Trump

[Navin R Johnson]

maybe a thread on Donald is what we need, to make Beer and Queso great again.

[Duke]

Oh Oh!

[Fredia]

trump is the only candidate who does not have commercials on 24 7     
i  disagree b and q has been and will always be great

[HudsonHawk]

I'm not paying for that fucking wall.

[BudGirl]

Well, now it is going to be even higher! And build one on the Northern Border!!!  Keep that maple syrup out!

[Navin R Johnson]

John Oliver on Donald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

[Lefty]

John Oliver on Donald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

That was very good.  See, Drumpf, I also have the best words.

[Mr. Happy]

Trump is an irreverent buffoon, but his popularity is a direct reflection of the serious dissatisfaction the public has with professional politicians. If I have to, I'll vote for him.

[Ty in Tampa]

Who do you ever "have to" vote for?

[Mr. Happy]

Who do you ever "have to" vote for?

If the only other option is either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I'll be forced to vote for Trump.

[Ty in Tampa]

If the only other option is either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I'll be forced to vote for Trump.

If you don't want to give your vote to someone you dislike, why don't you write-in someone or just not cast a ballot? Why would you vote for an unqualified sociopath?

[BudGirl]

If you don't want to give your vote to someone you dislike, why don't you write-in someone or just not cast a ballot? Why would you vote for an unqualified sociopath?

Obviously because he is on the Republican ticket.

[Navin R Johnson]

I thought for sure Drumpf would have done something to drive every voter away in shame by now, but he almost seems Teflon.

The more outrageous and nonsensical he gets, the more popular he gets.   It is amazing to watch. 

[Knoxbanedoodle]

I like to tell myself that he isn't actually getting "more" popular, but rather that there's  a certain subset of the rightish populous that is enthusiastic about fascism. His percentages tend to hover around 35 - 40% each time, don't they?

[Navin R Johnson]

I like to tell myself that he isn't actually getting "more" popular, but rather that there's  a certain subset of the rightish populous that is enthusiastic about fascism. His percentages tend to hover around 35 - 40% each time, don't they?

He is closing in on 50% of GOP voters.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I hate Hilary more than I hate Trump, but I hate Trump more than Sanders. They are all so laughable. They all make me sick.

[Fredia]

well one of the above will probably  will be president

[Mr. Happy]

If you don't want to give your vote to someone you dislike, why don't you write-in someone or just not cast a ballot? Why would you vote for an unqualified sociopath?

I would consider it a vote against Hillary or Sanders more than a vote for Trump.

[Mr. Happy]

Obviously because he is on the Republican ticket.

Not at all. I no longer consider myself a Republican. I boycott the RNC.

[Greg M]

I don't see how a rational person can view Trump as a safer pick than Hillary.  I don't like Hillary, but Trump is way way too far.  My vote won't be for somebody.  It will be against Trump.

[Mr. Happy]

I don't see how a rational person can view Trump as a safer pick than Hillary.  I don't like Hillary, but Trump is way way too far.  My vote won't be for somebody.  It will be against Trump.

To each his own. I view Hillary Clinton as a reprehensible liar who  cost American lives in Benghazi and who risked national security with her private server.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I don't see how a rational person can view Trump as a safer pick than Hillary.

Safe? Rational?

[chuck]

In other news apparently Justice Thomas CAN speak. I might imagine the confusion. It must have been like when Peter Buck told the roadies he wanted a mic for the final tour. Moot/mute, indeed. Opus Dei handjive.

[Fredia]

what about the hanger owns who wont quit the race

[Dark Star]

Well, if Ted Cruz really is the Zodiac Killer, that might adjust my thinking somewhat.

I really hope he is, almost even more than I really hope Katy Perry is really grown up Jon Benet Ramsay.

The world is so fucking awesome, and I am not even taking drugs (right now).

[astrosfan76]

If you don't want to give your vote to someone you dislike, why don't you write-in someone or just not cast a ballot? Why would you vote for an unqualified sociopath?

Exactly.  There are plenty of candidates who will be running outside of the big two parties.  I hate the electoral college, but in a heavily right-leaning state, I do feel freedom to vote for whomever I want, knowing my state is already decided.  My candidate may not win the state, but if I vote third-party and they can reach 5% of the popular vote, it does allow that party to appear on the ballot in every state in the next election and gain access to federal funding.  Small concession, and chances are small that they actually reach the 5%, but it is better than voting for someone I don't want in office.     

[MusicMan]

If I have to, I'll vote for him.

Well, you'll be obeying the law for all of his re-elections.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimR]

If the only other option is either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I'll be forced to vote for Trump.

You be crazy, but you know that. I'll vote for Satan before Trump.

[Mr. Happy]

You be crazy, but you know that. I'll vote for Satan before Trump.

Coach, the more I hear Trump, the more inclined I am to agree with you. Like others have mentioned, mine may be a protest write-in candidate.

[Duman]

Saw this today and thought it was funny:

2016: Trump won't win.

2017: President Trump can't do that, can he?

2018: You watching The Hunger Games tonight? I hope my District wins.

[Nate Colbert]

Saw this today and thought it was funny:

That was great!

[pots]

Listening to Romney today and then listening to this:
2012 Trump Endorsement

Good lord. 

[Fredia]

sometimes it seems like someone should just send the children to their room with no  contributisons

[Phil_in_CS]

Listening to Romney today and then listening to this:
2012 Trump Endorsement

Good lord.

Romney has no idea how despised he is by most republicans outside of his east coast clique. If someone already supports Trump, they give zero fucks what Romney thinks. If they're on the fence, they're more likely to do the opposite of what Romney says to do. He'd get more people off the Trump bandwagon by endorsing him than by attacking him.

Trump's history shows him somewhere between Bernie and Hillary in his positions; more towards Hillary in the 'how can I make a buck off this' aspect of politics. Toss in a big dose of Huey Long and some PT Barnum and you've got a ticket that is going to crush Hillary in November and the nation after that.

[Navin R Johnson]

Trump isn't crushing anyone in the general, that is ridiculous.

[chuck]

Trump isn't crushing anyone in the general, that is ridiculous.

I don't know about that, man. I'm serious. There may be a lot more people who wear camouflage to church than you realize.

Also, obviously, Hillary is a conservative. That dulls her support from progressives or even Obama supporters. Trump is all over the place. People that like him are not expressing support for a political cause; they are expressing support for a reality TV star and, in the case of the intellectual contingent of his support (everything is relative), support for pure disruption.

We haven't yet seen how each of these will attack each other directly in ads and in debates but do you think there are more people who will support an untrustworthy conservative running as a Democrat or a lunatic reality TV star with a red hat? I think I know the answer.

The funny thing is that many polls show that the secondary candidate or several secondary candidates handily beat the opposing party's presumptive nominee. So there is a lot to play out. But I'm pretty sure that a President Clinton would nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the recently fallen justice (who died in his Grand Poobah gear at an event hosted by someone with a matter before the court, a tidy end to the intellectual [everything is relative] leader of the modern regressive movement) that would outrage many if not most Democrats and I am equally sure that President Trump would nominate someone who would outrage the neo-confederates. I'm also pretty sure that at the end of the day Trump is less of a conservative than Hillary.

So who knows. But I am nowhere near sure that Hillary could or would beat Trump.

[pots]

I don't know about that, man. I'm serious. There may be a lot more people who wear camouflage to church than you realize.

Also, obviously, Hillary is a conservative. That dulls her support from progressives or even Obama supporters. Trump is all over the place. People that like him are not expressing support for a political cause; they are expressing support for a reality TV star and, in the case of the intellectual contingent of his support (everything is relative), support for pure disruption.

We haven't yet seen how each of these will attack each other directly in ads and in debates but do you think there are more people who will support an untrustworthy conservative running as a Democrat or a lunatic reality TV star with a red hat? I think I know the answer.

The funny thing is that many polls show that the secondary candidate or several secondary candidates handily beat the opposing party's presumptive nominee. So there is a lot to play out. But I'm pretty sure that a President Clinton would nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the recently fallen justice (who died in his Grand Poobah gear at an event hosted by someone with a matter before the court, a tidy end to the intellectual [everything is relative] leader of the modern regressive movement) that would outrage many if not most Democrats and I am equally sure that President Trump would nominate someone who would outrage the neo-confederates. I'm also pretty sure that at the end of the day Trump is less of a conservative than Hillary.

So who knows. But I am nowhere near sure that Hillary could or would beat Trump.

A conservative wants limited government.  Trump's wish to eliminate the IRS and EPA accidentally makes him a conservative.  If Hillary has advocated for limited government I missed it.

[HudsonHawk]

The GOP is getting exactly what they've been begging for.  For the last eight years, they've cultivated a cult of apoplectic fear and ignorance...Obama may be a foreigner, he may be a communist, he's definitely a radical Muslim, and possibly the anti-Christ in the flesh, run for your lives!...now the same halfwits that the GOP has carefully crafted, coddled and nurtured are about to reward them with a loud-mouthed game show host as a Presidential nominee.  You get what you pay for. 

[Limey]

The GOP is getting exactly what they've been begging for.  For the last eight years, they've cultivated a cult of apoplectic fear and ignorance...Obama may be a foreigner, he may be a communist, he's definitely a radical Muslim, and possibly the anti-Christ in the flesh, run for your lives!...now the same halfwits that the GOP has carefully crafted, coddled and nurtured are about to reward them with a loud-mouthed game show host as a Presidential nominee.  You get what you pay for.

This. 

Actually, it goes back further than Obama's term, to Regan's "nine scariest words in the English language".   You can't keep stoking people's fear and anger at the establishment, while being part of the establishment, and survive. 

[Limey]

Trump beats Hillary because she's one email discovery away from implosion, and Trump is already proclaiming that she's ineligible because she should be in jail.  Also, an ISIS attack on Monday before voting day will do it, and you know that they know it too.   Something easy like a random mall shooting is all it will take. 

The alternative is that Trump turns off conservatives enough so that they don't turn out to vote.  That hurts in the down ticket races.  Maybe the millennials show up to vote against Trump too.  The Democrats run the table and we have the worst form of government - one party with control of all three branches (after President Sanders fills the empty SCOTUS seat with whomever he chooses with an olé through congress). 

I guess I picked the wrong year to file my citizenship papers...

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

This. 

Actually, it goes back further than Obama's term, to Regan's "nine scariest words in the English language".   You can't keep stoking people's fear and anger at the establishment, while being part of the establishment, and survive.

ITYM: "most terrifying".

