Republicans | What are they good for?

[Zack Morris]

Yes. The Democrats won the debate and the Republicans soundly trounced themselves. They even picked fights with the moderators

These losers couldn't run student government let alone the country.

[Doc]

Yes. The Democrats won the debate and the Republicans soundly trounced themselves. They even picked fights with the moderators

These losers couldn't run student government let alone the country.

You mean the attempted kangaroo court?

[kmich]

Jeb Bush’s Mayday - Timothy Egan

Good to know that you may soon be able to bring guns to Donald Trump’s casinos — a great combination — that Ben Carson’s crackpot worldview extends to a questionable dietary supplement made of larch tree bark, and that Jeb Bush’s fantasy football team is 7-0 and totally crushing it.

Bush will soon be free to spend his days on his little football empire with other early retirees in the Sunshine State. His hapless, hollowed-out performance in Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate seemed like a call for help and a not-so-subtle signal that he wants out. He telegraphed this earlier, of course, with his whiny complaint about all the “really cool things” he could be doing if didn’t have to put up with the indignity of running for president of the United States.

And he telegraphed his one punch — perhaps his last — in letting the world know that he planned to smack down his former mentee, Senator Marco Rubio, for missing 34 percent of his votes in the Senate this year. Rubio was ready with a counter-jab: “Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.”

Bush never recovered. Later, his people complained about not getting more questions. No, no, no. Better to pass away with a mercy killing.

You could blame political malpractice — bad aides, bad advice, bad strategy. A hundred million dollars doesn’t buy what it used to. But the fish stinks from the head down, as any Sicilian grandmother will tell you. Bush owns this debacle, the third in a row. The debate broke him. And the only question remaining is whether he’s deliberately managing a slow exit consisting of cringe-worthy moments, or if there’s something deep in his subconscious driving him to quit. In any event, I’m sure he can hear his mother’s admonition rattling through his ears: “We’ve had enough Bushes.”

Too bad. For the sanity wing of the Republican Party is now down to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. Rubio will get some attention and a bump in the two weeks leading up to the next debate. The scrutiny will not be helpful. He’s a man too eager to crush his mentors, and looks like a little boy lost. But more than that, he has a sketchy personal financial background to go with a really sketchy tax plan. (The nonprofit Tax Foundation concluded it would give nearly twice as much gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to middle-income people.)

Senator Ted Cruz, the most hated man in Congress by his colleagues, went after a perhaps even more hated target, the media. Good show. Good fun. Felt great to tell those CNBC people how shallow and inconsequential they are. And then Cruz proved himself to be, yet again, more shallow and inconsequential than anyone on the panel. The betting money is that Cruz, a vulture whose demagogy is so pitch-perfect you could have taught it at the now-defunct Trump University, will swoop in to claim easily confused primary voters as the unelectable front-runners fade. But don’t actually bet on it.

With Bush neutered, stunned and stricken, it fell to the likable Kasich to inject the rarest of modern Republican commodities into this show — common sense. But he also telegraphed his moves. (Didn’t these folks ever watch a boxing movie?)

“I’ve about had it with these people,” said Kasich, leading up to the debate. “I’m done being polite and listening to their nonsense.”

In the debate, he listened to only a few minutes of nonsense before attacking. He warned that “we are on the verge, perhaps, of picking someone who cannot do this job.” Duh. It was aimed at Carson and Trump. Neither man was touched by the blow. What Kasich has yet to realize is that their selling point is being ill-qualified to do the job.

Still, Carson and Trump proceeded to prove Kasich right. Carson avoided his usual ahistorical grab bag of Nazi and slavery analogies. Score one for his keepers. But he could not begin to explain how his bizarre, biblically based tax plan would do anything less than “put us trillions and trillions of dollars in debt,” as Kasich charged.

And he said it was “propaganda” that he endorsed a nutritional supplement peddled by a company, Mannatech, that paid $7 million to settle deceptive marketing claims that its products could be used to cure autism and cancer. Carson appeared in promotional videos and made paid speeches for the company. PolitiFact ruled his claim of noninvolvement “false.”

Trump got fact-checked in real time. It took only a few seconds after he denied calling Rubio a stooge of a program backed by the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for people to find that very statement on Trump’s website. Ah, well. As he’s proved, veracity is for losers.

