Doomstead Diner Menu => Geopolitics => Topic started by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 03:43:28 AM

Title: Election Errata
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 03:43:28 AM
Figured that we're probably gonna need a bigger thread.

New Poll: One in Five Trump Supporters Opposed to Emancipation Proclamation (http://voxpopulisphere.com/2016/02/26/12816/)

New Poll: One in Five Trump Supporters Opposed to Emancipation Proclamation

A new poll sponsored by The Economist and conducted by YouGov has found that nearly one in five supporters of Donald Trump don’t approve of the freeing of slaves in the Confederacy. The January poll asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government.” That executive order, of course, was made by Abraham Lincoln and is generally known as “The Emancipation Proclamation.” Thirteen percent of respondents—and nearly 20 percent of Trump supporters compared with 5 percent of Marco Rubio’s—said they disapprove of it.

An additional 17 percent of respondents said they weren’t sure.

Before asking about slavery, YouGov first asked two broader poll questions about executive orders: Do you approve of them, and do you think they’re constitutional? Then pollsters asked about specific presidential actions, including freeing the slaves, desegregating the military, interning Japanese Americans during World War II and deferring deportation for some unauthorized immigrants.

The questions were asked of 2,000 people drawn at random from the general population. The margin of error was 2.9%.

In a related development, exit poll data from the South Carolina primary revealed that nearly half the Republicans who turned out on Saturday wanted undocumented immigrants to be deported immediately. Donald Trump won 47 percent of those voters.

Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group.

This article is based in part on a report by Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at UCLA, published in the New York Times.

.

trump_flicker_face_yess

(Mike Licht / Flickr)

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 04:48:24 AM
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump)

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

 
Tyler Durden's picture

This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.

One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it.

Mr. Robinson’s article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree.

So without further ado, here are a few excerpts:

 
 

Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.

 

But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

 

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

 

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

 

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, ChinagateTravelgate, the missing law firm recordsJeffrey EpsteinKissingerMarc RichHaitiClinton Foundation tax errorsClinton Foundation conflicts of interest“We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

 

Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.

 

Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanders’s catch-up in the polls, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that she was a “rotten candidate” whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that “at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes.” Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent.

 

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

 

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

 

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

 

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

 

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

 

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.

Here’s another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”

 
 

Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trump’s populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clinton’s candidacy, it’s not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home.

Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump.

 
 

Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.

 

Trump can’t clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.

 

Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trump’s race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger.

 

Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But they’re less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. It’s a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. It’s possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldn’t bet on it.

 

But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was “starting to” lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump.

 

And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trump’s goon squads or executed with pigs’ blood-dipped bullets.

Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose?

If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency.

 

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on February 26, 2016, 05:19:57 AM
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump)

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

Tyler Durden's picture

This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.

One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it.

Mr. Robinson’s article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree.

So without further ado, here are a few excerpts:

Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.

But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.

Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanders’s catch-up in the polls, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that she was a “rotten candidate” whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that “at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes.” Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent.

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.

Here’s another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”

Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trump’s populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clinton’s candidacy, it’s not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home.

Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump.

Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.

Trump can’t clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.

Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trump’s race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger.

Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But they’re less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. It’s a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. It’s possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldn’t bet on it.

But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was “starting to” lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump.

And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trump’s goon squads or executed with pigs’ blood-dipped bullets.

Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose?

If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency.



This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on February 26, 2016, 05:32:01 AM
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump)
Quote from: Eddie
This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.

I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

A more interesting question in my mind is a one on one contest between Burnie & The Donald.  Who wins that one?

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on February 26, 2016, 05:53:16 AM
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on February 26, 2016, 05:58:59 AM
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

It's a big crapshoot, and not one I think matters much anyhow, but it is interesting to speculate on.

A big problem here is the Bloombug Wildcard.  If Shillary does NOT get the nomination, then the chances Bloombug drops in the race as a 3rd Party candidate increase.  That probably pulls more voters off Burnie than of The Donald.  So a Burnie nomination might actually make The Donald MORE likely to be elected POTUS.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 06:11:45 AM
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

It's a big crapshoot, and not one I think matters much anyhow, but it is interesting to speculate on.

A big problem here is the Bloombug Wildcard.  If Shillary does NOT get the nomination, then the chances Bloombug drops in the race as a 3rd Party candidate increase.  That probably pulls more voters off Burnie than of The Donald.  So a Burnie nomination might actually make The Donald MORE likely to be elected POTUS.

RE

I am looking for a brokered GOP convention, in which The Donald is denied the nomination in the first ballot or two, and then pledges go out the window and votes are for sale, as God originally intended. The GOP "smart money" (which is very dumb money) lines up behind Rubio and anoints him, whereupon The Donald goes full third party.

Two schools of thought as to The Donald's electability. One says that he is drawing a regular 35 per cent of a split electorate on the R side. Say that's 17 per cent of the electorate for the general. Even goose him up to 25 per cent and that is still not enough neofascists. The other says that a lot of the disaffected will be drawn to Trump for no other reason than to extend a middle finger to political BAU.

As for Hillary, she is a piss poor campaigner with all of Bill's baggage and none of his charm. Think what you will of Kunstler, but when he calls her, "Ms. It's-My-Turn," he is pitch perfect.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 06:17:05 AM
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump)
Quote from: Eddie
This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.

I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

A more interesting question in my mind is a one on one contest between Burnie & The Donald.  Who wins that one?

RE

The article lists the reasons why Bernie wins. In fact, he is the ONLY D who can beat Trump one on one.

Quote from: Krieger, on Hillary v. Trump
Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

I can easily see that happening.
Title: David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 07:17:58 AM
"Gimme that ol' time religion, that ol' time religion..."

David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage' (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777#ixzz41HrhvFWm)

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/1320fe1/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fbe%2Fc8%2F519f0e8a4ad594595ef2de27fa82%2F160225-david-duke-ap-1160.jpg)
Donald Trump has “made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today," former KKK grand wizard David Duke said. | AP Photo

The white nationalist and former KKK grand wizard encouraged his listeners to volunteer for Trump.
By ELIZA COLLINS 02/25/16 11:59 AM EST


David Duke, a white nationalist and former Klu Klux Klan grand wizard, told his audience Wednesday that voting for anyone besides Donald Trump “is really treason to your heritage.”

“Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program. BuzzFeed News first reported the comments.
Story Continued Below

"I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump. In fact, I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

The former Louisiana representative told listeners to start volunteering for Trump.

“And I am telling you that it is your job now to get active. Get off your duff. Get off your rear end that’s getting fatter and fatter for many of you everyday on your chairs. When this show’s over, go out, call the Republican Party, but call Donald Trump’s headquarters, volunteer,” he said. “They’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind-set that you have.”

In December, Duke told POLITICO that Trump’s candidacy allows Americans to be more open about their racial animus.
“He’s made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today, because I think European Americans know they are the only group that can’t defend their own essential interests and their point of view,” Duke said. “He’s meant a lot for the human rights of European Americans.”
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on February 26, 2016, 07:23:04 AM
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
And here's another view- if not convinced by Krieger, give Greenwald a go. And pay particular attention to the polling graphs.

With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton? (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/)

Glenn Greenwald

Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. “Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” pronouncedVox’s Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton?

In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate. Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in recent polls: She trails the Texas senator in all but one poll, and in the one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:

By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by substantial margins in some:

A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both end up ahead in most polls, Sanders’ margin over Trump is generally very comfortable, while Clinton’s is smaller. Clinton’s average lead over Trump is just 2.8 percent, while Sanders’ lead is a full 6 points:

Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.

A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29 percent of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.”

In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here’s Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:

 

This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:

Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example, Sanders’ favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton’s isnegative 20 (37-57 percent).

Then there’s the particular climate of the electorate. While it’s undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors in Trump’s appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at Wall Street and corporate America, which — along with the bipartisan agenda of globalization and free trade — have spawned intense economic suffering and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This articleby the conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I’ve read explaining the sustained success of Trump’s candidacy, and it very convincingly documents those factors: “There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite.”

In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street cash, has “electability” in her favor? Maybe one can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment, “electability” is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong candidate in 2016?

Despite this mountain of data, the pundit consensus — which has been wrong about essentially everything — is that Hillary Clinton is electable and Bernie Sanders is not. There’s virtually no data to support this assertion. All of the relevant data compels the opposite conclusion. Rather than data, the assertion relies on highly speculative, evidence-free claims: Sanders will also become unpopular once he’s the target of GOP attacks; nobody who self-identifies as a “socialist” can win a national election; he’s too old or too ethnic to win, etc. The very same supporters of Hillary Clinton were saying very similar things just eight years ago about an unknown African-American first-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Perhaps those claims are true this time. But given the stakes we’re being told are at play if Trump is nominated, wouldn’t one want to base one’s assessment in empirical evidence rather than pundit assertions, no matter how authoritative the tone used to express them?

It’s possible to argue that electability should not be the primary factor. That’s certainly reasonable: Elections often are and should be about aspirations, ideology, and opinion-changing leaders. But given the lurking possibility of a Trump presidency, is now really the time to gamble on such a risky general election candidate as Hillary Clinton?

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on February 26, 2016, 07:33:07 AM
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.

While those bumper stickers worked in Louisiana, apparently they didn't keep him under whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Watched the entire debate last night, the only interesting point of note was that Rubio seems to have finally found his stride against the Donald, but about 5 debates too late. The wife is coming around on Rubio, but not figuring she'll get him in the general election if Trump keeps marching on the way he has been.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on February 26, 2016, 08:05:09 AM
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.

While those bumper stickers worked in Louisiana, apparently they didn't keep him under whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Watched the entire debate last night, the only interesting point of note was that Rubio seems to have finally found his stride against the Donald, but about 5 debates too late. The wife is coming around on Rubio, but not figuring she'll get him in the general election if Trump keeps marching on the way he has been.

Cruz is about to hand Rubio his ass in Texas. I doubt Rubio can even win Florida, debate improvement or not.

Hillary and Cruz will take Texas, I almost guarantee it. I can't decide if I want to participate in the primary as a Republican (against Cruz) or Democrat(against Hillary). Choices, choices.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on February 26, 2016, 08:11:10 AM
And here's another view- if not convinced by Krieger, give Greenwald a go. And pay particular attention to the polling graphs.

With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton? (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/)

A vote for Clinton is a very, very dumb vote. So, I fully expect her to be nominated, given the overwhelming lack of intelligence of the average voter.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on February 26, 2016, 12:34:45 PM
And the Rude Pundit weighs in on last night's pig-wrestling in vomit:

Random Observations on Last Night's GOP Fisting Fest (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/02/random-observations-on-last-nights-gop.html#sthash.YIfCTpTA.o8JVgCwG.dpuf)

At last night's Republican debate/hate-fisting fest, you could say, if you were so inclined, that Sen. Marco Rubio "won," if by "won," you mean, "Still had his pants on and his ass was relatively unspanked." Sure, why not? You could talk about the good jabs he got in on sentient stainless steel dildo Donald Trump, especially the upcoming civil case about "Trump University," the farcical con job perpetrated by Trump on his most desperate fans. You could nod in agreement when Rubio challenged Trump to explain a health care plan alternative to the Affordable Care Act. You could laugh along as Rubio accused Trump of his own mortal sin: repetition without awareness.

You could have a jolly time pretending that any of it mattered in the least. Because, see, in the world we are damned to exist in now, Rubio didn't lay a glove on Trump. Putting aside that it's truly hilarious that any Republican would criticize any other Republican for not having a credible health coverage proposal, and putting aside that Rubio gave a smug, dickish self-satisfied smile whenever he thought he got in a good line, like a home-schooled spelling bee champ who got the word right, Rubio accomplished virtually nothing beyond avoiding another week of headlines about how much Marco Rubio sucks at debating.

The content of the debate is meaningless since none of the candidates said anything that approached a workable, genuine "plan" on anything. Trump went on about his imaginary wall and immigrants, Ted Cruz batted at the phantoms of liberal hottentots storming the gates of his nice country, Rubio did his usual best to sound vaguely rational while talking about completely bugnuts shit, John Kasich responded to everything like he just got out of electroshock therapy (and had the haircut to prove it), and there is a rumor that Ben Carson was there. Let's not waste any time talking about how full of shit they all were other than to say, "Yeah, they were all full of shit."

Instead, look at this exchange:
"Trump: If people -- my plan is very simple. I will not -- we're going to have private -- we are going to have health care, but I will not allow people to die on the sidewalks and the streets of our country if I'm president. You may let it and you may be fine with it...

"Cruz: So does the government pay for everyone's health care?

"Trump: ... I'm not fine with it. We are going to take those people...

"Cruz: Yes or no. Just answer the question.

"Trump: Excuse me. We are going to take those people and those people are going to be serviced by doctors and hospitals. We're going to make great deals on it, but we're not going to let them die in the streets.

"Cruz: Who pays for it?"

It's not a stretch to say that Cruz is implying that he's fine with people dying "on the sidewalks and streets" as long as the nation doesn't have to pay for their health care. What passed for compassion at the Republican debate was stating that Americans should be able to stay alive. Greatest country in the history forever. That's the level of unrepentant fuckery at which we're playing here.

Trump really won because none of the candidates have even the slightest understanding about where Trump's support comes from. Rubio thought he could undermine Trump by showing how the supposed mogul's business dealings are shady at best and illegal at worst. Cruz tried to paint Trump as a Democrat in elephant drag, a fake conservative who would destroy conservative principles (which, apparently, involve immediately deporting children and letting poor people die while bombing other nations).

Both of their campaigns have fundamentally failed to grasp that Trump is in the lead simply because he's Trump. That's got little to do with Trump's experience or his politics beyond "He hates who I hate." It's just fuckin' cult of personality. People want to be with the dude who thinks he's a winner no matter how much of a loser he might be. You know how in high school there was a loudmouth dickhead football player who was verbally abusive and a buffoon but somehow had tons of friends and got all the tail? Yeah, that guy. That's Trump. Meanwhile, Rubio acts like an altar boy who's upset that he's the only one not molested by the priest. Cruz is the prick who wanted so badly to be the class clown but is just a cruel prankster whose asshole dad thinks he's funny.

So let's stop with the pretense that last night's debate did a goddamn thing. Republicans better accept their Trumpish overlord or get the fuck out.

The real story from last night is how fucking worthless Wolf Blitzer was as a moderator. He got steamrolled time and again, had no control over the candidates, pathetically attempted to keep things on track, barely asked follow-ups, and was a quivering, useless lump of flesh with white stubble by the end. On top of that, frightening Hugh Hewitt, who looks like a poorly-healed burn victim, attempted to get the candidates to agree to a "litmus test" of Supreme Court candidates on "religious liberty," which means something like "Don't make Christians follow the Constitution." How is that even a question at a supposedly "mainstream" debate?

Another disgraceful evening in the Republican primary season is over. Let's all have fruit salad and hang out with Polish workers and try to forget that the future of the nation might end up in the slime-encrusted hands of one of these ethical lepers.
- See more at: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/02/random-observations-on-last-nights-gop.html#sthash.YIfCTpTA.o8JVgCwG.dpuf (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/02/random-observations-on-last-nights-gop.html#sthash.YIfCTpTA.o8JVgCwG.dpuf)
Title: Re: Election 2016- Unintelligible Yelling
Post by: Surly1 on February 27, 2016, 07:34:37 AM
Two Words That Explain the Republican Debate (and the Campaign, as a Whole) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42481/unintelligible-yelling/?mag=esq&list=nl_enl_news&src=nl&date=022716)

You already know what they are.

 

(Unintelligible yelling)

Last night's Republican brawl at recess was best summed up by some anonymous soul working at the closed-captioning desk at CNN who clearly was completely fed up with the idiotic proceedings on stage and decided to let the hearing-impaired citizens of the United States of America know that he was. (In fact, I hope that the hearing-impaired citizens of the United States of America know how lucky they were last night.) This wasn't a political debate. This was a pissing contest among men who are worried about the size of their dicks.

 

(Unintelligible yelling)

Would you have trusted any of these clowns with the nuclear codes? (Maybe John Kasich, but only if there were absolutely no other option, Curly Howard being dead and all.) I wouldn't trust any of them to park my car.

(Unintelligible yelling)

What was your favorite moment? Was it Dr. Ben Carson's contention that the "fruit salad of their lives" are dangling precipitously on "the abyss of destruction?  What did he mean? Who knows? The mind of Dr. Ben Carson is not the mind of an ordinary man. The mind of Dr. Ben Carson is on loan from a curiosity shoppe somewhere on the moons of Saturn.

articles
A STATISTICIAN WITH A NEAR-PERFECT ELECTION...
I'M A CYNIC, AND I VOTED FOR BERNIE SANDERS
Donald Trump
FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS TIRED OF THOSE...
FAME-SEEKING LOUDMOUTH ENDORSES VULGAR TALKING YAM

(Unintelligible yelling)

Or was it the pre-game oration by the emptiest suit in American politics, obvious anagram Reince Priebus? He kept waving his arms as though they were being operated by someone in the upper balcony of the opera house. Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein was less mechanical.

(Unintelligible yelling)

Or was it this passage, reprinted in its entirety.

TRUMP: I've been watching it all my life. You are all talk and no action.

CRUZ: Then name one specific thing you've done.

TRUMP: What I've seen up here — I mean, first of all, this guy is a choke artist, and this guy is a liar. You have a combination...

RUBIO: This guy always goes for...

TRUMP: You have a combination of factors. He can't do it…

RUBIO: This is so typical.

TRUMP: ... for the obvious reason, and he can't do it because he doesn't know how to tell the truth. Other than that, I rest my case.

Let us pause here to point out that, in addition to his customary reflexive mendacity, He, Trump told many truths last night. Young Marco Rubio is indeed a choke artist. Tailgunner Ted Cruz is indeed a friendless monster. Nobody does listen to the terrible radio program hosted by the mysteriously ubiquitous Hugh Hewitt, who stays awake nights worrying about religious liberty and should therefore be given a quart of bourbon and then shot with a tranquilizer dart.

(Unintelligible yelling)

Who was that person seated close to the crowd mic whose Orgasmatron went to 11 every time Young Marco Rubio shot off one of his pre-fab zingers? I swear, whoever it was, that voice sterilized frogs all the way to Marfa.

(Unintelligible yelling)

Chris Hayes always has had the best description of the desperate attempts by Republican panjandrums and too many members of the elite political media to keep the big bag of feathers that is Young Marco Rubio from blowing away in a stiff breeze. Hayes says it reminds him of watching the parents of a toddler trying to get the toddler to do something new. In keeping with this, I guess last night we can say that Young Marco Rubio got all the way to the table and ate his Cheerios out of the bowl just like a big boy does.

(Unintelligible yelling)

Young Marco's performance again was robotic but it was entertainingly robotic. All circuits firing, he was a walking data-dump of oppo research.

TRUMP: But you wouldn't know anything about it because you're a lousy businessman.

RUBIO: Well, I don't know anything about bankrupting four companies. You've bankrupted..

TRUMP: No, I — and you know why? You know why?

(APPLAUSE)

RUBIO: I don't know anything about...

TRUMP: You know why?

RUBIO: ... starting a university, and that was a fake university.

BLITZER: One at a time.

TRUMP: First of all...

BLITZER: One at a time.

TRUMP: ... first of all, that's called a...

RUBIO: There are people who borrowed $36,000...

BLITZER: Hold on. One at a time, Mr. Trump.

RUBIO: ... to go to Trump University, and they're suing now — $36,000 to go to a university...

TRUMP: And by the way — and by the way...

RUBIO: ... that's a fake school.

TRUMP: ... and by the way...

RUBIO: And you know what they got? They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump...

TRUMP: ... I've won most of the lawsuits.

RUBIO: That's what they got for $36,000.

BLITZER: All right, I want to move on.

TRUMP: And they actually did a very good job, but I've won most of the lawsuits.

BLITZER: Mr. Trump, Senator, I want to bring in...

RUBIO: Most of the lawsuits.

BLITZER: ... I want to bring in my colleague Maria Celeste.

TRUMP: Excuse me. Hey Wolf, let me ask you. Am I allowed to respond to this?

BLITZER: You're allowed — you've been responding.

TRUMP: OK. Well let — no, I haven't. I really haven't.

(LAUGHTER)

RUBIO: He's talked through the whole thing.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Here's a guy — here's a guy that buys a house for $179,000, he sells it to a lobbyist who's probably here for $380,000 and then legislation is passed. You tell me about this guy. This is what we're going to have as president.

RUBIO: Here's a guy that inherited $200 million. If he hadn't inherited $200 million, you know where Donald Trump would be right now?

TRUMP: No, no, no.

RUBIO: Selling watches in [Times Square].

(Unintelligible yelling)

To be honest, there were some moments of clarity. Trump was the only one on stage with anything close to a reasonable position on the question of Israel and Palestine. Kasich gave a reasonable answer to the stupid "religious liberty" question. ("If you're in the business of selling things, if you're not going to sell to somebody you don't agree with, OK, today I'm not going to sell to somebody who's gay, and tomorrow maybe I won't sell to somebody who's divorced. I mean, if you're in the business of commerce, conduct commerce. That's my view.")  And, to be completely honest, Trump probably gave the best closing statement of the bunch. But, at that point, those people watching who hadn't turned away from this intellectual demolition derby  that, like me, they were numb and willing to believe almost anything. I felt like I'd stumbled into the ladies garden club from the beginning of The Manchurian Candidate.

There were, of course, no questions about the climate crisis. There, of course, were no questions about gun violence, even though the third mass shooting in a week was occurring at virtually the same time these guys were fighting over who was the biggest crook, con man, liar, and choke artist on the stage. Priorities, gentlemen, please.

(Unintelligible yelling).

You said it, pal. Whoever you are.

Title: It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding
Post by: Surly1 on March 01, 2016, 06:37:27 PM
It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding (http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/29/its-not-just-the-gop-the-democratic-party-is-also-imploding/)

It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 1.38.39 PM

Whichever side emerges victorious, both Republicans and Democrats should face up to a much bigger truth: Neither party as currently constituted has a real future. Fewer and fewer Americans identify as either Republican or Democratic according to Gallup, and both parties are at recent or all-time lows when it comes to approval ratings. Just 39 percent give Democrats a favorable rating and just 33 percent do the same for Republicans. Not coincidentally, each party has also recently had a clear shot at implementing its vision of the good society. If you want to drive down your adversary’s approval rating, just give him the reins of power for a few years.

– From the post: Thoughts on Election Day: Relax—Both Parties Are Going Extinct

Political pundits throughout the land are tripping over each other to compose the latest bland, uninsightful screed proclaiming the death of the Republican Party. This makes sense, because the primary purpose of a political pundit is to state the obvious years after it’s already become established fact to everyone actually paying attention.

Yes, of course, Trump winning the GOP nomination marks the end of the party as we know it. After all, some neocons are already publicly and actively throwing their support behind Hillary. While this undoubtably represents a major turning point in U.S. political history, many pundits have yet to appreciate that the exact same thing is happening within the Democratic Party. It’s just not completely obvious yet.

While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.

 

The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.

Hillary is the embodiment of a sick and detested status quo. She stands for nothing, is nothing, and a vote for her all but guarantees both murder abroad and oligarchy at home. I think a large number of Bernie Sanders supporters understand this and won’t be going off silently into that quiet voting booth to commit ethical self-sacrifice despite the terrifying prospects of a Trump presidency. I think they’ll stay home, but they won’t sit there passively. They’ll be seething inside, and many will renounce the Democratic party forever. Many rank and file Republicans already came to such a conclusion years ago, which is precisely why the nomination was wide open for a man like Trump to capture. Democrats will do the same, and before you know it, political pundits will be tripping over each other to write about the death of the Democratic Party.

It’s not just the grassroots either. This civil war has now gone all the way to the top, as evidenced by this weekend’s very public endorsement of Bernie Sanders by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Before I get into the significance of this move, let’s recap what happened.

From Quartz:

A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. 

Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”

 

In her endorsement for Sanders, she said America needs a president “who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change,” presumably referring to the war in Iraq and strategy in Libya, led by then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, both of which she has criticized in the past. Although generally hawkish in her foreign policy views, she is opting for the Vermont senator as a candidate who “will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.”

Now watch the video:

The importance of this move cannot be understated. In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.

But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture. You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so. This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?

While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.

In summary, I believe this marks the beginning of an all out civil war within the Democratic party. A war that won’t be over until someone successfully does to the Democratic Party what Trump did to the GOP.

Thoughts on Election Day: Relax—Both Parties Are Going Extinct

Trump Sides with the FBI Against Apple; On Torture Proclaims “Water Boarding Is Fine but Not Tough Enough”

Gangster Tactic – Pro Hillary Union Threatened to Pull Funding if Labor Official Spoke at Sanders Rally

Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton – “I’m Proud to Say Henry Kissinger is Not My Friend”

So What Does Google Search Have to Say About Clinton vs. Sanders…

A New Low – Hillary Clinton Claims 9/11 is the Reason She’s Owned by Wall Street

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Title: Andrew Bacevich: Don’t Cry for Me, America
Post by: Surly1 on March 03, 2016, 05:49:57 AM
Andrew Bacevich: Don’t Cry for Me, America (http://voxpopulisphere.com/2016/03/03/andrew-bacevich-dont-cry-for-me-america/)
by Vox Populi
What Trumpism Means for Democracy

Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in winning the White House, historians are likely to rank him as the most consequential presidential candidate of at least the past half-century. He has already transformed the tone and temper of American political life. If he becomes the Republican nominee, he will demolish its structural underpinnings as well. Should he prevail in November, his election will alter its very fabric in ways likely to prove irreversible. Whether Trump ever delivers on his promise to "Make America Great Again," he is already transforming American democratic practice.

Trump takes obvious delight in thumbing his nose at the political establishment and flouting its norms. Yet to classify him as an anti-establishment figure is to miss his true significance. He is to American politics what Martin Shkreli is to Big Pharma. Each represents in exaggerated form the distilled essence of a much larger and more disturbing reality. Each embodies the smirking cynicism that has become one of the defining characteristics of our age. Each in his own way is a sign of the times.

In contrast to the universally reviled Shkreli, however, Trump has cultivated a mass following that appears impervious to his missteps, miscues, and misstatements. What Trump actually believes -- whether he believes in anything apart from big, splashy self-display -- is largely unknown and probably beside the point. Trumpism is not a program or an ideology. It is an attitude or pose that feeds off of, and then reinforces, widespread anger and alienation.

The pose works because the anger -- always present in certain quarters of the American electorate but especially acute today -- is genuine. By acting the part of impish bad boy and consciously trampling on the canons of political correctness, Trump validates that anger. The more outrageous his behavior, the more secure his position at the very center of the political circus. Wondering what he will do next, we can’t take our eyes off him. And to quote Marco Rubio in a different context, Trump “knows exactly what he is doing.”

There's something in the air...

Targeting Obama's Presidency

There is a form of genius at work here. To an extent unmatched by any other figure in American public life, Trump understands that previous distinctions between the ostensibly serious and the self-evidently frivolous have collapsed. Back in 1968, then running for president, Richard Nixon, of all people, got things rolling when he appeared on Laugh-In and uttered the immortal words, “Sock it to me?” But no one has come close to Trump in grasping the implications of all this: in contemporary America, celebrity confers authority. Mere credentials or qualifications have become an afterthought. How else to explain the host of a "reality" TV show instantly qualifying as a serious contender for high office?

For further evidence of Trump’s genius, consider the skill with which he plays the media, especially celebrity journalists who themselves specialize in smirking cynicism. Rather than pretending to take them seriously, he unmasks their preening narcissism, which mirrors his own. He refuses to acknowledge their self-assigned role as gatekeepers empowered to police the boundaries of permissible discourse. As the embodiment of “breaking news,” he continues to stretch those boundaries beyond recognition.

In that regard, the spectacle of televised “debates” has offered Trump an ideal platform for promoting his cult of personality. Once a solemn, almost soporific forum for civic education -- remember Kennedy and Nixon in 1960? -- presidential debates now provide occasions for trading insults, provoking gaffes, engaging in verbal food fights, and marketing magical solutions to problems ranging from war to border security that are immune to magic. For all of that we have Trump chiefly to thank.

Trump’s success as a campaigner schools his opponents, of course. In a shrinking Republican field, survival requires mimicking his antics. In that regard, Ted Cruz rates as Trump’s star pupil. Cruz is to Trump what Lady Gaga was to Amy Winehouse -- a less freewheeling, more scripted, and arguably more calculating version of the original.

Yet if not a clone, Cruz taps into the same vein of pissed-off, give-me-my-country-back rage that Trump himself has so adeptly exploited. Like the master himself, Cruz has demonstrated a notable aptitude for expressing disagreement through denigration and for extravagant, crackpot promises. For his part, Marco Rubio, the only other Republican still seriously in the running, lags not far behind. When it comes to swagger and grandiosity, nothing beats a vow to create a “New American Century,” thereby resurrecting a mythic past when all was ostensibly right with the world.

On two points alone do these several Republicans see eye-to-eye. The first relates to domestic policy, the second to America’s role in the world.

On point one: with absolute unanimity, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation. To take their critique at face value, the country was doing swimmingly well back in 2009 when Obama took office. Today, it’s FUBAR, due entirely to Obama’s malign actions.

Wielding comparable authority, however, a Republican president can, they claim, dismantle Obama’s poisonous legacy and restore all that he has destroyed. From “day one,” on issues ranging from health care to immigration to the environment, the Republican candidates vow to do exactly this. With the stroke of a pen and the wave of a hand, it will be a breeze.

On point two: ditto. Aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton, Obama has made a complete hash of things abroad. Here the list of Republican grievances is especially long. Thanks to Obama, Russia threatens Europe; North Korea is misbehaving; China is flexing its military muscles; ISIS is on the march; Iran has a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons; and perhaps most distressingly of all, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is unhappy with U.S. policy.

Here, too, the Republican candidates see eye-to-eye and have solutions readily at hand. In one way or another, all of those solutions relate to military power. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are unabashed militarists. (So, too, is Hillary Clinton, but that’s an issue deserving an essay of its own). Their gripe with Obama is that he never put American military might fully to work, a defect they vow to amend. A Republican commander-in-chief, be it Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, won’t take any guff from Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing or Tehran. He will eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism," put the mullahs back in their box, torture a bunch of terrorists in the bargain, and give Bibi whatever he wants.

In addition to offering Obama a sort of backhanded tribute -- so much damage wrought by just one man in so little time -- the Republican critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.

Juan and Evita in Washington?

The ratio between promises made and promises fulfilled by every president in recent memory -- Obama included -- should have demolished such theories long ago. But no such luck. Fantasies of a great president saving the day still persist, something that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have all made the centerpiece of their campaigns. Elect me, each asserts. I alone can save the Republic.

Here, however, Trump may enjoy an edge over his competitors, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. With Americans assigning to their presidents the attributes of demigods -- each and every one memorialized before death with a library-shrine -- who better to fill the role than an egomaniacal tycoon who already acts the part? The times call for strong leadership. Who better to provide it than a wheeler-dealer unbothered by the rules that constrain mere mortals?

What then lies ahead?

If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.

None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trumpism requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good.

Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo. Trump’s Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón, with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.

That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete. They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go with them.

So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.

In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together, might one day glitter and glisten -- perhaps with casino attached.

---

© 2016 Andrew Bacevich. First published in TomDispatch.
Title: Re: Election 2016-Donald Trump Responds To Romney's 'Roundhouse'
Post by: Surly1 on March 03, 2016, 10:48:45 AM
Terrific post.

Donald Trump Responds To Romney's 'Roundhouse' (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/donald-trump-responds-romneys-roundhouse-live-feed)

Donald Trump Responds To Romney's 'Roundhouse' 

 
Tyler Durden's picture


 

Following the unprecedented Romney roundhouse kick to Trump's character, The Donald is about to rebuff "the loser." As John McCain backs Romney's rant, it appears yesterday's Koch Borthers, Icahn, Murdoch mega-donor call for a truce has been broken as Trump prepares to return fire against "failed candidate Romney" and his establishment cronies.

 

Via Ben Garrison

 



Chris Christie leading the way...

governorchrischristie on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

 

 

Trump Live Feed (from Portland) due to start at 1330ET:

 

The neocons are in full panic mode:

And as David Stockman explains, rightfully so....

Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush’s historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington’s legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

That spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq’s side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted their money back.

At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

Worse still, George H.W. Bush’s stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington’s designs and dictates.

And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party’s disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil orices is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed.

In fact, the ever destructive Dick Cheney was the proximate cause. In an act of monumental foolishness, it was he who persuaded the Saudi King to permit stationing of US troops on Arabian soil, thereby triggering a revolt against the House of Saud by Bin Laden and his Mujahedeen. The latter were then forced into exile by the Saudi government in April 1991 and soon metastasized into the fiendish scourge of al-Qaeda.

Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too.  But that wasn’t about America’s liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington’s misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice—-a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington’s overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA’s satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP—-Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz——actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

To wit, that the Iranian’s were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism. But there never was an Iranian nuclear weapons program, as the 2007 National Intelligence Estimates by 16 US security agencies documented, and the recent IAEA inspection report confirmed.

Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm”.

Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington’s official policy, as well.

After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That’s because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

There were several crucial moments along the way—–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved “deficits don’t matter”, meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today’s purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount—upwards of $900 billion—–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world’s policeman and have no need for Washington’s far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia  and others into failed states and economic rubble.

The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP’s actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of “helicopter money”, to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d’état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed’s own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

Indeed, the Fed’s unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the “Bern” that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

But here’s the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

So even as The Donald’s election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington—–the truth is that’s going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn’t allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary’s feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

Even his bombast about Obama’s “bad deal” with Iran doesn’t go much beyond Trump’s ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing  obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante.  The nation’s self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding’s playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

When it comes to the nation’s current economic wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during  his ten year stint on the Apprentice.

Indeed, the sound of “your fired!” in that context would echo with high approbation down the pages of history.

Worse things could surely happen.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 03, 2016, 11:22:46 AM
The wife says if Hiltery wins, we must move to Canada. I say if Trump wins, not much will change other than the White House becomes more of a reality TV show than it already is. She doesn't want Trump to win either, but as a lifelong Republican, doesn't know what to do if that becomes the race, Hitlery vs Trump. We might write in Ross Perot.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 03, 2016, 01:39:11 PM
The wife says if Hiltery wins, we must move to Canada. I say if Trump wins, not much will change other than the White House becomes more of a reality TV show than it already is. She doesn't want Trump to win either, but as a lifelong Republican, doesn't know what to do if that becomes the race, Hitlery vs Trump. We might write in Ross Perot.

Seems to me that Trump is the one threatening the status quo, challenging the neocon regime in such a way that the elites are already circling the wagons to find a way to deny him the nomination. See Willard's speech today, notable for its inability to hear the irony alert going off in the background. Hilary would be more BAU, in that she has never met a neocon or central banker she didn't like, or allow herself to be purchased by.

And every thing that Ross Perot predicted has come to pass. You could do worse.

In either event, probably time for Canada to start building a wall.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 03, 2016, 02:22:38 PM
The wife says if Hiltery wins, we must move to Canada. I say if Trump wins, not much will change other than the White House becomes more of a reality TV show than it already is. She doesn't want Trump to win either, but as a lifelong Republican, doesn't know what to do if that becomes the race, Hitlery vs Trump. We might write in Ross Perot.

Seems to me that Trump is the one threatening the status quo, challenging the neocon regime in such a way that the elites are already circling the wagons to find a way to deny him the nomination.

Sure. The serious folks are just as interested in seeing lose as they are Bernie.

The difference being that Trump might not.

But bring on the reality TV!! Regardless of who ultimately wins, America will get exactly what they deserve in terms of governance.

Quote from: Surly1
And every thing that Ross Perot predicted has come to pass. You could do worse.

In either event, probably time for Canada to start building a wall.

Canada, as a shadow state of the US, would not be allowed.

But I have been investigating properties on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls,and Nova Scotia.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 03, 2016, 04:07:51 PM
But I have been investigating properties on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls,and Nova Scotia.

Good call on Canada. What's the deal on American retirees there? As a working professional I was advised to find a job and then apply for residency, otherwise no-go. But they are very liberal on letting you hang out if you leave briefly every 180 days. So no big deal, I guess, especially for someone living the RV life.

She doesn't want Trump to win either, but as a lifelong Republican, doesn't know what to do if that becomes the race, Hitlery vs Trump. We might write in Ross Perot.

Write in Ronald Reagan. Same result, either way. If I were voting Republican I'd maybe write in Eisenhower. Taft, perhaps.

Trump is the guy American voters have been waiting to vote for and they just didn't know it, until now. We are headed over the falls, politically speaking.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 03, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
But I have been investigating properties on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls,and Nova Scotia.

Good call on Canada. What's the deal on American retirees there? As a working professional I was advised to find a job and then apply for residency, otherwise no-go. But they are very liberal on letting you hang out if you leave briefly every 180 days. So no big deal, I guess, especially for someone living the RV life.

Well, I've lived and worked in Canada for a year before, could snare a job there pretty easily again I imagine, the problem being it would be in the western provinces. I'm more interested in living in the east. But I could leave more often than 180 days, easy. But I'll bet it would be easy to do in an RV, but the wife is nixing that idea.

Quote from: Eddie
She doesn't want Trump to win either, but as a lifelong Republican, doesn't know what to do if that becomes the race, Hitlery vs Trump. We might write in Ross Perot.

Write in Ronald Reagan. Same result, either way. If I were voting Republican I'd maybe write in Eisenhower. Taft, perhaps.

She could be talked into Ronny. So could I. I figure before the time comes, someone will come up with a write in campaign of some sorta and maybe we'll go along with that.

Quote from: Eddie
Trump is the guy American voters have been waiting to vote for and they just didn't know it, until now. We are headed over the falls, politically speaking.

Cool. Better to live in interesting times than boring ones. Certainly we aren't getting any action out of invisible collapse. :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 03, 2016, 04:41:02 PM
If Trump wins, doesn't he have to give up control over Trump Corp?  Who will hold the reins of the company while he is POTUS?  The Apprentice?

It will certainly make for great political theater if he wins.  I can't wait to see what his first Executive Order is.  ::)

Will it be:

1- Exec Order T1: Deportation of all Muslims
2- Exec Order T2: Demolish Detroit to put up a Trump Casino
3: Exec Order T3: Declare FSoA bankruptcy and do a LBO of Amerika
4: Exec Order T4: Shut down Da Fed and replace the Dollar with Trump Notes backed by Casino Revenues
5: Exec Order T5: Sell the rest of California to the Chinese

Assuming the Republicans hold up the appointment of a new SCOTUS judge through the election, who will he nominate?

1-Lindsay Lohan
2-Charlie Sheen
3-Kim Kardashian
4-Leonardo DiCaprio
5-Lady Gaga
6-Rush Limbaugh

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 03, 2016, 05:46:08 PM
But bring on the reality TV!! Regardless of who ultimately wins, America will get exactly what they deserve in terms of governance.

Exactly what Matt Taibbi wrote in a recent Rolling Stone article which has been much quoted here.
And what's this, "they deserve?"

But I have been investigating properties on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls,and Nova Scotia.

Both sound good. But I'm sure you'll have no need to flee under President Cruz.

On the other hand, I will.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 03, 2016, 06:32:03 PM
But bring on the reality TV!! Regardless of who ultimately wins, America will get exactly what they deserve in terms of governance.

Exactly what Matt Taibbi wrote in a recent Rolling Stone article which has been much quoted here.
And what's this, "they deserve?"

Our collective will, unleashed upon us. Exactly as we deserve.

Quote from: Surly1
But I have been investigating properties on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls,and Nova Scotia.

Both sound good. But I'm sure you'll have no need to flee under President Cruz.

Eddie did fine under Cruz, I imagine we'll be fine. With luck, he'll shut the government down, and we'll REALLY be fine.

Title: Desperation Moves: Romney Plots To Block Trump At Republican Convention
Post by: RE on March 03, 2016, 07:15:33 PM
Catcher's Mitt back in the game!

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/desperation-moves-romney-plots-block-trump-republican-convention (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/desperation-moves-romney-plots-block-trump-republican-convention)


Desperation Moves: Romney Plots To Block Trump At Republican Convention


(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/03/03/20160303_trump2_0.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 04, 2016, 06:25:48 AM

Eddie did fine under Cruz, I imagine we'll be fine. With luck, he'll shut the government down, and we'll REALLY be fine.

Not a chance. A President Cruz, raised up by God to be Leader of the Free World, will hasten in a version of Margaret Atwood's Republic of Gilead. No bedroom ignored, no tithe unassessed.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 04, 2016, 07:04:06 AM
Cruz is prepared to sacrifice middle-class professionals on the tax altar, as he reduces taxes on both those at the bottom and the very top (his real agenda).

 Because there aren't many of us left, and because he has a good many of us remaining tax donkeys bamboozled by his religico rhetoric, we present a a soft target.

Read about his tax plan and tell me I don't get screwed worse than ever.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan (http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan)

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 04, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
Cruz is prepared to sacrifice middle-class professionals on the tax altar, as he reduces taxes on both those at the bottom and the very top (his real agenda).

 Because there aren't many of us left, and because he has a good many of us remaining tax donkeys bamboozled by his religico rhetoric, we present a a soft target.

Read about his tax plan and tell me I don't get screwed worse than ever.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan (http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan)

Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.

Look at it this way, they leave you enough to fly around to exotic Caribbean locations on a regular basis, maintain multiple residences and afford to corner the market on PVs. While sending your kids to school and buying cars and nice houses along the way. It could be worse, you could live on the other side of that border where thievery and Napoleonic law is quite a bit friendlier to dentists I imagine.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 04, 2016, 02:27:20 PM
If Trump wins, doesn't he have to give up control over Trump Corp?  Who will hold the reins of the company while he is POTUS?  The Apprentice?

It will certainly make for great political theater if he wins.  I can't wait to see what his first Executive Order is.  ::)

Will it be:

1- Exec Order T1: Deportation of all Muslims
2- Exec Order T2: Demolish Detroit to put up a Trump Casino
3: Exec Order T3: Declare FSoA bankruptcy and do a LBO of Amerika
4: Exec Order T4: Shut down Da Fed and replace the Dollar with Trump Notes backed by Casino Revenues
5: Exec Order T5: Sell the rest of California to the Chinese

Don't forget the Great Trump Wall of Mexico!

Since it will be

1.  Extremely expensive
2.  Very noticeable
3.  Highly ineffective

I expect it to be a very high priority in a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 04, 2016, 05:30:49 PM
Cruz is prepared to sacrifice middle-class professionals on the tax altar, as he reduces taxes on both those at the bottom and the very top (his real agenda).

 Because there aren't many of us left, and because he has a good many of us remaining tax donkeys bamboozled by his religico rhetoric, we present a a soft target.

Read about his tax plan and tell me I don't get screwed worse than ever.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan (http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan)

Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.

Look at it this way, they leave you enough to fly around to exotic Caribbean locations on a regular basis, maintain multiple residences and afford to corner the market on PVs. While sending your kids to school and buying cars and nice houses along the way. It could be worse, you could live on the other side of that border where thievery and Napoleonic law is quite a bit friendlier to dentists I imagine.

Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 04, 2016, 07:52:33 PM
Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.


Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people.

Eddie, you do understand that you are solidly a 1%'er, and most everyone on this board would lump you in with the "real rich" in a heartbeat, right?

Wanna bet that self made folks, billionaire self made folks, don't consider themselves 1%'ers any more than you do, them having earned those billions fair and square? And complain about the tax issues the same way you do?

And those folks, they do have a point Eddie, even if you object to it.

Quote from: Eddie
Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.

Maybe. Maybe not. If working with economists has taught me anything, it is that the law of unintended consequences has far more to do with anyone's plan than most anyone appreciates. So Cruz creates his plan, or Ron Paul, or Hitlery, and guess what? A week later, the entire tax world...FLEXES.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 04, 2016, 08:25:24 PM
Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
One thing, people talk about a flat tax as if it were hypothetical.

Guess what? Pennsylvania has a flat 3.07% income tax rate.

It's actually in our state constitution that any taxes have to be "fair and equitable", and it has been ruled that a flat tax rate is necessary to fulfill that requirement.

Now, there is something called "special tax forgiveness" for low-income taxpayers, so it is not perfectly flat, but nobody ever gets out more than they put in.

Withholding for employers is a breeze, you just send the state $3.07 for every $100 you pay your employees.  The only people who really suffer are accountants and tax preparers  ;)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 04, 2016, 09:22:42 PM
Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
One thing, people talk about a flat tax as if it were hypothetical.

Guess what? Pennsylvania has a flat 3.07% income tax rate.

Who gives a crap. It is Pennsylvania. Ruled by unions, consisting primarily of coal miners and school teachers, it screws people absolutely BLIND on property tax. Why? Because it is how the school districts are funded, to feed the teacher unions.

The only good thing there is that they don't tax pension income.

Quote
Withholding for employers is a breeze, you just send the state $3.07 for every $100 you pay your employees.  The only people who really suffer are accountants and tax preparers  ;)

Let me guess...they aren't unionized? Gee...what a surprise...NOT.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 08, 2016, 08:31:00 AM
From Bipartisan report-

Mitt Romney Files FEC Paperwork To Run In 2016 Election
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/07/mitt-romney-files-fec-paperwork-to-run-in-2016-election/ (http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/07/mitt-romney-files-fec-paperwork-to-run-in-2016-election/)

Here's the play-

"Establishment" runs Romney. The Republicans are split. According to the Constitution if no one gets the full 270 electoral votes, then the House decides the presidency.

Paul Ryan and the cohort of bought-and-paid-for right wing extremists and other servants of the moocher class will decide who becomes President. So it's possible that for the second time since 2000, the candidate with the most votes will not be president.

So if you don't want people like MKing deciding who your next President will be, get out and vote.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 08, 2016, 08:40:04 AM
What they're angling for is a Romney campaign up and running before March 15th. This allows the probable outcome of a brokered convention where Romney (or even Rubio) might take the nomination.

See this:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 08, 2016, 09:22:55 AM
Sounds like the RNC will be a HOOT!  :icon_mrgreen:

If Romney runs on a the Republican Ticket, then Trump should run as an Independent, and Bernie can run as a Socialist with Hillary running on the Democratic ticket.  That will make a nice race.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 08, 2016, 09:34:48 AM
Won't you please come to Chicago Cleveland , no one else can take your place.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Pswvi3QN_tI&fs=1
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 08, 2016, 10:37:49 AM
What they're angling for is a Romney campaign up and running before March 15th. This allows the probable outcome of a brokered convention where Romney (or even Rubio) might take the nomination.

See this:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election)

Interesting commentary on Trump, not so much about Trump himself, but the people who mindlessly follow (from my perspective, it doesn't matter who or what).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/trump-is-the-symptom-not_b_9409098.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/trump-is-the-symptom-not_b_9409098.html)
Title: Neal Gabler: How the Media Enabled Donald Trump
Post by: Surly1 on March 08, 2016, 12:34:43 PM
Neal Gabler: How the Media Enabled Donald Trump (http://voxpopulisphere.com/2016/03/08/neal-gabler-how-the-media-enabled-donald-trump-by-destroying-politics-first/)
by Vox Populi

"I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going." — Les Moonves, CBS

It is more than a little ironic that the Republican Establishment and the mainstream media are both now in full panic mode over the possibility of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination. You would think that the Republican Party, which has been, let’s face it, hate-spewing, poor-bashing, government-stopping and corporation-loving for decades, ought to be the leading culprit for having paved the way for Trump’s success. As for the media, Marco Rubio, who claims to be exactly where he wants to be after losing 14 primaries and caucuses and winning only one, holds them responsible, which, from a candidate who has demonstrated little support outside the media, is a bit disingenuous. Still, even Rubio is occasionally right. The media did have a lot to do with enabling the rise of Donald Trump. Just not how Rubio or most people think.

To enable Trump, what the media did is fulfill what almost seemed to be a longtime mission: to create the first “pseudo-campaign” with the first “pseudo-candidate.” And now they are having buyer’s remorse.

That is not the standard line. The standard line on how the media are to blame is that they give him far more attention than any other candidate, and far more than his empty, sloganeering campaign warrants. According to the Lexis-Nexis tracker, which follows the coverage for each candidate on the web, Trump laps the field. This past Thursday, he was the subject of 52,683 articles. Bernie Sanders was next at 4,400. In a measure of what LexisNexis calls “voice,” which tallies both web mentions and mentions on social media like Twitter, Trump received 84 percent of the Republicans’ share. No surprise there.

How much of this attention is driven by the media itself and how much by public fascination is hard to determine since these two feed each other. We do know, as Rubio said, that the media gives Trump attention because he is a ratings-getter, and he has cleverly played off this. CBS head Les Moonves gave away the game earlier this week when he admitted, “It may not be good for America,” meaning the Trump-dominated campaign, “but it is damn good for CBS,” meaning the ratings. And then he kept doubling down: “The money’s rolling in and this is fun.” “I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” “Donald’s place in this election is a good thing” – presumably for CBS stockholders. To which I can only say that the networks were granted licenses to the public airwaves, our airwaves, by promising to provide a public service. Moonves just blew that pretense all to hell.

But the media’s absorption with Trump wasn’t Rubio’s sole plaint. He also grumbled that they were not only giving Trump free time, but also pretty much of a free pass. This certainly isn’t true when it comes to the press’s characterization of Trump. “Stop” has this week replaced “Donald” as Trump’s first name. And both left and right certainly purport to hate what he represents. Yet Rubio is largely correct when it comes to challenging Trump for what he says. The media should be pounding Trump not for his bloviation or his braggadocio or his bad manners or even his implied racism and explicit nativism. They should be pounding him for what he purports he will do as president. But they don’t, and Trump knows they won’t. He knows he can easily bulldoze the press because it is too cowardly to take him on face to face – though, truth be told, Fox News, which has a particular animus toward him, did a pretty good job of taking him on in last Thursday’s debate.

The far more grievous crime is what the media have been doing to our politics for decades now – something for which Trump just happens to be the chief beneficiary.

But even that cowardice isn’t the most important way in which the media have enabled Trump and nudged him to the brink of the Republican nomination, even as they wail about the prospect. The far more grievous crime is what the media have been doing to our politics for decades now – something for which Trump just happens to be the chief beneficiary. Nearly 60 years ago, the historian Daniel Boorstin in his seminal book The Image described a society in which things were increasingly staged expressly for the media without any intrinsic merit of their own – things like photo ops, press conferences, award ceremonies. He labeled these “pseudo-events” because they only looked like real events, while being hollow inside. And Boorstin defined pseudo-people too – people whose activities, as he put it, had no intrinsic value either. He called them “celebrities,” and he defined them as people who were known for being well-known.

Politics would seem a far cry from the pseudo, if only because it determines real things with real effects, namely how our country is governed. But almost from the time Boorstin was writing, the media had been growing increasingly bored with traditional politics. The media, after all, were in the business of getting an audience, not educating it, which is why campaigns began to assume the contours of movies, and why personalities began to overshadow policies. Still, campaigns retained some grain, however small, of seriousness. Issues were debated. Party ideologies were contrasted. Qualities of leadership were dissected.

Until 2016. If the media were spoiling for a pseudo-campaign, they finally got their wish this year at the point where all the usual trimmings and frivolities of a campaign moved to the center, and the center disappeared. Just look at the horse race aspect, which has long consumed 95 percent of our election coverage. Trump is the horse-race candidate, expatiating on little else besides his lead in the race. But let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this situation. He is its heir, and simply the most gifted practitioner of the pseudo-campaign, though Cruz and Rubio, equally pseudo, try hard to purvey the same lack of substance. And let’s be clear about something else: we only tolerate this state of affairs because the media have changed our expectations of a campaign. Having given us nothing in election after election but a show, we expect nothing but a show.

Donald Trump was born for this. If he is the heir to our first pseudo-campaign, he is also our first pseudo-candidate because he is, in Boorstin’s terms, a celebrity who stands for little besides his celebrity, which doesn’t mean that he isn’t potent. He is. It just means that he is not held to the standards to which politicians have been traditionally held, not because, as Rubio would have it, the media benefit financially from the drama that surrounds him, though clearly they do, but because they treat him like a celebrity and not a real political candidate. Celebrities aren’t expected to be substantive. In any case, while celebrity may not be much of a recommendation for the presidency, it is a hell of a recommendation for a presidential aspirant performing before a media that is far more interested in creating a reality show than presenting a process for selecting a leader. Trump is the Kardashian of politics.

Of course, just about everyone in the media now, excepting Les Moonves, is bemoaning the inevitability of Trump’s nomination, which is a bit like the boy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The media may say they regret it, but they did this. They systematically destroyed our politics in the name of entertainment. They systematically conditioned us to anticipate a show. And, frankly, they will keep on doing it. In fact, Moonves seems to indicate that he would fire anyone who didn’t.

So the media can cry all they want and hope to exculpate themselves by trying to stop Trump. But in the end, Trump could only make a mockery of our politics because the media already had.
Title: Jekyll Island Revisited
Post by: RE on March 08, 2016, 02:07:00 PM
The Oligarchs are Planning...

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/gop-leaders-tech-execs-plot-against-trump-secret-neocon-island-meeting (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/gop-leaders-tech-execs-plot-against-trump-secret-neocon-island-meeting)

GOP Leaders, Tech Execs Plot Against Trump At Secret NeoCon Island Meeting


(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/03/06/SeaIsland1_0.png)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/08/2016 12:11 -0500

    Apple Donald Trump Google Joe Biden Kevin Brady Nomination None Ohio Recession Trade War White House

Last Thursday, in a speech delivered at the University of Utah, Mitt Romney blindsided Donald Trump in what amounted to a scathing indictment of the billionaire’s ability to lead the country.

"If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished," Romney said, in an apparent effort to play party elder. "If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession," Romney continues, hitting Trump on the economy. "A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America."

We covered the story exhaustively, and for those who would enjoy a review of the verbal melee, see here, here, and here.

More important than what Romney said (after all, it's not as though he's the first person to essentially call Trump a demagogic lunatic who has no business being President) was what his speech represented: all-out panic on the part of the GOP establishment.

This is it folks. Trump is on the verge of winning the nomination and although most still think he can't beat Hillary, the national election is a wildcard. If Trump can go from laughingstock to presumed GOP nominee in nine months, there's no reason to think he can't ride the populist wave all the way to The White House.

With diplomats the world over voicing their concern, and with America's reputation on the line (of course we can debate about what's left of that reputation after Bush and Obama) heavyweights from across America's political aristocracy and business community are scrambling to figure out how to derail Trump's momentum. In short, the Michael Bloomberg deus ex machina isn't coming and Joe Biden isn't likely to ride into the race in a red Camaro and save the day either, so what now?

That question, apparently, was on the agenda at the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, a secretive affair held on Sea Island, Georgia.

(the scene)

"The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump," Huff Post writes. Here's a list of attendees:

    Apple CEO Tim Cook,
    Google co-founder Larry Page,
    Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
    Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk 
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
    political guru Karl Rove,
    House Speaker Paul Ryan,
    GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
    Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
    Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) 
    Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
    Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
    Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
    Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
    Diane Black (Tenn.)

"A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald Trump," the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."

Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are turning out in droves to vote for him.

In any event, this underscores how serious the situation is. America is apparently facing an identity crisis wherein the country's elected representatives as well as the business community feel a sense of paternalistic duty to keep the public from making "a mistake" at the ballot box.

But they don't seem to understand that that plays right into Trump's hands.

It's "the establishment" trying to bend the will of the electorate.

It's "entrenched business interests" aligning with bought-and-paid-for politicians to stand in the way of a populist revolution.

And on, and on, and on. The soundbites are unlimited for Trump.

Now, he can say that a billionaire who refuses to unlock an iPhone to aid in the fight against terrorism on American soil, the House Speaker, Elon Musk, and none other than Karl Rove himself are secretly commiserating on an island at a lavish, neocon-hosted conference to stop America from exercising their right to choose the next President!

It would be difficult to craft a better narrative to tell working class Americans if you tried.

Long story short, if the establishment and the business community keep focusing on how to subvert democracy rather than on how to craft a message that resonates with voters, they are going to end up handing the keys to The White House to Trump on a silver platter.

Which we suppose is just how he likes to be handed his keys.

Only the platter would preferably be gold.
Title: Burnie Pulls a Yogi Bera: It's not OVAH till it's OVAH
Post by: RE on March 09, 2016, 01:58:04 AM
Bernie won Michigan.  It's a Horserace now.

If Bernie can win CA and NY, the DNC should be as lively as the RNC.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/)

2016 Election   1:09 AM Mar 9, 2016
What The Stunning Bernie Sanders Win In Michigan Means

By Harry Enten

(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ap_761652299543.jpg?w=575)
Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally on Tuesday in Miami.  Alan Diaz / AP

Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.

Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset. In that contest, the polling average had Walter Mondale beating Gary Hart by 17 percentage points, but it was Hart who won by a hair over 9 percentage points.

Indeed, my initial thought was to compare the Sanders upset with Clinton’s over Barack Obama in the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, but that undersells what happened Tuesday night. I was in New Hampshire when Clinton won in 2008 and sat in stunned disbelief — Obama lost by about 3 percentage points when the polling average had him ahead by 8 percentage points. In other words, tonight’s error was more than double what occurred eight years ago.

The question I am asking myself now is whether this means the polls are off in other Midwest states that are holding open primaries. I’m talking specifically about Illinois and Ohio, both of which vote next Tuesday. The FiveThirtyEight polling average in Illinois gives Clinton a 37 percentage point lead, while the average in Ohio gives her a 20 percentage point lead. If Michigan was just a fluke (which is possible), then tonight will be forgotten soon enough. If, however, pollsters are missing something more fundamental about the electorate, then the Ohio and Illinois primaries could be a lot closer than expected.

Either way, this result will send a shock wave through the press. Heck, as a member of the press, you might be able to tell how surprised I am. This will likely lead to increased press coverage of the Democratic race, which Sanders desperately needs to be competitive next Tuesday and beyond.

Sanders must rack up big wins and fast. Thanks to an 83 percent to 16 percent win in Mississippi, Clinton gained in the overall delegate count on Tuesday and leads Sanders by more than 200 pledged delegates. Her strong performance in Mississippi also put Sanders further behind his FiveThirtyEight delegate targets. That may not be as sexy as the tremendous upset in Michigan, but math is rarely sexy.

Sanders, however, can breathe a deep sigh of relief that all the states in the Deep South have already voted. He can hope that tonight’s Michigan win will help propel him to victory or at least make him more competitive in states with large delegate prizes left like California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. We’ll see if it does.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 09, 2016, 06:59:14 AM
Quite surprising to me. Detroit, of course, went full Hillary.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 09, 2016, 11:21:55 AM
Quite surprising to me. Detroit, of course, went full Hillary.

And the media:
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12805907_1264781990199443_5004469169884267909_n.jpg?oh=0a095b407985ae2fd3337c15f685eb69&oe=575E202B)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 09, 2016, 11:24:21 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 09, 2016, 11:25:49 AM
DNC Head Threatened To Kick Michigan Mayor Out Of Debate For Cheering Bernie Sanders (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/dnc-head-threatened-kick-michigan-mayor-out-debate-cheering-bernie-sanders)
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/09/2016 11:57 -0500

Bernie Sanders Cronyism Elizabeth Warren Florida Michigan White House

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Hillary is the candidate of the corrupt establishment. The status quo wants Hillary in the White House so the parasitic gravy train can roll on. DNC head and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of these people. She isn’t interested in reform, because reform wouldn’t advance her personal interests. She wants things to stay the way they are, because it’s working great for her.
 
Genuine liberals are finally starting to see these people for the frauds they are, which is why the Democratic Party is currently splitting in two. On one side there are those who understand United States policy doesn’t need a tweak here or there — it needs to be hauled off to the emergency room immediately. The so-called  “elites” in the Democratic Party are just as disconnected and clueless as their Republican counterparts. Instead of accepting that paradigm level reform is required, they merely double down on their support of cronyism and rent-seeking.
 
– From the post: The Democratic Party’s Civil War Escalates – DNC Chair Attacks Elizabeth Warren’s Reform Efforts
Just in case you still harbored any doubt as to how the DNC, under the crony “leadership” of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rolls, let me introduce you to the following article published at The Hill:

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts, who was sitting behind Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said he was complimenting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But staffers for the DNC said Fouts was “being very disruptive,” according to BuzzFeed.
 
The mayor said he and his assistant were pulled aside by security during a commercial break and were told that people had asked for him to be removed.
 
“The sergeant-at-arms said, ‘The people that run this want you ejected, they don’t want you here,’” Fouts said.
 
When asked if it was Wasserman Schultz making the request, Fouts said, “The security guy said, ‘Don’t say I said it.’”
 
Fouts, an Independent mayor who attended both the Republican and Democratic debates in his home state, commented on the noticeable differences between the two events.
 
“The Democratic debate is totally controlled by Hillary’s good friend DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” Fouts wrote in a Facebook post. “No commentary is allowed by the audience. Particularly if you are cheering Bernie Sanders. Persons who do not adhere to Hillary’s rules are threatened with expulsion.”
 
He also said the Democratic Party’s debate process “borders on totalitarian control” and, in an interview on Monday, he said Wasserman Schultz should resign.

How liberal.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 09, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
It strikes me that the ascent of Trump, and his legions of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, bible thumping and authoritarian craving legions are proof that all those who spend their blogosphere words whispering about how TPTB run things, that the Illuminati run it all, that banksters and deep state bureaucrats will get who they choose....were wrong?

Trump is not the choice of any of those claimed to be the ones who force their choice on everyone else, and therefore all the mythical power of these hidden powers is bogus. What good are crowing over the powers of the Illuminati if they can't even keep a spray tan populist demagogue from winning delegates by that oldest of mechanisms...an actual ballot box! Who says voting doesn't matter?

Join him you powerless Illuminati...or DIE!

(http://www.steveaoki.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/darth-trump.jpg)
Title: Republicans created dysfunction. Now they’re paying for it.
Post by: Surly1 on March 09, 2016, 12:43:10 PM
Mann and Ornstein back again, spiking the ball in the end zone.
From WaPo, no less.

Like spotting a unicorn, finding this in THAT neocon rag.

Video hosted by WaPo and won't embed. Follow the link to play out.

Republicans created dysfunction. Now they’re paying for it. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/08/republicans-created-dysfunction-now-theyre-paying-for-it/?tid=a_inl)

 March 8

Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week, we’re talking about polarization in politics. Need a primer? Catch up here.

Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and resident scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A new, expanded edition of their book, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” will be out April 5.

“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” That passage, which framed a core part of the argument of our 2012 book, It’s Even Worse Than It Lookswas vilified by conservative commentators, called a rant and a parody.

Fast forward to 2016. Incredibly, Republican destructiveness  is even worse than it was four years ago  and the party is paying for it with a surge of anti-establishment populism that is tearing apart its coalitional base.

Parts of our 2012 diagnosis were widely recognized and supported by scholarly research. As our political parties became more ideologically distinct and competitively balanced in their electoral struggle to control the White House and Congress, they took on the characteristics of their parliamentary counterparts: internally unified and fiercely oppositional. But parliamentary-like parties in a presidential or separation-of-powers system — one prone to divided government and clashing mandates — are a formula for willful obstruction and policy irresolution.

The American constitutional system has been vulnerable to this mismatch since its beginning. Polarized parties are bound to strain the constitutional system, as they did in the years leading up to the Civil War and at the end of the 19th Century during the Gilded Age. This era differs, however, because the parties have tribalized in a distinctly asymmetric way.

It is the radicalization of the Republican party — not just in terms of ideology but also in an utter rejection of the norms and civic culture underlying our constitutional system — that has been the most significant and consequential change in American politics in recent decades. Tribal politics fueled by partisan and social media leaves us with a good vs. evil view of democracy and a visceral hatred of the opposition party.

There is another factor that is less ideological and more strategic: the phenomenon of the permanent campaign in a competitive environment. Republicans in Congress — from the day of President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 — pursued a strategy of unified opposition to every Obama policy and initiative, including those they had recently supported, such as investment in infrastructure, health care reform and climate change. They also worked with their counterparts in cable television and talk radio to demonize every victory and to delegitimize the president.

The strategy worked to give Republicans smashing victories in midterm contests in 2010 and 2014. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said of the key Obama initiatives after the 2010 victory, “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals … Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” But the price was reaffirming for a public already wary of politicians that leaders in Washington are not capable of solving problems for most Americans.