I think it goes back to John Kennedy's failure to drive home his point when he implored upon the masses to "ask not what your Country can do for you." This country, which I think is pretty great, has a political atmosphere that has been bubbling in the same unique primordial soup for at least 55 years. With all the great medical, scientific, and technological advances (mostly privately funded and for profit) that have also occurred simultaneously during that stretch of time, it's sad our government representatives are still in the dark ages.

[Phil_in_CS]

Don't forget how terrible Hillary is in debates and public speaking - she's just boring. Trump is anything but, and most people are conditioned these days to vote based on feeling rather than fact. As Henry Rollings said the other day this is our Honey Boo-Boo election.

Democratic turnout is way down - down 50% in some areas compared to the 2008 primaries. Yes, Hillary will get 90% of the Black vote, but as someone quoted in this points out, if Black turnout in 2012 was down 50%, Romney would be president today. The only people excited about Hillary are her cronies that are going to get rich off the public treasury during her term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-voter-turnout.html

The D of J giving immunity to the IT wonk that set up her server doesn't bode well. There are enough lawyers on here to know they don't hand that out casually, He might not have the goods on Hillary as they might be rolling things up the food chain, but it's a big deal.

[HudsonHawk]

The D of J giving immunity to the IT wonk that set up her server doesn't bode well. There are enough lawyers on here to know they don't hand that out casually, He might not have the goods on Hillary as they might be rolling things up the food chain, but it's a big deal.

As big a deal as Trump and his fraud case.

[Phil_in_CS]

As big a deal as Trump and his fraud case.

Perhaps fitting for us as a nation today to have both major party nominees under federal felony indictment.

[jwhudson]

Ron White (Tater Salad) is running for President, I would like him to debate Trump.

[Fredia]

if trump gets in does he realize he cant say to congress YOUR FIRED

[Navin R Johnson]

Don't forget how terrible Hillary is in debates and public speaking - she's just boring.

It won't be boring if Donald is the nominee.    And people aren't showing up for the primaries because, who cares.  If Trump is opposite the ticket, people are gonna show in near 2008 levels to vote against that weirdo.

[Phil_in_CS]

It won't be boring if Donald is the nominee.    And people aren't showing up for the primaries because, who cares.  If Trump is opposite the ticket, people are gonna show in near 2008 levels to vote against that weirdo.

I guess you have more confidence in our fellow citizens than I do.

[BudGirl]

Many democrats i know voted in the republican primary. 

[bubba]

And many Republicans I know voted in the Democratic primary to vote against the should-be criminal.

[Phil_in_CS]

Many democrats i know voted in the republican primary.

They have to here if they want a say in local elections, all of which are decided in the GOP primary. I remember in 1980 I wasn't quite old enough to vote, and dad took me with him to the primary to show me how it worked. I was quite surprised we went to the democratic side; I couldn't see him supporting Carter or Kennedy. He explained to me that in Orange county all the local races were decided in the democratic primary, so if you wanted a say in who is county judge or sheriff, that's where you voted.

40 years later, most of the state has turned 180 degrees from that.

[BudGirl]

And many Republicans I know voted in the Democratic primary to vote against the should-be criminal.

In Texas??  And has Clinton been indicted??? Did I miss that?

They have to here if they want a say in local elections, all of which are decided in the GOP primary. I remember in 1980 I wasn't quite old enough to vote, and dad took me with him to the primary to show me how it worked. I was quite surprised we went to the democratic side; I couldn't see him supporting Carter or Kennedy. He explained to me that in Orange county all the local races were decided in the democratic primary, so if you wanted a say in who is county judge or sheriff, that's where you voted.

40 years later, most of the state has turned 180 degrees from that.

I vote in the Republican primary hoping they don't elect someone that has been indicted, then they go ahead and do it.  (i.e. Ken Paxton)

[HudsonHawk]

And many Republicans I know voted in the Democratic primary to vote against the should-be criminal.

This is, in a nutshell, what I'm talking about.  First, you ratchet up the tinfoil hat wearing rhetoric to stir up the half wits.  Secondly, you rant and rave about the color of the neighbor's house while yours is burning down around you.  If you end up with Trump as your nominee, it's because you've earned it.  Own it. 

[Navin R Johnson]

And many Republicans I know voted in the Democratic primary to vote against the should-be criminal.

HAHAHAHA. undoubtedly these dipshits will be voting for Trump. Unbelievable what am radio has turned republicans into.

[Phil_in_CS]

And that's why I think Trump will win in November. Beyond the right fringe, the Democrats are working hard to make Sanders out to be a loon, when what he's supporting is pretty much what that party has always supported. The people with hard feelings on that end are unlikely to vote for Trump, but if any significant portion of them stays home and doesn't vote, that will have an impact too.

[Navin R Johnson]

And that's why I think Trump will win in November. Beyond the right fringe, the Democrats are working hard to make Sanders out to be a loon, when what he's supporting is pretty much what that party has always supported. The people with hard feelings on that end are unlikely to vote for Trump, but if any significant portion of them stays home and doesn't vote, that will have an impact too.

I think you are forgetting the republicans who wont vote.  My boss, former marine, late 60s, as far right as it gets.  Hearing Obama's name makes him cringe, and he thinks Hillary is worse.  He said he will stay home if his party nominates that buffoon Trump.

You will have the folks that bask in nationalism (assuming they have an ID and can find the polling stations) and the tea party segment of the republican party.  But they are gonna lose as many disfranchised party members as the democrats will.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

I think you are forgetting the republicans who wont vote.  My boss, former marine, late 60s, as far right as it gets.  Hearing Obama's name makes him cringe, and he thinks Hillary is worse.  He said he will stay home if his party nominates that buffoon Trump.

You will have the folks that bask in nationalism (assuming they have an ID and can find the polling stations) and the tea party segment of the republican party.  But they are gonna lose as many disfranchised party members as the democrats will.

Agreed.

There are lots of reasons a Trump victory in November is extremely unlikely:

1) Probable third-party challenger makes it easier for Republicans to abandon him in droves;

2) The structural / organizational disparity between him and the Dems / Hilary will be massive;

3) Trump being himself opposite Hilary on national TV will swiftly obliterate the enthusiasm gap between younger and older feminists--he will prove sensational (huge, the greatest) for GOTV for his opponents;

4) Republican senatorial campaigns in key states running ads against him, for crying out loud; to say nothing of the extraordinary Super PAC forces that will be arrayed against him from literally all sides;

5) His unfavorables aren't improving--nor will they if Hilary is the only adult in the room.

If I were advising the Hilary campaign, I'd urge her to become the first major party candidate to take the public option over private financing since, I think, John Kerry.

If it's Trump, President Hilary's first action can be to send Supreme Court nominee Obama to Harry Reid's senate.

[Uncle Charlie]

This is all just too fucked up.  I'm a Rubio guy - I think he can actually get things done and more likely to heal the divide than continue to break it.  He would also beat any of the dems.  That said, I see his chances at less than 10% now, raising only to about 20% if he wins FLA.  However, if there's a brokered convention, I could see him being a big winner.  The lack of Trump's groundgame will hurt him in a brokered convention...many of the delegates there will not be in his favor and once released will turn on him.

However, if it's Trump or Hillary my decision rests on whether Trumps narcissism is dangerous or benign.  World History's villains are made up of guys who started as populists making rash statements, backing down to get elected, and then showing true colors.  I just have to decide if that's the case with him.  Hillary is a criminal IMHO - one that should be in jail.  But if I decide Trump could lead our country into something fearful, I would vote for a criminal first.

Thankfully there is still time...

[HudsonHawk]

Hillary is a criminal IMHO - one that should be in jail. 

Specifically, what crimes do you think she's committed?

[Uncle Charlie]

Specifically, what crimes do you think she's committed?

Illegal disclosure of classified information under section 798 of US code....and 793 section f...and section 1236.22 of NARA.

[Bench]

Illegal disclosure of classified information under section 798 of US code....and 793 section f...and section 1236.22 of NARA.

Disclosed to whom?

[jbm]

The hatred of Hillary fascinates me.  Despite what Chuck says, she's is center to center left, so it's hard to imagine it's policy based.  But I know a lot of people that really hate her.  Really fucking hate her. 

In the 90s, I just figured it was the baby boomers fighting over the 60s again, but that doesn't explain it for all the non boomers who hate her.  I don't find all the bullshit scandal stuff explains much either.  Those people don't hate her cause her "scandals," but create scandals cause they hate her.  That's my take at least. 

I can understand lack of warmth towards her, indifference or even mild dislike, but the consuming hatred is hard to figure. 

[JimR]

 "Hillary is a criminal IMHO - one that should be in jail. "

total bullshit.

[Uncle Charlie]

Disclosed to whom?

As you know that's just the title of the section of the US code and thus shortened, often not taking into consideration the fullness of the what is covered.  It pretty clear when you read the code itself.  But specifically, its the making available to an unauthorized person or "use in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States"

What say you about Section 793 or the NARA?

Let's be clear, I'm not on a witch hunt for Hillary. Sure, I think here policies are in the wrong but that didn't make her a criminal. Her own actions did.  The same can be said about a number of other politicians / celebrities (yes, I lump them together sometimes - I don't think most people can tell the difference unfortunately).  I would say the same about others who's politics I do favor. If they've committed a crime, they should be held to it. Patreus, Libby - don't care...they committed a crime and should be punished for it.

It seems to me, that by all non-partisan standards, HIllary is in deep doo-doo and likely committed a serious federal crime.  Electing a President carries a higher standard than that - they must be above suspicion.  The fact that the conversation is even happening, let alone that it has legs, should cause serious doubt in people's mind about her ability to be our President.

[Uncle Charlie]

total bullshit.

Why exactly?

[chuck]

I was reading a piece the other day in a noted left wing business tabloid, Barron's, maybe you've heard of it, that discussed who is better for investors, Hillary or Trump. The piece quickly concluded that Hillary is because she is "more moderate." The word moderate was used a number of times describing Hillary.

If Rupert Murdoch and his friends think you are a moderate then you are certainly somewhere well to the right of that.

Unrelated but entertaining, there was a quote from an unnamed hedge fund manager who accuses Hillary of "pandering to the 99%," as if serving the electorate at large rather than a thimbleful of the financial stratosphere (not that I think she's doing that...) is somehow a bad thing.

Hillary is a Republican who married a Democrat who she believed, presciently, as it turns out, would carry her deep into American politics. And she's gamely played a Democrat ever since. So I don't understand the rabid Hillary hatred, either. I mean, if you're going to use that energy at least find a liberal to hate. There are still a couple around, I'm almost sure of it. Misogyny isn't an adequate explanation because half of the people that hate her are women.