[Doc]

Jeb Bush’s Mayday - Timothy Egan

Good to know that you may soon be able to bring guns to Donald Trump’s casinos — a great combination — that Ben Carson’s crackpot worldview extends to a questionable dietary supplement made of larch tree bark, and that Jeb Bush’s fantasy football team is 7-0 and totally crushing it.

Bush will soon be free to spend his days on his little football empire with other early retirees in the Sunshine State. His hapless, hollowed-out performance in Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate seemed like a call for help and a not-so-subtle signal that he wants out. He telegraphed this earlier, of course, with his whiny complaint about all the “really cool things” he could be doing if didn’t have to put up with the indignity of running for president of the United States.

And he telegraphed his one punch — perhaps his last — in letting the world know that he planned to smack down his former mentee, Senator Marco Rubio, for missing 34 percent of his votes in the Senate this year. Rubio was ready with a counter-jab: “Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.”

Bush never recovered. Later, his people complained about not getting more questions. No, no, no. Better to pass away with a mercy killing.

You could blame political malpractice — bad aides, bad advice, bad strategy. A hundred million dollars doesn’t buy what it used to. But the fish stinks from the head down, as any Sicilian grandmother will tell you. Bush owns this debacle, the third in a row. The debate broke him. And the only question remaining is whether he’s deliberately managing a slow exit consisting of cringe-worthy moments, or if there’s something deep in his subconscious driving him to quit. In any event, I’m sure he can hear his mother’s admonition rattling through his ears: “We’ve had enough Bushes.”

Too bad. For the sanity wing of the Republican Party is now down to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. Rubio will get some attention and a bump in the two weeks leading up to the next debate. The scrutiny will not be helpful. He’s a man too eager to crush his mentors, and looks like a little boy lost. But more than that, he has a sketchy personal financial background to go with a really sketchy tax plan. (The nonprofit Tax Foundation concluded it would give nearly twice as much gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to middle-income people.)

Senator Ted Cruz, the most hated man in Congress by his colleagues, went after a perhaps even more hated target, the media. Good show. Good fun. Felt great to tell those CNBC people how shallow and inconsequential they are. And then Cruz proved himself to be, yet again, more shallow and inconsequential than anyone on the panel. The betting money is that Cruz, a vulture whose demagogy is so pitch-perfect you could have taught it at the now-defunct Trump University, will swoop in to claim easily confused primary voters as the unelectable front-runners fade. But don’t actually bet on it.

With Bush neutered, stunned and stricken, it fell to the likable Kasich to inject the rarest of modern Republican commodities into this show — common sense. But he also telegraphed his moves. (Didn’t these folks ever watch a boxing movie?)

“I’ve about had it with these people,” said Kasich, leading up to the debate. “I’m done being polite and listening to their nonsense.”

In the debate, he listened to only a few minutes of nonsense before attacking. He warned that “we are on the verge, perhaps, of picking someone who cannot do this job.” Duh. It was aimed at Carson and Trump. Neither man was touched by the blow. What Kasich has yet to realize is that their selling point is being ill-qualified to do the job.

Still, Carson and Trump proceeded to prove Kasich right. Carson avoided his usual ahistorical grab bag of Nazi and slavery analogies. Score one for his keepers. But he could not begin to explain how his bizarre, biblically based tax plan would do anything less than “put us trillions and trillions of dollars in debt,” as Kasich charged.

And he said it was “propaganda” that he endorsed a nutritional supplement peddled by a company, Mannatech, that paid $7 million to settle deceptive marketing claims that its products could be used to cure autism and cancer. Carson appeared in promotional videos and made paid speeches for the company. PolitiFact ruled his claim of noninvolvement “false.”

Trump got fact-checked in real time. It took only a few seconds after he denied calling Rubio a stooge of a program backed by the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for people to find that very statement on Trump’s website. Ah, well. As he’s proved, veracity is for losers.

You mean Jeb DW (Desperate and Whiny) Bush is going to drop out of the presidential race? The favorite son of teh Bush dynasty? Say it isn't so !!!

[Zack Morris]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

[YMix]

John Derbyshire:

Big parts of the party’s message, though, are indigestible to Republican voters. Since they need voters just as much as they need donors, the GOP Establishment is trapped in a painful and unsightly straddle.