Today, incredibly, it’s even worse than it was. Continuing to fan the flames of hatred of Obama, Republican leaders openly acknowledged that little if anything of consequence would be considered by Congress during the last year of President Obama’s term, then trashed long-standing precedents by refusing to schedule the traditional hearings at which the Administration presents its budget or to even consider any presidential nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.

Trump: 'I get the worst publicity of any human being'

 
Play Video1:53
 
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump told supporters in Madison, Miss., on March 7 that reporters "make up stories" about him. (AP)

The spectacle of a political system with politicians unable to work together — thanks to McConnell and his House counterparts — contributed to a populist, anti-establishment wave, a contempt for the status quo that hit both parties but with far more resonance among Republicans. For the entirety of this year’s presidential campaign, anti-establishment, outsider candidates have garnered between 60 and 70 percent support among Republican voters. Donald Trump, America’s equivalent of European right-wing populists and possibly the most miscast presidential front-runner for a major party in American history, makes a mockery of the Republican establishment agenda and presages the GOP’s possible break-up. It is a self-inflicted wound, but one with disastrous consequences for us all.

The most promising route to a healthier democracy and less dysfunctional government almost certainly runs through the electoral process. Yet democratic accountability is not easily achieved during a period of polarized parties, divided government and hotly contested national races on an ever-diminishing competitive terrain,  especially when that process is rigged to prevent decisive outcomes. The Trump disaster, especially if it leads to a Democratic sweep of the 2016 elections, may provide the basis for a major rethinking and realignment of a deeply dysfunctional Republican Party.

Then again, it may not.


Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 09, 2016, 01:26:14 PM
It strikes me that the ascent of Trump, and his legions of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, bible thumping and authoritarian craving legions are proof that all those who spend their blogosphere words whispering about how TPTB run things, that the Illuminati run it all, that banksters and deep state bureaucrats will get who they choose....were wrong?

Trump is not the choice of any of those claimed to be the ones who force their choice on everyone else, and therefore all the mythical power of these hidden powers is bogus. What good are crowing over the powers of the Illuminati if they can't even keep a spray tan populist demagogue from winning delegates by that oldest of mechanisms...an actual ballot box! Who says voting doesn't matter?

Join him you powerless Illuminati...or DIE!

(http://www.steveaoki.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/darth-trump.jpg)

First off, the Illuminati haven't given up, yet. And if Trump does get the nomination, they'll try to buy him off, which is probably fine by him. Remember the Hunter Thompson quote from yesterday?

“The main problem in any democracy,” wrote Hunter S. Thompson in a lucid moment, “is that crowd pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage and whup up their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy – then go back to the office and sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.”

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 09, 2016, 08:01:58 PM
It strikes me that the ascent of Trump, and his legions of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, bible thumping and authoritarian craving legions are proof that all those who spend their blogosphere words whispering about how TPTB run things, that the Illuminati run it all, that banksters and deep state bureaucrats will get who they choose....were wrong?

Trump is not the choice of any of those claimed to be the ones who force their choice on everyone else, and therefore all the mythical power of these hidden powers is bogus. What good are crowing over the powers of the Illuminati if they can't even keep a spray tan populist demagogue from winning delegates by that oldest of mechanisms...an actual ballot box! Who says voting doesn't matter?

Join him you powerless Illuminati...or DIE!
No, no, no... tell me you're joking... you, of all people, MKing, are one of last ones I would expect to fall for Trump's act... don't tell me you actually think he's genuine?  That he hasn't simply figured out a way to sucker in the disgruntled masses and is using it to his best advantage?  That his main role in this kabuki theaterpro wrestling style match up is to keep the Orkin Man at bay for himself and his fellow billionaires?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 10, 2016, 05:52:08 AM
Join him you powerless Illuminati...or DIE!
No, no, no... tell me you're joking... you, of all people, MKing, are one of last ones I would expect to fall for Trump's act... don't tell me you actually think he's genuine?

He is genuinely...Trump. Yes.

Quote from: jdwheeler42
That he hasn't simply figured out a way to sucker in the disgruntled masses and is using it to his best advantage?

I don't think he is suckering anyone in. I think he, most likely accidentally, is putting words to the disgust of the system and sheeple dissatisfaction. The entire "make America great again!" routine apparently signifies a combination of racism, authoritarianism, misogyny, brash celebrity, anti-Establishment  feelings in the sheeple that respond to someone who says what they are thinking, but haven't found a candidate to admit in public.

 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/i_can_t_hate_donald_trump_i_do_hate_the_republicans_who_ve_enabled_him.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/i_can_t_hate_donald_trump_i_do_hate_the_republicans_who_ve_enabled_him.html)

Quote from: jdwheeler42
That his main role in this kabuki theaterpro wrestling style match up is to keep the Orkin Man at bay for himself and his fellow billionaires?

He doesn't have a role. His very presence goes against the claimed desires of the Illuminati to safely and  consistently rape and pillage the less fortunate financially. And the evidence of that is in how the establishment is reacting.

If you ever want to see what the system doesn't want anything to do with, just watch how it reacts. It loves Hitlery. But not Trump, and not Sanders, although the evidence of the anti-Illuminati reaction to Sanders is far less visible, for obvious reasons. He is unlikely to win.
Title: Bernie Sanders Just Won Support from the Most Unlikely Person
Post by: Surly1 on March 10, 2016, 08:13:49 AM
Bernie Sanders Just Won Support from the Most Unlikely Person (http://usuncut.com/politics/gordon-gekko-sanders/)

 


Bernie Sanders is receiving some unlikely support as of Wednesday.Asher Edelman, the inspiration for Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” was asked on CNBC’s “Fast Money” who would be his choice for the next President of the United States. He quickly responded, “Bernie Sanders… No question.”

When pressed for further explanation, he began setting up his answer by saying, “I think it’s quite simple again. If you look at something called ‘velocity of money… That means how much gets spent and turns around…” and then continued:

“When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five-ten percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend a hundred, or a hundred and ten percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money.”

He added:

“Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation.”

Edelman concluded by saying, “So from an economic point of view, it’s straight-forward.”

Edelman bought and sold distressed companies for 30 years and made a name for himself working in high end investing, becoming famous enough to inspire the character of Gordon Gekko. He is considered one of the “Godfathers of Wall Street” and to him, it’s “straight-forward economics” — Bernie Sanders is the candidate America needs to get itself on a solid financial track

Furthermore, Sanders will not put us back on the crooked track the U.S. has been bumping along on for far too many years, but an entirely new one capable of helping every American aspire to something greater, regardless of class.

 

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 10, 2016, 04:24:34 PM
Why Trump Haters Really Hate Trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-10/why-trump-haters-really-hate-trump)

 
Tyler Durden's picture


 

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

It’s not the hair.

Or the bad manners.

Or the “beautiful” wall he says he’ll build.

There’s a different, more subtle reason why the Republican establishment, donor class, political operatives, and the news media in general hate Donald Trump.

The reason can be found in a New York Times best selling business book, Stacking The Deck, by Wharton professor David Pottruck.

Pottruck, the Charles Schwab CEO who took the genial brokerage house online and into the big time, says that organizations hate change. Hate it with a PASSION!

That’s because when there’s a new way of doing things, a new way of solving problems, a new way of relating to everything, they feel threatened as a deep personal-loss.

Change renders meaningless the value of their hard-won experience and know-how. In politics, it may means family member lose their cushy jobs and perks.

Student loans of government employees get automatically paid off by government – TAX FREE.

Those in government have done things one way forever. Change is NOT FAIR to them

Everything they have done to line their pockets is threatened. The rules of the game may no longer apply.

So they dig in their heels and will do whatever it takes to resist change.

They resist perpetually until forced otherwise.

They subvert any process that would lead to change.Until they lose, it becomes open warfare against the people to sustain the establishment and its perks.

And so it is with Donald Trump. Like him or not, he has completely rewritten the rules of Presidential politics.

He bypasses the media, taking his message, raw and unfiltered, to the millions of people who follow him on Twitter.

The party establishment went from underestimating him and laughing at him to fearing him breaking out in night sweats.

They fear all power and their relevance will vanish into thing air.

Donors gave Jeb Bush $120 million and he came in dead last.

The money, like Jeb, is gone and it could not save their fiefdom.

Now wealthy donors have a choice. Oppose Trump and he wins and they are out in the cold. Understand there is a change in the wind and shift sides to the people.

How ironic.  It took a billionaire to neuter the billionaire donor class.

Most of the media hates Trump to the core and dislike the fact they are no longer able to play kingmaker losing their power fearing they will be irrelevant with the internet displacing them.

The political class have lost the power to rule behind the curtain from paid operatives and cronies who cannot transition to the new world where the old rules of campaigning don’t apply.

Trump has spent more on hats than he has on polls so the pollsters also have lost their importance.

Diplomats worldwide are running scared because Trump will renegotiate everything from a business standpoint that cannot be bought like Hillary & her foundation.

The handwringing, the dire predictions of doom, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth have little to do with Donald’s positions, but their loss of power.

They complain Trump is bringing in new voters who are not Republican. And this is bad?

The Trump threat isn’t to the Constitution, to America’s standing in the world, or even to Republican Congressional candidates, it is to the establishment.

If you think Trump’s supporters are angry about the way the government and the business world colluded, you are right. The establishment fails to appreciate the anger.

They’re just furious. Even if Trump fails to win, there will be more in the wings. He is inspiring a change and he doesn’t even understand how profound.


Title: Clinton Throws Flash Grenade To Divert Attention From Question
Post by: Surly1 on March 10, 2016, 04:54:31 PM
Clinton Throws Flash Grenade To Divert Attention From Question About Senate Voting Record (http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attention-ques-52499)

 

MIAMI—Surreptitiously grabbing the explosive device stashed inside her lectern and pulling its pin as soon as she heard moderator Jorge Ramos mention her support for the Iraq War and the Wall Street bailout, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly threw a flash grenade onto the stage during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate to divert attention away from a question about her Senate voting record. “That’s an important question, Jorge, and one I’m happy to answer,” said the former secretary of state just as the military-grade M84 stun grenade exploded, emitting a deafening blast and blinding flash of white light that prevented anything on stage from being seen or heard for the duration of Clinton’s answer. After cowering with their hands over their ringing ears for approximately 70 seconds, rattled audience members, the debate’s moderators, and fellow candidate Bernie Sanders were said to have regained their vision and hearing just in time to make out the final sentence of Clinton’s response: “And that’s why I’ve always stood on the side of the middle class and working families.” At press time, a misty white gas was seen pouring from the base of Clinton’s podium toward the moderators’ desk as Ramos cited Clinton’s changing positions on gay marriage, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

 
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on March 10, 2016, 06:21:01 PM
She is, after all, a lawyer.  :evil4:

But I think that we-the-people are not going to fall for her evasive horseshit. The establishment is at wits end trying to engineer a Hitlery win over Sanders. Ramos was clearly off reservation by asking this sort of question. But I'm glad he did. He also asked a MUCH MORE important question:

                         
   "What will you do if you are indicted?" (paraphrased  ;D)

She said she was NOT going to answer that question because it was, uh, "ridiculous" or something like that.  ;)
(http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

I voted in a Climate Hawks poll recently. The question was, "Who do you support on environmental issues, Clinton or Sanders?"

Sanders won 92% of the vote. :icon_mrgreen:

Unless the dumbocrats can force a Hitlery win with the superdelegate corruption, Hitlery is toast.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 11, 2016, 11:41:11 AM
I Liked It Better When the Republican Candidates Were Acting Like Third Graders (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42932/republican-debate-acting-like-adults/)

And they hadn't fully surrendered to the vulgar talking yam.

 

They were a lot less terrifying when they were acting like third-graders. In their grown-up clothes, they are unmistakable monsters.

Good Old Moderate John Kasich wants to kill everyone in the Middle East who isn't Bibi Netanyahu. Tailgunner Ted Cruz apparently never has taken a history class that didn't originate at David Barton's Kollege of Historikal Knowledge. (Smoot-Hawley "caused the Great Depression"?Well, no. The Iranians released the hostages because Reagan got inaugurated? Heavens to Ghorbanifar, is that ever wrong!) Young Marco Rubio has drawn a line in the sand on Social Security. He will maintain the status quo for every elderly person eligible to vote for him in Florida next Tuesday. The rest of you bastards are on your own. (Ted Cruz gave us a brief celebration of the miracle of 401Ks, and CNN's Dana Bash should be ashamed for asking a question based on statistics from the no-labels, third-way sham group, the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget, also known as the Committee To Make Pete Peterson's Grandchildren Rich.) And then there was He, Trump, and I think I'll let the inexcusable Mark Halperin take it from here:

Scored with a smart opening statement celebrating Republican turnout in the voting to date. Cool-headed and sedate, he played it safe himself, counterpunching the bare minimum when Cruz and, less frequently, Rubio, took their shots. Got ample time to tout his favorite broad themes, animated by toughness and optimism. Critics will howl, but, specifics aside, he sounded sufficiently reasonable and generally informed to win the nomination.

OW-WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Specifics aside? Halperin already has called shotgun for the ride in the Trumpcopter to the inauguration.

The Republican Party is now writhing on the public streets from the effects of the prion disease it acquired when Reagan first fed it the monkeybrains in the 1980s. People are crossing the boulevards to avoid it. Look at the poor fellow, he's frothing and moaning. Won't somebody please call an ambulance before he starts to rave about climate change again?

RUBIO: I would say to him that there is no law that they want us to pass that would have any impact on that. If we pass—if you took the gift list of all of these groups that are asking us to pass these laws and did every single one of them, there would be no change in our environment. Sea level would still rise. All these other things that are happening would continue to go on for a lot of different reasons…One, because America is not a planet. It's a country. And number two, because these other countries like India and China are more than making up in carbon emissions for whatever we could possibly cut.

Screwed, we certainly are. And this was in response to a question from Young Marco's pal, the Republican Mayor of Miami, as regards the possibility that one day he may be the mayor of a coral reef. Once again, good old moderate John Kasich came to the rescue. More fracking! More nukes! Clean coal! And, oh, yeah, some of those cute windmill things, too.

But the real grand mal portion of the evening came when Jake Tapper asked He, Trump to comment on the fact that his rallies are now turning into Leni Riefenstahl B-roll. He, Trump blamed the whole business on "bad dudes."—no need for the Enigma machine there—and thereupon proceeded to lie his entire ass completely off.

They are swinging, they are really dangerous and they get in there and they start hitting people. [Wrong.] And we had a couple big, strong, powerful guys doing damage to people, not only the loudness, the loudness I don't mind. [Bullshit] But doing serious damage.[Horse hockey] And if they've got to be taken out, to be honest, I mean, we have to run something. And it's not me. [Barefaced non-fact] It's usually the municipal government, the police because I don't have guards all over these stadiums. [Obvious crapola] I mean, we fill up stadiums. It's usually the police—and, by the way, speaking of the police, we should pay our respects to the police because they are taking tremendous abuse in this country and they do a phenomenal job.

Here was a whopping big chance for someone else on the stage to point out a) that He, Trump wouldn't know the truth if it fell on the ferret he wears on his head, and b) that the Republican Party has no room for thuggery, at least in front of the TV cameras. Instead, the following happened: Tailgunner Ted Cruz blamed the violence on the president's executive orders.

Listen, I think for every one of us, we need to show respect to the people. We need to remember who it is we're working for. You know, we've seen for seven years a president who believes he's above the law, who behaves like an emperor, who it is all about him and he forgot that he's working for the American people.

Good Old Moderate John Kasich blamed the economic concerns of the embattled middle-class.

Well, I worry about the violence at a rally period. I mean, it's—you know, elections are important but the unity of this country really matters. Jake, here's what I think is happening. There are people out there who are worried about their jobs. They're worried that somebody is going to come in and tell them they're out of work and they're 54 years old and they don't know where they're going to get another job, a man and a woman.

And, finally, Young Marco Rubio, who had absolutely nothing to lose at this point by condemning the obvious hooliganism of the Trump campaign, or by calling out He, Trump for so obviously lying about it, instead blamed everyone who isn't him or his sainted grandfather.

On the issue of anger. Yes, people are angry. Of course they're angry. Every institution in America has been failing us for the better part of 20 years or 30 years. But leadership is not about using the anger, leadership is about using the anger to motivate us, not to define us. But to motivate us to take action. Being here in Miami is special. My grandfather lived with us most of his life while I was growing up. And he would sit on the porch of our home and tell me all kinds of stories and things I learned about history. My grandfather was born in 1899 before there were airplanes in the sky. One night in the summer of 1969, he watched a man set foot on the moon. You know what he said when he saw that? He said Americans can do anything. Americans can do anything. There is no problem before us we cannot solve and we can solve it if we come together in a serious way, in this generation.

By the time everyone hit the spin room, the Trump people were saying that the incident between Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and Corey Lewandowski, the cheap punk running Trump's campaign, didn't…fcking…happenall video evidence and eyewitness accounts notwithstanding. And, on Friday morning, undoubtedly acting on direct orders from Jesus, Ben Carson endorsed a guy who once compared him to a child molester.

"He's actually a very intelligent man who cares deeply about America," Carson said at a press conference at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Forida. "There's two different Donald Trumps. There's the one you see on stage and the one that's very cerebral, sits there and considers things very carefully."

They should hold their convention in a railroad car in Versailles, because the surrender is nearly complete. I hope they all look good in armbands.

 

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 11, 2016, 11:51:54 AM
The Republican Party is now writhing on the public streets from the effects of the prion disease it acquired when Reagan first fed it the monkeybrains in the 1980s

Priceless.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on March 11, 2016, 01:46:41 PM
The Republican Party is now writhing on the public streets from the effects of the prion disease it acquired when Reagan first fed it the monkeybrains in the 1980s

Priceless.

Yes, Beadtime For Bonzo.  Reagan got too friendly with the chimp and must have swallowed some vital fluids.  Then his glad handing passed the brain disease on to other Republicans.
Title: Trump Cancels Chicago Speech After Violent Protests Erupt
Post by: Surly1 on March 11, 2016, 06:58:15 PM

Trump Cancels Chicago Speech After Violent "Make America Hate Again" Protests Erupt - Live Feed

 
Tyler Durden's picture

Following his appearance in St.Louis in front of 1000s, which was interrupted six times by protesters, Donald Trump has been forced to cancel his appearance in Chicago "due to security concerns" as a crowd waiting for him to arrive erupted into violence.

The GOP front-runner was scheduled to speak at the school’s pavilion at 6 p.m., with doors opening at 3 p.m. The first person in line to wait for a spot at the free event arrived at 3 a.m. The arena seats 9,500, though it's not clear how many are set to attend the rally.

Protesters lined up across the street from the pavilion, carrying signs that read "Build a wall around Trump and I'll pay for it!" and yelling to supporters in line for the rally.

As NBC Chicago reports, a crowd waiting for Donald Trump to speak Friday erupted after the presidential front-runner postponed his rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago Pavilion over safety concerns.

 
 

"Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with law enforcement has determined that for the safety of tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight's rally will be postponed until another date," an announcer said. "Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace."

 

 

The crowd burst into shouts and cheers, and some scuffles broke out in the crowd, in the minutes after the announcement was made.

 

 

An hour before the rally was scheduled to begin, protesters were seen being escorted out of the venue.

Three attendees wearing shirts that read "Muslims United Against Trump" and "Make America Hate Again" were removed from the venue as protesters gathered inside and outside the pavilion.

 

 

Crowds shouted as the protesters were escorted out before several people in the audience began repeatedly chanting "U-S-A." It was not immediately clear why the three were removed from the event.

Trump supporters were disappointed. “It is an assault on liberty. I think everyone should have a right to have a rally,” said Corey Bartkus, who recently graduated from college.

Live Feed:

Title: Debate without content
Post by: edpell on March 12, 2016, 09:27:34 AM
All public debate is now without content. It is all a color revolution now. My side good, your side bad. No argument can be made because no facts, ideas, or policies have been proposed.
Title: Nassim Taleb Sums Up America's Election In 17 "Black Swan" Words
Post by: Surly1 on March 14, 2016, 03:45:41 AM
Nassim Taleb Sums Up America's Election In 17 "Black Swan" Words
 
Sometimes, less is more, and in infamous "Black Swan" philosopher Nassim Taleb's case, summing up the chaos that is enveloping America, and its forthcoming election was as simple as the following:

"The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other "well thinking" members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments."
To which he appended the following 17 perfectly succinct words:

"People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 14, 2016, 04:15:46 AM
It is not normal for a local paper to alot about a page to the US election almost every day now, normally it would be one column, suggesting stakes are high.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: g on March 14, 2016, 04:43:43 AM
It is not normal for a local paper to alot about a page to the US election almost every day now, normally it would be one column, suggesting stakes are high.

They certainly are high stakes Unc. Trump and sanders voters are sending a loud clear message that they are sick of professional politicians and their bull shit and lies. And they don't like what the voters are saying in true elitist fashion. Sanders could be argued to be a professional politician but in reality he is an outsider to them. He hates the fucking banksters and that's good enough for me to consider him a man of the people. Trumps main asset is that he is hated to extreme by both piles of shit, left and right. That alone earns him high marks in my book.

A most unusual election to be sure. I fear for the safety of both outsiders Uncle.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 14, 2016, 09:25:19 AM
It is not normal for a local paper to alot about a page to the US election almost every day now, normally it would be one column, suggesting stakes are high.

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/995343_982016288558438_3163812557882891649_n.jpg?oh=de463bacba9eaeec38466dccd5e913e5&oe=57566102)

Here's one response.
Title: Trump Can't Tell the Truth About Violence at His Rallies
Post by: RE on March 14, 2016, 05:14:09 PM
What's the over-under on a Trump assassination?

RE

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-dissembles-about-peaceful-assembly/473658/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-dissembles-about-peaceful-assembly/473658/)

Trump Can't Tell the Truth About Violence at His Rallies

(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/03/RTX294QB/lead_960.jpg?1457983728)

The Republican frontrunner fancies himself a bold truthteller, but he acts more like a peddler of escapist fantasies.
Chris Keane / Reuters

Text Size

    David A. Graham 4:18 PM ET 2016 Election

Donald Trump’s supporters often laud him for “telling it like it is,” or for his willingness to challenge political correctness. But the many stories Trump has told about violence at his rallies shows his tendency to tell it like he wishes it would be, in a way that is factually—to say nothing of politically—incorrect.
Related Story

The Lurking Menace of a Trump Rally

On Friday night, Trump postponed his rally in Chicago, after thousands of protestors showed up and threatened to take over the event; fistfights broke out on the floor of an arena at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In a statement, Trump said he’d decided to call off the event after consulting with law enforcement. But the Chicago Police Department said that neither it nor the UIC police had been involved in any conversation, and CPD insisted it could handle the situation. There are reasons to doubt that CPD was in control—there were those fistfights, of course—but the statement raised questions about Trump’s veracity.

Those questions grew louder when it happened again on Sunday, when Trump canceled a rally in Kansas City. He said local police had asked him to cancel it out of safety concerns. Once again, local authorities publicly disputed his account:

On Saturday, in Dayton, Ohio, a young man rushed the stage while Trump was speaking. Secret Service agents had to hustle to get in position around Trump. Trump promptly shared a video of the stagerusher, Thomas DiMassimo, set to jihadi music:

The video was a hoax. Pressed by Chuck Todd about passing along the video, Trump shrugged: “All I know is what's on the Internet.”

Last week, Trump and his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski repeatedly denied that Lewandowski had grabbed Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, even as more and more evidence accumulated that appeared to substantiate Fields’s allegations.

On Monday, Trump claimed there’s no violence at his events. “The press is now calling, they’re saying, ‘Oh but there’s such violence.’ There’s no violence,” Trump said, then added, paradoxically, “You know how many people have been hurt at our rallies? I think like, basically none, other than I guess maybe somebody got hit once or something. But there’s no violence.” He has also said he did nothing to encourage violence against protestors.

Those are both ridiculous ideas. Even leaving aside the Fields case, there’s the peaceful protester sucker-punched by an attendee in Fayetteville, North Carolina. There’s the Time photographer in an altercation with a Secret Service agent. There was the Black Lives Matter protestor attacked in November. There were the Hispanic protesters hit in October. And then there are Trump’s many statements encouraging violence against protesters, more and less obliquely, collected by Dara Lind. As protestors were escorted out in Fayetteville, for example, Trump said, “See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak.” Meanwhile, there were near-fistfights outside. (A spokesman for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department said Monday that contrary to reports, they did not plan to charge Trump with inciting a riot. “If we were going to do it, I think we would have done it by now. We didn’t hesitate to charge Mr. [John] McGraw,” the man who sucker-punched a protestor, said Sergeant Sean Swain.)

The string of incidents, especially since the Chicago debacle, have sparked a fresh round of soul-searching and doom-saying from pundits. They are right to speak out, for any number of reasons. Outbreaks of violence like this at political rallies are unhealthy and dangerous.

But it also ought to go without saying that this elite disapprobation won’t do anything to dissuade most Trump supporters—who are often backing him because of their own revulsion at those same elites in the first place. Preliminary poll results suggest Trump backers aren’t holding any of this against Trump.

One possibility is to read the protests as a threat to the First Amendment: Hordes of protesters showing up in Chicago, and effectively preventing the exercise of speech. Under this theory, it's just another symptom of the political correctness Trump is fighting.

But it’s easier just to pretend that the protestors are violent aggressors and have been all along. Trump has argued, in the absence of evidence, that protesters have caused other violent incidents at past rallies. He’s claimed protesters are plants from the Bernie Sanders campaign, as though there’s no possibility of grassroots grievances against Trump. On Monday, one of Trump’s top surrogates also blamed saboteurs:

There are indications that Trump understands the danger this violence now poses to his political hopes, even if he was content to stoke it in the past. The campaign has taken to making announcements asking people not to touch protestors. But at the same time, the candidate continues to point a finger elsewhere.

If Trump’s campaign was actually built on uncomfortable truthtelling, his obvious dissembling and disregard for facts in these cases might be damaging. After months of violence at Trump rallies, and after he strategically stoked the anger, Trump now insists it’s someone else’s problem. But blaming outside provocateurs while refusing to acknowledge any internal flaws is in keeping with the Trump campaign. Trump’s candidacy is, like his famously over-the-top resorts, essentially an escapist exercise: It promises people who are angry about the state of the nation that there is a simple solution and they don’t have to change anything. The problem is always somewhere else, someone else.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on March 14, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
If you read the article at the website, it is FULL of links, substantiating everything claimed.  Trump's assertion DiMassimo was connected to ISIS is wrong - check it out:
Quote
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-links-campaign-event-proteste/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-links-campaign-event-proteste/)

BuzzFeed tracked the video with the ISIS imagery to a May 2015 upload by someone named Thomas Jenners, whose account has since been deleted. It also found a Facebook page called "Tommy dimassimo wasn’t hugged enough as a kid" that was dedicated to trolling DiMassimo, including ISIS-related jabs.

Put it all together, and all signs point to the video Trump tweeted being either a hoax or an effort to troll DiMassimo.

Trump's "well its on the internet" is a complete joke.

(https://palloy.earth/images/dog.on.the.internet.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016 - N. Taleb Sums Up America's Election In 17 "Black Swan" Words
Post by: g on March 15, 2016, 03:12:51 PM
Nassim Taleb Sums Up America's Election In 17 "Black Swan" Words

Sometimes, less is more, and in infamous "Black Swan" philosopher Nassim Taleb's case [4], summing up the chaos that is enveloping America, and its forthcoming election was as simple as the following:

    "The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other "well thinking" members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments."

To which he appended the following 17 perfectly succinct words:

    "People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."



                                                        (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/20160312_taleb.jpg?1457802661)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-12/nassim-taleb-sums-americas-election-17-black-swan-words (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-12/nassim-taleb-sums-americas-election-17-black-swan-words) :icon_study:
Title: The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks
Post by: Surly1 on March 17, 2016, 09:24:31 AM
The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887?cmpid=sf)

By DANIEL LIPPMAN 03/16/16 04:11 PM EDT

Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The well-respected global economic and geopolitical analysis firm put a possible Trump presidency in its top 10 global risks this month, released Wednesday. Other risks include a sharp slowdown in the Chinese economy, a fracture of the Eurozone, and Britain's possible departure from the European Union.

Trump’s controversial remarks on Muslims would be a gift to “potential recruiters who have long been trying to paint the U.S. as an anti-Muslim country. His rhetoric will certainly help that recruiting effort,” said Robert Powell, global risk briefing manager at EIU.
Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world. The firm has no plans to include Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or John Kasich on future risk lists.

“It’s highly unusual, and I don’t think we ever have done it where we’ve had a single politician be the center of our risk items,” Powell said in an interview, but noted that the firm has once included the transition at the top of the Chinese Communist Party as a top-ten risk as well.

“Innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr. Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress,” wrote EIU. But “such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.”

And there are also serious risks to the global economy if Trump is elected, warned EIU, a sister company to The Economist.

“The prospects for a trade war are quite high,” said Powell. “Why is a guy who has many of his goods made in China wanting to start a trade war in China?”

One difficulty in assessing Trump’s policy positions is that “he does tend to shift his opinions like the weather,” Powell said.
Powell also remarked upon Trump's calls for a more aggressive campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group, also known as ISIL or ISIS.

“One of [Trump’s] extreme positions has been to invade Syria to wipe out ISIS,” he said, citing estimates finding that a year-long excursion in Syria of 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops could cost $25 billion.

Trump has vowed to seize Syria's oil fields and refineries, which help keep ISIS afloat, and then sell the oil to pay for a U.S. military campaign. But Powell said that at current oil prices, if the U.S. actually stole the oil, it would only net about $500 million, at most.
Subscribe to Politico Playbook: http://politi.co/1M75UbX (http://politi.co/1M75UbX)


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887#ixzz43B61SA6D (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887#ixzz43B61SA6D)
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Donald Trump wins the US presidential election
Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity = 12

https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866 (https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=2866)

Title: Trump warns of 'riots' if he isn't GOP nominee
Post by: Surly1 on March 17, 2016, 09:35:06 AM
Again, apparently, the candidate is "just saying what most peepul are thinking."

Trump warns of 'riots' if he isn't GOP nominee (http://)
A contested convention could 'disenfranchise' millions of voters, he says.

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/a0763fb/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fdc%2Fcf%2Fb47126e84695b4842b116e24da09%2Ftrump-getty.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a town hall meeting on March 14, 2016 at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa , Florida. | Getty


By NICK GASS and ELIZA COLLINS 03/16/16 10:16 AM EDT Updated 03/16/16 02:07 PM EDT

Donald Trump on Wednesday sounded like a man ready to take the stage as the Republican Party's nominee by acclamation at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland come mid-July, delegate math and a debate scheduled (and later canceled) for next Monday be damned.

Denying him the GOP nomination as part of a contested convention, he declared, would "disenfranchise" the millions of people he is bringing into the party and could spark riots. The only problem: Delegate math.

Trump, who flooded the morning television shows with a deluge of off-camera telephone calls after a night of big wins that knocked Florida Sen. Marco Rubio out of the race, said that even if he doesn’t amass a majority of delegates by July, the party should unite behind him anyway. But Trump has a ways to go when it comes to getting to the magic number of 1,237.

At this point in the 2012 race, which began a month earlier than this year's, Mitt Romney was already on his way to securing a simple majority of total delegate votes, though even he did not get there until a resounding victory in Texas on May 29.

“I think we'll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn't and if we're 20 votes short or if we're 100 short and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we're way ahead of everybody, I don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically. I think it would be — I think you'd have riots,” Trump told CNN's "New Day."

Trump said he's bringing in all kinds of new people to the party, and those voices must be heard — or else.

"Now, if you disenfranchise those people and you say, well I'm sorry but you're 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you've never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn't lead it but I think bad things would happen," he said.

The Manhattan real-estate mogul also declared that he would not participate in Monday's Fox News debate in Salt Lake City, telling the network's morning show that he would instead speak at the convention for pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, in Washington. "I think it's enough," Trump said of the 12 GOP debates to date.

Without Trump, John Kasich's campaign suggested, the Ohio governor would also skip the debate. "Donald Trump's decision to scuttle the Salt Lake City debate is disappointing, but not surprising. His values are out of step with the people of Utah," Kasich's chief strategist John Weaver said. "We had hoped to contrast Governor Kasich's positive inclusive approach to problem solving with Trump's campaign of division. If he changes his mind, we will be there."

Fox News would announce later in the afternoon that the debate had been canceled, citing decisions from both Trump and Kasich.

"On Feb. 20, the Republican National Committee announced that a GOP presidential primary debate would be held on March 21 in Salt Lake City. They offered that debate to Fox News Channel to host, provided there were enough candidates actively campaigning," Fox News Executive Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement. "This morning, Donald Trump announced he would not be participating in the debate. Shortly afterward, John Kasich's campaign announced that without Trump at the debate, Kasich would not participate. Ted Cruz has expressed a willingness to debate Trump or Kasich — or both. But obviously, there needs to be more than one participant. So the Salt Lake City debate is cancelled."

One of the GOP's top officials appeared unfazed by Trump's warning of possible riots in Cleveland.

“Well first of all I assume he’s speaking figuratively," Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee's chief strategist and spokesman, told CNN later in the morning. "I think if we go into a convention, whoever gets 1,237 delegates becomes the nominee. It’s plain and simple.”
The RNC is "going to continue to prepare for all contingencies, including an open convention," Spicer said.

Trump's remaining rivals are clinging to that hope, arguing that if he can't secure a majority, it's anyone's ball game.

“Neither Cruz nor Trump can win the general election, Kasich said on NBC’s “Today." "They can’t come into Ohio with the philosophies they have and win. If you can’t win Ohio, you can’t be president.”

The Ohio governor is coming off a much-needed win in his home state, but according to POLITICO’s delegate tracker he still only has 138 delegates — just a fraction of Cruz’s 396 and Trump’s 621. It is no longer possible for Kasich to reach a majority of delegates, but he is openly vying for a contested convention in Cleveland this summer.

“I’m gonna be the nominee,” Kasich said. “Nobody is gonna have enough delegates to win at the convention. Everyone is gonna fall short."
Meanwhile Ted Cruz, also speaking on “New Day," said it was time for Kasich to drop out of he wants to stop Trump.

“I congratulate John Kasich on winning his home state,” Cruz said. “But it’s mathematically impossible for John Kasich to become the nominee. At this point he had lost 20 states before Ohio. And it’s mathematically impossible for him to go forward,” Cruz added.

“If you don’t have a clear path to winning, it doesn’t make sense to stay in the race," Cruz said. "And I would note: Every day John Kasich stays in the race benefits Donald Trump."

And if no one emerges from the pack, former House Speaker John Boehner floated another plan Wednesday, announcing his support of current House Speaker Paul Ryan as a dark-horse candidate — never mind that Ryan said as recently as Tuesday that he is "not running for president." (Boehner had previously backed his home-state governor, Kasich.)

"If we don't have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I'm for none of the above," Boehner said at a conference in Boca Raton, Florida. "They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I'm for none of the above. I'm for Paul Ryan to be our nominee."
At the same event, Boehner also referred to Cruz as "Lucifer."

Kyle Cheney, Hadas Gold, Patrick Temple-West and Jake Sherman contributed.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 17, 2016, 09:54:15 AM
At the same event, Boehner also referred to Cruz as "Lucifer."

Smoking Man gets it on Cruz.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYq9dKEbsaPFKOYpfDAzGzAU8vBkSBtko6kGlltG2WLA8JbL6Y)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 17, 2016, 10:22:01 AM
If you read the article at the website, it is FULL of links, substantiating everything claimed.  Trump's assertion DiMassimo was connected to ISIS is wrong - check it out:
Quote
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-links-campaign-event-proteste/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-links-campaign-event-proteste/)

BuzzFeed tracked the video with the ISIS imagery to a May 2015 upload by someone named Thomas Jenners, whose account has since been deleted. It also found a Facebook page called "Tommy dimassimo wasn’t hugged enough as a kid" that was dedicated to trolling DiMassimo, including ISIS-related jabs.

Put it all together, and all signs point to the video Trump tweeted being either a hoax or an effort to troll DiMassimo.

Trump's "well its on the internet" is a complete joke.

When I mention your sentiment, it is scrubbed from existence.

You do realize where you posted this right? And why the blogosphere is on the internet, and is included within the context of this WONDERFUL graphic you provided?

(https://palloy.earth/images/dog.on.the.internet.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 17, 2016, 11:30:35 AM
For those who believe that voting doesn't matter...

Election 2016 results just in...Apathy wins in a landslide! March 1, 2016
http://usabottomline.com/20160301.html (http://usabottomline.com/20160301.html)

Over 75% of eligible voters did not bother to vote. This chart adds up the popular vote from the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada) for the top candidates, and shows each candidate's votes as a percentage of eligible voters. Eligible voters are residents of the first four states who are U.S. citizens, ages 18+, and not disenfranchised by their state due to a felony conviction.  Read below the chart for full takeaways.

(http://usabottomline.com/pics/20160301-election-2016-in-perspective-720h.jpg)

Major takeaways:
Democratic Party frontrunner, Hillary Clinton (5.6% of the pie) could be overtaken decisively by grassroots candidate, Bernie Sanders (4.2% of the pie), if he could energize another 2% of the voting population. On the Republican side, another 2% would put Rubio (2.9%) [quit race since this was published] or Cruz (3.0%) ahead of Trump (4.8%).
 
Apathy rules. If you've ever wondered why it's a choice between the "lesser of two evils" in November, now you know. Candidates pander to special interest groups and party insiders because it pays off in votes. Your "average Joe" doesn't bother to show up for the election that matters the most, the Primary.
 
Republicans (14.6% of the pie) are trouncing Democrats (9.9% of the pie) this year in total voter turnout. That doesn't bode well for Democrats in the general election. Democrats should get ready for a President Trump if they can't energize more eligible voters in the remaining 46 states.
 
Election 2016 turnout is very similar to Election 2008 and prior dual-party contested primaries, despite having grassroots contenders on both the Republican and Democratic sides for the first time in decades. So this level of apathy is nothing new.
 
Get informed, register, and vote in the Primaries if it's not too late in your state. Another 1% or 2% is all it takes to make or change history.
 
New Hampshire rocks...Nevada s#cks. Turnout by state was 52% in New Hampshire (primary), 30% in South Carolina (primary), 16% in Iowa (caucus), and less than 9% in Nevada (caucus)...so much for the over-hyped Iowa Caucuses. It's time to do away with the outdated and highly corrupt caucus system in all states, a system that deliberately suppresses voter participation.

©  USABottomLine.com


Title: Electing apathy in 2016
Post by: K-Dog on March 17, 2016, 01:17:55 PM
Apathy will be getting my vote if the choice comes down to the chick who wishes she had a dick and the rough beast with the head of a lion who saunters to Bethlehem to be born.  So unless I vote for myself like I did last time apathy will have another sliver of pie.
Title: Re: Trump warns of 'riots' if he isn't GOP nominee
Post by: RE on March 17, 2016, 07:13:52 PM
So what if there are riots?  The Deep State will squash them with overwhelming force just like they did at the DNC in '68.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8435/7936743264_623c6abbf7_o.jpg)

As a senior GOP official said, "The voters don't choose the candidates, we do" (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html).

Elections in a Fascist state are just window dressing, the same folks are running the show no matter who gets elected.  They prefer their own candidates since this makes getting their agenda through easier, but if somebody not on their payroll was elected, that person would be assassinated.

Far as the 75% of non-voters is concerned, if they did vote in all likelihood the percentages would come out the same, 25% of eligible voters is a very good sample size for such a survey.  If the choices in the election come down to Shillary versus the Donald or Catcher's Mitt, who can you possibly pick there and walk away with a clear conscience?  Bernie never stood a chance in the primaries, the DNC has them well rigged, and in Alaska a Socialist is a dead fish.

Really the only way to de-legitimize Da Goobermint is to have a 100% non-voting boycott of the election.  If nobody voted, how could they install either the Donal or Shillary as POTUS?

(http://www.lowimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/democracy.jpg)
Note: This quote has also been ascribed to Mark Twain

RE
Title: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: RE on March 18, 2016, 05:42:24 AM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Consider 3rd Party Voting and Write In Ballots to be equivalent to not voting at all, they won't make a difference in the outcome.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention)

Here Is The Math: Trump "Almost Certain" To Win Republican Nomination Before Convention

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/03/06/Trump_1_0.png)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/18/2016 08:26 -0400

    Donald Trump Florida NBC Nomination Ohio White House
 

First it was all a joke. A media sideshow. A publicity stunt that no one really understood the purpose of.

Donald Trump was actually going to run for President. His campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.” It was laughable.

Soon after the billionaire announced his candidacy, his nascent bid for the White House took on a more serious tone, but not because anyone was taking him more seriously. Rather, because his comments about Mexican immigrants were so inflammatory that it was difficult to dismiss them with derisive humor.

From that point on, it was all downhill for the GOP establishment. Trump racked up popular support, defying every law of conventional politics along the way.

Each and every time analysts and pundits doubted him, he prevailed and that unlikely momentum carried right over into the caucuses and primaries and now, after Super Tuesday 3, Trump has effectively knocked out every Republican challenger except Ted Cruz (let’s face it, Kasich isn’t going to get the nod).

Still, all commentators and political “experts” want to talk about is a contested Republican convention in Cleveland. While that’s certainly an interesting outcome to consider as it forces us to look back at political history to understand the precedent and what that precedent might mean come July, it’s as if no one has learned anything from the past nine months.

That is, the assumption should probably be that Trump is going to lock up the nomination before the convention, not that they’ll be some kind of historic bid to rob him in four months. The media - both liberal and conservative - act as though it’s virtually impossible for him to make it to 1,237 delegates. We’re talking about a guy here who no one thought would even register in terms of poll numbers and now he's the overwhelming favorite.

All of this is not to say that we - or anyone else for that matter - should necessarily believe that a Trump nomination is a good thing for the GOP let alone for America, but it is to say that all of the talk about a contested convention may be wishful thinking.

As this simple graphic from The NY Times shows, if Trump simply maintains his current level of support, he’s “almost certain” to secure the nomination:

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/03/06/Trump_2_0.png)
(click here for interactive version) (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html)

“After Tuesday’s contests, no other candidate retains a real chance of capturing the delegates required to win the nomination outright. Mr. Rubio dropped out, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio is too far behind, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas would need to win the vast majority of the remaining delegates — a near impossibility,” The Times writes.

“Crunching the latest numbers, Donald Trump needs to win 54% of the remaining delegates to obtain a majority [and] that's doable, but not necessarily a slam dunk,” NBC adds, before noting that “Trump won 60% of the available delegates from the March 15 contests.”

Trump currently leads Cruz by 261 delegates

    Trump 683 (47% of all delegates won)
    Cruz 422 (29%)
    Rubio 172 (12%)
    Kasich 143 (10%)

    Trump needs to win 54% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number

     

    Cruz needs to win 80% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number

     

    Kasich needs to win 107% of the remaining delegates to hit the 1237 magic number

As Trump himself pointed out in his victory speech in Florida, the fewer candidates, the better his chances to win. Or, as NBC concludes, Trump won 60% of the delegates on March 15, “and that was with four candidates in the GOP field; now [that] there are three you could argue that the map only gets better for Trump.”

Yes, you certainly could.
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: Surly1 on March 18, 2016, 12:25:58 PM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Consider 3rd Party Voting and Write In Ballots to be equivalent to not voting at all, they won't make a difference in the outcome.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention)

I suspect that if Drumpf's glide path fails to garner the needed delegates, the convention will be contested in order to wrest the nomination from him,, whereupon he will run as a third party candidate.
Should his glide path take him to the needed number, there is nothing (certainly not shortage of cash) to prevent the party elites from nomination Romney, Ryan or Tom Clancy as a candidate under the banner of the Constitutional-Free Trade-Liberty-Freedom-Second Amendment-Obstruction Party. The R's will want them to run, if for no other reason than to give them an opportunity not seen in decades to wrest the big, blue-leaning northeast states from the Dems. Trump brings fresh blood to the polls in a way that neither Romney, nor Cruz nor Kasich can even come close to.

Of course, the problem is that many of those voters have logins at stormfront.org.

Imagine HRC getting 235, Trump gaining 153, and Romney or the cigar store Indian du jour earning 150. No one has a majority. The election gets decided in the House. Which will be by design.

It says here that the 2016 election will be decided in the House of representatives. Won't be the first time. Two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives and four others, including the elections of Lincoln in 1860 and JFK in 1960, have come within 30,000 votes of requiring a decision by the House. Three others, in 1912, 1924, and 1968, came close. In 1980, a victory by John Anderson in just a few key states could have tossed the election into the House.

Anyone who thinks that the Rs are not clever and/or depraved enough to have this as a plan has not been attending to the electoral politics of the FSoA for the past 40 years.

Taking "ratfucking" to an exotic new level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Ka on March 18, 2016, 12:49:42 PM
I would like to see a massive social media campaign to have a joke write-in candidate. It can't be a real person, since he or she would have some left or right baggage that will cause division. Some possibilities: Alfred E. Neumann, Homer Simpson, Cthulhu, Voldemort. Maybe have a web site to accept nominations, and web voting to settle on one.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 18, 2016, 12:56:04 PM
I would like to see a massive social media campaign to have a joke write-in candidate. It can't be a real person, since he or she would have some left or right baggage that will cause division. Some possibilities: Alfred E. Neumann, Homer Simpson, Cthulhu, Voldemort. Maybe have a web site to accept nominations, and web voting to settle on one.

(https://ac2012.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cthulhu.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 18, 2016, 12:57:18 PM
@Ka:

Who knew?

https://cthulhuforamerica.com/

And for $57, this can be yours:
(https://i2.wp.com/cthulhuforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/nolivesmatter-zip-black-back.png?resize=510%2C638&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on March 18, 2016, 01:39:28 PM
I recall being around Cithulu one actually observes a bending and twisting of the very fabric of reality.  Having him for president of the spin zone then makes total sense.

If I get the quote right:

"Even the geometry was different."
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 18, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
I recall being around Cithulu one actually observes a bending and twisting of the very fabric of reality.  Having him for president of the spin zone then makes total sense.

If I get the quote right:

"Even the geometry was different."
And remember, after encountering Cthulu, everyone either ends up dead or crazy... 

Sounds a lot like Washington, DC....
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 18, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Consider 3rd Party Voting and Write In Ballots to be equivalent to not voting at all, they won't make a difference in the outcome.
Not voting for Clinton.  Period.

Not voting for Cruz.  Period.

If either Trump or Sanders is running against one of the above, I will vote for him.

If Trump or Sanders are running against each other, I'll probably vote for the person I really wanted, Ben Carson.

If it's Clinton vs. Cruz, I'll probably vote Cthulu, for a quicker, more merciful ending.
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: RE on March 18, 2016, 04:38:05 PM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Consider 3rd Party Voting and Write In Ballots to be equivalent to not voting at all, they won't make a difference in the outcome.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/here-math-trump-almost-certain-win-republican-nomination-convention)

I suspect that if Drumpf's glide path fails to garner the needed delegates, the convention will be contested in order to wrest the nomination from him,, whereupon he will run as a third party candidate.
Should his glide path take him to the needed number, there is nothing (certainly not shortage of cash) to prevent the party elites from nomination Romney, Ryan or Tom Clancy as a candidate under the banner of the Constitutional-Free Trade-Liberty-Freedom-Second Amendment-Obstruction Party. The R's will want them to run, if for no other reason than to give them an opportunity not seen in decades to wrest the big, blue-leaning northeast states from the Dems. Trump brings fresh blood to the polls in a way that neither Romney, nor Cruz nor Kasich can even come close to.

Of course, the problem is that many of those voters have logins at stormfront.org.

Imagine HRC getting 235, Trump gaining 153, and Romney or the cigar store Indian du jour earning 150. No one has a majority. The election gets decided in the House. Which will be by design.

It says here that the 2016 election will be decided in the House of representatives. Won't be the first time. Two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives and four others, including the elections of Lincoln in 1860 and JFK in 1960, have come within 30,000 votes of requiring a decision by the House. Three others, in 1912, 1924, and 1968, came close. In 1980, a victory by John Anderson in just a few key states could have tossed the election into the House.

Anyone who thinks that the Rs are not clever and/or depraved enough to have this as a plan has not been attending to the electoral politics of the FSoA for the past 40 years.

I didn't consider the possibility of the election getting thrown into the CONgress by running a 3rd party candidate.  That would in this situation I think really delegitimize Da Goobermint.

A massive write in campaign for Cthulu would be funny and truthful in its own way, but since Cthulu is not around to actually be sworn into office, even if he won with a clear majority, you still would then have the CONgress picking the winner from the Marionettes who were in the race with him.

So basically, you come right back round to the fact that the only way to change this Goobermint is through revolution of some type, or perhaps a Coup d'Etat.  The electoral syatem is so well rigged the "change you can believe in" is unbelievable.  JFK was the closest thing to change in my lifetime that ever actually made it into the Oval Office, and he got assassinated.  I still believed in the electoral system until RFK got hit, ever since it's been just one Marionette after another except maybe Jimmy Carter, but he just couldn't get any of his policies really enacted.

I don't think splitting the Repugnant Party would work to get the election thrown into the House though.  I think doing that would turn off rank and file Repugs and they would more jump into bed with Shillary than vote for whatever Marionetter the new Liberty-Fundy-Tea Party put up.  Whic would be fine with TPTB, she's as big a War Monger as any neo-con out there.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 18, 2016, 05:12:16 PM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Tough choice there. Since I know my wife is already voting for Clinton, I might have to vote for Benito Jr. to cancel that out, at least.

The worst possible thing would be for Kasich to get the Republican nomination. Then the ONLY difference between the two choices would be putz or twibby.
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: Surly1 on March 19, 2016, 07:42:48 AM
It says here that the 2016 election will be decided in the House of representatives. Won't be the first time. Two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives and four others, including the elections of Lincoln in 1860 and JFK in 1960, have come within 30,000 votes of requiring a decision by the House. Three others, in 1912, 1924, and 1968, came close. In 1980, a victory by John Anderson in just a few key states could have tossed the election into the House.

Anyone who thinks that the Rs are not clever and/or depraved enough to have this as a plan has not been attending to the electoral politics of the FSoA for the past 40 years.

I didn't consider the possibility of the election getting thrown into the CONgress by running a 3rd party candidate.  That would in this situation I think really delegitimize Da Goobermint.

If you look to previous instances of the House deciding, it did NOT delegitimize the government, but it fatally weakened the incumbent. JQ Adams was elected by the House, with the help of Henry Clay, who put his thumb on the scales. Allegations of a "corrupt bargain" followed Adams around like the odor of dead fish, and he endured constant attack by Jacksonian democrats, who finished him in the subsequent election of 1828.


A massive write in campaign for Cthulu would be funny and truthful in its own way, but since Cthulu is not around to actually be sworn into office, even if he won with a clear majority, you still would then have the CONgress picking the winner from the Marionettes who were in the race with him.

Don't be too hasty:
(http://www.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ted-cruz-350.gif)

So basically, you come right back round to the fact that the only way to change this
I don't think splitting the Repugnant Party would work to get the election thrown into the House though.  I think doing that would turn off rank and file Repugs and they would more jump into bed with Shillary than vote for whatever Marionetter the new Liberty-Fundy-Tea Party put up.  Whic would be fine with TPTB, she's as big a War Monger as any neo-con out there.

RE

No doubt about HRC's neocon credentials. But with the teatards voting for Trump, conventional Rs voting for the cigar store Indian to be named later, and a bunch of disaffected Bernie supporters sitting on their hands on refusing to support Hillary in the general, can you think of another strategy more likely to return the Presidency to a Republican party that could not otherwise win it via popular support?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 19, 2016, 08:41:57 AM
OK Voters, it's The Donald vs Shillary in November.  Who are you gonna vote for?

Tough choice there. Since I know my wife is already voting for Clinton, I might have to vote for Benito Jr. to cancel that out, at least.

The problem with this is then if Il Duce gets elected, you have to take responsibility for the policies he pursues as POTUS.  This would include firing off the silos in Nebraska to "make Amerika strong again".

Quote
The worst possible thing would be for Kasich to get the Republican nomination. Then the ONLY difference between the two choices would be putz or twibby.

I don't see how Kasich is worse than the Donald.

RE
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: RE on March 19, 2016, 08:59:50 AM
If you look to previous instances of the House deciding, it did NOT delegitimize the government, but it fatally weakened the incumbent. JQ Adams was elected by the House, with the help of Henry Clay, who put his thumb on the scales. Allegations of a "corrupt bargain" followed Adams around like the odor of dead fish, and he endured constant attack by Jacksonian democrats, who finished him in the subsequent election of 1828.

If that was the case, then this would be a good thing since it would fatally weaken the Marionnette they drop in to the Oval Office this time.

However, the issue here is that we are not in the same place today as we were back in the Adams Family days.  People are much more disgusted now with Da Goobermint, and the country was newer then, not in its senescence.  The scale of problems on the global level was also much less.  They didn't have the threat of nuclear war, there wasn't 7.2B people on earth with millions of them on the move as refugees, they weren't dependent on JIT delivery, they didn't have Monsanto in charge of the food supply, they didn't have pollution clogging the air & water and they didn't have Super Typhoons and Biblical Floods on a weekly basis.

I think in this situation the legitimacy of such Goobermint would be questionable.

Quote
No doubt about HRC's neocon credentials. But with the teatards voting for Trump, conventional Rs voting for the cigar store Indian to be named later, and a bunch of disaffected Bernie supporters sitting on their hands on refusing to support Hillary in the general, can you think of another strategy more likely to return the Presidency to a Republican party that could not otherwise win it via popular support?

I can't think of another strategy, but by your own analysis you said it would fatally weaken this POTUS, so why would you be against it?  Wouldn't it be better to have a Weak Repugnant in the OO than a Strong Neocon like Shillary?

RE
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: jdwheeler42 on March 19, 2016, 09:21:47 AM
I can't think of another strategy, but by your own analysis you said it would fatally weaken this POTUS, so why would you be against it?  Wouldn't it be better to have a Weak Repugnant in the OO than a Strong Neocon like Shillary?
That's my theory of why I would vote for Bernie Sanders.  If I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell of getting his entire agenda passed, I would have to think long and hard, but I think the intersection between what he wants and what he could actually accomplish facing stiff Congressional opposition is, while small, quite positive.

Hillary, on the other hand, could pretty much accomplish her agenda by sitting on her hands for four years and just keeping in place what Obama did.  She doesn't need much support.
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: Surly1 on March 19, 2016, 01:05:24 PM
I can't think of another strategy, but by your own analysis you said it would fatally weaken this POTUS, so why would you be against it?  Wouldn't it be better to have a Weak Repugnant in the OO than a Strong Neocon like Shillary?
RE

The consequences of having the Rs in charge of all three branches of the Federal Govt. would be incalculable.

But it would accelerate the time frame for collapse via all vectors. Drill, baby, bomb.
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: RE on March 19, 2016, 01:29:41 PM
I can't think of another strategy, but by your own analysis you said it would fatally weaken this POTUS, so why would you be against it?  Wouldn't it be better to have a Weak Repugnant in the OO than a Strong Neocon like Shillary?
RE

The consequences of having the Rs in charge of all three branches of the Federal Govt. would be incalculable.

But it would accelerate the time frame for collapse via all vectors. Drill, baby, bomb.

So what will you do with your vote to stop this?  Vote for Shillary?  Vote for the Donald?

RE
Title: Re: The Donald a "Near Lock" to Win Repugnant Nomination
Post by: Surly1 on March 19, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
The consequences of having the Rs in charge of all three branches of the Federal Govt. would be incalculable.

But it would accelerate the time frame for collapse via all vectors. Drill, baby, bomb.

So what will you do with your vote to stop this?  Vote for Shillary?  Vote for the Donald?
RE

Whatever I decide to with it, it will be more than you.  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Election 2016....Michael Krieger on Trump
Post by: Eddie on March 22, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
I thought this was pretty good.

Donald Trump’s Speech at AIPAC Demonstrates Why He Will Be America’s Next President
Michael Krieger | Posted Tuesday Mar 22, 2016 at 11:01 am
Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 10.00.07 AM

In addition to the 21% of responses in the “dishonest/don’t trust her” category, another 7% of Americans use even stronger words in a similar negative vein, including “criminal,” “crooked” and “thief.” Nine percent say they dislike her. Smaller percentages (shown at the end of this article) associate her with Bill Clinton, with the controversy surrounding her use of a private email server while secretary of state and with the Benghazi terrorist attack.

The perceptions of Hillary Clinton as dishonest are not new. When Gallup asked the same question in 2008, “dishonest” was Americans’ most frequent response.


Before I get into this post, I want to make one thing clear — I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m neither a Hillary Clinton nor a Donald Trump supporter; in fact, I’ve spent quite a bit of time sharply criticizing both of them here on these pages.

Donald Trump checks none of my important boxes when it comes to policy. He’s horrible on civil liberties, shows no real interest in reining in Wall Street criminals, and is unlikely to view the Constitution any more respectfully than Barrack Obama or George W. Bush before him. I simply cannot support such a man. With Trump, one has to hope he’s the anti-Obama, i.e., says all the wrong things but then does the right thing. In this sense it is possible that Trump could be a decent president, but he could also be an unmitigated nightmare. He’s the ultimate wildcard, potentially far worse than even Hillary, but also conceivably far better. There’s simply no way to know for sure.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a guaranteed disaster. She will take the oligarch-controlled U.S. Banana Republic institutionalized by Obama and embrace it like no one else could or would. She won’t begrudgingly acquiesce to plutocrat demands, she will enthusiastically and shamelessly push forward their agenda without the slightest hesitation or passing thought regarding the wellbeing of the peasantry. Every single negative trend in American society we’ve seen develop over the past several decades will be thrust into overdrive, from neocon militarism to Wall Street criminality. I’ll put the odds at her being a decent president in terms her donors can understand, 0.0001%.


As such, the only question in play right now when it comes to the election is whether or not the American public is prepared to take an enormous gamble on Donald Trump when the only alternative is the creepy status quo political creature that is Hillary Clinton. My answer is yes.

However, it’s not merely a willingness to take such a gamble that will likely propel Trump into the Oval Office, it’s also a function of his talents. For all his flaws, Trump has many unique gifts. I’ve identified three so far: Force of personality, self-awareness and an uncanny ability to tell people what they want to hear. It’s that last one that most helps him in the political arena, and it’s also why he’s been able to lay waste to all the career politicians in his path. It’s also the one which was on full display during his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

As Chemi Shalev described in his Haaretz article:

On Monday night, Donald Trump showed how and why he might be elected president of the United States. Invited to participate in a candidate’s forum at AIPAC’s annual conference, he came, he spoke, he conquered. In future history, the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference might yet be viewed as a watershed event on way to the Trump Era.

Trump entered the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. as a prime suspect but emerged clean as a whistle. In less than half an hour, he took a skeptical and apprehensive audience and turned them into gushing cheerleaders. He went into the arena as a racist demagogue but soon came out as an ostensibly serious contender. He faced a tough test of his mettle but passed it with flying colors and hardly any effort. He came away with a kosher “K” certificate, issued by one of the most powerful and influential organizations in America.

Trump proved that he knows exactly how to press the right Jewish buttons, much as he has shown his expertise in manipulating the fears and resentments of middle class, white Americans. He told the AIPAC delegates exactly what they wanted and what they’re used to hearing — and they loved it. He mocked other candidates for pandering and proceeded to pander as if there’s no tomorrow.

Perhaps it was stronger than them. Everyone was well aware of the problematic invitation issued to Trump and if anyone had missed it, AIPAC officials repeatedly cautioned the crowd to act with respect and refrain from embarrassing spectacles or protests. But they could have saved themselves the effort. Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Trump played a beguiling Israel-pleasing tune that captivated the audience, calmed their fears, dissolved their doubts and then enticed them to proceed from hesitant applause through louder acclimation all the way to standing ovations and a crescendo of cheers.

In honor of AIPAC, however, he undertook an extreme makeover, reading a tightly formulated speech from the kind of teleprompter that he usually mocks. He didn’t deviate from his prepared text, which wasn’t any different from the addresses made on Monday by Hillary Clinton, John Kasich and even House Speaker Paul Ryan, another AIPAC favorite. Ted Cruz, usually considered a far better speaker than Trump, suddenly sounded dazed and confused.

Some commentators, including this one, thought that the Trump Show at AIPAC would yield more protests and more turbulence, beyond the demonstrations outside. Instead, what we got was a standard AIPAC speech that promises the moon and garners applause even though everyone knows it’s just an empty slogan that isn’t really going to happen. Nonetheless it was good enough to transform Trump from a morally repugnant presidential candidate into a run of the mill contender who deserves as much respect as the others.

A friend who watched the proceedings on television said he felt the need to take a shower to get the stain off. But then I met a religious family walking back to their hotel, engaged in a deep debate over the evening’s speeches. I eavesdropped just as they reached a family decision to transfer their votes from Cruz to Trump. When I asked them why, they said because “he’ll be good for Israel.” And how did they know that, I persisted, and they looked at me as if I was an idiot. “Didn’t you hear his speech?” they asked, and rightly so. I saw and heard the whole thing, and still find it hard to believe.


http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/22/donald-trumps-speech-at-aipac-demonstrates-why-he-will-be-americas-next-president/#more-32550 (http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/22/donald-trumps-speech-at-aipac-demonstrates-why-he-will-be-americas-next-president/#more-32550)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 24, 2016, 09:42:06 AM
When the 2016 Presidential Election is decided in the House of representatives, remember you heard it here first.
Today in Paul Ryan's Shadow Campaign for President (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43297/paul-ryan-cynical/)

He just brought cynicism to a new level.

 

While I was in the chambers of the Supreme Court, listening to lawyers try to explain to Justice Samuel Alito how health insurance actually works while other lawyers came right up to the edge of asking the Court to judge the nature of sin, it seems that we were treated to a lecture on the state of our politics from Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin and philosopher king of Janesville and all of Rock County. He seems to be a bit distressed about the way things have turned out since he finished as first runner-up in our last Vice President of the United States Pageant.

(And if you are now wondering, "Who asked you, pal?" Rest assured you're not alone.)

He began by showing he was down wit da yout'.

This is my answer to that. Here is what I know now that I want you to know—that you cannot see yourself today. And that is not just a lesson for young minds, but a message for all Americans. Our political discourse—both the kind we see on TV and the kind we experience among each other—did not use to be this bad and it does not have to be this way. Now, a little skepticism is healthy. But when people distrust politics, they come to distrust institutions. They lose faith in their government, and the future too. We can acknowledge this. But we don't have to accept it. And we cannot enable it either.

And thus do four decades of conservative rhetoric melt, thaw, and resolve themselves into a dew. At least for the moment. 

My dad used to say, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. So I have made it a mission of my Speakership to raise our gaze and aim for a brighter horizon. Instead of talking about what politics is today, I want to talk about what politics can be. I want to talk about what our country can be…about what our Founders envisioned it to be. America is the only nation founded on an idea—not an identity. That idea is the notion that the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. Our rights are natural. They come from God, not government.

To say that America was not founded on an identity gives the lie to Patrick ("I am not a Virginian, but an American!") Henry. One of the bedrock debates at both Continental Congresses was whether or not the people on this continent were British or something new called Americans. I feel safe in saying that the latter position carried the day. Also, the notion that the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life would have come as some surprise to any of those Americans who were determined in the Constitution to be three-fifths of a person, and to the Founders who owned them. No banality unturned here.

But I first met Jack exactly where you'd expect…at Tortilla Coast. It's true…I was waiting on his table. I didn't bother him that day, but I told a friend I'd love to have the chance to work for him. And, as luck would have it, such an opening soon arose. The thing about Jack was, he was an optimist all the way. He refused to accept that any part of America–or the American Idea–could be written off. Here was a conservative willing—no, eager—to go to America's bleakest communities and talk about how free enterprise could lift people out of poverty. These were areas that hadn't seen a Republican leader come through in years, if ever.

Apocryphal now! This seems odd, as though Ryan were his own Parson Weems and as though the story about waiting on Jack Kemp at Tortilla Coast were his very own cherry tree. My understanding was that, through his family's political connections, Ryan already was working on Capitol Hill as an aide to Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten and, later, for then Senator Sam Brownback. And, anyway, his whole bootstraps narrative is demonstrably bogus.