[Uncle Charlie]

I don't quite understand the hatred aspect either, but it's fed and driven by talking head all day long both on TV and Radio.  Good discourse is missing in this country, and maybe other countries as well.  We have a way to settle good discourse - votes.  Why do dems hate George Bush, why do reps hate Obama and Hillary?  Who the hell knows.  The sad thing is that people who look at these things objectively, or even with just a slight bit of bias, are often thrown into the "Hate" grouping for voicing displeasure or disagreement about someone.  This does, of course, extend well beyond politics too

[Dark Star]

I was reading a piece the other day in a noted left wing business tabloid, Barron's, maybe you've heard of it, that discussed who is better for investors, Hillary or Trump. The piece quickly concluded that Hillary is because she is "more moderate." The word moderate was used a number of times describing Hillary.

If Rupert Murdoch and his friends think you are a moderate then you are certainly somewhere well to the right of that.

Unrelated but entertaining, there was a quote from an unnamed hedge fund manager who accuses Hillary of "pandering to the 99%," as if serving the electorate at large rather than a thimbleful of the financial stratosphere (not that I think she's doing that...) is somehow a bad thing.

Hillary is a Republican who married a Democrat who she believed, presciently, as it turns out, would carry her deep into American politics. And she's gamely played a Democrat ever since. So I don't understand the rabid Hillary hatred, either. I mean, if you're going to use that energy at least find a liberal to hate. There are still a couple around, I'm almost sure of it. Misogyny isn't an adequate explanation because half of the people that hate her are women.

I have never understood the weirdly intense level of hatred for Hillary, either. It's just ... weird. I mean, I think I know why there is such an unyielding and virulent hatred of Obama in some pockets of our citizenry. It is despicable, but easy enough to understand. But some people, including my otherwise mostly sensible spouse, put Ms. Clinton right up there next to Satan. I don't get it.

[chuck]

But some people, including my otherwise mostly sensible spouse, put Ms. Clinton right up there next to Satan. I don't get it.

Well, shit, ask her and let us know.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

I don't quite understand the hatred aspect either, but it's fed and driven by talking head all day long both on TV and Radio.  Good discourse is missing in this country, and maybe other countries as well.  We have a way to settle good discourse - votes.  Why do dems hate George Bush, why do reps hate Obama and Hillary?  Who the hell knows.  The sad thing is that people who look at these things objectively, or even with just a slight bit of bias, are often thrown into the "Hate" grouping for voicing displeasure or disagreement about someone.  This does, of course, extend well beyond politics too

I recognize that I may be an exception among liberals on this point, but I never hated W. I feared his self-confidence and then bemoaned his incompetence, and I probably did hate lots of his managers, but I always had a basic affection for the man. It's hard, after all, to outright hate a fellow dyed-in-the-wool baseball fan.

Hate is just flat ugly, in any form. I remember the spleen with which my earliest real employers (they owned Texspresso in Austin--anyone remember Tex?) despised the Clintons. It was bizarre and unsettling and they had lots of company. Seemed to me to boil down to: this slick seed had no business beating 41. I was a teenager back then, though, and wonder now if it wasn't more complicated...if it didn't have more to do with Clinton re-encroaching on the Reagan dems, triangulating, absconding with GOP talking points, etc. And as for Hilary, yeah, I have no idea. It's not exactly a secret that she was one of the favorites of the Senate Republicans to work with. But she was his wife, and he was a cheating lying sonufabitch, so fuck her, I guess. Certainly it's also true that the Clintons routinely play by their own rules and are less than forthcoming about their misdeeds, though this doesn't exactly have them eating alone in the chow hall...

Watching the savagery of the right's hatred is probably the number one reason I try and desist from same.  If pressed, I might put Mitch McConnell and Wayne Lapierre on a list (a list that, OK, Scalia probably made too), but, yeah, I try and desist. It certainly doesn't hurt to read the news more than watching it.

[Navin R Johnson]

Bill Clinton lead to the birth of foxnews (started in 1997) and is the catalyst for the right wing zealot AM radio.   

Limbaugh built a cottage industry on the back of Bill Clinton.  The Clintons were the original targets of these blustering windbags, they created a boogeyman that still scares lots of these folks.

[chuck]

Limbaugh built a cottage industry on the back of Bill Clinton.

Which is especially rich because Clinton's legislative record is one that most any Republican President would be proud to own: NAFTA, the horrible crime bill, welfare reform.

[BudGirl]

As you know that's just the title of the section of the US code and thus shortened, often not taking into consideration the fullness of the what is covered.  It pretty clear when you read the code itself.  But specifically, its the making available to an unauthorized person or "use in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States"

What say you about Section 793 or the NARA?

Let's be clear, I'm not on a witch hunt for Hillary. Sure, I think here policies are in the wrong but that didn't make her a criminal. Her own actions did.  The same can be said about a number of other politicians / celebrities (yes, I lump them together sometimes - I don't think most people can tell the difference unfortunately).  I would say the same about others who's politics I do favor. If they've committed a crime, they should be held to it. Patreus, Libby - don't care...they committed a crime and should be punished for it.

It seems to me, that by all non-partisan standards, HIllary is in deep doo-doo and likely committed a serious federal crime.  Electing a President carries a higher standard than that - they must be above suspicion.  The fact that the conversation is even happening, let alone that it has legs, should cause serious doubt in people's mind about her ability to be our President.

So, are you going to lock up Collin Powell, he apparently used a personal server also.

[Bench]

As you know that's just the title of the section of the US code and thus shortened, often not taking into consideration the fullness of the what is covered.  It pretty clear when you read the code itself.  But specifically, its the making available to an unauthorized person or "use in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States"

What say you about Section 793 or the NARA?

Let's be clear, I'm not on a witch hunt for Hillary. Sure, I think here policies are in the wrong but that didn't make her a criminal. Her own actions did.  The same can be said about a number of other politicians / celebrities (yes, I lump them together sometimes - I don't think most people can tell the difference unfortunately).  I would say the same about others who's politics I do favor. If they've committed a crime, they should be held to it. Patreus, Libby - don't care...they committed a crime and should be punished for it.

It seems to me, that by all non-partisan standards, HIllary is in deep doo-doo and likely committed a serious federal crime.  Electing a President carries a higher standard than that - they must be above suspicion.  The fact that the conversation is even happening, let alone that it has legs, should cause serious doubt in people's mind about her ability to be our President.

You seem to have access to a lot of evidence that nobody else does. 

The U.S. Code provisions you cited all require a certain level of intent or willfulness in addition to actual or attempted transmittal.  This is how Patraeus got in trouble.  The NARA regulations you cited are agency guidelines for managing email records. I didn't see any type of enforcement or punitive provisions.

[Navin R Johnson]

Which is especially rich because Clinton's legislative record is one that most any Republican President would be proud to own: NAFTA, the horrible crime bill, welfare reform.

Even richer when you consider back in the day Rush would get his slack jawed listeners into a tizzy over how immoral the Clintons and democrats in general were.   Rush is now on his 4th wife and is a known druggie.   

[Limey]

Louis CK weighs in on Trump:

Please stop it with voting for Trump. It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.

Much, much more at the link.

[Limey]

Which is especially rich because Clinton's legislative record is one that most any Republican President would be proud to own: NAFTA, the horrible crime bill, welfare reform.

...which is why I can't understand how Hillary locks up the African-American vote in primary after primary.  Bill signed into law one of the tools that has put a generate of young African-Americans in jail, and Bernie was thrown in jail protesting on behalf of civil rights.  One of these things is not like the other.

[Limey]

Even richer when you consider back in the day Rush would get his slack jawed listeners into a tizzy over how immoral the Clintons and democrats in general were.   Rush is now on his 4th wife and is a known druggie.

The parade of right-wing hypocrites is one of the things that first turned me off Republicans (having been a conservative in the UK).  Limbaugh being a poster child, but Gingrich too - he was cheating on wife #1 at work while she was terminally ill and he was impeaching Clinton for cheating on his wife at work.

Note to women:  if you are with a man who is cheating on his wife, and you then become his wife, he will cheat on you.  Guaranteed.

[Bench]

The parade of right-wing hypocrites is one of the things that first turned me off Republicans (having been a conservative in the UK).  Limbaugh being a poster child, but Gingrich too - he was cheating on wife #1 at work while she was terminally ill and he was impeaching Clinton for cheating on his wife at work.

Note to women:  if you are with a man who is cheating on his wife, and you then become his wife, he will cheat on you.  Guaranteed.

In his defense, Newt was never actually married when he cheated on his wives.  All of those marriages were annulled by the Catholic church. 

[chuck]

...which is why I can't understand how Hillary locks up the African-American vote in primary after primary.  Bill signed into law one of the tools that has put a generate of young African-Americans in jail, and Bernie was thrown in jail protesting on behalf of civil rights.  One of these things is not like the other.

It's mind boggling. Hillary's out campaigning for Goldwater while Bernie's getting arrested at a civil rights march. Fast forward to 2016 and Hillary wins Louisiana by 80 points.

[Nate Colbert]

Bloomberg finally gets off the shitter and says he won't run.

Had it been Bernie vs The Billionaires, I would have gone with Bloomberg.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

It doesn't take much for me to hate any politician. I really hate Hillary and Trump. I hate looking at their cartoon-like visages, I hate the sonic assault of their voices and the content spewed from within. I'm just a hateful person I guess,
but I hate Bud most of all.

[Uncle Charlie]

You seem to have access to a lot of evidence that nobody else does.

Of course you know I don't have access to a lot of evidence - however there is a TON of smoke here, so I still feel comfortable in the assertion.  This is partially driven by the fact that "career attorney"s are involved now leading one to think that they are moving towards a grand jury (furthered potentially by the developments this weekend).  That said, I recognize I have no access to actual evidence.

The U.S. Code provisions you cited all require a certain level of intent or willfulness in addition to actual or attempted transmittal. 

She set up a private, unprotected server in her house for use in her government job as the Secretary of State - widely considered the #2 most powerful job in an administration.  Any such action in the corporate world would be unheard of and not tollerated either. It doesn't take a 30-year detective to figure out that she willfulflly used condifential information in a way that put US interests and safety at risk.

So, are you going to lock up Collin Powell, he apparently used a personal server also.

Although my read of the actual details of what happened with Powell are different than the headlines you speak of, if he did set up a server with the express purpose of receiving emails as the SoS and then received confidential information...then yes. He should be investigated and prosecuted.

[HudsonHawk]

I still feel comfortable in the assertion.... I recognize I have no access to actual evidence.

Yeah, why let a little thing like actual evidence get in the way of putting people in jail.

Spoken like a true Trump man.

[Fredia]

or a williamson county prosecutor

[Limey]

Bloomberg finally gets off the shitter and says he won't run.

Had it been Bernie vs The Billionaires, I would have gone with Bloomberg.