This is the reality behind Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012. Rightly or wrongly—you’ll get an argument from Ann Coulter about that—Romney was seen as an Establishment candidate, so a lot of GOP voters stayed home.

The straddle failed even more spectacularly in the summer of 2014 when quintessential Establishment Republican congressman Eric Cantor—who was House Majority Leader, no less—lost in a primary contest to an unknown and underfunded challenger.

The Eric Cantor story reveals the dark underside of this issue. Cantor had barely finished cleaning out his desk on Capitol Hill when he was offered, and accepted, a job with an investment bank at an annual salary of three and a half million dollars. [Ex-Republican leader Cantor grabs $3.4 mn-salary job at investment bank, US News, September 2, 2014]

That’s the calculation a lot of GOP congresscritters hold in the backs of their minds. Tick off the voters, the donors will take care of you. Tick off the donors, it’s back to small-town lawyering. That’s why the donors win on issues much more often than the voters do. That’s why the GOP is much more a donorist party than a voterist party.

And that’s why we’re likely looking forward to a Paul Ryan speakership in the House of Representatives. Ryan is donorist down to his Gucci loafers. Breitbart.com’s Julia Hahn just ran a withering piece about this:

On two of the issues of immense importance to GOP voters—trade and immigration—polling from the Pew Research Center shows that most GOP voters oppose some of the key ideological stances to which Ryan is devoted …

Pew found that only a vanishing 11 percent of Republican voters think so-called “free trade” will raise wages … Pew also found that only a maximum of seven percent of Republican voters agree with the Ryan-Rubio vision of increasing immigration. Except, given the wording of the question, it is likely that it is even smaller than seven percent …Pew Polling: At Least 93% of GOP Electorate Opposes Paul Ryan On Immigration, October 21, 2015

Ryan has a D-minus rating on immigration issues from NumbersUSA, that’s down in the bottom quintile among Republican House members. He has consistently shilled for the interests of foreigners and employers over the interests of American workers.

Breitbart’s Hahn dug up a video clip from Chicago in 2013 where Ryan joined with the fanatical Hispanic-supremacist representative Luis Gutiérrez to call for Open Borders. Quote from Ryan on that occasion:

America is more than just a country. It’s more than Chicago, or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.[Immigration reform brings Democrat Luis Gutierrez and Republican Paul Ryan together, By Elaine Coorens, OurUrbanTimes, April 23, 2013]

[Doc]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

Either you did not watch the debate or you are a 100% arrogant progressive. So do you feel like you know what is best to "Humanely" know what is best to do with the lives of others?

hQvsf2MUKRQ

[Doc]

John Derbyshire:

Big parts of the party’s message, though, are indigestible to Republican voters. Since they need voters just as much as they need donors, the GOP Establishment is trapped in a painful and unsightly straddle.

This is the reality behind Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012. Rightly or wrongly—you’ll get an argument from Ann Coulter about that—Romney was seen as an Establishment candidate, so a lot of GOP voters stayed home.

The straddle failed even more spectacularly in the summer of 2014 when quintessential Establishment Republican congressman Eric Cantor—who was House Majority Leader, no less—lost in a primary contest to an unknown and underfunded challenger.

The Eric Cantor story reveals the dark underside of this issue. Cantor had barely finished cleaning out his desk on Capitol Hill when he was offered, and accepted, a job with an investment bank at an annual salary of three and a half million dollars. [Ex-Republican leader Cantor grabs $3.4 mn-salary job at investment bank, US News, September 2, 2014]

That’s the calculation a lot of GOP congresscritters hold in the backs of their minds. Tick off the voters, the donors will take care of you. Tick off the donors, it’s back to small-town lawyering. That’s why the donors win on issues much more often than the voters do. That’s why the GOP is much more a donorist party than a voterist party.