But in a confident America, we aren't afraid to disagree with each other. We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. We don't shut down on people—and we don't shut people down. If someone has a bad idea, we tell them why our idea is better. We don't insult them into agreeing with us. We try to persuade them. We test their assumptions. And while we're at it, we test our own assumptions too.

Confident America is the label on the new bottle of the same old snake oil. It's also the set-up for the real punchline of this extended joke.

I'm certainly not going to stand here and tell you I have always met this standard. There was a time when I would talk about a difference between "makers" and "takers" in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. "Takers" wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don't want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn't castigate a large group of Americans to make a point. So I stopped thinking about it that way—and talking about it that way. But I didn't come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong. And of course, there are still going to be times when I say things I wish I hadn't. There are still going to be times when I follow the wrong impulse.

I'm accustomed to the cynicism of politicians. I've grown comfortable with a certain level of cynicism in myself. But this is just breathtaking. "I was wrong when I stated what I have believed since I bought my first pair of Ayn Rand footie pajamas. I shouldn't do that, but I might do it again, especially if the political winds shift again." It is here where we note that, barely a week ago,Ryan sat down with John Harwood and scoffed at what he called "redistributive" tax reform—that is, any tax reform that doesn't shove all the money upwards to the people who have coddled Ryan throughout his political career—as well as once again promoting the block-granting of most of the tattered federal safety net so the likes of Rick Snyder and Scott Walker can remunerate their cronies. No matter how cynical you become, as Lily Tomlin once said, it's hard to keep up.

Long before I worked for him, Jack Kemp had a tax plan that he was incredibly passionate about. He wasn't even on the Ways and Means Committee and Republicans were deep in the minority back then. So the odds of it going anywhere seemed awfully low. But he was like a dog with a bone. He took that plan to any audience he could get in front of. He pushed it so hard that he eventually inspired our party's nominee for president—Ronald Reagan—to adopt it as his own. And in 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back to work.

And all it took was the brutal recession of 1982 and three decades of crushing income inequality and murderous wage stagnation. He's still a true believer. Remember, he's sorry for all those terrible things he's said about the poor, but he might say them again, and he'll feel even more sorry.

Biggest. Fake. Ever.

 

Title: Trump in His Own Words
Post by: Surly1 on March 24, 2016, 10:12:05 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and get a full snootful of Trump. Straight, no chaser.
As the man says, don't say you weren't warned.

William Rivers Pitt | Trump in His Own Words: Hate and Violence on Vivid Display
 
(http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/william-rivers-pitt-trump-in-his-own-words-hate-and-violence-on-vivid-display)

WILLIAM RIVERS PITT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

(http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/images/images2016_03/TrumpMouth_0323wrp_opt.jpg)
(Photo: Philip Cohen)

Most people in the US get their Trump in small slices, in dribs and drabs, in snippets doled out by the TV networks. One sentence a day. That kind of parsimonious coverage does not do justice to the grim astonishment that is Trump on the campaign stump. Therefore, I bit the bullet and strung his comments together. Do yourself a favor and read this out loud, so you can get a taste of the words in your mouth. You’ll spit.

The following is what I would have to describe as stream-of-consciousness Trump, culled directly and verbatim from a variety of rallies and media appearances that can be sourced here and here. No words have been replaced or changed. This is the raw of it, to the bone. Deep thanks to KnowPolitical and CBS News for doing the legwork.

They laughed at Mussolini, too, until he took office. Then they stopped laughing.

I give you Donald Trump:

---

Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Knock the hell, I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise. In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. I'd like to punch them in the face, I'll tell you.

These are not people. Just remember that. Do whatever you have to do to them, I don't care. You know what? I think I'm totally within my rights to say that. This is amazing. So much fun, I love it. I love it. We having a good time? USA, USA. Get them out of here, please. Get them out. Are you from Mexico? Are you from Mexico? Today, our country is politically correct. Our country is going to hell with being politically correct. Going to hell.

Today they walk in and they put their hand up and they put the wrong finger in the air at everybody, and they get away with murder because we've become weak, we've become weak. Get them out, try not to hurt them. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it. My supporters have tremendous love of this country. He was playing Arabic music. He was dragging the flag along the ground, and he had internet chatter with ISIS and about ISIS, so I don't know if he was or not. What do I know about it? All I know is what's on the internet.

Isn't a Trump rally much more exciting than these other guys? You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right? And they're being politically correct the way they take them out, so it takes a little bit longer, and honestly protesters, they realize it, they realize there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences, there are none anymore.

Our country has to toughen up, folks. We have to toughen up. These people are bringing us down, remember that, they're bringing us down, no reason for it. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks. You have no idea. They contribute nothing, nothing. They can get up, and when they're being whisked out they can raise their bad finger up in the air and drive people, which is very unfair, and some people get very angry at that because you know what that represents. And then when they get a little bit overly angry, they're in trouble. The guy that raised his finger? No, that's no problem. That's no problem.

Get out of here. Get out of here. Get them out. Get them out. Troublemaker. Get them out of here. Hurting this country, folks. Hurting this country. Big mouth. Get them out. Go home to Mommy. Go home, go home and get a job, go home, get a job. Get a job. I'll tell you these are not good people, folks, just so you understand, you know. These are not good people. And I heard this was going to happen, and they said Mr. Trump, would you like to cancel, and I said absolutely not.

These are not good people. These are not the people that made our country great, but we're going to make it great again, but these are not the people. These are the people that are destroying our country. Get them out. Get them out. Are you sure he's a Mormon? Are we sure? He choked, he choked. It was so sad. He should have beaten Obama. We wouldn't be working. I could be back right now. I could be back working in New York and doing my deals and having fun and being with my family. He choked like a dog, he choked like a dog.

If you're going to vote for somebody else, don't vote.

---

... and there you have it, folks. The distilled essence of the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to become the next President of the United States. Never say you weren't warned.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 24, 2016, 10:38:15 AM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 24, 2016, 01:56:47 PM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.

Those are complete paragraphs, not spliced sentences from unrelated speeches.  Watch the video.


RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 24, 2016, 06:48:23 PM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.

There is no footage in that news show showing trump in one place saying start to finish any paragraph written by rivers-pitt without quotation mark. In the news show trump is not shown saying more than one or two sentences at any one time from one speech or interview, certainly not in the same uncut footage going steaight from talking about plural 'people' (protestors) to singular 'he' (mormon romney)  as in the last para by rivers-pitt. Yhere is no deception in that video because it is obvious, there is plenty of deception in the  news story though.

In just the first minute dealing with the guy who looks like la voy who hit a protester being escorted out. They say he just sat back down as if nothing further happenned, neglecting to say he was actually charged for that hit. In any case if you flip the bird in the faces of all the peoole you are passing you should be expect to be punched by someone sooner or later.

They dont mention or show protestors going to the trump events and throwing punches but only being thrown out after that without charge. This is uncut monologue the oft quoted 'id like to punch him in the face' is taken from. Immediately prior he mentions the guy was throwing punches, never ever mentioned in the media. Immediately after he talks about ted cruz, not rivers-pitts next line.

In another one of those quotes 'in the good old days' by trump the full footage shows he is talking about a kkk guy giving him endorsement. Yet not only is that not reported but it is still insisted that trump will not reject kkk endorsement.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXS8jNh58I

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZUpNNNgzU

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUjYfAS--Q
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm6LGITkiz4

This one is funny...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs

This isnt...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjljucvBI4
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 24, 2016, 08:33:36 PM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.

There is no footage in that news show showing trump in one place saying start to finish any paragraph written by rivers-pitt without quotation mark. In the news show trump is not shown saying more than one or two sentences at any one time from one speech or interview, certainly not in the same uncut footage going steaight from talking about plural 'people's plenty of deception in the  news story though.

Oh come on there UB.  DT is obviously inciting violence in his stump speeches.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 24, 2016, 10:05:10 PM
If he is, you should not need to ALWAYS mis quote him. It looks to me like his support grows in proportion to how desperate and dishonest the campaign against him gets. Who do u say is being incited to violence anyway, the supporters or protesters?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 25, 2016, 01:20:04 AM
If he is, you should not need to ALWAYS mis quote him. It looks to me like his support grows in proportion to how desperate and dishonest the campaign against him gets. Who do u say is being incited to violence anyway, the supporters or protesters?

He's not being misquoted UB, he SAID all those things, and on more than one occassion also.  This is his theme.  The Donald has been around the media for DECADES, he's always been a blowhard who strives to get maximum attention for himself.  He knows if he plays to base emotions, he'll get his followers worked up to a frenzy.  So that's what he does because it gets ATTENTION.

Far as the desperation of the campaign against him goes, that is evident also, but The Donald makes it EZ because he well and truly IS an asshole.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 25, 2016, 03:21:58 AM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.

Quote from: William Rivers Pitt
The following is what I would have to describe as stream-of-consciousness Trump, culled directly and verbatim from a variety of rallies and media appearances that can be sourced here and here. No words have been replaced or changed. This is the raw of it, to the bone. Deep thanks to KnowPolitical and CBS News for doing the legwork.

Reading for comprehension. What the smart kids do.

Try it.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 25, 2016, 04:30:18 AM
What has he said? All mexicans are rapists...No. Ban all muslims...No, these are just what the story got sensationalized as.

Farage is far more xenophobic but we let that slide. They dont show all the legal mexican etc immigrants in support of him, called up on stage and nobody booing it but all in support as that wouldn't fit the bunch of  racists myth, although there would probably be a few tbp tinfoil types among them. We have detailed background checking here as do many other places and that seems like all trump has asked for re muslims following a shooting he doesnt see as a hoax. But that's the reason for protesters to go and disrupt the events and taunt everyone there calling them racists. You see plenty of indians, asians and blacks there with no trouble from the rest of the people there to hear him speak, so no they are certainly not all racist. They probably believe like you that none of the western countries can support their own populations being broke, leave alone millions of migrants legal and illegal.  It is common for legal immigrants from past decades to be against illegal immigrants currently and thats not about racism its about competing for jobs and other state spending.

 GO posted it i think, that illegal immigrants are eligible to vote in us. If thats true its blatantly about building a power base as any other person commited any crime can not vote. Im not taking a position on it myself except that its abundantly obvious from the euro stories that refugees do rape a lot more, just like armies do, when they can get away with it and theres nobody for the refugee women walking across the desert to complain to so is probably true. So i dont see the comment about rapists as outrageous, he also stated in the next line that many of the illegals are good people, but that is never included. What i found wrong with it is he made it sound like the mexican govt was "sending" them.

 There are plenty of these to watch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVAaPPXdew

On the rest of the comments quoted it is all the same. "Id like to punch him in the face". Always leave out that the person he is talking about did just come and start punching people in the face, actually doing it is ok if its an anti trump. How is it we rage against the msm as shills for the status quo all the time and now they have journalistic integrity?

"Get him out of here, " nothing wrong with that, what else is he meant to say? The same media doesnt report all the foul mouth stuff the peace protesters say/scream or their trademark middle fingers continuously interrupting and preventing the speeches, you have to ask why. I dont blame any of the spoken responses to that, its a true fact they are relying on security and the crowd showing them restraint as he is saying. In eg europe between 1st and 2nd world wars it was as trump said about the old days, violence at rallies between rival political parties, nothing wrong in trump pointing it out which is why he is not losing support for it. If the media continue to condone that on the part of the protestors blocking roads and entrance to events it will lead to them trying to prevent people voting as happens in other places.

The incident reported where the old cowboy hat guy sucker punched someone on their way out is a gutless cowardly  act, no doubt. Notice the reporting failing to mention he was charged and suggesting the oppossite. Notice they show an intv questioning trump if its excusable but cut away at the moment he answers because they dont want to show the answer that doesnt fit the narrative. Notice they dont report the other incident being a worse beating because black people are not meant to be supporting trump and the kkk are supposed to really be there with support of trump and the crowd, not protesters pretending to be kkk, and getting beaten up on the way out by blacks legitimately there. Notice they still use the foto of the protester in the hood and the lady mocking the people calling her a nazi as if she really was a nazi in the the news story. Notice they do not show trump throwing out a genuine kkk as it doesnt fit the story.

It does not seem to be his followers in a frenzy it is the protesters,  u saw the footage of them in line ignoring the protesters swearing and taunting them. Not all are followers either but people wanting to learn like the black cop who gave the description of the protesters not the supporters from his experience being in a frenzy. They are calling everyone racist and if anyone reacts they show only the reaction not what happened just before it. ALWAYS failing to show context.

I agree on the blowhard publicity part and i hate all that me me me I I I ego trip. I saw a story keith richards almost stabbed him after he stole the Rolling Stones  limelite and held a press conference in front of their audience before they played because he owned the venue. Most people are probably turned off by that side of him, but believe theyre all going to get great jobs, or at least hes their way of challenging the establishment.



Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 25, 2016, 04:46:25 AM
You can not splice sentences from unrelated speeches into made up paragraphs, its as fake as the foto and anything but straight.

Quote from: William Rivers Pitt
The following is what I would have to describe as stream-of-consciousness Trump, culled directly and verbatim from a variety of rallies and media appearances that can be sourced here and here. No words have been replaced or changed. This is the raw of it, to the bone. Deep thanks to KnowPolitical and CBS News for doing the legwork.

Reading for comprehension. What the smart kids do.

Try it.

Smart kids know the conventions of quotation and you dont need to replace or change words to create a sentence salad flavoured to taste. This is why aquiring a degree today does not assure an employer you are not functionally illiterate.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 25, 2016, 08:40:32 AM
What has he said? All mexicans are rapists...No. Ban all muslims...No, these are just what the story got sensationalized as.

I don't have time to parse all your exceptions, but a) Dt did indeed say that Mexico was shipping rapists to the US. And b) he did inded call for a halt to Muslim immigration. This is a matter of record.

Farage is far more xenophobic but we let that slide.

Farage is not positioned to become President of the most powerful country in the world. He's still a right wing house pet.

GO posted it i think, that illegal immigrants are eligible to vote in us. If thats true its blatantly about building a power base as any other person commited any crime can not vote. Im not taking a position on it myself except that its abundantly obvious from the euro stories that refugees do rape a lot more, just like armies do, when they can get away with it and theres nobody for the refugee women walking across the desert to complain to so is probably true. So i dont see the comment about rapists as outrageous, he also stated in the next line that many of the illegals are good people, but that is never included. What i found wrong with it is he made it sound like the mexican govt was "sending" them.

You have to be a registered voter ro vote. Period. In most places you have to have state-approved ID to prove who you are. "Voter fraud" is a right wing fiction that simply does not exist in many meaningful way in the FSoA, but it is a handy cudgel by which a variety of vote-suppression schemes can be trotted out in democrat-leaning neighborhoods. To wit the shuttering of two thirds of the polling places in Maricopa County, Arizona on Tuesday.


On the rest of the comments quoted it is all the same. "Id like to punch him in the face". Always leave out that the person he is talking about did just come and start punching people in the face, actually doing it is ok if its an anti trump.

Do you possess evidence of "an anti trump" punching someone in the face. I didn't think so.

How is it we rage against the msm as shills for the status quo all the time and now they have journalistic integrity?

There are some things that even they can't fake. What they are best at is propaganda by omission, i.e., not covering what's happening. There is so much internet video out there that sometimes events force their hand.

Trump is pretty much a creation of MSNBC and CNN. As Taibbi pointed out, the reality show host realizes they can't shut the cameras off. They are simply not able.

In eg europe between 1st and 2nd world wars it was as trump said about the old days, violence at rallies between rival political parties, nothing wrong in trump pointing it out which is why he is not losing support for it.
Trump's support in the US comes from a variety of sources, but it draws significantly from the nativist, xenophobe right which has been a part of this country's culture since the 1840s and the Know-Nothings (anti-Irish immigrant zealots). George Wallace tapped it in 1968 and 1972. There are also those who like his stance on empire and trade, along with his tough talk, and who might find themselves aligned with Sanders on that score, but who prefer Trump's more authoritarian style.

Trump is a campaigner we haven't see in the US before: a caudillo.  He strikes the sames nerves and generates the same popular appeal of populist strongmen—Pinochet. Noriega. Castro. Chávez. Perón. Latin Americans seem to have been paying attention this year to the US President race for the first time in memory, as Donald Trump has struck a nerve of recognition. 


The incident reported where the old cowboy hat guy sucker punched someone on their way out is a gutless cowardly  act, no doubt. Notice the reporting failing to mention he was charged and suggesting the oppossite.
Manifestly not so. It was widely reported and noted. You saying otherwise changes nothing.

Notice they still use the foto of the protester in the hood and the lady mocking the people calling her a nazi as if she really was a nazi in the the news story. Notice they do not show trump throwing out a genuine kkk as it doesnt fit the story.

This again. I posted the photographer's story the following day. You don't credit that. fortunately, reality doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

It does not seem to be his followers in a frenzy it is the protesters.
I don't know what you're seeing in Oz but it sure as hell ain't what is happening here.

I'd go on, but I have to cash my check from George Soros.
Title: Marc Jampole: You’re not planning to vote?
Post by: Surly1 on March 25, 2016, 08:43:33 AM
Marc Jampole: You’re not planning to vote? (http://voxpopulisphere.com/2016/03/25/marc-jampole-youre-not-planning-to-vote/)
by Vox Populi
Voters who hate Donald Trump have had the power to stop him, but most have chosen to stay home.




The real question about this year’s electorate is how large a part of it truly seeks a confrontational authoritarian as our next president? How many people practice racism, condone violence and approve of torture? How large is the population with fascist tendencies?

In other words, what part of the American public has voted for Donald Trump?

Judging from the numbers in a recent Economist article titled “How non-voters blew it,” Trump has gathered relatively few supporters. In no state to hold a primary until now has more than 25% of Republican voters actually gone to the polls and cast a ballot. Even though Republican primary turnout is at its highest since Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980, only about 17% of eligible Republicans have voted in the primaries so far. Trump has averaged about 38% of the vote, which translates into a little less than 6.5% of all registered Republicans. But Republicans represent only about 28% of all voters, probably a little more in the states already holding primaries. If we extrapolate these numbers across the country, we find that a mere 1.8% of all eligible voters support Donald Trump.

The one word to describe American voters in 2016, is the same one word we can use to describe them virtually every year. That word isn’t “angry” or “frustrated,” not “conservative” or “liberal.” The one word to describe American voters is “apathetic.”

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have gotten an even lower percentage of the total votes than the Donald. Hillary Clinton hasn’t gotten many more votes than Trump, as voter participation in Democratic primaries is down. If we’re using votes to measure whether any candidate is engaging the public, the answer is that none of the candidates are winning in any state or across the country, not even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. With such low voter turnouts, we can’t proclaim anyone who has won a primary a real “winner.”

The real winners in this election season so far are not even “none of the above,” since that outcome would require people to enter voting booths and actually write those words down.

No, the real winners are the fascists like Donald Trump and the oligarchs, who represent about one tenth of one percent of the country, like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. Just as in the Germany of the late 1920s and early 1930s, the oligarchs and the fascists share many traits in common—power hungry, obsessional about control, well-funded, prone to lies and misrepresentations, ruthless.

I used to tell the kids on the Little League teams I managed that the only way to guarantee never losing is never to play. In American politics, the people are losing by not playing. Only when the electorate stays home can fascists like Donald Trump win at the polls. Only when the electorate remains uninvolved can oligarchs manage the voting patterns of legislatures. Only when the electorate prefers ignorance can oligarchs and fascists get away with filling airwaves and bandwidth with their lies.

---

Copyright 2016 Marc Jampole.
Title: HOW AN AMERICAN CAUDILLO CAME TO DOMINATE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Post by: Surly1 on March 25, 2016, 08:47:09 AM
And then there's this--

CITIZEN TRUMP: HOW AN AMERICAN CAUDILLO CAME TO DOMINATE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE (http://www.occupy.com/article/citizen-trump-how-american-caudillo-came-dominate-2016-presidential-race#sthash.MlDFiEjp.dpuf)

CITIZEN TRUMP: HOW AN AMERICAN CAUDILLO CAME TO DOMINATE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

“I love this country. We’re going to make this country great again. It’s payback time.” — Donald Trump

The mainstream press in the United States, especially the cable news networks, have spent most of the last year giving free publicity to Donald Trump’s substance-free campaign for president. While they are quick to report on the candidate’s every utterance no matter how outrageous, they rarely press him on his dangerous rhetoric or the lies he tells. After all, Trump has been a ratings bonanza and network bosses like CEO Leslie Moonves of CBS have no doubt warned reporters about the professional consequences of losing access to the mogul.

Let's admit, the real estate magnate occasionally makes some sense when he talks about an economy that has left many Americans, and most of his followers, behind. As someone who has spent years taking advantage of the political system for personal gain, Trump is uniquely placed to comment on its evils. Though lacking in specifics, his denunciations of deals like NAFTA and the TPP would be refreshing coming from the mouth of almost any candidate – if they weren't submerged in the kind of xenophobic bile that's become his campaign signature.

Indeed, Trump has played the media well, saying one thing to supporters, then later walking it back on “serious" shows like “Meet the Press,” which he knows his fans won’t be watching. Even liberal websites posted story after story about Trump in an endless search for clicks and shares that often gave less attention to the populist swell on the other side of the aisle – that is, until the string of primary victories when Sen. Bernie Sanders's appeal, often speaking to similar issues, could no longer be ignored.

Some media are finally comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, but this is just a show of journalistic laziness. The only thing unique about Trump is how much of his reputation he owes to reality TV. Otherwise he is a run of the mill strongman. Besides, if one must go back that far in time in search of similar nativism, one needn’t look to Nazi Germany to find it.

A Recurring Nightmare

As author Edward McClelland wrote recently on Salon, from the late nineteenth century through the Great Depression, the U.S. experience a similar movement against immigration, aimed mostly at those coming from Europe. Here is what the National Civic Federation said in 1918 of German immigrants fleeing the chaotic end of the First World War: “Shall we permit the bestial hordes who ravished Belgium women and bayoneted little children to make their homes where American womanhood is held sacred and innocent childhood is loved?”

The same time period also saw a revival of the KKK, which found new targets for their hate, attacking not only African-Americans but newly arrived Roman Catholics and Jews. The religions and ethnicities may have changed, but the core nativism that the former Celebrity Apprentice host promotes is much the same: a full throated call for a simpler, more ignorant time that only ever really existed in the imagination.

This isn’t to say that Trump doesn’t have fascist tendencies; all strongmen do. His economic platform, at least in the vague terms it has been expressed, has similarities to that of Argentina’s Juan Peron, whose ”third position... consisted of standing against international capitalism and international communism.” Peron had spent time in Mussolini’s Italy, the birthplace of modern state corporatism, and had been much impressed by Il Duce’s economic model.

The idea of having corporations directly in charge of government would no doubt have some appeal to Trump, who assures voters that he is going to put his “dealmaker” friends in charge of trade when he is president. These days, though, Trump and his supporters seem more to want to usher in a new era of McCarthyism – one squarely aimed at leftists, especially those with the audacity to say that Black Lives Matter.

More relevant to a discussion of the tycoon’s rise are other comparisons drawn from our own time. Even now, the mainstream U.S. press mainly looks to Europe for explanations when tendencies jump out about a fascistic rise to power; think of the current, polarizing political environment in Hungary, France, the U.K. and Greece. These are slickly tailored representatives of a more contemporary manifestation of nationalism, and Trump seems to have pilfered much of his platform from them.

Not So “Exceptional”

Although he has a particularly American style based on his presumed “success” as a businessman, Trump’s positions on immigration could have been taken from any number of prominent far right politicians in Europe. In fact, U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage made this point when speaking at the rightwing Heritage Foundation last year: “I do think some of the things he’s picked up on the last few weeks are very similar to the kind of things we’ve picked up on in British politics – the feeling that there is a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, maybe not connecting with some of the concerns of ordinary people.”

There are other interesting parallels between Trump and the UKIP leader. Both are from privileged backgrounds, yet somehow represent themselves as “men of the people.” Both are also prone to throwing childlike tantrums when they lose. While more restrained than America's media madness over Trump, the British press has exhibited a similar fascination with Farage, who is making it his mission to get Britain out of the EU while he receives a large paycheck (plus a salary for his wife) from the very institution he rails against.

Trump has articulated the xenophobia bordering on outright racism of many Tea Party Republicans in a similar way that Viktor Orban and his Fidesz government in Hungary have bled the extremist Jobbik Party of supporters. Jobbik is openly fascist, while Fidesz, which has stolen much of Jobbik's platform, is considered a “legitimate” center-right political party, enabling Hungarians to vote for them without feeling ashamed.

As one of young Fidesz supporter put it, “I support our Prime Minister because I think Mr. Orban is one of the persons who can really protect the borders. The question you have to decide is to protect the borders or to be politically correct for Europe – that’s the question the party had to consider.”

This adherence to “political correctness,” so reviled on the right, is what is being addressed. Trump uses this canard, as do rightest European leaders and parties, to engage in what would otherwise be called hate speech against those least able to defend themselves. The belief of these far rightests – that they should be able to denigrate whole swathes of humanity without pushback – is simply absurd. But with most of the media focused on being “objective” in their reporting, the demagogues get their wish.

As other commentators have noted, net migration from Mexico is below zero; the refugees, most of them children who have arrived at the U.S.’s southern border over the last couple of years, have been fleeing violence in their home countries in Central America, a situation for which the American government must accept some measure of responsibility. It is not “political correctness” that should move people to help these children. It’s simple morality.

Ironically, those who are most likely to be sympathetic to the economic grievances of Trump’s supporters – but not to their nativist tribalism – are Bernie Sanders backers and others on the left. Trump's mainly white, working class followers are not excluded from the 99%. On the contrary. But many of them would rather have a substance free, rambling savior figure than actually have to do the work of creating a “political revolution” like Sen. Sanders has called for.

Trump has gone against conservative orthodoxy in his defense of programs like Social Security and Medicare, but rather than hurting him, these positions only make him more popular with a Republican base still reeling from the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. They, too, saw their savings evaporate in an economic environment that benefited the top 1% and almost no one else. Their anger is understandable. But it's misplaced when directed at young people and minority groups whose struggles are often much worse.

While it seems unlikely that Trump could win the general election – a recent poll showed that half of American women would never vote for him – his rise over the last few months has defied all predictions, especially those made by the elite media who proclaimed the Trump phenomenon over with each new outrage he dished up, only to watch his poll numbers ascend. The only other candidate with a similar amount of negatives has already been effectively coronated by the elites on the Democratic side: Hillary Clinton.

One of the dangers of the Trump candidacy, some feel, is that it could actually push the Democratic Party further to the right. The logic to this argument: Hillary Clinton should try to appeal to moderate Republicans, whose hawkish positions aren't so different from many of her own, and win over those conservatives who are turned off by Trump’s buffoonery.

African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and Arab-Americans; young and not-so-young people inspired by Sanders; the LGBTQ community, and many others will feel pressured to vote Democratic on the basis of Clinton’s mainstream rhetoric as she squares off against Bernie Sanders in the final months of the primary season. And if she wins in November, they will be expected to celebrate her victory over the evils of Trumpism. But spoiler alert: those same people shouldn’t be surprised, once the euphoria has worn off, if nothing changes in 2017. The main thing they'll be celebrating is that they didn't get Trump.

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, xenophobia, European far right parties, Jobbik Party, Nigel Farage, UKIP, Leslie Moonves, TTP, NAFTA, Black Lives Matter, Trump rally violence, political revolution

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/citizen-trump-how-american-caudillo-came-dominate-2016-presidential-race#sthash.MlDFiEjp.dpuf


Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 25, 2016, 03:14:51 PM
There is never anyone to vote for, for a guy like me. My vote is only meaningful if I can find the correct person to vote against.

For me, the worst choice would be Cruz, whom I fear far more than Trump. Trump would be bad. Cruz, on the other hand would be a vote for pure evil.

Also worse than Trump would be Clinton, because she is a vote for BAU. Chaos theory gamesmanship gone out-of-control. Banks uber alles.

So Trump comes in a distant third in the who-to-vote-against race.

Sanders is a well meaning man, and for that reason I could vote FOR him, but for me, in the primary, it was more important to register Republican, simply to be able to vote AGAINST the greater evil, Cruz. As usual, my side lost, and Cruz carried Texas easily. Because Texas voters are easy to herd, just like Longhorn cattle.

You just use the tried and true. Praise the Anglo Jesus, promise not to raise taxes, rail against insiders (really loud, too, if, like Ted, you are an insider pretending to be something else).

Since Sanders will almost certainly NOT be the nominee, to me his candidacy is largely irrelevant already. I can only vote against Clinton and Cruz. That suggests that I might have to pull the lever for Trump, sad to say. Or write in Mickey Mouse, or stay home. If Clinton were to drop out or drop dead, the equation would be much more palatable to me. Bernie would be my guy, never mind my taxes would soar. They'll soar anyway, soon, unless I drop out of the workforce, which is more tempting every year.

Choices, choices.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 25, 2016, 04:33:39 PM
What has he said? All mexicans are rapists...No. Ban all muslims...No, these are just what the story got sensationalized as.

I don't have time to parse all your exceptions, but a) Dt did indeed say that Mexico was shipping rapists to the US.

U never hear him mis quoted as "mexico is shipping rapists " the myth generated in the media is "ALL mexicans are rapists". The mexican girls in the bill ayers video protesting repeated this. DT was talking about illegal immigrants and said in the next breath that many are good people. That is many do not take the opportunity to rape without repercussion as the female fellow illegals can not complain or report it without being deported. He also said they were coming from not just mexico but from all over including the middle east. Thats the record but the myth of "All mexicans" has ignored the qualifiers.



 And b) he did inded call for a halt to Muslim immigration. This is a matter of record.

From his statement page its a temporary ban on immigration until "our representatives can figure out what is going on" (re radicals ). The devil is in the lack of detail, a very vague statement release. Looking at a collage of statements on muslins he appears to be trying to focus on screening, his own fault if its interpreted as a complete ban. There has been plenty of time to clarify the policy properly but it is still effectively open ended, as good as permanent.

Farage is far more xenophobic but we let that slide.

Farage is not positioned to become President of the most powerful country in the world. He's still a right wing house pet.

GO posted it i think, that illegal immigrants are eligible to vote in us. If thats true its blatantly about building a power base as any other person commited any crime can not vote. Im not taking a position on it myself except that its abundantly obvious from the euro stories that refugees do rape a lot more, just like armies do, when they can get away with it and theres nobody for the refugee women walking across the desert to complain to so is probably true. So i dont see the comment about rapists as outrageous, he also stated in the next line that many of the illegals are good people, but that is never included. What i found wrong with it is he made it sound like the mexican govt was "sending" them.

You have to be a registered voter ro vote. Period. In most places you have to have state-approved ID to prove who you are. "Voter fraud" is a right wing fiction that simply does not exist in many meaningful way in the FSoA, but it is a handy cudgel by which a variety of vote-suppression schemes can be trotted out in democrat-leaning neighborhoods. To wit the shuttering of two thirds of the polling places in Maricopa County, Arizona on Tuesday.

the question then becomes whether or not illegal immigrants can register to vote. It appears this is a letter of the law vs spirit of the law question except in calif.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/?page=all (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/?page=all)


http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/)[/color]

On the rest of the comments quoted it is all the same. "Id like to punch him in the face". Always leave out that the person he is talking about did just come and start punching people in the face, actually doing it is ok if its an anti trump.

Do you possess evidence of "an anti trump" punching someone in the face. I didn't think so.

This is not the one trump is talking about, (big black guy) hes been shown in a lot of clips already clearly throwing punches at people who are not fighting him back. We never hear trump say first about the guy punching people in the face,  we are led to believe he is talking about a peaceful protestor.

This one in first scene a white guy calling another white guy white which he seems to object to, then second scene the protestor is punching people and hitting out at two women staff. News never covers that though. 

How is it we rage against the msm as shills for the status quo all the time and now they have journalistic integrity?

There are some things that even they can't fake. What they are best at is propaganda by omission, i.e., not covering what's happening. There is so much internet video out there that sometimes events force their hand.

Trump is pretty much a creation of MSNBC and CNN. As Taibbi pointed out, the reality show host realizes they can't shut the cameras off. They are simply not able.

  I agree with that and have detailed how they are using omission all the time to slant the story. Luckily you can do your own research using utube and google.


wrong in trump pointing it out which is why he is not losing support for it.
Trump's support in the US comes from a variety of sources, but it draws significantly from the nativist, xenophobe right which has been a part of this country's culture since the 1840s and the Know-Nothings (anti-Irish immigrant zealots). George Wallace tapped it in 1968 and 1972. There are also those who like his stance on empire and trade, along with his tough talk, and who might find themselves aligned with Sanders on that score, but who prefer Trump's more authoritarian style.

Trump is a campaigner we haven't see in the US before: a caudillo.  He strikes the sames nerves and generates the same popular appeal of populist strongmen—Pinochet. Noriega. Castro. Chávez. Perón. Latin Americans seem to have been paying attention this year to the US President race for the first time in memory, as Donald Trump has struck a nerve of recognition. 


Focussing on the racist and xenophobe aspect, i have no doubt there are some TBP type but tarring all of them with that brush is just divisive and inciting violence. They applaud the mexicans called up, have indians, asians and blacks in their midst and are in some clips seen in prayer and discussion with the BLM.


The incident reported where the old cowboy hat guy sucker punched someone on their way out is a gutless cowardly  act, no doubt. Notice the reporting failing to mention he was charged and suggesting the oppossite.
Manifestly not so. It was widely reported and noted. You saying otherwise changes nothing.

I was talking about the video RE posted. One such incident by a 78 yr old among millions of others who remain hands off is very good stats and not an atmosphere of violence we are hearing of.

Notice they still use the foto of the protester in the hood and the lady mocking the people calling her a nazi as if she really was a nazi in the the news story. Notice they do not show trump throwing out a genuine kkk as it doesnt fit the story.

This again. I posted the photographer's story the following day. You don't credit that. fortunately, reality doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

I do not credit his claims as they are easily proven false. She would have to be about 95, accirding to his story but we know she was born in 1946 after nazis were defeated. He admits they tore the sign out of her husbands hands and told them they were not safe, that they better leave now before they are attacked and hope they make it home. This is ok in his opinion and apparently yours. I mentioned it here again because the picture is featured in the vid RE posted, suggesting she is a nazi. They would have had access to her explanation which does bear scrutiny, that she was mocking the protesters calling them nazis but the story misled by omission to portray the supporters as violent and dangerous when in truth she is not a nazi and the protesters physically interfered with them and threatened them, then wrote about how he defeated hate.

It does not seem to be his followers in a frenzy it is the protesters.
I don't know what you're seeing in Oz but it sure as hell ain't what is happening here.



I'd go on, but I have to cash my check from George Soros.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 25, 2016, 06:08:38 PM
This link got left out. Here a protestor punches guy in the camo caps face, with two women trying to contain him in the 2nd scene. 1st scene of Slayer fan white guy calling out another as white, maybe he identifies as something else himself, well why not.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7yw3iP5qY
Title: Election 2016: Slut vs Slut
Post by: RE on March 25, 2016, 07:53:18 PM
The Slut Wife Battle between the Donald and Bruise is heating up!

This is getting good!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-25/trump-spokeswoman-spills-beans-heidi-cruz-media-goes-crazy-over-cruzsexscandal (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-25/trump-spokeswoman-spills-beans-heidi-cruz-media-goes-crazy-over-cruzsexscandal)

Trump Aide "Spills The Beans" On Heidi Cruz As Media Goes Crazy Over #CruzSexScandal

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/25/2016 16:28 -0400

    Donald Trump goldman sachs Goldman Sachs MSNBC Nomination Reuters Twitter Twitter White House
 

The "wife" feud, which initially many though was merely a sideshow between Donal Trump and Ted Cruz, has taken a quick turn for the ugly and is escalating dramatically with every passing day, and now that even the National Enquirer has entered the fray, has rapidly devolved to nothing less than the surreal twilight zone.

For those who need a primer of what is rapidly becoming the biggest "issue" in the presidential race, here is a reminder, courtesy of our post from last night "Tough Guy Ted Warns "Sniveling Coward" Trump: "Leave My Wife Alone":

    Phase 1: Cruz Reps "Cross The Line", when a "SuperPAC" run by a Cruz supporter launched a Trump ad campaign showcasing a naked posing Melania Trump
    Phase 2: Trumps Warns Cruz: "Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!"
    Phase 3: Cruz firez back, warning Trump: Don't Do The Same Thing To Me That [My Reps] Just Did To You (Or Else!).
    Phase 4: Trump Goes There, retweeting an image "comparing" Heidi Cruz and Melania Trump
    Phase 5: Cruz Goes Full Rambo, says  'Donald, you're a sniveling coward and leave Heidi alone.'

Or, as we summed up, "a Cruz fan uses naked images of Trump's wife to disparage him to saintly 'Utah-ans'; Trump pissed; Cruz warns Trump not to reciprocate; Trump shows ugly picture of Cruz's wife; Cruz unleashes inner Hulk as Trump dares to do what Cruz reps did to him."

That was just the last few days.

And then the tabloids jumped on board.

Overnight, Trump-linked National Enquirer, alleged that the Texas senator is "hiding five different mistresses." According to its source, identified as a "Washington insider," "private detectives are digging into at least five affairs Ted Cruz supposedly had," and "the leaked details are an attempt to destroy what's left of his White House campaign." The supposed affairs are detailed in the Enquirer's most recent print issue.

Though unconfirmed, the rumor sparked chatter across social media Friday with the hashtag #CruzSexScandal, with reactions, as expected, ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Considering the source, we doubt there is much veracity to the alleged "Cruz sex scandal", although the tabloid has had its share of "broken" news stores in the past.

As was to be expected, Cruz immediately denounced the article as "garbage, complete and utter lies" and accused his opponent Donald Trump of being the source of the story as Reuters reports.

"It's tabloid smear, and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen," a clearly perturbed Cruz told reporters at a press conference in Wisconsin, as the battle for the Republican presidential nomination reached new levels of personal rancor.

Trump issued a statement saying he was not responsible for the article.

"I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin' Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence," Trump said in the statement. "Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz."

In other words, just as Cruz had "nothing" to do with the first naked photo of Melania that started off this latest scandal, so Trump had "nothing" to do with the Enquirer article.

Alas, the damage for Cruz may already have been done: the article exploded on Twitter overnight on Thursday. By Friday morning #CruzSexScandal was a worldwide trending topic on Twitter.

And while Trump has distanced himself from the Enquirer article, very much the same way Cruz distanced himself from the original attack ad, an aide to Donald Trump on Friday did fulfil the businessman's threat to "spill the beans" on Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi.

As The Hill first reported, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson rattled off a list of attacks three days after Trump first made the threat.

"Spilling the beans is quite simple when it comes to Heidi Cruz," Pierson said in an interview with MSNBC's Steve Kornacki.

"She is a Bush operative; she worked for the architect of NAFTA, which has killed millions of jobs in this country; she was a member on the Council on Foreign Relations who — in Sen. Cruz's own words, called a nest of snakes that seeks to undermine national sovereignty; and she's been working for Goldman Sachs, the same global bank that Ted Cruz left off of his financial disclosure," Pierson said.

"Her entire career has been spent working against everything Ted Cruz says that he stands for," she added.

Cruz spokeswoman Alice Stewart responded to the remarks in a statement to The Hill, saying, "There's no low the Trump campaign won't go."

Earlier in the MSNBC interview, Pierson said "this isn't about Heidi Cruz, this is about Melania Trump. Melania Trump was the one that was attacked."

Incidentally, she is right, even though that means that this most hypnotic scandal in the republican presidential primary race - and perhaps any US presidential race yet - is nowhere close to over as neither candidate can possibly concede defeat on a topic that is "near and dear" to the heart as one's wife.
Title: Re: Election 2016: Slut vs Slut
Post by: g on March 25, 2016, 08:18:39 PM
Quote
The Slut Wife Battle between the Donald and Bruise is heating up!

This is getting good!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

Ill say, what an election. Maybe a real good Cat Fight Next.  It's a Loooooong Way to November. :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: ;D :exp-grin: :exp-grin:


                                                       (http://cdn1.ticketsinventory.com/images/last_photos/concert/G/girly-girl-catfight-show/2011_girly-girl-catfight-show_13041474851851.png)



                                                       (http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-7/cat-fight.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 25, 2016, 09:48:59 PM
Heidi ho.
Title: Re: Election 2016: Slut vs Slut
Post by: Surly1 on March 26, 2016, 03:59:44 AM
The Slut Wife Battle between the Donald and Bruise is heating up!

This is getting good!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

Trump Aide "Spills The Beans" On Heidi Cruz As Media Goes Crazy Over #CruzSexScandal

Giving Charlie Pierce's nickname for Cruz- "Tailgunner Ted" (a comparison to the disgraced former Senator "Tailgunner Joe" Mccarthy) a new resonance.
Title: Open Carry Gunz at the RNC!
Post by: RE on March 26, 2016, 05:17:01 AM
This sounds like a really good idea.  ::)

Maybe they'll all shoot each other!  :icon_sunny:

RE

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/26/nearly-20000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/26/nearly-20000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention.html)

Second Amendment
Nearly 20,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention
Published March 26, 2016 FoxNews.com

Nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition to allow the open carry of firearms at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.

The group Americans For Responsible Open Carry started the petition on Change.org on Monday, according to the Akron Beacon-Journal. The petition had a goal of 5,000 signatures and by Wednesday it had reached the goal. As of early Saturday morning, the group had reached just over 18,000 signatures.

The GOP Republican National Convention is going to be held at the Quicken Loans Arena from July 18-21. The Ohio Republican Party told the Beacon-Journal it wasn’t aware of the petition.

The Secret Service along with Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, state and federal officials are handling the security at the event. The Secret Service banned guns at the GOP Convention in Florida four years ago.

“They are coordinating and will be continuously refining security plans leading up to the national convention,” Republican National Convention spokesperson Alee Lockman told the newspaper.

The group has a list of demands for the convention.

First, the group wants the arena to suspend its open-carry ban during the convention. The group then wants the NRA has to condemn Ohio’s law banning guns in some public places.

“Policies of the Quicken Loans Arena do not supersede the rights given to us by our Creator in the U.S. Constitution,” the petition reads.

Americans For Responsible Open Carry also want presidential contender Ohio Gov. John Kasich to use his executive power to override the so-called gun-free zone loophole in Ohio’s law. RNC Chairman Reince Preibus also must explain how “a venue so unfriendly to Second Amendment rights was chosen for the Republican Convention and have a backup plan to move the site if  the group’s demands aren’t met.

Finally they call for the three other candidates to pressure the GOP to protect the Second Amendment.

Ohio is an open-carry state, but they are not permitted in the Statehouse and even if concealed, could be banned by businesses and property owners, according to the Beacon-Journal.

Quicken Loans Arena forbids guns and weapons of any kind from “heavily attended” events.

The arena said it is following the state’s concealed carry law and the right for private businesses  to ban firearms on its property.

The petition claims that because Cleveland is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, forcing attendees to leave their weapons at home is putting everyone at risk.

“Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life.”
Title: Re: Election 2016: Slut vs Slut
Post by: Surly1 on March 26, 2016, 11:31:35 AM
The Slut Wife Battle between the Donald and Bruise is heating up!

This is getting good!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

Trump Aide "Spills The Beans" On Heidi Cruz As Media Goes Crazy Over #CruzSexScandal

Giving Charlie Pierce's nickname for Cruz- "Tailgunner Ted" (a comparison to the disgraced former Senator "Tailgunner Joe" Mccarthy) a new resonance.

From the twitterverse:

★★Poor Ted's wife. She trusTED but then he cheaTED and now he's busTED and his campaign is Toast. #CruzSexScandal

1) angry denial. 2) a counter against media. 3) the 'shame on you' attack. 4) admittance. 5) forgiveness by the grace of god #cruzsexscandal

People asking why MSM isn't picking up on the #CruzSexScandal. Because the source is The National Inquirer. Give it time.

National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Boardhttp://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-legit-pulitzer-prize-board/story?id=9887329 …#CruzSexScandal

If there's anything that makes me wish for the existence of mind bleach, it's the idea of a #CruzSexScandal

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeYkxS2WIAI9xEu.jpg)

John Fugelsang ‏@JohnFugelsang  16h16 hours ago
Guys I don't care about #CruzSexScandal because it has no bearing on his ability to be an effective fascist psychopath.

Betty F*ckin' White ‏@BettyFckinWhite  19h19 hours ago
Waiting for Trump to brag that he's had waaay more mistresses than 5. So many more. And much better looking. #cruzsexscandal

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ceawd_QW4AAEbnS.jpg:large)
Title: Anonymous Digs up the DIRT!
Post by: RE on March 26, 2016, 01:51:08 PM
I sure hope they have the goods and release it.  :icon_mrgreen:

Now, if they would just go after Shillary...

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-26/anonymous-threatens-expose-ted-cruz-prostitution-scandal (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-26/anonymous-threatens-expose-ted-cruz-prostitution-scandal)

Anonymous Threatens To Expose Ted Cruz Prostitution Scandal

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/26/2016 16:29 -0400

    Donald Trump None Twitter Twitter
 

There were many shots fired yesterday as the "wife feud" between Donald (and Melania) Trump and Ted (and Heidi) Cruz hit new lows, dragging none other than the National Enquirer tabloid into it and escalating the #CruzSexScandal into one of the most talked about topics on social media.

To be sure, Trump washed his hands of the affair saying "I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin' Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz."

Cruz was adamant, repeating that the Enquirer article linking him to five women is "garbage, complete and utter lies" and that "it's tabloid smear, and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen," a perturbed Cruz told reporters at a press conference in Wisconsin.

On this one occasion, however, Trump may be telling the truth because the source of the original Cruz rumor is none other than Donald Trump's old nemesis, the same hacker collective which recently released his social security and phone number, Anonymous.

As the following YouTube clip released on March 15, the Anonymous hacker group warned Ted Cruz last week to leave the race "or else."


As part of its #OpCruz assault, the hacker collective threatened to release information on Cruz engaging with prostitutes if he did not leave the race. Some of the highlights from the clip:

    Mr. Cruz, we are now demanding that you exit this race within 24 hours, or Anonymous will release all of the information we have found.

     

    It’s time that we tell America what’s hiding behind the curtain.

     

    Have you heard of the expression “candy wrappers”? Do you recall visiting prostitutes?

     

    Mr. Cruz, we are now demanding you exit this race immediately or Anonymous will release all of the information that we have found. Your so-called underground acts that you think were done in the dark, will be brought out for all the public to see. It will be sent to every media outlet to publicize your disgusting behavior.

     

    We assure you it will go viral on every social media platforms in a matter of minutes. Mr. Cruz your disgusting campaign ends now; your campaign to gain power with ulterior motives that include your wife will also be exposed.

     

    There is nothing from your past that won't haunt you."

In other words, the Anonymous #OpCruz started long before Trump and the Enquirer got involved, and in fact was already active when the Cruz SuperPAC released the first naked photo of Melania Trump early last week.

Judging by a twitter account linked to anonymous, it may well have been an Anonymous leak to the Enquirer that started it all, in which case all of Cruz' accusations aimed at Trump (such as even this most bizarre one) are slanderous, although there is no way to know for sure.

 

The question now is whether Anonymous will carry through with its threat, and release the factual backing of its accusations either directly or via media outlets, just as it did in its feud with Trump, or will it quietly back down.

 

The latest tweets from the Anonymous-linked twitter account suggest that something big may be indeed imminent:
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 26, 2016, 02:04:36 PM
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/564c92434622404799ff53e3d20a20fc/tumblr_inline_o4e38uj8xg1t63ajm_500.jpg)

The role of social media in the election of 2016 cannot be overstated. I think Scott Adams is on to something.


Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 26, 2016, 02:13:25 PM
Hillary's corruption is plain for anyone to see who is willing to look, which is why her continued broad support leads me to believe that:

Hillary supporters are just not that sophisticated. They are voting for a poster child, not a real human being.

I have this mental vision of Hillary washing her hands compulsively like Lady MacBeth, after visiting a black church for a photo op to prove how liberal she is.

Doctor:
What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands.

Gentlewoman:
It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus
washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of
an hour.

Lady Macbeth:
Yet here's a spot.

Doctor:
Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to
satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.

Lady Macbeth:
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt
Title: Bernie Wins Alaska!
Post by: RE on March 26, 2016, 03:29:17 PM
I am SHOCKED!  :o

Apparently, Alaska Dems hate Shillary more than they hate Socialism.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/election-results.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/election-results.html?_r=0)

Bernie Sanders Wins Alaska; Washington State and Hawaii Democrats Are Also Voting

By AMY CHOZICKMARCH 26, 2016

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/03/27/us/27caucuses-web01ALT/27caucuses-web01ALT-master675.jpg)

People voted in Seattle on Saturday during Washington’s Democratic caucuses. The state is the largest prize of the day, with 118 delegates. Credit Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Senator Bernie Sanders has won the Alaska Democratic caucuses, according to The Associated Press, one of three contests on Saturday that could give his campaign a fresh burst of momentum heading into the Midwest and Northeast primaries next month.

Democrats in Washington and Hawaii were also voting Saturday in the last contests of March.

Washington, the largest prize of the day with 101 delegates in play, and Alaska, with 16 delegates, held caucuses, essentially local voting meetings: the kind of contests where Mr. Sanders has done well. Both states also have relatively low percentages of black and Hispanic voters, two groups that have favored Hillary Clinton this year.

Hawaii Democrats are awarding 25 delegates based on a “presidential preference poll,” a hybrid event in which voters show up at a scheduled meeting, like a caucus, but vote by secret ballot, like a primary.

Republicans are not holding any contests today. The next nominating battle for both parties will be the April 5 primaries in Wisconsin.

Mr. Sanders thrashed Mrs. Clinton in the caucuses in Idaho and Utah on Tuesday, by 57 and 59 percentage points, respectively, and his campaign anticipated similar results Saturday. Mrs. Clinton will have a chance to regain momentum, and a wash of delegates, when the Democratic primary moves to her adoptive home state, New York, on April 19.

“We’ve carried 11 states up to now, and with your help at the caucus on Saturday we’re going to win Washington,” Mr. Sanders told 7,000 people at a rally Thursday in Yakima, Wash., where Yakama Nation tribal dancers performed and supporters stomped their feet and banged on drums. “And if we can do well in Washington, do well in Hawaii, do well in Alaska, we have a road to victory.”
Photo
Senator Bernie Sanders during a rally in Portland, Ore., on Friday. Mr. Sanders thrashed Hillary Clinton in the caucuses in Idaho and Utah on Tuesday. Credit Steve Dykes/Associated Press

But the realities of the map mean that even a sweep on Saturday may not do much to bridge his divide with Mrs. Clinton, who has 300 more so-called pledged delegates, based on voting, and 400 more “superdelegates,” party leaders and elected officials, than Mr. Sanders.

The string of victories and favorable states for Mr. Sanders can, however, serve an important purpose in keeping his campaign viable, with his newly emboldened supporters continuing to donate online and Mr. Sanders drawing huge crowds like the more than 15,000 people who came out to hear him speak in Seattle on Friday.

Mr. Sanders’s rally on Friday just over the state line in Portland, Ore., went viral after a sparrow perched on the candidate’s podium, prompting the hashtag #BirdieSanders. “I think there may be some symbolism here,” Mr. Sanders said to a roar of applause.
Photo
Hillary Clinton at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles on Thursday. With Mr. Sanders laser-focused on income inequality and taking on Wall Street, Mrs. Clinton has continued to reach out to working-class voters. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Lately on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton, bracing for some losses in the caucus states, seemed to have grown annoyed by the running commentary that Mr. Sanders’s campaign has drawn from more enthusiastic supporters. “I totally respect the passion of my opponent’s supporters, absolutely respect it,” Mrs. Clinton said while campaigning in Washington on Tuesday.

“And here’s what I want you to know,” she continued, “I have, as of now, gotten more votes than anybody else, including Donald Trump. I have gotten 2.6 million more votes than Bernie Sanders” and “have a bigger lead in pledged delegates, the ones you win from people voting, than Barack Obama had at this time in 2008.”

Mrs. Clinton has shifted her focus and her words to taking on the Republicans in November, but Mr. Sanders’s proven influence over liberal voters she would need in a general election has made her calibrate her messages on both domestic and foreign policy.
First Draft Newsletter

Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.

With Mr. Sanders laser-focused on income inequality and taking on Wall Street, Mrs. Clinton has continued to reach out to working-class voters, including holding a rally on Tuesday at a machinists and aerospace workers union hall at the Boeing factory in Everett, Wash.

“I was made an honorary machinist some years ago, so I feel a particular connection here to my brothers and sisters in the machinists,” she told the crowd. “I am no person new to this struggle. I am not the latest flavor of the month. I have been doing this work day in and day out for years.”

She also spoke of her support for the Export-Import bank, the government-backed agency that provides low-interest loans to help companies doing international business, like Boeing, and which Mr. Sanders has opposed as “corporate welfare.”

And as Mrs. Clinton sought to demonstrate her toughness and preparedness to be commander in chief in response to the terrorist attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, she also had to avoid inflaming liberal primary voters who still associate her with her Senate vote to authorize the Iraq war.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton said the responses to the Brussels attacks by the leading Republican candidates, Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, amounted to “reckless actions” that would alienate American allies, demonize Muslims and embolden Russia.

Yamiche Alcindor contributed reporting.

Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on March 26, 2016, 04:03:39 PM
Beat this!

http://www.youtube.com/v/Jc2TVLoxsDA
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 26, 2016, 05:35:54 PM
Ted must wish his election was going as well as his erection.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 26, 2016, 05:58:24 PM
Cuban Mistress Crisis
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 26, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Beat this!

http://www.youtube.com/v/Jc2TVLoxsDA

That cfs on education and war should be obvious to all and not something the rest of the remaining candidates need to beat.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on March 26, 2016, 06:53:33 PM
Cuban Mistress Crisis

I remember seeing this and thinking it was SO fake, no surprise hes another Jimmy Swaggart.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDmURYy2hs
Title: "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into !"
Post by: K-Dog on March 26, 2016, 09:55:14 PM
(http://static.gamesradar.com/images/totalfilm/s/sons-of-the-desert-1933--00.jpg)

I leave work yesterday and Bernie is having his biggest rally ever about a mile away.  Normally I'd pass the stadium and hop on a cantilever called Edgar Martinez Way, getting on the western end of I-90 heading east over the lake then south on I-405 on to home.  Generally it is twelve miles or forty five minutes, whichever comes first.  The trip around the south end of the lake, perhaps as long as twenty one miles takes closer to the forty five minutes but it is slightly less than that and more consistent with time. 

Generally starting north to the stadium is the way to go but I've noticed the area in the last two days (SODO) has been crawling with law enforcement of every conceivable kind and some kinds of which you can't even conceive of.  A baseball game at the stadium can severely inter-fear with the commute as it is and I guessed with Bernie Sanders in town the northern route might be a bit dicey.  I headed south.  I knew Bernie would be arriving soon but I had no desire to rally and there is nothing Bernie could possibly say to make me a supporter because I already am.  I was not in the mood for circus.

I get home and no Mrs. Dog.  Turns out she is with our son at the rally and they lucked out to get seating four rows back from the home plate stage about a hundred feet from Bernie in spite of deciding to go at the last minute.  Other people not so lucky had been lined up to get into the stadium since noon.  Fair Fortuna had been with my family.

After I spend a lonesome evening alone they had come home.  It was late at night and they were both animated and inspired muttering things like 'political revolution' and 'get out the vote'. 

With wry pleasure; knowing that neither one of them are morning people, I said to them.  'Since you are both so inspired you will have to get up in the morning and get to our Democratic Party Caucus at Newcastle Elementary to see that Bernie is chosen as the candidate from our local district.'  I knew about the District Democratic Caucus in the morning only because a Sanders volunteer had called the house earlier in the evening and had urged me to be there for Bernie.  To be nice to him, I had said I'd think about it not telling him how protective I am about my Satrurday mornings which usually involves at least a couple of hours laying about in a Hugh Hefner bathrobe being contemplative and that is all.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Meff53088131ecc5caea931427651f15ao2%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)

That is the story of how I wound up at the Democratic Caucus this morning with Mrs. Dog.  Our son who had left late last night to hook up with his girl friend must have gone to her Democratic Caucus because he wasn't there.  It was an interesting experience and after a preliminary vote which would have given Bernie three of five delegates from our local precinct at the county wide caucus (the next step) to represent him we talked.  After another vote and by following the written instructions we had been provided, Bernie wound up getting four of the five local delegates to the Democratic Caucus for King County from my district precinct.  One went to Clinton.  King County is twice the size of Rhode Island.

I am one of the delegates to the county caucus and will be representing Bernie on behalf of the Democrats in my local district after being duly elected to do so.

 :icon_sunny:

And as RE says, who coulda knowd!

(http://chasingthesquirrel.com/pics/WaCaucus.png)

Bernie is on a roll.  The rally in Seattle was huge.  Bernie can take the entire West Coast if he keeps up his momentum and that will give him more delegates than Clinton.  That is the plan.  Despite the media disparaging Bernie and building up Clinton every chance they get, the results in Washington show that some of us still have a few clues and don't drink the mass media Kool-Aid with as much abandon as has been assumed.  Mass media radio is spinning the Sanders win as 'he can't keep up the momentum so why bother'.  The voice of empire speaks to quell Sander's gains.

We shall see.

Helping Bernie get that extra delegate was a rewarding experience.  I did some of the talking and helped change a few minds.  I'll have fun at the county caucus.  I might wind up being the dog that makes all the difference.

I'M REPRESENTING !!!
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 26, 2016, 11:10:18 PM
Surly will be INCREDIBLY Jealous!  (http://rs289.pbsrc.com/albums/ll224/SmokeJumperFirearms/SMILEYS/GREENWITHENVY.gif~c200)

I will publish this report on the blog.

RE
Title: Re: "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into !"
Post by: RE on March 26, 2016, 11:14:58 PM
Do you get to go to the DNC?

RE
Title: Diners for Sanders
Post by: RE on March 27, 2016, 01:23:42 AM
I remain morally and ethically opposed to Voting.

However, I am not morally and ethically opposed to encouraging OTHER people to Vote!  :icon_sunny:

Call me a hypocrite.  I DARE you.  LOL.

If you go to the Diner Blog Home Page, you will see that the Diner has now come out with an Endorsement of Bernie Sanders which is visible in the Front Screen on the Top Right Menu Bar in a prominent location.  It Links to BernieSanders.com.  This will remain up through the DNC and through the POTUS election if Bernie wins the Nomination or runs on a 3rd Party Ticket.

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bernie-diners.png)

Making myself ready to be character assassinated.  lol.

RE
Title: Sanders Sweeps Alaska, Washington & Hawaii
Post by: RE on March 27, 2016, 01:52:33 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/election-2016-alaska-hawaii-washington-caucuses-highlights/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/election-2016-alaska-hawaii-washington-caucuses-highlights/index.html)

Bernie Sanders' big day

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bernie-diners.png)

By Maeve Reston, CNN

Updated 10:54 PM ET, Sat March 26, 2016 | Video Source: CNN
Story highlights

    Bernie Sanders hopes wins Saturday will help build momentum for larger states later on
    Hillary Clinton has a commanding overall lead in delegates
    The wins amid record turnout are reaffirmation of Sanders' appeal to the Democratic base

(CNN)Saturday was a big day for Bernie Sanders' quest for the Democratic presidential nomination as he swept to resounding victories in the caucus states of Washington and Alaska. But the delegate math is still in Hillary Clinton's favor.
'Western Saturday' on CNN in 90 seconds

'Western Saturday' on CNN in 90 seconds 01:33
Hawaii is holding caucuses Saturday as well; results are expected after midnight ET.

The wins amid record turnout are reaffirmation of Sanders' appeal to the Democratic base and served to encourage the Vermont senator to argue that his momentum -- including recent wins in the Idaho and Utah caucuses -- will carry him to the nomination.
"We knew things were going to improve as we headed West," Sanders said at a jubilant rally before 8,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin -- a state that will hold the next major contest in 10 days. "We have a path toward victory."
Takeaways from Western Saturday
Clinton built up her delegate lead on the back of a strong run in the South, and Sanders argued Saturday his campaign always knew those states would be tough. In Madison, he said the map now offers more opportunities for his campaign as the contest progressed, largely because his wins are being powered by huge turnout among younger voters.
"With your help we're going to win right here in Wisconsin," he said. "So don't let anyone tell you we can't win the nomination, or win the general election. We're going to do both of those things."
But even with his big victories on Saturday, Sanders faces steep hurdles in catching Clinton in the delegate count. While Washington had 101 delegates up for grabs, and both candidates spent a significant amount of time there, Hawaii and Alaska were relatively small prizes -- with just 25 and 16 delegates at stake respectively.
Clinton's campaign privately acknowledged that Saturday would be a good one for Sanders, and her efforts in Washington were aimed mostly at trying to keep the race relatively close, as delegates are distributed proportionally. But with over 90% delegates accounted for, Sanders held a wide lead over Clinton in Washington, 72% to 28%. Alaska was more lopsided: Sanders won 80% to 20%.
Sanders tweets illustration of #BirdieSanders
Bird lands on podium; crowd erupts

Bird lands on podium; crowd erupts 01:06
Even though Wisconsin could be fertile territory for Sanders on April 5, Clinton is poised to do well in her home state of New York on April 19 with its 247 pledged delegates. She also faces favorable territory in the upcoming Super Tuesday contest on April 26 when Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and Maryland voters head to the polls and nearly 400 pledged delegates are at stake.
While Sanders shaved Clinton's lead in the delegate count, the former secretary of state had amassed 1,711 of the 2,383 delegates she would need to clinch the nomination before Saturday's contests, according to CNN estimates. Before the voting Saturday, Sanders had notched 952 delegates to date. That means he would need to win 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to defeat her.
Warning shot to Clinton
Clinton did not address the results publicly on Saturday, but her campaign sought to raise money off her losses in Saturday's contests, portraying them as a warning to donors. A short time after CNN projected Alaska as a win for Sanders, Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook circulated an email to her supporters billed as a "quick update on Bernie Sanders."
"We haven't caught up in online fundraising, and our opponent could do very well in today's caucuses in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii," Mook said in the email before the Washington and Hawaii results had been called. "Now, I don't want to paint too gloomy a picture -- you've been amazing. Thanks to you, we still have a commanding delegate lead, and we can secure this nomination for Hillary with your help," he said, asking them to "chip in."
Kimmel shows Clinton how to curb the 'shrill'

Kimmel shows Clinton how to curb the 'shrill' 01:10
Sanders's strategists have argued that their unique fundraising capabilities could help them pull off an upset -- arguing that the process for Clinton was "frontloaded" and that they have grassroots fundraising resources that past campaigns have lacked.
Washington and Alaska had always looked to be favorable territory for Sanders, because they are predominantly white and rural -- states with the kind of demographic makeup that has favored Sanders.
"He's obviously doing well in these Western caucus states, because you get a very committed base of younger voters who are willing to show up and stand in line in states like Idaho and Utah for hours," said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who is unaligned in the presidential race this cycle. "The message that Sanders has is a classic western populist message: Wall Street is sticking it to us, these big money interests are sticking it to us, and we're out here scrambling, paying pretty heavy negative dividends for their behavior."
But Clinton had campaigned in Washington after losing to Barack Obama by about a 2-1 margin in 2008. Her campaign made a major push to get voters to return Washington's version of absentee ballots -- known as "surrogate affidavits" --- mailing them directly to voters with postage-paid return envelopes.
Given those efforts, the size of Sanders's margins on Saturday served as a warning shot to Clinton, allowing him to make the argument at his rally in Madison that he was "making significant inroads" into Clinton's delegate lead.
Superdelegate strategy
That is key to the Sanders strategy going forward, particularly when it comes to swaying superdelegates, who could be key at the Democratic Convention in July. Currently Clinton has the edge with some 482 superdelegates pledging to support her, according to CNN estimates. But Sanders allies point out those people can always change their minds.
"There are hundreds of other superdelegates, by the way, who are uncommitted," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux in an interview Saturday. "For them, it would be very easy for them to be with the Secretary, but they're not which tells you something about where they probably are."
"Superdelegates want to win in November," Weaver continued, "and as we demonstrate in the second half of this primary season that we have the momentum, that we can carry with large margins these states, and with the public polls which have shown consistently that Bernie Sanders does better against every single possible Republican than does Hillary Clinton -- I think superdelegates are going to begin to take another look."
The excitement for Sanders, marked by a large rally at Seattle's Safeco Field Friday evening, is something Sanders is counting on as he heads in to the delegate-rich contests that favor Clinton on the East Coast.
Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said Sanders wins in small and medium-sized states "almost certainly will not be enough to derail Clinton from the nomination," but adds there's more to it for the Vermont senator.
"For all practical purposes, winning states like these are talking points for Sanders," Schnur said. "But for what he's after at this point, talking points might be good enough. In other words, winning Alaska and Hawaii isn't going to keep Clinton from getting the nomination, but it keeps his supporters enthused; it keeps the money coming in; and allows him to continue having a platform."
Big turnout in Hawaii
Polling had been scarce in Hawaii and Alaska, making it difficult to predict the outcome of those contests heading in to Saturday, but Sanders outspent Clinton on the airwaves.
Sanders's wife Jane campaigned in Hawaii last Sunday and Monday with popular Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who broke with Democratic Party leadership to show her support for Sanders.
Still, Clinton's ties to Hawaii date back to 1992 when she campaigned in Honolulu for her husband. Her campaign is well organized in Hawaii and she has racked up endorsements from key state leaders including Sens. Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, as well as former Gov. George Ariyoshi.
This week Sanders released an emotional ad featuring Gabbard, who served a 12-month tour in Iraq, talking about the importance of Sanders' vote against the Iraq War and his pledge to "take the trillions of dollars that are sent on these interventionist, regime change, unnecessary wars, and invest it here at home."
"The American people are not looking to settle for inches," Gabbard says in the ad. "They're looking for real change."
As in other states, turnout was high in Hawaii on Saturday. There were long lines outside Manoa Elementary in Honolulu as voting got started at 1 p.m. local time Saturday.
Officials were expecting at least 15% more Democratic voters than eight years ago when 37,583 Democrats voted. This year, the party protectively printed 100,000 ballots, Hawaii Democratic spokesperson Ethan Oki said.