Bloomberg's people thought he had a clear path to 270 electoral college votes; a strategy that involved winning Georgia and Texas.  In what world...

[Uncle Charlie]

Spoken like a true Trump man.

You do realize that I previously said I am not for Trump and am seriously considering Hillary over Trump? I believe that Trump could be a very dangerous person as a leader of a country...I just need to decide if that is true or not.

[Nate Colbert]

Bloomberg's people thought he had a clear path to 270 electoral college votes; a strategy that involved winning Georgia and Texas.  In what world...

The same world where the Republicans look likely to nominate a man with a serious fascist streak and the Democrats flirted with a socialist.

[Mr. Happy]

I've followed this thread with great interest. I'm going to shock most of you and say that Clinton, despite her baggage, is a much safer bet than Trump. She might actually get my vote, although I'd feel better about it if the cloud of impropriety was lifted concerning this server issue. Since, despite the daily begging e-mails I get from Reince Preibus, I'm no longer a Republican, I won't be voting for Trump if he is the nominee. I blame the Republican establishment for Trump's very existence.

[Navin R Johnson]

Trump is a bi-product of 20+ years of AM Radio and foxnews preaching to people that the US government is worse than the devil.   Every tax $ spent is a wretched idea and does nothing but enriches the political class.   Everything is black and white, no shades of grey when it comes the the government.

Yes our government has issues, lots of them, but  fostering an environment that everything and anything to do with the government is vile, is not productive.  It lead to these tea party nut jobs who the GOP welcomed in with open arms and now ya got Trump.

Instead of acting like adults and  coming up with solutions, they just keep preaching everything about the government is horrible.  As little government as possible is the answer to every problem this nation faces

Nothing the government does is worthwhile and anyone with a dissenting view of that is a socialist commie.   And each election cycle candidates would try and push that envelope further and further.   

Now Trump is nearly undefeatable in the primary at this point. 

The GOP can call him whatever they want and he just replies, "what do you expect they are politicians."   They can dig up whatever dirt they want and he just says, "that was then, at least I am not a politician!"  And Up goes his polling numbers.

[mrpink]

Now Trump is nearly undefeatable in the primary at this point. 

I disagree.  I think Cruz has a decent chance to overtake him.  Since the GOP and others like Oliver have really started the attack Trump has underperformed his polls by a good margin.  I'm very interested in what happens tonight.

[MusicMan]

I've followed this thread with great interest. I'm going to shock most of you and say that Clinton, despite her baggage, is a much safer bet than Trump. She might actually get my vote, although I'd feel better about it if the cloud of impropriety was lifted concerning this server issue. Since, despite the daily begging e-mails I get from Reince Preibus, I'm no longer a Republican, I won't be voting for Trump if he is the nominee. I blame the Republican establishment for Trump's very existence.

Voting for Clinton likely means 4 more years of the same. That's not ideal by any means, but it could be a whole lot worse.

Most every scenario of a Trump presidency fills that area of "a whole lot worse".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

I disagree.  I think Cruz has a decent chance to overtake him.  Since the GOP and others like Oliver have really started the attack Trump has underperformed his polls by a good margin.  I'm very interested in what happens tonight.

Right now, only Trump has a path to a delegate majority at the convention.  Everyone else will need to create a coalition of non-Trumpers that outnumbers Trump's brown shirts delegates .  Cruz is showing strongly now because of the (deliberate and catastrophic) front-loading of southern states in the primary schedule.  He'll likely slow down after this week as the south - his evangelical base - will be done with its contests.

But it's really all about Florida and its 99 delegates delivered in a giant burlap sack to the winner.  Trump is leading in the polls there and, if he wins, he will be unstoppable as he will have an overall majority by the time they get the convention.  If Rubio can take out Trump, that slows him down, but Rubio is so far behind he still has no chance of winning the nomination.  Meanwhile, Cruz is in it to win it and has been attacking Rubio as much as Trump - presumably because he wants Rubio to lose Florida and drop out - in which case they both lose anyway.

The Republican Party re-jigged the primary schedule this year with the intention that the front-runner has a quicker timetable in which to button up the nomination and thus avoid the protracted bear-baiting that Romney suffered last time around.  Of course, they assumed that the front-runner would be the establishment's choice, and not small-handed vulgarian who gets his crowds to beat people up and swear oaths to him with their right arms raised.

[mrpink]

Right now, only Trump has a path to a delegate majority at the convention.  Everyone else will need to create a coalition of non-Trumpers that outnumbers Trump's brown shirts delegates .  Cruz is showing strongly now because of the (deliberate and catastrophic) front-loading of southern states in the primary schedule.  He'll likely slow down after this week as the south - his evangelical base - will be done with its contests.

Even if that were true, it doesn't explain the discrepancy between the Cruz's early poll numbers and the actual primary results that have occurred since Super Tuesday.  I believe voters are seeing the light and realizing what a catastrophe Trump would be.  Cruz seems to be taking votes away from Rubio as people are realizing he doesn't really have a shot at the nomination.

[Bench]

I disagree.  I think Cruz has a decent chance to overtake him.  Since the GOP and others like Oliver have really started the attack Trump has underperformed his polls by a good margin.  I'm very interested in what happens tonight.

Cruz is the only one with a chance, but I don't think it's a decent one.  Cruz needs Rubio to somehow pull out Florida and Kasich to snatch Ohio to prevent all those delegates from going to Trump.  If Trump takes both, that will probably guarantee the nomination once the primaries get to the north-east and California where Cruz does not poll well.  Even just taking Florida would come close to provide the writing on the wall.

It is interesting that last-minute voters tend to not to vote for Trump.

[Bench]

I've followed this thread with great interest. I'm going to shock most of you and say that Clinton, despite her baggage, is a much safer bet than Trump. She might actually get my vote, although I'd feel better about it if the cloud of impropriety was lifted concerning this server issue. Since, despite the daily begging e-mails I get from Reince Preibus, I'm no longer a Republican, I won't be voting for Trump if he is the nominee.

Frankly, I am shocked.  Congratulations. 

I blame the Republican establishment for Trump's very existence.

100% true.

[Navin R Johnson]

Trump's meltdown if he losses the nomination is gonna be glorious.

[Greg M]

Do people really feel the economy is in bad shape and there is no hope like Trump and the Republican party suggest?  What solutions for said hypothetical problems has Trump offered?  I don't see one positive of electing Trump.  Bad news globally and nationally. 

[Limey]

Meanwhile, a big surge in voters "feeling the Berm" has him winning a squeaker in Michigan, when the polls had him miles behind. 

(Trump running the table on his side). 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Do people really feel the economy is in bad shape and there is no hope like Trump and the Republican party suggest?  What solutions for said hypothetical problems has Trump offered? 

Probably something similar to what President Clinton did after he ran point on, "the economy, stupid." Rally cries, logos, buttons, banners, and slogans, seem to be what most Americans go by when they vote.  I can't stand Trump and I don't think he'll ever be president but I don't see how the current national debt of this country could be managed any worse.

[Mr. Happy]

Do people really feel the economy is in bad shape and there is no hope like Trump and the Republican party suggest?  What solutions for said hypothetical problems has Trump offered?  I don't see one positive of electing Trump.  Bad news globally and nationally.

Nothing good can come of electing Trump. Frankly, I still have some faith in the electorate turning away that charlatan. As Navin points out, Trump's meltdown on losing will be epic.

[Jacksonian]

Is this the worst collection of presidential candidates ever?

[Limey]

Nothing good can come of electing Trump. Frankly, I still have some faith in the electorate turning away that charlatan. As Navin points out, Trump's meltdown on losing will be epic.

After last night, there's still no suggestion that a repudiation at the ballot box is coming for Drumpf.

One may be brewing for Clinton, though.

[MusicMan]

Is this the worst collection of presidential candidates ever?

Easily.

[Bench]

  Bad news globally and nationally.

I was in London and Norway the past couple weeks on business and the bewilderment and dismay at the notion that Donald Trump might be the leader of the free world was unanimous among everyone I met, from bellhops to CEOs. 

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Is this the worst collection of presidential candidates ever?

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

[HudsonHawk]

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

A good friend of mine is heavily in the Green Party.  He's been working on me for a while.  There are many days that I look at their candidate, Jill Stein, and the goofballs on the debate stages, and think...hmmm...then I snap back into reality.  But as I read the other day...this year's election is not just a black eye on America, it's a black eye on democracy. 

[Knoxbanedoodle]

A good friend of mine is heavily in the Green Party.  He's been working on me for a while.  There are many days that I look at their candidate, Jill Stein, and the goofballs on the debate stages, and think...hmmm...then I snap back into reality.  But as I read the other day...this year's election is not just a black eye on America, it's a black eye on democracy.

Well, it's an oligarchy anyway now, right?

[HudsonHawk]

Well, it's an oligarchy anyway now, right?

It always has been.  The idea of the "common man" having a say in government is a relatively recent one, and one that the powers aren't too crazy about, especially the right wing.  That's why the good folks at the John Birch Society, Koch Brothers and Rick Perry want to repeal the 17th Amendment.   

[JimR]

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

Neither do I. I voted for her against Obama in 2008, and I will vote for her again.

[Mr. Happy]

Neither do I. I voted for her against Obama in 2008, and I will vote for her again.

One of the benefits of Hillary is that you get an experienced former president back in the White House too.

[Navin R Johnson]

One of the benefits of Hillary is that you get an experienced former president back in the White House too.

Is it me, or has Bill been noticeably missing from the campaign to date?   

[Mr. Happy]

Is it me, or has Bill been noticeably missing from the campaign to date?

He's been on the campaign trail for Hillary.

[WVastro]

It always has been.  The idea of the "common man" having a say in government is a relatively recent one, and one that the powers aren't too crazy about, especially the right wing.  That's why the good folks at the John Birch Society, Koch Brothers and Rick Perry want to repeal the 17th Amendment.

+1

[Navin R Johnson]

He's been on the campaign trail for Hillary.

OK, guess I just have missed it.  I would assume he would be out stumping, I just hadn't seen much/any of him.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

OK, guess I just have missed it.  I would assume he would be out stumping, I just hadn't seen much/any of him.

I doubt that's unintentional. Who was it, Ma and Pa Ferguson? The corrupt Texas governor whose wife ran to succeed him on the "Two for the Price of One" ticket? I think they're trying to avoid that appearance.

[Fredia]

if someone wrote the whole thing as a screen  play and it was not reality (anyone think that we all have slipped into an alternate universe) they would either hear the laughing as they were thrown out of the office or end up the same place the naked 290 big rig dancer did

[Bench]

One of the benefits of Hillary is that you get an experienced former president back in the White House too.

