sharing them with his cleared mistress. Please keep up with reality.
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??)
Breotan wrote: The Democrats have Hillary locking the nomination even before the election season started with no other contenders having any real chance. On the other hand, the Republicans have had their nomination process turned into a three ring circus by a millionaire with hair so bad everyone thinks its a hairpiece.
It makes for an interesting case study. Which is better, to have a group of insider "Super" delegates control which candidates get nominated? Or allow pure democracy decide who your party's candidate is?
Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
The Republican method isn't totally pure democracy, as only registered RP members are allowed to vote, or so I understand.
If you are going to have a party, it makes sense to me for the party to choose the candidate, present him or her to the general electorate and let democracy take its toll at that time. (Though of course the Electoral College system isn't pure democracy either.)
Let other people run as independents if they want to.
I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
The only thing wrong with her is she's a Democrat. But look at the Republican candidates, ignoring that they are Republicans, they apparently are regarded as pretty crappy by their own party. Trump in particular looks capable of being a national embarrassment and a disgrace to his party if elected president.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
Still incorrect. As an example:
Those satellite photos HRC had came from NGA. They were and still are TOP SECRET.
As has been pointed out, multiple times, how can most people be expected to recognize that fact upon viewing such a thing? What would visually set these satellite photos apart from any other satellite photos (like Google Maps, for example), to tell someone they're supposed to be classified? That is why the classification markings are so fething vitally important, so that every person who handles it knows what the feth their handling, because not every fething person knows every fething source or every fething thing to be classified.
But you know what? I give up. You're too biased on this topic. You just want Hillary to burn, and you don't give a damn if nothing happens to anyone else over this issue. Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Tanner... they're trained to handle classified information and trained on how to recognize what is/isn't classified. It's. Their. Jobby. Job.
You. Still. Don't. Get. It.
One Last Time:
It's their job to recognize the classified info that falls within their job's area of expertise. Outside of that area of expertise, one cannot be held accountable for not being able to recognize something. You don't expect a doctor to fix a car engine, so don't expect a diplomat to know whether or not random military printout X is supposed to be classified. Now, a diplomat should know that a diplomatic communication should or should not be classified. That's the whole point of the argument, and why the markings are so vitally important. But, again, you only care about burning Hillary, and don't give two feths about anyone else.
Please take the time to read how classifications are done here.
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??
)
Exalted for truth. I don't know how many times I've said it, but Hillary's role in this is really the least part of it.
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??)
Ensis... it should start with her, but yes, everyone else should be held to account.
Why is there a need to "start with HIllary"? Hardly any sort of investigation starts at the top, and hardly any prosecution. You don't find a lot of investigations with the goal of "bring down the Kingpin, and the rest will follow".
You start with the low hanging fruit and work your way up. Start investigating staffers, members of the intelligence community, secret service members who knew about this, IT workers, etc. There are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people that violated the rules. And we have the emails to show who send them, so it's super easy to track them down. You pick up the email send by John Smith, you investigate John Smith, you charge John Smith, and then you put the pressure on him to make him squeal and tell you why he broke the rules and get your "My boss said if I don't send them Hillary will eat my baby" confession. You rinse and repeat with the other hundreds of people whose name you have on hand. Then you have a case and go after the kingpin.
If you don't, you end up with the worst episode of Batman ever:
[scene: a dead body in the living room, a smoking gun on the floor]
Batman: This has "Penguin" written all over it.
Robin: Look, there is a gun.
Batman: Yes, the penguin is responsible for this gun and must go down, I know it.
Robin: It's still smoking, so we know it was used.
Batman: Damn you penguin.
Robin: Oh look, it's a custom gun with the name of the owner engraved "John Smith"
Batman: Stop messing with the gun Robin, we have to get the penguin.
Robin: Why don't we start with John Smith?
Batman: Boy Wonder, it's a wonder I put up with you. We have to get the Penguin!!!
Commissioner Gordon: Hey Batman, we know where John Smith works and we can pick him up and ask him why his gun was here.
Batman: I'm surrounded by idiots! We have to get the Penguin!!!
At this point I really don't think it is anymore hyperbole to call Trump a 'fascist'.
Jesus wept.
He's a fething disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Why is there a need to "start with HIllary"? Hardly any sort of investigation starts at the top, and hardly any prosecution. You don't find a lot of investigations with the goal of "bring down the Kingpin, and the rest will follow".
Because Clinton has an extremely good chance at being the next President.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved.
Let's start from a point of 100% agreement (the above) and work from there. So far what's been released is a small number of recurring individuals on the emails, any of them regardless of party who was involved in the most egregious violations should be hammered as well. Hillary gets talked about in this regard for a few reasons none of them as nefarious as you claim. Everyone knows who she is, how many of you can name her top deputies during her SoS tenure without looking it up. In addition the buck stops at the top. Any organization takes its cue from its leadership, how many of those other's in the to block worked for her, of the released emails I've seen most of them. Don't confuse what gets talked about here with the actual investigation going on, there's been multiple reports that the investigation has a broader scope than just Clinton.
D-USA to use your analogy, Robin is ignoring the evidence that shows Penguin paid for the hit. as well as multiple other's
To paraphrase the avowed democratic socialist who would be president if you got you wish and HRC were indicted, I am sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails!
Gordon Shumway wrote: To paraphrase the avowed democratic socialist who would be president if you got you wish and HRC were indicted, I am sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails!
Ha!
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved.
Let's start from a point of 100% agreement (the above) and work from there. So far what's been released is a small number of recurring individuals on the emails, any of them regardless of party who was involved in the most egregious violations should be hammered as well. Hillary gets talked about in this regard for a few reasons none of them as nefarious as you claim. Everyone knows who she is, how many of you can name her top deputies during her SoS tenure without looking it up. In addition the buck stops at the top. Any organization takes its cue from its leadership, how many of those other's in the to block worked for her, of the released emails I've seen most of them. Don't confuse what gets talked about here with the actual investigation going on, there's been multiple reports that the investigation has a broader scope than just Clinton.
D-USA to use your analogy, Robin is ignoring the evidence that shows Penguin paid for the hit. as well as multiple other's
Yup... the FBI did indeed state that they've expanded their investigation of Clinton's Foundation shenanigans.
I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
d-usa wrote: I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?"
Maybe they realize this isn't anything more than a political witch hunt and actually believe they can win on policy positions instead? Crazy, I know.
It is quite possible to be for candidate A while at the same time recognizing a political witch hunt against candidate B who is running against candidate A.
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?"
Maybe they realize this isn't anything more than a political witch hunt and actually believe they can win on policy positions instead? Crazy, I know.
It is quite possible to be for candidate A while at the same time recognizing a political witch hunt against candidate B who is running against candidate A.
That was sort of my point. My quoting of Whembly got goofed up and my "crazy, I know" comment was meant to be ironic because it probably does seem crazy to a republican supporter to want to focus on issues right now.
That was sort of my point. My quoting of Whembly got goofed up and my "crazy, I know" comment was meant to be ironic because it probably does seem crazy to a republican supporter to want to focus on issues right now.
Could this be an election with both parties fighting their own civil wars? I'll be honest, if this lead to the break up of both larger parties into smaller, more representative ones I would be quite happy with that.
Not really. If I remember correctly, Gabbard was mentioned much earlier in this thread (like maybe two months ago?) in the debate among the DNC over how many debates they should have. It got the sense reading news articles at that time Gabbard was already something of an outsider among the vice-chairs. Her stepping down probably has as much to do with her not getting along with them as anything to do with Sanders.
I don't think that amounts to a civil war in itself. Not in the same way we could term the GOP primary as such anyway. Such squabbles would seem pretty regular in internal party politics to me. If anything the current DNC would seem fairly well organized behind a single goal; get Clinton the nomination. Sure there are people who don't like her within the party, and would prefer Sanders. I think that would be a given in any primary election. But this is nothing like what we see right now in the GOP primary, or the 60's following the CRA shake up, or the New Deal shake up under FDR.
Plus, if Sanders were to somehow win the majority of delegates, I really don't the party would mind that much, especially considering their likely opposition. It certainly wouldn't be like McConnel telling his Senators they will "drop him like a hot rock" like he just did of Trump.
LordofHats wrote: Not really. If I remember correctly, Gabbard was mentioned much earlier in this thread (like maybe two months ago?) in the debate among the DNC over how many debates they should have. It got the sense reading news articles at that time Gabbard was already something of an outsider among the vice-chairs. Her stepping down probably has as much to do with her not getting along with them as anything to do with Sanders.
I don't think that amounts to a civil war in itself. Not in the same way we could term the GOP primary as such anyway. Such squabbles would seem pretty regular in internal party politics to me. If anything the current DNC would seem fairly well organized behind a single goal; get Clinton the nomination. Sure there are people who don't like her within the party, and would prefer Sanders. I think that would be a given in any primary election. But this is nothing like what we see right now in the GOP primary, or the 60's following the CRA shake up, or the New Deal shake up under FDR.
Good points, I cannot say that I was familiar with Gabbard before so perhaps it was more wishful thinking on my part that politics would not be dominated so much by two parties.
Vice DNC chair resigns in order to support Sanders.
(a couple posts late...but hey...nobody is perfect )
Speaks volumes to me that someone feels that they have to give up their position in order to support a candidate *within* the very party they work for.
d-usa wrote: I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
What if they didn't because they realized that they would wind up being prosecuted themselves for doing that?
TheMeanDM wrote: Vice DNC chair resigns in order to support Sanders.
(a couple posts late...but hey...nobody is perfect )
Speaks volumes to me that someone feels that they have to give up their position in order to support a candidate *within* the very party they work for.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
Unfortunately, jasper, I think that this is indeed how it is supposed to be: neutrality.
Unfortunately, she is the only one (so far) that has the...testicular fortitude...to actually admit support for their candidate and do the right thing.
Devbie Wasserman in 2008 had supported Clinton and not Obama.
99.9% certain that support hasn't changed in the least...she just isn't about to publicize it lest she be forced to do the right thing and resign her powerful and influential position (which just so happens to be able to aid Clinton).
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
For a start, not being Trump.
That's a huge achievement straight off.
Not being someone else is hardly an achievement by any objective definition. You cited "her previous. . .achievements", what are these achievements that you feel would make her "a perfectly good and competent president"?
Well she was an active First Lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State, to start. I don't like Clinton either but the idea she has no achievements seems a little off.
Ahtman wrote: Well she was an active First Lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State, to start. I don't like Clinton either but the idea she has no achievements seems a little off.
The statement was "I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements"
I'm not taking away from the positions she held, but those were clearly considered as separate, and at no time did I say "she has no achievements". If I was being unkind I would say that you are shifting the goalposts a little there. What I did ask, and what remains to be answered, was; "What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?"
Frankly, other than for Washington, Eisenhower, Grant (that worked out so well), Jefferson, Hamilton, Roosevelt, Jackson (another sterling example) and Adams, I can't think of any achievements presidents made before they became president that would give us any insight to how well they would govern. What were Lincoln's achievements? He was a country lawyer, wasn't he? Or FDR's? Or Bush? Didn't he run a baseball team into bankruptcy?
What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?
As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."
Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.
What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?
Trump: Managed to bankrupt multiple companies and come out well, if not better off than he went in.
Cruz: He's God's candidate, who can argue with that
Rubiobot: I honestly cant think of any "achievement" or aspect of him that would make him a "good" president, nor even worthy of consideration for the office.