CNN's Sara Sidner in Seattle, Paul Vercammen in Anchorage, Jason Carroll in Olympia Washington, Bill Kirkos in Honolulu; and Kevin Bohn, Brianna Keiler, Elizabeth Landers, Dan Merica and Gabe Ramirez contributed to this report
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 27, 2016, 07:13:32 AM
Surly will be INCREDIBLY Jealous!  (http://rs289.pbsrc.com/albums/ll224/SmokeJumperFirearms/SMILEYS/GREENWITHENVY.gif~c200)

I will publish this report on the blog.

RE

Not at all. I think it's great. Will be instructive to have someone on the inside of the beast, so to speak.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 27, 2016, 07:55:07 AM
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/564c92434622404799ff53e3d20a20fc/tumblr_inline_o4e38uj8xg1t63ajm_500.jpg)

The role of social media in the election of 2016 cannot be overstated. I think Scott Adams is on to something.

This is very perceptive, I think.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 27, 2016, 07:57:14 AM
Sorry. can't help myself.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cehxx9kW8AAmv7M.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on March 27, 2016, 12:55:43 PM
NOW for our next President (Senator Sanders   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)) to trounce Hitlery in California! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on March 27, 2016, 12:59:42 PM
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/564c92434622404799ff53e3d20a20fc/tumblr_inline_o4e38uj8xg1t63ajm_500.jpg)

The role of social media in the election of 2016 cannot be overstated. I think Scott Adams is on to something.

This is very perceptive, I think.

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)        (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)            (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/balloons.gif)
Title: The man who did not come out of nowhere who says the right things!
Post by: K-Dog on March 27, 2016, 05:14:05 PM
Do you get to go to the DNC?

RE

After the  county caucus some will go on to the state caucus and from there delegates to the D.N.C. will be elected.  That is my understanding of the process so far.  If I bark for Sanders right I could wind up going to the state caucus without too much trouble I suppose.  I expect getting as far as the D.N.C could wind up being a bit more 'political'.  Saturday I did not compare Hillary to Rodan the Flying Reptile even once!  I figured I might be in a crowd where some people actually like her and so I was careful what I said.  The most I went in a negative direction regarding Hillary was when I said.

Quote
I don't think she is actually evil but .........

The overall feeling about Hillary behind the closed doors of the elementary school was that she is inconsistent.  A political deal maker who does not have consistency because she is always doing what 'the money' tells her to do.  She blows in the wind and was called a flip flopper.  Sanders was portrayed to be consistent in his positions with thirty years of solid experience working for principles of social inclusion that the democratic party takes seriously.  At least on the local level this appears to be true, we all know the Democratic Party leadership has other priorities living as they do in the stratosphere but at my caucus Saturday the principles of the Democratic party were explained along with the rules on what to do.  Sanders was also felt to be a 'stronger' anti-war candidate.  I thought that was a good way to put it.  Nice and gentle, and non-confrontational.

Here is a picture of Sanders at the Seattle rally.  It came from my sons cell phone.  This is a diner exclusive.


(http://chasingthesquirrel.com/pics/feelThe%20Bern.png)

One of the caucus rules was that you were not suppose to mention opposition candidates by name.  It is a good rule and it forced concentration on the relative strengths between Bernie and Hillary on their positions and records.  For the most part this rule was observed but a few times a name or a couple of initials slipped out but when that happened it was relevant to a point being made and was no big deal.

I did point out that Bernie has a better chance of beating 'The Republicans' than Hillary does.

My son told me that he had thought about making it to the caucus on Saturday but he figured getting me to go was good enough.  This turned out to be true.  No way was Sanders going to take all the delegates from our district.  Four of five was the best we were going to do.
Title: Re: The man who did not come out of nowhere who says the right things!
Post by: RE on March 27, 2016, 05:34:12 PM
Add this to the article for the Blog.

I'll head the article with the Exclusive Pic.  :icon_sunny:

I'll publish it as a Feature Article when ready.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 27, 2016, 05:41:31 PM
Well done, Dog.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on March 27, 2016, 07:49:53 PM
K-Dog, perhaps you will get the opportunity to talk to campaign insiders to get the approved line for dealing with this tricky question.  Bernie wants to root out terrorist funding networks:

Quote
https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/
We must work with our allies to root out terrorist funding networks ...

and Hilary had 4 years to do that as Secretary of State.  What was known one year into that period was summarised in this cable from Sec Of State to Embassies in the Middle East:  [my red emphasis]

Quote
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE131801_a.html
TERRORIST FINANCE: ACTION REQUEST FOR SENIOR LEVEL ENGAGEMENT ON TERRORISM FINANCE
Date: 2009 December 30, 13:28
From: Secretary of State
To: Department of the Treasury | Kuwait Kuwait City | Pakistan Islamabad | Qatar Doha | Saudi Arabia Riyadh | United Arab Emirates Abu Dhabi

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE131801_a.html#efmBvYBxO

7. (U) Saudi Arabia background
 
(S/NF) While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.  Due in part to intense focus by the USG over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern.  Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.  Continued senior-level USG engagement is needed to build on initial efforts and encourage the Saudi government to take more steps to stem the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia-based sources to terrorists and extremists worldwide.
 
      (S/NF) The USG engages regularly with the Saudi Government on terrorist financing.  The establishment in 2008 of a Treasury attache office presence in Riyadh contributes to robust interaction and information sharing on the issue. Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done  since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
(S/NF) Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities.  However, these restrictions fail to include "multilateral organizations" such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.  In 2002, the Saudi government promised to set up a
"Charities Committee" that would address this issue, but has yet to do so. The establishment of such a mechanism, however, is secondary to the primary U.S. goal of obtaining Saudi acknowledgement of the scope of this problem and a commitment to take decisive action.
 
(S/NF) Department note: The Department received post's comments regarding embassy staffing at Riyadh and recommendations for enhancing bilateral cooperation (ref B). The Department agrees with post's recommendation that the U.S. must reinforce, on a political level, the Saudi Arabia Government's recent acknowledgement that terrorist groups other than al-Qa'ida are a threat both to it and to regional stability. The Department also supports post's assessment that consistent engagement, including the exchange of actionable intelligence, by senior USG officials is paramount. We plan to discuss these issues with the SAG during upcoming senior-level USG visits.
 
8. (U) Saudi Arabia talking points
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We recognize your government's efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida networks in the Kingdom and we reaffirm our commitment to support the Saudi government in its actions on terror finance.  We encourage your government to continue efforts against al-Qa'ida and stress the importance of sharing and acting on information related to terrorist financing.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We note your concerns with fundraising in the Kingdom by al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups and urge decisive action to enforce the UN 1267-mandated asset freeze against Taliban and LeT fundraising similar to Saudi efforts to enforce UN 1267 sanctions and take other appropriate action to target al-Qa'ida.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We underscore that the Taliban and LeT are aligned with al-Qa'ida and that your government's support for disrupting the financing of these groups is critical to the stability of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the broader Central and South Asian region. We emphasize the need to prevent the Taliban from using the cover of reconciliation talks to raise funds.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We urge your government to assume responsibility for the overseas operations of charities and NGOs headquartered in the Kingdom.  We encourage you to prevent terrorists and their supporters from exploiting religious events (Hajj, Umrah, Ramadan) to raise funds.  We acknowledge the recent adoption of stricter financial controls on charities, but urge greater regulation and oversight of the Saudi charitable sector.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We would like to stress our interest in broadening and deepening this dialogue and information exchange as we still lack detailed information on the ultimate sources of terrorist financing emanating from the Kingdom.  We commend your government for recent efforts to put terrorists and terrorist financiers on trial, and we encourage you to publicize details of prosecutions to maximize the deterrent effects.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) You have had success in detaining and deterring financial facilitators.  However, we encourage your government also to focus on the long-term and more fundamental goal of dissuading donors from funding violent extremism.
 
(S/REL USA, SAU) We commend your government's effort over the past several years to use the media, internet, and other forms of public outreach to discourage extremism.  We emphasize that a critical component in this campaign is cutting off the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to foreign religious, charitable, and educational organizations that propagate violent extremist ideologies to vulnerable populations.
 

The cable continues with backgrounders and talking points on Kuwait, UAE, Pakistan and Qatar, that are equally damning of the cooperation of our allies in cracking down on terrorism funding.

What would Bernie do to improve on Hilary's efforts, (which have clearly been unproductive) ?

This would give Bernie the opportunity to duck for cover if he wanted to ("just Wikileaks nonsense"), or be critical of Hilary if he wanted to (so long as he has a better option), or just go for "more of the same".
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 29, 2016, 08:13:45 AM
On the lighter side.


Media Unimpressed as Sanders Barely Gets Seventy Percent of Vote

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

28 March 16

 Bernie Sanders failed to impress major media outlets over the weekend as he barely managed to win seventy per cent of the vote in three western primaries.

The major cable networks briefly mentioned Sanders’s vote tallies in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii but noted that he ran out of steam well shy of eighty per cent.

“There’s no point in sugarcoating it,” one analyst put it. “Rough night for Sanders.”

According to one cable executive, Sanders needs to “put up some big numbers fast” if he expects the networks to continue giving his campaign airtime.

“It’s going to be harder and harder to justify covering him while he’s stuck down in the seventy-per-cent range,” the executive said.

While Sanders campaign officials remain optimistic about the upcoming primary in Wisconsin, media outlets are calling it a “do or die” state after his sputtering finishes over the weekend.

“I think if he limps across the finish line with, say, seventy-five or seventy-nine per cent, it’s going to be time for him to reassess things,” one cable representative said. “That would have to be a wake-up call.”

A spokesperson for CNN could not be reached for comment, as the network was busy preparing a ninety-minute special on the birth of Donald Trump’s new grandchild.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36014-media-unimpressed-as-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-percent-of-vote (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36014-media-unimpressed-as-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-percent-of-vote)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on March 29, 2016, 09:26:48 AM
Barely seventy percent.  And that’s bad how?  (I am being rhetorical).

Yes, I heard a bit of National Petroleum Radio yesterday and they were making it abundantly clear that Sanders has no chance of winning.  After dissing Sanders and Sanders supporters they would immediately stick Clinton supporters on the air so the emotional tone and not the content of what they were alleging about Sanders would sink into a listeners brain.  I found the manipulation quite obvious and disgusting but I also realized that an average listener without a clue as to what was really going on could be easily taken in simply because they are predisposed to assume that NPR has professional objectivity.  Throwing in the Clinton supporters in the clever way NPR did prevented the brain from going; wait a minute 70% is winning by a huge margin.  The listener was given no time to process the manipulation.

NPR once had professional objectivity but that was surgically removed about ten years ago in the Bush era and few fans were notified about the change.  Excising NPR objectivity was also a change Obama could believe in because he certainly did nothing to reverse it.

Palloy, I'll look into the tricky question after work.  I have to get going now.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 29, 2016, 11:16:34 AM
On the lighter side.


Media Unimpressed as Sanders Barely Gets Seventy Percent of Vote

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

28 March 16

 Bernie Sanders failed to impress major media outlets over the weekend as he barely managed to win seventy per cent of the vote in three western primaries.

The major cable networks briefly mentioned Sanders’s vote tallies in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii but noted that he ran out of steam well shy of eighty per cent.

“There’s no point in sugarcoating it,” one analyst put it. “Rough night for Sanders.”

According to one cable executive, Sanders needs to “put up some big numbers fast” if he expects the networks to continue giving his campaign airtime.

“It’s going to be harder and harder to justify covering him while he’s stuck down in the seventy-per-cent range,” the executive said.

While Sanders campaign officials remain optimistic about the upcoming primary in Wisconsin, media outlets are calling it a “do or die” state after his sputtering finishes over the weekend.

“I think if he limps across the finish line with, say, seventy-five or seventy-nine per cent, it’s going to be time for him to reassess things,” one cable representative said. “That would have to be a wake-up call.”

A spokesperson for CNN could not be reached for comment, as the network was busy preparing a ninety-minute special on the birth of Donald Trump’s new grandchild.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36014-media-unimpressed-as-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-percent-of-vote (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36014-media-unimpressed-as-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-percent-of-vote)

Fortunate that the reader was notified that this was satire right at the top of the article...even if it wasn't included in your quote.

Hell, if we had some conspiracy nuts around here, you know, 9/11 truthers, faked moon landing and rogue star, Mayan calendar types, they might even have taken it seriously!!

 :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 29, 2016, 02:17:52 PM
I'll offer the following graph on the assumption that readers here can (a) make sense of it and (b) interpret it in context with recent history and events.:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary)

Where are these lines headed?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 29, 2016, 05:44:32 PM
James! So nice of you to drop in.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 08:50:57 AM
It's nice to see you, too, Eddie.

>pours Eddie a virtual cup of tea<

That graph is interesting, isn't it?

I remember when everyone said "I love Bernie, but there is no way on gawd's green Earth he could beat Hilary for the nomination".

But is this really so?  If he takes California and a few other large states Hillary may find herself chasing Bernie's lead.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 30, 2016, 09:00:36 AM
I'd be very happy about that, but realistically, I think the party machine will still deliver it to Hillary.

I am willing to hope, however. Go Bernie.

My mantra is::

No Cruz, No Hillary, No Matter What.

I don't like Trump, but he's number three on my "Vote Against" list. a Bernie nomination would make my decision a lot easier in November.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 09:14:29 AM
Hillary has long been an opportunistic weathervane, and is likely to remain one into the future. 

(Political weathervanes never take a stand for anything at any risk to them or their political careers. They just blow where the Establishment BAU wind is blowing.)

She went for the military industrial congressional media war mongering.

She dragged her heals on same sex marriage until the whole country shifted toward favoring it.

 ... Well, and the longer list of reasons provided here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on March 30, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
If Bernie can take NY where Shillary was Senator, that will put her on the run, and bring powerful momentum into CA.

Depends how the Black folks in NY vote, hopefully they are less clueless than the southern Black folks.  Also how the NY Wimen vote.

You can GUARANTEE that Bernie will take the entire NY Jewish Vote.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on March 30, 2016, 10:19:08 AM
I'll offer the following graph on the assumption that readers here can (a) make sense of it and (b) interpret it in context with recent history and events.:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary)

Where are these lines headed?

Indeed, JRM, good to see you again in these here parts.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 02:18:46 PM
"Indeed, JRM, good to see you again in these here parts."

Thanks Surly1. It's a pleasure to bump into you as well.

My partner, K,  and I were just talking..., he mentioned that Thom Hartmann was just recently airing some snippets from both Hillary and Bernie in juxtaposition.  He says Hillary is sounding more and more like Bernie. Funny how that works(!) ... and that it's not the other way around.  And it lends support to what I said about Hillary being a "weathervane".  Weathervanes point to the direction from which the wind is blowing at the moment.  They do not contribute to shifting or influencing wind direction.  Hillary is trying to gain some of the weather Bernie is creating by turning and pointing like a bird dog. And her approach may well get her elected. But if it does? Will Hillary stand up for anything?  My bet is that she won't.  And that's why she is a weather instrument, not a real candidate.  You may even call her a bag of wind.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 30, 2016, 02:30:50 PM
I think Hillary can be depended on...to do the bidding of Goldman-Sachs and JPM. And to do whatever the Deep State wants her to do....and to engage in gunboat diplomacy and regime change du jour all over the world.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 03:12:53 PM
"Deep State" is an interesting phrase.

Do you remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYS647HTgks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYS647HTgks)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 30, 2016, 03:35:22 PM
That's a good video. Haven't seen it before, but there are many other watchdogs saying the same thing, including Paul Craig Roberts, who gets quoted here quite often.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 30, 2016, 03:58:30 PM
"Deep State" is an interesting phrase.

Do you remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYS647HTgks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYS647HTgks)

'Deep State" appears to be a synonym of bureaucratic inertia. Which means it is capricious, random, competent only by accident, and doesn't have near the sinister nature some assign to it.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 30, 2016, 04:12:37 PM
'Deep State" appears to be a synonym of bureaucratic inertia.

Oh, I think it's a little more than that, although bureaucracy is a big part of the problem. There are so many off-the-books black ops and various alphabet soup security agencies pursuing various agendas with too much money and no oversight. And it also has to do with all the money being shoved into politicians pockets in various quasi-legal ways by corporate entities. Clinton plays ball with the corporates, or they wouldn't  be paying her tens of millions of dollars for speaking at functions where people sit and eat rubber chicken.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 05:05:02 PM
" ... or they wouldn't  be paying her tens of millions of dollars for speaking at functions where people sit and eat rubber chicken."

Chuckle.

But not because any of this stuff is really funny.  But one has to laugh anyway.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 05:12:02 PM
I can't decide if I want to participate in the primary as a Republican (against Cruz) or Democrat(against Hillary). Choices, choices.

I actually LIKE Bernie, and would vote FOR him rather than against Hillary.  You don't like Bernie?

Deep in my heart I'm a radically decentralist voluntary communalist (not a Communist!).  Only perhaps .5% (half of 1 percent) likely has the foggiest notion of what that means, so it's a pipe dream for the time being.  I'll take what Bernie offers as vastly, outrageously better than any of the alternatives currently on the actual table.  I'm feeling the Bern.

(We gotta be careful about saying "feeling the bird". lol)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on March 30, 2016, 06:50:27 PM
I was looking at the Texas primary.

Hillary was a lock for sure, no matter what I did, so I did something Democrats have done for a long time, which is to register Republican, and then vote against the Republican you hate the very worst. Here that was obviously Cruz, who is absolutely abominable, and therefore popular among the Evangelical know-nothings who pass for voters here.

As usual, what I did was not enough, because Cruz carried the state easily, in spite of my vote against him. In my local precinct, Rubio was tops, just to give you some idea how more affluent Texans might feel. In most places, especially in the DFW area (home of Glenn Beck), the Christian Right gets the vote out better than any other bloc.

Sanders would get my vote if he got the nomination. You do have to understand that a vote for Bernie is hard for me, because I already pay so much tax, and more would be very onerous. If you had to turn loose of as much of your hard-earned money as I do, you would not be so happy to support a socialist.

Communalism should be voluntary, imho. And preferably local in nature.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 30, 2016, 06:51:02 PM
'Deep State" appears to be a synonym of bureaucratic inertia.

Oh, I think it's a little more than that, although bureaucracy is a big part of the problem.

Not necessarily the idea of bureaucracy, you've got some low level of bureaucracy in your business, which you can probably orient exactly the way you want it to, and then take an interest in making sure it stays that way.

Should you walk out the door, it will begin to flex. A new commandant, might allow some of that flex to stay, might not, but the system will probably do what it WAS doing, even if the new commandant is somewhat clueless.

That is a process, resistance to change. Inertia. It wants to do what it has been doing.

Quote from: Eddie
There are so many off-the-books black ops and various alphabet soup security agencies pursuing various agendas with too much money and no oversight.

There is ALWAYS oversight, there just isn't maybe the kind, or quantity you would like. I mean really, NAME the oversight for a government agency like the scientists of the USGS. Congressional budget office is the first one that jumps to mind, but after that? Dunno.

Quote from: Eddie
And it also has to do with all the money being shoved into politicians pockets in various quasi-legal ways by corporate entities. Clinton plays ball with the corporates, or they wouldn't  be paying her tens of millions of dollars for speaking at functions where people sit and eat rubber chicken.

Clinton is carpetbagging money grubbing person. Which means her character fits in perfectly with the job description of a politician. This isn't new.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on March 30, 2016, 07:33:41 PM
Quote
If you had to turn loose of as much of your hard-earned money as I do, you would not be so happy to support a socialist.

Communalism should be voluntary, imho. And preferably local in nature.

I'm a thousand percent behind local voluntary communalism, but most of the humans these days are out to lunch, lost, confused, out of touch.... Sharing and caring is not something they understand in any kind of community way. "That's why gaw'ed made the nuclear family" they will say, 'so's we can care about others."  Sheesh.

If we're going to have big government (which I also hate) let's at least make it humane--, somehow.  And, anyway, everyone would benefit from universal healthcare, free libraries, education, fire departments, etc.... At least in principle they would.  There is something to be said for shared wealth, social wealth. 

Anyway, I love Bernie mostly for his direct assault on money in politics and the faux "democracy" such money imposes on us all.  It's such a bad, sick joke and I'm glad he's getting some of the microphones and cameras (just a few) to spotlight this problem.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on March 30, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
Sanders would get my vote if he got the nomination. You do have to understand that a vote for Bernie is hard for me, because I already pay so much tax, and more would be very onerous. If you had to turn loose of as much of your hard-earned money as I do, you would not be so happy to support a socialist.

Make less. A sure fire way to pay less tax!!

Something tells me you won't appreciate that solution? Once you've learned how to earn it, it just BERNS to give it away to support the excesses of GovCo, don't it?

Title: Trump and Clinton: Censoring the unpalatable – John Pilger
Post by: RE on March 31, 2016, 01:31:51 AM
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/03/30/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable-john-pilger/ (http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/03/30/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable-john-pilger/)

Trump and Clinton: Censoring the unpalatable – John Pilger
Author TGP STAFF Date March 30, 2016

(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/donald_trump_hillary_clinton_sk_150619_16x9_992-600x338.jpg)
A virulent if familiar censorship is about to descend on the US election campaign. As the cartoon brute, Donald Trump, seems almost certain to win the Republican Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton is being ordained both as the “women’s candidate” and the champion of American liberalism in its heroic struggle with the Evil One.

This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.

The 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama should have alerted even the most dewy-eyed. Obama based his “hope” campaign almost entirely on the fact of an African-American aspiring to lead the land of slavery. He was also “antiwar”.

Obama was never antiwar. On the contrary, like all American presidents, he was pro-war. He had voted for George W. Bush’s funding of the slaughter in Iraq and he was planning to escalate the invasion of Afghanistan. In the weeks before he took the presidential oath, he secretly approved an Israeli assault on Gaza, the massacre known as Operation Cast Lead. He promised to close the concentration camp at Guantanamo and did not. He pledged to help make the world “free from nuclear weapons” and did the opposite.

As a new kind of marketing manager for the status quo, the unctuous Obama was an inspired choice. Even at the end of his blood-spattered presidency, with his signature drones spreading infinitely more terror and death around the world than that ignited by jihadists in Paris and Brussels, Obama is fawned on as “cool” (the Guardian).

On March 23, my article, “A World War has Begun: Break the Silence”, was published across the web. As has been my practice for years, I had syndicated it to an international network, including Truthout.com, the liberal American website. Truthout publishes some important journalism, not least Dahr Jamail’s outstanding corporate exposes.

(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/nukeCityscapes-Skylines-Nuclear-Atomic-Bomb-Explosions-Armageddon-Buildings-1280x800-600x375.jpg)

Truthout rejected the piece because, said an editor, it had appeared on Counterpunch and had broken “guidelines”. I replied that this had never been a problem over many years and I knew of no guidelines.

My recalcitrance was then given another meaning. The article was reprieved provided I submitted to a “review” and agreed to changes and deletions made by Truthout’s “editorial committee”. The result was the softening and censoring of my criticism of Hillary Clinton, and the distancing of her from Trump. The following was cut:

    “Trump is a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism. Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama… The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system… As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about hope.”

(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/maya-schenwar.jpg)
The “editorial committee” clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world. Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a “process of revision” meant she had to take it off her “publication docket”. Such is the gatekeeper’s way with words.

At the root of this episode is an enduring unsayable. This is the need, the compulsion, of many liberals in the United States to embrace a leader from within a system that is demonstrably imperial and violent. Like Obama’s “hope”, Clinton’s gender is no more than a suitable facade.

This is an historical urge. In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals seem to pay unflagging homage, John Stuart Mill described the power of empire. “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians,” he wrote, “provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.” The “barbarians”were large sections of humanity of whom “implicit obedience” was required.

“It’s a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers,” wrote the British historian Hywel Williams in 2001, “but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open ended nature – its conviction that it represents a superior form of life [while denying its] self righteous fanaticism.”

He had in mind a speech by Tony Blair in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in which Blair promised to “reorder this world around us” according to his “moral values”. The carnage of a million dead in Iraq was the result.
Blair’s crimes are not unusual. Since 1945, some 69 countries – more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – have suffered some or all of the following. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted and their people bombed. The historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. With the demise of the European empires, this has been the project of the liberal flame carrier, the “exceptional” United States, whose celebrated “progressive” president, John F Kennedy, according to new research, authorised the bombing of Moscow during the Cuban crisis in 1962.

“If we have to use force,” said Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state in the liberal administration of Bill Clinton and today a passionate campaigner for his wife, “it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

One of Hillary Clinton’s most searing crimes was the destruction of Libya in 2011. At her urging, and with American logistical support, NATO, launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, according to its own records, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. See the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. Read the UNICEF report on the children killed, “most [of them] under the age of ten”.

In Anglo-American scholarship, followed slavishly by the liberal media on both sides of the Atlantic, influential theorists known as “liberal realists” have long taught that liberal imperialists – a term they never use – are the world’s peace brokers and crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. They have taken the humanity out of the study of nations and congealed it with a jargon that serves warmongering power. Laying out whole nations for autopsy, they have identified “failed states” (nations difficult to exploit) and “rogue states” (nations resistant to western dominance).

Whether or not the targeted regime is a democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant. In the Middle East, western liberalism’s collaborators have long been extremist Islamists, lately al-Qaeda, while cynical notions of democracy and human rights serve as rhetorical cover for conquest and mayhem – as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Honduras. See the public record of those good liberals Bill and Hillary Clinton. Theirs is a standard to which Trump can only aspire.

http://johnpilger.com (http://johnpilger.com) – the films and journalism of John Pilger

Biography
About the author
(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/johnPilger-277x300.jpg)
Journalist, film-maker and author, John Pilger is one of two to win British journalism’s highest award twice. For his documentary films, he has won an Emmy and a British Academy Award, a BAFTA. Among numerous other awards, he has won a Royal Television Society Best Documentary Award. His epic 1979 Cambodia Year Zero is ranked by the British Film Institute as one of the ten most important documentaries of the 20th century. His Death of a Nation, filmed secretly in East Timor, had a worldwide impact in 1994. His books include Heroes, Distant Voices, Hidden Agendas, The New Rulers of the World and Freedom Next Time. He is a recipient of Australia’s international human rights award, the Sydney Peace Prize, “for “enabling the voices of the powerless to be heard” and “for fearless challenges to censorship in any form”.

“John Pilger unearths, with steely attention to facts, the filthy truth and tells it as it is” – Harold Pinter.

“Pilger’s work has truly been a beacon of light in dark times” – Noam Chomsky.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on March 31, 2016, 08:23:30 AM
So Maya Schenwar,  at Truthout wants to censor John Pilger because he has some unpleasant truths to say about Clinton our politically correct flying reptile.

I'll assume the decision to censor is because of a lesser of two evils argument in which Trump the great Satan is seen to be infinity worse than getting four more more years of the Thelma & Louise race to the collapse cliff Clinton is sure to continue.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.1000words-a-day.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FThelma-Louise.bmp&f=1)

Personally I think creating a failed state in Libya and having Goldman Sacks as a number one campaign contributor moves one out of a lesser of two evils category.  No hooker in history has made more than Clinton has made pandering speaking to audiences of the status-quo at way better than thirty dollars a word in the past three years.  Clinton is bought and paid for just like Obama was.

For people like Maya Schenwar however there is an alternative.  They don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.  They can have full on, full strength, undiluted evil.  It lies waiting beneath cold dark waves in the city of R'lyeh ready to rise up after aeons of sleep.  Obviously people like Maya really do want evil because they choose to ignore the sins of Clinton; they just don't want Trumps particular brand of evil.

Quote
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Translation
- 'In His House at R'lyeh Dead Cthulhu waits dreaming, yet he shall rise and His kingdom shall cover the Earth.'

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fxdind.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FCthulhu-for-President.jpg&f=1)
Click this pic if it is too big for your screen.

And, are you ready for this; Cthulhu was a woman.  Any reference to 'he' was done to throw you off.  That is how evil works.  Clinton is not the only way to support the sisterhood Maya.

I remain a Bernie supporter,  I don't support evil, and about censoring John Pilger.  Maya Schenwar you are not fit to tie his shoes.


Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 07, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
Might Bernie win in the California and/or New York primaries?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on April 07, 2016, 02:16:38 PM
Anything can happen, of course, but Nate Silver gives Clinton better than 90% odds on both races. He's not always right, but he's respected.
Title: Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
Post by: RE on April 07, 2016, 03:11:08 PM
Might Bernie win in the California and/or New York primaries?

If Shillary's name pops up in a few places in the Panama Papers, it will give Bernie a Big Boost.

RE

http://theantimedia.org/panama-papers-end-hillary-clinton/ (http://theantimedia.org/panama-papers-end-hillary-clinton/)


Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign


Business

Op-Ed by Jake Anderson
April 6, 2016
 

(ANTIMEDIA) With Senator Bernie Sanders winning seven of the last eight delegate battles — the most recent was Tuesday night’s Wisconsin victory — there’s a feeling in the air that most progressives haven’t felt since the Iowa caucus. It speaks to a hard truth Hillary Clinton and her choleric campaign staffers will encounter when they wake up in the morning: Bernie really could still beat Clinton and become the Democratic nominee for president.

No way, some of you are saying. The television faces said the delegate math was too hard. The superdelegates make it impossible. Hillary wins the primaries, Bernie only wins caucuses; America won’t elect a socialist; the nation won’t rally behind free healthcare and college tuition.

Despite the supposedly ineluctable logic of Sanders’ unelectability, many pundits now believe there has been a seismic shift in the 2016 presidential race. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Americans are sick to death of the two corporatist political establishments and will do anything to send them a message. The evidence of this is that the two most popular candidates in the 2016 election are a Jewish democratic socialist and a reality TV star who referred to his penis during a nationally televised debate.

Then there’s the matter of the Panama Papers. In case you haven’t heard about them over the roar of mainstream media’s ‘round-the-clock anti-Trump coverage, it’s being referred to as the biggest data leak in history. For the last year, 400 journalists have been secretly decoding 11.5 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 2.6 terabytes of data show billions of dollars worth of transactions dating back 40 years.

Acquired from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the documents present a jaw-dropping paper trail of how the upper echelon of the 1 percent has used shell companies and offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes. In less than a week of exposure, the Panama Papers have already implicated 140 world leaders from 50 different countries. Top executives and celebrities who appear in the leaked emails, PDFs, and other documents may also be indicted in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions-busting activities.

Though the source of the leak opted not to do a Wikileaks-style data dump and is instead allowing media outlets to curate the information, international tax reform could be imminent.
truth-cancer-ad

The revelations are relevant to the 2016 presidential election because they once again illustrate the stark contrast in judgement between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The transgressions documented in the Panama Papers were directly facilitated by the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, which Congress ratified in 2012. In 2011, Sanders took to the floor of the senate to strongly denounce the trade deal:

“Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries.”

Clinton, on the other hand, completely ignored the tax haven issue, and instead, regurgitated the same job-creation platitude she used to peddle NAFTA, which has decimated American manufacturing jobs and led to an economic refugee crisis in Mexico.

Beyond just exposing her unwillingness to understand how modern free trade agreements benefit the rich and punish impoverished countries, Clinton may have a more nefarious connection to the Panama Papers.

In lobbying for the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, Clinton paved the way for major banks and corporations, most notably the Deutsche Bank, to skirt national laws and regulations. After she resigned as Secretary of State, the Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for a speech. While criminality can’t yet be definitively established, this may change when the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” publishes its comprehensive list at the end of the month. In addition to the aforementioned connection, Clinton’s name has already surfaced in connection to a billionaire and a Russian-controlled bank named in the files.

The fallout from the Panama Papers is being felt around the world. On Tuesday, Iceland’s Prime Minister resigned after it was revealed his family had used a shell company to hold millions of dollars worth of bonds in a collapsed bank. After an interview in which Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson had a meltdown when asked about the company’s assets, over 20,000 citizens of Iceland protested.

How does this lead to Bernie Sanders defeating Hillary Clinton? The Sanders campaign has been run on the premise that Clinton is inextricably linked to political corruption, disastrous military interventions, and collusion with Wall Street. If it can be shown that Clinton was involved in criminal improprieties exposed by the Panama Papers, this will constitute yet another major line of attack for Sanders headed into the April 14th debate in New York. If Sanders wins the New York primary a few days later and scoops up a proportion of its 247 delegates, the narrative of the election will dramatically shift.

When added to the myriad other Clinton scandals and political vulnerabilities, the Democratic party’s gatekeeper superdelegates could decide that Clinton is too big of a liability going into the general election. It all comes down to New York, though — Sanders must win New York. If he does, you will see historic chaos unleashed upon the American electorate. And if the Panama Papers leak sets off an unstoppable domino effect, the DNC may soon find its fractured party looking just as ghoulish as the clown’s autopsy being conducted on the Republican Party.

This article (Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on April 07, 2016, 04:51:37 PM
For those with the resources to do so, a search that could elucidate how Hillary was persuaded ($$$) to back the Panama - United States trade agreement would be greatly appreciated.  If any of those with stashes of cash who have been exposed in the Panama papers contributed in any way to Hillary, that connection needs to be publicized.

Their race to see who is mentioned in the Panama papers more, Putin or Clinton is on.

A question for those predisposed to think the deep state leaked the Panama papers.  Why is there not more dirt on Putin in the papers?  He is not directly linked at all and if this is a deep state state operation, then why were some more incriminating documents not manufactured to be added to the mix?
Title: Vicar of Christ on Earth for Sanders?
Post by: RE on April 08, 2016, 08:57:11 AM
His Popeness did not invite Clinton or Trump or Cruz!  This is as close to an endorsement as the Vicar of Christ on Earth can do.  :icon_sunny:

A few pics of Bernie shaking hands with El Popo will definitely get him some votes from the devotees of the Holy Roman Catholic Church!  :icon_sunny:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-accepts-pope-franciss-invitation-to-travel-to-the-vatican/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-accepts-pope-franciss-invitation-to-travel-to-the-vatican/?_r=0)

Bernie Sanders Accepts Pope Francis’s Invitation to Travel to the Vatican

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2016/04/09/us/politics/09berndraft_hp/09berndraft_hp-tmagArticle.jpg)
Bernie Sanders spoke at the Pennsylvania A.F.L.-C.I.O. Convention in Philadelphia on Thursday.Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times

Updated, 11:18 a.m. | Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has accepted an invitation from the Vatican to attend a conference on social, economic and environmental issues.

The Sanders campaign made the announcement on Friday as the senator made the rounds of the morning television news programs. Mr. Sanders will take a break from campaigning in New York, just days ahead of the April 19 primary there, to attend the conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Mr. Sanders, clarifying what he said earlier about a sit-down with Pope Francis, said he had not confirmed yet whether the two men would actually meet.

“I am delighted to have been invited by the Vatican to a meeting on restoring social justice and environmental sustainability to the world economy,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement. “Pope Francis has made clear that we must overcome ‘the globalization of indifference’ in order to reduce economic inequalities, stop financial corruption and protect the natural environment. That is our challenge in the United States and in the world.”

In an interview with The Times on Friday, Mr. Sanders stressed that Pope Francis has played a “profound role in raising consciousness throughout the world, not just within the Catholic community but within all communities.”

“To me, this a source of real pride and excitement that I have been invited to speak to a major conference at the Vatican on how we can create a world economy that is moral and how we address the massive levels of wealth and income inequality that exist around the world, how we deal with unemployment, how we deal with poverty and how we create an economy that works for all people rather than the few,” Mr. Sanders said.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, Mr. Sanders explained that while he disagrees with Pope Francis on issues relating to women’s rights and gay rights, he admires the pope for speaking about income inequality and the need for people to help one another.

“He has played an unbelievable role, an unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy,” said Mr. Sanders, who would become the first Jewish president in the United States if elected. “He is talking about the idolatry of money, the worship of money, the greed that’s out there, how our whole culture is based on: ‘I need more and more and more. And, I don’t have to worry about veterans sleeping out on the street or elderly people who can’t afford their prescriptions.’”

Mr. Sanders also addressed the back and forth between him and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton during interviews on morning television. He said he is “trying to stay away from personal attacks” and hopes to stop bickering about their credentials to be president.

Mr. Sanders also appeared at a town-hall-style event on NBC’s “Today” show and took questions from voters about his stances on gun manufactures’ liability, breaking up commercial banks and how he would protect women’s rights.

The “Today” anchor Savannah Guthrie asked Mr. Sanders about his latest spat over qualifications with Mrs. Clinton.

“Did you overreact because you thought she said something more than she did?” Ms. Guthrie asked.

“Here’s the truth,” Mr. Sanders said. “I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I respect Hillary Clinton. We were colleagues in the Senate, and on her worst day, she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates.”

Ms. Guthrie asked, “She’s qualified?”

“Of course,” Mr. Sanders said. “But the point is I would hope we get away from these attacks, which by the way, the media likes very much, and start focusing — maybe we can do that today — on the real issues.”

Echoing his earlier comments, Mr. Sanders also said in his interview with The Times that he wanted to move past the squabbling with Mrs. Clinton but said he would also continue to fight back if he felt attacked again.

“My hope right now is that Secretary Clinton will stop the levels of negativity,” Mr. Sanders said. “I want to run an issue-orientated campaign.”

The senator said he planned to host a series of rallies throughout New York, which he called an important state to win.

Mr. Sanders also appeared on ABC’s “The View” later in the day.

Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on April 08, 2016, 05:17:25 PM
His Popeness did not invite Clinton or Trump or Cruz!  This is as close to an endorsement as the Vicar of Christ on Earth can do.  :icon_sunny:

A few pics of Bernie shaking hands with El Popo will definitely get him some votes from the devotees of the Holy Roman Catholic Church!  :icon_sunny:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-accepts-pope-franciss-invitation-to-travel-to-the-vatican/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-accepts-pope-franciss-invitation-to-travel-to-the-vatican/?_r=0)

Bernie Sanders Accepts Pope Francis’s Invitation to Travel to the Vatican

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2016/04/09/us/politics/09berndraft_hp/09berndraft_hp-tmagArticle.jpg)
Bernie Sanders spoke at the Pennsylvania A.F.L.-C.I.O. Convention in Philadelphia on Thursday.Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times

Updated, 11:18 a.m. | Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has accepted an invitation from the Vatican to attend a conference on social, economic and environmental issues.

The Sanders campaign made the announcement on Friday as the senator made the rounds of the morning television news programs. Mr. Sanders will take a break from campaigning in New York, just days ahead of the April 19 primary there, to attend the conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Mr. Sanders, clarifying what he said earlier about a sit-down with Pope Francis, said he had not confirmed yet whether the two men would actually meet.

“I am delighted to have been invited by the Vatican to a meeting on restoring social justice and environmental sustainability to the world economy,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement. “Pope Francis has made clear that we must overcome ‘the globalization of indifference’ in order to reduce economic inequalities, stop financial corruption and protect the natural environment. That is our challenge in the United States and in the world.”

In an interview with The Times on Friday, Mr. Sanders stressed that Pope Francis has played a “profound role in raising consciousness throughout the world, not just within the Catholic community but within all communities.”

“To me, this a source of real pride and excitement that I have been invited to speak to a major conference at the Vatican on how we can create a world economy that is moral and how we address the massive levels of wealth and income inequality that exist around the world, how we deal with unemployment, how we deal with poverty and how we create an economy that works for all people rather than the few,” Mr. Sanders said.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, Mr. Sanders explained that while he disagrees with Pope Francis on issues relating to women’s rights and gay rights, he admires the pope for speaking about income inequality and the need for people to help one another.

“He has played an unbelievable role, an unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy,” said Mr. Sanders, who would become the first Jewish president in the United States if elected. “He is talking about the idolatry of money, the worship of money, the greed that’s out there, how our whole culture is based on: ‘I need more and more and more. And, I don’t have to worry about veterans sleeping out on the street or elderly people who can’t afford their prescriptions.’”

Mr. Sanders also addressed the back and forth between him and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton during interviews on morning television. He said he is “trying to stay away from personal attacks” and hopes to stop bickering about their credentials to be president.

Mr. Sanders also appeared at a town-hall-style event on NBC’s “Today” show and took questions from voters about his stances on gun manufactures’ liability, breaking up commercial banks and how he would protect women’s rights.

The “Today” anchor Savannah Guthrie asked Mr. Sanders about his latest spat over qualifications with Mrs. Clinton.

“Did you overreact because you thought she said something more than she did?” Ms. Guthrie asked.

“Here’s the truth,” Mr. Sanders said. “I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I respect Hillary Clinton. We were colleagues in the Senate, and on her worst day, she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates.”

Ms. Guthrie asked, “She’s qualified?”

“Of course,” Mr. Sanders said. “But the point is I would hope we get away from these attacks, which by the way, the media likes very much, and start focusing — maybe we can do that today — on the real issues.”

Echoing his earlier comments, Mr. Sanders also said in his interview with The Times that he wanted to move past the squabbling with Mrs. Clinton but said he would also continue to fight back if he felt attacked again.

“My hope right now is that Secretary Clinton will stop the levels of negativity,” Mr. Sanders said. “I want to run an issue-orientated campaign.”

The senator said he planned to host a series of rallies throughout New York, which he called an important state to win.

Mr. Sanders also appeared on ABC’s “The View” later in the day.

Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.

  (http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2012/8/14/1344970546338-awesome_mc_ht_smiley.gif)

This is also evidence that Trump has managed to Piss Off the Pope!  :o  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)

Yes, Hillary  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif) will probably try to claim the "Pope should not be involving himself in the U.S. political process"  ::). Yes, of course. The Pope should leave issues of inequality, morality, profit over planet (and so on - you get the idea  :evil4:) to the spiritual realm and the hereafter  ;). What does he know about what's right and wrong for loyal Patriotic Americans? The Pope even believes that CO2 is a pollutant instead of excellent plant food provided free by our loyal servants from the fossil fuel fascists industry!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif)

YEP! The climate deniers  (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg) and papal conspiracy theorists (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif) (see Rense or Prison Planet hysterics) will howl and whine that Sanders AND the Pope are not "objective" about the (wait for it  ;D) the "real world".  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif)


But it won't work. :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny: Senator Sanders from Vermont will be President Elect in November. 



The Invitation by the Pope will, in fact, take care of any further alleged "Pinocchio award" defamation the Washington Post or other establishment bullshitters wish to continue slandering Senator Sanders with.

The Pope ain't perfect  ;D. But it is rather difficult for the presstitutes to claim someone the pope invites to speak is not credible or sincere or truthful.  :icon_mrgreen:

(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bernieexxon7502.jpg)
Title: How "Tailgunner Joe's" Hatchetman Roy Cohn Mentored Trump
Post by: Surly1 on April 10, 2016, 06:18:50 AM
‘He Brutalized For You’ (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-roy-cohn-mentor-joseph-mccarthy-213799?o=1)
How Joseph McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn became Donald Trump’s mentor.
By MICHAEL KRUSE April 08, 2016


Politico illustration/Getty and iStock

Politico illustration/Getty and iStock

 

The reporter from the Washington Post didn’t ask Donald Trump about nuclear weapons, but he wanted to talk about them anyway. “Some peoplehave an ability to negotiate,” Trump said, of facing the Soviet Union. “You either have it or you don’t.”

He wasn’t daunted by the complexity of the topic: “It would take an hour and a half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles,” he said.

It was the fall of 1984, Trump Tower was new, and this was unusual territory for the 38-year-old real estate developer. He was three years away from his first semi-serious dalliance with presidential politics, more than 30 years before the beginning of his current campaign—but he had gotten the idea to bring this up, he said, from his attorney, his good friend and his closest adviser, Roy Cohn.

That Roy Cohn.

Roy Cohn, the lurking legal hit man for red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy, whose reign of televised intimidation in the 1950s has become synonymous with demagoguery, fear-mongering and character assassination. In the formative years of Donald Trump’s career, when he went from a rich kid working for his real estate-developing father to a top-line dealmaker in his own right, Cohn was one of the most powerful influences and helpful contacts in Trump’s life.

Over a 13-year-period, ending shortly before Cohn’s death in 1986, Cohn brought his say-anything, win-at-all-costs style to all of Trump’s most notable legal and business deals. Interviews with people who knew both men at the time say the relationship ran deeper than that—that Cohn’s philosophy shaped the real estate mogul’s worldview and the belligerent public persona visible in Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Something Cohn had, Donald liked,” Susan Bell, Cohn’s longtime secretary, said this week when I asked her about the relationship between her old boss and Trump.

By the 1970s, when Trump was looking to establish his reputation in Manhattan, the elder Cohn had long before remade himself as the ultimate New York power lawyer, whose clientele included politicians, financiers and mob bosses. Cohn engineered the combative response to the Department of Justice’s suit alleging racial discrimination at the Trumps’ many rental properties in Brooklyn and Queens. He brokered the gargantuan tax abatements and the mob-tied concrete work that made the Grand Hyatt hotel and Trump Tower projects. He wrote the cold-hearted prenuptial agreement before the first of his three marriages and filed the headline-generating antitrust suit against the National Football League. To all of these deals, Cohn brought his political connections, his public posturing and a simple credo: Always attack, never apologize.

“Cohn just pushed through things—if he wanted something, he got it. I think Donald had a lot of that in him, but he picked up a lot of that from Cohn,” Bell said.

“Roy was a powerful force, recognized as a person with deep and varied contacts, politically as well as legally,” Michael Rosen, who worked as an attorney in Cohn’s firm for 17 years, told me. “The movers and shakers of New York, he was very tight with these people—they admired him, they sought his advice. His persona, going back to McCarthy … and his battles with the government certainly attracted clients.”

It was a long, formidable list that included the executives of media empires, the Archbishop of New York and mafia kingpin Fat Tony Salerno, and there, too, near the top, was budding, grasping Donald John Trump.

“He considered Cohn a mentor,” Mike Gentile, the lead prosecutor who got Cohn disbarred for fraud and deceit not long before he died, said in a recent interview.

People who knew Cohn and know Trump—people who have watched and studied both men—say they see in Trump today unmistakable signs of the enduring influence of Cohn. The frank belligerence. The undisguised disregard for niceties and convention. The media manipulation clotted with an abiding belief in the potent currency of celebrity.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy covers the microphones with his hands while having a whispered discussion with Roy Cohn, his chief counsel, during a committee hearing on April 26, 1954, in Washington. | AP Photo

Sen. Joseph McCarthy covers the microphones with his hands while having a whispered discussion with Roy Cohn, his chief counsel, during a committee hearing on April 26, 1954, in Washington. | AP Photo

Trump did not respond to a request from Politico to talk about Cohn. In the past, though, when he has talked about Cohn, Trump has been clear about why he collaborated with him, and admired him.

“If you need someone to get vicious toward an opponent, you get Roy,” he told Newsweek in 1979.

A year later, pressed by a reporter from New York magazine to justify his association with Cohn, he was characteristically blunt: “All I can tell you is he’s been vicious to others in his protection of me.”

He elaborated in an interview in 2005. “Roy was brutal, but he was a very loyal guy,” Trump told author Tim O’Brien. “He brutalized for you.”

Trump, in the end, turned some of that cold calculation on his teacher, severing his professional ties to Cohn when he learned his lawyer was dying of AIDS.

***

Cohn and Trump, according to Trump, met in 1973 at Le Club, a members-only East Side hangout for social-scene somebodies and those who weren’t but wanted to be.

By then Cohn had been in the public eye for 20 years. As chief counsel to McCarthy, he led secretive investigations of people inside and outside the federal government whom he and McCarthy suspected of Communist sympathies, homosexuality or espionage. Over a period of several years, McCarthy’s crusade destroyed dozens of careers before a final 36-day, televised hearing brought his and Cohn’s often unsubstantiated allegations into the open, leading to McCarthy’s censure in the Senate. Cohn, disgraced by association, retreated to his native New York.

There, through the ‘60s and into the ‘70s, Cohn embraced an unabashedly conspicuous lifestyle. He had a Rolls-Royce with his initials on a vanity plate and a yacht called Defiance. He was a singular nexus of New York power, trafficking in influence and reveling in gossip. He hung on the walls of the East 68th Street townhouse, that doubled as the office of his law firm, pictures of himself with politicians, entertainers and other bold-face names. He was a tangle of contradictions, a Jewish anti-Semite and a homosexual homophobe, vehemently closeted but insatiably promiscuous. In 1964, ’69 and ’71, he had been tried and acquitted of federal charges of conspiracy, bribery and fraud, giving him—at least in the eyes of a certain sort—an aura of battle-tested toughness, the perception of invincibility. “If you can get Machiavelli as a lawyer,” he would write in The Autobiography of Roy Cohn, “you’re certainly no fool of a client.”

Trump was 27. He had just moved to Manhattan but was still driving back to his father’s company offices in Brooklyn for work. He hadn’t bought anything. He hadn’t built anything. But he had badgered the owners of Le Club to let him join, precisely to get to know older, connected, power-wielding men like Cohn. He knew who he was. And now he wanted to talk.

He and his father had just been slapped with Department of Justice charges that they weren’t renting to blacks because of racial discrimination. Attorneys had urged them to settle. Trump didn’t want to do that. He quizzed Cohn at Le Club. What should they do?

He became Donald’s mentor, his constant adviser on every significant aspect of his business and personal life.”

“Tell them to go to hell,” Cohn told Trump, according to Trump’s account in his book The Art of the Deal, “and fight the thing in court.”

That December, representing the Trumps in United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump and Trump Management, Inc., Cohn filed a $100-million countersuit against the federal government, deriding the charges as “irresponsible” and “baseless.”

The judge dismissed it quickly as “wasting time and paper.”

The back-and-forth launched more than a year and a half of bluster and stalling and bullying—and ultimately settling. But in affidavits, motions and hearings in court, Cohn accused the DOJ and the assisting FBI of “Gestapo-like tactics.” He labeled their investigators “undercover agents” and “storm troopers.” Cohn called the head of DOJ down in Washington and attempted to get him to censure one of the lead staffers.

The judge called all of it “totally unfounded.”

By June of 1975, the judge had had it with the Trumps’ attorney. “I must say, Mr. Cohn,” he said in a hearing, “that this case seems to be plagued with unnecessary problems, and I think the time has come when we have to bite the bullet.”

They hashed out the details of a consent decree. The Trumps were going to have to rent to more blacks and other minorities and they were going to have to put ads in newspapers—including those targeted specifically to minority communities—saying they were an “equal housing opportunity” company. Trump and his father, emboldened by Cohn, bristled at the implication of wrongdoing—even, too, at the cost of the ads.

“It is really onerous,” Trump complained.

At one point, flouting the formality of the court, Trump addressed one of the opposing attorneys by her first name: “Will you pay for the expense, Donna?”

Trump and Cohn seemed most concerned with managing the media. They squabbled with the government attorneys over the press release about the disposition. First they wanted no release. Impossible, said the government. Then they wanted “a joint release.” A what? A public agency, it was explained to them, had a public information office, on account of the public’s right to know.

Cohn didn’t want to hear it.

“They will say what they want,” he told the judge, and everybody else in the courtroom, “and we will say what we want.”

The government called the consent decree “one of the most far reaching ever negotiated.”

Cohn and Trump? They called it a victory.

Case 73 C 1529 was over. The relationship between Cohn and Trump had just begun.

“Though Cohn had ostensibly been retained by Donald to handle a single piece of litigation,” Wayne Barrett, an investigative journalist for New York’s Village Voice, would write in his 1992 book about Trump, “he began in the mid-‘70s to assume a role in Donald’s life far transcending that of a lawyer. He became Donald’s mentor, his constant adviser on every significant aspect of his business and personal life.”

The idea to draw up a prenuptial agreement before his April 1977 marriage to Ivana Winklmayr, for instance, was Cohn’s idea. He didn’t endorse the marriage, or marriage in general—“the matrimonial game,” he called it—telling Trump he was “better off not married” and that it would lead to “trouble.” If he was dead-set on getting married, though, he definitely needed a prenup, Cohn advised. It was drawn up in Cohn’s townhouse. Trump’s attorney was Cohn; her attorney was one recommended by Cohn. The original arrangement, which Ivana later renegotiated, called for a miserly $20,000 a year for her if the couple split immediately.

The wedding was at Manhattan’s Marble Collegiate Church, presided over by Norman Vincent Peale, the eminent hawker of the power of positive thinking. The guests included the mayor, other city politicians, comedian Joey Adams and his wife—the New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams—and Cohn, of course, who served as emcee of sorts at the reception.

By this time, Trump was in the thick of trying to make the first major move of his business career—the ambitious refurbishment of the crumbling Commodore hotel in the then-down-and-out area around Grand Central station. Trump wanted to turn it into a lavish Grand Hyatt, and did. The only way he was able to do it, though, was an unprecedented 40-year, $400-million tax abatement from the city. And the only way he got it was Cohn. Cohn had been tagged as “a legal executioner” in a 1978 piece in Esquire. The meticulously reported and roundly unflattering profile prompted Cohn to call the writer, Ken Auletta, who was amazed to hear Cohn ask if he could buy 100 copies. “One of the most reptilian characters I’ve ever met,” Auletta told me. For the Hyatt deal, Cohn called upon his deep relationships with the mayor, Abe Beame, and one city hall staffer, Stanley Friedman, who practically singlehandedly pushed through the last approvals and then promptly went to work for Cohn’s law firm.

If the race case was Trump’s introduction to Cohn, and the prenup a blending of the personal and professional, the Grand Hyatt was a master class.

“Cohn’s exploitation of Friedman to secure the Commodore booty was an unforgettable lesson for Donald,” Barrett later wrote, “exposing him to the full reach of his mentor’s influence and introducing him to the netherworld of sordid quid pro quos that Cohn ruled. This almost ritualistic initiation not only inducted Donald into the circle of sleaze that engulfed Cohn, the bountiful success of it transferred the predatory values and habits Cohn embodied to his yearning understudy.”

Cohn, the New York Daily News said in 1979, was “the city’s preeminent manipulator,” a “one-man network of contacts that have reached into City Hall, the mob, the press, the Archdiocese, the disco-jet set, the courts and the backrooms of the Bronx and Brooklyn where judges are made and political contributions arranged.”

In the New York Times in 1980, Cohn called himself “not only Donald’s lawyer, but also one of his close friends.”

They talked, according to Vanity Fair, “15 to 20 times a day.”

Cohn’s vanity plate on his Rolls: RMC. Trump’s vanity plate on his Cadillac limo: DJT.

“The Bible says that the meek shall inherit the earth,” Cohn wrote, in 1981, in his new book, How to Stand Up For Your Rights & Win. “But in my experience the only earth the meek inherit is that in which they are eventually buried.”

Donald Trump, Mayor Ed Koch and Roy Cohn attend the Trump Tower opening in October 1983 at The Trump Tower in New York City. | Getty

Donald Trump, Mayor Ed Koch and Roy Cohn attend the Trump Tower opening in October 1983 at The Trump Tower in New York City. | Getty

On occasion, when negotiations faltered, according to the Times, Trump would pull out a picture of Cohn. “Would you rather deal with him?”

Hanging on the wall in Cohn’s office was a photo of Trump, according to Gary Belis, the former director of public relations for Fortune magazine, and Trump had signed it. “To Roy,” he had written. “My greatest friend. Donald.”

On September 5, 1980, according to Jerome Tuccille’s 1985 biography of Trump, Trump was the star of—finally—the grand opening of the Grand Hyatt. The governor, the mayor, the former mayor—they all were there, and so, obviously, was Cohn.

Cohn helped Trump get a $20-million tax abatement for Trump Tower, which was built almost entirely of concrete, at a time when the New York concrete industry was controlled by various mob associates, who played nice with Trump thanks to his go-to go-between. “I knew Trump quite well,” John Cody, a key concrete boss, said in Barrett’s book. “Donald liked to deal with me through Roy Cohn.”

Cohn represented the United States Football League when Trump owned the second-tier league’s New Jersey Generals and filed an ill-advised antitrust suit against the National Football League, alleging that the NFL was an unfair monopoly. “I talked to Roy about this USFL suit; he’s represented me for a lot of years,” Trump told reporters. Cohn invoked the same sort of conspiratorial language he had used in the ‘50s, representing McCarthy in Washington, and in the ‘70s, representing Trump in New York. The NFL, he said, had instituted a “secret committee” to squash the USFL. At the press conference announcing the suit, no other USFL official stood by Trump. Only Cohn.

Cohn by this time had been hit with charges of “fraud, deceit and misrepresentation”—for lying on a bar application, for taking a client’s money, for altering the will of an incapacitated man, among other things—that would lead to his disbarment in July 1986. He habitually sneered at prosecutors, and now, unrepentant, he denigrated them as “deadbeats,” “yo-yos” and “nobodies.” He had been diagnosed as HIV-positive the same month as the initiation of the USFL suit, but told nobody—certainly not Trump, who had testified on Cohn’s behalf in the disbarment proceedings, one of 37 character witnesses, praising him for his loyalty.

Trump, though, found out about Cohn’s AIDS, because people knew, and people talked, and he started pulling legal business from Cohn and transferring it to other attorneys—something he did in the USFL matter in March 1985. Cohn couldn’t believe it. After all he had done for Trump? “Donald pisses ice water,” he said, according to Barrett’s book.

“Donald found out about it and just dropped him like a hot potato,” Bell, Cohn’s secretary, told me. “It was like night and day.”

Cohn died August 2, 1986, dishonest to the end, insisting he had liver cancer. The funeral was a who’s who. Mayors and governors and senators and city commissioners. Barbara Walters. Rupert Murdoch. Estee Lauder. It ended with them singing what Cohn had said was his favorite song. “God Bless America.” Trump stood in the back. He hadn’t been asked to talk.

***

Not quite a year and a half later, on a Saturday night in December of 1987, Trump threw himself a party. The reason was the release of The Art of the Deal. He billed it as “The Party of the Year.” Replete with a red carpet and waiters in white jackets, the atrium of Trump Tower was stocked unavoidably with a glittering array of Cohn’s A-list connections—Walters, Norman Mailer, former governor Hugh Carey, Manhattan borough president Andrew Stein, gossip columnist Liz Smith. Next to Trump: his wife, and also Si Newhouse—the owner of Random House, the publisher of Trump’s book, but a longtime friend, too, of the fixer behind so much of Trump’s best, most effective work.

“I don’t kid myself about Roy. He was no Boy Scout,” Trump had written in the book that became a surprising runaway bestseller. “He once told me that he’d spent more than two thirds of his adult life under indictment on one charge or another. That amazed me. I said to him, ‘Roy, just tell me one thing. Did you really do all that stuff? He looked at me and smiled. ‘What the hell do you think?’ he said. I never really knew.”

Trump now was saying he was “not embarrassed” to say he was friends with Cohn.

I knew Roy,” he said. “I can hear his voice.”

In 1992, though, responding to questions about his relationship with Cohn, and Cohn’s relationship with the mob, from New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement and Casino Control Commission, Trump distanced himself from a man he once had called “a genius,” his attorney whose name, face and reputation he would brandish as a weapon. But Cohn, he said, was just “one of many lawyers” he had hired. The agencies’ report noted: Trump “disputes that Cohn was an aide or confidant and indicates that he did not require Cohn to act as an intermediary.” According to Trump, the report continued, “he was and is familiar with most of the prominent officials in New York and did not, and does not need an intermediary on his behalf.”

And then, five years later—in an interview with O’Brien, the author ofTrumpNation—Trump said Cohn had done for him “a very effective job.”

Even such opportunistic contortions as these—dropping him, claiming him, shunning him, praising him—are themselves residue of Cohn’s influence. Say anything. Win at all costs.

Trump’s status now as the Republican frontrunner in a sense can be traced back to 1984 and the 26th floor of Trump Tower, when he took Cohn’s advice and cashed in some of his celebrity to talk about foreign policy, initiating an extended series of flirtations with the presidency—in 1988, when really he was promoting a book; in 2000, when he dallied with the Reform Party; and in the Obama years, when he championed the conspiracy theory that questioned the president’s birthplace—until last summer’s announcement that he wanted to make America great again by making Mexico pay for a wall.

Since then, he has achieved an unparalleled level of ubiquity and media dominance thanks to an orchestrated onslaught of confounding statements and relentless attacks on his critics and competitors. All delivered with his signature meandering bombast.

“The gestures Donald makes, the way he states things, the way he pushes out his lips—all that is his,” said Bell, Cohn's secretary. “But I think some of the ‘Let’s go get ‘em!’ came from Cohn.”

“There’s a certain zig-zaggy crazy irrationality about Trump you might say is somewhat parallel to Roy,” Nick von Hoffman, the author of Citizen Cohn, told me from his home in Maine.

“Yes, he learned from Roy Cohn; yes, he looked up to Roy Cohn,” said Auletta, who wrote the 1978 profile in Esquire. “There’s no question that there are characteristics Roy Cohn had that Donald has.”

His tough-talking, anti-establishment campaign is a cynical, Cohn-like mix of patriotism and paranoia. It is the product of a savvy, studied read on the wants and needs of a competitive press. It runs on personal insults and political kills.

“Anybody who hits me, we’re going to hit them 10 times harder,” Trump vowed last year. It’s one promise he kept.

“Low-energy Jeb.” “Little Marco.” “Lyin’ Ted.”

Cohn, dead 30 years this summer, no doubt would recognize the techniques his mentee has honed.

“It’s not only the ways in which Roy Cohn shaped his empire—it’s the way he shaped his personality,” said Barrett, the dogged reporter who first outlined the importance of this relationship. Now he watches Trump on the TV in his townhouse in Brooklyn.

“I knew Roy,” he said. “I can hear his voice.”

 

Title: President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton?
Post by: RE on April 13, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
From PCR.

RE

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/13/president-killary-would-the-world-survive-hillary-clinton/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/13/president-killary-would-the-world-survive-hillary-clinton/)

April 13, 2016
President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton?

by Paul Craig Roberts

(http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/04/shutterstock_329730725-1.jpg)
Joseph Sohm | Shutterstock.com

 

Hillary Clinton is proving to be the “teflon candidate.”  In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician.  Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations.  She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation.  And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.  Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”

Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby.  She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.

The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge.  For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015  Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate, she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for three speeches.   Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each paid $225,000.

Despite Hillary’s blatent willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary’s shamelessness.  Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary’s defense.

Hillary is a war-monger.  She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the “Arab Spring” was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia. She has pushed for “regime change” in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras.  She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler.”  Hillary as president guarantees war and more war.

In the United States government has been privatized.  Office holders use their positions in order to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office in behalf of the office holder’s interest.  For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

According to washingtonsblog.com, “All told, the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates have collected donations and pledges from all souces of more than $1.6 billion, accoring to their tax returns.”