I think having Bill Clinton as the First Lady is going to be the weirdest aspect of it all.  I am enthralled by that notion. 

[HudsonHawk]

I think having Bill Clinton as the First Lady is going to be the weirdest aspect of it all.  I am enthralled by that notion.

"I get to party all night at the White House, but I don't have to get up and go to work the next morning...alllllriiiight!"  Bill was "Good Time Charlie" when he was President...can you imagine him as "First Gentleman"?

[Bench]

"I get to party all night at the White House, but I don't have to get up and go to work the next morning...alllllriiiight!"  Bill was "Good Time Charlie" when he was President...can you imagine him as "First Gentleman"?

It's going to be amazing. 

[Dark Star]

Well, shit, ask her and let us know.

Well, I asked.

She said it was complex and visceral, would be difficult for her to explain, and did I really want to get into this now?

I said, "Nope," and got out of there.

Hope this helps.

[chuck]

That's pretty much exactly how I expected it to go down.

[MusicMan]

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

She has all of her husbands political baggage and none of his political skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

I was in London and Norway the past couple weeks on business and the bewilderment and dismay at the notion that Donald Trump might be the leader of the free world was unanimous among everyone I met, from bellhops to CEOs.

Fuckin' Eurotrash.

[Limey]

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

My concern is her lack of a political compass.  She goes whichever way the wind is blowing.  That;s not unusual for a politician, but it's a concern for someone who's vying to be the Chief Executive.  Even bad presidents have a game plan that they stick to.

[Limey]

Is it me, or has Bill been noticeably missing from the campaign to date?

He was stumping for Hillary at voting locations in Massachusetts during that very hotly contested primary.

[Limey]

I think having Bill Clinton as the First Lady is going to be the weirdest aspect of it all.  I am enthralled by that notion.

Also, they'll both be "President Clinton", which gets confusing at Christmas time and when opening the mail.

[HudsonHawk]

He was stumping for Hillary at voting locations in Massachusetts during that very hotly contested primary.

If there's a "hot" contest, Bill is sure to find his way there.

[Fredia]

not sure amazing is the right word

[Jacksonian]

I do not share the gloomy appraisal of Hilary. She's not all that left but she's not an ideologue, either. She's a well-qualified pragmatist who lacks in charisma but big deal. I'm not looking forward to another White House abuzz with "-gates", but what are you gonna do?

And yet Bernie supporters are trying to help saddle her with a -gate.

[mrpink]

And yet Bernie supporters are trying to help saddle her with a -gate.

I took Knoxbanedoodle's comment to mean that the White House will be abuzz with "-gates" if she's President.  He's probably right.

[HOB]

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-09/a-message-from-trumps-america

Curious if anyone else read this about the Trump phenomenon? 

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Who will be Trump's running mate?

[Fredia]

think he will go with an established politician  or go rogue

[MusicMan]

Who will be Trump's running mate?

I assumed Chris Christie got that assurance when he whored himself out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bench]

I assumed Chris Christie got that assurance when he whored himself out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought he had to settle for AG. 

[Navin R Johnson]

No way Christie is the VP, they have to diversify and grab someone not from the northeast.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone who would do it.

[Navin R Johnson]

I was thinking that crazy wench who ruined HP would be Trumps VP, but she just came out and endorsed Cruz.

[jbm]

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-09/a-message-from-trumps-america

Curious if anyone else read this about the Trump phenomenon?

Part of the conservative thought that resonates with me is self responsibility. If you mock education and celebrate distrust of the "other" for generation after generation after generation, you might end up in a really bad situation. These folks should stop blaming others and start taking responsibility for themselves.

[Fredia]

another debate how exciting?

[pots]

I was thinking that crazy wench who ruined HP would be Trumps VP, but she just came out and endorsed Cruz.

Actually he said he wanted a political insider as VP.  I'd guess either Sessions, Giuliani or Christie.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone who would do it.

P A L I N

[Duke]

Actually he said he wanted a political insider as VP.  I'd guess either Sessions, Giuliani or Christie.

It will be a southerner.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Sessions would make the most sense out of those three. Although I got excited (in a Mad Maxian kind of way) last night when Trump mentioned, with reverence, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

[HOB]

Part of the conservative thought that resonates with me is self responsibility. If you mock education and celebrate distrust of the "other" for generation after generation after generation, you might end up in a really bad situation. These folks should stop blaming others and start taking responsibility for themselves.

No argument with your conclusion.  I have no way to validate the "facts" of the article.  If true, it's a situation we should all be concerned about.  The balance of "those who do" vs "those who don't" (work, succeed, etc...) is the problem.  I have no clue how to fix it.  From the tone of the GOP debates and ambitious "enlightened ideals" of the progressives in the Democratic debate, I am not optimistic.

   

[Knoxbanedoodle]

No argument with your conclusion.  I have no way to validate the "facts" of the article.  If true, it's a situation we should all be concerned about.  The balance of "those who do" vs "those who don't" (work, succeed, etc...) is the problem.  I have no clue how to fix it.  From the tone of the GOP debates and ambitious "enlightened ideals" of the progressives in the Democratic debate, I am not optimistic.

   

One thing that struck me in that article was how he wrote that these socially conservative, fiscally liberal workers had been sold a bill of goods by the GOP and called racists etc. by the democrats. This strikes me as a very unequal parallel. I'm not sure the left has had much of an opportunity to reach these folks. When they tried to give them subsidized health insurance, Republican states refused to expand Medicaid. When Obama called for free Community College associates degrees for everyone, the Republican Congress laughed at him. Sure, Howard Dean caught some flack for saying he wanted the pick-up driving dudes with Confederate flag bumper stickers to come back to the party, but on the whole, I feel like these people have largely been insulated by the right from the left's attempts to help. Is that crazy?

[Dark Star]

Sessions would make the most sense out of those three. Although I got excited (in a Mad Maxian kind of way) last night when Trump mentioned, with reverence, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Rick Perry. That'd be awesome.

[Fredia]

maybe he can get an endorsement from the head of the republican party in travis county

[HOB]

One thing that struck me in that article was how he wrote that these socially conservative, fiscally liberal workers had been sold a bill of goods by the GOP and called racists etc. by the democrats. This strikes me as a very unequal parallel. I'm not sure the left has had much of an opportunity to reach these folks. When they tried to give them subsidized health insurance, Republican states refused to expand Medicaid. When Obama called for free Community College associates degrees for everyone, the Republican Congress laughed at him. Sure, Howard Dean caught some flack for saying he wanted the pick-up driving dudes with Confederate flag bumper stickers to come back to the party, but on the whole, I feel like these people have largely been insulated by the right from the left's attempts to help. Is that crazy?

I wouldn't say it's crazy as the article doesn't make clear, although I assumed, this is the very group which Obama described as "clinging to their guns and religion".   So much can be inferred from a statement of this nature that there's no telling what impact that might have.  Animosity?  Possibly.  Resentment at being dismissed?  Probably.  I think its safe a safe to say this type of statement reduces the opportunity to gain support. 

Excluded and/or ignored by both parties, it's not hard to see how they go with a candidate like Trump. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

In politics I think a fuck all attitude is refreshing in a weird Bulworthian way but Trump is a hack amateur nuance-blind bad performance artist who constantly misses his mark. It's baffling.

[HudsonHawk]

Excluded and/or ignored by both parties, it's not hard to see how they go with a candidate like Trump.

It's not hard to see Trump's appeal among the ignorant masses.  There's a scene in the movie The American President where Michael J. Fox's character is explaining to the President, played by Michael Douglas, that the people want leadership...that they're crawling through the sand towards a mirage, and when they get there and discover it's only sand, they're so thirsty they drink the sand.  Douglas replies "they drink the sand, not because they're thirsty, but because they're too stupid to know the difference."  That is a perfect description of Trump supporters.  The Founding Fathers built in a check against this kind of fervent populism, and it's called the Electoral College, who's purpose was to ensure that some hand-waving demagogue doesn't end up in the top spot.  But it exists only in name now. 

[MusicMan]

It's not hard to see Trump's appeal among the ignorant masses.  There's a scene in the movie The American President where Michael J. Fox's character is explaining to the President, played by Michael Douglas, that the people want leadership...that they're crawling through the sand towards a mirage, and when they get there and discover it's only sand, they're so thirsty they drink the sand.  Douglas replies "they drink the sand, not because they're thirsty, but because they're too stupid to know the difference." 

We have serious problems. And we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem may be, I promise you this: Donald Trump is interested in two things, and two things only. Making you scared of them, and telling you who's to blame for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Navin R Johnson]

Trump just crushed Rubio in Florida.

[HudsonHawk]

Trump just crushed Rubio in Florida.

Rubio just dropped out, but with Trump taking FL, MO, IL, NC....not to mention the Northern Mariana Islands...it's pretty much a done deal. 

[Limey]

Rubio just dropped out, but with Trump taking FL, MO, IL, NC....not to mention the Northern Mariana Islands...it's pretty much a done deal.

Other than being imbued with boyish charm, I still have no idea why Rubio was considered a serious contender.  He's spent his life campaigning for (and winning) positions that he then seems uninterested in fulfilling, achieving nothing of any import at any time along his career path.  Even his supporters and endorsers stumbled when challenged with the simple question:  "What has he done lately...or ever?"

Now that his DOA Presidential campaign is over, the same media that seemed to be the only people who thought he had a shot are reporting that he has no career left in politics now.  If that's the case, why was he considered a legitimate candidate for the biggest job in politics on the planet?  SMH

[Jacksonian]

Other than being imbued with boyish charm, I still have no idea why Rubio was considered a serious contender.  He's spent his life campaigning for (and winning) positions that he then seems uninterested in fulfilling, achieving nothing of any import at any time along his career path.  Even his supporters and endorsers stumbled when challenged with the simple question:  "What has he done lately...or ever?"

Now that his DOA Presidential campaign is over, the same media that seemed to be the only people who thought he had a shot are reporting that he has no career left in politics now.  If that's the case, why was he considered a legitimate candidate for the biggest job in politics on the planet?  SMH

People thought the same of Obama 8 years ago.  He hadn't really done much.  But, he tapped into the angst of the time.  Rubio came off as an empty suit.  Good looks alone aren't enough.

[HudsonHawk]

If that's the case, why was he considered a legitimate candidate for the biggest job in politics on the planet?  SMH

Have you seen the size of his hands?

[Limey]

Meanwhile, Obama just made his SCOTUS nomination; an old white guy with impeccable credentials and a record of challenging the federal government.  He's challenged the Republican majority to follow through on its promise to block any nominee sight-unseen, and roll the dice to see who Clinton will nominate for her shiny new Democratically-controlled senate to confirm.