Gordon Shumway wrote: What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?
Assuming that I believe any of the above would make a good president as I do not recall advocating for any of those that you mentioned. So what would their achievements, if any, have to do with Hilary's achievements? Is her record unable to stand on it's own?
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."
Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.
"What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?
Gordon Shumway wrote: What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?
Assuming that I believe any of the above would make a good president as I do not recall advocating for any of those that you mentioned. So what would their achievements, if any, have to do with Hilary's achievements? Is her record unable to stand on it's own?
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."
Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.
"What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?
Sorry, my quote from Wikipedia, which, you know, you could look up too, unless you don't actually want the answer and we're just making some sort of political point in a passive aggressive way, didn't cut out those details. I would consider being a first student commencement speaker at Wellesley, being congressional counsel, cofounding Advocates for Children and Families, being the chair of Legal Services Corporation, a partner at a law firm, serving on Walmart's board of directors and reforming a public school system of a state achievements. Again, I make no claim to to if they are good are not.
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
- Teachers really liked her
- Won numerous awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout
- Selected for National Honor Society in High School
- National Merit Finalist in High School
- Found evidence of electoral fraud in Chicago at age 13 (to be fair though, you could probably walk into any booth in Chicago and find evidence of election fraud)
- Served as President of the Wellesley Young Republicans
- Served as President of the Wellesley College Government Association
- As President of the WCGA organized a student strike
- Interned at the House Republican Conference
- Graduated with a BA with departmental honors in political science
- First student in Wellesley College to deliver the commencement address (she got a 7 minute standing ovation)
- Served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and SOcial Action
- Volunteered at New Haven Legal Services
- Was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project.
- Worked on the 1970 Campaign of Joseph Duffey
- Received a Juris Doctor egree from Yale
- Published in the Harward Education Review
- Member of the impeachment inquiry staff resulting in the resignation of President Nixon.
- First director of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville legal aid clinic
- Published some more articles
- Described as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades"
- Cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
- Served on the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation (also the first woman to chair the board
- First woman to be made full partner of Rose Law Firm
- On the Board of Directors, and chair, of the New World Foundation
- Named twice as one of the most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal
- Served on the board of Arkansas Children's Hospital LEgal Services
- Chaired the Children's Defense Fund
- On the board of directors of Walmart
- Served on the Bill, HIllary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation since 2013
- Led the No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project
That should cover the "education" and "accomplishments" outside of her official duties.
No idea if they are good or bad, no idea if anybody cares about them, no idea if they should make her president.
DutchWinsAll wrote: @Sebster I really enjoy your views on the modern state of the Republican Party. I think they fall very much in line with mine, but you can elucidate them much more succinctly. The fact the largest arguments you've gotten have brought up Democrats in the first line is telling.
Thanks
I lean left, but I find myself believing more in traditional Republican views; that is before they were taken over by the religious social conservatives.
I lean left in terms of the ends I believe in – I think the reason for prosperity is so that everyone has enough. But I lean right in terms of how we should get there – I believe very strongly that the free market is the primary driver of wealth creation and improved salaries.
In terms of US politics, well I’m always wary of union influence in national politics, so I have no great love for the Democrats. But they’re the only sensible choice right now because the modern Republican party has gone off the deep end, and going crazier with each election cycle.
There was a time in America when religion (let's be honest Christianity) wasn't viewed in such a strictly right-wing paradigm.
Yeah, while most churches have been pretty strongly conservative on social issues, they’ve typically been quite left wing on economic issues. But a lot of church powerbrokers made the choice to align themselves with the Republican party on what they thought were very important social issues. The unfortunate result of that decision is that many church leaders have ended up taking on Republican opinions on economic matters.
Also why is Sanders considered such an "outsider" like Trump? When one has been in office for decades and one has never held office once. Its a dubious comparison at best IMO.
It’s a pretty loose comparison. Sanders has been office for a long time, but only recently as a registered Democrat. Most of the time he’s been independent, and chasing a policy platform well to the left of normal American political discourse. And much of his appeal is similar to Trump, he’s out there as a fresh voice, giving a vision of America that isn’t compromised but any kind of political realities.
So in that sense he’s an outsider. It’s loose but it’s there. I think it only really gets problematic when people don’t just compare Trump and Sanders, but try to equate the two. As if wanting national public health and plans to build a wall and make another country pay for it are equal.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?
Sorry, my quote from Wikipedia, which, you know, you could look up too, unless you don't actually want the answer and we're just making some sort of political point in a passive aggressive way, didn't cut out those details. I would consider being a first student commencement speaker at Wellesley, being congressional counsel, cofounding Advocates for Children and Families, being the chair of Legal Services Corporation, a partner at a law firm, serving on Walmart's board of directors and reforming a public school system of a state achievements. Again, I make no claim to to if they are good are not.
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
Thank you for that list as I'm not familiar with her work prior to her being Secretary of State. Looking at other articles one of the problems that I see with touting her accomplishments is that for a long standing politician I did not see anything that could have been viewed as her signature legislation. When she herself struggled to articulate her accomplishments it is not an unreasonable question.
No offense intended, but that’s a steaming load. Winning 30 to 40% of the vote out of a field of five is very different to winning 30 to 40% of the vote in a two horse race. I refuse to believe there is a person on earth to whom that is not immediately obvious.
But people will ignore obvious things like that, when they’re trying to be clever. Or even worse, trying to find a clever way to score a little win for their political team.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, it does have something to do with the fact that the DNC has a super-delegate system to "keep things fair" and "protect against grassroots movements"
The super-delegates are a crappy way to let party insiders keep some power, but they’ve got nothing to do with why Sanders is extremely unlikely to win, and Trump is the most likely winner.
I mean come on. If you take 40% of the vote in a field of five, you’ve probably won by at least 10%, if at least two other candidates are a real chance. But if you win 40% of the vote in a two horse race, you’re down by 20. It’s the simplest, easiest maths there is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Not good for the two party system that runs out country...which our founding fathers warned against and feared.
It's pretty pointless to write a warning about something, while designing a system that makes party politics the only sensible way to play the game. You have electorate based, first past the post elections - any faction that allows multiple candidates to allow for minor differences only ends up splitting their votes and losing.
Think about an election between vanilla, who have 25% of the vote, vanilla with choc-chop, who have 35% of the vote, and chocolate, with 40%. It shouldn’t take vanilla and choc-chip very long to realise the will only win if they form a party that forms a compromise between their differences.
Or think about each time some third party has run in the general. It probably felt pretty good to progressives to cast a vote for Nader in 2000, but if his 2% of the vote had gone to Gore… well Nader ran again in 2004 and got 90% less votes. And the same is true in 1992 – independently minded conservatives probably loved having Perot there to vote for. But having a split in the conservative vote gave the election to the Democrats. Perot ran again in 1996, and just under half as many votes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
Some states award proportionate votes. But really what’s needed to make extra parties viable is progressive voting, where voters rank their choices. So you can vote for a Green or Libertarian candidate, knowing that if they get only a few votes then you still get to show your preference between the Democrat and Republican candidates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The big baddies *is* HRC. It's *her* server.
As far as I'm concerned, the mere existence of this server *is* the smoking gun.
Well, I guess Clinton can take solace from the fact that you probably weren't going to vote for her anyway. I mean, that's just a wild guess, but something tells me...
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
If someone is able to win California, New York, Florida and Texas in a general election, then I’m pretty sure just about every smaller state is going that way as well.
The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.
Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?
Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.
Umm, Australia is also a Federation. Our PM is decided by whoever wins the most electorates. Most electorates are in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, the three most populous states. But each election the candidates spend a lot of time in WA, SA and Tasmania, because so much politics is local and national, it isn’t state based.
ie A politician going and shaking hands in a particular town will win votes in that town, not the greater state. And when that’s shown on the national news it will win votes nationally, not just in the state.
And remember that just like here in Australia, the senate is the key balance for smaller states. A president who won by being popular only in major states would probably see his party lose most senate elections in minor states, meaning he’d never hold the senate.
I’m not even really in favour of having the president decided on total votes. I’m just pointing out the arguments against it are pretty weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Continuing on my last post, getting rid of EC would actually give big states less power.
If you think in terms of 1D vote and 1R vote canceling out (which, for a strait majority with only two candidates, it very much does) it's quite interesting. In NY, obama won, and thus got all the deligates (100%), but if you cancel out the votes, only 28.601% of the votes matter. In CA it's 23.75% for Obama, in FL it's 0.88% for Obama, and in TX it's 16.02% for Romney.
Edit: here's another good example. Obama won by 23.42% of the EC, but a mere 3.93% of the popular.
Yeah, the irony is that people arguing for the electoral college are hoping for to make their state matter, but they’re actually making their own vote meaningless. If you don’t live in a swing state, your vote is meaningless. If you’re one of the 55% of Montanans who voted Republican in 2012, well your vote meant as little as the 42% who voted Democrat. Because Nebraska was always going Republican. An election in which your state is a swing state is a Democratic blow out. The same is true for small Democratic states – the only time Maine is in play is in a Republican landslide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The Democrats have Hillary locking the nomination even before the election season started with no other contenders having any real chance. On the other hand, the Republicans have had their nomination process turned into a three ring circus by a millionaire with hair so bad everyone thinks its a hairpiece.
It makes for an interesting case study. Which is better, to have a group of insider "Super" delegates control which candidates get nominated? Or allow pure democracy decide who your party's candidate is?
The super-delegates aren't why Clinton is winning. She's winning because she's up against one other candidate, who has niche appeal (though he's doing much better than anyone expected, including Sanders himself).
Oh, but the answer to the question is that super-delegates are stupid. If you want the base of the party to decide, let the base of the party decide. If you want the leader to be decided from among his peers, then do that. But this hybrid system, where the base pretty much elects the candidate, but it's close then the elite can over-rule is really stupid.
Oh, but the answer to the question is that super-delegates are stupid. If you want the base of the party to decide, let the base of the party decide. If you want the leader to be decided from among his peers, then do that. But this hybrid system, where the base pretty much elects the candidate, but it's close then the elite can over-rule is really stupid.
I agree that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination under any system (but I can remain hopeful, right?) But this right here, I definitely agree with.
Perhaps if there MUST be a hybrid system, perhaps it'd be better to have a system where proposed candidates have to get a benchmark number of votes, and then the "party insiders" choose from that pool, or vice versa. I don't really know, but you're correct in saying that having a system where people can vote for a candidate that can be over-ridden is dumb.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination under any system (but I can remain hopeful, right?) But this right here, I definitely agree with.
Perhaps if there MUST be a hybrid system, perhaps it'd be better to have a system where proposed candidates have to get a benchmark number of votes, and then the "party insiders" choose from that pool, or vice versa. I don't really know, but you're correct in saying that having a system where people can vote for a candidate that can be over-ridden is dumb.
Yeah, the point of a primary is in part to determine who should be the candidate, but also to get everyone in behind that candidate, supporting them. If a candidate wins the pledged delegates barely, and then the party insiders decide that's nice, but we're going with this other guy instead, well good luck in the general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Saying that is equivalent to saying "I'm not a racist, but..."
Please don't try to preface an insult to someone with that line...because the intention is clear.
No, I meant it exactly as I said it. I mean you no offense, I was commenting as I was in order to attack you, I was just speaking as plainly as possible. I recognised that given the strength of what I was saying about the logic fail behind the piece you quoted you'd be likely to take offense, so I said that wasn't my point.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
For a start, not being Trump.