According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donars to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, ExxonMobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.”

Hillary Clinton has escaped unharmed from so many crimes and scandals that she would likely be the most reckless president in American history. With the arms race renewed, with Russia declared “an existential threat to the United States,” and with Hillary’s declaration of President Putin as the new Hitler, Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia.  Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth.
Join the debate on Facebook

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Title: 5 Storylines to Watch in the New York Primary
Post by: RE on April 19, 2016, 06:02:58 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story-lines-watch-york-primary/story?id=38492673 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story-lines-watch-york-primary/story?id=38492673)

5 Storylines to Watch in the New York Primary


    By Meghan Keneally

Apr 19, 2016, 5:59 AM ET

(http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/rtr_bernie_sanders_new_york_city_jc_160418_12x5_1600.jpg)
PHOTO: Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders greets pedestrians as he walks down East Fordham Road in the Bronx borough of New York, April 18, 2016.Lucas Jackson/Reuters

WATCH Donald Trump Makes a Final Push for New York Delegates

New York is the star of the presidential election today as it holds both Democratic and Republican primaries.

The Empire State has 291 Democratic delegates and 95 Republican delegates up for grabs, meaning that the fight could be extremely worthwhile as the candidates try to reach the minimum number of delegates required to secure their respective nominations.

In addition to the big-number victories at stake, there has also been a two-week gap in the presidential calendar since the last primary, adding to the drama of today's events.

Here are five story lines to watch as we await the results:

1. The Gap Between Clinton and Sanders

Polling in New York suggests that Sen. Bernie Sanders has been slowly creeping up on Hillary Clinton's lead.

In a NBC/WSJ/Marist poll released on April 11, Clinton was leading by 14 points, but in the three polls that followed the next day, Clinton's lead varied from 10 to 13 points.

"I think it will be close," ABC News political analyst Matt Dowd said. "I think there's a possibility based on turnout that he could do it."

One factor that could be in her favor is that New York is a closed primary, meaning that only people registered with the Democratic Party are able to vote in today's primary.

"I think the fact that it's a closed primary has given her an advantage here," Dowd said, adding the Sanders has "always done better with open primaries," where voters aren't required to register with a party ahead of time.

The deadline in New York to register to vote in this primary was Oct. 9, 2015. The Democrats aren't the only ones impacted by that deadline, as two of Donald Trump's children missed the deadline and are unable to vote for their father.

2. Hometown Fight

This year's primary is particularly unusual because three of the five presidential candidates have long-held ties to the state, each calling the state "home" in some way.

Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn, and Clinton has lived in the state since she and her husband left the White House in 2000. She went on to represent the state as one of its senators for eight years.

Clinton's legal residence remains her home in Chappaqua, a hamlet outside of New York City.

That said, Trump is the only one of the three who was born in the state and has lived there ever since.

The real-estate mogul also happens to own a number of properties throughout New York City, which undoubtedly helps him in terms of name recognition.

3. Counting Delegates Closely

There is a chance that Trump could win in a landslide, taking all of the state's 95 delegates.

The Republican delegates in New York are awarded proportionally for any candidate who receives at least 20 percent of the vote. But if a candidate gets the majority of the vote (more than 50 percent) in each individual congressional district, he will take all three delegates allotted to that congressional district. So if Trump gets more than 50 percent of the vote in each of the state's 27 congressional districts, he will take all 81 delegates.

On top of that, the remaining 14 at-large delegates are awarded based on the state totals, so if Trump wins a popular majority in the state, he gets those as well, leaving his rivals Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich with no delegates at all.

The delegates that Trump wins today will impact the percentage of the vote that he and the other candidates will have to win in order to reach the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the Republican nomination.

4. Kasich's Possible Second Coming

While it is still mathematically impossible for Kasich to earn enough delegates in the remaining states to reach the magic number of 1,237, a non-win in New York could still be considered a win to his team.

In many of the recent states, Kasich has been an automatic third-place finisher, but four of the five most recent polls in New York have the Ohio governor finishing ahead of his Texas rival.

"Kasich has a real shot of coming second," Dowd said, noting that such a finish would give Kasich "a better argument going forward that people should pay attention to him."

5. Possible Bellwether for Coming Primaries

While much of the early primary calendar was focused on the South and Midwest, today's primary shows a shift towards the Northeast.

Next week, there are primaries in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Beyond that, there is still New Jersey left, as the Garden State doesn't vote until June, meaning that the region will stay relevant for the coming weeks and months.
Title: Re: 5 Storylines to Watch in the New York Primary
Post by: jdwheeler42 on April 19, 2016, 06:47:10 AM
4. Kasich's Possible Second Coming

While it is still mathematically impossible for Kasich to earn enough delegates in the remaining states to reach the magic number of 1,237, a non-win in New York could still be considered a win to his team.

In many of the recent states, Kasich has been an automatic third-place finisher, but four of the five most recent polls in New York have the Ohio governor finishing ahead of his Texas rival.

"Kasich has a real shot of coming second," Dowd said, noting that such a finish would give Kasich "a better argument going forward that people should pay attention to him."
I heard that there is a minimum number of delegates you need to get on the second ballot at the convention.  My guess is that is Kasich's target, along with taking enough delegates away from Trump to ensure a second ballot.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 21, 2016, 06:28:27 AM


Sanders Can Win. Here’s Why.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-can-win-heres-why_b_9723474.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-can-win-heres-why_b_9723474.html)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on April 21, 2016, 06:57:16 AM
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Hillary is holding on by a thread, because she’s a terrible candidate.

This piece is best understood as a pre-NY pep talk. Now NY is history, and the terrible candidate carried the day, thanks to a lot of morons who couldn't tell Barry Goldwater from Barry Commoner. Hillary will get the nod unless she drops dead, which is what I'm profoundly hoping for.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 21, 2016, 08:10:53 AM

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents
https://youtu.be/PV_PLCC6jeI

(Dang, this gal is hot! -- though she'd be even hotter without the makeup.)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on April 21, 2016, 08:43:19 AM
(Dang, this gal is hot! -- though she'd be even hotter without the makeup.)

She looks very athletic. Nice shoulders. Classic WASP look. I prefer no make-up too.
Title: TPTB WANT Trump Elected POTUS
Post by: RE on April 22, 2016, 01:44:18 AM
Here is what pops up tonight on my Google Newz Elections Box:

Trump's promises pump up Harrisburg crowd

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette  - ‎4 hours ago‎
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives at a rally Thursday at the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg.

GOP veepstakes begin: Candidates start building lists and vetting prospects

Washington Post  - ‎9 hours ago‎
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. - As the Republican presidential race heads toward a possible contested convention, the three remaining candidates have begun considering vice-presidential picks - with a much different set of calculations from a normal political year.

How the Republican candidates compare on immigration

Sacramento Bee  - ‎3 hours ago‎
Immigration has played a central role in the presidential campaign. The three remaining Republicans in the race take varying stands on how the United States should treat immigrants living in the country illegally, whether it's possible to have Mexico ...

EVERY fucking POTUS election story features a photo of The Donald.  Not just here, no matter where you go it's The Donald grimacing or shooting his Finger up in the air.

If they DID NOT want him elected, WTF would they be promoting him on every fucking media organ they own? ???  If they didn't want him, they would ignore him just like they ignore Bernie.

All the shit about the regular Repubs not wanting him is JUST  A SHOW.  It makes him look like he is "anti-establishment".  In fact he is just what the "establishment" WANTS!

Like Hitler, TPTB think they can control The Donald when he is in office, so they are willing to deal with his nonsense proposals now. He serves the agenda of spiraling up the hatred between the classes.

Mark my words, when Shillary goes up against The Donald in the General Election, there will be 3 pics of The Donald on the internet and newzpapers and TV for every one of Shillary.  The Donald is the Candidate of choice for the Illuminati.

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on April 22, 2016, 01:53:38 AM
(Dang, this gal is hot! -- though she'd be even hotter without the makeup.)

She looks very athletic. Nice shoulders. Classic WASP look. I prefer no make-up too.

Too Dominatrix 4 me.

(http://picture-cdn.wheretoget.it/odgmh3-l-610x610-jumpsuit-dominatrix+diva+wet+look+leatherette+bodysuit-yandy-dominating+diva-dominatrix+clothing-lace-bodysuit.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on April 22, 2016, 02:01:49 AM
(Dang, this gal is hot! -- though she'd be even hotter without the makeup.)

She looks very athletic. Nice shoulders. Classic WASP look. I prefer no make-up too.

Too Dominatrix 4 me.

Abby After Hours

(http://adsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/images/Wooldominatrix.jpg)

RE
Title: Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary
Post by: RE on April 22, 2016, 04:13:19 AM
File under "Why Voting is a WOFT."  ::)

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-21/additional-evidence-mind-boggling-fraud-emerges-new-york-primary (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-21/additional-evidence-mind-boggling-fraud-emerges-new-york-primary)

Home
Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/21/2016 23:40 -0400

    Barack Obama Bernie Sanders
 

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

    Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

     

    That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

     

    But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

     

    Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

     

    “The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

     

    But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

     

    “I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

    Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

     

    So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

     

    “He allowed me to change for that day,“ she said.

     

    Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

What a fake liberal clown.

    “It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” he said in a statement released after 5 p.m. on Election Day. “I am calling on the Board of Election to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

     

    A spokesperson for New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman told the New York Daily News that his office received “by far the largest volume of complaints we have received for an election since Attorney General Schneiderman took office in 2011.”

     

    Some polling sites did not open on time, citing too few election workers. Others had faulty voting machines, or were delivered half the number of promised voting machines.

     

    “I spent three hours this morning trying to vote,” he said. “I’m at a loss for words. I don’t understand that in the 21st century you have to stand in front of a judge to get to vote. It was laughable.”

     

    Gershman was peeved by what happened to him, but he wonders what would’ve happened if he didn’t have a car, or the ability to miss a morning of work to fight for his ballot. And he’s also confounded by what happened to Guerrero’s voter registration form, which he shared on YouTube and calls “pretty clear fraud.”

     

    Guerrero calls the whole incident “creepy.” She has “no idea” who might want to forge her signature on a voter registration form.

     

    “It’s just disheartening. We’re supposed to be the number one country in the world, but things like this you’d imagine would happen in a second or third-world country,” she said. “What happened to me, basically, was fraud.”

Welcome to the real America, Alba Guerrero.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 22, 2016, 06:42:19 AM
There needs to be a serious, thorough and honest investigation -- and not one where the foxes are guarding the chickens. 

New Yorkers, if you're listening, get whatever help you need from your true allies.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 22, 2016, 07:00:56 AM
Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518460/-Election-Fraud-Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518460/-Election-Fraud-Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary)
Title: Re: TPTB WANT Trump Elected POTUS
Post by: Petty Tyrant on April 22, 2016, 09:42:35 AM
Here is what pops up tonight on my Google Newz Elections Box:

<div class="section-header">
<div class="sub-header">
<div class="basic-title">
<h2 class="text"><span class="section-name">Elections »</span> (https://news.google.com/news/section?cf=all&pz=1&topic=el)</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blended-wrapper blended-wrapper-first esc-wrapper">
<div id=":50" class="story anchorman-blended-story esc esc-has-thumbnail ">
<div class="esc-inner esc-collapsed">
<div class="esc-body">
<div class="esc-default-layout-wrapper esc-expandable-wrapper">
<table class="esc-layout-table" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="esc-layout-thumbnail-cell">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-wrapper">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-state">
<div class="esc-thumbnail esc-thumbnail-hidden" title="Pittsburgh Post-Gazette">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-wrapper "><img class="esc-thumbnail-image late-tbn" style="width: 100%; visibility: visible;" src="https://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE4shFjO2uKPmgui2bhiU5pzSklzeaR-M2aX1Q8fEcUIhBHsge_49wjWXVifuUU7f-boyjCn3_VTI" alt="" /></div>
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-source-wrapper"><label class="esc-thumbnail-image-source">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</label></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="esc-layout-article-cell">
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title"><a id="MAA4CkgAUABgAWoCdXM" class="article usg-AFQjCNHMxzwf3Lu4ST0QfoYK8gxtyF3AhQ sig2-xrtFdxrCLPca3tI3OSJ21w did--4454729060454346929" href="http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2016/04/21/Trump-wows-em-in-Harrisburg/stories/201604210215" target="_blank"><span class="titletext">Trump's promises pump up Harrisburg crowd</span>[/url]</h2>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-article-source-wrapper">
<table class="al-attribution single-line-height" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="al-attribution-cell source-cell"><span class="al-attribution-source">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell timestamp-cell"><span class="dash-separator"> - </span><span class="al-attribution-timestamp">‎4 hours ago‎</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell sharebar-cell">
<table id="52779092322706-sharebar" class="share-bar-table yesscript" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="share-bar-cell sharebox-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-snippet-wrapper">Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives at a rally Thursday at the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blended-wrapper esc-wrapper">
<div id=":51" class="story anchorman-blended-story esc esc-has-thumbnail ">
<div class="esc-inner esc-collapsed">
<div class="esc-body">
<div class="esc-default-layout-wrapper esc-expandable-wrapper">
<table class="esc-layout-table" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="esc-layout-thumbnail-cell">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-wrapper">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-state">
<div class="esc-thumbnail esc-thumbnail-hidden" title="Washington Post">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-wrapper "><img class="esc-thumbnail-image late-tbn" style="width: 100%; visibility: visible;" src="https://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHQUuG-u6PG3Q-xSn5jhjtDXkB4DJEI8_uZOYMPZW28VoqhVdvw4CjoRlccxjSZbfs-qXgCeQP" alt="" /></div>
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-source-wrapper"><label class="esc-thumbnail-image-source">Washington Post</label></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="esc-layout-article-cell">
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title"><a id="MAA4CkgBUABgAWoCdXM" class="article usg-AFQjCNEv3QfnAznShh9wyY9BxCCykEQO2Q sig2-teg5UedX9_lDj_MdL3WK5g did-7913508491419977613" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-veepstakes-begin-candidates-start-building-lists-and-vetting-prospects/2016/04/21/d50168f4-07d7-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html" target="_blank"><span class="titletext">GOP veepstakes begin: Candidates start building lists and vetting prospects</span>[/url]</h2>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-article-source-wrapper">
<table class="al-attribution single-line-height" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="al-attribution-cell source-cell"><span class="al-attribution-source">Washington Post</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell timestamp-cell"><span class="dash-separator"> - </span><span class="al-attribution-timestamp">‎9 hours ago‎</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell sharebar-cell">
<table id="52779091806671-sharebar" class="share-bar-table yesscript" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="share-bar-cell sharebox-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-snippet-wrapper">HOLLYWOOD, Fla. - As the Republican presidential race heads toward a possible contested convention, the three remaining candidates have begun considering vice-presidential picks - with a much different set of calculations from a normal political year.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<table class="esc-layout-table" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="esc-layout-thumbnail-cell">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-wrapper">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-state">
<div class="esc-thumbnail esc-thumbnail-hidden" title="Sacramento Bee">
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-wrapper "><img class="esc-thumbnail-image late-tbn" style="width: 100%; visibility: visible;" src="https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS822cRFL3tEpeiw0fXLvlGm0jTh4wmN8EGLmaL5CJxyXwIwJc2nLc-wjrORg1NOrOnigShW51yrlA" alt="" /></div>
<div class="esc-thumbnail-image-source-wrapper"><label class="esc-thumbnail-image-source">Sacramento Bee</label></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="esc-layout-article-cell">
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title"><a id="MAA4CkgCUABgAWoCdXM" class="article usg-AFQjCNHQadEjvxuhHBA64Vk2cc3H9_IgYQ sig2-_tiO8KqPBd8iaheYYZVzpA did-7426968798321826580" href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article73111692.html" target="_blank"><span class="titletext">How the Republican candidates compare on immigration</span>[/url]</h2>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-article-source-wrapper">
<table class="al-attribution single-line-height" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="al-attribution-cell source-cell"><span class="al-attribution-source">Sacramento Bee</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell timestamp-cell"><span class="dash-separator"> - </span><span class="al-attribution-timestamp">‎3 hours ago‎</span></td>
<td class="al-attribution-cell sharebar-cell">
<table id="52779091264236-sharebar" class="share-bar-table yesscript" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="share-bar-cell sharebox-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
<td class="share-bar-cell"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="esc-lead-snippet-wrapper">Immigration has played a central role in the presidential campaign. The three remaining Republicans in the race take varying stands on how the United States should treat immigrants living in the country illegally, whether it's possible to have Mexico <strong>...</strong></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

EVERY fucking POTUS election story features a photo of The Donald.  Not just here, no matter where you go it's The Donald grimacing or shooting his Finger up in the air.

If they DID NOT want him elected, WTF would they be promoting him on every fucking media organ they own? ???  If they didn't want him, they would ignore him just like they ignore Bernie.

All the shit about the regular Repubs not wanting him is JUST  A SHOW.  It makes him look like he is "anti-establishment".  In fact he is just what the "establishment" WANTS!

Like Hitler, TPTB think they can control The Donald when he is in office, so they are willing to deal with his nonsense proposals now. He serves the agenda of spiraling up the hatred between the classes.

Mark my words, when Shillary goes up against The Donald in the General Election, there will be 3 pics of The Donald on the internet and newzpapers and TV for every one of Shillary.  The Donald is the Candidate of choice for the Illuminati.

RE

Its been a bad week for marked words. Cali declares drought crisis over,  china CAN introduce a gold back currency and it DIDNT need 500 yrs of banking experience to create their own alternative to London and NY.

You cant seriously suggest all the desperate attempts to deny donald the nomination are a conspiracy/charade, or the bulk of his supporters in baseball caps trading bad breath with bankrupt students and graduates working as waiters shouting 'black lives matter etc' are DIFFERENT CLASSES?

Neither side looks well to do to me, and I cant imagine the really  well to do rothschilds want the TPP, NATO treaty and progress in PC social engineering torn up by Trump and the transphobics. They like him fanning the flames NOT taking the reigns. Im sure Donald would backpedal and backflip on every proposal if they tap him on the shoulder and tell him his daughter Ivanka could lose her pretty face, they much prefer it doesnt get to that.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 24, 2016, 05:54:00 PM
I've come to a difficult, painful decision.  I will never vote again in United States elections ... until the role of money has been basically eliminated from any significant role in the whole show.  It's just way too much of a sham and a scam for me. I'm out.

"Representatives" in Congress, for example, spend at least 1/3 to 2/3 of their time fundraising for the next election -- because that's what's necessary to play the game.

What a hoax!
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on April 26, 2016, 05:33:36 PM
Surely THIS has the potential to finish Hilary off.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-26/trump-and-hillary-refuse-explain-why-they-both-share-same-address-delaware (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-26/trump-and-hillary-refuse-explain-why-they-both-share-same-address-delaware)
Trump And Hillary Refuse To Explain Why They Both Share The Same Address In Delaware
04/26/2016
Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

As it turns out, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share something pertinent in common, after all — a tax haven cozily nested inside the United States.

This brick-and-mortar, nondescript two-story building in Wilmington, Delaware would be awfully crowded if its registered occupants — 285,000 companies — actually resided there. What’s come to be known as the “Delaware loophole” — the unassuming building at 1209 North Orange Street — has become, as the Guardian described, “famous for helping tens of thousands of companies avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in tax.”

Reportedly dozens of Fortune 500 companies — Coca-Cola, Walmart, American Airlines, and Apple, to name a few — use Delaware’s strict corporate secrecy laws and legal tax loopholes by registering the North Orange Street address for official business.

“Big corporations, small-time businesses, rogues, scoundrels, and worse — all have turned up at the Delaware address in hopes of minimizing taxes, skirting regulations, plying friendly courts or, when needed, covering their tracks,” the New York Times’ Leslie Wayne described in 2012. “It’s easy to set up shell companies here, no questions asked.”

While the legitimacy of taxes as a concept may be up to personal interpretation, what matters in Clinton’s use of the so-called Delaware loophole, in particular, is her constant harping on the need for corporations and elite individuals to pay their fair share. In other words, Clinton’s employment of North Orange Street amounts to a telling, Do As I Say, Not As I Do. And, as the Guardian notes, both of “the leading candidates for president – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – have companies registered at 1209 North Orange, and have refused to explain why.”

As Rupert Neate explained for the Guardian, being registered in the tiny state allows “companies to legally shift earnings from other states to Delaware, where they are not taxed on non-physical incomes generated outside of state.”

In fact, some have claimed — all revelations of Panamanian documents aside — the use of tax-friendly locations inside the U.S. makes it the biggest tax haven in the world, with Delaware, alone, costing other states some $9 billion in lost taxes over the past decade. Clinton has repeatedly touted the needs for tax transparency and to shut down foreign havens with similar loopholes.

“Some of you may have just heard about these disclosures about outrageous tax havens and loopholes and superrich people across the world are exploiting in Panama and elsewhere,” Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO annual Constitutional Convention earlier this month. “We are going after all these scams and make sure everyone pays their fair share here in America.”

Oh, the irony.

According to Neate, a Clinton spokesman explained, “ZFS [Holdings, LLC] was set up when Secretary Clinton left the State Department as an entity to manage her book and speaking income. No federal, state, or local taxes were saved by the Clintons as a result of this structure.”

Why, if what the spokesman claims to be true, would Clinton bother using an address in Delaware?

Of the 515 companies Trump officially registered with the Federal Election Commission, “We have 378 entities registered in the state of Delaware,” the billionaire told the Guardian, “meaning I pay you a lot of money, folks. I don’t feel guilty at all, OK?”

Delaware’s incredibly business-friendly structure that allows for such a crowded address is completely legal, though the ability to create shell corporations lends to shady dealings and is “a magnet … which individuals and corporations can use to evade an inestimable amount in federal and foreign taxes,” as a report by the Institute on Taxation and Foreign Policy has described.

Still, Clinton’s constant moralizing on tax transparency — and her spokesperson’s claims she hasn’t benefited from the North Orange Street address — proves, yet again, her stances offer little in the way of a solid foundation.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on April 26, 2016, 06:11:27 PM
Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax 'loophole' address with 285,000 firms
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton)

The Alphabet Soup (major corporate) news folks aren't touching this one. Surprise, surprise!
Title: It Ain't Ovah 'till it's Ovah: Bernie Slays Shillary in Indiana
Post by: RE on May 04, 2016, 03:02:45 AM
Bernie is hanging in there and a contested convention is still possible.  He squashed Shillary in a come from behind victory in Indiana.  He'll still need a big win in CA, and unless some real juicy corruption story drops on worse than the ones already revealed or Shillary gets indicted by the FBI pressuring the DoJ she probably would still get the nomination, but at least it is still a fight.

In other newz, Ted Bruise has thrown in the Towel and The Donald looks like a done deal as Republitard Candidate for POTUS.

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-03/indiana-primary-results-trump-has-daunting-lead-over-cruz-hillary-leads-sanders (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-03/indiana-primary-results-trump-has-daunting-lead-over-cruz-hillary-leads-sanders)

Indiana's Over: Sanders Hammers Hillary, Trump Crushes Cruz - Speech Livestream
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 04, 2016, 06:59:43 AM
Hope springs eternal.  For me, two encouraging things have happened in the last 24 hours. One is that the anti-Christ dropped out. The second is that Bernie is still in it.

He doesn't fill me with hope, personally. Not by a long shot. But considering the alternatives....
Title: Trump Doomed in the General Election
Post by: RE on May 05, 2016, 03:01:53 AM
If that is correct analysis, unless Bernie can pull of a MIRACLE, we got the Clintons BACK.

(http://www.thenerdpocalypse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BwNc2JOIAAAGY9p.jpg_large.jpeg)

RE

http://theconversation.com/president-trump-not-likely-58758 (http://theconversation.com/president-trump-not-likely-58758)

President Trump? Not likely
May 3, 2016 9.50pm EDT

(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/121086/width926/image-20160503-13603-qhz10j.jpg)

    Anthony J. Gaughan

    Associate Professor of Law, Drake University

Disclosure statement

Anthony J. Gaughan is a registered independent.
Partners

Drake University

Drake University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.
Republish this article

We believe in the free flow of information. We use a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives licence, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.
Republish
Thumbs half up? Trump’s winning streak is unlikely to continue through the general election. Reuters/Kamil Krzaczynski

    Email
    Twitter71
    Facebook194
    LinkedIn1
    Print

The GOP nomination is within Donald Trump’s grasp.

Trump’s decisive victory in the Indiana primary on Tuesday night drove his two final challengers to withdraw from the race. Whatever hopes the GOP establishment still harbored of a brokered convention ended when Ted Cruz dropped out of the race on Tuesday night and John Kasich dropped out on Wednesday. Trump will be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.

Trump’s march to the nomination has shocked the GOP establishment and defied conventional wisdom. Could he pull off an even bigger upset by winning the White House in November?

If history, polling data and demographics are any guide, the answer is no. The evidence suggests that Trump will likely suffer a crushing defeat in the general election.
2012’s demographic lessons
Cruz quits. REUTERS/Charles Mostoller

The 2012 presidential election provides a good baseline for analyzing the 2016 race.

To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. In 2012, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by the comfortable margin of 332 to 206 electoral votes. In the popular vote Obama beat Romney by 51 to 47 percent, a difference of about five million votes. Obama’s victory reflected the long-term trend in which Democrats have won the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections.

Donald Trump thinks he can reverse that trend by appealing to angry white voters, but the 2012 results show why that won’t work. Lost in the uproar over Trump’s divisive appeals is the fact that Republicans already win whites by huge margins. For example, in 2012 Romney carried white voters by 20 points, and yet he still lost.

The reason was that Obama won the support of minority voters by even bigger margins. He carried 93 percent of African-American voters, 71 percent of Latino voters and 73 percent of Asian voters.

The electorate’s demographics will be even more unfavorable for the GOP in 2016. Nonwhite voters constituted 28 percent of the electorate in 2012, but in 2016 about 38 percent of Americans are minorities, which means the potential ceiling for minority turnout is extremely high.

Trump’s polarizing campaign seems certain to drive up minority turnout, especially among Latinos. The New York billionaire has repeatedly engaged in demagogic appeals to prejudice, bigotry and fear, declaring among other things that Mexico is sending “criminals, drug dealers” and “rapists” to the United States.

If Trump’s plan is to inspire millions of Latinos to vote against him, it’s working. Even though the general election is still six months away, the “Trump effect” has already sparked a huge increase in voter registration by Latinos. The pace of registration is so great that it is projected that almost two million more Latinos will vote in 2016 than voted in 2012. Moreover, the surge in Latino registration is occurring in key states, like Florida, Nevada, Colorado and Texas.

Republicans must at least be competitive among minority voters to have any chance of winning the White House. George W. Bush, the last Republican to win the presidency, carried 40 percent of Latino voters, which helped him secure a narrow victory over John Kerry in 2004. But a surge in anti-immigrant sentiment among congressional Republicans drove Latino support for the GOP down to 27 percent in 2012, a vulnerability that doomed Romney’s campaign.

The demographic lesson of 2012 is clear. In a diverse nation, Trump has little hope of winning the presidency when 84 percent of nonwhite voters won’t vote for him.
The biggest demographic

The Trump campaign faces an equally daunting gender gap. According to the Gallup Poll, 70 percent of women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump.

Women made up 53 percent of the electorate in 2012, which makes them the single largest demographic group. Female voters made the difference for Obama. Although Romney carried men by 8 points, Obama won the 2012 election because he carried women by 10 points.

Trump’s problems with women are vastly greater than Romney’s problems. The latest polls indicate that Hillary Clinton could beat Trump among women by 40 points, an astounding margin without precedent in American political history. A gender gap half that size would deliver the White House to Clinton in a massive landslide. It would also lead to crushing losses for Republicans in the congressional races.

To have any chance at all, therefore, Trump must dramatically turn around his standing with women. But he’s not off to a good start, to put it mildly. Last week he claimed that if Hillary Clinton were a man, she would not “get five percent of the vote.” The comment appeared to make Chris Christie’s wife, who was standing directly behind Trump, roll her eyes in apparent disgust.
Mary Pat Christie reacts to Trump’s ‘woman card’ comment.

The gender issue will be front and center in the fall. During the general election, it’s a safe bet that the Clinton campaign will constantly remind voters of Trump’s long history of insulting women in crude and sexist terms.
The electoral college map

Despite his deep unpopularity with women and minorities, Trump hopes to somehow change the electoral college map by winning blue states like New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In a recent speech Trump promised, “I will win New York against Hillary Clinton.”

But the raw vote totals suggest otherwise. Clinton has won far more votes than Trump in the blue state primaries. For example, in the April 19 New York primary election, Trump won the GOP contest with 524,000 votes while Clinton won the Democratic primary with over one million votes. The same was true in Illinois, where Clinton won more than one million votes in the Democratic primary and Trump won 556,000 votes in the GOP primary. Clinton also won more votes than Trump in other blue states such as Michigan, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

But Trump could change the map in the red states – by losing some of them to Clinton. In several states in the ex-Confederate South, Clinton carried more votes in the Democratic primaries than Trump did in the Republican primaries. For example, Clinton won more votes than Trump in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Virginia, Louisiana and Texas.

Changing Sunbelt demographics are creating cracks in the Republican South. Obama won North Carolina in 2008 and he won Virginia and Florida in both 2008 and 2012. With Trump as her opponent, Clinton could very likely win all three states in 2016 and perhaps other southern states as well.

And keep an eye on Utah. One of the most conservative states in the country, Utah has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election in over 50 years. But Trump’s vulgarity does not play well in a state where 62 percent of the population is Mormon. Indeed, early polls show that Clinton leads Trump in Utah. Any Republican who fails to win Utah is not going to get anywhere near the White House.
Republican pessimism

It’s not just Democrats and political pundits who think Trump is a disaster for the GOP. Top Republicans strategists and party insiders believe Trump will lose by a devastating margin in the fall. Karl Rove, for example, has warned that Trump will cost Republicans the White House, the Senate, and many House seats.

To understand the extent of Republican pessimism, look no further than Trump’s potential vice presidential candidates. GOP officeholders who would normally jump at a chance for the vice presidential slot are running away from Trump. As South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham quipped, running as Trump’s vice president is “like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”

Many Republican officeholders won’t even attend the GOP convention, including John McCain, Jeb Bush, Kelly Ayotte, Charlie Baker and Mark Kirk. Even Charles and David Koch, generous donors to the GOP for years, have indicated they intend to skip the Cleveland convention.

The bottom line is Republican leaders with an eye on the future don’t want anything to do with Trump. They know the name “Trump” will likely join Goldwater, McGovern and Mondale as names forever associated with crushing presidential election defeats.

Editor’s note: This story was updated on May 4 at 1:20 p.m. EST to reflect the suspension of John Kasich’s campaign.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 05, 2016, 03:28:49 AM
Its just begging for a new party to form around a third candidate - the New Republican Party backing Michael Bloomberg.  He would split the Republican vote and kill off Trump, with Hillary likely winning - Wall Street wins again.  That's Democracy in action.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 05, 2016, 03:39:47 AM
Quote
Obama won the support of minority voters by even bigger margins. He carried 93 percent of African-American voters, 71 percent of Latino voters and 73 percent of Asian voters.

I heard a radio report yesterday that this year, prospective Latino voters are breaking 85 per cent against Trump.

Here's more on the R's electoral college problem:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/)

The one thing that the rs have going for them are the astonishingly high negatives of both Trump and HRC. Races with such high negatives are usually brutal and nasty, which tends to depress turnout, which in turn favors the Rs, who dependably empty their prospertity-gospel churches to vote.

So if I were HRC I would not be spiking the ball in the end zone quite yet.
Title: Re: Trump Doomed in the General Election
Post by: Eddie on May 05, 2016, 06:52:34 AM
It will be interesting to see if this is correct. Certainly, the demographics are changing, and Democrats stand to gain, as long as they can attract the blacks and latinos.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on May 05, 2016, 07:23:27 AM
Quick note, the wife is a "vote the ticket" republican, has been since the age of 18. And she has been hoping and praying that anyone besides Trump would be the nominee. So the other day, when it became apparent he was going to be IT....I asked her, "yo babes, now that he is YOUR guy, are you ready to vote for him?" and the look on her face said it all.

If this is the kind of reaction that he generates among diehard, always vote Republican ticket across 3 or 4 decades, I say the guy is HOSED. My wife is as white bread as it gets, a bankster nowadays, despises the Democratic lack of morals and overall "steal from everyone because GovCo knows better" attitude, votes the Republican ticket top to bottom....and she HATES Hitlery.....and she is thinking about what to do...that is how bad it is for the Donald among republicans.

I'm working on her to wait for the 3rd party candidate to reveal themselves, and then we'll both vote that way.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 05, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
Its just begging for a new party to form around a third candidate - the New Republican Party backing Michael Bloomberg.  He would split the Republican vote and kill off Trump, with Hillary likely winning - Wall Street wins again.  That's Democracy in action.

Most of the noise coming about a putative third party run comes from bloviators like Cohen and Erickson--
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-impending-nomination-means-its-time-for-a-third-candidate/2016/05/03/762186a4-108b-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-impending-nomination-means-its-time-for-a-third-candidate/2016/05/03/762186a4-108b-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html)

--and most of the energy would come from the extreme right, from whom El Caudillo is just not conservative enough, and whose litlte biddy fists are not iron enough.

The smart move would be for the fascist right to stand up a moderate-seeming Potempkin candidate (Gary Johnson?) to try to suck enough votes from Hillary to deny her 270. Remember that in the FSoA, the electoral college is the only vote that matters. Unless you are Bush the Lesser.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 05, 2016, 09:08:53 AM

I'm working on her to wait for the 3rd party candidate to reveal themselves, and then we'll both vote that way.

Your write-in candidate:
(https://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png?w=660)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 05, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Leaving out the small matter of his popularity with blacks though tells me the article is not objective. I dont think everyone who voted obama is automatic for hillary either as implied. Legal immigrants also tend to see illegal immigrants as 'criminals' too in my experience. 

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-trump-receives-25-of-black-vote-in-general-election-matchup/ (http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-trump-receives-25-of-black-vote-in-general-election-matchup/)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 05, 2016, 10:19:13 AM
MK, not sure what you're talking about on that last bit.

The one from before just took a little while for somebody to moderate it. I got busy and Surly approved it, apparently. Sorry.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on May 05, 2016, 02:59:49 PM
David H. Koch (pronounced "cock") rather likes Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFT-cwyhJn8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFT-cwyhJn8)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 05, 2016, 07:20:44 PM
Your write-in candidate:
(https://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png?w=660)
I've got a better slogan:

Aren't you ready for the suffering to end?
Title: Election 2016: Liz 4 Veep?
Post by: RE on May 10, 2016, 04:28:36 AM
Even if Killary offers it up, I don't think Liz would accept.  Veeps have little power and influence, Senators have more independence and can make more hay.

If Liz did accept, I would be disappointed in her.  Playing Second Fiddle to Killary is way beneath her.

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/279306-dems-see-clinton-and-warren-as-dream-team (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/279306-dems-see-clinton-and-warren-as-dream-team)


Home | News | Campaign
Democrats see Clinton and Warren as dream team


By Amie Parnes - 05/10/16 06:00 AM EDT

(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/clintonhillary_warrenelizabeth_012413getty.jpg?itok=61EfSJ1N)

Democrats are openly hoping that Hillary Clinton will pick Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.

Amid concerns that supporters of Bernie Sanders will choose to stay home on Election Day, a number of Democrats see a Clinton-Warren alliance as an all-woman dream team that could ignite deep enthusiasm in the progressive base and make the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket truly historic.

ADVERTISEMENT
It would also eliminate the pro-Wall Street storyline that has haunted Clinton’s campaign throughout the primary season, Clinton allies believe.

Democratic strategist and presidential campaign veteran Jamal Simmons said the longer Sanders stays in the race, the more likely Clinton will select Warren.

“I think so more every day,” he said. “[Warren] solves so many problems: enthusiasm, women, young liberals, older white liberals.”

Simmons sees the prospect of a Clinton-Warren ticket growing with Donald Trump as the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee. Trump has used the gender card against Clinton repeatedly.

“Trump’s continued misogyny and rhetoric also increases the likelihood of selecting Warren,” Simmons said.

There are plenty of reasons to think Clinton would never pick Warren, who would be seen as a risky choice for a fundamentally risk-averse candidate.

Yet Clinton and her close team of advisers are said to be considering the idea as the campaign inches closer to the general election. Democratic consultants and other Clinton insiders have been informally asked about their thoughts on Warren, along with other possible vice presidential picks.

Clinton, those around her say, wants someone who will completely contrast to what Trump and his running mate will offer.

“It’s a wild idea, but look at this race,” Simmons said. “You can’t be too wild. People are not in the mood for even and consistent. People are in the mood for long shots. They want someone to disrupt the status quo.”

A Warren representative refused to comment on whether Clinton and Warren had interacted recently.

Instead, the representative referred to recent comments by Warren about Trump.

“Republicans waited way too long to stand up and tell the truth about Donald Trump’s record, his temperament, and why he is unfit to be president,” Warren said. “We can’t repeat that mistake.”

Clinton is weeks away from a decision, according to those in her orbit, and is still mulling the likes of Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Tim Kaine (Va.). In the meantime, she is dealing with the primary challenge from Sanders, who is expected to defeat her in West Virginia’s primary on Tuesday.

A win by Sanders, who also hopes to do well in May 17 contests in Oregon and Kentucky, could give more ammunition to progressives who want to see someone give voice to their issues.

Warren has been neutral in the race between Clinton and Sanders, whose complaints about Wall Street and income inequality are in line with the Massachusetts senator’s message. It’s unlikely that Warren will come off the sidelines in the primary race until after the race is decided.

Trump has taken aim at Warren, writing on Twitter last week, “I hope corrupt Hillary Clinton chooses goofy Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. I will defeat them both.”

In a separate tweet, he wrote, “Let’s properly check goofy Elizabeth Warren’s records to see if she is Native American. I say she’s a fraud.”

Trump’s tweet was likely motivated by Warren’s vow to “fight my heart out” to prevent Trump’s “toxic stew of hatred and insecurity” from reaching the White House. Warren said Trump has “built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia.”

In invoking her Native American ancestry, Trump was raising a controversy from Warren’s 2012 Senate election against then-Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

Warren has said she is 1/32nd Cherokee, and Harvard University referred to her Native American background in touting its diverse faculty. Warren said she listed herself as such in a university directory to connect to other people, but did not use it to get a position.

While there is buzz about a Clinton-Warren ticket, not everyone thinks it would be a great idea.

One former senior Obama administration official said Warren was a “royal pain in the ass in the White House” when she worked as an assistant to the president and special adviser to the secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The official said Warren developed a reputation as “wanting her way, wanting all of it” and “expecting to be treated as senior staff.”

Asked if Clinton could have gotten those impressions of Warren from her time in President Obama’s Cabinet, the former official added, “Oh, I don’t think you need to be a Cabinet secretary to know that Elizabeth Warren is a challenging soul.

“Hillaryland hopefully will not feel so desperate to unify the Sanders base that she’d bring on Warren,” the former official said. “I would be shocked if [Clinton] picked her.”

A longtime adviser to Clinton pointed out that while Warren “would help in bringing the Sanders supporters back in the fold, it wouldn’t help in terms of attracting certain independents or moderate Republicans.”

The adviser continued, saying, “While you could argue she’d attract more votes and enthusiasm from the left than she’d lose on the center-right, I believe there are alternatives who could help avoid making it a near-zero sum equation.” Someone like Brown, the adviser added, could “help with left-leaning voters to some extent while not alienating center-right voters.”

Other political observers say a Warren selection remains unlikely because of her star power and how she could ultimately undermine Clinton.
Sponsored Content
Simple Trick To Paying Off Your Card Years Earlier

By LendingTree.com

What's the best way to pay down a credit card fast, pay the least interest & maintain your credit? Read More

Others cast doubts over a two-woman ticket.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 10, 2016, 06:29:52 AM
How about Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard?

(http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Tulsi+Gabbard+YKNsiq0rhU5m.jpg)
Title: Bernie Kills Killary in WV!
Post by: RE on May 10, 2016, 06:02:11 PM
Now, if the FBI and DoJ will just indict Killary...

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-10/bernie-beats-hillary-again-west-virginia (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-10/bernie-beats-hillary-again-west-virginia)

Bernie Beats Hillary (Again) In West Virginia

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/10/2016 19:47 -0400

    Bernie Sanders Donald Trump NBC Washington D.C.
 
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/05/10/20160510_WV_0.jpg)

NBC projects Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to win the West Virginia primaries.

While Bernie's hope are mathematically still alive, as Politico explains, his last best hope rests on a swing in superdelegates as Sanders continuing gains may sway them towards his popularity (as opposed to the establishment)...

    Entering Tuesday night, Clinton leads Sanders 1,705 to 1,415 in pledged delegates and 523 to 39 in superdelegates, an overall lead of 2,228 to 1,454. With only 926 pledged delegates remaining, Sanders' hopes rest with superdelegates deciding to abandon Clinton in large numbers.

     

    The Clinton campaign is confident enough that that won't happen that, in recent weeks, it has turned its attention largely to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

     

    Clinton is facing criticism in West Virginia for remarking in March that she intended to "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." The comment came in the context of her plans to find jobs for those workers in new industries, but it went over terribly in the state.

     

    But she did not kick off her week of campaigning in West Virginia. Instead, on Monday, Clinton was in a café in the affluent Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., where she courted women with a discussion on the importance of a "work-life balance."

Trump continues to close on Clinton once again...

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/05/10/20160510_WV1_0.jpg)

As The FT reports, while Donald Trump fights with the Republican party, its presidential candidate has also created a conundrum for Hillary Clinton who must decide how to respond to his tough rhetoric and frequent policy shifts.

    “There is a frustration that he is playing by different rules, but there is a belief that it has got to catch up with him,” said one person close to the Clinton campaign, adding that there was no consensus over the best response.

     

    The emergence of Mr Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee has sparked a debate inside the Clinton campaign over how she should respond to a man who has convinced many Republican voters — and some Democrats and independents — that he is an authentic anti-establishment candidate.

"No Fair!!" you're only allowed to play by the establishment rules!!
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 10, 2016, 07:51:16 PM
How about Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard?

(http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Tulsi+Gabbard+YKNsiq0rhU5m.jpg)

Looks a lot more native than 1/32th.
Title: Media Silent as Bernie Sanders Packs California Stadium Beyond Capacity
Post by: Surly1 on May 14, 2016, 07:33:43 AM

Media Silent as Bernie Sanders Packs California Stadium Beyond Capacity (PHOTOS)
(http://theuspoliticalpost.com/2016/05/10/media-silent-as-bernie-sanders-packs-california-stadium-beyond-capacity-photos/)

 

Despite the mainstream media’s repeated assertions that the Bernie Sanders movement is now a thing of the past, enthusiasm from his base only seems to be growing, based on the overwhelming number of people who flocked to his rally in Sacramento this Monday night.

 

Supporters lined up for over four hours to see Senator Sanders outside Bonney Field — some of them even longer. The following video by Our Voice Media shows the massive scope of the line, as the videographers take several minutes to drive from one end of the line to the other.

 

Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 people were estimated to have been packed inside the stadium, with more than 10,000 more continuing to wait outside.

We’re gonna make alot of trouble for these billionaires. 

 

The hashtag #BernieInSacramento quickly exploded onto the top trends on Twitter, and yet the mainstream media once again chose to ignore the massive influx of support and unprecedented turnout. The only outlet that covered the rally was local Sacramento NBC affiliate KCRA-3.

 

Below is the only picture attached to the article, obviously taken before the rally as people were still entering the field:

CiDl57JVEAQg3FL-cropped-jpg

Compare the above photo to these photos during the actual rally taken by supporters and uploaded to social media:

 

Of course, Bernie supporters are growing used to operating in a total media blackout. Spirits at the rally remained high, however, as attendees cheerfully destroyed the white male “Bernie Bro” stereotype by flooding social media with pictures of Bernie supporters of every race, gender, and age displaying their patriotism together.

saccity

 

“You got to fight to the end,” said Kathy Dennis, a member of the National Nurses Union, one of the largest and most passionate groups supporting Bernie Sanders. “And Bernie’s creating a bigger movement than just a nomination for the presidency. People are becoming active — feeling like maybe they can change the political climate of this country.”

The media’s strategy of ignoring the Sanders movement until it goes away is clearly failing miserably. Enthusiasm for Sanders was expected to dwindle as his prospects for the nomination became less encouraging, yet people are still showing up for Bernie by the tens of thousands wherever he goes.

Regardless of whether he secures the Democratic nomination, he has unquestionably sparked the passion of millions of Americans who will no longer give up on their values just because the two party system forces them to.

No matter the outcome, America will likely be feeling the Bern for years to come.

 

Nathan Wellman is a Los Angeles-based journalist, author, and playwright. Follow him on Twitter: @LightningWOW

SOURCE: http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-sacramento-california/

 
Title: Paul Ryan met with Donald Trump yesterday
Post by: Surly1 on May 14, 2016, 07:38:25 AM
Paul Ryan met with Donald Trump yesterday-

(https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/05122016GOPunityTrump.gif&op=noop)
Title: Dems' new fear: Sanders revolt could upend Democratic convention
Post by: RE on May 17, 2016, 05:45:08 PM
Dem side heating up!

RE


http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/)

Dems' new fear: Sanders revolt could upend Democratic convention
CNN Digital Expansion DC Manu Raju

    Many Democrats fear that if Sanders does not rein in his supporters, an ugly scene could take place at the DNC in July
    Sanders officials say that the Democratic Party should embrace the senator's supporters

(CNN)Sen. Barbara Boxer, a veteran of Democratic politics, says she never saw anything quite like this before.
Loud cursing, shouting, obscene gestures and vile insults, including crude comments about the female anatomy. It was all on display over the weekend as supporters of Bernie Sanders turned the Nevada State Democratic Convention into chaos.

"I was not able to stop these people for doing what they did," Boxer, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told CNN. "Apparently they've done it before. .... This group of about 100 were very vocal, and I can't describe it -- disrespectful doesn't even explain it, it was worse than that."
READ: Changing super delegate rules would still leave Sanders behind
Boxer is hardly the lone Clinton supporter to experience such harassment on the campaign trail. Several top Democrats told CNN publicly and privately that the energy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters has at times descended into incendiary attacks that threaten to tear apart efforts to unite Democrats against Donald Trump. Several female senators told CNN the attacks have been misogynistic.
What's more, many Democrats fear that if Sanders does not rein in his supporters, the same ugly scene that occurred in Las Vegas last weekend could replicate itself in the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"He should get things under control," Boxer said of Sanders, saying it was worse than the vitriol during the Bush-Gore 2000 recount. "We're in a race that is very critical. We have to be united. He knows that. I have in fact, called him a couple times, left a couple messages. I'm hopeful he can get control of this."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said "I do" when asked if Sanders should drop out of the race after voting concludes on June 7, giving Clinton a chance to "pivot" to the general election ahead of the July convention.
"I think it would be most regretful if there becomes a schism," Feinstein said. "That's what Donald Trump should want: a schism in our party. ... It's the responsibility particularly of Sen. Sanders to see that that doesn't happen."
On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he had a "long conversation" with Sanders to lay out what happened in Nevada.
"He said that he condemns that. I'm confident he does," Reid told reporters. "This is a test of leadership."
Reid declined to comment when asked if he was worried that Sanders' backers could upend the national convention this summer.
But Sanders' statement Tuesday was defiant, saying that the Democratic Party "has a choice: It can open its doors and welcome into the party" his backers or "maintain its status quo."
"At (the Nevada) convention, the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," said Sanders, adding that there have been "zero reports" of violence during his massive rallies across the country.
Asked to respond Tuesday afternoon, Reid was angry, telling CNN it a "silly statement" that "someone else prepared for him."
"Bernie should say something -- not have some silly statement," Reid said. "Bernie is better than that. ... I'm surprised by his statement. I thought he was going to do something different."
Nevada chaos
Sanders officials say that the Democratic Party should embrace the senator's supporters, not repel them. While they say they don't condone the behavior of some of their supporters at the Nevada convention, they blame leaders of the Nevada Democratic Party for shutting out Sanders' backers, prompting the chaos.
RELATED: What to watch in Kentucky, Oregon
But new audio obtained by CNN shows a senior Sanders aide -- on the eve of the Nevada convention -- encouraging the senator's supporters try to "take over" the convention, change party rules and continue the "revolution" that Sanders has long campaigned on.
"You should not leave," Joan Kato, the national delegates director, told Sanders supporters in a meeting last week at the Rumor Boutique Hotel. "I'm going to repeat that, unless you are told by someone from the campaign ... that you can leave, you should not leave."
The Sanders campaign hasn't responded to a request for comment.
After Sanders supporters thought the convention was being shut down prematurely, loud shouting ensued and there were reports of chairs being hurled. The phone number and address of the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange, was posted on social media -- prompting a flood of more than 1,000 calls, angry voicemails, text messages and even death threats.
"This is a citizen of the United States of America and I just wanted to let you know that I think people like you should be hung in a public execution to show this world that we won't stand for this sort of corruption," an unidentified male caller said on the message, provided to CNN and other news outlets. "I don't know what kind of money they are paying to you, but I don't know how you sleep at night. You are a sick, twisted piece of s--- and I hope you burn for this! .... You cowardless b---, running off the stage! I hope people find you."
One text message read: "We know where you live... where your kids go to school/grandkids. We have everything on you."
In an interview with CNN's Brooke Baldwin Tuesday, Lange called on Sanders to publicly apologize.
"I've not received an apology," Lange said. "I've not received anything from the campaign. I haven't seen anything that says this should stop. And it's going to continue unless people are made to feel like this isn't ok. This isn't behavior we should have."
RELATED: Clinton supporter says she'll face authenticity challenge
On Tuesday, the Nevada Democratic Party sent a formal complaint to the Democratic National Committee, saying Sanders backers and campaign officials "actively incited disruption and violence" at the convention.
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said on CNN's "New Day" Tuesday that "people who are supporting the senator should act in a civil way."
"They should obviously fight within the context, and by fight, I mean contest if there is a convention, they should be there, they should present their case, and then they should let the votes fall where they may," Weaver said, adding there should be no "threats of violence."
But he also took aim at Democratic leaders in Nevada, saying the "state party has a lot of problems," is run "poorly" and the system in the Silver State is done "very undemocratically" and is "dysfunctional."
"There seems to be an unwillingness on the party of the Nevada Democratic Party to bring in all of the new people that Bernie Sanders has brought into the process," Weaver said.
On Monday evening, Reid -- who has ruled the Nevada state party for years -- blamed Sanders backers for inciting the bedlam that ensued at the convention.
"I've been dealing with Nevada state conventions for 50 years: To say I was disappointed was an understatement," Reid told CNN Monday. "I hold his people accountable, and I'm sure if Bernie found out about it, he would not accept what happened there."
Fears of Philadelphia unrest
With Sanders warning that he plans to take his campaign to the July convention in Philadelphia, even if he's trailing Clinton in pledged delegates, Democrats are growing increasingly fearful that what happened in Nevada could be repeated just as the party is struggling to unite after a spirited primary.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said "of course" he's concerned that the same tactics would be replicated in Philadelphia.
"We saw what happened at the Trump rallies, which broke into violence, people punching one another. I don't want to see that happen at the Democratic Party," Durbin said in an interview in the Capitol. "I call on Bernie to say to his supporters: be fervent, be committed but be sensible. Don't engage in any violence."
Top Democrats say that it is incumbent on Sanders to bring his supporters in the fold -- or risk electing Trump.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who backs Clinton, said she has never before dealt with more aggressive supporters than Sanders' voters.
"It's been interesting to me because I've never experienced that before and I've been involved in every presidential campaign since 1976," Shaheen said. "We've had lots of people who have supported different candidates, and I've never seen that kind of behavior before."
Shaheen recalled an event days before the New Hampshire primary in February when Sanders supporters were "very aggressive," "heckling me and others as we spoke."
"That has never happened before," Shaheen said.
The senator added: "In this campaign, (Sanders) has gotten a lot of people engaged, he should be able to go through the primaries as he's committed to do -- Hillary Clinton did that in 2008," Shaheen said. "Hopefully, once the nomination is done, then he will endorse the nominee."
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: MKing on May 17, 2016, 05:46:49 PM
David H. Koch (pronounced "cock") rather likes Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFT-cwyhJn8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFT-cwyhJn8)

I cannot imagine any Koch, ever, liking Hitlery.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: K-Dog on May 17, 2016, 11:25:11 PM
(http://thescoutmasterminute.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/captain-obvious.jpg)

The democratic elite cant stomach a populist candidate that is not beholden to their machine.  Sanders needs his own party.  A third party that represents the interests of the majority and not the few.  A party that can articulate the anger which Trump has aroused with clarity and transform American government into a machine that yields a rewarding quality of life for all generations of Americans.  Including generations yet to come.



Title: Bernie Sanders tells Carson rally ‘I think we’re going to win here in California
Post by: RE on May 18, 2016, 12:24:09 AM
He'll need to take CA in a Landslide.

Hopefully we at least get a contested convention.

RE

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20160517/bernie-sanders-tells-carson-rally-i-think-were-going-to-win-here-in-california (http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20160517/bernie-sanders-tells-carson-rally-i-think-were-going-to-win-here-in-california)

Bernie Sanders tells Carson rally ‘I think we’re going to win here in California’


(https://photos.smugmug.com/TDB-Sanders-Rally-051716/i-N5zcDDD/0/L/0518_NWS_TDB-L-BERNIE-SMc253b-L.jpg)
U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders held his "A Future to Believe in Southern California Election Night Rally" at the StubHub Center Tennis Stadium Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Carson, CA. Sanders cheers on the crowd as he begins his speech. Photo by Steve McCrank/Staff Photographer

Photos: Bernie Sanders Rally in Carson



By David Montero, LA Daily News

Posted: 05/17/16, 9:53 PM PDT | Updated: 53 secs ago

U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders held his "A Future to Believe in Southern California Election Night Rally" at the StubHub Center Tennis Stadium Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Carson, CA. Sanders waves to the crowd after his speech.Photo by Steve McCrank/Staff Photographer
U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders held his "A Future to Believe in Southern California Election Night Rally" at the StubHub Center Tennis Stadium Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Carson, CA. Sanders waves to the crowd after his speech.Photo by Steve McCrank/Staff Photographer

Bernie Sanders entered a Carson arena like a rock star and the crowd roared to deafening levels Tuesday night as the Democratic presidential hopeful delivered a message of brash optimism despite the steep odds facing his candidacy.

“I think we have a real shot to win primaries in a number of states coming up,” Sanders said from the StubHub Center. “And don’t tell Secretary (Hillary) Clinton — she might get nervous — but I think we’re going to win here in California.”

Sanders and Clinton have dueled for months to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, but the former secretary of state has led steadily in the delegate haul and held a razor-thin lead in the Kentucky primary Tuesday night.

•RELATED PHOTOS: Bernie Sanders Rally in Carson

But Sanders, in the middle of his speech, got word that CNN had called Oregon for him.

The crowd thundered with more cheers.

“I’m getting to like the West Coast,” he said.

Sanders pulled out all the stops with a pre-rally lineup of Hollywood names, including Danny Glover, Frances Fisher and Kendrick Sampson.

Glover got a large ovation and spoke of Sanders’ commitment to civil rights and said the senator’s campaign was historic.

“Know that we’re making history here,” Glover said.

Sanders filled his speech with his regular talking points — his opposition to the War in Iraq and a move toward solving the problem of climate change.

•RELATED STORY: Bernie Sanders supporters protest at Hillary Clinton event

His rally drew more than 8,000 people and many arrived hours early to see the senator’s speech.

The line to get into the tennis center snaked around the complex while vendors hawked T-shirts, buttons, lemonade and bottled water.

Nico Vasquez drove from Yorba Linda and set up his drum kit near the front of the arena and began playing parts from his band, Indigo State, in a mix of psychedelic rock and jazz fusion. After tossing a set of drumsticks and grabbing new sticks, he got ready for another session.

He’s been a Sanders supporter for months, but said if the senator can’t overtake Clinton in the delegate totals, he’ll back the former secretary of state, reluctantly.

“I can’t support Donald Trump,” he said.

•RELATED STORY: Bernie Sanders parts ways with California campaign director

The rally was the third appearance in California in the past two weeks for Sanders, and he’s not done crisscrossing the Golden State. He’ll be in Santa Clara and Vallejo today.

It’s part of his push to win California and its 475 delegates in the June 7 primary. With early voting already underway and vote-by-mail ballots already being received, the campaigns continue to make California seem relevant to the nominating process on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Advertisement

Clinton recently opened up another campaign office in San Diego — her eighth in the state — and she will be in Southern California for fundraising next week. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will be speaking on her behalf in the state May 21-24.

Republicans are already set with Donald Trump, who is about 100 delegates away from securing the GOP nomination and is expected to clear that hurdle when California Republicans allocate its large pool to the billionaire. He is expected to be in the Los Angeles area next week for fundraising to compete in the general election.

Sanders said he wasn’t planning to stop his campaign, despite calls to do so, and urged his supporters not to give up.

“We are in until the last ballot is cast,” he said.
Title: Set-Up for the Battle at the DNC
Post by: RE on May 18, 2016, 03:32:24 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-democrats-sanders-commentary-idUSKCN0Y90C9 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-democrats-sanders-commentary-idUSKCN0Y90C9)

Homepage | Wed May 18, 2016 12:33am EDT
Commentary: Whatever happens, Sanders will be a force at the convention
By Robert L. Borosage

(http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160518&t=2&i=1137698694&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=644&pl=429&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC4H076)
Senator Bernie Sanders addresses the audience at the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 16, 2016.
Reuters/Alvin Baez

The Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July seems set to continue the fierce nomination battle -- and launch a major debate about what the party stands for.

Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, won the Oregon primary handily on Tuesday and was barely edged out in Kentucky. Last week, he took West Virginia by almost 16 percentage points. Yet, supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are already calling for him to stand down.

The Clinton team is intent on putting on a tightly scripted convention show that displays unity behind Clinton and focuses the attack on presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. But an early exit by Sanders remains unlikely. He has defined his campaign as building a movement to transform the Democratic Party and change the direction of the nation. He has stated repeatedly that he will carry that argument into the convention.

With many polls showing him beating Trump by greater margins than Clinton, Sanders can assert that pressing her to embrace more of his ideas will strengthen rather than weaken the former secretary of state in the general election.

From the start of his campaign, Sanders has argued that the issues on his agenda go to the heart of what Democrats stand for. He wants the Democratic Party platform to include: support for a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour; the right to form unions; changes in national trade policies, including opposition to the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement;  Medicare for all; break-up of the big banks; tuition-free public college, and robust policies to combat climate change that include a ban on fracking and a carbon tax.

Sanders has also championed more progressive taxation to pay for public investment in infrastructure, an end to mass incarceration, comprehensive voting reforms and curbs on big money in politics.

On party rules, Sanders is ready to question the role and number of super delegates, those on campaign debates and their consistency in open and closed primaries.

The question is how Clinton and her campaign will respond. One option is that she  can demonstrate confidence in her leadership by celebrating the energy of Sanders’ youthful supporters and supporting some of his signature reforms. This would show, as she has said repeatedly, that there is “much more that unites us than divides us.”

Successfully negotiating this challenge could help make Clinton more a candidate of change than one of continuity. Though President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are rising, surveys still show that 60 percent of voters want the nation to take a different direction than that under Obama, and only one-third want to continue his policies. Clinton could use her embrace of Sanders to highlight the changes she would champion.

Alternatively, she could decide to shut down any Sanders challenge as part of a pivot to a more triangulated position in the general election. This is likely to produce a tempestuous convention, however, and stoke the anger of Sanders supporters.

Sanders seems likely to force the issue in Philadelphia. His campaign stands ready to negotiate with Clinton about convention rules and the party platform. He is planning to debate the issues in committee meetings and on the floor of the convention hall. With his wins, Sanders expects a prime-time slot to address the convention, which would give him a platform to speak to the entire country. He will also likely continue rallying his supporters against the bigger threat of Trump. 

Clinton, meanwhile, would like Sanders to endorse her “without conditions,” as she says she endorsed Obama. (She made the endorsement only after Obama promised to help her retire some $22 million in campaign debts.)

Clinton, the presumed nominee, will clearly have control of the convention. Her ally, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has stacked the platform and rules committees with Clinton supporters, which has earned a justified public rebuke from Sanders.

Shutting Sanders out, however, would be the height of folly. He’ll come to the convention with more votes, more primary victories and a greater number of delegates  -- more than 1,500 -- than any insurgent Democratic candidate in decades. More than Senator Edward M. Kennedy against President Jimmy Carter in 1980, or Senator Gary Hart against former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984. Key blocs of voters -- millennials and independents -- have voted for him overwhelmingly.

These followers will be particularly sensitive to how Sanders and his ideas are treated in Philadelphia.

Sanders’ overall aim is to have the Democratic Party platform reflect his agenda. True, candidates often ignore the party platform. But it remains a measure of the party’s priorities and values.

Sanders first step will likely be direct negotiations with Clinton -- to probe what she is prepared to champion. He’ll want commitments on, for example, an executive order granting preference in government contracts to companies that pay a living wage with solid benefits, or on ending the tax loophole that lets hedge fund billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.

Sanders has already moved Clinton left on trade issues. She has come out against Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. She has also promised to sign a $15 an hour minimum wage bill and says she would never again allow Wall Street to threaten Main Street. She’s talked about regulating fracking tightly enough to make it virtually impossible. Her platform on reforming money in politics is essentially identical to Sanders’.

But Sanders is still pressing her to support tuition-free public college, which she has mocked in the past. A broader program along these lines would certainly help her with millennials, who have voted against her in overwhelming numbers.

Depending on convention rules, Sanders is likely to have enough delegates to bring some of his signature proposals before the entire convention. These might include Medicare for all, a carbon tax, a ban on Super PACs in Democratic primaries and breaking up the big banks. Many of Clinton’s delegates favor one or more of these proposals.

The argument in the Republican Party has focused more on Trump’s character than his policies. The Democratic debate in Philadelphia will be on substance -- the policies and priorities of the party and the direction of the country.

That contrast alone is likely to give the nominee a boost headed into the general election.

(Robert L. Borosage is president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future.)
Title: Infallable logic.
Post by: K-Dog on May 18, 2016, 07:35:29 AM
(http://3m7ajlsrzj92lfd1hu16hu7vc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/aristotle_bust.jpg)

All Hillary supporters are Democrats.
Some Sanders supporters are not Democrats.
Therefore some Sanders supporters will never be Hillary supporters.

QED

Q: The question is how many?

A: Enough that the Democratic party should say no to consecrating American royalty or the room could empty so quick there will be a sucking sound!




Fear the reaper, (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Donald_Trump_September_3_2015.jpg/112px-Donald_Trump_September_3_2015.jpg).  Be smart and embrace Sanders.  He is the only patriot among them.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 18, 2016, 08:23:03 AM
Sanders.  He is the only patriot among them.


I agree. I wish we could get a chance to vote for him in the election. But in spite of his extraordinary grassroots campaign, the political hacks appear to be carrying the day as usual.  I would be happier if I could see at least one more like him in American politics, preferably young enough to run next time. There does not seem to be another Bernie to return for another cycle. Like Ron Paul, he is a one-off.
Title: R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party
Post by: Surly1 on May 19, 2016, 01:48:04 PM
And don't think the Democrats are immune for a minute, in spite of Taibbi's conclusion.
Long, but a good and entertaining read.

R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-republican-party-20160518?page=9)

Donald Trump crushed 16 GOP opponents in one of the most appalling, vicious campaigns in history. His next victim? The entire Republican Party

 
BY  May 18, 2016
The GOP — the party of Ronald Reagan — has become the party of Donald Trump.

Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3rd, 2016, a little before 8:30 p.m. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz strode onstage beneath a gorgeous stained-glass relief in the city's Union Station. The hall was doubling as a swanky bar for an upscale local hotel, and much of the assembled press was both lubricated and impatient. The primary had been called for Donald Trump more than an hour before. What was the holdup?

SIDEBAR

Donald Trump; President trump; Rolling Stone; Cover Story; Primaries; GOP
How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable »

"God bless the Hoosier State!" Cruz said to whoops and cheers after he finally emerged. He was surrounded by a phalanx of American flags, family members and his gimmick running mate of six and a half days, Carly Fiorina, who stared out at the crowd with her trademark alien-abducted smile.