Presumably, then, he dropped the mic and walked off stage.

[Bench]

Meanwhile, Obama just made his SCOTUS nomination; an old white guy with impeccable credentials and a record of challenging the federal government.  He's challenged the Republican majority to follow through on its promise to block any nominee sight-unseen, and roll the dice to see who Clinton will nominate for her shiny new Democratically-controlled senate to confirm.

Presumably, then, he dropped the mic and walked off stage.

I think it's amusing that the republicans are taking the stance that in order to honor Scalia's legacy of constitutional textualism they have to ignore the process specifically spelled out in the constitution to replace him.   

[MusicMan]

As Sen. McConnell said, "the voice of the people should be heard."  Which will make up for the military coup that put Obama in office. Twice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Happy]

I think it's amusing that the republicans are taking the stance that in order to honor Scalia's legacy of constitutional textualism they have to ignore the process specifically spelled out in the constitution to replace him.

This. This right here. The president has a constitutional duty to nominate a justice. The Senate should at least hear what he has to say. Scalia himself would probably be uncomfortable with a blanket position of no.

[Navin R Johnson]

GOP gonna GOP.  They are gonna "do nothing" their constituents right into a much more liberal and a much younger judge.  What a bunch of dumb asses.

[Mr. Happy]

GOP gonna GOP.  They are gonna "do nothing" their constituents right into a much more liberal and a much younger judge.  What a bunch of dumb asses.

They're definitely taking that risk. FWIW, I personally thought that the president gave quite a bit in the nomination.

[Fredia]

all is well brown is building a wall around ca. if trump wins

[Limey]

This. This right here. The president has a constitutional duty to nominate a justice. The Senate should at least hear what he has to say. Scalia himself would probably be uncomfortable with a blanket position of no.

Chuck Grassley took to the internets to explain (1) that they're actually going through with this silly plan; and (2) that it's actually what the Founding Fathers meant when drafting the constitution.  On the former, he's getting slaughtered up and down Twitter and, on the latter, I think Scalia may spin in his grave fast enough to reverse the rotation of the earth and give us that hour back.

A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year.

That's some Grade A pettifogging, right there!

[BudGirl]

Chuck Grassley took to the internets to explain (1) that they're actually going through with this silly plan; and (2) that it's actually what the Founding Fathers meant when drafting the constitution.  On the former, he's getting slaughtered up and down Twitter and, on the latter, I think Scalia may spin in his grave fast enough to reverse the rotation of the earth and give us that hour back.

That's some Grade A pettifogging, right there!

A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year.

And this is part of the reason people are voting for Trump.  These idiots haven't figured it out yet.

[Limey]

And this is part of the reason people are voting for Trump.  These idiots haven't figured it out yet.

Exactly.  These clowns are about 1/6th as productive as the famous "Do Nothing" Congress.  It's mind-boggling that they cannot even do the simple things like pass a farm bill without nearly causing a global financial meltdown.  If and when they do perform the bare minimum of competence possible without literally shitting themselves in public, they slap themselves on the back so hard they all have to take a month off.

[Bench]

They're definitely taking that risk. FWIW, I personally thought that the president gave quite a bit in the nomination.

Nina Totenberg is reporting that senate republicans sent "back channel" messages to Obama saying that if Garland were the nominee he would be confirmed in the lame duck session if the democrats when the election.

Which makes no fucking sense to me, for anyone.   

[Limey]

Nina Totenberg is reporting that senate republicans sent "back channel" messages to Obama saying that if Garland were the nominee he would be confirmed in the lame duck session if the democrats when the election.

Which makes no fucking sense to me, for anyone.

Just confirms what we already know; this is partisan political posturing.

[Jacksonian]

Nina Totenberg is reporting that senate republicans sent "back channel" messages to Obama saying that if Garland were the nominee he would be confirmed in the lame duck session if the democrats when the election.

Which makes no fucking sense to me, for anyone.

I don't know what you mean.  This is precisely what I would have expected them to do.

[Navin R Johnson]

Meanwhile the official GOP position is that we are already in the "Lame Duck" portion of the Obama presidency. 

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/710124101436723201

[Clark in Denver]

Of course you would never see a Democrat advocating for the exact same thing, unless of course the president is a Republican.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/701828664342630400

[Bench]

I don't know what you mean.  This is precisely what I would have expected them to do.

I guess why make a compromise nomination if it will only be accepted once it's established you don't need to compromise?

[Bench]

Of course you would never see a Democrat advocating for the exact same thing, unless of course the president is a Republican.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/701828664342630400

If you place that comment in its proper context you would see that it is far from the exact position that the senate republicans are taking. 

[Navin R Johnson]

If you place that comment in its proper context you would see that it is far from the exact position that the senate republicans are taking. 

That is no fun though, and for some reason it gets cut-off when the forwarded emails go out....

[Knoxbanedoodle]

If you place that comment in its proper context you would see that it is far from the exact position that the senate republicans are taking.

Furthermore, it is remarkably, corrosively cynical. I heard McConnell ask the other day, rhetorically, do you honestly believe the Democrats wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot?

1) The shoe has been on the other foot, and they've never done what the Republicans are doing now, and
2) Who the fuck cares? Be your own man, and don't justify your own shittiness by the shittiness, real or not, of your opponents. No wonder this Senate is less popular than herpes.

[BudGirl]

2) Who the fuck cares? Be your own man, and don't justify your own shittiness by the shittiness, real or not, of your opponents. No wonder this Senate is less popular than herpes.

+1  why not say you did things as they should be rather than make everything political.

The end of our republic is coming.  All Hail Trump.

[Navin R Johnson]

2) Who the fuck cares? Be your own man, and don't justify your own shittiness by the shittiness, real or not, of your opponents. No wonder this Senate is less popular than herpes.

X100000 

You hear these clowns bemoan how awful the other side is, then when they have a chance to act differently.... 

[Duman]

I don't know if anyone else has been caught up in Hamilton the musical.  But I absolutely love the sound track and have probably learned more about early US political process by listening AND reading the details behind what is in it. 

There have been days I wish duals were still an option for some of today's politicians.

[Phil_in_CS]

There have been days I wish duals were still an option for some of today's politicians.

Put a cage match between Cruz and Trump on PPV and we'd be able to balance the budget

[HudsonHawk]

Put a cage match between Cruz and Trump on PPV and we'd be able to balance the budget

Cruz is a big guy, but he's kind of soft.  I think Trump, despite his hand disadvantage, can take him. 

[Bench]

Cruz is a big guy, but he's kind of soft.  I think Trump, despite his hand disadvantage, can take him.

Trump is an athlete.  18 time club champion. 

[jbm]

Trump is an athlete.  18 time club champion.

He's also a winner.  Likes to win.  So much winning.

[HudsonHawk]

He's also a winner.  Likes to win.  So much winning.

If he fights Cruz...the guy's a joke...please...there will be ass kicking...lots of ass kicking...it's gonna be terrific.

[chuck]

One of the things I like about Trump is that he often wears white golf shoes at his public events. I mean, he gets of the plane wearing white golf shoes and strolls up to the podium to rant like a guy at the end of the bar at the 19th Hole. That means he wears white golf shoes on the plane and during whatever other daily activities he has. There's something great about that. Insane, but great.

Now personally of course I would tend more towards Rubio's Chelsea boots. Although Marco's are a little heely for me and what with the zip up sides a little too Cuban. But in principle I side with Marco. But I do draw the line at foam parties.

[Fredia]

you jest about the fights and duels and such but have you thought how close that might really be to the republican convention

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Trump is an athlete.  18 time club champion.

Cruz is no slouch.

[MusicMan]

Cruz is no slouch.

Don't sell him short, judge - he's a tremendous slouch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MusicMan]

Put a cage match between Cruz and Trump on PPV and we'd be able to balance the budget

Two men enter, nobody leaves!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Cruz is no slouch.

He's a terrific backstabber, but then Trump's already seen that move from Cruz.

[moriartp]

Send enough cash to Ben Carson and I bet he'd show up and go after Cruz with his hammer.

[Nate in IA]

Time for an H.L Menken quote:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

[HudsonHawk]

There are multiple reasons for the Electoral College...one of the big ones is the Founding Fathers wanted to build in a guard against a loudmouthed, hand-waving rabble rouser.  Trump is the poster child for what they feared and wanted to prevent. 

[jwhudson]

There are multiple reasons for the Electoral College...one of the big ones is the Founding Fathers wanted to build in a guard against a loudmouthed, hand-waving rabble rouser.  Trump is the poster child for what they feared and wanted to prevent. 

+1

[MusicMan]

There are multiple reasons for the Electoral College...one of the big ones is the Founding Fathers wanted to build in a guard against a loudmouthed, hand-waving rabble rouser.  Trump is the poster child for what they feared and wanted to prevent.

See also: direct election of Senators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Happy]

There are multiple reasons for the Electoral College...one of the big ones is the Founding Fathers wanted to build in a guard against a loudmouthed, hand-waving rabble rouser.  Trump is the poster child for what they feared and wanted to prevent.

This. This right here.

[Navin R Johnson]

Scott Baio Endorses Donald Trump: "He Speaks Like I Speak"


"It's very simple, because when he speaks I understand him," Baio told Pirro. "He speaks like I speak, he communicates with people very well. I want him, as any one person can do, to go into Washington and blow it up."

"They're going to attack whomever the Republican nominee is," he said, "and we need somebody to relentlessly, relentlessly attack Hillary. It's the only way we're going to win. I'm trying to be a classy guy, but to win elections nowadays, the Democrats and liberals attack viciously."

He joins a long list of Hollywood supporters for Trump, which currently includes Jon Voight, Ted Nugent, Aaron Carter, Kid Rock, Stephen Baldwin and Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-endorses-donald-trump-876898?utm_source=twitter

[HudsonHawk]

He joins a long list of Hollywood supporters for Trump, which currently includes Jon Voight, Ted Nugent, Aaron Carter, Kid Rock, Stephen Baldwin and Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-endorses-donald-trump-876898?utm_source=twitter

I'm surprised to see Ted Nugent support Trump, because Nugent usually rails against the RINOs and faux conservatives who aren't extreme enough. 

[austro]

Scott Baio Endorses Donald Trump: "He Speaks Like I Speak"


"It's very simple, because when he speaks I understand him," Baio told Pirro. "He speaks like I speak, he communicates with people very well. I want him, as any one person can do, to go into Washington and blow it up."

"They're going to attack whomever the Republican nominee is," he said, "and we need somebody to relentlessly, relentlessly attack Hillary. It's the only way we're going to win. I'm trying to be a classy guy, but to win elections nowadays, the Democrats and liberals attack viciously."