That's a huge achievement straight off.
Not being someone else is hardly an achievement by any objective definition. You cited "her previous. . .achievements", what are these achievements that you feel would make her "a perfectly good and competent president"?
Read her bio on Wikipedia. You'll find plenty of stuff, if you're objective.
No offense intended, but that’s a steaming load. Winning 30 to 40% of the vote out of a field of five is very different to winning 30 to 40% of the vote in a two horse race. I refuse to believe there is a person on earth to whom that is not immediately obvious.
Not to mention that the vast majority of fear I've heard regarding Trump has come from conservatives.
I know of other Democrats who worry Bernie may still win the Primary, they fear he would lose to Rubio, and thus lose the WH for the Dems/slash roll back what few gains they have made over the years.
I still think there may be a way that Bernie can win both, but time will tell. My state votes later on in May.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the career details on her page are lies.
I never said lies. I said managed. Professionally managed the way a superstar executive might "manage" the details in his resume to reflect only the best aspects of his career and leave absent anything unflattering. Is there anything wrong with that being done? No. But it does mean that it isn't a truly objective source - at least in this instance.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the career details on her page are lies.
I never said lies. I said managed. Professionally managed the way a superstar executive might "manage" the details in his resume to reflect only the best aspects of his career and leave absent anything unflattering. Is there anything wrong with that being done? No. But it does mean that it isn't a truly objective source - at least in this instance.
I see. Point taken.
When I said these facts should be viewed objectively, I meant that for example Hilary Clinton has a law degree. She therefore has proved her intellectual capacity. This is a point in her favour when considered for the office of president, whether one is a Republican or a Democrat.
skyth wrote: And I'm sure if someone looked as hard at Rubio as they have at the Clintons, they'd find plenty of shenanigans that would disqualify him as well.
We already know that Trump and Cruz should be disqualified
Okay.
What are the things do *you* think would disqualify: -Rubio -Cruz -Trump (<--- easiest one)
Breotan wrote: Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
On this, there is consensus. This is easily the worst electoral lineup I've seen in my life, IMO.
The line-ups have been bad since Reagan left office. And until Reagan, the line-up sucked since Kennedy.
The only reason I even voted was that I preferred having neo-con Republicans, or rural populist Democrats, over the moonbattery that I witnessed the leftist wings of both parties slide into back in the '70's and '80's.
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
What was it that Whembly said? Something about if he is proven wrong he will admit to it or something like that.....
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
What was it that Whembly said? Something about if he is proven wrong he will admit to it or something like that.....
My guess: be prepared to see the "factual" qualifier in action.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?
Frazzled wrote: Its a sad day when Mussolini is smeared by being associated with Trump. . .
I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?
He did pay back when he used is campaign card.
And, he's campaigning. EVERY Congressional candidate running for POTUS does that.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
Fact: you didn't ask for stuff that made him worse than Clinton.
Fact: you accepted a challenge that someone should come up with stuff that would disqualify someone unless they are a Clinton.
Fact: I gave you a list.
Fact: you moved the goalposts.
Fact: I'm the idiot in this exchange because I knew this was going to happen and yet I replied anyway.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?
Our only candidate from the legislative branch in recent history who was pretty clean on the money issue was McCain. Of course it sucks, but honestly when you look at the whole playing field, you really aren't finding any white lily's on those regards.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?
Our only candidate from the legislative branch in recent history who was pretty clean on the money issue was McCain. Of course it sucks, but honestly when you look at the whole playing field, you really aren't finding any white lily's on those regards.
Very true.
For me it wasn't a case of "look how dirty he is" and more just an example to counter "only a Clinton would get away with stuff like this".
To risk the "everyone is doing it" square: but everyone has dirt.
d-usa wrote: Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.
That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.
Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?
/snark
The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.
Fact: you didn't ask for stuff that made him worse than Clinton.
True. But, that's the logical conclusion of such discussions. Comparing the respective candidates.
Fact: you accepted a challenge that someone should come up with stuff that would disqualify someone unless they are a Clinton.
Fact: I didn't challenge *you*. FWIW, replace RUBIO wiht CLINTON, and those wouldn't be on the radar.
Fact: I gave you a list.
Indeed you did.
Fact: you moved the goalposts.
Incorrect.
Fact: I'm the idiot in this exchange because I knew this was going to happen and yet I replied anyway.
Frazzled wrote: Its a sad day when Mussolini is smeared by being associated with Trump. . .
I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.
on the other hand if you are running to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES you should know not use a quote that was used by a Fascist dictator. Unless you're really an HRC plant that has gone off the rails of course. Am I the only one who sees Trump's actions as what the NYT thinks a Republican is?
Frazzled wrote: Its a sad day when Mussolini is smeared by being associated with Trump. . .
I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.
on the other hand if you are running to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES you should know not use a quote that was used by a Fascist dictator. Unless you're really an HRC plant that has gone off the rails of course. Am I the only one who sees Trump's actions as what the NYT thinks a Republican is?
No, you are not the only one.
But yeah, no argument that it was a poor choice of a quote. But its Trump, poor choices are his MO.
Da Boss wrote: Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.
A lot of something. His positions are anathema to conservatives, to the establishment, to Libertarians, and small government Republicans. With the exception of the Putinesque/racist stuff, he's a clone of HRC.
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
Da Boss wrote: Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.
A lot of something. His positions are anathema to conservatives, to the establishment, to Libertarians, and small government Republicans. With the exception of the Putinesque/racist stuff, he's a clone of HRC.
What the old man says.
If Trump's the GOP candidate... look for folks like me to revolt. Either "primarying" the incumbents, or going indie/3rd party.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities
Is it possible he's tapped a pool of republicans who are sick of the libertarian, small government, and establishment parts of the party? Perhaps if HRC didn't have 20 years of negative publicity and the R's a Pavlovian hatred of a Clinton, they would all be excited to vote for her. A HRC clone in red might be just what the party was waiting for.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities
The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities
That doesn't imply causation though.
Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.
Breotan wrote: I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.
Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?
You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
I am saddened to say we are in agreement.
Even in this instance there's weirdness. For example: I do not agreeing with bringing in non-family Syrian refugees, as that is an efficient avenue for importing AQ or ISIL and thats the mother of all kafkaesque situations (no way to vet them-thats a joke). But I am not again legal immigration for Muslims, thats just stupid.
skyth wrote: The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities
That doesn't imply causation though.
Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.
You would be very wrong. The Republicans certainly get a bad rap due to their own inability to deal with the charge, actual racists in the party spouting off in front of news cameras, and being joined at the hip to Fox News. There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that racists in the Democrat party are shown as being clowns or cartoonish while racists in the Republican party are come off as sinister or dangerous.
Breotan wrote: I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.
Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?
You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.
I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.
Honestly I've stopped explaining to Drumpf supporters why Drumpf is bad.
People need to realize the Drumpf supporters don't care about consistency or policies or issues. All they want is someone to tell them that they are pretty and everything will be okay. People who don't even like him are supporting him because he is in the lead lol. How do you educate people that see lack of education as a good thing. They know its good because Drumpf told them so.
I actually watch one of his rally speeches all the way through and it was a literal trip through insanity to me. But I get it now and I realize its just wasted effort. Let people do the stupid things they want to do.
Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.
Racists can hang out on the left as well. And that's how you end up with people who are pro-choice (keeps the black population down), pro-welfare (control where they live, where they move to, keep blacks in line by controlling their resources because they know if they vote against you they will loose their lifeline), etc etc.
Racists do stupid stuff for stupid reasons, and sometimes racists even do smart stuff for stupid reasons.
Being conservative doesn't really have anything to do with being racist even if a lot of people just happen to be both. I know that a lot of times people feel that I'm playing the race card against republicans or think that I'm arguing that republicans are racist when talking about voter ID laws. Yes, Trump attracts racists and republicans, but I do think that in the name of civil discourse we need to make it clear that people are not automatically racist by virtue of being republican, or vice versa.
Breotan wrote: I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.
Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?
You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.
I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.
One of my very good friends is on the polar opposite of me when it comes to politics, and we both know not to talk too much politics other than as casual small talk.
But we are both hoping that Rubio will pull through in Oklahoma. He knows that I'm voting Bernie tomorrow and (likely) Hillary later this year, but I want the "best case scenario" for a possible loss in November. And that would be anyone but Trump for me.
skyth wrote: The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.
d-usa wrote: His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.
The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities
That doesn't imply causation though.
Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.
You would be very wrong. The Republicans certainly get a bad rap due to their own inability to deal with the charge, actual racists in the party spouting off in front of news cameras, and being joined at the hip to Fox News. There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that racists in the Democrat party are shown as being clowns or cartoonish while racists in the Republican party are come off as sinister or dangerous.
I think mostly, Democrats that do/say racist things are seen as misguided and open to education. A Republican doing the same isn't not seen as being able to be educated (Probably because the party is against education for the most part). Also, racists don't seem to have power in the Democratic party, but they do in the Republicans.
You also have different severities of racism. Usually you will only see minor racism (basically Privilege) coming from a Democrat, whereas the nastier ones that tend to hurt minorities comes from Republicans.
Plus, Republicans are big on party loyalty and everyone being in lockstep(if that is the right way to phrase it...) whereas Democrats are more open to differences being in the mix. So any Republican being racist is seen as being representative of the entire party, whereas a Democrat being racist is seen as representing only themselves.
Plus, I would gather to say if you do a Venn diagram of racist, Democrat, and Republican...You would have more of the racists being together with Republicans than Democrats. I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican
Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.
Racists can hang out on the left as well. And that's how you end up with people who are pro-choice (keeps the black population down), pro-welfare (control where they live, where they move to, keep blacks in line by controlling their resources because they know if they vote against you they will loose their lifeline), etc etc.
Racists do stupid stuff for stupid reasons, and sometimes racists even do smart stuff for stupid reasons.
Being conservative doesn't really have anything to do with being racist even if a lot of people just happen to be both. I know that a lot of times people feel that I'm playing the race card against republicans or think that I'm arguing that republicans are racist when talking about voter ID laws. Yes, Trump attracts racists and republicans, but I do think that in the name of civil discourse we need to make it clear that people are not automatically racist by virtue of being republican, or vice versa.
Breotan wrote: I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.
Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?
You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.
I actually interacted with a live Trump supporter. They really didn't. Its scary.
One of my very good friends is on the polar opposite of me when it comes to politics, and we both know not to talk too much politics other than as casual small talk.
But we are both hoping that Rubio will pull through in Oklahoma. He knows that I'm voting Bernie tomorrow and (likely) Hillary later this year, but I want the "best case scenario" for a possible loss in November. And that would be anyone but Trump for me.
100% agreement with you.
Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.
skyth wrote: I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican
Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .
Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same
I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.
I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.
The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.
skyth wrote: I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican
Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .
Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same
I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.
Also, you're totally right about Trump. A Trump ticket guaran-F'n-tee that the next President will come from the Democratic ticket.
I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.
The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.
The problem is inequality. It makes people unhappy, makes them feel like they missed the boat.
Can potentially destabilise entire nations.
Hopefully it won't get that far in the US. I think Americans are too smart to vote in a loony like Trump. But the fact that he's gotten this far is pretty worrying, all the same. But it's not a US only phenomenon. We just had a general election in Ireland (3 week campaign! hah!) and no party has been returned with enough numbers to allow for a successful coalition. The likelyhood is a pretty unstable minority government of the two crappy centre parties (one corrupt, the other arrogant and uncaring). But even that might not last long.