Cruz glanced back and forth across the room with that odd, neckless, monitor-lizard posture of his. He had to know the import of this moment. Nothing less than the future of the Republican Party had been at stake in the Indiana primary.

A Cruz loss effectively meant ceding control of the once-mighty organization to Trump, a seemingly unrepentant non-Republican more likely to read Penthouse than the National Review.

Before the vote, Cruz put it this way: "We are at the edge of a cliff, staring downward."

Now, Cruz was over that cliff, having been trounced 53 to 36 percent in his last-gasp effort to keep Trump from the nomination. In a detail the film-buff candidate Cruz would appreciate, he left Indiana with the same number of delegates as future senator John Blutarsky's grade-point average in Animal House: zero-point-zero.

Still, Cruz looked like he was ready for the "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" speech. He was going to fight.

"Will we hold fast to our founding values of rewarding talent, hard work and industry?" he asked. "Or will we continue on that path of creeping socialism that incentivizes apathy and dependency?"

The crowd roared.

"Will we keep America safe from the threats of nuclear war and atomic terrorism?" he thundered. "Or will we pass on to future generations a land devastated and destroyed by the enemies of civilization?"

More raucous cheers.

Cruz smiled. If he has a good quality, it is that he's not easily deterred by criticism. As he took the stage that night, he surely knew that former Speaker of the House John Boehner had recently called him "Lucifer in the flesh," and that fellow senator Lindsey Graham had said, "If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you." Likewise, when it was revealed Cruz once stated that one has no inherent right to "stimulate one's genitals," his college roommate Craig Mazin popped up to call him a hypocrite who'd whacked it plenty in college.

During the campaign, surprising numbers of Americans were even willing to believe Cruz might also be the Zodiac Killer. The infamous Bay Area murders began two years before Cruz was born, but 38 percent of Floridians at one point believed Cruz either was or might be the Zodiac. 

Donal Trump, Donald Trump Republican, Donald Trump campaign, Donald Trump primary, Republican party, GOP, GOP Trump, GOP electionIllustration by Victor Juhasz

 

Were they serious? In an age when Donald Trump is a presidential nominee, what does "serious" even mean? In any case, the cybercomics who fanned the flames of the Cruz-Zodiac meme will someday be first-ballot entrants in the Trolling Hall of Fame.

Finally, on the morning of the Indiana primary, Cruz woke up to hear opponent Trump babbling that Cruz's own father had been hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a bizarre take on a ridiculous National Enquirer story that Trump, of course, believed instantly. Trump brought this up on Fox and Friends, which let him run the ball all the way to the end zone. "I mean, what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death – before the shooting?" Trump asked. "It's horrible."

American politics had never seen anything like this: a presidential candidate derided as a haggardly masturbating incarnation of Satan, the son of a presidential assassin's accomplice, and himself an infamous uncaptured serial killer.

Despite the media humiliations, Cruz talked passionately of his supporters' resolve. "Just a few days ago, two young kids, ages four and six, handed me two envelopes full of change," he said. "All of their earnings from their lemonade stand. They wanted the campaign to have it."

The crowd cooed: Awwww! There was no way he could quit now and let those kids down. Except that moments later, Cruz did just that, announcing he was suspending his campaign because "the path to victory has been foreclosed." Then he fled the stage like he was double-parked.

The air vanished from the ballroom. Cruz supporters went nuts.

Nooooo! they screamed, hugging each other and crying. Many volunteers were from faraway states. They expected to be continuing on somewhere the next morning. Now they were all basically fired.

"What the fuck do we do now?" whispered one.

The pundits present were less emotional. "Does he get to use the lemonade money to pay campaign debts?" wondered one.

As ignominious an end as this was for Cruz, it was a million times worse for the Republican establishment.

The party of Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes had needed a win by Cruz, a man not just disliked but loathed by the party elite, to stave off a takeover by Trump.

And yet Cruz's main pitch to his voters had been that between himself and Trump, he was the one less connected to the Republican Party. "Cruz is the true outsider," was how one supporter put it in Indiana.

Cruz volunteer Dan Porter seemed stunned with grief after the results came in, but his sadness was reserved for Cruz, not the Republican Party. He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the fact that so many people had voted for Trump, a man who'd "been a Democrat his whole life," while a dedicated constitutionalist like Cruz had been so roundly rejected. 

Donal Trump, Donald Trump Republican, Donald Trump campaign, Donald Trump primary, Republican party, GOP, GOP Trump, GOP electionTed Cruz embraces his father Rafael and wife Heidi after ending his presidential campaign in Indianapolis on May 3rd. Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty

So lost in thought that he stared at the carpet as he spoke, he gave just an incidental shake of the head when asked what the future of the GOP would be now. It was as if the question wasn't even that important.

"Oh, there won't be a Republican Party," he said. "It's basically over."

Cruz had at least won nearly 600 delegates and had passionate supporters shedding real tears for him at the end. But nobody anywhere was crying for the Republican Party. Even Custer had a less-lonely last stand.  

Trump, meanwhile, spent the night basking in voluble self-admiration from Trump Tower in New York. This is becoming his victory ritual. The lectern from which he spoke said it all: TRUMP – VICTORY IN INDIANA – NEW YORK CITY.

Trump's naked disdain for the less-glamorous American flyover provinces he somehow keeps winning by massive margins continued to be one of the livelier comic subplots of the campaign.

From seemingly wondering if Iowans had eaten too much genetically modified corn to thanking the "poorly educated" after his Nevada win, Trump increasingly doesn't bother to even pretend to pander. This, too, is a major departure for the Republican Party, whose Beltway imageers for decades made pretending to sincerely prefer barns and trailers to nightclubs and spokesmodels a central part of their electoral strategy.

Not Trump. Hell, he went out of his way to brag about being pals with Tom Brady in the week before the Indiana primary, and still won by almost 20 points. Given the level of Colts-Patriots antipathy, this is a little like campaigning in Louisiana wearing a BP hat, or doing a whistle-stop tour through Waco with Janet Reno.

After his crushing win, Trump gave a breathless victory speech. It was classic Trump. "The people of Indiana have been incredible," he said. "I campaigned and I made lots of speeches and met lots of incredible people... You don't get better. The crowds got bigger and bigger... I didn't want to leave... We had a tremendous victory tonight... Boy, Bobby Knight was incredible." 

He had a few choice words for the GOP leadership. "I want to thank and congratulate the Republican National Committee, and Reince Priebus," he croaked, as his heavily-made-up, Robert Palmer-chicks collection of wives and daughters twisted faintly in a deadpan chorus behind him.

"It is not an easy job, when you have 17 egos," Trump went on, smiling. "And now I guess he's down to one."

The crowd roared. The RNC had kissed Trump's ring. That was it, right there, the death of the modern Republican Party.

After 9/11, it felt like the Republicans would reign in America for a thousand years. Only a year ago, this was still a party that appeared to be on the rise nationally, having gained 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships and 913 state legislative seats during the Obama presidency.

Now the party was effectively dead as a modern political force, doomed to go the way of the Whigs or the Free-Soilers.

After Indiana, a historic chasm opened in the ranks of the party. The two former President Bushes, along with Mitt Romney, announced they wouldn't attend Trump's coronation at the convention in Cleveland. Additionally, House Speaker Paul Ryan refused to say he would support the nominee.

There were now two Republican Parties. One, led by Trump, was triumphant at the ballot, rapidly accruing party converts, and headed to Cleveland for what, knowing the candidate, was sure to be the yuugest, most obscene, most joyfully tacky tribute to a single person ever seen in the television age. If the convention isn't Liberace meets Stalin meets Vince McMahon, it'll be a massive disappointment.

From there, this Republican Party would steam toward the White House, which, who knows, it might even win.

The other Republican Party was revealed in the end to be a surprisingly small collection of uptight lawyers, financiers and Beltway intellectuals who'd just seen their chosen candidate, the $100 million Jeb Bush, muster all of four delegates in the presidential race. Meanwhile, candidates whose talking points involved the beheading of this same party establishment were likely to win around 2,000.

Like French aristocrats after 1789, those Republicans may now head into something like foreign exile to plot their eventual return. But whether they will be guillotined or welcomed back is an open question.

This was all because they'd misplayed the most unpredictable and certainly most ridiculous presidential-campaign season Americans had ever seen.

On the one hand, they'd been blindsided by Trump, a foulmouthed free-coverage magnet who impulsively decided to make mocking the Republican Party mullahs his pet project for the years 2015-2016.

But they were also undone by a surge of voter anger that was in significant part their own fault. In recent years, the Koch brothers/Tea Party wing of the GOP had purged all moderates from the party, to the point where anyone who was on record supporting the continued existence of any federal agency, said Mexicans were people, or spoke even theoretically about the utility of taxes was drummed from the candidate rolls.

Their expected endgame here was probably supposed to be the ascension of some far-right, anti-tax, anti-government radical like Scott Walker, or even Cruz. 

Instead, this carefully cultivated "throw the bums out" vibe was gluttonously appropriated by Trump, who turned the anger against the entire Republican Party before surging to victory on a strongman's platform of giant walls, mass deportation and extravagant job promises that made the moon landing or the Bernie Sanders agenda of free college look incrementalist in comparison. 

Donal Trump, Donald Trump Republican, Donald Trump campaign, Donald Trump primary, Republican party, GOP, GOP Trump, GOP electionDonald Trump speaking at Trump Tower following his victory in the Indiana primary on May 3rd. Corbis/Getty

One could say this was just a calamitous strategic misread on the part of the Koch-brothers types. But another way to look at it is that this was the inevitable consequence of the basic dynamic of the party, which by the end was little more than a collection plate for global business interests that were, if not foreign exactly, certainly nationless.

There was a time in this country – and many voters in places like Indiana and Michigan and Pennsylvania are old enough to remember it – when business leaders felt a patriotic responsibility to protect American jobs and communities. Mitt Romney's father, George, was such a leader, deeply concerned about the city of Detroit, where he built AMC cars.

But his son Mitt wasn't. That sense of noblesse oblige disappeared somewhere during the past generation, when the newly global employer class cut regular working stiffs loose, forcing them to compete with billions of foreigners without rights or political power who would eat toxic waste for five cents a day.

Then they hired politicians and intellectuals to sell the peasants in places like America on why this was the natural order of things. Unfortunately, the only people fit for this kind of work were mean, traitorous scum, the kind of people who in the military are always eventually bayoneted by their own troops. This is what happened to the Republicans, and even though the cost was a potential Trump presidency, man, was it something to watch.

If this isn't the end for the Republican Party, it'll be a shame. They dominated American political life for 50 years and were never anything but monsters. They bred in their voters the incredible attitude that Republicans were the only people within our borders who raised children, loved their country, died in battle or paid taxes. They even sullied the word "American" by insisting they were the only real ones. They preferred Lubbock to Paris, and their idea of an intellectual was Newt Gingrich. Their leaders, from Ralph Reed to Bill Frist to Tom DeLay to Rick Santorum to Romney and Ryan, were an interminable assembly line of shrieking, witch-hunting celibates, all with the same haircut – the kind of people who thought Iran-Contra was nothing, but would grind the affairs of state to a halt over a blow job or Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

A century ago, the small-town American was Gary Cooper: tough, silent, upright and confident. The modern Republican Party changed that person into a haranguing neurotic who couldn't make it through a dinner without quizzing you about your politics. They destroyed the American character. No hell is hot enough for them. And when Trump came along, they rolled over like the weaklings they've always been, bowing more or less instantly to his parodic show of strength.

In the weeks surrounding Cruz's cat-fart of a surrender in Indiana, party luminaries began the predictably Soviet process of coalescing around the once-despised new ruler. Trump endorsements of varying degrees of sincerity spilled in from the likes of Dick Cheney, Bob Dole, Mitch McConnell and even John McCain.

Having not recently suffered a revolution or a foreign-military occupation, Americans haven't seen this phenomenon much, but the effortless treason of top-tier Republicans once Trump locked up the nomination was the most predictable part of this story. Politicians, particularly this group, are like crackheads: You can get them to debase themselves completely for whatever's in your pocket, even if it's just lint.

That's why the first rule of any revolution is to wipe out the intellectuals. Trump is surely already dreaming of the vast logging camp he will fill with the Republican thinkfluencers who are at the moment making a show of being the last holdouts.

Not surprisingly, in the past weeks, there was an epidemic of Monday-morning quarterbacking among the Beltway punditocracy, as GOP cognoscenti struggled to cope with the reality of Trumpism.

There were basically two responses among the tie-and-glasses sect of Republicans to the prospect of kneeling before the philistine Trump: In the minority stood New York Times lonely-hearts moralist David Brooks, who took the remarkable step of looking at Trump's victories and wondering what part of this unraveling could be his own fault. In Brooks-ian fashion, this essentially noble response came out as painful pretentious comedy. He concluded that the problem was that upper-crust conservatives like himself hadn't spent enough time getting to know the dirtier folks below decks.

Instead of "spending large chunks of my life in the bourgeois strata," Brooks promised to "go out into the pain" and "build a ladder of hope" by leaping across "chasms of segmentation."

Translated into English, this might have meant anything from trying the occasional domestic beer to actually hanging around the unemployed. But at least Brooks recognized that on some level, the rise of Trump pointed to a connection failure in the Republican kingmaking class.

SIDEBAR

Ted Cruz; Dropout
Ted Cruz Will Die So That You May Live »

No others among his conservative brethren saw it that way. Most Republican intellectuals recoiled in blameless horror from the Trumpening, blaming everything from media bias to the educational system for his rise. Some even promised to degrade themselves with a vote for Hillary Clinton before ever supporting Trump.

George Will of The Washington Post might have been the loudest objector. Will increasingly seems like a man who is sure history will remember him for his heroic opposition to Trump, and not for those 40-plus years of being an insufferable spinster who writes bad columns about baseball to prove his ties to the common man.

His diatribes against Trump, a "coarse character" who reads the National Enquirer and brags about the size of his "penis" (one could almost feel the pain it caused Will to have to commit this word to paper), took on an almost religious character.

Just before Indiana, Will began treating the nomination of Trump like a forest fire or a SARS outbreak, something that with the right spirit of sacrifice could be contained with minimal loss of life, and perhaps only four years of a Hillary presidency.

"If Trump is nominated," Will wrote, "Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party."

But the crowning effort on the right-wing snobbery front came from none other than British blogging icon and noted hairy person Andrew Sullivan. The aforementioned came out of semiretirement to write a 7,000-word jeremiad for New York magazine about how Trump was the inevitable product of too much democracy.

The CliffsNotes summary of his monstrous piece, "Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic," might go something like this: When I read Plato in grad school, I learned that in free societies the mob eventually stops deferring to the wisdom of smart people, and therefore must be muzzled before they send Trump to wash the streets with our blood.

Sullivan's analysis was a balm to the decades of butt-hurt that await the soon-to-be-ex-elite of the Republican Party. It blamed Trump's rise on everyone but Republican intellectuals: Obama, Black Lives Matter and even "the gay left, for whom the word 'magnanimity' seems unknown."

"A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to 'check his privilege' by students at Ivy League colleges," Sullivan wrote, in a sentence that would probably be true enough, if those two groups ever interacted. Sullivan was right that white conservatives in places like Indiana hate Ivy Leaguers and Black Lives Matter and the gay left and safe-spacers and feminists and all the other mocking, sneering, atheistic know-it-all types from cosmopolitan cities who scoff, as Obama famously did once, at their guns and their religion.

But they also hated all of those people eight years ago, 16 years ago, 30 years ago. What's new about the Year of Trump is that they have now also suddenly turned on their own party. Why?

Sullivan basically ignored this question. The closest he came to an explanation was a passage saying that "global economic forces" hurt blue-collar workers in particular, forcing them to compete with lots of other unskilled and basically fungible human beings around the world. Which made them, he guessed, pissed off.

This avalanche of verbose disgust on the part of conservative intellectuals toward the Trump voter, who until very recently was the Republican voter, tells us everything we need to know about what actually happened in 2016.

There never was any real connection between the George Wills, Andrew Sullivans and David Brookses and the gun-toting, Jesus-loving ex-middle-class voters they claimed to embrace. All those intellectuals ever did for Middle America was cook up a sales pitch designed to get them to vote for politicians who would instantly betray them to business interests eager to ship their jobs off to China and India. The most successful trick was linking the corporate mantra of profit without responsibility to the concept of individual liberty.

Into the heartland were sent wave after wave of politicians, each more strident and freedom-y than the last. They arrived draped in the flag, spewed patriotic bromides about God, guns and small-town values, and pledged to give the liberals hell and bring the pride back.

Then they went off to Washington and year after year did absolutely squat for their constituents. They were excellent at securing corporate tax holidays and tax cuts for the rich, but they almost never returned to voter country with jobs in hand. Instead, they brought an ever-increasing list of villains responsible for the lack of work: communists, bra-burning feminists, black "race hustlers," climate-change activists, Muslims, Hollywood, horned owls...

Donal Trump, Donald Trump Republican, Donald Trump campaign, Donald Trump primary, Republican party, GOP, GOP Trump, GOP electionEric Thayer/The NY Times/Redux

By the Tea Party era, their candidates were forced to point fingers at their own political establishment for votes, since after so many years of bitter economic decline, that was the only story they could still believably sell.

This led to the hilarious irony of Ted Cruz. Here was a quintessentially insipid GOP con man culled straight from the halls of Princeton, Harvard, the Supreme Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the National Republican Senatorial Committee to smooth-talk the yokels. But through a freak accident of history, he came along just when the newest models of his type were selling "the Republican establishment sucks" as an electoral strategy.

Cruz was like an android that should have self-destructed in a cloud of sparks and black smoke the moment the switch flipped on. He instead stayed on just long enough to win 564 delegates, a stunning testament to just how much Republican voters, in the end, hated the Republican kingmakers Cruz robotically denounced.

All of these crazy contradictions came to a head in Indiana, where Cruz succumbed in an explosion of hate and scorn. The cascade started the Sunday night before the primary, with a Cruz stump speech in La Porte that couldn't have gone worse. 

Things went sideways as Cruz was working his way into a "simple flat tax" spiel, a standard Republican snake-oil proposal in which all corporate, estate and gift taxes would be eliminated, and replaced with a 10 percent flat tax and a 16 percent consumption tax. Not because the rich would pay less and the poor would pay more, but because America and fairness, etc. He was just getting to his beloved money line, claiming, "We can fill out our taxes on a postcard," when a 12-year-old boy interrupted with cries of "You suck!" and "I don't care!" 

Cruz couldn't quite handle the pressure and stepped straight into the man-trap the moment presented. He lectured the kid about respecting his elders, then suggested the world might be a better place if someone had taught a young Donald Trump that lesson. It was a not-half-bad line of the type that the Harvard lawyer is occasionally capable. But Cruz couldn't help himself and added, "You know, in my household, when a child behaves that way, they get a spanking."

Boom! Within hours the Internet was filled with headlines about how Ted Cruz had suggested spanking someone else's 12-year-old for telling him he sucked.

This was on top of the ignominy of having already called a basketball hoop a "ring" while giving a speech on the gym floor in Knightstown, the home of the fictional Hickory team from Hoosiers. No American male would call a basketball hoop a ring, and even a French immigrant would know better than to do so in Indiana, but this was the kind of run he was on.

The rest of the race was a slapstick blowout. Carly Fiorina fell off a stage, and Cruz's wife, Heidi, actually had to answer a question from a Yahoo! reporter about her husband being called the Zodiac Killer. Heidi Cruz calmly responded that she'd been married to Ted for 15 years and "I know pretty well who he is." This, of course, was exactly what the wife of the actual Zodiac Killer would say, making for a perfectly absurd ending to a doomed campaign.

 

 

As anyone who's ever been to high school knows, there's no answer to "You suck!" When a bully pulls that line on you, it's because he can smell the weakness: the Jonas Brothers album in your closet, your good grades, your mantleful of band-camp participation trophies, whatever. When the mob smells unorthodoxy, there's no talking your way out of it. You just have to hold on for dear life.

Trump has turned the new Republican Party into high school. It will be cruel, clique-y and ruled by insult kings like himself and Ann Coulter, whose headline description of Cruz ("Tracy Flick With a Dick") will always resonate with Trump voters more than a thousand George Will columns.

And anyone who crosses the leader from now on will be fair game for the kind of brutal fragging Cruz and his circle experienced in Indiana. Dissenters will be buried under a cannonade of abuse coming from everywhere: Trump, other politicians, reporters, Internet memers, 12-year-olds, everyone. Add tough economic times to the Internet, and this is what you get: Nationalist High.

Indiana was the end of an era. As Fiorina moved through a pancake house on primary morning, her supporters meekly bowed and curtseyed as though she were the Queen Mother, calling her ma'am and showing off the small-town civility and churchy hospitality that was once a defining characteristic of Republican campaign-trail events. In the Trump era, this seems likely to be replaced forever by the testosterone-fueled diss-fests that had undone Cruz in this state.

"People don't care about civility anymore," said Cruz supporter Julie Reimann with a sigh. "It's another sad state of affairs, and when you see it across the Midwest and in our small towns, it's like, 'What has happened to us? Why are we so mean?' "

The real question might be, "Why weren't we meaner before?"

Politics at its most basic isn't a Princeton debating society. It's a desperate battle over who gets what. But during the past 50 years, when there was a vast shift in the distribution of wealth in this country, when tens of millions of people were put out of good, dignified jobs and into humiliating ones, America's elections remained weirdly civil, Queensberry-rules reality shows full of stilted TV debates over issues like abortion, gay marriage and the estate tax.

As any journalist who's ever covered a miners' strike or a foreclosure court will report, things get physically tense when people are forced to fight for their economic lives. Yet Trump's campaign has been the first to unleash that menacing feel during a modern presidential race.

Some, or maybe a lot of it, is racial resentment. But much of it has to be long-delayed anger over the way things have been divvied up over the years. The significance of Trump's wall idea, apart from its bluntly racist appeal as a barrier to nonwhite people, is that it redefines the world in terms of a clear Us and Them, with politicians directly responsible for Us.

It's a plain rebuttal to the Sullivan explanation for why nobody between the coasts has a decent job anymore, i.e., that there are "global economic forces" at work that we can no more change than we can the weather. Trump's solutions are preposterous, logistically impossible and ideologically vicious, but he's giving people a promise more concrete than "tax cuts will stimulate growth that will eventually bring jobs back." He's peddling hope, and with hope comes anger.

Of course, Trump is more likely than not to crash the car now that he has the wheel. News reports surfaced that Donald Trump, unhinged pig, was about to be replaced by Donald Trump, respectable presidential candidate. No more schoolyard insults!

Trump went along with this plan for a few days. But soon after Indiana, he started public fights with old pal Joe Scarborough and former opponents Graham and Bush, the latter for backtracking on a reported pledge to support the Republican nominee. "Bush signed a pledge... while signing it, he fell asleep," Trump cracked.

Then he began his general-election pivot with about 10 million tweets directed at "crooked Hillary." With all this, Trump emphasized that the GOP was now mainly defined by whatever was going through his head at any given moment. The "new GOP" seems doomed to swing back and forth between its nationalist message and its leader's tubercular psyche. It isn't a party, it's a mood.

Democrats who might be tempted to gloat over all of this should check themselves. If the Hillary Clintons and Harry Reids and Gene Sperlings of the world don't look at what just happened to the Republicans as a terrible object lesson in the perils of prioritizing billionaire funders over voters, then they too will soon enough be tossed in the trash like a tick.

It almost happened this year, when the supporters of Bernie Sanders nearly made it over the wall. Totally different politicians with completely different ideas about civility and democracy, Sanders and Trump nonetheless keyed in on the same widespread disgust over the greed and cynicism of the American political class.

From the Walter Mondale years on, Democrats have eaten from the same trough as Republicans. They've grown fat off cash from behemoths like Cisco, Pfizer, Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, Goldman and countless others, companies that moved jobs overseas, offshored profits, helped finance the construction of factories in rival states like China and India, and sometimes all of the above.

The basic critique of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns is that you can't continually take that money and also be on the side of working people. Money is important in politics, but in democracy, people ultimately still count more.

The Democrats survived this time, but Republicans allowed their voters to see the numerical weakness of our major parties. It should take an awful lot to break up 60 million unified people. But a few hundred lawyers, a pile of money and a sales pitch can be replaced in a heartbeat, even by someone as dumb as Donald Trump.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-republican-party-20160518#ixzz498Wftvvx 
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 19, 2016, 01:57:47 PM
Great minds think alike. I just posted this, like ten minutes ago. LOL.
Title: Kiddie Porn WMD Pulled on Trump
Post by: RE on May 19, 2016, 06:07:20 PM
Trump delegates are Child Pornographers & Bomb toting TERRORISTS!

They are pulling out all the stops here.  ::)

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/trump-delegate-child-porn-gun-explosives/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/trump-delegate-child-porn-gun-explosives/)

Maryland delegate for Trump charged with child pornography and possession of illegal gun and explosives

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160516104617-01-trump-0516-exlarge-169.jpg)

By Evan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter

Updated 5:52 PM ET, Thu May 19, 2016
Story highlights

    A Maryland man who was elected as a delegate for Donald Trump was indicted on child pornography charges
    He also faced charges of possession of an illegal gun and explosives

(CNN)A Maryland man who was elected as a delegate for Donald Trump to the Republican National Convention has been charged with creation and possession of child pornography and possession of an illegal gun and explosives.
A federal grand jury indicted Caleb Bailey on Wednesday, following an investigation led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives according to court records.

The indictment alleges between March 2015 and this past January, Bailey attempted to use and did use a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to produce child pornography.
The investigation began in February when Caleb Bailey shipped a package to a person in Wisconsin, but it ruptured open at a postal facility in Capital Heights, Maryland, according to a federal criminal complaint. Postal officials called ATF agents to the scene to investigate the package.
They found it contained 119 rounds of .50 caliber cartridges with incendiary projectiles, which are regulated as explosives, and 200 rounds of spotting projectiles, which also contained an explosive charge, according to the affidavit.
When the package did not arrive, according to an ATF affidavit filed in court, Bailey, using a false name, called the post office twice inquiring about its status and gave a tracking number that matched the parcel in which the explosives were found.
The Maryland Board of Elections lists Bailey as a District 5 delegate to the Republican National Convention supporting Trump. A U.S. law enforcement official confirmed that the Bailey elected as delegate was the same person arrested.
Lawyers for Bailey did not return a request for comment.
"We strongly condemn these allegations and leave it in the capable hands of law enforcement. He will be replaced immediately," Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told CNN.
Authorities said neither Bailey nor the intended recipient, an unnamed owner of a firearms store in Wisconsin, have a federal explosives license to manufacture or distribute explosives.
Law enforcement arranged a meeting with Bailey earlier this month, but he did not show. On that same day, according to the affidavit, search warrants were executed at properties associated with Bailey, including his residence.
"Bailey was present during at least part of the searches. Bailey made certain admissions to law enforcement, including that he had shipped the recovered package," stated the affidavit.
During the search authorities also recovered guns and other ammunition and they searched his computer and found suspected child pornography, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation.
Hundreds of illegal weapons, including machine guns, were found inside a bunker below the garage in Bailey's home, a U.S. official briefed on the investigation said. The bunker was lined with shelves storing firearms and explosives. ATF agents also found gambling and other equipment in the home, the official said.
Bailey's father refused to comment to CNN earlier this month after his son was first arrested and could not be reached Thursday.

CNN's Kevin Bohn contributed to this story.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 19, 2016, 09:09:21 PM
Hell hath no fury like Hellary (apparently).

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/ (http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 20, 2016, 01:33:45 AM
Hell hath no fury like Hellary (apparently).

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/ (http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/)

Plenty of reasons to oppose HRC. Not this smear. More extreme right wing agitprop, as is anything from WND. Sheer fascist propaganda.

I don't believe a word of it.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 20, 2016, 02:22:28 AM
That it is all pillow talk hearsay was why i added the disclaimer. THIS seems far fetched, what do others think?
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 20, 2016, 02:48:31 AM
That it is all pillow talk hearsay was why i added the disclaimer. THIS seems far fetched, what do others think?
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html)

The technology has been demonstrated.
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html)

Its commercial viability? No idea.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 20, 2016, 04:27:20 AM
Travelling at Mach 7 is all very well, but you also have to take off and land.  No one has built such a plane, let alone one that could take passengers - currently the scramjet is piggy-backed up to high altitudes before blasting off.  If you want passengers to be able to travel without first going through a medical examination, the acceleration has to stay well below 1 g, and they have to remain strapped in and without drinks all that time.  And you still have the trip to/from the airport to make.

I used to work in Bracknell, west of London's Heathrow airport, and every afternoon we would hear the double boom of Concorde as it flew over at super-sonic speed.  My wife was an insurance underwriter and was inundated by claims for damage to glass-houses.  She even witnessed such damage happening as Concorde flew over.  Eventually the public outrage at this meant they had to fly sub-sonic over land.  Only 14 Concordes ever went into service, and they never made any money.

It was just a prestige stunt, not something that was/is needed.  Now the same, only faster to increase the WOW factor.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: g on May 20, 2016, 04:41:10 AM
Hell hath no fury like Hellary (apparently).

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/ (http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/)

Plenty of reasons to oppose HRC. Not this smear. More extreme right wing agitprop, as is anything from WND. Sheer fascist propaganda.

I don't believe a word of it.

I find all of it believable except for the death list. Have read articles about her like this in the New Yorker way back when she was in the White House.

Dick Morris isn't the most credible of sources, that's for sure, but he spins tales about Rodan that make this article mild. Again, I believe him because of the depth of his descriptions of what she is and how she behaves. But I can understand why others dismiss Morris.

Personally, I have seen enough of her and her demeanor to consider the lady Pure Evil Swill. Just my two centavos on the matter.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: g on May 20, 2016, 04:46:50 AM
That it is all pillow talk hearsay was why i added the disclaimer. THIS seems far fetched, what do others think?
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html)

Looks like a done deal to me Unc.  The Concorde is an antique already, this appears to a non techie like me a likely advancement.


                                     (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/4/1/1110140.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: monsta666 on May 20, 2016, 05:34:08 AM
That it is all pillow talk hearsay was why i added the disclaimer. THIS seems far fetched, what do others think?
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596220/Superjet-technology-nears-reality-Australia-test.html)

From what I have read all existing scramjet planes depend on being piggybacked by some other platform be it a plane or even rocket. The thing with going at a speed of Mach 7 is you need a scramjet engine to achieve that sort of speed. Unfortunately for a scramjet engine to work the plane needs to already be travelling at Mach 3 or above. The thing is conventional jet propulsion engines generally have an upper limit of around Mach 2.5 (there are exceptions such as the SR-71 spyplane) so the fundamental problem is breaching this speed gap when the scramjet can be effective. From what I gather this gap has been mostly achieved by use of rocket which speeds the plane up until the necessary Mach speed is reached for the scramjet engine to operate. This process is not very reliable and there have been failures but even in successful cases the scramjet has only operated under limited time frames from generally under a minute and most certainly under five.

To say it is simple to turn this type of proof of concept technology into something that is viable for commercial or even a military application is quite a stretch as it is one thing to run under limited time frames to one that can run for hours. The other problem is as previously stated by Palloy if you wish to run a manned aircraft then the acceleration of the vehicle must be within acceptable G-force limits. The other thing to bear in mind is with manned aircrafts you will need a heavier plane that is capable of having life support systems thus the amount of thrust that needs to be generated by the scramjet will be even higher than when using a unmanned aircraft. This all adds to the cost and when you consider that previous supersonic projects such as the Concorde and SR-71 where grounded primarily due to their high cost it is questionable as to how this project would be viable even for the military who are pursuing this technology so as to make an even faster SR-72. Saying all that I can see this scramjet technology having a practical application; the main one being the development of hypersonic missiles that can operate effectively even with a severe limitation of restricted fuel burn time.

As for commercial passenger flight the idea seems even more fanciful as the costs (both financial and environmental) will be that much greater than the Concorde. The bottom line is you can't escape physics and all things being equal the greater the speed the more energy required to fly the vehicle and the greater the maintenance costs. This all translate into higher costs so in a world that is trending towards high energy cost environment it makes little sense to go for faster running vehicles. In fact it would be more prudent to go the other way and make planes slower but more fuel efficient.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 20, 2016, 11:58:22 AM
Great minds think alike. I just posted this, like ten minutes ago. LOL.

 Missed that.
Article was that good... that's my excuse.
Title: Re: R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party
Post by: Surly1 on May 20, 2016, 12:46:36 PM

R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-republican-party-20160518?page=9)
Donald Trump crushed 16 GOP opponents in one of the most appalling, vicious campaigns in history. His next victim? The entire Republican Party

On Friday afternoon, the scene looks a little different.

Remember #NeverTrump? Enlisted fully five elected offices, one of which is my representative, who is not standing for re-election. The rest of the field is hanging their heads and meekly getting into line. The possibility of a win is far more important than ideological purity, or "principles."
Remember all those Republican Presidential candidates and large numbers of conservatives who declared Donald Trump singularly unfit for the office of President? Aside from the Bushes, where are they now?  During the primaries these worthies insisted that Trump come nowhere near the nuclear football. But now? Suddenly Trump has become fit for office because he is not named Hillary Clinton.

Remember Piyush "Bobby" Jindal? Louisiana’s former governor lent his name to an article in which  he stood by all his criticisms of Donald Trump as a terrible choice for office, but would support him nonetheless. And Texas’s Rick Perry, who told Americans that Trump was unqualified to be President, will now raise money for his campaign because Trump is not Hillary Clinton.

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts endorsed Donald Trump after Trump had savagely attacked Ricketts’parrents and then, after Pete Ricketts’ endorsement, attacked his brother. The Nebraska Republican Party killed a resolution that denounced offensive statements by Republicans against minorities and women because they viewed it as an attack on Donald Trump.

I read that Foster Friess, he of the big money inflating the improbable uselessness of Rick Santorum four years ago, is reported in the tank for Trump.
Many of the rest are falling in as well. Mitt Romney’s allies have agreed to raise money for Trump.P. In 2016, the "conservative" candidate supports govt. healthcare, protectionism in trade, increases in the minimum wage, and Planned Parenthood. The other choice is Hillary Clinton, who is a neocon's neocon. Trump could be caught with a live boy or a dead girl as long as his name was not Hillary Clinton, many Republicans and conservatives would still vote for him.

Politico has a pretty good story on this today:
GOP elite line up behind Donald Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/gop-elite-line-up-behind-donald-trump-223394 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/gop-elite-line-up-behind-donald-trump-223394)

Trump also put forward a list of putative Supreme Court nominees that to those in the know looked like the federalist Cociety all star time. This better to establish his bona fides with so-called "movement conservatives."

Trump is a familiar figure because he is a troll. The New Yorker's Evan Osnos described him thus:
Quote
Trump has, indeed, made a powerful case that he is the Thomas Edison of trolling, our greatest serial entrepreneur of low-grade sadism, by tormenting his peers and setting alight whatever taboos lingered in American politics. Trump also skipped between social media (the natural home of the troll) and more traditional venues. Who else found time, between sessions of torturing former Governor Jeb Bush on the debate stage, to buy JebBush.com and redirect it to his own Web site? Trump recognized earlier than most politicians that bullying addles people of his own station, in large part because victimhood is an unfamiliar experience for them. Exceptions may exist, but on the whole such people didn’t get where they are in life by being bullied. When Trump taunted Marlene Ricketts, the matriarch of a family of wealthy Republican donors, her son Tom said, “It’s a little surreal when Donald Trump threatens your mom.”

Only 25 weeks until election day.
Title: Re: R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party
Post by: RE on May 20, 2016, 04:06:49 PM
It's a horserace to see who is a more effective Party Killer, The Donald or Killary.

RE
Title: Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Post by: RE on May 21, 2016, 04:33:52 AM
Maybe because if he does step down, there IS no "Amerikan Left"?  ???  :icon_scratch:

The only thing Killary is Left of is her Right pinky finger.

RE

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-wont-bernie-sanders-step-down-for-the-sake-of-the-american-left-a7040956.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-wont-bernie-sanders-step-down-for-the-sake-of-the-american-left-a7040956.html)

Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Sanders' most passionate followers are urging him to run as a third party candidate if he loses, which would hand the election to Trump.

    Rupert Cornwell

(http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/04/27/19/pp-bernie-sanders-epa.jpg)
Bernie Sanders is holding his ground and still hopes to secure the Democratic nomination EPA

Bernie Sanders holds the result of the US presidential election in his hands. You wouldn’t have believed that three months ago – just as you wouldn’t have believed Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee; or that Trump would have wrapped up the nomination before Hillary Clinton, the same Hillary Clinton whose victory, everyone thought, would be an instant Democratic coronation.

And who could have imagined that if there’s to be a chaotic convention in 2016, it’s now far more likely when the Democrats assemble in Philadelphia in late July, than when Trump completes his hostile takeover of the Republican party, a week earlier in Cleveland. But a lot of very worried Democrats who support Hillary Clinton are imagining precisely that. And all because of a cantankerous 74-year old proclaimed socialist who formally is not a Democrat at all.

Now no-one would deny Bernie Sanders’ positive impact on campaign 2016. He’s raised questions that desperately need asking: should the US have a single payer health system, should Wall Street be placed under tighter control, is the US political system a sham, controlled by big money and the highest bidder? Just as Trump with Republicans, he’s brought legions of new Democratic voters, especially younger voters, into the political process.
Bernie Sanders draws thousands to a rally in New Jersey

The fact is however that he has lost, despite a recent string of primary and caucus victories. In the 43 state contests held so far, Clinton has won 3 million more votes. To overtake her in pledged delegates, Sanders must pull off colossal victories in the two important primaries that remain, California and New Jersey. It ain’t going to happen. And that’s not to mention the superdelegates, roughly a seventh of the total in Philadelphia, who overwhelming support Clinton.

But Sanders won’t concede defeat and allow the party to close ranks for the general election battle against Trump. There’s nothing per se wrong with that. In 2008, Hillary soldiered on against Barack Obama until June. But, given that he’s much further behind than she was at a similar stage eight years ago – Sanders might at least be expected to tone down the rhetoric, so that the liberal insurgents and the party establishment can more quickly make peace.
People who will flee America if Donald Trump wins

Not a bit of it, however. His language against Clinton, and even more the Democratic National Committee is growing fiercer. The DNC has rigged the system, Sanders claims, while she is the creature of a rotten status quo. His most passionate followers even urge him to run as a third party candidate if he loses, which would hand the election to Trump. As Democrats found out with Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000, uncompromising idealists can be even more dangerous than incompetent rascals.

Until this week, she has mostly turned the other cheek. But on Thursday her frustration boiled over. Her lead, Clinton pointed out, was insurmountable. Just as Sanders now, she had reeled off a string of late primary wins in 2008 that didn’t matter. The message was clear. Yes defeat is really tough, after such a long campaign – I’ve been there and I know. But for the good of the party, get over it.

The odds still are they will make up. Both agree the enemy that matters is Trump. Eight years ago even more Clinton supporters vowed they would never vote for Obama than the Sanders’ followers now who say they will not vote for her in November. But that fury quickly subsided. And already the Clinton camp is offering Sanders greater representation on key convention committees.

Almost certainly, he’ll be granted a big say in the official party platform (platforms, incidentally, count for little in US presidential elections – certainly far less than party manifestos in British general elections.) Better an agreed platform that may be to the left of what Clinton would prefer, organisers surely believe, than a public brawl over the platform on the convention floor.

But after the fracas at last weekend’s convention in Nevada, to apportion the state’s delegates for Philadelphia, you have to wonder. The disputed procedural points are too arcane to go into here. What mattered was the physical near-fight that ensued. So menacing were the Sanderites protests that the whole event had been rigged, that police had to clear the premises. One US Senator present, the Clinton-supporting Barbara Boxer of California, said afterwards she had been scared for her own safety.

Pressed by party elders to disavow what happened, Sanders issued a mealy-mouthed condemnation, but spent more time accusing Nevada’s Democrats of preventing “a fair and transparent process.” Which is a bit rich, given that until he declared his candidacy last year, Sanders wasn’t even a Democrat at all.

More understandable is his argument that polls show him beating Donald Trump by an even larger margin than Clinton. But people vote for the candidate they want, not the one they logically should want. By that token, Republicans ought to be clamouring for John Kasich, their primary candidate who polled best against the former First Lady, to be the party’s standardbearer in November. But they’re not.

Should Sanders persist in his obduracy, he will provoke a showdown in Philadelphia live on national TV. Conventions in this age are designed as four-day party infomercials. A divisive or shambolic one virtually guarantees defeat in the general election – as in Chicago 1968, or the chaos in Miami four years later which saw nominee George McGovern give his acceptance speech at three in the morning.

Much the same happened to Republicans in the Barry Goldwater debacle of 1964, and to a lesser extent in 1976, when Ronald Reagan carried his campaign against the incumbent Gerald Ford to the convention itself. You have to feel for Hillary Clinton. It’s never easy for a cautious pragmatist and incrementalist like her to shine against a rival promising noble revolution. For the next few weeks at least, she will be fighting a two front war, against Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. And if the latter’s words mean anything, it could get worse still.
Title: Re: Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Post by: Surly1 on May 21, 2016, 05:24:22 AM
Maybe because if he does step down, there IS no "Amerikan Left"?  ???  :icon_scratch:

//
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-wont-bernie-sanders-step-down-for-the-sake-of-the-american-left-a7040956.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-wont-bernie-sanders-step-down-for-the-sake-of-the-american-left-a7040956.html)

Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Sanders' most passionate followers are urging him to run as a third party candidate if he loses, which would hand the election to Trump.

One of the great successes of the Clinton's observed "vast right-wing conspiracy" has been to drag the country to the right so far as to make the country we grew up in virtually unrecognizable. And this has been accomplished in no small measure by the D party itself by selling its principles off to the highest bidder, as summarized here:
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13254304_1403495926345929_3072843384648195725_n.jpg?oh=f0fe7134b5cd999109c8a120ec76e265&oe=57D2D56F)

Madame Clinton is going to need every single vote and will need to find a way to affirmatively appeal to the Sanders voters. With Nevada as an example of how to run roughshod over a populist insurgency, and with Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the helm, the party establishment will almost certainly deliver the promised nomination to Ms. It's-My-Turn. And Sanders voters will do... what, exactly? Now THERE is the question.

Bernie won't run third party precisely because that would hand the election to Trump. Also, because he said he wouldn't, and unlike most pols, he does what he says. But as I posted yesterday, you look at how the disaffected rightists are lining up behind Trump like so many ducks, and you look at the scurrilous shit that sewage drains like WND are already unleashing into the mix, and you realize that this year's election promises to be the filthiest we've ever seen. Hillary (not Killary, or Shillary, or Shrillary, or for fuck's sake "Hitlery") is nowhere near as astute or nimble a candidate as she is going to need to be to appeal to the disaffected left. Whose votes she is going to sorely need. She bristles with elite entitlement born of too many years inside the beltway. And she seems to be the only candidate left who does not hear to tramp of the feet of multitudes of peasants with pitchforks.


Title: Sanders gets his first concession from the DNC
Post by: RE on May 21, 2016, 06:04:14 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/05/20/the-daily-trail-sanders-gets-his-first-concession-from-the-dnc/573f68cf981b92a22d90f620/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/05/20/the-daily-trail-sanders-gets-his-first-concession-from-the-dnc/573f68cf981b92a22d90f620/)

Post Politics
The Daily Trail: Sanders gets his first concession from the DNC
By Rebecca Sinderbrand
May 20 at 8:05 PM

(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/fb0b4424dc4694023231dc7e48a20b71-908-692-DEM_2016_Sanders_03c4b.jpg)
It's crunch time. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings, File)

Democrats are trying to figure out What Bernie Sanders Wants — or at least, what they can convince him to accept. Two months from Philadelphia, the peace offerings have already begun.

"In an attempt to head off an ugly conflict at its convention this summer, the Democratic National Committee plans to offer a concession to Sen. Bernie Sanders — seats on a key convention platform committee — but it may not be enough to stop Sanders from picking a fight over the party’s policy positions," reported Abby Phillip and Anne Gearan.

"Allies of both Clinton and Sanders have urged Democratic leaders to meet some of Sanders’s more mundane demands for greater inclusion at the Philadelphia convention. Their decision to do so is expected to be finalized by the end of the week, according to two people familiar with the discussions. But growing mistrust between Sanders supporters and party leaders have threatened to undermine that effort.

Even without a nomination fight, you'll still probably need a scorecard to track the various convention fights. Despite the concessions, "Sanders plans an aggressive effort to extract platform concessions on key policies that could prompt divisive battles at a moment when front-runner Hillary Clinton will be trying to unify the party. Among other issues, he plans to push for a $15 national minimum wage and argue that the party needs a more balanced position regarding Israel and Palestinians, according to a Sanders campaign aide who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

"Much like their view that the economy has been 'rigged' to benefit the wealthy more than the middle and working classes, Sanders supporters have become increasingly convinced that national Democrats have stacked the political deck with rules that have made it difficult for Sanders to win enough delegates to threaten Clinton’s nomination.

"Party leaders, meanwhile, have grown more frustrated with Sanders, who they say has unfairly fueled that perception.

'I don’t think they’ve handled it very well and I think they’ve lost the moral high ground on this,' said Ken Martin, chairman of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party. 'It’s very clear now that the longer they stay in this race the more damage they’re doing.'"
For now, Sanders needs supporters to feel a little bit angry. And generous. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP)

Right now, Sanders might not be able to afford to tone down the angry talk: he needs supporters to get extra-motivated to send in more cash — and fast — heading into pricey California.

"Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton nearly match each other in fundraising, but the Sanders campaign continues to spend money at a rapid rate, leaving him with little in reserves to carry through the remainder of the Democratic primary, according to financial disclosures filed Friday," reported Abby Phillip and Anu Narayanswamy.

"Sanders was down to $5.8 million in the bank by the end of April, showing the heavy toll that Wisconsin, New York and other April primaries took on the campaign's finances. Clinton, by contrast, closed the month with $30 million on hand.

"Sanders and Clinton raised roughly similar amounts for the month — $26.2 million and $26.6 million respectively, according to Federal Election Commission filings and the campaigns.

"Sanders spent heavily to contest April primaries against Clinton. He won a significant victory in Wisconsin but lost in New York, which his campaign had set up as a critical test of strength. The New York primary was particularly costly for both campaigns, but Sanders outspent Clinton in expensive television advertising."

DEMOCRATIC TRAIL MIX:
L.A. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

—Here's a closer look at one of the battles Sanders is currently planning: those Israel-related changes he'll seek include "elevating Palestinian rights as a U.S. priority. People involved in discussions over potential changes to the Democratic Party's platform said Sanders would demand revisions in wording about U.S. relations with Israel and commitment to seeking peace between the U.S. ally and the Palestinians."

—There'll be plenty of action beyond the convention floor too: pro-Sanders demonstrators have already secured permits for four demonstrations that week, including one at which the city expects upwards of 30,000 people (organizers say they're hoping for even more.)

—More reporters are tracking down the individuals claiming responsibility for threats to Nevada Democratic officials. NPR's Graham Smith had a fascinating conversation with someone who appears to be one of the same individuals Jezebel tracked down with earlier this week (or, if not: many of these threats were made by a very, very specific demographic). It's worth the read, as a 2016 snapshot. ("He told me that he has terrible seizures that make it hard for him to get a job. There was a deep well of desperation and hurt in his voice. He came close to crying, maybe he was crying, when he gasped, 'and it’s not my fault!'")

—No, the Democratic divide isn't as bad as it was in 2008. That doesn't mean it can't get worse (Obama had young supporters. So does Sanders. They aren't necessarily the same ones.)

—We hate being this person. We really do. But there are a few things in life we care about deeply, and one of them happens to be Venn diagrams. This, released by the Clinton campaign as Trump took the stage at the NRA convention, is not a Venn diagram:

This is a Venn diagram:

(Philip Bump reminds us why the first graphic doesn't work, and fixes it here.)

AT THE NRA CONVENTION, TRUMP HAD CLINTON IN HIS SIGHTS
He got the nod. REUTERS/John Sommers II

Today, Donald Trump — "who just a few years ago praised President Obama’s appeal for stronger gun control following the Newtown mass shootings — was endorsed and embraced by the National Rifle Association, completing his rapid transformation into a fierce pro-gun advocate," reported Jenna Johnson.

"Instead of detailing his own positions on gun-rights issues at a political forum attended by thousands of NRA members, Trump told the crowd that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton would 'abolish the 2nd Amendment' and then release violent criminals from prison, not caring that innocent citizens would be unable to protect themselves.

"'Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable Americans in high-crime neighborhoods,' Trump said. 'Whether it’s a young single mom in Florida or a grandmother in Ohio, Hillary wants them to be defenseless, wants to take away any chance they have of survival... And that’s why we’re going to call her Heartless Hillary.'"

Clinton fired back on Twitter:

Maya Harris, Clinton’s senior policy adviser, called Trump’s remarks "conspiracy theories" that "distract from his radical and dangerous ideas."

Gun control has already been a flash point in the race (even in the Democratic primary, where Clinton has used the issue to hammer Bernie Sanders.) But as Jenna notes: the gulf between Trump and Clinton wasn't always so wide...

Trump also told the NRA crowd Friday he wanted to eliminate gun-free zones — although the presence of a presidential candidate meant the temporary creation of another, per Secret Service guidelines:

On the other hand, if he really wanted to, Trump might be able to eliminate at least one gun-free zone right now:

PARTY HEALING UPDATE: IT'S HAPPENING
The primary season is definitely over. (Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

The good news for Republicans is that polling confirms their party is rallying around Donald Trump. It also appears to shows a tightening race — but as we noted earlier this week: maybe not so much. "With their nominee settled, Republicans are rallying around him," says Philip Bump. But "the coin has another side to it: When the Democrats finally have only one candidate left, the same effect should be expected to apply."

Sometimes, #math is hard. One number this week is particularly tough for the presumptive GOP nominee: seven in 10 likely voters in the new New York Times/CBS poll said they think Trump doesn't have the right temperament to serve as president. (The worse news, for down-ballot Republicans: split ticket voting isn't really a thing anymore.)
At the Trump-Christie fundraiser. REUTERS/Mike Segar

On other fronts, the healing remains...a work in progress.

—Last month, Donald Trump tangled with conservative Wisconsin radio host (and #NeverTrump supporter) Charlie Sykes. This Wednesday, he included the host's ex-wife on a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. That same day, says Sykes, Trump's assistant reached out and told him the mogul wanted to send him a message, which turned out to be the Monday A section of the New York Times that featured a front-page story about the GOP warming up to Trump's candidacy, with a note added in Sharpie: "Charlie -- I Hope you can change your mind. Look forward to doing your show. Donald Trump... I WILL WIN!" Sykes was....surprised. "Despite the fact that Trump has publicly called me a 'lowlife' and a "dummy," I do appreciate the outreach," he said. "But, still #NeverTrump."

—Speaking of conservative #NeverTrump radio hosts: Erick Erickson — who opposed Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012, and said his nomination would mean "conservatism dies" — said he would like him to reconsider the idea of mounting a third-party bid. Trump himself has enlisted Romney confidant Mike Leavitt to oversee his presidential transition plans.

—Trump is having better luck with Joe Scarborough, largely because he and the MSNBC host seem to be embracing what we like to think of as the Neuralizer Rule: when everyone gets together after a big fight, sometimes the best approach is just to smile and act as though the previous few days/weeks/months never happened. (That's how the two handled Trump's "Morning Joe" hit today.)

TOMORROW'S ATTACK AD, TODAY:
How much does the money matter? (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

April 15 is past, but tax headaches may have just begun for Donald Trump.

"The last time information from Donald Trump’s income-tax returns was made public, the bottom line was striking: He had paid the federal government $0 in income taxes," reported Drew Harwell. (If you live in a swing state, and you hadn't heard about this story before: get ready to hear more about it. A lot more.)

"The disclosure, in a 1981 report by New Jersey gambling regulators, revealed that the wealthy Manhattan investor had for at least two years in the late 1970s taken advantage of a tax-code provision popular with developers that allowed him to report negative income.

"Today, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Trump regularly denounces corporate executives for using loopholes and false deductions to 'get away with murder' when it comes to avoiding taxes.

"'They make a fortune. They pay no tax,' Trump said last year on CBS. 'It’s ridiculous, okay?'
Donald Trump's evolution on candidate tax returns
Play Video1:55

"The contrast highlights a potentially awkward challenge for Trump.

"He has built a political identity around his reputation as a financial whiz, even bragging about his ability to game the tax code to pay as little as possible to the government — a practice he has called the 'American way.' Moreover, he has aggressively pursued tax breaks and other government supports to bolster his real estate empire. But that history threatens to collide with his efforts to woo working-class voters who resent that they often pay higher tax rates than the wealthy who benefit from special loopholes.
Content from Lockheed MartinQuick and quiet
Supersonic flight promises to lose the sonic boom.

And a reminder: we still don't know what we don't know. "Trump’s personal taxes are a mystery. He has refused to release any recent returns, meaning the public cannot see how much money he makes, how much he gives to charity and how aggressively he uses deductions, shelters and other tactics to shrink his tax bill.

"Trump, who said last week on ABC that his tax rate is 'none of your business,' would be the first major party nominee in 40 years to not release his returns.

"In an interview this week, Trump said that he has paid 'substantial' taxes but declined to provide specifics.

"He reiterated that he fights 'very hard to pay as little tax as possible.'" It's an approach that might draw applause from many Trump supporters; people should be able to hold on to as much of their own money as possible, they say."
Four times Donald Trump told reporters, 'It's none of your business'
Play Video1:16

(His taxes are "none of your business," says Trump. So are a few other things.)

And here's what that approach looks like: "In Ossining, N.Y., home to a Trump National Golf Club, town officials say that a tax break being sought by the company would cost their coffers more than $200,000 a year.

"In seeking the reduction, Trump’s lawyers have claimed that the club is worth far less than the roughly $15 million value assessed by the city.

"Trump’s lawyers have filed papers with the state claiming that the 'full market value' of the property is $1.4 million. The same golf course appears on Trump’s new financial disclosure form released this week as part of his presidential campaign — valued by him at more than $50 million.

"Trump lawyer Alan Garten did not respond to questions about the discrepancy.

"Ossining Town Supervisor Dana Levenberg, a Democrat, expressed frustration that Trump seemed to be gaining 'at other people’s loss.'

"'It’s hard to look at someone who talks about their wealth frequently and think they got that successful on other people’s backs,' she said." That's the Democratic message on Trump taxes. The question is how much that message might (or might not) resonate with working-class voters who aren't already in the Clinton column. "

TRUMP TRAIL MIX:
New Jersey. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

—Here's something else you may or may not have heard, last night but will definitely hear this fall: Donald Trump, in a Trump University audiobook, saying in 2006 that he "sort of hope" the real estate market crashes, because then people like him "could go in and buy" low. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you can make a lot of money," he added. "If you're in a good cash position -- which I'm in a good cash position today -- then people like me would go in and buy like crazy."

—As long as we're talking Things Trump Says: His remarks at last night's Chris Christie fundraiser made shockwaves on social media, which is what tends to happen when a speech includes lines like "Who the hell cares if there's a trade war [with China]?" (Apparently, some people do.)

—Many Republicans consider Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) a contender to be Donald Trump’s running mate; on Monday, the two plan to meet at Trump Tower in New York, reported Robert Costa. In other VP news, former Texas governor Rick Perry told CNN's Jeremy Diamond he'd help Trump any way he could "within reason" — and that, yes, the vice presidency is "within reason." He's already shown his support in a tangible way: it's been months since he referred to the presumptive nominee as a "barking carnival act" or a "cancer on conservatism." So.

—As the Trump fundraising machine whirs to life, Great America PAC — the main super PAC backing Trump — is reporting roughly $65,000 cash on hand. (No, that figure isn't missing any zeroes.) For some perspective: the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA Action super PAC is saying it has $47 million on hand to fund anti-Trump attack ads.

—Speaking of Trump fundraising: The mogul said that his veterans fundraiser earlier this year had brought in $6 million. Now his advisers say it's more like $4.5 million. (On a related note: there's been no documentation so far that the $1 million personal donation Trump promised has yet been made.)

YOUR DAILY TRAIL PIT STOP: This week's Donald Trump/Megyn Kelly interview, songified.
Title: Re: Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 21, 2016, 07:41:09 AM
Why won't Bernie Sanders step down for the sake of the American Left?
Sanders' most passionate followers are urging him to run as a third party candidate if he loses, which would hand the election to Trump.
Funny part is, in a two-person race Trump vs. Clinton, I vote for Trump.  Add Sanders to the mix as an independent candidate, and I vote for Sanders.  Even funnier, I supported Hillary in 2008, she had some ideas we could have used back then.  Her time has past.  A Clinton presidency now just would result in a frog-boiling apathy collapse.  A Trump presidency could energize the left like Obama did for the TEA party.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on May 21, 2016, 01:34:30 PM
The "Democratic" (LOL!) Party will double cross Sanders on absolutely everything they promise him to get his votes for Hillary. Sanders knows that.  ;)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 21, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
What does Bernie want? Hmmm lets see, WIN the presidency and nothing less perhaps you dipshit shill.
Title: First, Do Some Harm: How to Smear a Disfavored Candidate on NYT’s Front Page
Post by: Surly1 on May 22, 2016, 07:39:47 AM
By the way, anyone who would like an antidote to the corrosive, petroleum taste of govcorp propaganda could do worse than to visit the site of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (fair.org), which a media watchdog site providing a welcome taste of sorbet as antidote.

First, Do Some Harm: How to Smear a Disfavored Candidate on NYT’s Front Page (http://fair.org/home/first-do-some-harm-how-to-smear-a-disfavored-candidate-on-nyts-front-page/)

 

The first sentence of the lead story in yesterday’s New York Times (5/19/16) had some surprising news:

Senator Bernie Sanders is opening a two-month phase of his presidential campaign aimed at inflicting a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton in California….

That would be odd behavior—a political campaign having the professed aim of damaging an opponent rather than advancing its candidate. The New York Times wouldn’t lead with this sensational claim unless it had hard evidence, right?

Well, you have to go to the seventh paragraph of the story–co-bylined byPatrick Healy, Yamiche Alcindor and Jeremy W. Peters–before you find an actual quote from anybody. And that’s this:

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator’s team was “not thinking about” the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president.

This is Bad Journalism 101: You come up with a thesis, like “Bernie Sanders wants to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of beating Donald Trump.” You take your thesis to your source, and ask them to agree with it; like any sensible spokesperson, they decline to comment on it. You take their no-comment as an endorsement of your thesis—and that becomes the lead headline in the nation’s most influential newspaper:

NYTHarmClinton

As a bonus, you get to make a front-page allusion to violence on the part of Senator Sanders, which bolsters the idea—advanced by phantom chair-throwing incidents—that the Sanders campaign is a dangerous menace. (Note that the story’s original headline was the less-inflammatory “Bernie Sanders’s Campaign Accuses Head of DNC of Favoritism“—which became the more slanted “Bernie Sanders’s Defiance Strains Ties With Top Democrats” before settling on the final smear.)

The real problem that the Times has with the Sanders campaign, I would suggest, is revealed at the end of that lead, where Healy et al. write that Sanders plans on “amassing enough leverage to advance his agenda at the convention in July—or even wrest the nomination from her.”

Yes, the New York Times has the scoop: Bernie Sanders is secretly hoping to win the election!

Healy is one of the Times reporters who wrote, back in October, about “Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest.” The Times will not forgive Sanders for proving them wrong.


Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. He can be followed on Twitter:@JNaureckas.

You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com(Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

Title: Down with the Duopoly: The Republicans Have Split; Now It’s the Democrats' Turn
Post by: Surly1 on May 23, 2016, 08:34:00 AM
This form Glen Ford, editor of Black Agenda Review, whose work I admire and whose politics make me look like a Republican businessman at a prayer breakfast. He could well be right.

Down with the Duopoly: The Republicans Have Split; Now It’s the Democrats' Turn (http://www.blackagendareport.com/the_end_of_duopoly)

(http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/default/files/styles/image-400x300/public/Glen_BernieReasonToVote.jpg?itok=37jt3R9b)


The split in the Democratic Party will become an unbridgeable chasm “when Sanders supporters are forced to recognize that the 40-plus percent of the Democratic base they represent cannot coexist with Hillary’s ‘truer and more fully explicit ruling class party,’ and needs its own electoral political formation.” The Republican side of the corporate duopoly has already been destabilized. Clinton’s hard right turn will fracture the Democrats.

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

Down with the Duopoly: The Republicans Have Split; Now It’s the Democrats' Turn

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

If Clinton has her way – and she will – this will be the last national convention at which leftish Democrats will have a powerful presence.”

The centrifugal forces set in motion by the global capitalist Race to the Bottom have come home to roost in the United States of Wall Street, and will swirl through the streets and Democratic Party convention halls in Philadelphia, this summer.

Democratic honchos, fearing that last weekend’s raucous Democratic Party convention in Las Vegas is a harbinger of the impending meltdown, pleaded with Bernie Sanders supporters to unite in a common front against Donald Trump. “We just can’t have a repeat of that in Philadelphia because it’s distressing,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was booed in Las Vegas. “I have a message to the Bernie people who are planning to be disobedient because the system is rigged... There is nothing to protest.”

The corporate media, acting as press agents for Hillary Clinton, filled their columns with calumny against Sanders for failing to condemn the “violence” of his supporters, many of whom appear to increasingly view Philadelphia as an “Occupy” venue. Sanders, understanding that the power of potential disruption is all that he has left, refused to denounce his followers. “At the [Nevada] convention, the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," said Sanders, pointing out that there have been "zero reports" of violence at his campaign rallies around the country.

Nina Turner, the Black former state senator from Ohio and frequent spokesperson for the Sanders campaign, predicted, “It is going to be progressives who will disrupt. And when I say disrupt, I don’t mean in a violent or a terrible way, but I just mean upset the apple cart.”

Rose Ann DeMoro, whose National Nurses United union endorses Sanders, said “We will be a significant force inside and a significant force outside” the convention in Philadelphia. “The focus is going to be how disenfranchised the voters felt during this election by the D.N.C.”

“Sanders, understanding that the power of potential disruption is all that he has left, refused to denounce his followers.”

It will be difficult to differentiate between the Sanders Democrats and the leftish legions that will descend on Philadelphia, in July. The Green Party, which has attempted to open a dialogue with Bernie Sanders since 2011 – to no avail, according to Green presidential candidate Jill Stein– plans to muster a significant presence in Philadelphia, alongside the Socialist Alternative party and other leftish electoral groupings. The Democratic National Committee is huddling with Philadelphia police “to ensure the safety and security of all of our delegates and participants” in anticipation of the thousands of protesters that will attempt to mass near the convention site.

Hillary Clinton has largely left it to surrogates to attack Sanders and his supporters. She’s already in general election mode, reaching out to Republican “moderates” – defined as any GOP right-winger that is disgruntled with Trump, for any reason. Clinton’s think-tankers are salivating at the prospect of absorbing much of the GOP’s previous base, minus the 30 percent or so of white folks who demand an overtly White Man’s Party that rejects jobs-exporting trade deals – the twin cores of Trump’s appeal. Convinced that the rest of the Republican Party is up for grabs, Clinton is deep into her hard right turn, seeking to build a “Big Tent” party that will be even more inhospitable to its leftish wing – including Blacks, who are the most pro-redistributionist and anti-war constituency in the country, but are trapped in the duopoly by fear of the White Man’s Party.

If Clinton has her way – and she will – this will be the last national convention at which leftish Democrats will have a powerful presence. Clinton is also in the process of capturing, by default, much of the Republican Party’s fat cat financial supporters and the whole GOP-oriented imperialist political infrastructure, the permanent warmongers. 

“Clinton’s think-tankers are salivating at the prospect of absorbing much of the GOP’s previous base.”

“Get ready for the whiplash,” says the writer and activist Paul Street, author of They Rule: Democracy Versus the 1%. “The Democratic Party is about to go from being the party that allowed a self-declared democratic socialist to go very far in the primary process, to becoming, objectively, the truer and more fully explicit ruling class party in the country.”

Donald Trump, whose foreign policy is objectively way to the left of, not only Clinton, but of any modern U.S. president, rejecting the “national security” basis of the global American military presence, is accentuating his support for Social Security and Medicare – programs that Barack Obama began attacking even before he was sworn in for his first term as president, in 2009. When he is in the White House, says Trump, the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “will be renegotiated and probably terminated.” Trump says Clinton “is totally controlled by Wall Street.”

