The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

[YMix]

Hillary Clinton seems to be heading toward Cautionary Tale status.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Hillary Clinton seems to be heading toward Cautionary Tale status.

There is only so much lipstick one can put on a pig.

[YMix]

At least this is her last attempt. Hopefully.

[Mr. Perfect]

She's the only electable Democrat, and she's not electable. So unless the criminal charge sticks (anyone's guess) she is the sacrificial lamb and will be the nominee. Side note, out of all the crimes committed by the Clintons, what are the odds that this is the one that would take her down. Democrat on Democrat friendly fire.

Nominating Biden only mitigates the anti trump personality argument. You can't attack a guy's personality when you put up the identical personality.

[Mr. Perfect]

Trust Mme. Clinton with "sophisticated technical infrastructure"? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust the incompetent fool with my sophisticated technical sewing machine.

Finally, in the last two years of his presidency, we are seeing the Obama for whom we voted. The tough, smart operator who takes care of business and doesn't do stupid. I just wish it hadn't taken so long.

I knew in the end you had imbibed deeply the Kool Aid. Democrats are as Democrats do.

[Nastarana]

It's like professional wrestling. Warren is on the payroll. No one gets on the payroll without being controllable. If she is told to wrassle she will wrassle.

Look how quickly Obama and Bush swapped out their political personas after they were elected. Ideology was quickly forgotten by both and they both did exactly what they were told.

Somebody will have to fill in for Hillary's exit, and there has to be opposite parties in congress and the white house so the show can continue. Bernie was supposed to be controlled opposition, but he is not fully controlled.

If not Warren, then who?

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I did not realize how quickly this thread has been moving.

A lot might depend on how close this election is expected to be. Mme. Hill had the shocking bad taste to make a strongly pro GMO statement in am appearance at an agribiz shindig. Obama, remember, made a clean sweep of three Pacific Coast states and Hawaii. However, activists in Oregon (9 electoral votes) are furious over the labeling initiative which lost by no more than some 800 votes, US$20M being spent by Monsatan and allies, and an array of dirty tricks were used as well. The demographics of Oregon, where I grew up, are such that if the hippie organic seed growers and allies stay home, Republicans win. So, I doubt she would be getting those 9 votes. Obama did not need them, can the same be said for her?

A while back I would have said a backup might Sen Amy Klobuchar, from Minnesota, who would be competitive in the Midwest and New England and mid Atlantic states and I think could carry the Far West.

Now, the likely fallback is O'Malley. The oligarchy hate Papa Francis, but they dare not assassinate him because his successor would undoubtedly come from Africa. A tame Catholic in the WH might help persuade American Catholics to not take the Pope's environmentalist anti-capitalism too seriously.

[Mr. Perfect]

[Nonc Hilaire]

Kid's table debate is complete. Everyone gets an ice cream cone. No losers, no winners, everybody gets a brownie point.

I'm surprised Jindal did not stand out on medical care. He is certainly the top candidate with hands-on experience in national healthcare

[kmich]

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. - Mark Twain

[Doc]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/ ... oundation/

Fiorina Slams Trump: I Didn’t Get a Call From Bill Clinton Or Give to Foundation

by Ian Hanchett6 Aug 2015289

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina criticized fellow candidate Donald Trump by citing his phone call with former President Bill Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation at the first Republican presidential debate on Thursday.

Fiorina stated, “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t. Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation, or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. Here’s the thing that I would ask Donald Trump in all seriousness. He is the party’s frontrunner right now, and good for him. I think he’s tapped into an anger that people feel. They’re sick of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you. That’s just a fact. And that’s what Donald Trump taps into. I would also just say this, since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare, and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he will govern?”

[Nonc Hilaire]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/ ... oundation/

Fiorina Slams Trump: I Didn’t Get a Call From Bill Clinton Or Give to Foundation

by Ian Hanchett6 Aug 2015289

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina criticized fellow candidate Donald Trump by citing his phone call with former President Bill Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation at the first Republican presidential debate on Thursday.

Fiorina stated, “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t. Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation, or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. Here’s the thing that I would ask Donald Trump in all seriousness. He is the party’s frontrunner right now, and good for him. I think he’s tapped into an anger that people feel. They’re sick of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you. That’s just a fact. And that’s what Donald Trump taps into. I would also just say this, since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare, and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he will govern?”