Hopefully it won't get that far in the US. I think Americans are too smart to vote in a loony like Trump. But the fact that he's gotten this far is pretty worrying, all the same. But it's not a US only phenomenon. We just had a general election in Ireland (3 week campaign! hah!) and no party has been returned with enough numbers to allow for a successful coalition. The likelyhood is a pretty unstable minority government of the two crappy centre parties (one corrupt, the other arrogant and uncaring). But even that might not last long.
I know I have said it before, but to me it really feels that Trump is our weird version of the rise of the nationalist-right-wing-parties that are gaining voters in Europe.
skyth wrote: I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican
Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .
Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same
I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.
I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.
skyth wrote: I don't recall the KKK giving an endorsement of a Democrat, but they did for a Republican
Prepare for the incoming posts about Dixiecrats .
Yeah...When I posted that, I figured that someone would bring something that is 50 years old to try to 'prove' that they are the same
I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Can't argue with that. In general, I would say it overlaps a lot with the conservative side of the spectrum, regardless...Well, social conservative. As the parties shift in ideology, that can shift the racist support.
I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.
Who mentioned caring who they endorse? The whole point was that racists (like the KKK) are more likely to currently be supporting Republican candidates, not the every Republican is racist.
I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.
The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.
For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.
I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.
But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.
It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.
But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?
I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.
The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.
For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.
Compel wrote: I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.
But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.
It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.
But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?
That's just scary.
I completely agree with both of you on this. I can see Republican insider types smashing their heads against the wall known that they're going to be stuck with this clown as the eventual nominee. Democrats are likely wiping their brow knowing that they've dodged a bullet.
It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.
But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.
I don't give a rat's arse who the KKK endorse and neither should anyone else. Their views are an anathema to Conservatives and Republicans as well as Liberals and Democrats. The only value they have is as a propaganda tool in a smear campaign. They're little different than those idiot LaRoushites who keep popping up on city street corners with pictures of the current President sporting a Hitler mustache, the main difference being that people take the KKK seriously.
The problem is not really with the KKK endorsing Trump, or people taking that endorsement seriously.
For most people the problem is with Trump not taking that endorsement and telling the KKK to shove it up their rear, but instead appearing like he is okay with the KKK endorsing him.
Compel wrote: I did watch that interview. It really was kinda scary.
But not scary in the way I expected it to be, if that makes sense.
It felt really very cleverly worded as a 'neither confirm nor deny' sort of way. As opposed to an outright, "they're jerks" or even like, going for it and agreeing would be less scary.
But, hedging your bets in a response, in a conversation about that lot?
That's just scary.
I completely agree with both of you on this. I can see Republican insider types smashing their heads against the wall known that they're going to be stuck with this clown as the eventual nominee. Democrats are likely wiping their brow knowing that they've dodged a bullet.
I'm not sure Democrats come off good against Trump. Bernie would get crushed by Trump in any head to head debates because Trump will stay off issues and grind Bernie down while Bernie looks weak because he won't fight back using pointless dribble. Hilary might not do so well either because of the similar reasons. Trump can pull others down to his level and beat them at his game.
Then there is the fact that Trump could demotivate Democrat voters and Republican voters. Leaving his dedicated band of clowns to dictate who becomes the new president.
Da Boss wrote:It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.
But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.
Tomorrow will be interesting!
I thought Cruz was the Tea Party spawn and Trump was the "dey turk er jobz" candidate?
Frazzled wrote: I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.
Sometimes movements are slow in coming, sometimes they are rapid and painful. Right now, there seems to be a lot of tension pent up and it looks like this may show what's going on inside America. I guess we all knew it would be ugly, but Trump's act will be tough to clean up so long as he keeps up like this. There is no way to cover it- it can't be polished. The question is will the rest of the Republican base eat this sandwich? While there seems to be strong pushback from elements that don't want to get their hands dirty in this sort of thing, you can't put the cat back in the bag; and, Trump seems to be poised to emerge with an inevitable breakthrough. It's looking like a blowout.
Da Boss wrote: It's a fair indictment of the Republican party as it stands that he is in this position. They used to be really good at party discipline and working together - it's one reason they used to hand the democrats their asses on lots of issues for a long time.
But the discipline seems to have been broken by the Tea Party surge, and Trump is it's horrible offspring.
Tomorrow will be interesting!
The Tea Party grassroots movement hasn't had a negative impact on the party. The "15 Core Beliefs" of the movement, are made up of the things that the cross-section of Republican Party voters have always stood for. The problem is that the party hasn't lived up to expectations, and it's traditional base is fed up of it. Especially in the areas of illegal immigration, corporate bailouts, and stimulus plans.
In a word, the party has hurt itself. The Tea Party movement is just part of the fallout from that
feeder wrote: General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?
I would vote for Hillary but I would not feel very good about it. I know perfectly well that it would be at least 4 and probably 8 years of one sleazy, plausibly deniable scandal* after the other, over and over again, followed by at least one impeachment attempt. It's tiring just to think about the prospect.
However, I cannot vote for Trump in any situation, and not voting is not an option for me. Probably kind of dumb but I do feel an obligation to perform my civic duty, for what it's worth, I try to always vote whether it be local elections, midterms, what have you.
I wish Biden would have run. I would have felt OK with Joe Biden.
*And, for the record, while I don't think there has really yet been any evidence shown to prove that she violated laws on handling confidential materials, it's a little immaterial, because the whole private server was obviously an attempt to perform an end-run around FOIA laws. That might not be illegal but it's certainly gakky, garbage governance. I like FOIA laws. She's a terrible candidate and I don't like her at all, and I really resent the GOP for not running someone a little more reasonable to provide an alternative. I do sometimes vote Republican as well and this would have been, like, a super prime opportunity to do so. I truly don't understand how these idiots came to be the final 3.
I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.
I know her, and I like her, but honestly, I feel like getting burned on Ralph Nader once was enough for a lifetime I dunno - I will have to think it over.
I concur with the commenters that it was likely private security, rather than Secret Service - I feel like if it was Secret Service A.) There would have been more than one of them acting and B.) There would have been an arrest made to justify it. I definitely could be wrong but I'd be fairly surprised.
I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.
This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.
BrotherGecko wrote: I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.
This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.
There were rumours that even if Trump wins enough of the delegates... that he wouldn't get the nomination.
Not sure what's the mechanic... but, man... would we see convention riots like in the 70's?
I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.
Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"
I would vote for Hillary. The Republicans will try to run a circus of made-up scandals regardless of who is elected, and I trust that Hillary will have the effect that I want on policies if elected.
Plus, I always vote against the Republican, regardless...But I hold no animosity towards Hillary and actually think she would be a better president than Sanders. I love Sander's policies, but I don't think they are achievable with the obstruction that is going on. Clinton can actually make some headway towards good policies.
I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.
Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"
The party apparatchik could put anyone up for nomination, however that works. They're only governed by party rules, not by law.
I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.
Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"
This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.
skyth wrote: I would vote for Hillary. The Republicans will try to run a circus of made-up scandals regardless of who is elected, and I trust that Hillary will have the effect that I want on policies if elected.
Plus, I always vote against the Republican, regardless...But I hold no animosity towards Hillary and actually think she would be a better president than Sanders. I love Sander's policies, but I don't think they are achievable with the obstruction that is going on. Clinton can actually make some headway towards good policies.
Sure, provided that the beneficiaries of said "good" policies donated substantial funds to the Clinton Foundation.
I think if Trump's the nominee, the GOP power brokers would push Cruz/Rubio into a 3rd party run in the hopes that both Clinton/Trump doesn't get to 270 EV.
Is that a thing that can be done? The party members elect a candidate to be their guy and the party turns around and says" well, you've all spoken, but what about THIS guy?"
This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.
At least that's my casual read.
I can only hope Ouze.
There's a real strong pucker factor watching the results tomorrow and the 15th.
BrotherGecko wrote: I would vote Hillary just to prevent Trump. Unfortunately it is the most likely outcome I feel. I detest voting for Hillary as I feel she will set women in American politics back a decade or so and potentially give rise to an even uglier candidate in 4 to 8 years. The campaign run between Hillary and Trump will probably damage American politics for a while if not alter it in less than savory ways. I can't help but wonder what will happen if Trump gets snubbed by the GOP in a last ditch effort to save themselves or what will happen if Trump gets the nomination and then gets smashed in the general election.
This year is going to be one to remember in American politics. An either we will look back and think we dodged a bullet or we will look back an think thats when we swallowed a bullet.
There were rumours that even if Trump wins enough of the delegates... that he wouldn't get the nomination.
Not sure what's the mechanic... but, man... would we see convention riots like in the 70's?
Well from what I've been lead to believe, Trump rallies are pretty violent already. So I can imagine that unless Trump wins everything and becomes POTUS we will see some sort of violence in America. Given the militia types are pretty fond of Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of them choose not to take their medication an start "freedoming" things for Trump.
I would like to vote Sanders, but as said by others more clearly, it seems like a major stretch that he would get the nomination. Failing that, I'd vote for HRC, not as a show of solidarity to her, but I think she will do far less damage than Trump would.
Of course, if Cruz or Rubio wins the nomination, that may change my mind on things, but that said, I'm doubtful that they will get that nomination yet. The GOP (and public in general) has consistently underestimated Trump's capacity to win, so I think it is wholly possible that Trump emerges the candidate for the GOP simply because nobody until very, very recently has done anything to stop him other than say 'oh he'll flame out'.
I concur with the commenters that it was likely private security, rather than Secret Service - I feel like if it was Secret Service A.) There would have been more than one of them acting and B.) There would have been an arrest made to justify it. I definitely could be wrong but I'd be fairly surprised.
Damn, I was about to post that.
Not sure how the Secret Service handles things but if that had been a cop then the reporter would warming his butt on a bench in the police lockup waiting for arraignment.
Still, that reporter is a little and should probably be arrested anyway.
feeder wrote: As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.
He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.
I don't think he could win the general election (and almost certainly won't get the nomination barring an unexpected indictment) but sure, I like Sanders.
Not sure how the Secret Service handles things but if that had been a cop then the reporter would warming his butt on a bench in the police lockup waiting for arraignment.
Still, that reporter is a little and should probably be arrested anyway.
Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.
I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.
If the officer felt sufficiently threatened to employ force, then there should have been an arrest made. I'm sure we'll have more information tomorrow.
THe law says that reporters have to stay in squares designated by people trying to be nominated. If he can't respect the law of the square I just don't know what kind of world this is.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.
I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.
I'm not saying he hasn't broken any laws, but there's nothing to suggest that he has either
feeder wrote: General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?
Neither. I won't vote for either one, but I will vote against Trump.
Yes, I'll push the button next to Hillary's name on election day, but it won't be because I want to see her in the White House. It will be because I don't want to see Trump in the White House more than I don't want to see Hillary there.
It is a subtle, but important, distinction. For clarification purposes, I voted for Obama in 2008. But I did not vote for him in 2012; I I voted against Romney. I will do the same thing if it comes down to a Trump/Clinton face-off in November. Hillary will get my vote, but it will in no way be an endorsement or an approval of her. It will be nothing more than an indictment of Trump.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why? He doesn't appear to have broken any laws just said "feth you" to the guy.
I'm inclined to agree with you but I'd really have to see the entire altercation - especially the few minutes leading up to it - before making that conclusion, not just the choke-slam.