This is the kind of talk – enthusiastically received by Trump’s white nationalist masses – that flushes Big Capital and the military-industrial complex out of the Republican Party and into Hillary’s like-minded corporate Democratic network. The corporate-imperial core of the GOP cannot live with Trump’s politics (and may not let him live, if they conclude he stands a chance of being elected).

Whatever happens in November, Trump’s legions are on their own political trajectory, which will find expression either through a scaled down Republican Party or a new party formation. There is little chance that the GOP elite can field their own candidate in November – it’s much easier to simply back Clinton, this time around. However, the institutional Republican Party is huge, with office-holders of the old school in place at every level who will fight to continue as a corporate-militarist political force. But, without its white nationalist (overtly racist) and anti-Wall Street mass base, the GOP as we have known it has passed into history. The Republican side of the duopoly has been destabilized.

“The corporate-imperial core of the GOP cannot live with Trump’s politics.”

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party, reinforced by millions of suburban erstwhile Republicans and the moneybags that refuse to feed Trump’s ambitions, cannot long accommodate the leftish Democrats arrayed around Sanders. The primary race has taught the Sandernistas that they are a coherent political force in opposition to Wall Street. They will learn just how unwanted they are in the party as the campaign plays out. Indeed, the Sanders enterprise is no longer a presidential campaign, since even its adherents understand that the nomination is lost. It’s not a “movement” either (a much misused word), but a fight to find space for progressives in a corporate Democratic structure. However, the extra space in Hillary’s “Big Tent” is reserved for Republican refugees from Trump. The “movement” chapter opens when Sanders supporters are forced by events to recognize that the 40-plus percent of the Democratic base that they represent cannot coexist with Hillary’s “truer and more fully explicit ruling class party,” and needs its own electoral political formation – with or without Bernie Sanders (almost certainly, without). Thus, the Democratic side of the duopoly is also unstable, and ripe for a split.

The fracturing of the GOP has, in fact, helped create the conditions for the Democratic split, both by encouraging Democratic corporatists to move further Right to scoop up unmoored Republicans and their financiers, and by shrinking the base of the GOP, rendering it less of anobjective threat to scary lefties. Outsized fear of Trump is hysteria. These days, the “brown shirts” wear blue. Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street, War and Austerity – not Trump, the racist America Firster. And, he can’t win, anyway – not with tens of millions of “moderate” Republicans and most of the party’s funders rushing into Hillary’s welcoming embrace.

Again, the “movement” phase of this saga begins after Sanders and his followers are crushed in Philadelphia. A mass social democratic party is necessary to claim the immense political space to the left of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate faction of the Party co-founded by Bill Clinton in the Eighties to wage political war against progressives, Blacks and labor within the party ranks. The DLC won that war, electing its second president, Barack Obama, in 2008, after which it went out of business for lack of a mission. Hillary will be the third DLC president, and should be the last leader of a zoo-like Democratic Party encompassing warmongers like herself (“We came, we saw, he died”) and Black people, the most anti-war constituency in the nation, only 7 percent of whom favored an Iraq invasion that “would result in the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians.”

“Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street, War and Austerity – not Trump, the racist America Firster.”

However, Blacks will only abandon the Democrats in large numbers when it is clear that the two-party corporate duopoly has been broken – that the choice is no longer between The White Man’s Party (GOP) and the party that is more racially inclusive. When that happens, many Black people will find the new party to be a much better fit since, according to Black social demographer Michael Dawson, the biggest bloc of Black voters are most like Swedish Social Democrats, and a very large number of them are “more radical than that.”

The demise of the duopoly will also create the space for the kind of independent Black politics that is impossible under the hegemony of the Democratic Party in Black America. Again, “movement” politics is in order to prepare the way for this potential sea change. Black folks have been captives in the Democratic enclosure for more than two generations, without a movement to wrestle with the burning issues of the day. The extraordinary events of the 2016 electoral season moved the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations to initiate a process to create a National Black Political Agenda – a project that is absolutely crucial to breaking the shackles that have bound Black people to the Democratic Party’s corporate agenda. “We don’t have to settle for an outcome that’s determined by these folk who are tied to the ruling establishment,” said Black Is Back Coalition chairman Omali Yeshitela. “We can speak for ourselves and have an agenda of our own that will influence the political direction of Black people.”

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

 

Title: Clinton allies blame Bernie for bad polls
Post by: RE on May 24, 2016, 05:22:19 AM
Yea, it's all Bernie's fault that Killary is a Jackass and polls poorly.  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280994-clinton-allies-blame-bernie-for-bad-polls (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280994-clinton-allies-blame-bernie-for-bad-polls)

Home | News | Campaign
Clinton allies blame Bernie for bad polls

(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/clintonhillary_052316getty.jpg?itok=puaqRwn3)

By Amie Parnes - 05/24/16 06:00 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton allies worried about polls that suggest a tightening general election match-up with Donald Trump are placing blame on Bernie Sanders.

They say that the long primary fight with the independent senator from Vermont, which looks like it could go all the way to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, has taken a toll on Clinton’s standing in the polls. In the latest RealClearPolitics average,she is two-tenths of a point behind Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

ADVERTISEMENT
The surrogates say they’re concerned that Sanders is still — this late in the game — throwing shots at Clinton and the Democratic establishment.

“I don’t think he realizes the damage he’s doing at this point,” one ally said of Sanders. “I understand running the campaign until the end, fine. But at least take the steps to begin bringing everyone together.”

In an interview with ABC on Sunday, Sanders called voting for Clinton in the general election “the lesser of two evils.”

He has also kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism against the Democratic National Committee and its chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who his supporters charge is rigging the contest against Sanders.

A series of polls over the weekend all point to a tightening general election race between Trump and Clinton, who needs 90 more delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, according to The Associated Press.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed the billionaire businessman with a 2-point national lead, 46 percent to 44 percent. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had Clinton up 46 percent to 43 percent. Last month, Clinton held an 11-point lead in that poll.

Swing states also suggest a tight race. 

In Florida, a CBS/YouGov poll has Clinton up by just 1 point over Trump, 43 percent to 42 percent. In Ohio, the same poll showed the former secretary of State with a 4-point lead.

“I’ve said all along that opposing Trump isn’t going to be easy,” the Clinton ally said. “In fact, he’s probably one of the toughest opponents we could have. There’s a reason he knocked out every other opponent in the Republican primary.”

To be sure, Clinton has problems and vulnerabilities that go beyond Sanders. Her favorability numbers are weak for a major-party nominee at this stage of the campaign. 

She is also still waiting for the FBI to finish its investigation of her use of a private email server while at State.

Still, it is the Sanders problem that is now on the front burner of concerns for Clinton and her supporters.

Just two months before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Clinton has yet to lock up a nomination that would allow her to focus her fire on Trump amid an effort to unify Democrats around her candidacy.

Instead, Sanders supporters online are loudly declaring no end to the “Bernie or bust” motto even as Republicans increasingly rally around Trump as their own nominee.

“It holds her back from controlling the narrative,” another Clinton ally said of Sanders’s continued presence in the race.

The polls indicating a tight general election race have cemented a belief in Clinton World that the candidate needs to devote all her time now to the general election.

Publicly, Clinton has downplayed the polls, dismissing them when asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Polls this far out mean nothing,” she told the show’s moderator, Chuck Todd. “They certainly mean nothing to me. And I think if people go back and look, they really mean nothing in terms of analyzing what’s going to happen in the fall.”

At the same time, she added that the campaign is “not going to let Donald Trump try to normalize himself” while she still opposes Sanders in the primary.

“I’m going to keep focused on Donald Trump because I will be the nominee. I will be running against Donald Trump in the fall and I do not want Americans, and, you know, good, thinking Republicans, as well as Democrats and independents, to start to believe this is a normal candidacy,” she said. “It isn’t.”

Grant Reeher, the director of the Campbell Public Affairs Institute at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, attributes tightening in the polls to Trump solidifying support from Republicans.

“That’s definitely helping him,” Reeher said.

One Democratic strategist and veteran of the 2004 and 2008 election cycles predicted that Clinton would see a similar bounce in the polls if Sanders were to exit the race.
Sponsored Content
Simple Trick To Paying Off Your Card Years Earlier

By LendingTree.com

What's the best way to pay down a credit card fast, pay the least interest & maintain your credit? Read More

“I’ve never seen an advantage this big before on issues like preparedness to be president, and a big majority of Sanders supporters already say they’ll support her as the nominee,” the strategist said.

The political veteran also said the current situation is favorable for Clinton compared to the Democratic divide that Barack Obama faced in 2008 after his hard-fought primary victory over Clinton. In that case, Clinton voters did come home to Obama.

“Most importantly, you’ve never had 70 percent of voters saying a nominee doesn’t have the temperament to be president,” the strategist said, referring to polls about Trump. “This is unprecedented at this stage.”

Title: Can Sanders' money swamp Wasserman Schultz?
Post by: RE on May 24, 2016, 06:38:59 PM
Slick Move by Bernie!  :icon_sunny:

RE

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-big-bet-223539 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-big-bet-223539)

Can Sanders' money swamp Wasserman Schultz?


Bernie Sanders is staking some of his post-presidential campaign legacy on a challenger to the DNC chair.

By Elena Schneider

05/24/16 06:07 PM EDT

Updated 05/24/16 05:44 PM EDT

(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/69d916b/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F69%2Fa6%2F3fad2ef34efcaa6b4687b470dbfb%2F05-bernie-sanders-19-ap-1160.jpg)
Bernie Sanders is backing Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd Congressional District. | AP Photo

    By Jon Murray

Suddenly, Tim Canova is the most famous primary challenger in America.

With Bernie Sanders’ unexpected endorsement on national television, Canova, a lawyer from Hollywood, Fla., got a dramatic boost for his liberal challenge to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In three days since Sanders endorsed him, Canova’s phone has been ringing off the hook, he’s been all over the national news, and his campaign is suddenly grabbing the attention of national Democrats.

Canova’s sudden fame offers a new measure of the grassroots power of the Sanders coalition, testing whether a Sanders endorsement of a progressive challenger against a major establishment figure can make a difference not just in a local congressional race, but one where that establishment figure is an entrenched incumbent who has never before drawn a primary challenger.

“Aside from money, which is always helpful, I think the media exposure is helpful, too,” Canova said Monday after appearing on all three cable news stations: CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. “There’s not just a money gap between Wasserman Schultz and me, but also a name recognition gap, which makes a difference in a primary with low turnout. She doesn’t have to do a good job, but people have heard of her and voted for her before, so media exposure does help closing that gap.”

Canova, a 56-year-old law professor who once taught Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, says he never expected Sanders to get involved in his race. In fact, Canova adds, he never expected to make a long-shot run against Wasserman Schultz in the first place. But he is a Sanders-style progressive who once served on a financial advisory board for Sanders. They share beliefs on major issues including trade and campaign finance, which Canova believes has a corrupting influence on Wasserman Schultz and other officeholders. Those two issues became his main motivations for leaping into the race.

As Sanders starts endorsing candidates for down-ballot office and laying groundwork for a legacy beyond his presidential campaign, Canova represents his most audacious bet — that his legions of followers can even fuel challenges to sitting officeholders, which typically succeed just 1 percent of the time.
Bernie Sanders' campaign manager said it was &quot;only natural&quot; that he backed Tim Canova over DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Sanders top aide: 'Only natural' he would back Wasserman Schultz's challenger

By Nolan D. McCaskill

While other Sanders endorsees for Congress and state legislature are incumbents or candidates for open seats, Canova is trying to take down a powerful and by all accounts still-popular sitting officeholder in Wasserman Schultz. There has been no public polling in the district, but its Democratic voters gave Sanders just 30 percent of the presidential primary vote against Hillary Clinton.

But Sanders’ email list, which fueled his longer-than-expected challenge to Clinton, has truly game-changing potential when its donors are directed toward smaller races.

Sanders’ direct endorsement generated over $250,000 for Canova in 24 hours — a sum many House candidates take months to raise, and one that many anti-incumbent challengers like Canova never reach. It reflects both Sanders’ legacy-building goals and declining relations between the presidential insurgent and his adopted party.

“I think it’s really a reflection of the deterioration in relations between the two of them, but I don’t think that deterioration was enough for an endorsement,” Canova said. “I think he had to take a look at the challenger and see that I line up very closely with him policy-wise.”

Canova had already managed to draft off enthusiasm for Sanders’ campaign (and Wasserman Schultz’s perceived encouragement of Hillary Clinton from her DNC perch) before the endorsement, raising over $1 million before this week, a breathtaking amount for an incumbent primary challenger.

Sanders added to that this week.
05_bernie_sanders_23_ap_1160.jpg

DNC agrees to give Sanders greater influence over party platform

By Daniel Strauss

“The political revolution is not just about electing a president,” Sanders’ campaign wrote in a weekend fundraising email for Canova. “We need a Congress with members who believe, like Bernie, that we cannot change a corrupt system by taking its money.”

Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that “even though Senator Sanders has endorsed my opponent I remain, as I have been from the beginning, neutral in the Presidential Democratic primary. I look forward to working together with him for Democratic victories in the fall."

"I am so proud to serve the people of Florida's 23rd district and I am confident that they know that I am an effective fighter and advocate on their behalf in Congress,” Wasserman Schultz continued.

Canova, whose specialty as a law professor is international trade, said he decided to run against Wasserman Schultz when he said he saw “a pattern of taking huge amounts of corporate money and voting for those corporate interests over those of her constituents.”

In particular, Canova cited Wasserman Schultz’s support for President Barack Obama’s fast-track authority on trade legislation, saying he tried to lobby the incumbent’s office against it, but “could not get any response from her office whatsoever.” Wasserman Schultz has not had a primary challenger since she took office.

“I and some others believed she should get challenged in the primary, but didn’t think it was going to be me,” said Canova, who joined the race in January. “I kept waiting for someone to do it, but no one did.”
tim_canova_1160_AP.jpg

Bernie Sanders is putting Tim Canova in the spotlight. | AP

Since then, Canova has leveraged his opponent’s notoriety among Sanders supporters and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars online from them, even before Sanders endorsed him. Like Sanders, Canova got into a spat with his party over access to voter data. Though the Florida Democratic Party backed down, Canova used the echoes of Sanders’ fight with the DNC, which riled up his campaign and supporters, to raise good money.

“We sent out emails to our donors [about the issue] and we posted about it online and social media,” Canova said. “In one day, we raised $18,000. It was a good day for us. … But then they did back down. They were feeling the heat.”

Now, Sanders’ full endorsement is sending significantly more money Canova’s way. He is the fourth House candidate — after Lucy Flores in Nevada, Zephyr Teachout in New York and Pramila Jayapal in Washington — to see major, six-figure fundraising leaps after Sanders emailed his list for them. Sanders’ intervention helped Flores raise over $480,000 in April, significantly more than she had raised in the previous 11 months combined. Another eight state legislative candidates benefited from Sanders' email list on Tuesday.

But Canova would need much more than his connection to the Vermont senator to lift him to victory over an entrenched incumbent. Sanders did not crack even one-third of his primary vote in Wasserman Schultz’s district.

Canova says he has the ability to bring on Clinton voters, too.

“If you look at Clinton’s positions, you can see that she’s now against TPP, while Wasserman Schultz voted for it,” Canova said. “Clinton is critical of payday lending loans, but Wasserman Schultz has doubled down on payday lending. Those who have voted for Hillary Clinton had to vote for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, too, because there wasn’t a choice. Now there’s a choice.”

Canova said that even as his race has entered the national spotlight, he plans to keep hitting on local issues, especially “the jobs crisis,” payday lending loans and the “corrupting” influence of money in politics.

While Sanders’ time in the national spotlight may wind down after the July Democratic National Convention, Canova’s race will just be kicking into high gear for a late August primary. Canova said he has not been in touch with Sanders’ team about campaigning together, nor is he “counting on it.” But it has already launched his campaign to a prominence few primary challengers ever enjoy

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-big-bet-223539#ixzz49cwZmpvg (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-big-bet-223539#ixzz49cwZmpvg)
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 25, 2016, 02:26:39 PM
I can't find the relevant post right now, but I have said on numerous occasions that the HRC email story will amount to nothing.

Maybe I was wrong; we'll see.

Government Report on Clinton Email Scandal Much Worse Than Expected (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/25/government-report-clinton-email-scandal-much-worse-expected?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork)
Report could spell trouble for former secretary of state in final stretch of election as favorability ratings drop

I will be waiting for the other shoes to drop. FBI Director James Comey is a Republican, but if you  recall, when he was Ashcroft's duputy, he assisted at The Sickbed Showdown:

Quote
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.
ad_icon
"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

His presence essentially told Gonzalez and Card to go fuck themselves. So he has a track record as a principled man, one of the few in the Cheney Administration.

Grab the popcorn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 25, 2016, 07:58:54 PM
The OIG report on Hilary's emails is available from politico.com .  I have read it, and my general impression is that OIG were trying to do a good job.  It covers the last 20 years of State Department, and has to be seen in the context of email emerging as the tool of choice in the modern office, and emerging cyber-security risks.

Hilary is definitely BUSTED, (and so is Colin Powell) for not obeying all the rules.

"OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."

Her private email server hasn't been shown to be insecure, nor has it been shown to be secure.  It hasn't been shown to have been compromised, and nobody claims it has.  It has come under attack, and was shut down twice to prevent it being compromised.

The main problem is that EVERYONE has the responsibility to maintain archives of their emails with the official records office - you can't get out of this by saying it will be archived by the person at the other end, and in Hilary's office it wasn't done.  The paper copies, that she provided when asked for them later, should have been officially archived on an ongoing basis with 20 days, but weren't.

There are many other systemic failures, all exacerbated by the use of the private email server, and the use of her Blackberry.

Here are extracts:

http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6c/oig-report.pdf (http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6c/oig-report.pdf)
OIG
Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
May 2016
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements

Page 3-4:
Citing its responsibilities under the Federal Records Act, the Department sent letters in October
and November 2014 to the representatives of former Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice, and
Clinton requesting that they make available copies of any Federal records in their possession,
such as emails sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.

In response, Secretary Albright’s representative advised that Secretary Albright did not use a
Department or personal email account during her tenure, and Secretary Rice’s representative
advised that Secretary Rice did not use a personal email account to conduct official business. 10

Representatives for Secretaries Powell and Clinton acknowledged that the Secretaries used
personal email accounts to conduct official business.

Secretary Powell has publicly stated that, during his tenure as Secretary, he “installed a laptop
computer on a private line” and that he used the laptop to send emails via his personal email
account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” 11
Secretary Powell's representative advised the Department in 2015 that he did not retain those
emails or make printed copies. 12 Secretary Powell has also publicly stated that he generally sent
emails to his staff via their State Department email addresses but that he personally does not
know whether the Department captured those emails on its servers. 13

Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in
the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal
email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server,
predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was
located in her New York residence. 14

In December 2014, in response to Department requests, Secretary Clinton produced to the
Department from her personal email account approximately 55,000 hard-copy pages,
representing approximately 30,000 emails that she believed related to official business. In a
letter to the Department, her representative stated that it was the Secretary’s practice to email
Department officials at their government email accounts on matters pertaining to the conduct
of government business. Accordingly, the representative asserted, to the extent that the
Department retained records of government email accounts, the Department already had
records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping systems. 15

Page 8:
In 2009, IRM introduced SMART throughout the Department, enabling employees to preserve a
record copy of emails through their Department email accounts without having to print and file
them. 32 However, the Office of the Secretary elected not to use SMART to preserve emails, in part
because of concerns that the system would allow overly broad access to sensitive materials. As a
result, printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved
within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance.

In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum requiring agencies to eliminate paper
recordkeeping and manage all email records in an electronic format by December 31, 2016. 33

Page 9:
In the 2014 amendments to the Federal Records Act, Congress added a provision prohibiting
agency employees from creating or sending a record using “a non-official electronic messaging
account” unless they copy their official electronic messaging account in the original creation or
transmission of the record or forward a complete copy of the record to their official electronic
messaging account within 20 days. 37

Page 14:
Print and File Requirements Not Enforced: S/ES staff have provided numerous trainings for the
Office of the Secretary on records preservation responsibilities and the requirement to print and
file email records. However, S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary
have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated
that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of
the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and
the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply. OIG
identified one email exchange occurring shortly before Secretary Clinton joined the Department
that demonstrated a reluctance to communicate the requirement to incoming staff. In the
exchange, records officials within the Bureau of Administration wondered whether there was an
electronic method that could be used to capture the Secretary’s emails because they were “not
comfortable” advising the new administration to print and file email records.

Pages 15-16:
Failure To Transfer Email Records to IPS: All Department offices are required to retire, or transfer,
records to IPS in accordance with the Department’s records disposition schedules. 64 For records
specific to the Office of the Secretary, the relevant schedules require transferring most records
to IPS at the end of the tenure of the Secretary. 65 S/ES has regularly retired paper copies of such
records throughout the Secretaries’ terms. However, S/ES has not consistently retired electronic
email records. In April 2015, S/ES retired nine lots of electronic records containing approximately
16 gigabytes of data, consisting of emails, memoranda, travel records, and administrative
documents from the tenures of former Secretaries Powell, Rice, and Clinton. However, the only
email accounts included in this material were those of six of former Secretary Powell’s staff and
two of former Secretary Rice’s staff. No email accounts from Secretary Clinton’s staff were in the
retired material.

In addition to retiring records in accordance with disposition schedules, offices must comply
with Department policy requiring them to electronically capture the email accounts of selected
senior officials upon their departure. A January 2009 memorandum from the Under Secretary for
Management required Executive Directors and Management Officers to notify their system
administrators of the departure of Presidential and political appointees and directed the
administrators to copy the email accounts of those officials to two sets of CDs. The
memorandum instructed the office to keep one of the CDs and send the other to IPS for records
preservation. 66 The memorandum included an attachment identifying all officials who were
subject to these requirements, including 50 officials from the offices under the purview of S/ES. 67
In August 2014, the Under Secretary sent another memorandum reiterating the requirement to
electronically capture the email accounts of senior officials and broadening the list of officials
subject to the requirement. 68 The Director of S/ES-IRM told OIG that S/ES complied with this
requirement by creating .pst files covering the email accounts of the specified officials upon
their departure. However, S/ES has never sent any CDs to IPS. In its most recent self-assessments
of its records management, the Department stated that it has “established a procedure for
departing officials to have their emails sent to the Department's Records Officer for
preservation,” but it failed to note that it has not complied with that procedure for the most
senior officials in the organization. 69

Pages 23-25:
Secretary Clinton (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013): Former Secretary Clinton did not use a
Department email account and has acknowledged using an email account maintained on a
private server for official business. As discussed above, in December 2014, her representative
produced to the Department 55,000 hard-copy pages of documents, representing
approximately 30,000 emails that could potentially constitute Federal records that she sent or
received from April 2009 through early 2013. Secretary Clinton’s representative asserted that,
because the Secretary emailed Department officials at their government email accounts, the
Department already had records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping
systems. 97

As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees
at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that
would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any
Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those
records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. 98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton
should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving
government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s
policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of
55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal
records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with
NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. For example, the
Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first
few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure—from January 21, 2009, to March 17, 2009, for
received messages; and from January 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, for sent messages. OIG
discovered multiple instances in which Secretary Clinton’s personal email account sent and
received official business email during this period. For instance, the Department of Defense
provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General
David Petraeus on his official Department of Defense email account; these 19 emails were not in
the Secretary’s 55,000-page production. OIG also learned that the 55,000-page production did
not contain some emails that an external contact not employed by the Department sent to
Secretary Clinton regarding Department business. In an attempt to address these deficiencies,
NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Clinton’s “internet service or email
provider” to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain
on its servers. 99 The Department conveyed this request to Secretary Clinton’s representative and
on November 6, 2015, the Under Secretary for Management reported to NARA that the
representative responded as follows:

With regard to her tenure as Secretary of State, former Secretary Clinton has provided
the Department on December 5, 2014, with all federal e-mail records in her custody,
regardless of their format or the domain on which they were stored or created, that may
not otherwise be preserved, to our knowledge, in the Department’s recordkeeping
system. She does not have custody of e-mails sent or received during the first few weeks
of her tenure as she was transitioning to a new address, and we have been unable to
obtain these. In the event we do, we will immediately provide the Department with
federal record e-mails in this collection. 100

With regard to Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, OIG received limited responses to its
questionnaires, though two of Secretary Clinton’s staff acknowledged occasional use of personal
email accounts for official business. 101 However, OIG learned of extensive use of personal email
accounts by four immediate staff members (none of whom responded to the questionnaire).
During the summer of 2015, their representatives produced Federal records in response to a
request from the Department, portions of which included material sent and received via their
personal email accounts. 102 The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more
than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data. One of the staff submitted 9,585 emails spanning January
22, 2009, to February 24, 2013, averaging 9 emails per workday sent on a personal email
account. In this material, there are instances where the four individuals sent or received emails
regarding Department business using only their personal web-based email accounts.
Accordingly, these staff failed to comply with Department policies intended to implement NARA
regulations, because none of these emails were preserved in Department recordkeeping systems
prior to their production in 2015. 103 As noted above, NARA has concluded that these subsequent
productions mitigated their failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records
during their service as Department employees. However, OIG did not attempt to determine
whether these productions were complete. None of these individuals are currently employed by
the Department.

Pages 36-39:
Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.

Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email
account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making
up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized AIS, 147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email
account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to
provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according
to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a
personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM
and the security risks in doing so.

During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected
to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to
transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non-
Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM. 148 However, OIG found no
evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact
that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.
Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on
their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption
of SBU information with products certified by NIST. 149 With regard to encryption, Secretary
Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and
techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing
third party experts.” 150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her
system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her
private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by
FISMA and the FAM.

In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other
senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton,
including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and
former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials
all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s
server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These
officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a
personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi
that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a
personal email address. 151 OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials
throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental
systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices. For example:

• In late-January 2009, in response to Secretary Clinton’s desire to take her BlackBerry
device into secure areas, her Chief of Staff discussed with senior officials in S/ES and with
the Under Secretary for Management alternative solutions, such as setting up a separate
stand-alone computer connected to the Internet for Secretary Clinton “to enable her to
check her emails from her desk.” The Under Secretary’s response was “the stand-alone
separate network PC is [a] great idea” and that it is “the best solution.” According to the
Department, no such computer was ever set up.

• In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not
being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk
about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so
you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address
or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.” 152

• In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s
request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her
personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email
server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two
devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account
(which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and
another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email
exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already
been set up for the Secretary 153 and also stated that “you should be aware that any email
would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.” 154
However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices,
stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the
Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.

• OIG identified two individuals who provided technical support to Secretary Clinton. The
first, who was at one time an advisor to former President Clinton but was never a
Department employee, registered the clintonemail.com domain name on January 13,
2009. 155 The second, a Schedule C political appointee who worked in IRM as a Senior
Advisor from May 2009 through February 2013, 156 provided technical support for
BlackBerry communications during the Secretary’s 2008 campaign for President. 157 OIG
reviewed emails showing communications between Department staff and both
individuals concerning operational issues affecting the Secretary’s email and server from
2010 through at least October 2012. For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor
worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails
transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach
Department email addresses using the state.gov domain. 158 153
According to the Department, this account was only used by Secretary Clinton’s staff to maintain an Outlook
calendar.154  The former Director of S/ES-IRM declined OIG’s request for an interview.155

The clintonemail.com domain name was registered with Network Solutions Certificate Authority on January 13,
2009 and identifies the advisor to former President Clinton as the registrant.156 
Schedule C appointments are those of a “confidential or policy-determining character” 5 C.F.R. § 6.2.157

Secretary Clinton’s counsel advised OIG that the Senior Advisor “performed technology services for the Clinton
family for which he was compensated” by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times between 2009
and 2013. In addition, the Senior Advisor’s direct supervisors in IRM from 2009 to 2013 told OIG they were unaware of
his technical support of the Secretary’s email system. While working at the Department, the Senior Advisor reported
directly to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) for Operations, who in turn reported to the Chief Information
Officer (CIO). The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor’s annual evaluations, believed that
the Senior Advisor’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department.
They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential
campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working
hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his
capacity as a full-time government employee.158

At that time, S/ES IRM staff met with the Senior Advisor, who accessed the Secretary’s email system and looked at
its logs. The issue was ultimately resolved and, on December 21, 2010, S/ES-IRM staff sent senior S/ES staffers an
email describing the issue and summarizing the activities undertaken to resolve it. On another occasion, the Senior
Advisor met with staff within CTAD and received a briefing on cyber security risks facing the Department. A third
interaction took place on October 30, 2012, during the period when Hurricane Sandy disrupted power in the New
York City area. An email exchange between Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and another member of the
Secretary’s staff revealed that the server located in Secretary Clinton’s New York residence was down. Thereafter, the
Senior Advisor met with S/ES-IRM staff to ascertain whether the Department could provide support for the server.
S/ES-IRM staff reported to OIG that they told the Senior Advisor they could not provide support because it was a
private server.

• Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their
concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings
with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns
that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal
records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping
requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s
personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that
the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no
evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary
Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised
concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support
the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email
system again.

• On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided
technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone
was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the
chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On
January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary
“anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.” 15

Page 42:
CONCLUSION
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have
existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of
State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since
Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the
Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the
legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications,
particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its
recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.


Title: Trump’s Decision to Debate Sanders in California is His Most Genius Move Yet
Post by: Surly1 on May 27, 2016, 07:09:06 AM
Trump’s Decision to Debate Sanders in California is His Most Genius Move Yet (http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/05/26/trumps-decision-to-debate-sanders-in-california-is-his-most-genius-move-yet/)

Michael Krieger | Posted Thursday May 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Screen Shot 2016-05-26 at 2.01.08 PM

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

– From the February article: Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

If the Trump/Sanders debate proceeds as planned in California, you’re about to witness one of the most important moments of a 2016 general election that hasn’t even begun yet. To say such a debate would be an unmitigated disaster for Hillary Clinton would be the understatement of the century. Let’s explore why.

First of all, Hillary Clinton outright rejected a debate request from Bernie Sanders ahead of the June 7th California primary. Given Sanders’ recent momentum, as well as her need to persuade a significant number of his supporters to back her in November; such a denial was not only arrogant, it was highly insulting to voters in America’s largest state. From team Clinton’s perspective there was little upside to agreeing to a debate, versus easily manageable downside from a few days of negative media coverage. Or so they thought…

 

The above strategic thought process would’ve worked in almost every other election season and against any other candidate. Unfortunately for her, it doesn’t work in 2016, and it certainly doesn’t work against Donald Trump.

Trump understands human nature as well as anyone I’ve ever observed. He’s also likely the most skilled natural politician of my lifetime, with perhaps the exception of Bill Clinton in his prime. Under conventional thinking, Trump would also certainly deny a Sanders debate request for the same reasons Clinton declined it. There’s little to gain in publicly battling a guy with nothing to lose, and you’ve already wrapped up the Republican nomination anyway. That said, Trump is far too savvy to fall victim to such straightforward thinking. He understands that debating Sanders in California ahead of the primary presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to embarrass and belittle Clinton in front of the whole world before the general election even begins.

Think about it for a second. Who cares what happens during the debate itself. Think about what the media will be saying. Think about how weak, irrelevant and stupid a Trump/Sanders contest will make Hillary Clinton look. As the largest state in the union heads to the voting booths Hillary Clinton can’t be bothered to have a discussion with Bernie Sanders, yet Donald Trump is more than willing. I can see the headlines already:

Hillary MIA in California?

Where in the World is Hillary?

Hillary Nowhere to be Found in California Primary.

Title: Vulgar Talking Yam Just Kidding!
Post by: Surly1 on May 27, 2016, 08:42:00 AM
A CHANGE OF PLANS
Donald Trump reportedly says he was just kidding about debating Bernie Sanders
http://theweek.com/speedreads/626622/donald-trump-reportedly-says-just-kidding-about-debating-bernie-sanders (http://theweek.com/speedreads/626622/donald-trump-reportedly-says-just-kidding-about-debating-bernie-sanders)
May 26, 2016
 
(http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/tw_image_6_4/public/GettyImages-534288374.jpg?itok=LajJkoBM&resize=450x300)
 Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Just hours after seemingly accepting Sen. Bernie Sanders' challenge for a debate, Donald Trump has already backed out, CBS News reports. On Thursday morning, Trump reportedly said he was just kidding when he agreed on Wednesday night's Jimmy Kimmel Live to face off against Sanders.

Trump initially seemed keen on the idea because "it would have such high ratings," and he figured Sanders "would be easier to beat" than Hillary Clinton. Sanders had already agreed to the debate, tweeting he "looks forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary." Becca Stanek
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 27, 2016, 08:48:32 AM
I'm sorry to read this. I thought things might get more interesting. Bad move by The Donald on this one.

He probably had somebody tell him he stood to get seriously publicly humiliated by Sanders.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 27, 2016, 09:25:19 AM
I'm sorry to read this. I thought things might get more interesting. Bad move by The Donald on this one.

He probably had somebody tell him he stood to get seriously publicly humiliated by Sanders.
The Bad Move by the Donald was accepting in the first place.

The bulk of his support is people who are #NeverHillary.

After watching a debate between Trump and Sanders, the Democrats might wise up and realize that Sanders would annihilate Trump in November while they still have a chance to change their minds and nominate Sanders.  Because while the elected delegates are locked in, the superdelegates are not committed until they actually vote at the convention.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Eddie on May 27, 2016, 10:00:24 AM
I expect you're right.

In spite of my philosophy that it's better to vote for the lesser evil, I might sit this one out. I'd have a very, very hard time pulling the lever for either Trump or Clinton.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on May 27, 2016, 10:34:45 AM
I expect you're right.

In spite of my philosophy that it's better to vote for the lesser evil, I might sit this one out. I'd have a very, very hard time pulling the lever for either Trump or Clinton.

(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13312714_1408562369172618_5500826742314569702_n.jpg?oh=3af0c11ec028b8150daadabba040fbfc&oe=57E693D6)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 27, 2016, 01:10:27 PM
I expect you're right.

In spite of my philosophy that it's better to vote for the lesser evil, I might sit this one out. I'd have a very, very hard time pulling the lever for either Trump or Clinton.
Normally I'd agree with you, but this election, the deciding factor for me is my estimate of the candidate's chance of success in getting his or her agenda through once he or she is elected President.  For Hillary I'd say it's 90%; Trump 50%; Sanders 10%.  So I strongly prefer Sanders over Trump, and definitely prefer Trump over Clinton, for that reason alone.  Call it the Survivor strategy (from the TV series a few years back): vote out the better player so you will have an easier time defeating the other later.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on May 27, 2016, 01:38:32 PM
I'm sorry to read this. I thought things might get more interesting. Bad move by The Donald on this one.

He probably had somebody tell him he stood to get seriously publicly humiliated by Sanders.

If nothing else it made Mike Krieger from Liberty Blitzkrieg look like an idiot after his article crowing about what a brilliant political move it was for Trump to debate Sanders.

RE
Title: FOR 40 YEARS, LIBERALS HAVE ACCEPTED DEFEAT AND CALLED IT “INCREMENTAL PROGRESS.
Post by: Surly1 on May 28, 2016, 02:49:51 PM
FOR 40 YEARS, LIBERALS HAVE ACCEPTED DEFEAT AND CALLED IT “INCREMENTAL PROGRESS.” (http://usapoliticsnow.com/?p=754)

 

FOR 40 YEARS, LIBERALS HAVE ACCEPTED DEFEAT AND CALLED IT “INCREMENTAL PROGRESS.”

 

Bernie Sanders offers a different way forward.

The primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders has produced the most direct ideological battle the Democratic Party has seen in a generation. It’s not just the policy differences that separate Sanders’s blunt social-democratic platform from Clinton’s neoliberal grab bag. The two candidates embody clashing theories of politics — alternative visions of how to achieve progressive goals within the American political system.

The Bernie Sanders model of change has all the subtlety of an index finger raised high above a debate podium. Lay out a bold, unapologetic vision of reform that speaks directly to people’s basic needs. Connect that vision to existing popular struggles, while mobilizing a broad and passionate coalition to support it (#NotMeUs). Ride this wave of democratic energy to overwhelm right-wing opposition and enact major structural reforms.

The Hillary Clinton model of change, on the other hand, begins not with policy or people but with a politician. Choose an experienced, practical leader who explicitly rejects unrealistic goals. Rally around that leader’s personal qualifications, while defending past achievements and stressing the value of party loyalty (#ImWithHer). Draw on the leader’s expertise to grind away at Congress and accumulate incremental victories that add up to significant reform.

For most of the Left, Clinton-style “incrementalism” is just a code word to disguise what is effectively a right-wing retrenchment. Nevertheless many self-identified progressives have backed Clinton’s “theory of politics” as the most realistic path to achieve Sanders’s objectives.

“As a temperamentally moderate figure,” the liberal Boston Globe argued, Clinton is best positioned to “take concrete steps to get relevant legislation enacted.”

Other editorial boards, corporate legal bloggers, and billionaires in the back seats of limousines have likewise endorsed the Clinton model as the only serious form of politics in a polarized republic. But they struggle to identify a major progressive victory that Clinton-style incrementalism has won in the past half-century.

Clinton’s eight-year term in the Senate produced bills to regulate video game violence and flag burning, both of which died in committee.

Bill Clinton’s eight-year term in the White House gave us an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and a small children’s health insurance program — but also NAFTA, the 1994 crime bill, welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, financial deregulation, and a grand bargain to gut Social Security that was only thwarted by a timely sex scandal.

Other editorial boards, corporate legal bloggers, and billionaires in the back seats of limousines have likewise endorsed the Clinton model as the only serious form of politics in a polarized republic. But they struggle to identify a major progressive victory that Clinton-style incrementalism has won in the past half-century.

Clinton’s eight-year term in the Senate produced bills to regulate video game violence and flag burning, both of which died in committee.

Bill Clinton’s eight-year term in the White House gave us an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and a small children’s health insurance program — but also NAFTA, the 1994 crime bill, welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, financial deregulation, and a grand bargain to gut Social Security that was only thwarted by a timely sex scandal.

“There are those timid souls who say this battle cannot be won; that we are condemned to a soulless wealth,” declared Lyndon Johnson in 1964. “I do not agree. We have the power to shape the civilization that we want.”

Compare that to our current Democratic front-runner, whose most impassioned moment on the 2016 campaign trail came when she denounced single-payer health care as an idea “that will never, ever come to pass.”

With New York’s closed primary around the corner, Hillary Clinton has made a special virtue of her career-long party registration. But if anybody is looking for the Democratic tradition of Roosevelt and Johnson, surely Bernie Sanders is its heir.

Fortress Liberalism

Of course, liberal incrementalists rule out this kind of talk at once: don’t you know the Republicans control Congress? 1936 and 1964 are irrelevant precedents, because the central fact of our political lives is the dominance of the Republican Party.

In this view right-wing opposition is not to be dislodged, let alone defeated. At best, it is to be resisted from within the walls of the Democratic Party fortress known as the White House. “The next Democratic presidential term will be mostly defensive,” writes Jonathan Chait — no more or less than a “bulwark” against Republican extremism in Congress.

This kind of “fortress liberalism,” to adapt a phrase of Rich Yeselson’s, is the dominant mentality within today’s Democratic establishment. In some ways, it’s a welcome retreat from the 1990s, when the Clintons and their allies worked actively to drive the party to the right. With the significant exceptions of education and trade policy, the post-2010 Obama era has been much more ideologically quiescent.

But fortress liberalism has been pernicious in its own way, especially for the millions of struggling Americans stranded outside the fortress.

Seldom do establishment Democrats stop to consider whether this negative mentality — both disturbingly complacent and profoundly uninspiring — has contributed to the steady evisceration of the party at the state level.

According to pollsters, political scientists, and their own tribunes, Democrats are now the dominant national party in the United States. (They have, after all, won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.) Yet since 2009 Democrats have lost a record nine-hundred state legislative seats, thirty state chambers, and twelve governorships.

Not since George McClellan took command of the Army of the Potomac has American history witnessed such a wonderful capacity for dealing from strength but still getting crushed every time.

For many older liberals, moderate incrementalism is a response to the political disappointments of the last forty years. Unquestionably, for laborers, leftists and liberals alike, the post-1970s period has been an era of profound defeat.

And as Arthur Goldhammer observes in one of the wisest of the many jaded-elders-for-Hillary think pieces, it’s wrong to think the Democratic Party turned rightward chiefly because of the personal malice of the Clinton family.

The erosion of labor unions, the retreat of social democracy, and the rise of an aggressive right are products of both contingent political struggles and larger historical transformations that extend beyond American borders.

Yet as Zach Goldhammer writes in a powerful rejoinder to his father, the bittersweet melancholia of defeated liberals is also a strategic blindness. Neither the structural conditions nor the political configurations of 1980 or 1992 apply to 2016.

Across the industrialized world, forty years of flattened wages and concentrated wealth have created deep resentments among voters left behind. Many of them have turned toward the ethnic-nationalist right. But in both Europe and in the United States there are signs that the Left is gaining strength for the first time in decades.

Last year Gallup found that more Americans identify as “working class” than at any time in this century. According the General Social Survey, Americans under thirty-five are by far the most likely to adopt this class identity — by 2014, over 56 percent considered themselves members of the “working class.”

These young Americans have grown up outside the shadows of the Cold War, but deep within the gloom of a triumphant global capitalism. They are Bernie Sanders’s base, and they have begun to shift the entire spectrum of American politics to the Left.

The energy of Black Lives Matter and Fight For 15 — activist movements whose scope and ambition did not exist a generation ago — is one sure marker of change.

A less dramatic but equally significant development is the startling willingness of American voters to accept new taxes.

Last week Vox and Morning Consult polled registered voters about whether they were “willing to pay additional taxes” to fund certain programs.

Naturally Vox reported the results as a repudiation of the Sanders agenda, even though few of Sanders’s programs would be paid for by individual tax hikes, and none of them would be pitched in such a politically clueless fashion. (Sanders’s single-payer health plan, even skeptics at PolitiFact admit, would help the average American family save hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year.)

But since the Right and the elite media do adopt this reactionary way of framing tax questions, it’s useful to see how Americans respond when confronted with it. Especially since the results showed that most American voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide universal, progressive goods — Social Security, Medicare, education, and infrastructure improvements.

FL 2

Remember, this poll asked voters not just if they support new taxes in a general sense — never mind taxes on the wealthy! — but if they are willing, individually, to pay more out of their own pockets. They are. And voters under forty-five appear eager to pay additional taxes for almost everything:

FL 1

This is not the American electorate of 1992. In that year, the populist outsider in the Democratic primary, a former governor of California, made the centerpiece of his progressive agenda a flat tax.

In 2016, the populist outsider in the Democratic primary, a socialist from Vermont, just forced the overwhelming party favorite to endorse, against her own record and personal belief, a doubling of the minimum wage. Times have changed, and the balance of forces has changed with them.

Trumpocalypse Now

So 2016 isn’t 1992: does that mean it really could be 1964? Maybe not. But it’s frustrating to see fortress liberals so consistently assume rather than investigate the electoral power of the Right.

In February, they dismissed polls showing Bernie Sanders defeating all GOP contenders as too early to be meaningful. (Never mind that February polls have closely predicted five consecutive elections.) Now it’s mid-April, when political science scholarship shows that trial heat polls are very predictive, but somehow Sanders’s even larger leads remain meaningless.

“Just wait until voters learn more about him!” (Sanders is already by far the third-best-known candidate in the race, and his favorability dwarfs the other contenders.) “Just wait until the Republicans start calling him a communist!” (Donald Trump, Fox News, multiple GOPsenators, and many others have been doing that for months.) “But just wait until they put Sanders on the cover of National Review! That’ll stop him!” Wait a minute.

There is no value in underestimating the Right, but even less value in offering McClellan-like overestimates of its strength.

The Republican surge of 2014 was generated by just 36 percent of the eligible voting population. Right-wing tax rebels, flush with Kochtopus money and running against tepid, defensive Democrats, are capable of winning a low-turnout midterm election. But modern Republicans are weak opponents in presidential elections, where the electorate is almost 50 percent larger.

Even if the GOP were cruising toward a coronation of a unifying, twenty-first century conservative leader, Republicans would be underdogs in a national presidential race. But at least under those circumstances there might be reason to forgive fortress liberals for bustling about with their beloved siege defenses.

Instead, the 2016 Republican Party is tearing itself apart in a way that hasn’t happened in generations, and probably won’t happen again for generations to come.

Either of the two men almost assured to get the Republican nomination, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, would represent the least popular nominee a major party has ever produced. (They’re even less well-liked than Hillary Clinton, which is saying something.)

Now is not the time to bar the doors of the fortress; it’s time to take the ideological struggle to the enemy. How many chances will American liberals have to do battle against a foe whose chief representative is a red-faced billionaire charlatan, secure in the loathing of half his own party and two-thirds of the United States?

The Trumpocalypse will probably only come once in our lifetimes. A landslide on the scale of 1964 may be out of reach, but with a large and passionate electorate mobilized in opposition to a terminally unpopular opponent, a major Democratic wave is certainly possible.

On both an ideological and a tactical level, 2016 represents a historical moment rife with opportunity for the Bernie Sanders model of politics. Who knows when we will see another like it?

Mass Times Acceleration

The liberal refusal even to acknowledge this opportunity speaks to an even more profound shift within the Democratic Party. The Sanders model, above all, is a vision of mass politics. For over two hundred years, it was more or less obvious that this is the only way democratic progress can occur in an unequal society — by summoning the power of the people against entrenched interests.

Only in the last few decades has the Democratic Party become confused on this point. Vox even had to run an “explainer” (not a bad one!) on the Sanders model of change, which after all was summarized pretty well by Percy Shelley back in 1819: “ye are many — they are few.”

The confusion comes because Democrats have not only distanced themselves from working-class voters and redistributive economics, as Tom Frank argues in his new polemic, Listen, Liberal. Scarred by the rise of a populist Republican Party, elite liberals have gone beyond skepticism about popular insurgency and arrived at an active hostility toward mass politics itself.

Mass politics just does not compute with the professional-class worldview that suffuses today’s Democratic Party. For liberal elites, effective political struggle is something that happens inside committee rooms, not at strikes, rallies, or protests. (The Clinton campaign itself embodies this vision of the world, where politics means deal-making and democracy means voting — nothing less and nothing more.)

To the extent that outdoor struggle counts at all, liberal professionals tend to see it as a raw expression of emotion or identity — a phenomenon that is sometimes to be praised and other times to be admonished. Seldom does it figure as a popular mobilization that can actually shape political outcomes.

Here is another reason why Hillary Clinton’s appeal to incremental progress strikes such a powerful chord with the party, the media, and the affluent Democrats who are among her most reliable bases of support.

Clinton’s presentation of herself as a painstaking, detail-oriented manager matches a recognizable professional-class model of achievement.

Like Barack Obama’s seminar-room equanimity, or Justin Trudeau’s unrugged good looks — straight from the computer science lecture hall of your dreams — Clinton’s industrious incrementalism suits the self-image of a well-graduated expert class, for whom university educations are such critical markers of status and identity.

Compared to these familiar meritocratic types, the Sanders campaign appears curious if not simply illegible. Hence the confused attemptsto relate a social democrat with nearly half his party’s support to pallid “progressives” like Howard Dean, who couldn’t manage even a fifth of the primary vote in liberal Wisconsin. If Bill Bradley won a majority of young black and Latino Democrats, or Jerry Brown turned out eighteen thousand people to a rally in the Bronx, history must have missed it.

Ironically it is university students themselves — less certain of their own class position than generations past — who have responded most warmly to his call for a revival of mass politics.

Unlike fortress liberals or professional elites, Sanders and his young backers recognize that the vital element in any progressive struggle is the ability to generate energy from the bottom up.

Indoor expertise without outdoor protest; shrewd deal-making without mass mobilization; mastery of details without popular momentum — these are the proper tools of conservative politics, and have been since at least the era of Metternich.

Democratic struggle requires something else. In this election season, Max Weber’s dictum that politics is “a strong and slow boring of hard boards” has frequently been dragooned into duty as a grave defense of Clintonian incrementalism.

 

But the most famous carpentry analogy in the history of politics does not offer complex instructions on how to assemble an IKEA wall cabinet. Instead it insists on the vigorous application of force through a simple machine. It is Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, who seems to understand that the only way to produce force is by multiplying mass and acceleration.

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 28, 2016, 03:37:00 PM
Quote
Mass Times Acceleration

The liberal refusal even to acknowledge this opportunity speaks to an even more profound shift within the Democratic Party. The Sanders model, above all, is a vision of mass politics. For over two hundred years, it was more or less obvious that this is the only way democratic progress can occur in an unequal society — by summoning the power of the people against entrenched interests.

Just wondering what people understand by "Mass times Acceleration" in this context? - power?
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on May 28, 2016, 03:53:14 PM
Quote
Mass Times Acceleration

The liberal refusal even to acknowledge this opportunity speaks to an even more profound shift within the Democratic Party. The Sanders model, above all, is a vision of mass politics. For over two hundred years, it was more or less obvious that this is the only way democratic progress can occur in an unequal society — by summoning the power of the people against entrenched interests.

Just wondering what people understand by "Mass times Acceleration" in this context? - power?

Force exerted over time.

RE
Title: Re: FOR 40 YEARS, LIBERALS HAVE ACCEPTED DEFEAT AND CALLED IT “INCREMENTAL PROGR
Post by: agelbert on May 28, 2016, 04:34:39 PM
Quote
FOR 40 YEARS, LIBERALS HAVE ACCEPTED DEFEAT AND CALLED IT “INCREMENTAL PROGRESS

Well, that is because the real liberals were demonized and ostracized and marginalized and imprisoned through the clever pig man device of labeling them "anarchists" (and other groundless derogatory terms).

The only difference today is that the force of the coming climate catastrophe will overcome the TPTB mens rea propaganda of the ubiquitous, mealy mouthed, incrementalist "progress", business as usual,  status quo worshipping quislings.

For those biosphere math challenged folks that don't see a connection between dirty politics and dirty energy, there is nothing that can be done for them. Their heads are inserted at such a distance up their collective descending colons that their consequent myopic delusions make them incorrigible and doomed to perish in a paroxysm of dirty energy happy talk bean counting. Reality based thinking is just not their thing.


THE FACTS:

Centralized DIRTY energy equals centralized (i.e. fascist) DIRTY political power. Anybody that does not get that did not study the history of the 20th century.

YOU are dependent TOTALLY on the gooberment for the incredibly lengthy and fragile logistics chain of energy from the exploitation to that gas station. TPTB can shut it off if you don't tow the line ANY TIME they want to.

They can ALSO control the price.

They can ALSO label dirty centralized energy a "national security" resource requiring "subsidies".

THAT is why TPTB have done absolutely everything in their considerable power to keep the energy centralized.

Decentralized CLEAN Energy equals distributed (i.e. DEMOCRATIC) political power.

THAT is why TPTB prefer DIRTY energy to Renewable Energy.

A degraded democracy is the DIRECT result of centralized energy  (it's kind of hard to set up a nuclear power plant, a coal mine or an oil refinery next to an oil well in your back yard).

It ain't poisonal, it's just bidness as usual.

When no alternative is available due to catastrophic climate change, the gooberments will be FORCED to move TOTALLY away from centralized infrastructure for energy. THAT will cause the POLITICAL power, now centralized to our detriment, to be decentralized. TPTB won't like it one bit. But they will be obligated to do it as a survival mechanism.

Go Greenland BIG MELT!

  (http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

(http://gofossilfree.org/uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/03/breakfree2.png)

Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 28, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote
Mass Times Acceleration

The liberal refusal even to acknowledge this opportunity speaks to an even more profound shift within the Democratic Party. The Sanders model, above all, is a vision of mass politics. For over two hundred years, it was more or less obvious that this is the only way democratic progress can occur in an unequal society — by summoning the power of the people against entrenched interests.

Just wondering what people understand by "Mass times Acceleration" in this context? - power?

Force exerted over time.

RE

Huh?  English is a sloppy language.  "Force exerted over time" could be taken to mean "Force divided by time, as in Newtons per second", or "Force multiplied by the Time it was exerted, as in Newton.seconds".  Neither is right anyway.

Force equals Mass times Acceleration.  That's like how hard the protesters push against the control barriers.  But if the police are pushing back equally strongly, the two forces cancel out and the barrier doesn't move.  Or if the barriers are set in concrete, the ground's resistance to being deformed will provide the force.  Only if the barrier is moved is there any reform.

So the subheading implies Force, but what he is talking about, reform, is "Force times Distance moved" = Work = Energy, and the rate of reform = Force times Distance moved per unit of Time = Energy / Time = Power .

When you are writing an article for a general readership, "Mass times Acceleration" is meaningless.  And if anyone DOES understand it, it's wrong.  Far better not to imply that your theory is backed by scientific logic, when it isn't.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on May 28, 2016, 10:11:02 PM
Quote
Mass Times Acceleration

The liberal refusal even to acknowledge this opportunity speaks to an even more profound shift within the Democratic Party. The Sanders model, above all, is a vision of mass politics. For over two hundred years, it was more or less obvious that this is the only way democratic progress can occur in an unequal society — by summoning the power of the people against entrenched interests.

Just wondering what people understand by "Mass times Acceleration" in this context? - power?

Force exerted over time.

RE

Huh?  English is a sloppy language.  "Force exerted over time" could be taken to mean "Force divided by time, as in Newtons per second", or "Force multiplied by the Time it was exerted, as in Newton.seconds".  Neither is right anyway.

Force equals Mass times Acceleration.  That's like how hard the protesters push against the control barriers.  But if the police are pushing back equally strongly, the two forces cancel out and the barrier doesn't move.  Or if the barriers are set in concrete, the ground's resistance to being deformed will provide the force.  Only if the barrier is moved is there any reform.

So the subheading implies Force, but what he is talking about, reform, is "Force times Distance moved" = Work = Energy, and the rate of reform = Force times Distance moved per unit of Time = Energy / Time = Power .

When you are writing an article for a general readership, "Mass times Acceleration" is meaningless.  And if anyone DOES understand it, it's wrong.  Far better not to imply that your theory is backed by scientific logic, when it isn't.

It's an METAPHOR PY, and it's not entirely incorrect. I could flesh it out but I am not going to bother because you will just dissect it for literal meaning on the scientific level.  You are correct that mosst readers don't understand the precise physical definitons of mass, aceleration, force, energy & power, but they don't NEED to understand that.  They just need to be able to grasp the intention of the metaphor the author used.

This is why you ended up an engineer/geek/scientists rather than an author.  You take everything too literally.

RE,
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on May 28, 2016, 10:40:43 PM
Quote
RE: You take everything too literally.

Too flippant.  The serious point was:

Quote
PY: Far better not to imply that your theory is backed by scientific logic, when it isn't.

You have to know this basic scientific stuff to be able to see the author's technique of "blinding you with (bullshit) science".  If you don't recognise it, you will assume that the author is saying something that is backed every scientist since Newton, when in fact the whole thing is a fuzzy metaphor about the political process.  This underlies the (incorrect) theory that if Democracy is not working, work even harder at Democracy.

Nobody understands me.   :'(
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: RE on May 28, 2016, 11:24:02 PM
Nobody understands me.   :'(

Don't feel too bad PY.  You have plenty of company with that one.

RE
Title: FBI will Indict or Blow the Whistle on Killary: Tom Delay
Post by: RE on May 30, 2016, 08:52:45 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

RE

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-rodham-clinton/ (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-rodham-clinton/)

Breaking: FBI Will Make A HUGE Move Against Hillary Rodham Clinton
Kosar

(http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1hillary-7.jpg)

FBI

This is bombshell announcement! Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) just shared damning news for Hillary Clinton on The Steve Malzberg Show just now:

    The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.

    “I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

    “They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”

    Clinton is under FBI investigation for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state. But some Republicans fear any FBI recommendation that hurts Clinton will be squashed by the Obama administration.
    DeLay, a Texas Republican and Washington Times radio host, said:

    “One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”

Team Hillary is already admitting this will likely happen. Amazingly, the Clinton campaign has been busy accusing Obama’s intelligence Inspector General, Charles McCullough, of coordinating releases of information to help Republicans. (!) McCullough’s investigations found Clinton was sharing documents which were “beyond top secret”… a crime that should not only disqualify Hillary Clinton from the White House, but should carry a lengthy prison sentence!

Here is Tom DeLay sharing the major news:

http://www.youtube.com/v/O3ozxpD4i1c

What do you think about the FBI being ready to indict Hillary Clinton? Please leave us a comment (below) and tell us what you think.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-rodham-clinton/#ixzz4ACZkMWCi (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-rodham-clinton/#ixzz4ACZkMWCi)
Title: The US Elections and the Criminalization of American Politics
Post by: RE on June 04, 2016, 01:18:01 AM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-elections-and-the-criminalization-of-american-politics/5528704 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-elections-and-the-criminalization-of-american-politics/5528704)


The US Elections and the Criminalization of American Politics
By Patrick Martin
Global Research, June 03, 2016
World Socialist Web Site
Region: USA
Theme: Law and Justice
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/usa-%C3%A9lections-400x404.jpg)
With the US primary campaigns drawing to a close, the two parties of the US ruling elite, Democrats and Republicans, are preparing to nominate candidates who may be subject to criminal indictment between now and the general election.

The Republicans have as their presumptive nominee Donald Trump, a man who made his billions through various scams and insider dealings. US newspapers have been filled this week with details of the fraudulent methods he employed to enhance his fortune. Court documents in the lawsuit joined by numerous former students at Trump University allege that the supposed training in real estate provided by the school was a fiction.

It was a fraud on two levels. At an enormous price, up to $35,000 for the “Gold Elite” program, students were told little more than “buy low” and “sell high.” As many as 5,000 students paid a total of $40 million for the worthless instructions, most of which could be obtained, according to press accounts, through a simple Internet search.

As for the claim that Trump would be personally involved in sharing his supposed real estate expertise, with instructors who “are handpicked by me,” the documents show that Trump played no role in the “education” program except allowing his name and face to be used to promote the venture, and then cashing the checks—his cut of loot was at least $5 million.

New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman, appearing on two television interview programs Thursday morning, said, “We have laws against running an illegal, unlicensed university. This never was a university. The fraud started with the name of the organization.” He added, “It was really a fraud from beginning to end.”

While Trump U. accounts for only a small fraction of the real estate mogul’s personal wealth, the methods used were representative of his “business model” as a whole, and for that matter, of his presidential campaign, which has been focused largely on appealing to increasingly desperate sections of workers and the lower middle class, offering Trump’s billionaire persona as the solution to deepening economic afflictions.

There is something extraordinary in the fact that one of the principal parties of the ruling class is preparing to choose an individual like Trump as its presidential candidate. Despite the initial hypocritical criticisms of his vulgar and racist pronouncements, nearly all Republican Party leaders have now reconciled themselves with Trump, culminating in Thursday’s statement by House Speaker Paul Ryan that he will support his candidacy.

This can only explained in relation to broader social tendencies that have produced an immense degradation of American politics. Trump personifies the descent of corporate America into every more brazen methods of speculation, swindling and outright theft, which culminated in the economic crash of 2008. Over the past 40 years, the operations of the American ruling class have taken on an ever more parasitic character, with a mass of financial operations covering over a long-term industrial decline.

On the Democratic Party side, Hillary Clinton is currently under investigation for conducting all her government communications while Secretary of State on a private email server, an arrangement clearly intended to keep her correspondence under her control, regardless of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Later this summer she is expected to be interviewed by the FBI, which could lead to criminal charges over the mishandling of classified materials or perjury.

Clinton represents a more polished version of the same social processes that have created Trump. Bill and Hillary Clinton have accumulated a personal fortune topping $150 million by serving as speechmakers to corporate audiences, backed by their “fundraising” work at the Clinton Foundation, which connects corporate donors and charitable organizations in return for lucrative fees.

The foundation has become the center of a web of international influence-peddling that keeps the Clintons in front of their real constituency, the world’s billionaires, making them fabulously wealthy in the process.

Clinton is also more directly associated with the crimes of the state and the military-intelligence apparatus. The criminalization of the American financial aristocracy has found its reflection in foreign policy—in the casting aside of all legality and the adoption of torture, assassination and “preemptive war” as principal means for asserting the interests of the ruling class abroad.

It is significant that as the viability of her candidacy is being called into question as a result of the continued successes of her rival, Bernie Sanders, Clinton decided to focus a major speech in San Diego California on a critique of Trump’s foreign policy views. Clinton made her pitch to the military, based on the argument that she, and not Trump (or Sanders, or some other candidate) would be the most effective “commander-in-chief” of US imperialism.

Clinton focused her speech on the decision by President Obama and his top military and foreign policy advisers, including Clinton herself, to authorize the Navy Seal Team 6 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. She made no reference to the foreign policy debacle with which she is most closely identified, the US-NATO bombing of Libya, although it “accomplished” the same end. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was murdered in his home town of Sirte by US-backed rebels, an event that Clinton celebrated at the time with the infamous wisecrack, “We came, we saw, he died,” touching off gales of laughter among her claque of traveling aides.

Trump and Clinton are both products of the same process: the criminalization of the American ruling elite, as the methods of the mafia have come to predominate in both the operations of Wall Street and the practice of imperialist “statecraft.”

The original source of this article is World Socialist Web Site
Copyright © Patrick Martin, World Socialist Web Site, 2016
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on June 07, 2016, 06:09:48 PM
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Glenn Greenwald
June 7 2016

Last night, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration — on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him — most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.

None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton — as was always the case from the start — is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.

And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone — i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate — Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: Many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.

That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on June 08, 2016, 04:11:14 AM
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Glenn Greenwald
June 7 2016

//
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

In a speech last night, El Caudillo made a call to "Bernie Sanders voters disenfranchised by a corrupt, rigged system," and said he would welcome them with open arms. Sanders has said that it is HRC's job to appeal to his voters.

I expect her to utter more high-flown inclusionist, aspirational rhetoric while turning hard right to pick up disaffected Rs, as you would expect from a corporately-owned property. Sanders will go to the convention to try to forestall that as much as possible.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: g on June 08, 2016, 04:25:08 AM
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Glenn Greenwald
June 7 2016

//
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

In a speech last night, El Caudillo made a call to "Bernie Sanders voters disenfranchised by a corrupt, rigged system," and said he would welcome them with open arms. Sanders has said that it is HRC's job to appeal to his voters.

I expect her to utter more high-flown inclusionist, aspirational rhetoric while turning hard right to pick up disaffected Rs, as you would expect from a corporately-owned property. Sanders will go to the convention to try to forestall that as much as possible.

Even I found it surprising. I never dreamed the Dems would do this to Bernie. Thought the Repubs were more likely to pull a stunt like this.
 

The whole thing is a stomach turner. Just another reason I'm a Libertarian, not that they are perfect either, but these two major parties suck so fucking bad I have to hang my hat elsewhere.  :-\
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: agelbert on June 08, 2016, 12:08:10 PM
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/ (https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/)
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Glenn Greenwald
June 7 2016

//
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

In a speech last night, El Caudillo made a call to "Bernie Sanders voters disenfranchised by a corrupt, rigged system," and said he would welcome them with open arms. Sanders has said that it is HRC's job to appeal to his voters.

I expect her to utter more high-flown inclusionist, aspirational rhetoric while turning hard right to pick up disaffected Rs, as you would expect from a corporately-owned property. Sanders will go to the convention to try to forestall that as much as possible.

It's 1968, but not exactly "all over again".  Fasten your seat belt. WHY? Because there is NO "consent of the governed" left in the U.S.A. 

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mVwqnQbJWtE/S68gmIavrtI/AAAAAAAABC0/BVdXP5ZUe50/s400/consent.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on June 10, 2016, 05:34:34 PM
Here's an alternative view from the disaffected left. You mileage may vary. ANd these people may sober up by the general.
Yet here it is, straight, no chaser.

Anarchists for Donald Trump—Let the Empire Burn (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/09/anarchists-for-donald-trump-let-the-empire-burn.html)
The left-contrarian arsonist crowd is larger and wider-spread than the cubicled creatures in the Clinton campaign have accounted for.
Christopher Ketchum

(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/06/09/anarchists-for-donald-trump-let-the-empire-burn/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48848306.cached.jpg)
The historic opportunity of the 2016 election is one which Bernie Sanders likely will not have the courage to embrace: The burning to ashes of the corporatist Clintonite neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.