Smart businessmen always give to both parties to ensure access. They are not buying influence, but they want to ensure that the door is always open. This is evidence of Trump's smarts and honesty.

Only a corrupt or dishonest businessman would wed themselves to a single party.

[Mr. Perfect]

Smart businessmen always give to both parties to ensure access. They are not buying influence, but they want to ensure that the door is always open.

The difference is...

The door is open for what if not influence.

This is evidence of Trump's smarts and honesty.

Only a corrupt or dishonest businessman would wed themselves to a single party.

I guess you are a big fan of Goldman Sachs then.

[Doc]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/ ... oundation/

Fiorina Slams Trump: I Didn’t Get a Call From Bill Clinton Or Give to Foundation

by Ian Hanchett6 Aug 2015289

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina criticized fellow candidate Donald Trump by citing his phone call with former President Bill Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation at the first Republican presidential debate on Thursday.

Fiorina stated, “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t. Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation, or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. Here’s the thing that I would ask Donald Trump in all seriousness. He is the party’s frontrunner right now, and good for him. I think he’s tapped into an anger that people feel. They’re sick of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you. That’s just a fact. And that’s what Donald Trump taps into. I would also just say this, since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare, and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he will govern?”

Smart businessmen always give to both parties to ensure access. They are not buying influence, but they want to ensure that the door is always open. This is evidence of Trump's smarts and honesty.

Only a corrupt or dishonest businessman would wed themselves to a single party.

Yeah but they don't usually have the former vice pres and sec of state show up at their wedding AND a former vice pres of the other party call three weeks before they announce a run for president against the former president's wife. Plus all of trumps flip flops on major issues. This called marketing where you can lie as much as you can get away with, and the ends always justify the means.

Hmmm Actually sounds like Donald is Hillary's separated at birth brother.

[Doc]

The Democrats Eternal Pogrom on Republican Women

DNC Posts Sexist Attack on Carly Fiorina
Carly vs DNC

by John Sexton6 Aug 201599

Carly Fiorina was almost universally acclaimed the winner of the Fox News debate Thursday night. She was also the only candidate who drew the attention of the Democratic National Committee on Twitter during the debate.

The text of the DNC tweet seems like standard boilerplate, but the gif of a little girl seemed tone deaf coming from the party that campaigned on the “war on women” a few years ago:

Fiorina says her business experience prepared her to be president. But under her “leadership,” HP stock fell 53%. pic.twitter.com/wISVdxDyu0

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) August 6, 2015

For those that didn’t see the debate, Fiorina was dressed in a pink (rose colored) suit which really stood out next to the men on the stage. So the DNC’s decision to use a gif of a pigtailed little girl in a bright pink jacket in their tweet attacking Fiorina seems like an intentional, if petty, attempt to demean an accomplished adult woman.

The girl in the gif is from a Disney TV show called “Good Luck, Charlie.” Perhaps the selection of this gif was prompted by the implied play on words, i.e. Good Luck, Carly instead of Good Luck, Charlie. But the play on words doesn’t appear in the text of the tweet itself.

In any case, comparing a Presidential candidate and former Fortune 500 CEO to a 6 year-old girl still doesn’t seem advisable, especially for a party that campaigns on women’s equality. It’s the kind of thing that would quickly be called out as sexist and demeaning if, say, the RNC had done it to Hillary Clinton.

[Nonc Hilaire]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/ ... oundation/

Fiorina Slams Trump: I Didn’t Get a Call From Bill Clinton Or Give to Foundation

by Ian Hanchett6 Aug 2015289

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina criticized fellow candidate Donald Trump by citing his phone call with former President Bill Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation at the first Republican presidential debate on Thursday.

Fiorina stated, “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t. Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation, or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. Here’s the thing that I would ask Donald Trump in all seriousness. He is the party’s frontrunner right now, and good for him. I think he’s tapped into an anger that people feel. They’re sick of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you. That’s just a fact. And that’s what Donald Trump taps into. I would also just say this, since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare, and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he will govern?”

Smart businessmen always give to both parties to ensure access. They are not buying influence, but they want to ensure that the door is always open. This is evidence of Trump's smarts and honesty.

Only a corrupt or dishonest businessman would wed themselves to a single party.

Yeah but they don't usually have the former vice pres and sec of state show up at their wedding AND a former vice pres of the other party call three weeks before they announce a run for president against the former president's wife. Plus all of trumps flip flops on major issues. This called marketing where you can lie as much as you can get away with, and the ends always justify the you ever

Hmmm Actually sounds like Donald is Hillary's separated at birth brother.