And that’s why we’re likely looking forward to a Paul Ryan speakership in the House of Representatives. Ryan is donorist down to his Gucci loafers. Breitbart.com’s Julia Hahn just ran a withering piece about this:

On two of the issues of immense importance to GOP voters—trade and immigration—polling from the Pew Research Center shows that most GOP voters oppose some of the key ideological stances to which Ryan is devoted …

Pew found that only a vanishing 11 percent of Republican voters think so-called “free trade” will raise wages … Pew also found that only a maximum of seven percent of Republican voters agree with the Ryan-Rubio vision of increasing immigration. Except, given the wording of the question, it is likely that it is even smaller than seven percent …Pew Polling: At Least 93% of GOP Electorate Opposes Paul Ryan On Immigration, October 21, 2015

Ryan has a D-minus rating on immigration issues from NumbersUSA, that’s down in the bottom quintile among Republican House members. He has consistently shilled for the interests of foreigners and employers over the interests of American workers.

Breitbart’s Hahn dug up a video clip from Chicago in 2013 where Ryan joined with the fanatical Hispanic-supremacist representative Luis Gutiérrez to call for Open Borders. Quote from Ryan on that occasion:

America is more than just a country. It’s more than Chicago, or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.[Immigration reform brings Democrat Luis Gutierrez and Republican Paul Ryan together, By Elaine Coorens, OurUrbanTimes, April 23, 2013]

The Real problem with the RNC and its establishment politicians is that they have sold out to their big donors every bit as mush as the Democrats have sold out. Which leaves only one political party ideologically. The party of lackyism.

[Doc]

And as for Hillary

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Fall of the House of Bush

Trump has gotten into Jeb’s head, making Jeb so petulant he declared he had “a lot of really cool things” he could be doing instead, when we all know he doesn’t.

..

When Jeb was first asked if it had been a good idea to invade Iraq, he gave four different answers. Then he said he wouldn’t rule out torture and thought getting rid of Saddam was “a pretty good deal.” And he couldn’t stop bragging about how his brother kept America safe, even though Trump correctly noted that W. was not on the ball leading up to 9/11. And, of course, W.’s two misbegotten wars have been recruiting boons for terrorist fiends.

Jeb explained away his shambling, shrinking campaign by saying he was a doer, not a performer. But the main thing he was doing was helping to rehabilitate his brother’s pockmarked reputation.

..

Jeb is trapped in a nightmarish déjà vu. Once he was cast as the wonky one while his brother, the sparky one, slipped ahead. Now Jeb is cast as the wonky one while Marco, the sparky one, slips ahead.

Jeb got confused. He thought he was still in an era when people had to pay their dues.

.

You got to know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
know when to run




kn481KcjvMo


.

[YMix]

Marco Rubio’s New Billionaire Backer Top Funder for Open Borders

by Julia Hahn31 Oct 2015Washington D.C.

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer’s decision to throw his financial weight behind the donor-class 2016 favorite, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), has sparked fresh questions about Rubio’s coziness with the financial interests funding his career.

Singer was a major financial force behind the Rubio-Obama amnesty and immigration expansion push in 2013.

As Politico reported at the time, Singer “quietly go[t] involved in the fight for immigration reform, making a six-figure donation… to the National Immigration Forum”— a George Soros-backed organization that lobbied for Rubio’s legislation to issue 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade. The announcement of Singer’s endorsement highlights an intra-party tension that has emerged with new strength since Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s inauguration as Speaker of the House.

There is a growing chasm between the more than 9 in 10 GOP voters, who want to see future immigration rates cut, versus GOP donors that are desperately seeking to install leaders in the White House and Congress who will further expand the nation’s already record breaking immigration rates that are transforming the country’s economy and electorate.

[Typhoon]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

Either you did not watch the debate or you are a 100% arrogant progressive. So do you feel like you know what is best to "Humanely" know what is best to do with the lives of others?

hQvsf2MUKRQ

I don't see how your comments follow from what ZM wrote.

[monster_gardener]

Marco Rubio’s New Billionaire Backer Top Funder for Open Borders

by Julia Hahn31 Oct 2015Washington D.C.

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer’s decision to throw his financial weight behind the donor-class 2016 favorite, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), has sparked fresh questions about Rubio’s coziness with the financial interests funding his career.

Singer was a major financial force behind the Rubio-Obama amnesty and immigration expansion push in 2013.

As Politico reported at the time, Singer “quietly go[t] involved in the fight for immigration reform, making a six-figure donation… to the National Immigration Forum”— a George Soros-backed organization that lobbied for Rubio’s legislation to issue 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade. The announcement of Singer’s endorsement highlights an intra-party tension that has emerged with new strength since Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s inauguration as Speaker of the House.