The scenario ideally plays out with Sanders contesting the nomination all the way to the convention and then running as a third party candidate, say on the Green Party ticket, siphoning away the base that Clinton needs to win.  This will hand the election to Donald Trump, and force the Democratic establishment to realize it’s doomed unless it pivots sharply to the left.

The Clintons will disappear into the toilet where they’ve always deserved to be flushed. We can then look forward to 2020 after four years of Trump and—what?  Who knows. He’s truly a wild card.
I went for Sanders in the primaries, even gave several hundred dollars to his campaign.  But there’s no way I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, because I know what a Clinton presidency bodes. More of the same neoliberal plundering with a friendly Democratic smile to quiet the left.

It happened under Obama: the warfare state and Wall Street reigning supreme while we all sing kumbaya because a black man has stamped his imprimatur on an intolerable status quo.  It will happen again under Hillary.

What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress.  This is a politics of arson.  I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.

I’m not alone here. Travelling across the country, I keep meeting people who voted for Sanders in the primaries but mutter under cover of night and a few drinks that they’ll vote for Trump in November. Friends out in the wildlands of the intermountain West, hard gun-toting anarchist redneck Amy Goodman progressives, say so. Big-city journalists, too. I suspect that the left-contrarian, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump arsonist crowd is larger and wider-spread than the cubicled creatures in the Clinton campaign have accounted for.

Trump arsonist-progressives are mostly embarrassed to go on the record. An editor of a major progressive website tells me in an email that if I outed him/her as a Trump supporter, “We’d probably lose the last funders that we have!!!”

That editor continued: “Absolutely, Trump by a mile.  To the extent that voting for president matters at all, it is merely to give a certain secret pleasure to the voter in the privacy of the booth. I’ll get mine by casting a transgressionary ballot for the vile Trump, the greatest repudiation of the 25-year-long horrorshow of Clintonism I can imagine.”

A Bernie supporter in Idaho writes me, “With Trump it's a flip of the coin. Heads: his primary run was brilliant hyperbolic political theater that will mellow in the general, he's right on TPP, and less hawkish than Clinton internationally. Progressives gain ground in Congress (the more important body of government anyway) in the midterms, setting a foundation. Tails: he wasn’t acting and his presidency will summon a degree of economic uncertainty and social disorder that promises gasoline onto the flickering flames that is the nascent re-emergence of a grassroots radical left awakened with Occupy and given form in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.”

Another Bernie man tells me, “Hillary is Wall Street’s candidate.  They fear Trump.  Enough for me.”

My old friend Vincent Nunes of Brooklyn doesn’t give a damn what people think., which is why I can quote him by name.

“The totally logical reason for voting for him,” says Nunes, “is that he’s never been a politician and he’s not tied directly into the power and the money structure of the political system. We know Hillary is a monster. We don’t know it about Trump.”

I disagree.  At this point I like to think of the two presumptive big-party candidates as floozies flouncing on the stage.  The one is painted, sweetened with perfumes, dressed in finery, and denies her involvement in the unseemly business. The other is at least an honest syphilitic, track-marked degenerate whose record on television and in his business dealings make plain his fealty to Mammon.

Both are monsters.  But only one has a curriculum vitae as an agent of the state. Read Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos about Hillary’s blood-soaked war-mongering career in the U.S. Senate and at the State Department. Or, for domestic policy, Andrew Levine at Counterpunch, who documents that the Clintons’ “lifelong project has been to make American politics as safe as can be for Big Business and High Finance.”

This is not to discount the importance that a woman for the first time in U.S. history is clinching the nomination of a major party for the office of the presidency.  It would be wonderful and something to celebrate — if that woman was a decent human being.  But Clinton is not.  And how sexist would it be to cease judging her for her duplicity, avarice, and bloodthirst simply because she’s a woman?

Hillary’s successful candidacy only proves that women in the established system of power politics can be as vicious and corrupt as the men with whom they vie for control.
It may be that a Trump presidency, as Andrew Sullivan predicts in New York Magazine, will usher in the end of the democracy, the death of the republic, the rise of the hard totalitarian state.  Given that we are already living in what Princeton political scientist Sheldon Wolin calls a soft or inverted totalitarian system, an illiberal democracy, the transformation feared by Sullivan will be welcome, clarifying, a fresh breath of honesty, in which the trappings are tossed aside and the ugly reality is revealed.  Such a revelation, as the republic degenerates into tyranny, may inspire real resistance.

Or not.  It’s the risk of the wild card.  TRUMP!  Let the fire burn how it will.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 10, 2016, 05:47:27 PM
I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.
:emthup: :emthup:
... especially if I'm voting for Stein/Sanders on the Green ticket.


(https://vangogh.teespring.com/shirt_pic/5742014/6632384/6/2439/480x9999/front.png?v=2016-06-11-01-54)
https://teespring.com/cthulu-2016
First run of T-shirts can be ordered until Friday at 11PM EDT
Title: Identity Politics and Interest
Post by: RE on June 10, 2016, 10:22:06 PM
http://www.ianwelsh.net/identity-politics-and-interest/ (http://www.ianwelsh.net/identity-politics-and-interest/)

Identity Politics and Interest
2016 June 9
tags: Identity, Identity Politics
by Ian Welsh

(http://www.ianwelsh.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/identity2-267x300.jpg)
The stats on rape or attempted rate for women are somewhere between 1 in 4 and one in 6.  Those are high stats.

The money earned by women is less than men in general. Yes, an unmarried white professional woman without children probably does as well or even better than an equivalent male, but a lot of women want to get married or have children and not suffer financially for.  (Males do better when married.)

If you are black, you get about half the interview request from resumes that a white would on the same resume.  You are subject to “driving while black.”  For the exact same crime you are more likely to be arrested; you are more likely to be convicted; and if convicted you will almost certainly suffer a greater penalty than a white would.

As a result you have interests in common with other people with the same ethnicity. This is true of males and whites and Latinos and so on.  White males are an identity group with shared interests.

Identity is not a bad parser of interest. You do have interests in common with the average person of the same identity.  Especially identities which usually cannot be chosen like your biological sex or your skin color.

There are three issues with identity and interest.

The first is that not everyone who has the same identity markers as you puts their identity as their most important interest.  Obama is black. He has done very little for blacks as blacks.  There are plenty of woman politicians who do nothing for other women, including on basic issues like abortion.

This is the second issue. Identity as, say, evangelical Christians may be more important to them, or they may simply be acting out of more narrow self-interest.

Since it is the topic du’jour, let’s discuss Sanders and Clinton.

Bernie is as good as Clinton in feminist issues, better on race issues (at least according to Black Lives Matters and, well, her record), and better on economic issues.

There is a tendency to assume clustering.  If a person is a lesbian (in Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, in the US Liz Cheney), many assume she is also a left winger in general.  Wynne has been very good on gay issues in Ontario. She is terrible on economic issues.  She is a neo-liberal economically, a left winger socially.

This is super common.  Clinton is a left winger for women, and a conservative for pretty much everything else.  She has no actual beliefs on non-female social issues. If it is politically expedient she’ll talk about black super predators and support terrible criminal policies which punish blacks. She’ll be against gay marriage.  But she’ll be for this stuff, too, if she thinks it’s expedient.

Identity does not have to cluster. It is less likely to cluster in important people, who identity strongly with other important people.

This leads to the third issue.  You have interests as your primary identity.  But you have other interests that you may not identify with as strongly (or not strongly enough to vote or act on them.)

Poor whites who want to keep down ethnicities and thus vote hard conservative are hurting their economic class interests, yes. But they are competing with new immigrants for a lot of the same bad jobs.  Business owners whine that native born Americans don’t want shitty jobs, but they’ll do them if they pay more and are treated better. Minus immigrants, a lot of jobs that couldn’t be moved overseas would have to pay more and treat people better.

This is not irrational. It is based on daily lived experience. It is, I believe, a mistake.  Immigration is a secondary effect, and there are better ways to make labor markets tight, which generally involve what an economic left-winger would call “class solidarity”.

From an identity point of view, class solidarity is just taking your class identity as primary.

Still, there is no question, you can hurt yourself really really badly by parsing the world in identity terms.  Most of the people who voted for Clinton in the primary will do worse under her than they would have with Bernie as President.

Clinton can be expected to continue neo-liberal policies.  Under Obama, those policies made only about the top 3 to 5 percent of the US population better off. If you aren’t in that class, Bernie is a better bet. Again, he’s as good as Clinton on women’s issues, better on race and economics.

Most people don’t think this way.  They don’t go the extra steps.  They choose a primary identity, assume anyone else with the markers is like them and vote on that identity.

They may also simply decide that the identity IS more important than their other interests.  I doubt most Clinton supporters would admit “I”ll lose money under Bernie, a lot more people will die overseas, but I think having a woman as President is more important because it will change how people think about Gender even if Bernie’s policies were every bit as good.”

Most wouldn’t, but some certainly do.  And implicitly, that is the argument.

If you want to change behaviour, your job is to change which cluster people identity with.  This isn’t some post-modern realization.  Communists and socialists and Marxists have been obsessed with this issue for as long as they have existed (read Mobilization theory for the Marxist/Conflict Theory take.)

People use shorthands to think.  They mostly don’t think, actually, they use emotion to make decisions.  This is a really good way to make decisions as a hunter-gatherer in a band where you’ve known everyone since you or they were born, whichever is shorter, and where most decisions are about environments you know very well and where if you fuck up, you’re very likely dead.

It is a bad way to make decisions in our world, where you don’t really know important people, where most decisions will kill you years down the road, not now, and where lots of people are effectively con-artists using your mental shortcuts to fleece you.

Being gay, or female or colored is a really strong asset when dealing with most modern left-wing types because they tend to assume clustering, discount sell-outs and not understand that their assumptions are being used against them by con-artists.

This is the critique of modern identity.  That it has led to a lot of bad decisions about who to trust and that biological marker identity is often not the most important identity.

Is that right?  I suppose it depends. Some groups have done very well in this era: gays, for example.

But others, like women in the US (losing effective abortion treatment, but a general reduction in rape) have mixed records; while still others have done terribly over the last few decades (African Americans.)  The Black Congressional caucus has been particularly bad for poor blacks, and includes some of the biggest recipients of, for example, payday loan industry money.

Visible identity is a terrible parser of whether someone will act in your interests, especially if you assume clustering. This is especially true when someone has a record, like Clinton and Sanders do.  We know who they are, because they have very long records.

So, identity is basic to humans. It is a way of quickly making sense of the world and choosing who you can trust because they have interests and experiences in common with you.  But it has serious limits. It is subject to manipulation.  And which identity you take as primary is very important if you’re going to make decisions based on identity.

Women are right to think men keep them down; blacks are right to think that whites keep them down.  Gays that straights are a problem.

Etc…

But that does not always mean that someone who has the visible signs of that identity will act on that interest in power (Blacks and Obama). Even if it does, it does not mean they will act on clustered interests (economic, local, your industry).

Those interests might, an outside observer would think, outweigh the pure identity interests. If you lose your job and wind up on the street, an economic populist might point out, the rest of it is crap.

But for those who are trying to change how people act the real lesson of identity is that changing how people think about identity matters.

And perhaps the other lesson is to teach people just not to trust anything powerful people say, but what they do, because powerful people are far more likely to be con-artists than Jane or Joe on the street.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on June 11, 2016, 03:12:44 AM
I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.
:emthup: :emthup:
... especially if I'm voting for Stein/Sanders on the Green ticket.


(https://vangogh.teespring.com/shirt_pic/5742014/6632384/6/2439/480x9999/front.png?v=2016-06-11-01-54)
https://teespring.com/cthulu-2016 (https://teespring.com/cthulu-2016)
First run of T-shirts can be ordered until Friday at 11PM EDT

A little touch of nihilism in the night. But these kids have got to learn to spell.

(http://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png)
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Palloy on June 13, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
The testimony so far proves that Hilary didn't formally apply to use a private email address, didn't keep the Records department updated with all her business emails within 14 days, didn't do a formal sign off when she ceased being SecState, and a few other minor details.  But all these are infringement of internal rules, that previous SecStates have done, and there are no protocols for punishment for breaking those rules.  Because she didn't register her private email address, the situation with her private email server has never been addressed.  There is no indication that her server was ever successfully hacked, although it was attacked a couple of times (or so her server's IT support person thought) and shut down temporarily.

What remains at issue is whether she handled high security attachments properly.  How Wikileaks might have got hold of data on that is unknown, but presumably the FBI leaked them - they must think Wikileaks' anonymous leaks channel is good enough to protect them.

https://www.rt.com/usa/346534-wikileaks-clinton-assange-fbi/ (https://www.rt.com/usa/346534-wikileaks-clinton-assange-fbi/)
Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange
13 Jun, 2016

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary Clinton, enough to indict her if the US government is courageous enough to do so, in what he predicts will be “a very big year” for the whistleblowing website.

Expressing concerns in an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, who he claims is monitoring him, Assange described Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump as an “unpredictable phenomenon”, but predictably, given their divergent political views, didn’t say if he preferred the billionaire to be president.

He was not asked if he supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, even though she said she would immediately pardon Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning if elected.

“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

About 32,000 emails from her private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be published.

Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.

He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”

Clinton has been acting like the presumptive Democratic nominee even though votes are still being counted in California after the June 7 primary, Sanders flipped three counties in his favor, and nine superdelegates have dropped the former New York senator.

The former secretary of state pushed for the prosecution of Wikileaks, rather than the global criminals they exposed, and the organization described her as a “war hawk.”

Assange said the leaked emails revealed that she overrode the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that “they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country.”

The email scandal could become a headache as the race to the White House heats up and the FBI continues to investigate her.

Sworn testimony from officials working in the department revealed that Clinton did not “know how to use a computer to do e-mail,” instead using her Blackberry for official communications.

Clinton’s office was a designated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), where the use of wireless devices was not permitted, leading to Clinton leaving her office in order to access emails.

Sensitive information regarding US security was sent to her private server, including information on drone strikes.

Clinton’s use of a private email account came to light in 2013, when a hacker going by the name of Guccifer accessed the email account of her aide Sidney Blumenthal.
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: Surly1 on June 16, 2016, 12:29:34 PM
Why I'm Starting to Doubt Trump Even Wants to Be President (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45882/trump-tv-network/)
Is he really just playing the long game to build a new media empire?

(http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/24/980x490/landscape-1466094969-trumptv.jpg)

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
JUN 16, 2016


This week's episode of Seven Days In Mayhem features me changing my mind.

Ever since the rise of He, Trump, I have resolutely resisted the arguments of people who told me that he didn't really want the job of being president, that he was only in it to build his brand, that he was simply ego-surfing on the waves of affection produced by simpletons. I thought he actually believed he could do the job of being president better than all those other pathetic, low-energy losers who lined up against him. I thought that, the more he won, the more he validated himself in the echoing canyons of his mind. Now, though, I'm not sure. Maybe the whole thing was pure grift from the start.

Vanity Fair informs us that there already are plans in the works to create Trump TV once the campaign craters in November, assuming the campaign gets that far.

Quote
According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the "audience" currently supporting him. He has also discussed the possibility of launching a "mini-media conglomerate" outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC. He has, according to one of these people, enlisted the consultation of his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who owns the The New York Observer. Trump's rationale, according to this person, is that, "win or lose, we are onto something here. We've triggered a base of the population that hasn't had a voice in a long time." For his part, Kushner was heard at a New York dinner party saying that "the people here don't understand what I'm seeing. You go to these arenas and people go crazy for him."

However, for this scheme to work, he almost has to play the campaign game out until the final whistle. If he drops out, the whole scheme would collapse. (What's more "low-energy" than dropping out of a presidential campaign because The Washington Post hurt your fee-fee?) So, while I still think he'll be on the ballot to get whacked, I am less sure that he truly wants the job than I was.

Meanwhile, the hopeless grenade-jugglers of the #NeverTrump movement seem to be taking some heart in this latest development. Maybe they can get a few of the sugar daddies off oxygen and promise He, Trump to finance his massive vanity project in exchange for his promise to get out of the way and let the party nominate a giant like…well, they're still not sure about that. (Help us, Willard Romney. You're our only hope.) The primary argument against this remains the obvious fact that these people would screw up a two-car funeral if you spotted them the hearse. Note Michael Brendan Dougherty's caution that, if you want to euchre He, Trump out of the nomination, you still have to deal with Tailgunner Ted Cruz and, god, who wants to do that in the heat of high summer in Cleveland?

But the incredible recent plunge in Trump's poll numbers vis-a-vis Hillary Rodham Clinton is scaring the Ensure out of what we laughingly call the Republican establishment. We may rapidly be getting to the point where anything is possible.

But, then again, there's the example of Hugh Hewitt, who has become an Important Pundit, somehow has been assimilated over the last couple of weeks. As recently as June 8, Hewitt was calling He, Trump a "stage-four cancer" that the GOP couldn't ignore. On Thursday, though, we learned from Tiger Beat On The Potomac that Hewitt was apologizing for his misdiagnosis. It wasn't a stage-four cancer. The patient really was feeling much better.

From TBOTP:

Quote
What changed his mind? Trump's speeches on Friday and Monday, addressing religious liberty at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference and responding to the Orlando, Florida, attack, respectively. Hewitt wrote that Trump "has returned to a winning message and walled off the assorted 'never Trump' holdouts trying to upend his nomination."

Hewitt's endorsement comes after Trump, in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, repeatedly insinuated that President Barack Obama supports terrorism.

"Trump's task now is clear: It's time to abandon his off-the-cuff remarks, disengage from his battles with the media and methodically prosecute the case that throughout her career, [Hillary] Clinton has consistently displayed a disqualifying lack of judgment," Hewitt continued. "He needs to develop this argument, detail it and drive it home."

God, you talk about quibbling over the price. Somebody really wants to be the evening anchor on Trump News TV.


***

If you'd like to read the Vanity Fair article, it is here:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network)
Title: Republican Operatives Launch All-Out Effort To Unbind The Delegates And Deny Tru
Post by: Surly1 on June 19, 2016, 03:56:12 PM
What do you think? Could they really consider Mittens 2.0 over Trump?

Republican Operatives Launch All-Out Effort To Unbind The Delegates And Deny Trump The Nomination (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/republican-operatives-launch-all-out-effort-to-unbind-the-delegates-and-deny-trump-the-nomination.html)

Posted on  by WashingtonsBlog

By Michael Snyder, the Economic Collapse Blog.

Donald Trump Cube - Public DomainIf you think that Donald Trump already has the Republican nomination locked up, then you don’t understand what is going on behind the scenes.  It has long been my contention that the elite will move heaven and earth in order to keep Trump from ever setting foot in the Oval Office.  One way that they could try to do this is by attempting to deny him the nomination at the Republican convention next month.  Over the past couple of days, the Washington Post, CNN and a whole host of other mainstream news outlets have been reporting on a new “last-ditch effort” that has been launched by Republican operatives to get the Republican convention Rules Committee to unbind all of the delegates and allow them to vote however they want.  As you will see below, they can do this, and if they get enough votes they will do it.

This current effort is different from what we have seen so far during this campaign season, because it is actually being organized by the delegates themselves.  The following comes from the Washington Post

Dozens of Republican convention delegates are hatching a new plan to block Donald Trump at this summer’s party meetings, in what has become the most organized effort so far to stop the businessman from becoming the GOP presidential nominee.

The moves come amid declining poll numbers for Trump and growing concern among Republicans that he is squandering his chance to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton. Several controversies — including his racial attacks on a federal judge, his renewed call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States and his support for changing the nation’s gun laws — have raised fears among Republicans that Trump is not really a conservative and is too reckless to run a successful race.

This movement is being spearheaded by a delegate from Colorado named Kendal Unruh.  She is actually a key member of the Republican convention Rules Committee, and this is very important for reasons that I will explain below.

For her, it is not about getting some other specific candidate nominated.  Rather, the entire goal is simply to stop Donald Trump

This literally is an ‘Anybody but Trump’ movement,” said Kendal Unruh, a Republican delegate from Colorado who is leading the campaign. “Nobody has any idea who is going to step in and be the nominee, but we’re not worried about that. We’re just doing that job to make sure that he’s not the face of our party.

So what will it take for Unruh and her allies to be successful?

As Fox News explained, there are basically two courses of action…

To prevail, Unruh needs a majority of the 112 members of the convention rules committee, which has two delegates from each state and territory. Then, a majority of the full convention’s 2,472 delegates would have to approve.

There’s a Plan B. If Unruh can win over one-fourth support from the rules committee —just 29 delegates — the full convention must vote on her proposal. So far she’s got around 10 supporters though some prefer delaying the rule’s impact until the 2020 convention, she said.

On Thursday night, Unruh was on a conference call that included at least 30 delegates from 15 different states, and the Washington Post says that regional coordinators for this effort have been recruited “in Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Washington and other states.”

One individual that took part in this conference call on Thursday night told CNN that calls are pouring in from people all over the country that want to be part of this movement…

I will tell you, about every two hours people contact me about how to join this effort,” Lonegan said. “This has never been done before, so there’s no textbook on how to do it. So we’re building an organic effort, state by state, to convince members of the Rules Committee to sign onto a rule that unbinds the delegates to vote their moral conscience.”

So could the Republican convention Rules Committee actually do this?

Could they actually unbind all of the delegates and allow them to vote however they wished?

Well, yes they actually could do this.  As Time Magazine has explained, the Republican convention Rules Committee essentially has the power to make up any rules that they want…

It has the power to review and amend all of the rules of the Republican Party, pending ratification by the full convention. If it wanted to, it could insert a rule that says only candidates with blue hair could be the party’s nominee. It’s that powerful. In a contested scenario, the Rules Committee would be ground zero for fights over who and how candidates are nominated on the floor, as well as how the convention itself is conducted.

And thanks to political wrangling by the Cruz campaign, we do know that the rules committee is dominated by delegates that are loyal to Cruz

The convention rules committee is made up of one man and one woman from each of the 50 states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Dominated by party insiders and loyalists to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz—who aggressively worked state conventions to secure slots on the committee—it remains to be seen what the committee’s appetite would be for such a dramatic break from the existing rules.

If I was Donald Trump, I would be taking this very, very seriously.

But at this point he seems to be brushing it off …

“I have tremendous support and get the biggest crowds by far and any such move would not only be totally illegal but also a rebuke of the millions of people who feel so strongly about what I am saying,” Trump said in a statement. “People that I defeated soundly in the primaries will do anything to get a second shot — but there is no mechanism for it to happen.”

Right at this moment we still have about a month left before the convention.

So that gives those involved in the anti-Trump movement quite a bit of time to rally their forces.

The rule change that would unbind all of the delegates and free them up to “vote their consciences” has already been drafted.  Here is the text of the proposed rule change…

Preserving Delegates’ Ability to Vote Their Individual Conscience

The secretary of the national convention shall receive and faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with these rules. If any such delegate notifies the secretary of his or her intent to cast a vote of conscience, whether personal or religious, each such delegate shall be unbound and unconstrained by these rules on any given vote, including the first ballot for the selection of the Republican nominee for President of the United States, without the risk of challenge, sanction, or retribution by the Republican National Committee. Allowable personal reasons shall include the public disclosure of one or more grievous acts of personal conduct by a nominee candidate, including but not limited to, criminally actionable acts, acts of moral turpitude or extreme prejudice, and/or notorious public statements of support for positions that clearly oppose or contradict the policies embodied in the Republican Party’s platform as established at the national convention.

In my new book, I warn about the great political shaking that is coming to this nation, and if this rule change is even attempted at the Republican convention it would create seismic shifts in the U.S. political landscape.

Of course there is still one huge question that I have not even addressed in this article yet.

If Trump has the nomination taken away from him, who would the Republican nominee be?

Some are convinced that it would be Paul Ryan, but I believe that it would be somebody else.

Mitt Romney has certainly not hidden his disdain for Donald Trump, and right now he is quietly waiting in the wings.  If the anti-Trump forces get their way, I believe that he would be the man that ultimately walks away with the prize.

Title: Re: Republican Operatives Launch All-Out Effort To Unbind The Delegates And Deny Tru
Post by: monsta666 on June 19, 2016, 04:28:27 PM
What do you think? Could they really consider Mittens 2.0 over Trump?

Having the power and actually enforcing it are two different things. Technically in the UK the head of state is the Queen and in times of war the Prime Minister acts as her "advisor". In theory this means the Queen has the capability to reject all proposals made by the government although in practice this never happens. Furthermore at her discretion she could refuse to appoint a Prime Minister into office even if the public vote for this person. Now if she actually exercised those powers there would be widespread outrage and shock the law even had a clause that would allow such a thing. In the ensuing after mass I am sure she would be stripped of those privileges in short order.

In terms of Trump and the Republican party wanting to eject him the dynamics seem rather similar to me. The mechanism to do it maybe there but it would totally undermine the democratic process and make people lose even more trust in politicians. The public could even see the ejection of Trump as a rejection of the will of the people and cause the Republican party untold damage in future elections. In addition to that anyone who took Trump's place would basically be a martyr to this cause and would lose overwhelmingly to Clinton as they would have no legitimacy. The move will also likely spell political suicide for the said person so who would want to be the martyr?
Title: Re: Republican Operatives Launch All-Out Effort To Unbind The Delegates And Deny Tru
Post by: RE on June 19, 2016, 05:00:53 PM
If they pull a Rules Stunt at the convention to oust Trump and put in a new puppet, first of it will de-legitimize the entire Republican Party.  Besides that though, Trump will immediately run on a 3rd Party Ticket, thus insuring neither he nor whoever the Repugnants drop in will win.

On top of that, if Trump runs 3rd Party, I would bet Bernie runs 3rd Party too.

So what you would be looking at in this situation is a 4 way race

Trump
Romney
Clinton
Sanders

Who wins that one in the Electoral College if nobody has say more than 30% of the vote?

RE
Title: Re: Election 2016
Post by: JRM on June 19, 2016, 07:10:53 PM
Two words:

Nightmare soap-opera.
Title: Re: Republican Operatives Launch All-Out Effort To Unbind The Delegates And Deny Tru
Post by: Surly1 on June 20, 2016, 04:05:52 AM
If they pull a Rules Stunt at the convention to oust Trump and put in a new puppet, first of it will de-legitimize the entire Republican Party.  Besides that though, Trump will immediately run on a 3rd Party Ticket, thus insuring neither he nor whoever the Repugnants drop in will win.

Who wins that one in the Electoral College if nobody has say more than 30% of the vote?

RE

Paul Ryan, kingmaker. Just ponder that for a minute.
Title: Donald Trump Fires Corey Lewandowski, His Campaign Manager
Post by: RE on June 20, 2016, 09:47:02 AM
Looks like The Donald's campaign is imploding.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/corey-lewandowski-donald-trump.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/corey-lewandowski-donald-trump.html?_r=0)
Donald Trump Fires Corey Lewandowski, His Campaign Manager

By MAGGIE HABERMANJUNE 20, 2016

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/06/21/us/21trump-lewandowski/21trump-lewandowski-master768.jpg)
Corey Lewandowski, at Trump Tower in New York in early May, has guided Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, until now. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times

Donald J. Trump has fired his contentious campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, a move that comes as the presumptive Republican nominee faces challenges as he heads into the general election.

Mr. Lewandowski could not immediately be reached for comment about his departure, which was announced by the campaign.

“The Donald J. Trump Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign,” the campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in a statement. “The campaign is grateful to Corey for his hard work and dedication and we wish him the best in the future.”

With the Republican National Convention looming next month, Mr. Trump is facing the task of broadening his team to include people with previous presidential campaign experience. Mr. Trump also has been turning his attention to fund-raising for the first time, a task that Mr. Lewandowski had assumed oversight of and one that has gone slowly for the campaign. The campaign has aired no ads in the general election and there has been no “super PAC” that received a clear public blessing from Mr. Trump and his top advisers.

The loss of Mr. Lewandowski was intended as part of a larger shift toward the final sprint of the race, according to those briefed on the matter.

Mr. Trump had faced increasing concerns from allies and donors, as well as his children, about the next phase of the campaign. It is a move that could reassure donors and Republicans more broadly that he can adjust toward a November election strategy.

Two people briefed on the move, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Lewandowski was fired.

The campaign manager was seen as having a hostile relationship with many members of the national press corps who cover Mr. Trump, and many officials at the Republican National Committee had strained relationships with him.

And Mr. Lewandowski was often at odds with Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Paul Manafort, who was brought on in March when the candidate seemed poised for a lengthy fight over delegates.

Mr. Lewandowski was said to have resisted certain moves that would have increased the number of staff members, at times blocking Mr. Manafort from making hires or later undoing them.

But the people briefed on Mr. Lewandowski’s departure said that the circumstances went well beyond any particular episode or any particular relationship. Mr. Lewandowski had a penchant for making headlines about himself that overshadowed his boss, including being charged with misdemeanor battery, a charge later dropped, after he was accused of grabbing a reporter as she approached Mr. Trump with a question in Jupiter, Fla., on March 8, a night when the candidate won three of four Republican state primary votes.

One person stressed that the move had been in the works for many weeks, particularly since it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the nominee. The person added said that the campaign is now focusing on bringing the party together, including hiring new staff members and adjusting to the race against Hillary Clinton. And there had been a desire for many weeks to make changes ahead of the Republican National Convention, July 18-21 in Cleveland.

While Mr. Lewandowski’s departure was not portrayed as tied to Mr. Trump’s recent spate of difficulties, the candidate has been facing withering criticism for his attacks on the federal judge overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, and his response the June 12 massacre of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Fla., which he used to reiterate his call for a ban on Muslims entering the country.

And Mr. Trump’s communications team, kept slim under Mr. Lewandowski’s purview, found itself swamped by an increasing barrage of attacks Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in recent weeks.

Mr. Lewandowski, 42, a New Hampshire resident with deep ties to the state, had made himself a delegate to the convention months ago. He is still the chairman of the state’s delegation to the convention.

No one inside the campaign was given any advance warning about the dismissal of Mr. Lewandowski, who was on the campaign’s daily 8:30 a.m. conference call on Monday, according to a person briefed on the developments.

On Twitter, some campaign staff members rejoiced at the news of Mr. Lewandowski’s departure.

“Ding dong the witch is dead!” wrote Michael Caputo, a Trump communications aide who was said to have been antagonized by Mr. Lewandowski.
Title: What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man
Post by: RE on June 21, 2016, 01:00:07 AM
Cohn & Trump.  A Match Made in Hell.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html?_r=0)

lection 2016

What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man

Photo
 
Roy Cohn in Manhattan in 1982. Mr. Cohn, who made his reputation as a prosecutor in the Rosenberg espionage case and as an aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, was Mr. Trump’s lawyer for 13 years. Credit Ron Galella/WireImage

The future Mrs. Donald J. Trump was puzzled.

She had been summoned to a lunch meeting with her husband-to-be and his lawyer to review a prenuptial agreement. It required that, should the couple split, she return everything — cars, furs, rings — that Mr. Trump might give her during their marriage.

Sensing her sorrow, Mr. Trump apologized, Ivana Trump later testified in a divorce deposition. He said it was his lawyer’s idea.

“It is just one of those Roy Cohn numbers,” Mr. Trump told her.

The year was 1977, and Mr. Cohn’s reputation was well established. He had been Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Red-baiting consigliere. He had helped send the Rosenbergs to the electric chair for spying and elect Richard M. Nixon president.

Then New York’s most feared lawyer, Mr. Cohn had a client list that ran the gamut from the disreputable to the quasi-reputable: Anthony (Fat Tony) Salerno, Claus von Bulow, George Steinbrenner.

But there was one client who occupied a special place in Roy Cohn’s famously cold heart: Donald J. Trump.

For Mr. Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, weeks after being disbarred for flagrant ethical violations, Mr. Trump was something of a final project. If Fred Trump got his son’s career started, bringing him into the family business of middle-class rentals in Brooklyn and Queens, Mr. Cohn ushered him across the river and into Manhattan, introducing him to the social and political elite while ferociously defending him against a growing list of enemies.

Decades later, Mr. Cohn’s influence on Mr. Trump is unmistakable. Mr. Trump’s wrecking ball of a presidential bid — the gleeful smearing of his opponents, the embracing of bluster as brand — has been a Roy Cohn number on a grand scale. Mr. Trump’s response to the Orlando massacre, with his ominous warnings of a terrorist attack that could wipe out the country and his conspiratorial suggestions of a Muslim fifth column in the United States, seemed to have been ripped straight out of the Cohn playbook.

“I hear Roy in the things he says quite clearly,” said Peter Fraser, who as Mr. Cohn’s lover for the last two years of his life spent a great deal of time with Mr. Trump. “That bravado, and if you say it aggressively and loudly enough, it’s the truth — that’s the way Roy used to operate to a degree, and Donald was certainly his apprentice.”

For 13 years, the lawyer who had infamously whispered in McCarthy’s ear whispered in Mr. Trump’s. In the process, Mr. Cohn helped deliver some of Mr. Trump’s signature construction deals, sued the National Football League for conspiring against his client and countersued the federal government — for $100 million — for damaging the Trump name. One of Mr. Trump’s executives recalled that he kept an 8-by-10-inch photograph of Mr. Cohn in his office desk, pulling it out to intimidate recalcitrant contractors.

The two men spoke as often as five times a day, toasted each other at birthday parties and spent evenings together at Studio 54.

And Mr. Cohn turned repeatedly to Mr. Trump — one of a small clutch of people who knew he was gay — in his hours of need. When a former companion was dying of AIDS, he asked Mr. Trump to find him a place to stay. When he faced disbarment, he summoned Mr. Trump to testify to his character.

Mr. Trump says the two became so close that Mr. Cohn, who had no immediate family, sometimes refused to bill him, insisting he could not charge a friend.

“Roy was an era,” Mr. Trump said in an interview, reflecting on his years with Mr. Cohn. “They either loved him or couldn’t stand him, which was fine.”

Mr. Trump was asked if this reminded him of anyone. “Yeah,” he answered. “It does, come to think of it.”

Business, Pleasure and Power

The gossip columnist Cindy Adams, who knew everyone, had no idea who he was.

“This kid is going to own New York someday,” Mr. Cohn told her, gesturing at a tall 20-something bachelor at a dinner party in the early 1970s. “This is Donald Trump.”

“Yeah, so?” Ms. Adams recalled replying.

Mr. Cohn, the son of a prominent New York judge, had taken an uncommon interest in Mr. Trump.

The two had met not long before at a private disco called Le Club, and instantly hit it off while discussing a nettlesome obstacle for Mr. Trump. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was suing him and his father, accusing them of refusing to rent to black tenants. Mr. Trump told Mr. Cohn that their lawyers were urging them to settle.

Photo
 
Mr. Trump, left, with Mayor Edward I. Koch of New York and Mr. Cohn at the opening of the Trump Tower in 1983. Credit Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images

“Tell them to go to hell and fight the thing in court,’” Mr. Trump later recalled Mr. Cohn advising him.

Continue reading the main story

From Our Advertisers

 

Mr. Trump did just that, with Mr. Cohn as his lawyer. Not only did Mr. Cohn countersue the government for $100 million, he filed a blistering affidavit on Mr. Trump’s behalf, mocking the case. “The Civil Rights Division did not file a lawsuit,” Mr. Cohn wrote. “It slapped together a piece of paper for use as a press release.” The Trumps ultimately settled the case by agreeing to make apartments available to minority renters, while admitting no wrongdoing.

For Mr. Trump, the benefits of his new representation were obvious. Mr. Cohn was one of the most famous and feared lawyers in America. He would later appear on the cover of Esquire beneath an ironic halo, and earn a posthumous parody on “The Simpsons.”

But Mr. Cohn saw something in Mr. Trump, too.

“He could sniff out a power-to-be, Roy could,” said Susan Bell, Mr. Cohn’s longtime secretary.

After helping convict the Rosenbergs as a young federal prosecutor and then working in Washington as a top aide to McCarthy, Mr. Cohn had returned to New York, starting a boutique practice in his shabby but elegant townhouse on East 68th Street.

The division of labor in the firm was clear.

“We called him the rainmaker,” said Michael Rosen, a partner who handled many of the firm’s organized-crime cases. “We did all of the grunt work, if grunt work means preparing the case and trying the case.”

Mr. Cohn lived on the third floor, often traipsing downstairs in his bathrobe well after the workday had begun and taking clients upstairs to a small sun porch. The elevator rarely worked. In the winter, the lawyers stuffed towels around the windows to keep out the cold.

Parties and business meetings tended to blur, with celebrities like Andy Warhol and Estée Lauder crowding in and spilling out. “That townhouse was a workhorse,” recalled Mr. Trump, a familiar presence there himself.

He and Mr. Cohn became social companions, lunching at “21” or spending evenings at Yankee Stadium in the owner’s box of Mr. Steinbrenner, another Cohn client.

After Mr. Fraser entered Mr. Cohn’s life, the two were frequent dinner guests at Donald and Ivana’s Trump Tower apartment, with its Michelangelo-style murals. They were also regulars at Mr. Trump’s box at the Meadowlands, the home of his sports team, the New Jersey Generals of the short-lived United States Football League.

Mr. Cohn was the master of ceremonies at a Trump birthday party at Studio 54; years later, Mr. Trump returned the favor with a birthday toast of his own at a party in the atrium of Trump Tower, joking that Mr. Cohn was more bark than bite.

“We just tell the opposition Roy Cohn is representing me, and they get scared,” Mr. Trump said, according to a cousin of Mr. Cohn’s, David L. Marcus, who attended. “He never actually does anything.”

Among the many things Mr. Trump learned from Mr. Cohn during these years was the importance of keeping one’s name in the newspapers. Long before Mr. Trump posed as his own spokesman, passing self-serving tidbits to gossip columnists, Mr. Cohn was known to call in stories about himself to reporters.

It was also through Mr. Cohn that Mr. Trump met the political operative who has played a leading, if behind-the-scenes, role in his campaign: Roger Stone.

When Mr. Stone, the roguish former Nixon adviser and master of the political dark arts, came to New York in 1979 to court support for Ronald Reagan’s presidential bid, he arrived with a box of index cards filled with the names of actors and producers. And Roy Cohn.

“I made an appointment and I pitched him on Reagan, and he said, ‘You have to meet Donald and Fred Trump,’” Mr. Stone recalled in an interview.

Eventually, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Trump became so inseparable that those who could not track down Mr. Cohn knew whom to call.

Once, Mr. Cohn chartered a plane with friends, without Mr. Trump, trashing it during a midair party. He refused to pay. So the airline found Mr. Trump, asking if he could help.

Photo
 
Roy Cohn, right, with Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954. Mr. Trump once said Mr. Cohn was a “vicious” protector. Credit George Tames/The New York Times

He called Mr. Cohn, more amused than concerned.

“I said, ‘Roy, what are you going to do about this? I mean, you destroyed the plane,’” Mr. Trump recalled. “He said, ‘Eh, we’ll pay them someday.’”

An Invaluable Relationship

By the time Mr. Trump started getting serious with a Czech model named Ivana Winklmayr, Mr. Cohn had become something of an expert on marriage.

“It’s difficult to imagine and admit that the flush of the moment may become the flush of the toilet as the relationship goes down the tubes,” he wrote about the importance of prenuptial agreements in his book “How to Stand Up for Your Rights — and Win!”

According to “Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth,” a book by the journalist Wayne Barrett, Mr. Cohn advised Mr. Trump against marrying Ms. Winklmayr, but insisted that if he must, there had to be a prenuptial agreement. He would handle it himself.

The agreement, completed only weeks before the wedding, did not quantify Mr. Trump’s net worth — “impossible to accurately determine due to the illiquid nature of his holdings” — and took a bearish view of Mr. Trump’s earning potential and a modest view of his tastes.

“Donald’s standard of living is basically simple,” it said, calling Mr. Trump’s preferred lifestyle “neither opulent nor extravagant.”

When the marriage dissolved a few years after Mr. Cohn’s death, Mrs. Trump’s lawyers charged that she had not had proper representation on the prenup. Her initial lawyer had worked for Mr. Cohn on at least one case, and was a frequent passenger on Mr. Cohn’s yacht, the Defiance. The divorce case eventually ended with a settlement.

The prenup was just one of many Trump deals, some more conventional than others, in which Mr. Cohn was intimately involved.

He used his connections to help Mr. Trump secure zoning variances and tax abatements critical to the construction of the Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Trump Plaza.

After one Cohn coup, Mr. Trump rewarded him with a pair of diamond-encrusted cuff links and buttons in a Bulgari box.

And if Mr. Cohn did not always feel comfortable charging a friend for his services, Mr. Trump was hardly one to put up a fight.

“Roy said, ‘I’ll leave it to Donald to give me what he thinks is fair,’” Mr. Fraser recalled of one lengthy Trump tax case in particular. “But, of course, Donald didn’t give him anything.”

Some work would have been difficult to bill. For instance, Mr. Cohn lobbied his friends in the Reagan White House to nominate Mr. Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry to the federal bench. (Questioned last year about this, Mr. Trump said his sister “got the appointment totally on her own merit.”)

“He was a very good lawyer if he wanted to be,” Mr. Trump said in the interview.

Asked about Mr. Cohn in 1980, Mr. Trump was more blunt in his assessment: “He’s been vicious to others in his protection of me.”

Defiant to the End

It started with a cut that would not stop bleeding.

Mr. Cohn’s diagnosis came not long after his former companion, Russell Eldridge, had gotten his. Mr. Eldridge had spent most of his final days in a private suite overlooking Central Park in Mr. Trump’s Barbizon Plaza Hotel.

Ms. Bell, Mr. Cohn’s secretary, recalled that Mr. Trump’s secretary, Norma Foerderer, had billed Mr. Cohn for the room, and later called to say that Mr. Cohn had not paid.

“I said, ‘Guess what, Norma, he’s not going to,’” Ms. Bell said. “And she kind of knew it.”

Mr. Cohn remained in his townhouse. Until the end — and even under interrogation by Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes” — he insisted that he had liver cancer, not AIDS.

Photo
 
Mr. Cohn and Mr. Trump in an undated photo with Steve Rubell, the co-founder of Studio 54, and Mr. Trump’s first wife, Ivana.

He received experimental AZT treatments in Washington and continued working. But his clients could not help but notice that his health was deteriorating.

Mr. Trump started gradually moving cases elsewhere, he said, never telling Mr. Cohn why. “There’s no reason to hurt somebody’s feelings,” he said.

“He was so weak,” Mr. Trump added. “He was so weakened that he really couldn’t do it.”

Mr. Cohn never spoke about Mr. Trump’s decision, but was plainly crushed, according to Ms. Bell. She remembers it happening not gradually, but “overnight.”

Even as his health was failing, Mr. Cohn, whom government prosecutors had unsuccessfully pursued for decades on charges including conspiracy, bribery and fraud, faced a final indignity: He was facing the prospect of disbarment. Among other offenses, he was charged with coercing a dying multimillionaire client — during a late-night visit to the man’s hospital room — to amend his will to make Mr. Cohn an executor of his estate.

The hearings were closed to the public. But true to form, Mr. Cohn, riding to the daily proceedings in a red Cadillac convertible, insisted on a spectacle, describing his accusers as “a bunch of yo-yos just out to smear me up.”

The prominent figures whom Mr. Cohn summoned to testify on his behalf included Barbara Walters and William F. Buckley Jr.

And, of course, Mr. Trump. He described his friend in simple terms.

“If I summed it up in one word,” Mr. Trump told the hearing panel, “I think the primary word I’d use is his loyalty.”

Gaunt, frail and besieged, Mr. Cohn nevertheless managed to attend a dinner with Mr. Fraser at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., shortly after Mr. Trump purchased the property in late 1985. It was a last glimpse at his final, fair-haired project.

“I made Trump successful,” he would occasionally boast, according to Mr. Marcus, Mr. Cohn’s cousin, a former journalist who chronicled Mr. Cohn’s last months for Vanity Fair.

In June 1986, Mr. Cohn was disbarred for “unethical,” “unprofessional” and “particularly reprehensible” conduct.

To this day, Mr. Trump rues the outcome. “They only got him because he was so sick,” Mr. Trump said in the interview. “They wouldn’t have gotten him otherwise.”

During his final days, Mr. Cohn called Mr. Trump, ostensibly for no particular reason. “It was just a call: ‘How are things going?’” Mr. Trump recalled. “Roy was the kind of guy — I don’t think he ever thought he was dying, frankly.”

About a week later, in August 1986, Mr. Trump received another call.

Mr. Trump hung up the phone, repeating the news to an associate in his office: Roy Cohn was dead.

“I said, ‘Wow, that’s the end of a generation,’” Mr. Trump remembered. “‘That’s the end of an era.’”

Mr. Fraser inherited all of Mr. Cohn’s possessions: the townhouse, his weekend place in Greenwich, Conn., his Rolls-Royce, his private plane and much more. But the Internal Revenue Service, collecting on Mr. Cohn’s tax debts, confiscated nearly everything.

He did get to keep the cuff links Mr. Trump had given Mr. Cohn. Years later, Mr. Fraser had them appraised; they were knockoffs, he said.

Mr. Fraser soon returned to his native New Zealand, where he now works as a conservationist at the Auckland Zoo. He has not spoken with Mr. Trump since Mr. Cohn’s death, but he has no doubt that if his former lover were still alive, he would be an enthusiastic supporter of the Trump campaign.

“Having trained or mentored someone who became president,” he said, “that would have been quite exciting for Roy.”

Title: Donald Trump's Problems Are Much Deeper Than A Campaign Manager
Post by: RE on June 21, 2016, 05:32:27 AM
This is really turning into a TOTAL IMPLOSION.

The Libertarian Rats are Scurrying now to escape The Donald Titanic.

RE

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/21/482895092/donald-trumps-problems-are-much-deeper-than-a-campaign-manager (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/21/482895092/donald-trumps-problems-are-much-deeper-than-a-campaign-manager)

 Politics
Donald Trump's Problems Are Much Deeper Than A Campaign Manager

June 21, 20164:31 AM ET
Domenico Montanaro - 2015


(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/06/21/gettyimages-540814486_wide-49ff654110384359e3009446718e069609d71d0c-s800-c85.jpg)
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump meets with supporters after a campaign event Thursday at Gilley's in Dallas.
Ron Jenkins/Getty Images

Things are not going well for Donald Trump.

On Monday, he fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski ran the campaign on a shoestring budget and a strategy that was largely built off and fueled by the candidate's say-whatever personality and brand.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, in Iowa last year.
Politics
Meet Donald Trump's Alter Ego

That worked great in a primary — not so much in a general election. But Trump's problems are far deeper than an embattled campaign manager, who just four months ago was described as Trump's "alter ego."
Corey Lewandowski, You're Fired

Trump's family stepped in Monday in a scene that could have been ripped from The Apprentice.

Lewandowski was summoned to a morning meeting, but it was a setup, New York magazine's Gabe Sherman reports:

    "Shortly after it began, [Trump's] children peppered Lewandowski with questions, asking him to explain the campaign's lack of infrastructure. Their father grew visibly upset as he heard the list of failures. Finally, he turned to Lewandowski and said, 'What's your plan here?' Lewandowski responded that he wanted to leak Trump's vice-president pick. And with that, Lewandowski was out."

Tension has persisted in the campaign between Lewandowski and a faction led by veteran political operative Paul Manafort, a former Ronald Reagan aide, who was brought on in the spring to manage a potential battle for delegates at the convention. But doubts started to grow about Lewandowski's management. The bottom line is Lewandowski didn't run a campaign that could win a modern-day presidential campaign.

Here were some of the problems:
Cash on hand totals are through May, filed June 20, for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as of March 31 for GOP senators seeking re-election in November.

Cash on hand totals are through May, filed June 20, for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as of March 31 for GOP senators seeking re-election in November.
Domenico Montanaro/NPR/Federal Election Commission

Money: Trump didn't need much of it in the primary campaign. He was able to get himself on TV without much problem. But Trump, who claims to be worth $10 billion, vowed not to fund his general-election campaign. That, combined with Trump's lackluster fundraising, has made lots of Republicans wring their hands. At the end of May, Trump's campaign had just $1.3 million cash on hand — and owed Trump himself $45.7 million. That figure is so paltry, it's less than every Republican senator up for re-election in competitive races. In something of an exit interview on CNN Monday after his firing, Lewandowski bragged twice that "the money is pouring in." He said the campaign had raised some $6 million to $8 million at recent events.

Trump would have to raise that amount of money every single day for two to three months to total the $500 million he said he would need to fund a general-election campaign. And that's half of what most real campaigns for president would need nowadays. In 2012, Romney and Obama spent roughly $2 billion combined.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during a rally at the San Jose Convention Center earlier this month.
Politics
How Donald Trump May Have Wasted A Monthlong Advantage Over Hillary Clinton

Travel: Trump wasted a monthlong advantage over Hillary Clinton when he had vanquished his rivals and she was still battling Bernie Sanders. Instead of focusing on traditional swing states, Trump traveled to states where he is likely to win or likely to lose.

Staff: Trump's campaign has fewer than 100 staffers. He boasts how "efficient" his operation is, with 73 employees. Clinton is estimated to already have around 800 paid staffers. Those are people who can be used to register voters and then get them to the polls in key states. You could believe Trump's boast that his campaign is more "efficient" and that his constant presence on TV compensates for a smaller staff. Or you could look to history: By August of 2012, Obama had 901 people on his payroll; Mitt Romney had 403.

And never mind the size of the staff; what is the campaign doing with them? Trump has eschewed data and behavioral analytics so far. That's something the Clinton team not only is all over, but something the Republican Party recognized was a problem after losing twice to Obama. The president broke the mold on this, and Republicans have tried hard to make up ground in the use of data.

Ads: Hillary Clinton and groups supporting her are spending more than $23 million on ads in eight key battleground states, according to NBC/SMG Delta.

Donald Trump? A grand total of zero. Zip. Nada.

For those who think it's still early, it's not really. Consider 2012 — back then, Romney and his allies were on air with almost $40 million in ads, compared with Obama and his supporters with $45 million. And one of the lessons of 2012 was that Romney allowed his opponents to define him with negative advertising early on. Trump's negatives are far worse than Romney's were at this point in the campaign.
The Problem Starts At The Top

But here's the reality: Blame the campaign manager all you want, he's not really the problem. Trump's problems go well beyond a campaign manager and straight to him. Problems in a campaign usually stem from the top, and that's especially true in this one.

Message: Trump has myriad problems, including a lack of policy depth, a dereliction of facts and an overall message — especially when he talks about race and identity — that have offended lots of voters he didn't have to worry about in a nearly all-white Republican primary. But a general election is a whole different ballgame. Some 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries — a record. But Obama won almost five times as many votes in the 2012 general election (66 million).
Democrat Hillary Clinton has been dealing with her ongoing email saga. It has gone on for months and has stuck. Compare that with Republican Donald Trump. All of his controversies have seemed to roll off him.
It's All Politics
The 'Teflon Don' And The Haunted Hill: A Contrast Of Media Narratives

Image: Trump may have been the Teflon Don with GOP voters, but he was Velcro with the rest of the country. Coming out of the primary, Trump's negative rating is higher than any other presidential candidate in history. And it has gotten worse in the past month following (1) his inflammatory comments that the presiding judge in the Trump University fraud case was biased because of his Mexican heritage and (2) the veterans fundraiser imbroglio. Trump donated $1 million only after the Washington Post reported there was no evidence he had done so as promised. That led to a press conference at which Trump called reporters names like "sleaze" and, derisively, "a real beauty." (Both reporters are children of Cuban immigrants.)

Disunity: All of that has led to a split with Republican Party leaders. Never before has the sitting speaker of the House called his party's presumptive nominee's comments "racist" (as Paul Ryan did with Trump's comments on the Trump U judge). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell chided Trump to get on message and stick to the script. One Republican senator said he would not entertain any more Trump questions and others are refusing to defend him and even threatening not to support him.

Inconsistency And A Lack Of Discipline: Trump himself months ago had promised to be "more presidential than anybody other than the great Abe Lincoln." Back in March, on the night of the Michigan primary and five days after he became the first presidential candidate in history to defend the size of his genitalia during a live national presidential debate, Trump vowed, "I could be more presidential than anybody. I can be more presidential, if I want to be, I can be more presidential than anybody."
Marco Rubio and Donald Trump participate in the Republican presidential debate in Detroit.
Marco Rubio Defends His 'Small Hands' Criticism Of Donald Trump

He called it "easy." It's proved to be not so easy. Instead, Trump seems to have an internal conflict choosing which self he wants to be. He delivered two wooden speeches, reading from a teleprompter twice in a week after GOP disunity came to a head. And then he was back to his free-wheeling self at a rally in Atlanta on Wednesday. His rambling speech went on for more than an hour, with Trump sometimes ducking out of incomplete thoughts midway through a sentence, sometimes coming back to them much later.

You just never know which Trump you're going to get — and both have their flaws.

Polls: Trump is now facing a minor collapse of his poll numbers against Hillary Clinton. After Trump wrapped up the nomination, he pulled even with Clinton, according to the Real Clear Politics average of the polls. (That was when the Democratic race was not yet settled.) Over the past month, Trump has dipped below 40 percent. Clinton holds, on average, a 6-point lead. Polls this far out are hardly predictive of what will happen in the fall, but the trend is unmistakable and worrying many in the GOP.

Besides the horse-race numbers are other worrisome figures for the GOP:

— An ABC/Washington Post poll found 70 percent of Americans dislike Trump, including 56 percent who have a "strongly unfavorable" view. That's unheard of. What's more, 9 in 10 Hispanics have an unfavorable view of Trump, including more than three-quarters who said so "strongly."

— A CBS/New York Times poll found that 41 percent said they thought Clinton had done something illegal with her emails and private server setup in her home. Yet Trump was pulling in only 37 percent against Clinton's 43 percent in a head-to-head matchup. That means Trump isn't even getting all of the people who thought Clinton had done something illegal.
So what now?

All of this has led to "Free the Delegates," the latest of the Stop Trump/Never Trump/Dump Trump movements.

"It's good news for us, bad news for the Trump supporters," contended Kendal Unruh, a delegate from Colorado, speaking Monday on MSNBC of Lewandowski's ouster. She's one of the leaders of "Free the Delegates," which is encouraging the Republican National Committee to change its rules and allow delegates to vote their conscience at the convention.
Donald Trump walks toward the 11th tee at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
i

Donald Trump walks toward the 11th tee at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
Gary Friedman/LA Times via Getty Images

"There is not a campaign, there is not an organization," Unruh said of the Trump team, adding, it would be "impossible to win against Hillary Clinton" with Trump on the ticket.

But Free the Delegates, like past Stop Trump efforts, is unlikely to succeed. It, too, has little organization. And, perhaps most importantly, no candidate.

"Zero chance of success, unless Ted Cruz, who controls almost 1,000 delegates, joins in," is how veteran GOP operative Charlie Black described the effort. Black worked for John Kasich's presidential campaign, but also has ties to Manafort, with whom he founded the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly. "This likely will calm down before the convention."

Another veteran strategist called it "unlikely" that the RNC rules would be changed to derail Trump and said it is "highly improbable" that most of the delegates would "go against the will of millions of Republican primary voters."

"The ball is the hands of one person, Donald Trump," said Danny Diaz, who managed Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. "If he proves he can campaign without attacking fellow Republicans and employing divisive rhetoric, he will have few issues becoming the nominee, despite getting grudging support on the floor of the convention."

If Trump continues to be critical of fellow Republicans, however, it's possible there could be at least a protest vote on the floor of the convention. Sure, Trump would still be the nominee, but the last thing the party wants is a demonstration of disunity shown live on national television months before voting.

Either way, Trump has a lot of work to do — and it starts with himself.
Title: Make Amerika White Again!
Post by: RE on June 23, 2016, 11:04:08 AM
He should get the nod as The Donald's Veep choice.  ::)

RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/make-america-white-again-a-politicians-billboard-ignites-uproar/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/make-america-white-again-a-politicians-billboard-ignites-uproar/)

‘Make America White Again’: A politician’s billboard ignites uproar
By Lindsey Bever June 23 at 11:08 AM

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/Capture-1024x509.jpg&w=1484)
(Rick Tyler for Congress)

An independent candidate for Congress from Tennessee has been swept up in a wave of criticism for his campaign billboard vowing to "Make American White Again."

Rick Tyler, who is running for the 3rd Congressional District in the northeastern part of the state, said he put up the billboard alongside Highway 411 in Polk County to make a point that "the 'Leave It to Beaver,' 'Ozzie and Harriet,' 'Mayberry' America of old was vastly superior to what we are experiencing today."

In a Facebook post Wednesday night, Tyler wrote: "It was an America where doors were left unlocked, violent crime was a mere fraction of today's rate of occurrence, there were no car jackings, home invasions, Islamic Mosques or radical Jihadist sleeper cells."

But the billboard's message, a spin on Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan, has been widely derided as a display of bigotry and racism.

It was taken down Tuesday night, according to ABC affiliate WTVC.

[How America’s dying white supremacist movement is seizing on Donald Trump’s appeal]

(Rick Tyler for Congress)

Tyler did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Washington Post. But his campaign website, featuring an illustration of the White House surrounded by a dozen Confederate flags, explains his motivation for the advertisement:

    The "Make America White Again" billboard advertisement will cut to the very core and marrow of what plagues us as a nation. As Anne Coulter so effectively elucidates in her book, Adios America, the overhaul of America’s immigration law in the 1960’s has placed us on an inevitable course of demise and destruction. Yes…the cunning globalist/Marxist social engineers have succeeded in destroying that great bulwark against statist tyranny…the white American super majority. Without its expedited restoration little hope remains for the nation as a whole.

[The 'terrifying' Confederate statue some Tennesseans want to hide]
Rick Tyler (Rick Tyler for Congress) Rick Tyler. (Courtesy of Rick Tyler for Congress)

Tyler, a 58-year-old self-described "entrepreneur, pastor and political candidate," ran as an independent in the 2014 Senate race, getting less than half a percentage point of the vote against Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

He also owns a restaurant called Whitewater Grill in Ocoee, Tenn., an unincorporated community in Polk County.

But it's his recent campaign tactic that thrust him into the national spotlight.

In announcing his roadside statement, Tyler proposed several other billboard options on his campaign website, including one that reads, "Fight Federal Tyranny. Stop the Muslim Invasion."

NBC affiliate WRCB reported that Tyler's campaign put another billboard along Highway 64 showing the White House surrounded by Confederate flags. At the top of that billboard are Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous words: "I Have a Dream."

The advertisements angered some area residents and community and state leaders.

"There's no room for this type of hateful display in our political discourse," Ryan Haynes, the Tennessee Republican Party chairman, told WRCB in a statement. "Racism should be rejected in all its heinous forms in the Third Congressional District and around the country."

Rep. Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), who currently represents the 3rd District, also spoke out against Tyler's message.

"I totally and unequivocally condemn the billboard and Mr. Tyler’s message and will vigorously fight any form of racism in the 3rd district of Tennessee or anywhere else in the nation," the congressman said in a statement to the news station.

Others have rebuked Tyler on his restaurant and campaign Facebook pages, charging that Tyler is "peddling the same old hateful KKK garbage in a new package" and has "dishonored the state of Tennessee."

[These Texas rebels say the American flag is more racist than the Confederate flag]

"My family was here long before the Revolutionary War and we have served in every armed conflict this nation has been involved since we began," one poster wrote. "Many of those ancestors were from Warren County, TN and are rolling over in their graves that you are still perpetuating the myth that we are superior over others because of our lighter colored skin. You do not represent the values of modern day enlightened Tennesseans. Crawl back under your rock of disgusting racism and take anyone who believes as you do with you."

Amid the backlash, Tyler posted a lengthy response on Facebook, thanking those who participated in "the controversy spawned by the 'Make America White Again' billboard" while acknowledging "'frothing at the mouth lunatics' who react in a completely irrational, emotional, Pavlovian dog fashion."

[‘We won’t stop fighting’: Parents use billboard to reach children inside Church of Scientology]

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.

"You see," Tyler wrote, "this is not a mere publicity stunt, but rather a calculated maneuver to dispense hardcore truth while simultaneously doing an end run around the iron curtain of censorship. As Orwell stated, 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.' Unfortunately, a globalist cartel has long held power in our nation, and in effect, there has already been a soft revolution wherein lawful constitutional government has been supplanted by a rogue band of oligarchic criminals.

"Those who seek to set things aright are actually counter-revolutionaries, endeavoring to facilitate the restoration of lawful, constitutional government."

Here is Tyler's statement in full:

    Let me begin by thanking everyone that has gotten involved in the controversy spawned by the “Make America White Again” billboard on Highway 411 in Polk County. I am persuaded that the overwhelming majority of you are sincere and well intentioned. Obviously, there are the “frothing at the mouth lunatics” who react in a completely irrational, emotional, Pavlovian dog fashion. Fortunately, they are a small percentage of the whole—and even they are passionately sincere albeit ignorant, misguided and lacking in self control.

    A PREDICTABLE AND DESIRED RESPONSE

    Be assured, the response that has been engendered by the billboard is precisely what was expected and hoped for. You see... this is not a mere publicity stunt, but rather a calculated maneuver to dispense hardcore truth while simultaneously doing an end run around the iron curtain of censorship. As Orwell stated, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Unfortunately, a globalist cartel has long held power in our nation, and in effect, there has already been a soft revolution wherein lawful constitutional government has been supplanted by a rogue band of oligarchic criminals. Those who seek to set things aright are actually counter-revolutionaries, endeavoring to facilitate the restoration of lawful, constitutional government.
    Whether you realize it or not, you are all participating in this counter-revolutionary exercise irrespective of where you stand on the matter!
    Indeed, the brainwashing may well be too far advanced, and there may be no chance of restoration, rejuvenation, and revival in our once great nation. Like the watchman spoken of in Ezekiel 33, some of us must sound the warning of the advancing and ominous peril that is encroaching upon our civilization as a whole. Like Nineveh, there could be great repentance and revival in America. If not, we will succumb to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
    For those who are posturing in a high and mighty stance of ostensible moral superiority, I would caution you against falling into the trap of modernism and the liberal watering down of truth. Your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers would have been entirely sympathetic and supportive of the preservation of a white super majority in America. They would have been utterly hostile to the concept of the mass nonwhite immigration that has ensued over the past half century. They would have never acquiesced to the schemes of forced racial integration foisted upon the states by a usurpatious federal government. By capitulating on these and other related issues, you are dishonoring your fathers and mothers of old in a flagrant and treacherous violation of the 4th Commandment. In the fulness of time, God will surely hold you accountable for this violation of his sacred law. As Isaiah 5:20 states, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

    AM I A RACIST?

    The charge of “racism” is the most flagrant and abusive canard of our time. Absurdly, those who bandie about the charge never bother to define its meaning. Is a racist one who harbors antipathy toward someone simply based on their ethnicity? If so only a foolish person would fit such a description. If, on the other hand, we are talking about someone who demonstrates greater affinity for his own racial family (your race is the extension of your biological family) then the charge would be truly preposterous. Ethnocentricity is completely healthy and normal and all races, except the white race, are encouraged to engage in and express it. The glaring double standard is all too obvious.

    ABOUT THE BILLBOARD'S MESSAGE

    The “Make America White Again” billboard is a takeoff on Donald Trump's slogan of “Make America Great Again.” In a nutshell, it is stating that the “Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, Mayberry” America of old was vastly superior to what we are experiencing today. It was an America where doors were left unlocked, violent crime was a mere fraction of today's rate of occurrence, there were no car jackings, home invasions, Islamic Mosques or radical Jihadist sleeper cells.
    Additionally, government was much smaller, responsible, and accountable to the people. Yes, that Norman Rockwell America was immensely preferable to the rapidly deteriorating culture now engulfing us. Only the ignorant and misguided would resist its restoration and resuscitation. As set forth on the Tyler for Congress website, (www.ricktylerforcongress.com (http://www.ricktylerforcongress.com)) a moratorium on nonwhite immigration and the abolition of policies that subsidize nonwhite birth rates would be two constructive actions toward beginning the long journey back toward sanity and stability in our beleaguered and foundering nation.

    A WHITE SUPER MAJORITY

    It is no coincidence that every nation being inundated by the teeming multitudes of the third world is a white nation. It is indisputable that the white race has achieved infinitely more in the way of technology, culture and innovation than the nonwhite civilizations of history.