If the officer felt sufficiently threatened to employ force, then there should have been an arrest made. I'm sure we'll have more information tomorrow.
I kinda doubt we'll get more information. Secret Service has been an embarrassment of late.
In any regards, the agent kinda looked like he got accepted not for his geniality but because of military/law enforcement experience and had no damn business being assigned protection detail at a rally.
Well, we have yet to see what happens on Super-Tuesday Dems wise, we may yet see Bernie rise, and he has been shown by Quinnipiac to crush Republicans, and they have predicted Presidential winners consistently fr the past few decades. Ties possibly could have gone to Bernie with the missing precincts votes wit the delegate system, and Iowa's governor was a pro-Hilary type Dem.
We are seeing more politicians and other high profile supporters endorsing Bernie, including lately Representative Gabbard of Hawaii broke from the DNC committee to endorse Bernie.
Gabbard was a soldier twice in Iraq, and she prefers the Bernie style of foreign leadership to Hawk-Hillary.
Trump, well, he is a bad penny who turns up more than most things, and he has always loved being in the news as the narcissist he is.
feeder wrote: As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.
He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.
I love sanders, but I think he would do alot more for what he wants as a senator than as a president. as a president, he would be trying to do things that currently isnt possible.
As my friend said, Bernie is the kid in the school election promising pizza for lunch everyday and longer recess.
feeder wrote: As a filthy commoner, I can't understand why anyone who's not already rich wouldn't vote for Sanders.
He wants to help you. He's the only one who does.
I love sanders, but I think he would do alot more for what he wants as a senator than as a president. as a president, he would be trying to do things that currently isnt possible.
As my friend said, Bernie is the kid in the school election promising pizza for lunch everyday and longer recess.
You're friend's analogy would be apt if all the other schools in the district had pizza for lunch and longer recess, but the current student body president is claiming "it wouldn't work" at your school.
feeder wrote: General question to all Dakkanaughts. So fast forwards to the election. it's HRC vs Trump. Who do you vote for?
Neither. I won't vote for either one, but I will vote against Trump.
Yes, I'll push the button next to Hillary's name on election day, but it won't be because I want to see her in the White House. It will be because I don't want to see Trump in the White House more than I don't want to see Hillary there.
It is a subtle, but important, distinction. For clarification purposes, I voted for Obama in 2008. But I did not vote for him in 2012; I I voted against Romney. I will do the same thing if it comes down to a Trump/Clinton face-off in November. Hillary will get my vote, but it will in no way be an endorsement or an approval of her. It will be nothing more than an indictment of Trump.
I think this is me as well... But, we can expand that to include Cruz and Rubio right alongside of Trump.
Just about the only Republican who could show up and potentially get my vote from a Democrat candidate right now, would have to be Colin Powell.... But I don't think there's a very good chance of him running, he's stated numerous times (IIRC) that he is simply not interested in even running.
whembly wrote: He did pay back when he used is campaign card.
It's still a breach of financial responsibility. While in almost all cases organisations will just demand the money back and move on, I don’t think it should be that easy. I can’t see how it is that much different from getting caught taking something that doesn't belong to you, and thinking everything is okay when you give it back.
Note I’m not saying it’s something that should disqualify Rubio from the presidency. That's kind of silly to be honest. Why not go hunting for old speeding fines? That's really what most efforts to judge personal character come down to - little anecdotes and factoids about their personal life, and then lots of assumptions by voters. It really just doesn't matter compared to a candidate’s policy platform.
And, he's campaigning. EVERY Congressional candidate running for POTUS does that.
I agree with you there. Voting attendance is a terrible way to judge senate performance. But was that your opinion in 2008? Honestly, did you never criticise Obama for his low voting record?
skyth wrote: The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.
That’s because Obama is in power right now. When Bill Clinton was in power the hatred for him was extraordinary. Pretty much every ridiculous fantasy about Obama’s evil conspiracies is recycled from stuff they said about Bill Clinton. The only exception I can think of is birtherism.
Breotan wrote: There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.
The racists in the Democrats aren’t focused on in the same way as the racists in the Republican party because extent and effect matter. Extent matters, because a party with some racists obviously has less of a problem than a party with lots of racists. And effect matters, because a party which accepts a number of racists on the fringes of the party is different to party that panders to it’s racists with whistleblower tactics.
The issue with Republicans isn’t ‘look there’s racists in there’. The issue is that Republicans attempt to sell issues like welfare reform by playing up to overtly racist myths like the welfare queen.
d-usa wrote: I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Yeah, the racists are pretty strongly connected to whoever happens to be appealing to working class white voters at that point in time. For a long time Democrats were the party of working class whites, now it’s the Republicans. 20 years from now, as you say, it’s entirely possible that that things will have swapped around and it will be Democrats playing up to racists. Probably with some kind of ‘they took our jobs’ nonsense.
Frazzled wrote: I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.
Pretty good analysis on 538 showed Sanders was always around 10 points shy of where he needed to be to win. It’s just that the Iowa and New Hampshire’s whiteness meant he looked like he was travelling much better than he actually was.
But yeah, the fact that she’s actually faced a battle that close tells you how mediocre she is. I think its mistake to assume that weakness has anything to with the Republican attacks on her though. I think she’s struggled for the exact same reasons she struggled in 2008 – she’s a pretty crappy campaigner. She doesn’t work a crowd, and has no ability to communicate high end policy in a way that’s understandable and appealing to voters. She might be better than Bill in forming policy, but she is nothing like the politician her husband was.
The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.
Your country survived the middle of the 19th century, it will survive this. But yeah, I do wonder if the biggest story to come out of this in the long term won’t be Trump’s circus, but the rise of an extreme, uncompromising left wing in the Democrats, roughly equal to the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. Then you’ll see what real deadlock and dysfunction looks like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.
I was saying a while ago that the Trump nonsense was possibly working quite well for the Republicans, because it’s meant there’s been almost no serious review of Rubio. People have been so fixated on Trump that the plainly crazy policies put up by Rubio and Cruz have received almost no media attention.
If Rubio beats Trump then Democrats will actually have very little time to try and work their base up to get concerned about what Rubio wants to do. In comparison the Republicans have been working on Clinton for 20 years.
Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Watch TV and I am sure you will see some.
No cable or satellite. I don't doubt they are happening, we have a pretty vicious state. What is the dealio with them?
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Watch TV and I am sure you will see some.
No cable or satellite. I don't doubt they are happening, we have a pretty vicious state. What is the dealio with them?
Yeah I didn't expect them this quick though, maybe may but not march. It was a pretty vicious attack on Kirk voting on veterans, basically him voting no on veteran benefits and providing more armor for soldiers.
NASCAR's chief executive and several NASCAR drivers endorsed Donald Drumpf on Monday, just one day before a cluster of Southern states vote in the GOP's Super Tuesday contests.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
"You know about his winning in business and success. I'm gonna tell you, he wins with his family," said France, who noted that he's known Drumpf for more than two decades.
"That's how I judge a winner," France added, pointing to how well Drumpf's children have turned out.
The endorsement marked a stark contrast with how NASCAR reacted to Drumpf's controversial comments this summer about undocumented Mexican immigrants -- calling them criminals and "rapists" -- when the racing association decided to change the location for its postseason banquet away from the Drumpf National Doral and to another venue.
Bill Elliott, a retired champion NASCAR driver, also joined Drumpf on stage, saying that he's "all for" what Drumpf has said he will do for the United States as president.
"For what he can do I think for our country, I'm all for it. We need a change guys, that's all there is to it," Elliott said.
Elliott's son and two other current NASCAR drivers also endorsed Drumpf Monday.
The endorsements could give Drumpf a boost Tuesday, when more than a dozen states, including several southern states like Georgia, where NASCAR is especially popular, make their choice for Republican nominee known.
NASCAR's 2015 season averaged 5.1 million viewers, according to the ESPN-owned Jayski.com website.
Thanking his latest endorsers, Drumpf noted that "they have guts."
Moments earlier, Drumpf opened his rally praising the stock car racing association.
"I love NASCAR. Do we love NASCAR?" Drumpf asked the crowd.
The endorsement comes on the heels of a series of high-profile endorsements for the billionaire Republican presidential candidate who is increasingly viewed as most likely to become his party's nominee.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions have also endorsed Drumpf in the final days of campaigning leading up to the crucial Super Tuesday contests.
Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party
Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official.
Secretary of State William Galvin said more than 16,300 Democrats have shed their party affiliation and become independent voters since Jan. 1, while nearly 3,500 more shifted to the MassGOP ahead of tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” presidential primary.
Galvin called both “significant” changes that dwarf similar shifts ahead of other primary votes, including in 2000, when some Democrats flocked from the party in order to cast a vote for Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary.
The primary reason? Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon,” a reference to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who polls show enjoying a massive lead over rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others among Massachusetts Republican voters.
“The tenor of the Republican campaign has been completely different from what we’ve seen in prior Republican presidential campaigns,” Galvin said. “You have to look no farther than the viewership for some of the televised debates.
“The New York Times referred to the campaign as crude; I suppose that’s fair,” added Galvin, a Democrat. “The fact of the matter is the tenor has been very different this time. And that has an effect. People are interested. It’s exciting.”
Galvin said the state could see as many as 700,000 voting in tomorrow’s Republican primary, a significant number given just 468,000 people are actually registered Republicans. In Massachusetts. unenrolled — otherwise known as independent — voters can cast a ballot in the primary of any party.
If the Democratic vote is close to that of 2008 — when 1.2 million hit the polls — the state could surpass the 1.8 million that voted that year overall, setting what Galvin said he believes would be a record for a presidential primary in Massachusetts.
“The question in my mind is the Democratic turnout,” Galvin said. “The nature of the race is a little different than it was in ’08. ... It’s a fact that Sen. (Bernie) Sanders has a very aggressive campaign here in Massachusetts. He spent both time and money. He has a good ground (game) from what I can see, as does Sen. (Hillary) Clinton. So that’s going to help us. But the chemistry was somewhat different than it was in ‘08.”
Galvin noted the historical context in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama was vying to become the nation’s first black president, and running against Clinton — seeking, as she is again this year, to become the first woman to serve as president.
Turnouts have hit record levels in other primary states this year.
Galvin pointed to the shift in voters from the Democratic party as an “indicator” of turnout in the Bay State.
But while significant, it doesn’t necessary signal a change in the political power structure in Massachusetts, where Democrats have long dominated with heavy majorities in the legislature and across constitutional offices.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party. And though the MassGOP gained several thousand voters, it actually lost more in the same time frame, when 5,911 quit the party to be unenrolled.
Breotan wrote: It ain't just rednecks on the right moving to Trump. Apparently people are defecting en mass from the Democrat party to rally around his banner.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party.
En masse. 1.3%.
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
Breotan wrote: The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party. And though the MassGOP gained several thousand voters, it actually lost more in the same time frame, when 5,911 quit the party to be unenrolled.
So 0.23% of Mass. Democrats switching sides means what, exactly?
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
It's like 2012 all over again.
Welcome to the 201216 election! Where the conclusions are pre-decided and the numbers don't matter.
Breotan wrote: It ain't just rednecks on the right moving to Trump. Apparently people are defecting en mass from the Democrat party to rally around his banner.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party.
En masse. 1.3%.
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
19,800 left the Democratic Party...
Tiny part of that joined the GOP...
Official: we have no idea why, but I'm guessing Trump...
sebster wrote: This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
sebster wrote: This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
Yeah... this is different.