Gotta love a wedding. I bet he brought a classy gift.
Just a businessman doing business in NYC. Honestly Doc, you are a political ingenue.

Cooperation between parties is Trump's true advantage, and the basis of all successful politics. This R/D polarization is only for rallying the unwashed masses and vaporizes a election day +1. The ability to seduce your competition cannot be reduced to soundbites, but it the single most valuable talent.

But Trump is not the only successful Look closely at Kasich. He can bring Dems across the isle. Not a showy candidate, but a deeply successful mix of executive, legislative, local and national service. This is the only fully qualified candidate.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/ ... oundation/

Fiorina Slams Trump: I Didn’t Get a Call From Bill Clinton Or Give to Foundation

by Ian Hanchett6 Aug 2015289

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina criticized fellow candidate Donald Trump by citing his phone call with former President Bill Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation at the first Republican presidential debate on Thursday.

Fiorina stated, “I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t. Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation, or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign. Here’s the thing that I would ask Donald Trump in all seriousness. He is the party’s frontrunner right now, and good for him. I think he’s tapped into an anger that people feel. They’re sick of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you. That’s just a fact. And that’s what Donald Trump taps into. I would also just say this, since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare, and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he will govern?”

Smart businessmen always give to both parties to ensure access. They are not buying influence, but they want to ensure that the door is always open. This is evidence of Trump's smarts and honesty.

Only a corrupt or dishonest businessman would wed themselves to a single party.

Yeah but they don't usually have the former vice pres and sec of state show up at their wedding AND a former vice pres of the other party call three weeks before they announce a run for president against the former president's wife. Plus all of trumps flip flops on major issues. This called marketing where you can lie as much as you can get away with, and the ends always justify the you ever

Hmmm Actually sounds like Donald is Hillary's separated at birth brother.

Gotta love a wedding. I bet he brought a classy gift.
Just a businessman doing business in NYC. Honestly Doc, you are a political ingenue.

Cooperation between parties is Trump's true advantage, and the basis of all successful politics. This R/D polarization is only for rallying the unwashed masses and vaporizes a election day +1. The ability to seduce your competition cannot be reduced to soundbites, but it the single most valuable talent.

But Trump is not the only successful Look closely at Kasich. He can bring Dems across the isle. Not a showy candidate, but a deeply successful mix of executive, legislative, local and national service. This is the only fully qualified candidate.

Right.

Trump, behind closed doors, is mentally quick and very respectful and considerate. He's not some bumbling durian-monster who happened to luck his way through his industry, whatever you think of his leveraging business and media persona.

He also has little patience for all the little ritualized niceties of the political process, and is truly provincial with a genuine attitude of being a Prince of the City-State of New York. I'd say he's arrogant but in the context of what he does, he is probably on the lower end of that bell curve. His real weakness is one Walter Bagehot pointed out about businessmen over a century ago, "Most men of business love a sort of twilight: they have lived all their lives in an atmosphere of probabilities and of doubt, where nothing is very clear, where there are some chances for many events, where this is much to be said for several courses, where nevertheless one course must be determinedly chosen and fixedly adhered to; they like to hear arguments suited to this intellectual haze. So far from caution or hesitation in the statement of the argument striking them as an indication of imbecility, it seems to them a sign of practicality: they got rich themselves by transactions of which they could not have stated the argumentative ground, and all they ask for is a distinct though moderate conclusion that they can repeat when asked, -- something which they feel not to be abstract argument, but abstract argument diluted and dissolved in real life. "

It's the sort of disposition of a deeply practical men, which most of our politicians are; but businessmen, unlike politicians, do not often account for themselves in front of very ideological supporters. And his inexperience, in this regard, is being quickly exposed.

As far as Kasich goes, his experience is broad and solid and he is an interesting candidate- I heard someone call him a Gerald Ford Republican- but he'll be quickly buried in the polls if he ever becomes a real threat, and no one has asked him what he was doing at Lehman Brothers before the whole thing collapsed. It's nice that he went out into the private sector, but I'd be slow to check that off his list.

It's similar to the Fiorina position- great you were out there and managed to be a big loser at it. Fiorina may not have been responsible for what happened to Compaq but she totally dived bombed Hewlett Packard as a whole, she lost her Senate campaign...what exactly has she succeeded at that makes her fit to be President of the United States?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


mixture of boos and applause

.