There is a growing chasm between the more than 9 in 10 GOP voters, who want to see future immigration rates cut, versus GOP donors that are desperately seeking to install leaders in the White House and Congress who will further expand the nation’s already record breaking immigration rates that are transforming the country’s economy and electorate.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, YMix,

Worth reading.........

More from the link:

Throughout his brief time in Washington—noted primarily for pushing the La Raza and Obama-backed amnesty bill through the Senate—Rubio has co-authored two pieces of legislaton that would massively expand the wage-depressing H-1B visa program used to replace American workers in white-collar jobs. His most recent bill—known as I-Squared—would triple the number of H-1B visas imported into the United States despite the fact that the U.S. Census Bureau reports 3 in 4 Americans trained in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) are not employed in those fields. The Walt Disney Company used H-1Bs to lay off hundreds of American workers and forced them to train their low-wage foreign H-1B replacements. Disney’s CEO has endorsed Rubio’s I-Squared bill.

Trump, who has called on Disney to hire back all of Rubio’s laid-off constituents, thundered:


Lobbyists write the rules to benefit the rich and powerful. They buy off Senators like Marco Rubio to help them get rich at the expense of working Americans by using H-1B visas–so called “high tech” visas–to replace American workers in all sorts of solid middle class jobs… Senator Rubio works for the lobbyists, not for Americans. That is why he is receiving more money from Silicon Valley than any other candidate in this race. He is their puppet.

According to open-secrets, Goldman Sachs has been one of Rubio’s biggest financial boosters. Since 2011, Goldman Sachs was the top donor to Rubio’s campaign committee, contributing $53,200. Interestingly, Goldman Sachs is also among the top 50 corporate users of the H-1B visa, which labor experts call an “indentured servitude” program. According to USCIS data analyzed by Computerworld’s Patrick Thibodeau, Goldman Sachs is the ranked number 33 among the biggest users of the program.

Not alway enthused about everything that Trump says........

But this is something that Trump may be good for.........

Or at least better than Rubio..........

More at the link.............

And a related one...........

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... h1b-visas/

Not just Disney..........

http://fusion.net/story/105274/outsourc ... a-program/

[Doc]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

Either you did not watch the debate or you are a 100% arrogant progressive. So do you feel like you know what is best to "Humanely" know what is best to do with the lives of others?

hQvsf2MUKRQ

I don't see how your comments follow from what ZM wrote.

HIs comments likely come from the same place that Shaw's comments came from. The will and belief that to do things in the name of the god greater Good" is all that counts.

Here are clips that demonstrate how ridiculously biased the moderation was during the debate

http://on.wsj.com/1HcZv9h

ANYONE CARE TO DEFEND THE MODERATORS?

[Parodite]

ANYONE CARE TO DEFEND THE MODERATORS?

From what I saw of the debate (anywhere a full version on youtube?).. I would have simply walked out and not waste my time on these cheap shot moderators.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Everything Bush claims about the nuclear deal is a lie



.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Folks, I know this no belong here, but, I am having a Ouzo .. with ice and water

Ouzo.jpg (56.89 KiB) Viewed 879 times

Wonderfull

You try it


.

[Zack Morris]

First of all, Shaw appears to have been speaking tongue in cheek. Second, the views expressed are more characteristic of corporate America than, say, the Democratic Party platform.

As for the CNBC moderators, they did a fine job asking substantive questions, for example when Carson was challenged on the math behind his tax plan and was unable to respond. GOP candidates need to man up and stop blaming moderators for their disastrous performances. Take some personal responsibility! One can't go around blaming others for the setbacks they've been dealt in life. So un-presidential!

[Simple Minded]

.......Take some personal responsibility! One can't go around blaming others for the setbacks they've been dealt in life......

Careful Zach, if you tell that to any of the other members of your faith. You'll be lucky to get out of your pity party/group therapy meeting alive.

We're all oppressed by the 1%, the right, whitey, the Joos, the MIC, the MSM, big ____, capitalists, any animal that exhales CO2, any object that contains carbon, any person whose self-interest is different than ours at the moment, and the reptilians, remember?