He joins a long list of Hollywood supporters for Trump, which currently includes Jon Voight, Ted Nugent, Aaron Carter, Kid Rock, Stephen Baldwin and Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-endorses-donald-trump-876898?utm_source=twitter

These people have brain damage. For all of their blather about "Make America Great Again", they fail to understand that America's standing in the world is as much due to its perceived stability as its military might. That perception will suffer if an idiot loose cannon is installed in the White House, and might even make America "less great" as other countries reexamine the situation and look elsewhere for economic and/or policy leadership.

And if being called out for making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact is a "vicious attack", then all I can say is you reap what you sow. I'm talking to you, Governor "rampant voter fraud" Abbott.

[MusicMan]

I'm surprised to see Ted Nugent support Trump, because Nugent usually rails against the RINOs and faux conservatives who aren't extreme enough.

Trump has that "beyond batshit insane" quality, as well as the overt racism, that Nugent really digs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MusicMan]

Trump tweeted:

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!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nate Colbert]

Trump tweeted:

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!

What, there's something out there even worse than marrying Ted?

[VirtualBob]

... America's standing in the world is as much due to its perceived stability as its military might. That perception will suffer if an idiot loose cannon is installed in the White House, and might even make America "less great" as other countries reexamine the situation and look elsewhere for economic and/or policy leadership.

I am inclined to agree with you, but if we can survive Obama (which we seem to be doing, though only barely), then we can survive Trump.  I just hope it does not come to that.

[HudsonHawk]

I am inclined to agree with you, but if we can survive Obama (which we seem to be doing, though only barely), then we can survive Trump.  I just hope it does not come to that.

This is the kind of irrational rhetoric that has beget Trump. Enjoy him as your nominee and then 8 years of President Hillary.

[MusicMan]

I am inclined to agree with you, but if we can survive Obama (which we seem to be doing, though only barely), then we can survive Trump.  I just hope it does not come to that.

Trump has only threatened to remove freedom of the press and order our troops to commit war crimes. Seems equivalent to all the freedoms we've lost under Obama.

(Error: file "ObamaLostFreedoms.txt" not found)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

Trump has only threatened to remove freedom of the press and order our troops to commit war crimes. Seems equivalent to all the freedoms we've lost under Obama.

(Error: file "ObamaLostFreedoms.txt" not found)

Obama only has about 10 months left to "come for everyone's guns", so he better get on that.  Also, that whole imposition of Sharia Law thing is going to be a challenge to push through this Congress before the end of his EIGHT YEARS IN OFFICE!  At least having a vacancy on SCOTUS is a handy backstop, in case those 4 activist jihadi justices try and push it through without anyone noticing.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has spent his time since the Brussels attacks calling for us to "patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods" that may be "festering jihadism".  Setting aside the raging stupidity of such a plan (jihadis tend to be mobile and clandestine) and the sweeping unconstitutionality of such a proposal, I really don't think the way to tamp down the radicalization of Muslims is by turning the streets of America - with X% Muslims living on them - into mini police states.

[Phil_in_CS]

This is the kind of irrational rhetoric that has beget Trump. Enjoy him as your nominee and then 8 years of President Hillary.

What beget Trump is the GOP has been three parties for many years - the Religious police that want to expand government, just in a different direction, and the neo cons who want to remake the entire world in our image no matter what the rest of the world wants, and the smallest group the old small/limited government faction.  There's overlap in those, and that overlap held them together for a while. The national leadership is mostly in the Rick Perry crony capitalist crowd and kept picking nominees like McCain and Romney that had little support. Republicans would vote for them on tribal reasons - our guy is better than their guy - but didn't really have any passion for them.

Trump has caused a fatal fissure in that alliance. His support comes from those too pissed off to care about much about what he says and from those that haven't been active in voting recently. Only 62% of possible voters showed up in 2012. If the other 38% show up and vote for Trump he will win easily. He's such a glib liar, telling every crowd what he thinks they want to hear, that I've got no real idea what he might actually do if elected.

He's unlikely to get anything significant through congress, and if he tries to extend the rule by fiat/executive order as he's said he will do, the House might actually grow a pair and challenge that. Each president over the past several decades has expanded on that since congress lacks the cajones to challenge them in court (or more likely, they prefer not to be held accountable for their actions)

I'm deeply cynical about our political process, but haven't lost enough of my sanity to think Trump is a solution to anything.

[Navin R Johnson]

He's unlikely to get anything significant through congress, and if he tries to extend the rule by fiat/executive order as he's said he will do, the House might actually grow a pair and challenge that. Each president over the past several decades has expanded on that since congress lacks the cajones to challenge them in court (or more likely, they prefer not to be held accountable for their actions)

Executive Orders Since Kennedy, per year.
JFK 75
LBJ 63
Nixon 62
Ford 69
Carter 80
Reagan 48
Bush 42
Clinton 46
Bush 36
Obama 33

[JimR]

What beget Trump is the GOP has been three parties for many years - the Religious police that want to expand government, just in a different direction, and the neo cons who want to remake the entire world in our image no matter what the rest of the world wants, and the smallest group the old small/limited government faction.  There's overlap in those, and that overlap held them together for a while. The national leadership is mostly in the Rick Perry crony capitalist crowd and kept picking nominees like McCain and Romney that had little support. Republicans would vote for them on tribal reasons - our guy is better than their guy - but didn't really have any passion for them.

Trump has caused a fatal fissure in that alliance. His support comes from those too pissed off to care about much about what he says and from those that haven't been active in voting recently. Only 62% of possible voters showed up in 2012. If the other 38% show up and vote for Trump he will win easily. He's such a glib liar, telling every crowd what he thinks they want to hear, that I've got no real idea what he might actually do if elected.

He's unlikely to get anything significant through congress, and if he tries to extend the rule by fiat/executive order as he's said he will do, the House might actually grow a pair and challenge that. Each president over the past several decades has expanded on that since congress lacks the cajones to challenge them in court (or more likely, they prefer not to be held accountable for their actions)

I'm deeply cynical about our political process, but haven't lost enough of my sanity to think Trump is a solution to anything.

cynical people who criticize and do not vote is why we are where we are.

[Bench]

I am inclined to agree with you, but if we can survive Obama (which we seem to be doing, though only barely), then we can survive Trump.  I just hope it does not come to that.

I hear from a lot of folks that the Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, but have no idea why that is such a common refrain.  What calamities have befallen our nation the last eight years that can be placed at the feet of his administration?  When he took office the country was in terrible economic shape and he initiated some bailouts that, for better or worse, avoided a financial collapse. Since then it was a couple years of progressive help-the-people stuff (Lily Ledbetter act, healthcare reform, cash for clunkers) followed by six years of legislative gridlock while the President limited the military's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, ordered Bin Laden's death, ended don't ask don't tell, extended federal employment benefits to same-sex partners and enacted executive portions of the DREAM act.  What's been so awful? Increased national debt? The chaos that is post -Gaddafi Libya?  Never closed Guantanamo? Didn't stem the tide of domestic mass shootings? Hasn't accomplished peace in the middle east? He hasn't "destroyed" all terrorists? What of any of those things places our country on the brink of survival? I get that people may disagree with policies, but what is the catastrophe that we are only barely surviving? 

[Phil_in_CS]

cynical people who criticize and do not vote is why we are where we are.

I vote. My vote doesn't matter much for president, as the GOP will will Texas by 10% no matter what I do. But it matters a great deal in local races. Just because I don't see any of the 4 remaining major candidates as acceptable doesn't mean I won't vote. I think I had 8 or 10 choices for president last time.

We've had several races locally decided by under 100 votes in the past few years.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

cynical people who criticize and do not vote is why we are where we are.

Well, that sums it up. We U.S. Americans just need to shut up and vote to get where we aren't.

[Limey]

but what is the catastrophe that we are only barely surviving?

The aqueduct?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

U.S. National Debt Clock

[Limey]

Well, that sums it up. We U.S. Americans just need to shut up and vote to get where we aren't.

This is why the 2010 election was one of the most pivotal in modern times.  Forget all the hopey-changey stuff from 2008, that's when an energised electorate turned out to vote for a centrist who happened to be good at speechifying (and black).

In 2010, with the Republican party revving their base up about getting the government's hands off their medicare, Obama's ADD crew stayed home, and the Republicans ran the table in the House, the Senate and in state governments up and down the country.  That not only stymied Obama's presidency, but it allowed for a wave of gerrymandering that ensured a Republican House majority that will take years still to unwind.

But that those seats were safe only from an attack from the inside, not the outside, and the resulting right turn off the cliff of reality has been dramatic and horrific.  Every single item of governance now has to pass a purity test, simply because anything other than total adhesion to party purity will likely engender a serious primary challenge.  Consequently, no compromises can be made, and so no policy that fails to be 100% pure right wing fringe, not even the fucking Farm Bill, can get passed without some form of parliamentary shenanigans.

This year - unless Trump truly kills the Republican vote such that the House majority is overturned - will be mostly inconsequential.  Of course, if Trump does kill the Republican vote, then we have an even worse prospect: one-party governance.

[Bench]

This year - unless Trump truly kills the Republican vote such that the House majority is overturned - will be mostly inconsequential.  Of course, if Trump does kill the Republican vote, then we have an even worse prospect: one-party governance.

I would be stunned if the House majority gets overturned - it just seems impossible given the way the districts have been drawn.  The Senate is in play, albeit a somewhat outside shot.  There are 7 GOP senators who were elected in the 2010 Red Wave in states that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  Senate races in presidential years tend to follow the presidential race. Three states, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, would probably go to the Democrats if Trump inspires GOP voters to stay home.  All it would take is flipping one of Ohio, New Hampshire, North Carolina or Florida for it to be a 50-50 senate split with a Dem VP.  It's less likely than more likely, but actually feasible. 

[Jacksonian]

I hear from a lot of folks that the Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, but have no idea why that is such a common refrain.  What calamities have befallen our nation the last eight years that can be placed at the feet of his administration?  When he took office the country was in terrible economic shape and he initiated some bailouts that, for better or worse, avoided a financial collapse. Since then it was a couple years of progressive help-the-people stuff (Lily Ledbetter act, healthcare reform, cash for clunkers) followed by six years of legislative gridlock while the President limited the military's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, ordered Bin Laden's death, ended don't ask don't tell, extended federal employment benefits to same-sex partners and enacted executive portions of the DREAM act.  What's been so awful? Increased national debt? The chaos that is post -Gaddafi Libya?  Never closed Guantanamo? Didn't stem the tide of domestic mass shootings? Hasn't accomplished peace in the middle east? He hasn't "destroyed" all terrorists? What of any of those things places our country on the brink of survival? I get that people may disagree with policies, but what is the catastrophe that we are only barely surviving?