Pressed by Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly about past derogatory comments he had made about women, including calling them "fat pigs," "dogs," and "slobs," Trump dismissed the question as "political correctness."

He accused Kelly of not treating him well, drawing more boos from the audience.

"Honestly Megyn, if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me," Trump, whose base of support is overwhelmingly male, said to a mixture of boos and applause.

..

Trump kept it up in the debate, calling the Mexican government "much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning and they send the bad ones over."

.

Look, this guy does not need to be "politically correct" .. to lie

He IS Joe

All those Republican (and Democrat) politicians, and America, know Trump sayin the truth


Political campaigns have become a competition who can "fool Joe" best .. not so Trump


.

[Mr. Perfect]

Cooperation between parties is Trump's true advantage, and the basis of all successful politics. This R/D polarization is only for rallying the unwashed masses and vaporizes a election day +1. The ability to seduce your competition cannot be reduced to soundbites, but it the single most valuable talent.

But Trump is not the only successful Look closely at Kasich. He can bring Dems across the isle. Not a showy candidate, but a deeply successful mix of executive, legislative, local and national service. This is the only fully qualified candidate.

The GOP became the supermajority party by opposing every single think obama did. They are getting into a little trouble because they stopped doing it so much.

Trump got where he is by bashing people in his way, and treating his people very good. Expect more of the same.

After obama the idea of qualification was lost.

[Parodite]

Just saw a view clips of the debate on Fox news. Did Trump not only "admit" that he gave money to both Dems and Reps for what he could get in return as a business man, but also hinted this system of bribery makes it a broken system?? If so.. that would be great. Next question would be what he will do about it if he becomes POTUS? Here skepticism returns with a vengeance. Jeb Bush looked ok to me. Trump and Bush seem to have a sort of intellligent flexibility in their thinking that was absent in the others.

[Mr. Perfect]

It was a great start. The hard part is out of the way, Fox did them a big favor in that regard. Tough, tough questions, that Clinton will never get. Clinton would have to take the 5th in such a debate setting.

Clinton is all you have Democrats. Not gonna cut it.

[Parodite]

If there is little to no consensus about anything between Reps and Dems.. what hope is there for the US.

[Simple Minded]

Fireworks at the Republican Debate

Trump failed to dominate, and Fiorina belongs in the top tier.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fireworks-a ... 1438921640
By
Peggy Noonan
Aug. 7, 2015 12:27 a.m. ET

Since the performance of political debaters is mercilessly and repeatedly analyzed by reporters and pundits, it would be fair and delightful if someday they critiqued us back. “Jeb, I didn’t really think that second question was aptly phrased, did you?” “No, Scott, I didn’t. And the anchor’s ad lib had the rhythm of wit without the content, which is why it didn’t land.” “Soon we’ll hear from the columnists, who’ll be out to shoot the wounded. Hope they don’t injure themselves reaching for their little metaphors.”

I watched the pregame with these questions:

Who will The Donald be? If he attempts a statesmanlike bearing will his numbers plummet? Does he know how much his people rely on him not to become domesticated? Will John Kasich start to break through in his home state? Who will Jeb be? Will he come awake? Will he look like a pleasant, bespectacled man who’s actually thinking about dinner? Will he radiate the heaviness of the man who knows too well what can’t be done? Because there’s not much market for that.

Also I wondered, as I contemplated the idea of a long row of guys in ties, who my eye would go to. Your eye knows more than you do, it’s drawn for reasons you don’t understand. Part of the mystery of politics is connected to a mystery of show business. Mike Nichols once told me the biggest stars don’t have perfect faces, but rather they’re interestingly imperfect. Stars are stars because you can’t take your eyes from them and don’t know exactly why. So who would we drawn to look at? Who would we be hearing?

I have been saying the early, back-of-the-pack debate might turn out to be the place to be—low expectations, more airtime, a less intense atmosphere. Interesting things might happen. Also somewhere deep, deep down, where Republicans are sweet, some sympathetic rooting for the underdogs might occur. But it was tight, somber. You could hear the questions and answers echo in the empty hall, which gave it a lonely sound, like a one-camera debate in the early days of democracy in Estonia.

The reliably on-point and interesting Carly Fiorina has been declared the overwhelming winner. That surprised me because I’ve seen her better, including this past weekend at the Koch donors seminars in California, where to some she was a revelation. This is a strong, gutsy woman. The evening was a reminder that the debates are important: Those not preoccupied with politics were seeing her for the first time. Next time she will belong in the top tier.