[Doc]

As for the CNBC moderators, they did a fine job asking substantive questions,

I soupose asking asking Trump if his campaign was really a cartoon counts as a "substantive question"





Again the video:

http://on.wsj.com/1HcZv9h

Given that the guy at CNBC was a former Clinton WH aid I soupose you see nothing wrong with that either.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Rubio Anointed ZIONIST, Neocon Choice

The New York Times, which broke the news of Singer’s endorsement on Friday, noted that Singer is “known for his caution and careful vetting of candidates and [being] passionately pro-Israel and a supporter of same-sex marriage,” and emphasized that Rubio’s willingness to endorse hawkish pro-Israel positions may have contributed to his ability to secure the endorsement sought by many of the GOP’s presidential primary candidates. The Times’ Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Confessore wrote :

-- Mr. Rubio has aggressively embraced the cause of wealthy pro-Israel donors like Mr. Adelson, whom the senator is said to call frequently, and Mr. Singer, who both serve on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, an umbrella group for Republican Jewish donors and officials. Mr. Bush has been less attentive, in the view of some of these donors: Last spring, he refused to freeze out his longtime family friend James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, after Mr. Baker spoke at the conference of a liberal Jewish group.

Rubio’s Foreign Policy

Rubio has gone out of his way to stake out hawkish foreign policy positions. Last month, he released a video in which he cryptically said that “what this president and his administration are doing in Israel is a tragic mistake” and accused Obama of betraying “the commitment this nation has made to the right of a Jewish state to exist in peace.” He went on to pledge unconditional support to Israel if elected president.

Rubio foreign policy adviser and fundraiser Phil Rosen tweeted last spring that Obama feels “entitled to screw Israel.”

And the Senator from Florida has said he would “absolutely” revoke the Iran nuclear deal if elected president and blasted the Obama administration for criticizing Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

This wouldn’t be the first time Singer has thrown his financial weight behind Rubio. Between 2009 and 2014, his hedge fund Elliott Management was Rubio’s second largest source of campaign contributions, providing him with $122,620, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In turn, the presidential hopeful has taken several steps to advance the special interests of Singer and Elliott Management.

The Case of Argentina

For instance, Elliott leads a group of holdout creditors who bought up Argentine debt at pennies on the dollar and then sued the country to pay up in full. If successful, Elliott could collect as much as $2 billion. Singer’s philanthropy has often gone to groups—such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Israel Project, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—that promote the controversial work of Argentine Special Investigator Alberto Nisman. In 2006, Nisman released a report claiming that top Iranian leaders ordered the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. But the report relied almost exclusively on the testimony of members of the Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that former members liken to a cult.

Recipients of Singer’s funding frequently level charges of anti-Semitism against Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and accuse her of participating in a cover-up to hide Iranian involvement in the attack while never disclosing their funding from Singer and his strong financial incentives for attacking Kirchner.

Last May, Rubio, mirroring the rhetoric of Singer-funded thinktanks, introduced a Senate resolution demanding a “swift and transparent” investigation into Nisman’s death and accused Kirchner of conspiring “to cover up Iranian involvement in the 1994 terrorist bombing.”

Rubio’s entire presidential campaign has been marked by efforts to position himself as the neoconservative candidate of choice, even going so far as to make his campaign slogan “A New American Century,” noticeably similar to the Bill Kristol-founded Project for a New American Century, which helped lay the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq.

Singer’s endorsement seemingly indicates that Rubio is making progress in securing the support of the Republican Party’s biggest donors and most committed foreign policy hawks. All this raises the question: how long will it be before Sheldon Adelson, the GOP’s biggest donor and advocate of launching a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran, pledges his support to Rubio’s campaign.

American presidents elected by "vulture" hedge funds ? ? ?

What disaster

.

[monster_gardener]

First of all, Shaw appears to have been speaking tongue in cheek. Second, the views expressed are more characteristic of corporate America than, say, the Democratic Party platform.

As for the CNBC moderators, they did a fine job asking substantive questions, for example when Carson was challenged on the math behind his tax plan and was unable to respond. GOP candidates need to man up and stop blaming moderators for their disastrous performances. Take some personal responsibility! One can't go around blaming others for the setbacks they've been dealt in life. So un-presidential!

Thank You Very Much for your post, Zack Morris,

First of all, Shaw appears to have been speaking tongue in cheek.

That's not my impression..........