Trumpism is generally a big FETH YOU to the GOP establishments.
Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Maybe it's because their state is a guarantee'ed HRC state, thus these democrats wants to create more chaos in the GOP primary?
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Without some historical data regarding the rate at which people are likely to switch parties, the figures from New Hampshire are basically meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This rather interesting report by Pew Research Centre shows that Independents are more numerous than ever.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Maybe it's because their state is a guarantee'ed HRC state, thus these democrats wants to create more chaos in the GOP primary?
Yes, I understand that. I just don't see it happening with that sort of number. 20,000 is a LOT of people all deciding to go grief the other party's nomination process.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Depends what qualifies as "success".
He's got money... he's got mucho arse... gotta give him that at least.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Depends what qualifies as "success".
He's got money... he's got mucho arse... gotta give him that at least.
You apparently forgot: He's got a daughter that, if she wasn't his daughter, he'd want to bang
I showed up a little before 6:30 AM to vote and there was only a couple of people there and I didn't have to wait!. I also signed a petition to allow the Libertarian Party to have a name on the presidential ballot.
Oklahoma actually had their act together pretty good and there were no problems with getting a democratic primary ballot for independents in my district. Rolls and ballots were color coded and printed on matching paper and you told person A what party you belonged to. Democrats and Independents were in the same book, so you signed your name in the purple book and they already had your purple ballot waiting for you.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Depends what qualifies as "success".
He's got money... he's got mucho arse... gotta give him that at least.
You apparently forgot: He's got a daughter that, if she wasn't his daughter, he'd want to bang
Someone told me that. As a Dad, thats really, really ed up.
Someone told me that. As a Dad, thats really, really ed up.
As a Dad myself, I completely agree....
But if you search, probably youtube or somewhere, you can hear it straight from his fake tan orangutan haired self.
Whoa. That's pretty harsh, man.
Orangutans are peaceful, shy, and book-loving. Let's not do them a disservice by comparing them to Trump.
Well, they are peace loving, until they get on the quest for "man's red flower"
Or someone uses the m-word. But I think we can all agree that these are justified circumstances, right? Occasionally accompanied by a brief musical number, too...
Okay. The voice we've all been waiting for - Louis Farrakhan - has spoken about Trump.
Louis Farrakhan praises Donald Trump
Praise for what, you ask? Well, I'll let you guys read the article if you want. It's really not worth posting here as it's as racist as you probably imagine it would be, given the clowns involved.
I went to my primary voting station that I went to for the last several elections and no one was there! Then I remembered that my state switched from a primary to just a caucus. Therefore, I have to go later.
Why would you switch from a cool primary to a lame, limp-wristed caucus?
Easy E wrote: I went to my primary voting station that I went to for the last several elections and no one was there! Then I remembered that my state switched from a primary to just a caucus. Therefore, I have to go later.
Why would you switch from a cool primary to a lame, limp-wristed caucus?
The caucus system really does blow.... but, hey, the State's party can do whatever they want.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I am a student of American history, and I follow American politics quite a lot, but things like primary, caucas, and gubernational?
Easy E wrote: I went to my primary voting station that I went to for the last several elections and no one was there! Then I remembered that my state switched from a primary to just a caucus. Therefore, I have to go later.
Why would you switch from a cool primary to a lame, limp-wristed caucus?
The caucus system really does blow.... but, hey, the State's party can do whatever they want.
Texas does a roundup. You just herd your cattle into the pen and they count brands.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Don't you guys still yearn for the simplicity of the parliamentary system you used to have?
Not really. The election cycle may be a circus but our Republic is a very stable model of government. I don't believe in no confidence votes as they're little more than your political enemies ganging up on you. I'm also not fond of the idea of minority parties being spoilers in forming/breaking up ruling coalitions.
So... I've been reading tweets all day, and of course most of the discourse is over Trump.
Many NY/NJ'er really don't believe Trump is racist, but man... his campaign isn't acting like it.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Trump & Campaign strategists has a NY liberal's view of what the Republican party is made of... and in the South, they think it’s made up of a bunch of racists. It’s all part of a grand strategy, that they'd believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Trump & Co. evidently believes.
Hence, he'd be brutalized by whomever the Democrat nominee.
<---this guy is praying for brokered convention to nominate Rubio.
However, if Trump's unbelievably wins the Presidency... at least his wife seems really classy:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Don't you guys still yearn for the simplicity of the parliamentary system you used to have?
Not really. The election cycle may be a circus but our Republic is a very stable model of government. I don't believe in no confidence votes as they're little more than your political enemies ganging up on you. I'm also not fond of the idea of minority parties being spoilers in forming/breaking up ruling coalitions.
We've only had one vote of no confidence in 80 years. The flip side of the parliamentary system is that it allows a thumping majority to get things down i.e legislation goes through the house pretty quickly, unlike some of the deadlock that has crippled the US government over the years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I am a student of American history, and I follow American politics quite a lot, but things like primary, caucas, and gubernational?
Donald J. Trump is laying waste to the conservative movement. His overwhelming lead in Super Tuesday polls stands as further evidence, if further evidence were even necessary, that his appeal among Republicans is deep and durable, even as his campaign makes a mockery of conservative ideals. While conservatives have traditionally emphasized the central importance of limited government, Trump has built his campaign around the promise of an unlimited government that will solve every problem that ails America, provided it is fully under his command.
To many on the right, Trump’s enormous popularity seems particularly galling in light of the failures this election cycle of one conservative true believer after another. No candidate was more ideologically orthodox than Bobby Jindal, the government-slashing, hard-right governor of Louisiana, yet Trump ridiculed his campaign out of existence. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defeated powerful public-sector unions in a state that had long been a citadel of progressivism, and he too exited the race, as Trump stole his populist thunder. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were both backed by Tea Party activists in their respective Senate campaigns, and both have made their mark by singing from the Reaganite hymnal. Now both are being bested by a man who praises Planned Parenthood, has warm words for socialized medicine, and seems almost Bernie Sanders–esque in his delight at the prospect of waging class warfare.
Though the rise of Trump has taken almost everyone by surprise, we really should have seen it coming. America has been long overdue for something like Trumpism. In the years since the financial crisis, populist insurgencies have devastated mainstream parties of the center right and center left in virtually every market democracy. Barack Obama’s rhetorical gifts mask the many ways in which he is a deeply conventional political figure, a man who trusts the wisdom of technocrats rather than seeking to overturn the established order. One could argue that the Obama presidency rescued America’s upper classes from a more ferocious post-crisis backlash, at least for a time. The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders demonstrate that the anger is still there—that it was just waiting for the right person to conjure it up. What separates the two politicians is that Sanders is in tune with the ideological orthodoxies of the left while Trump has no regard for those of the right. This iconoclasm is one of the sources of his power.
More than anything else, Trump has demonstrated that white working-class voters have minds of their own. They will not simply line up behind the candidates selected for them by hedge-funders and industrialists during the “invisible primary.” If we define working-class voters as those without a college degree, Ronald Brownstein of the Atlantic estimates that this bloc represents 53 percent of Republicans, split almost evenly between those who are conservative Christians and those who are not. The Pew Research Center reports that in 2012, 53 percent of Republicans were part of families that earned less than $75,000 a year. These groups, which tend to overlap, are Donald Trump’s base. Ever since the Nixon era, Republicans have relied on the white working class to achieve political victories. Now, it has revolted against the GOP elite.
Why wouldn’t they be furious? The Republican failure to defend the interests of working-class voters, and to speak to their hopes and fears, has made Trump’s authoritarianism dangerously alluring. Trump recognized that elite Republicans—a group rooted in affluent coastal metropolises and dominated by members of the credentialed upper middle class, which has shielded itself from the social and economic devastation that has wreaked such havoc in less-privileged corners of the country—often fall prey to wishful thinking about the rank-and-file voters who actually elect GOP candidates. They imagine that working- and middle-class conservatives are passionately devoted to the things they care about—tax cuts and entitlement reform—when these voters are far more passionate about other issues: economic nationalism, limits on less-skilled immigration, and minimum-wage hikes.
Having recognized this chasm separating the Republican donor class from the grassroots, Trump has exploited it brilliantly. He has defended entitlement programs, and he has bashed bankers. He has defied the elite consensus on trade and immigration. He is channeling the Republican id, and in doing so he may have already dashed conservative hopes of winning the White House. Why can’t his GOP opponents convince Republican voters that they would do a far better job than Trump of defending middle-class economic interests? The answer is that they are trapped by the delusions of the donor class, and they can’t break free.
In the coming weeks and months, old-school conservatives will do everything they can to defeat a man they consider a charlatan and provocateur. Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Martin of the New York Times report that leading GOP donors and congressional bigwigs are mounting a desperate rearguard action to do just that. But whether or not they succeed, the GOP establishment must acknowledge that the Trump campaign has surfaced important and uncomfortable truths. Those truths can no longer be evaded.
If the Republican Party is to have a future, it must learn from Trump’s rise. By launching a frontal attack on movement conservatism, Trump has demonstrated its weakness and the failure of its stale policy agenda to resonate with voters. In doing so, he is giving conservatives a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change direction.
There is only one way forward in the post-Trump era. The GOP can no longer survive as the party of tax cuts for the rich. It must reinvent itself as the champion of America’s working- and middle-class families. In every campaign, Democrats and Republicans talk about getting the working class and the middle class back on their feet. Those are almost always empty words. The GOP must now become a genuinely populist party, putting the concerns of voters ahead of those of donors. The alternative will be a decade or more of marginalization and defeat, during which the left will have free rein.
Following this path will be uncomfortable for a Republican elite that has grown accustomed to getting its way, and to selling an agenda that’s best suited to the interests of the already well-to-do as an agenda for America. While tossing aside long-held orthodoxies will be difficult, it is absolutely necessary. By embracing populism, this new GOP will have the potential both to speak to Trump’s voters and to grow the party’s base, uniting voters across lines of race, class, and region.
What might a more populist GOP agenda look like? Here is a brief sketch of how the party can change course.
A Pay-Your-Own-Way Immigration Policy
No issue better illustrates the divide between elite Republicans and the party’s base. One recent survey found that a large majority (67 percent) of Republicans favor decreasing immigration levels while only 7 percent of them favor an increase. Nevertheless, leading Republicans, including Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, have backed proposals that would greatly increase immigration levels in defiance of the Republican grassroots. Trump, meanwhile, has used incendiary language to electrify Republicans who oppose immigration.
What accounts for this divide between the policies prominent Republicans have backed and those favored by rank-and-file GOP voters? For high-income Republicans, skilled immigrants are their colleagues, neighbors, and friends, and less-skilled immigrants provide them with the low-cost child care, restaurant meals, and other services that allow them to lead comfortable lives. These affluent conservatives thus take a more relaxed approach to immigration, which is reflected in the immigration reform proposals they’ve advanced. Less-affluent conservatives, meanwhile, are far more likely to see immigrants as either competitors for scarce public resources or as a burden on hard-pressed taxpayers.
To unite the right, the GOP ought to embrace a simple immigration reform principle: The U.S. will only welcome immigrants who can pay their own way. Immigrants who earn high wages are less likely to need public assistance than those who earn low wages. They are in a better position to provide for their families, and their children are more likely to flourish as adults. Republicans should not shrink from advocating immigration policies that protect the interests of American workers. That means welcoming immigrants who are economically self-sufficient and who can help finance social programs for poor Americans—whether native- or foreign-born, of every racial and ethnic group—rather than relying on those social programs themselves.