It’s still unclear why George Pataki and Jim Gilmore are there, and in a time of sustained national crisis their need is not endearing. Lindsey Graham is supposed to have entered to be the voice of a burly, interventionist foreign policy in the age of Rand Paul. But it’s not looking like the age of Rand Paul, and everyone’s already being pretty burly. I don’t understand his purpose.

As to the main event: Wow. I’ve never seen a political debate come in so sparky. From the first minute it was hot as a pistol, with an electric crowd and highly pointed, even adversarial questions.

There are two headlines.

The first is that when Donald Trump was put on the spot on whether he would pledge not to launch a third-party campaign, it marked a break point in the Trump saga. It made it official: Mr. Trump sees himself as operating both within and without the party, and within it only at the moment. A political operative emailed me: “He just gave [a rude gesture] to the RNC.” He did. Mr. Trump’s fiery clash with Megyn Kelly, after she challenged him on crude things he has said about women, did not work in his favor. He was boorish and ungentlemanly. Yes, I know that sounds quaint. The things he was accused of saying, which he didn’t deny, were ugly. However, the moment yielded probably the most memorable line of the evening: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

Marco Rubio was fresh, crisp and poised. Hillary Clinton, he said, won’t be able to lecture him on living paycheck to paycheck because “I was raised paycheck to paycheck.” He has successfully staked out the future as his theme—one that of course is underscored by his youth.

John Kasich spoke seriously and even soulfully on the mentally ill and drug-addicted in our prisons, and what must be done to help them. He was present and humorous. I thought him lovely on same-sex marriage: “God gives me unconditional love, I’m gonna give it to my family and my friends and the people around me.” It was clever of him to be gracious to Mr. Trump, who looked like he appreciated the break. I think Mr. Kasich broke through.

When Chris Christie and Rand Paul clashed on the issue of privacy and government surveillance, Mr. Paul accused Mr. Christie of taking President Obama’s side: “I know you gave him a big hug.” Mr. Christie was quick: “The hugs that I remember are the hugs that I gave to the families,” after 9/11. It was a fabulous cheap shot followed by excellent special pleading. Bravo for first-class fisticuffs.

Ted Cruz was fine. He didn’t dominate as he has on some stages, but he caused himself no trouble. He’ll get deadlier as the number of candidates winnows down.

Mike Huckabee is going hard and all in for Christians in Iowa.

Mr. Bush achieved adequacy. He received respectful and supportive applause whenever he said anything, but didn’t say anything especially well. He continues to be the front-runner as odd duck.

Jeb has a low pilot light. The other day in the Koch seminar he started his Q&A with Politico’s Mike Allen in a shrugging, sluggish way, as if he were surprised to be answering questions. He seems to me embarrassed by his ambition, as if for 40 years he’d understood himself to be the singular Bush but now here he is, running for president like everyone else. Mr. Cruz, who had spoken before Mr. Bush, stayed to listen. Have you ever seen the look a cat gets in the second before he moves on the mouse? That look of full, predatory concentration? That was the look Mr. Cruz had as he watched.

I just realized I haven’t mentioned Scott Walker. He did himself no harm. He’ll likely improve as the stage gets smaller too.

The second headline is that Mr. Trump wasn’t the person your eye stayed on. It went to him first. But as the evening progressed, the other candidates stole his drama and thunder with their own claims and arguments. “The strength of the field is overshadowing Trump,” wrote a Hill staffer. That was exactly it. I found other candidates as interesting—more so.

I really don’t know if fiery debates like Thursday evening’s will wind up building interest and excitement in the Republican field, or wearing and tearing it down. I don’t know if we’ll look back on this as the beginning of a making or a breaking. Maybe the former. Anyway, it was alive. I wonder if Hillary Clinton is wondering how she can look alive.

[Simple Minded]

If there is little to no consensus about anything between Reps and Dems.. what hope is there for the US.

"the reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated!" Mark Twain

[Nonc Hilaire]

Not really debates; more of a shooting gallery. Questions were intentionally formed to challenge each specific candidate.

Not ideal, but with that many candidates I guess you just need to start somewhere. The unpopularity of Ms. Clinton seemed to be a general surprise. I sensed that many prepared answers just evaporated.

[Typhoon]

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. - Mark Twain

Amen.