Early Support of the USSR

After visiting the USSR in 1931 and meeting Joseph Stalin, Shaw praised his achievements there—this despite his Fabian Society's having been founded in direct opposition to the Bolshevik premise of violent overthrow as the only means of revolution. On 11 October 1931, at the height of the Great Depression, he broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any 'skilled workman ... of suitable age and good character' would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union.

Shaw continued this support for Stalin's system in the preface to his play On the Rocks (1933) writing:

But the most elaborate code of this sort would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without ever having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? are you giving more trouble than you are worth? have you earned the privilege of living in a civilised community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and "liquidate" persons who could not answer them satisfactorily.[72]
.........

In an open letter to the Manchester Guardian in 1933, he dismissed reports - later proved to be true - of the man-made Ukrainian Genocide as slanderous, and equated it with the hardships then current in the West during the Great Depression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Be ... f_the_USSR

When someone, especially a socialist, says things like that.........

Best to take them seriously.........

[Zack Morris]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

Either you did not watch the debate or you are a 100% arrogant progressive. So do you feel like you know what is best to "Humanely" know what is best to do with the lives of others?

hQvsf2MUKRQ

I don't see how your comments follow from what ZM wrote.

HIs comments likely come from the same place that Shaw's comments came from. The will and belief that to do things in the name of the god greater Good" is all that counts.

Here are clips that demonstrate how ridiculously biased the moderation was during the debate

http://on.wsj.com/1HcZv9h

ANYONE CARE TO DEFEND THE MODERATORS?

One of my favorite moments came at the very beginning when Trump was asked to convince us he wasn't just running a comic book version of a Presidential campaign and responded in earnest with -- I kid you not -- his plan to build a great big wall, have Mexico pay for it, and then put a big door right in the middle of it for people to line up legally.

But hey, it was an ridiculously biased question, so we should give him a free pass.

[Doc]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

Either you did not watch the debate or you are a 100% arrogant progressive. So do you feel like you know what is best to "Humanely" know what is best to do with the lives of others?

hQvsf2MUKRQ

I don't see how your comments follow from what ZM wrote.

HIs comments likely come from the same place that Shaw's comments came from. The will and belief that to do things in the name of the god greater Good" is all that counts.

Here are clips that demonstrate how ridiculously biased the moderation was during the debate

http://on.wsj.com/1HcZv9h

ANYONE CARE TO DEFEND THE MODERATORS?

One of my favorite moments came at the very beginning when Trump was asked to convince us he wasn't just running a comic book version of a Presidential campaign and responded in earnest with -- I kid you not -- his plan to build a great big wall, have Mexico pay for it, and then put a big door right in the middle of it for people to line up legally.

But hey, it was an ridiculously biased question, so we should give him a free pass.

Now now Zack you wouldn't be lying just a bit there would you?

Donald Trump clashes with John Harwood

By Hadas Gold

10/28/15 08:45 PM EDT

Donald Trump complained before the CNBC GOP debate began that he didn't think the event would be fair, and he immediately had complaints after the first question.

After describing some of Trump's plans, including deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants and building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, moderator John Harwood lowered the boom.

"Let’s be honest: Is this the comic book version of a presidential campaign?" Harwood asked.

”That’s not a very nice question,” Trump said, before referring to the fact that CNBC contributor Larry Kudlow said he liked Trump's tax plan.

Harwood then followed up, saying he had talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties about Trump's tax plan: "They say you have as much chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your wings."

Trump exploded.

"Then you would have to get rid of Larry Kudlow … who came out the other day and said 'I love Trump’s tax plan,'" Trump said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from ... ate-215302

Well I'll give you four Pinocchios

[Mr. Perfect]

Yeah, right, it's the "lame stream media" to blame for allowing the Benghazi Bupkes committee to make themselves look like fools. They should have done more creative editing of the live hearing everyone watched. It would have also been nice if they edited out the parts in the last debate when the candidates made bald-faced lies that were immediately refutable by looking at their campaign sites or YouTube.

Face it. The Republicans are losers. Done, dead, FINITO! Even right wing Fox News couldn't put on a debate to make them look credible, and lord knows they tried.

If this is losing I hope we lose this way, forever. Something tells me we will.

After this week's election, setting records. The supermajority party.