Eat China’s Lunch
On more than one occasion, Donald Trump has said that “China’s just eating our lunch,” and that we ought to retaliate. He’s not wrong.
It really is true that Chinese import competition has had a powerfully negative impact on America’s Rust Belt, and that China shields its domestic market from competition while encouraging intellectual property theft on a grand scale. Yet it’s also true that China is experiencing a wave of deindustrialization not unlike what already took place in the U.S., as many of its labor-intensive manufacturers embrace labor-saving technologies. Moreover, the Chinese economy is entering a rocky period, as growth slows and domestic unrest rises. Now might be the perfect time for the U.S. to rethink its relationship with China, and its approach to global economic integration more broadly.
As automation accelerates, labor costs will be of decreasing importance for manufacturers. This could lead to more “insourcing,” or a return of manufacturing jobs to U.S. shores. But even if the U.S. attracts new manufacturing facilities in large numbers, the number of manufacturing jobs created will likely be modest, as these new facilities will make far greater use of machines than factories of the past. Nevertheless, insourcing of this kind would be an economic boon. Republicans ought to offer a comprehensive agenda for making the U.S. more attractive to manufacturers, through corporate tax reform but also through a renewed commitment to investing in infrastructure—in other words, an economic nationalism rooted in substance, not shopworn nostalgia.
More broadly, Republicans ought to put forward specific policy proposals to improve the lives of workers who lose their jobs to outsourcing or automation. One promising idea is a wage insurance program that provides workers with a strong incentive for rapid re-employment. As Lael Brainard, Robert Litan, and Nicholas Warren proposed in 2005, workers who lose their jobs and then find lower-wage work would receive an insurance payout that would cover up to 50 percent of the earnings gap, up to $10,000 a year for no more than two years.
This is exactly the kind of social program that elite Republicans tend to oppose. But a GOP more attuned to the interests of its working-class base must think differently, particularly if the alternative is subjecting American workers to long-term unemployment and all the suffering that comes with it.
Defend the Safety Net
One of the hallmarks of the Trump campaign has been his support for Social Security and Medicare, and his insistence that he would protect these programs from budget cuts. To many conservatives, Trump’s defense of these old-age entitlements is his greatest heresy. What they fail to understand is that conservative voters are very fond of these programs, and their fondness can’t be chalked up to simple hypocrisy.
We saw this dynamic at play during the early days of the Tea Party, the last time elite Republicans faced a serious populist challenge. Many conservative intellectuals viewed the Tea Party movement as the realization of their fondest wishes: a grassroots rebellion demanding fiscal austerity. In fact, as Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute has observed, Tea Party members were chiefly motivated by a theory of economic fairness. They believed, in Ekins’ words, that “everyone should be rewarded in strict proportion to their achievements and failings and that government should not shield people from the consequences of their decisions.” This is why Tea Party conservatives are more favorably disposed toward programs like Social Security and Medicare—to which workers contribute over a lifetime in exchange for benefits when they need them—than they are to programs that lack this contributory element.
Republicans ought to reform old-age entitlements to make them sustainable over the long haul. But in doing so, they must ensure that these programs perform their core functions better than they do today, particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable seniors. To improve Social Security, Republicans might back a package of reforms that would encourage older Americans to work by slashing or eliminating their property taxes and that would ensure that all seniors receive a benefit that would keep them from falling into poverty, which is not currently the case. On Medicare, they could improve the quality of care for seniors while lowering costs by defaulting seniors into Medicare Advantage, a program that allows beneficiaries to access high-quality private insurance coverage.
More controversially, Republicans should follow Trump’s lead and accept that some of the core aspects of Obamacare are here to stay. Trump often seems confused when questioned about health policy, but he does intuitively understand that Americans hate the idea that people with pre-existing medical conditions might be denied care. The best way forward for the right would be to call an Obamacare truce: accept that the exchanges are here to stay, as they’re a guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions will always have access to health insurance they can afford. The GOP should instead focus on reforming Obamacare so that people would have the option to buy lightly regulated plans with their own money. This wouldn’t be as satisfying for Republicans as repealing Obamacare root and branch, but it’s a far more realistic approach that might win over at least some Democrats and independents. And it would demonstrate that all Republicans, like Trump, “won’t let people die in the streets”—a commitment that doesn’t always come across.
Respect, Not Compassion
Republican anti-poverty rhetoric often reeks of condescension. When George W. Bush spoke of compassion for the downtrodden, it was very clear that he meant well. It’s equally clear, though, that for most poor Americans, a hand up is vastly preferable to a shoulder to cry on.
Encouragingly, a number of conservative reformers have proposed using the tax code to help low-income families. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, among others, have called for increases in wage subsidies, and their proposals have much to recommend them. One serious challenge, however, is that sliding-scale wage subsidies help workers as they climb the bottom rungs of the job ladder, but they can also discourage them from earning more as they gain experience, because the subsidies taper off as workers earn more income. The Bipartisan Policy Center has proposed solving this problem by replacing the current earned income tax credit with a refundable earnings credit equal to 17.5 percent of the first $20,000 in earnings that would apply to each worker, with or without children. This would make life for low-wage workers much easier, not least by lowering the cost of tax preparation, a huge burden for poor families. Better still, it would remove the disincentive to earn more money.
Republicans should go further and back a more generous refundable per child tax credit. Such a credit would help equalize the tax benefits received by low-income parents and their better-off counterparts, who benefit more from other provisions of the tax code. Conservatives might fear that a program that gives poor parents money with no strings attached will discourage them from working. This is a legitimate concern, but the experience of other market democracies suggests that it is overblown. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that a well-designed child credit can lead to increased work hours. Keep in mind that many low-income families with children already receive substantial assistance in the form of food stamps and other benefits. By replacing much of this in-kind assistance with cash, Republicans would give poor parents greater flexibility, and they’d also treat them with greater respect.
No New Tax Cuts for the Rich
If Republicans are to win the trust of working- and middle-class voters who’ve grown deeply skeptical of their economic nostrums, they will have to do something dramatic: It’s time for the GOP to abandon its near-obsessive devotion to tax cuts that disproportionately benefit upper-income households.
Virtually every GOP candidate, Trump included, has offered a tax reform proposal that would slash taxes on America’s richest people. But according to a survey conducted last fall, almost one-third of Republicans (31 percent) would be more likely to support a candidate who favored raising taxes on wealthy Americans compared with one-third (34 percent) who’d be less likely to vote for such a candidate and another one-third (34 percent) who were indifferent. Given these numbers, you’d expect that one or two GOP presidential candidates might run on cutting taxes on the rich while one or two others might call for hiking them. Instead, we see elected Republicans march in lockstep on taxes, as though their voters did the same.
The GOP elite has also yet to grasp that most voters simply don’t care as much about taxes as they did in the Reagan era. Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View has observed that the tax burden on middle-income households has declined since the Reagan presidency. The predictable result is that support for cuts in federal taxes has fallen substantially, and the share of voters who consider their federal tax burden their top priority is a mere 1 percent.
To break out of their tax trap, Republicans ought to embrace a very simple strategy. The GOP should continue to back tax cuts for the middle class, and in particular for middle-class parents. But until the country sees large and sustained budget surpluses, there should be no tax cuts for households earning $250,000 or more.
While there are growth-friendly tax reforms that would preserve or even increase the progressivity of the current tax code, this proposal will still be difficult for supply-siders to bear. And that’s to the good. For too long, Republican have been excessively beholden to voters at the top of the income spectrum, and swearing off tax cuts for the rich would be an excellent way to prove that they’ve turned over a new leaf.
I’m under no illusion that Republicans will embrace this agenda tout court, and there’s no question that some of these ideas are more far-fetched than others. This proposal also isn’t comprehensive: I haven’t touched on same-sex marriage or abortion or foreign and defense policy. The point of this exercise is not to dictate exactly where GOP policymakers should go. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the GOP can speak to the interests of working- and middle-class Americans while maintaining conservative principles.
Conservative reformers of earlier eras recognized that to protect and defend capitalism, they needed to ensure that everyone could share in the wealth it creates. This was true of Theodore Roosevelt in the progressive era, and it was true of Ronald Reagan, who broke with his free-trade convictions to protect vulnerable American industries and backed tax reforms that closed loopholes used only by the richest of the rich. Reagan was a conservative true believer, but he also recognized that rapid economic change could cause chaos and dislocation, and that government had a role to play in smoothing out its rough edges.
What defenders of the Republican status quo fail to realize is that unless the party speaks to the interests of working-class voters, they won’t just face slightly higher capital gains taxes or more wasteful spending under a Hillary Clinton administration. They will face a backlash from within that threatens to profoundly damage a party that, at its best, is a champion of the core social and economic institutions that made America great in the first place.
Well, that's a shame because The Bad Astronomer and Dear Prudence are both awesome. There is definitely lots of Democrat/liberal derp going on, but luckily they have a couple writers that can put out bias-free work. Also, their movie reviewer sucks ass.
Despite what you have continually accused me of, Slate is the only left-leaving news source I regularly read, despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of what they put out.
Back to the article, the first paragraph is the most telling: Trump supporters, whether they're disenfranchised Republicans or Democrats, want an authoritarian president. That is absolutely frightening.
Luckily... if Trump's the nominee, we can rest soundly that Clinton will win the General.
Which one do we want? A President with extreme authoritarian tendencies? Or a President corrupt in every way imaginable?
All I know... is that my ass is getting drunk on November 8, 2016.
remember all the times that you were cheering for exactly this style of politics? All the times you were delighted in "feth your way, there is no negotiating, I will shut down everything you love if I don't get my way" approaches of governing our country?
Luckily... if Trump's the nominee, we can rest soundly that Clinton will win the General.
Which one do we want? A President with extreme authoritarian tendencies? Or a President corrupt in every way imaginable?
All I know... is that my ass is getting drunk on November 8, 2016.
remember all the times that you were cheering for exactly this style of politics? All the times you were delighted in "feth your way, there is no negotiating, I will shut down everything you love if I don't get my way" approaches of governing our country?
I'm paraphrasing, but he said "There is no doubt that a candidate who cannot win his home state is in serious trouble."
So I take that to either be a ploy to get more Texans out to vote, a suggestion that tonight's Texas result is make or break, or both. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the statement. Having a hard time finding it online for context.
Here we go:
"Texas, which the Cruz campaign considers the "crown jewel," is a must-win for the senator who acknowledged Tuesday that, "there is no doubt that any candidate who cannot win his home state has real problems." A day earlier, Cruz qualified his statement, saying he wasn't likely to win over 50 percent of the vote in his home state. That 50 percent is the threshold necessary to take home all of Texas's 155 Republican delegates."
I would be amazed if Trump somehow beats Cruz in Texas. Cruz knows how to run and has a solid ground game (about the only thing he really knows, IMHO. If Trump does somehow win Texas, everybody else might as well drop now as nobody else has a shot of winning their home state and it suggests Trump really has somehow got the Republican primary voters to commit suicide.
I would be amazed if Drumpf won a single state in the Republican primary, yet here we are. He's only down 9 points in Texas in the aggregate polls, so I don't think it's out of the question.
I'm paraphrasing, but he said "There is no doubt that a candidate who cannot win his home state is in serious trouble."
So I take that to either be a ploy to get more Texans out to vote, a suggestion that tonight's Texas result is make or break, or both. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the statement. Having a hard time finding it online for context.
Here we go:
"Texas, which the Cruz campaign considers the "crown jewel," is a must-win for the senator who acknowledged Tuesday that, "there is no doubt that any candidate who cannot win his home state has real problems." A day earlier, Cruz qualified his statement, saying he wasn't likely to win over 50 percent of the vote in his home state. That 50 percent is the threshold necessary to take home all of Texas's 155 Republican delegates."
Cruz's game has stumbled a bit when it comes to Texas. He let Trump go for too long (on the assumption Trump would fizzle and drop out and Cruz would hoover up his supporters), and then Cruz has been taking Texas for granted, too, and that could cost him.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Trump & Campaign strategists has a NY liberal's view of what the Republican party is made of... and in the South, they think it’s made up of a bunch of racists. It’s all part of a grand strategy, that they'd believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Trump & Co. evidently believes.
Vague labels like "NY liberal" are designed to shut down debate, not add to it.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Trump & Campaign strategists has a NY liberal's view of what the Republican party is made of... and in the South, they think it’s made up of a bunch of racists. It’s all part of a grand strategy, that they'd believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Trump & Co. evidently believes.
Vague labels like "NY liberal" are designed to shut down debate, not add to it.
He's a lifelong NY'er with many liberal proclivities.
There's this idea that the GOP is nothing more than southern racists.
jasper76 wrote: I heard Cruz on the radio signaling that if Drumpf wins Texas, he's gonna drop out.
Well, Cruz's the projected winner there so I don't think its an issue any more.
Rubio, Kasich, and Carson need to drop now and throw their support (and any deligates) to Cruz. If not, Trump will walk away with the nomination and Hillary will be elected President.
If, and it's "iffy" now, Rubio truly does win Florida ( a closed primary ) and that fact that he's extremely competitive in the North/Northwest states.
Plus, Cruz winning a couple...
We may indeed have a brokered convention.
I'd be like:
Spoiler:
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Keep in mind, tonight is ALL ABOUT the DELEGATES.
Trump/Cruz/Rubio being really close could prevent any of the three from reaching the 1st ballot nomination, and thus a brokered convention begins.
Breotan wrote: I just don't understand my fellow right of center voters in the US. They have to know they're cutting off the nose to spite the face.
All this talk of Trump winning is making me a sad panda.
Spoiler:
They don't care. The party must be destroyed to be saved.
This reminds me of when Jesse Ventura won the governorship in Minnesota. There were two very good establishment candidates, one of whom one a US Senate seat later, and the other the namesake of a famous Democrat. Jesse beat them both with a message of populism. Of course, in those days the economy was in good shape and their were no serious problems going on. The stakes were relatively low.
After his election, both parties essentially sabotaged everything he tried to do to prove that an Independent was powerless. T-paw was the architect of obstructionism, and was rewarded for by the electorate the following election as Governor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.
A) there's more delegate counts total on the Democrat side.
Donald had a really good speech tonight, color me surprised.
Enjoyed how he went after Rubio.
Enjoyed his statement about how politicians are all talk, no action (though one has to wonder if that is supposed to be generalized or specific vs Dem politicians--he didn't specify Dems)), though).
Thought he did raise a good point about the issues that European countries are having with the young male middle east refugees..and his question about why they aren't fighting for their country was valid.
Still not swayed to vote for him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh...and I commend him for plainly and emphatically attacking Shillary.
Breotan wrote: No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
And? Is your argument that you never said the Tea Party was more than a Republican thing, therefore no-one did?
I guess it’s a stronger argument than trying to defend 1.3% as ‘en masse’.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.
Yeah, that's the strategy that emerged after the first few primaries. But in the wake of Super Tuesday, and with numbers just breaking against Rubio as they have, the strategy might need to be re-examined. Holding votes off Trump doesn't really work if people aren't making minimum vote counts needed to claim delegates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Why would you switch from a cool primary to a lame, limp-wristed caucus?
The party's appartchiks get a lot more power and influence in a caucus.
That article is basically what I've been telling you for five years!
The article is a lot more generous than I am. The article assumes Republicans have fallen in with the donor class and lost sight of what their voting base really wants by mistake. I've said it's been a cynical ploy to give what donors want, and win the power to do that by selling nonsense to the working class.
And, well, in addition to that the article also a lot better written. Noting that Sanders populist appeal is still being completely inline with Democratic core values, but made more extreme and urgent, while Trump's populist appeal is actually rejecting Republican values is an extremely well observed, and well explained. The observation about the Tea Party as a movement for fairness, that was misunderstood by the party elite is fascinating - there's not enough there to simply accept it at face value, but it's well worth keeping in mind.
It's an excellent article, and maybe points to a new way to make the Republican party something other than what they've been.
Oh, and to understand how important the ideas in that article to reforming the Republican party, but also how difficult they'll be to implement, consider Marco Rubio. For a while he was championing the reformicons. This was a movement within the Republican party that actually wanted to look at equality. The movement got a lot of hype, but problematically it's ideas were almost entirely stupid, drawn from the same supply side economics book Reagan used, albeit now they included the word opportunity even more. Anyhow, it was the movement that gave Rubio a national platform. So maybe he'll be able to push some of its ideas in the presidency?
Well, no. Very no. Rubio is deep in with the donor class. His campaign manager is billionaire Paul Singer. That's the guy who said he knew inflation was real and everywhere, because property was getting so much more expensive in Aspen, Manhattan and London.
So yeah. The Republicans need to meaningfully move their policies back to something people want to vote for. If Trump can do this well, imagine what a non-donkey-cave could do with a platform of social conservatism coupled with support for the social safety net? But doing it will not be incredibly hard. It can't just be a minor re-branding of existing Republican ideas. It needs a complete reform, root and branch, of the entire Republican platform. No sacred cows, if a new essential idea can't be reconciled with an old faithful like tax cuts, then the old faithful has to go.
Breotan wrote: No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
And? Is your argument that you never said the Tea Party was more than a Republican thing, therefore no-one did?
I guess it’s a stronger argument than trying to defend 1.3% as ‘en masse’.
Is my argument...? Seriously? How about you pay attention to what I write? I lived here and watched the Tea Party movement get started as a bunch of disparate grass-roots movements. I followed their progress as they pushed candidates good and bad. I watched as hucksters tried their damnedest to solicit/fund raise off them. I even payed attention to how the Republican party begged at their doorsteps then kicked them to the curb after getting re-elected. I watched as liberals, Democrats, and even news people mocked, slandered, and derided the people who were involved with the Tea Party. The Tea Party was uniquely right-wing and solidly Republican. Now if anyone in these forums said otherwise, well I can't speak to that except to say they are wrong if that really is their belief.
Also, I don't have to defend anything. The article I posted said 20,000 plus or minus dropped Democrat party affiliation. I stated those 20,000 walked away "en masse" from the Democrat party. It was supposition on my part that they'd all rally around the Trump banner but if some of them went to Rubio instead, I'm not really concerned about it.
whembly wrote: Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.
Yeah, that's the strategy that emerged after the first few primaries. But in the wake of Super Tuesday, and with numbers just breaking against Rubio as they have, the strategy might need to be re-examined. Holding votes off Trump doesn't really work if people aren't making minimum vote counts needed to claim delegates.
That's why the also-rans need to drop. Look, I like Rubio but he needs to drop, too. All the status quo is doing is making sure Trump gets a lock on the nomination.
Easy E wrote: On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.
They're totally different systems. It'd be like arguing the Golden State Warriors are better than the Denver Broncos because Golden State score more points each game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Now if anyone in these forums said otherwise, well I can't speak to that except to say they are wrong if that really is their belief.
They did. Lots of them. It dragged on through loads of threads, for months. And it was very silly.
And it was interesting to see the same sort of thing pop up, this time about Trump.
Also, I don't have to defend anything. The article I posted said 20,000 plus or minus dropped Democrat party affiliation. I stated those 20,000 walked away "en masse" from the Democrat party. It was supposition on my part that they'd all rally around the Trump banner but if some of them went to Rubio instead, I'm not really concerned about it.
Whether they went to Trump or Rubio wasn't the issue. It was using 'en masse' to describe 1.3%. It was using a big implying size and importance to describe a story where the actual figures are very small.
That's why the also-rans need to drop. Look, I like Rubio but he needs to drop, too. All the status quo is doing is making sure Trump gets a lock on the nomination.
That's the issue though. Last week it was Cruz who was falling, especially after he lost evangelicals to Trump in SC, and the story was about how he needed to drop so that Rubio could beat Trump. Now after Rubio had okay results but just missed a few key benchmarks by a point or two, its Rubio who needs to drop to let Cruz do the job. So who drops out? Rubio or Cruz?
He's a lifelong NY'er with many liberal proclivities.
There's this idea that the GOP is nothing more than southern racists.
There is a great deal of irony in dismissing someone as an "NY liberal" because you believe he is dismissing a group of people as "Southern white racists".
Either way, the only important people I've heard argue that liberals think the GOP is dominated by "Southern white racists" are conservatives trying to push the "conservatives are persecuted" angle.
If all the Republican candidates threw their delegates to Cruz, he'd actually have about two more than Trump. This posturing for a brokered convention will not end well.
Indeed - I feel like while a brokered convention might give what establishment republicans think is the right candidate (Rubio), it also might be a huge turnoff for the base the way that Hillary's super-delegates are upsetting some on the left.
Ahtman wrote: This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.
The only alternatives that are somewhat plausible at this point are Clinton v Rubio and Clinton v Cruz.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Indeed - I feel like while a brokered convention might give what establishment republicans think is the right candidate (Rubio), it also might be a huge turnoff for the base the way that Hillary's super-delegates are upsetting some on the left.
Yeah, the Trump voters are angry enough right now and their guy is winning. Imagine their reaction if he won the most delegates but got shut out at the convention. They certainly won't accept they got over-ruled and line up behind Rubio or Cruz.
If you look, besides MA, Bernie won the blue states.
He took one of the red states (OK).
And Hillary won the Red states that vote Red in the general...so you know they will go Red in Nov.
If you don't/can't win the states that your party tends to dominate/represent....what is that really saying?
It's saying to me that Democratic voters in Democratic states don't want you representing them.
What it's saying is that the Democratic voters in those states trend to the left of Hillary. Which means they certainly won't be voting for Trump or whomever in the fall. Really isn't that hard to figure out.
Easy E wrote: On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.
They're totally different systems. It'd be like arguing the Golden State Warriors are better than the Denver Broncos because Golden State score more points each game.
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!
Ahtman wrote: This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.
In honor of yesterday's polling I have worn my brown shirt, because I believe in joining the winning side, and my brown pants, because I think we are going to need them.
"Trump, he has plans to make the trains run on time, the best plans ever! Not like those other guys. They're stupid."
He won TX, OK and AK. But, the next round isn't as favorable for Cruz...
Rubio finally won a state in MN! There's a thought that Rubio's strength will manifest itself on 3/15 where FL is in play.
Pre-Super Tuesday, Trump was polled/estimated that he'd win all states except for TX. He lost 4, and barely squeaked by in 4 other states by less than 3%... So, in this regard, he kinda under performed and the likelihood of a 'Contested Convention' seems to grow.
Based on that tool... doesn't that point out that Rubio/Cruz need to form a unity ticket to take down Trump? I wonder how that works... *could* one guy throw his assigned delegates to the other?
). That sensationalism is practically needed for the parties to differentiate themselves from one another ideologically, as the reality is they have a lot in common.
and should probably be arrested anyway.