I can see only two things that have happened that have been very impactful here.  ACA and worsened race relations.  Otherwise I consider the consequences of everything else to be minor.

[Dark Star]

I hear from a lot of folks that the Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, but have no idea why that is such a common refrain. 

Keep in mind, there are still a fair amount of people running around loose, almost eight years on now, who cannot fathom/cannot believe/will not believe a man like Obama was really elected President in the first place, or that he was even eligible to run for the office at all. They simply cannot align any of it with their own weird little reality. They cannot even accept he is there, much less believe anything he has done/hasn't done is anything less than disastrous.

[Bench]

I can see only two things that have happened that have been very impactful here.  ACA and worsened race relations.  Otherwise I consider the consequences of everything else to be minor.

Why do you think race relations have worsened? 

[bubba]

I never voted for Obama. I was afraid of what America would become under his presidency. However, I have been impressed with what he has actually done. I enjoy having a reduced role as "world police". I now strongly believe that the military spending should be reduced. The "Obamacare" bill has not bankrupted the country. While the rest of the world has been beset with terroristic attacks, we have been, more or less, been kept safe. The economy has slowly improved. Gasoline prices have lowered significantly. Gay marriage is being accepted. I appreciate the Obama presidency even though I consider myself conservative/libertarian. I do concede that race relations have gotten worse.

[MusicMan]

Why do you think race relations have worsened?

Because racism - like sexism, and most -isms - is at its heart about power. And a black man as President represents the ultimate threat to that power - which is why you see such "anger" in Trump's voters. They can't point to any policy of Obama's that harmed them; but they lack power, and this black man has that power, and they're angry. So they channel this anger into other myths that are more "acceptable" - for example, the 40+% of GOP voters that believe he is a Muslim.

[MusicMan]

Why do you think race relations have worsened?

Because racism - like sexism, and most -isms - is at its heart about power. And a black man as President represents the ultimate threat to that power - which is why you see such "anger" in Trump's voters. They can't point to any policy of Obama's that harmed them; but they lack power, and this black man has that power, and they're angry. So they channel this anger into other myths that are more "acceptable" - for example, the 40+% of GOP voters that believe he is a Muslim.

[MusicMan]

Why do you think race relations have worsened?

Because racism - like sexism, and most -isms - is at its heart about power. And a black man as President represents the ultimate threat to that power - which is why you see such "anger" in Trump's voters. They can't point to any policy of Obama's that harmed them; but they lack power, and this black man has that power, and they're angry. So they channel this anger into other myths that are more "acceptable" - for example, the 40+% of GOP voters that believe he is a Muslim.

[Mr. Happy]

I never voted for Obama. I was afraid of what America would become under his presidency. However, I have been impressed with what he has actually done. I enjoy having a reduced role as "world police". I now strongly believe that the military spending should be reduced. The "Obamacare" bill has not bankrupted the country. While the rest of the world has been beset with terroristic attacks, we have been, more or less, been kept safe. The economy has slowly improved. Gasoline prices have lowered significantly. Gay marriage is being accepted. I appreciate the Obama presidency even though I consider myself conservative/libertarian. I do concede that race relations have gotten worse.

As a pretty hard core conservative, there is much truth in what you said. And, you can add to his accomplishments nominating a moderate Supreme Court nominee. He could have nominated a hard core leftist ideologue as his swan song, but he didn't. I'm not sure what to do about race relations, because I too think that things have worsened, although I don't blame the President for that.

[juliogotay]

Because racism - like sexism, and most -isms - is at its heart about power. And a black man as President represents the ultimate threat to that power - which is why you see such "anger" in Trump's voters. They can't point to any policy of Obama's that harmed them; but they lack power, and this black man has that power, and they're angry. So they channel this anger into other myths that are more "acceptable" - for example, the 40+% of GOP voters that believe he is a Muslim.

I don't doubt that there are those out there as you have described but I know many that can't stand Obama but supported Carson. It is more about policy than you give credit for. Clinton is no more popular among conservatives, and apparently, many liberals. And the anger you have described is aimed at many Republicans too.

[Nate in IA]

The one big thing that Obama has done is the health care system.   This has caused _great_ disruption in the health care system to the point that the US is losing doctors at an alarming rate.  On top of this there is a growing interest out there in alternative health care which has it's own effect on the health care system.    This has affected small business owners as well as another burden on them.

This is the one thing I hang on Obama and it is a very large thing.    In fact, I would call it a massive failure.

[HudsonHawk]

The one big thing that Obama has done is the health care system.   This has caused _great_ disruption in the health care system to the point that the US is losing doctors at an alarming rate.  On top of this there is a growing interest out there in alternative health care which has it's own effect on the health care system.    This has affected small business owners as well as another burden on them.

This is the one thing I hang on Obama and it is a very large thing.    In fact, I would call it a massive failure.

The millions who previously could not afford health care, but now can, would call it a massive success. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

The millions who previously could not afford health care, but now can, would call it a massive success.

This is true. I know quite a few people, mostly unmarried self-employed or free-lance musicians, artists, and actors, who never had health care before.  They all think it is great to have health care now just in case something happens seeing as their all starting to get old and shit. But the millions more who have seen their own coverage diminish while seeing their premiums and co-pays increase would question is this the best we as a country can fucking do, or why after all the trouble are we stuck with this shitty half-ass half-baked piece of crap ACA that really didn't deliver half of what was promised?

[HudsonHawk]

This is true. I know quite a few people, mostly unmarried self-employed or free-lance musicians, artists, and actors, who never had health care before.  They all think it is great to have health care now just in case something happens seeing as their all starting to get old and shit. But the millions more who have seen their own coverage diminish while seeing their premiums and co-pays increase would question is this the best we as a country can fucking do, or why after all the trouble are we stuck with this shitty half-ass half-baked piece of crap ACA that really didn't deliver half of what was promised?

Everyone keeps talking about the millions who lost their coverage or for whom it became prohibitively expensive.  I don't know anyone to which that happened.  My premiums have gone down.  Others have increased, but premiums increased all the time anyway, that's a function of the risk pool and the amount of claims.  Bottom line for me:  millions of people now have health care, and every single medical professional and insurance provider I've spoken with says it has been a net positive, even those who fought against it thinking it would be an unmitigated disaster. 

[Phil_in_CS]

I work in a small business (<15 employees) and our health care costs are up 300%, with smaller benefits. We didn't have a Cadillac plan before - an HSA (which we had to fund) and a $5k/person $10k/family deductibles.  The HSA is gone (though I still have some left, I just can't contribute pretax any longer) and the deductibles are up. No one has gotten a raise in 3 years as all the money has gone to keeping the health care costs paid.

That's always been the problem with changing health care in the nation. Most people have decent to good coverage and don't want their coverage whacked, or to end up like the VA. I'm sure a single payer plan could be done effectively, but very few people trust our government to make it happen.

[HudsonHawk]

I work in a small business (<15 employees) and our health care costs are up 300%, with smaller benefits. We didn't have a Cadillac plan before - an HSA (which we had to fund) and a $5k/person $10k/family deductibles.  The HSA is gone (though I still have some left, I just can't contribute pretax any longer) and the deductibles are up. No one has gotten a raise in 3 years as all the money has gone to keeping the health care costs paid.

Every insurance person I've talked with says that if your premiums went up that much, it's because your provider took the opportunity to gouge you, not because the ACA necessitated it. 

That's always been the problem with changing health care in the nation. Most people have decent to good coverage and don't want their coverage whacked, or to end up like the VA. I'm sure a single payer plan could be done effectively, but very few people trust our government to make it happen.

They don't trust the government because the people trying to sell something keep telling them they can't.  The idea that basic health care should be tied to your employer is one of the more ridiculous ideas we've ever come up with.

[WakePhil]

Every insurance person I've talked with says that if your premiums went up that much, it's because your provider took the opportunity to gouge you, not because the ACA necessitated it. 

The idea that basic health care should be tied to your employer is one of the more ridiculous ideas we've ever come up with.

Listened to a Planet Money podcast episode about this some time ago. Its popularity took off primarily because it was the easiest way to circumvent wage freezes during World War II.

[Mr. Happy]

but very few people trust our government to make it happen.

I fall into this camp. Outside of defense and the highway system, what does government do better than the private sector?

[HudsonHawk]

I fall into this camp. Outside of defense and the highway system, what does government do better than the private sector?

Protects our rights as individual and ensures equal protection under the law.  Certain things shouldn't be driven by those who make the most profit from limiting it.

[Mr. Happy]

Protects our rights as individual and ensures equal protection under the law.  Certain things shouldn't be driven by those who make the most profit from limiting it.

The Constitution does those things.

[HudsonHawk]

The Constitution does those things.

The Constitution is a document, an inanimate object.  Without actual humans exercising the principles it outlines, it's not worth the paper it's written on. 

[Limey]

Because racism - like sexism, and most -isms - is at its heart about power. And a black man as President represents the ultimate threat to that power - which is why you see such "anger" in Trump's voters. They can't point to any policy of Obama's that harmed them; but they lack power, and this black man has that power, and they're angry. So they channel this anger into other myths that are more "acceptable" - for example, the 40+% of GOP voters that believe he is a Muslim.

Racism is exactly the same, or perhaps a little diminished and is has been diminishing steadily over time.  However, the election of a black man to the presidency sent racists into a tizzy - which they covered in a flimsy veil of patriotism.

Then along comes Trump, and he tells them - from day one of his campaign - that's its ok to hate "other" people out in the open.  And out they come, in all their ugly, irrational and bigoted glory.  Now, being a Donald Trump supporter doesn't mean that you're necessarily a racist; but it you're a racist, you're a Donald Trump supporter.

[Limey]

Everyone keeps talking about the millions who lost their coverage or for whom it became prohibitively expensive.  I don't know anyone to which that happened.  My premiums have gone down.  Others have increased, but premiums increased all the time anyway, that's a function of the risk pool and the amount of claims.  Bottom line for me:  millions of people now have health care, and every single medical professional and insurance provider I've spoken with says it has been a net positive, even those who fought against it thinking it would be an unmitigated disaster.

All of the right wing's poster children for the negative impact of Obamacare had their stories debunked.  Yes, there were problems (the website roll-out and the "if you like your doctor..."), but it has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured - which dramatically reduces the cost to hospitals in treatment of the uninsured, the savings for which are passed back to the consumer...which is us.

But don't forget the other benefits.  You can't now be thrown off your insurance for getting sick; you can't have a pre-existing condition exclusion; you can't have a lifetime cap; you can keep your kids on until they're 26.

People who are being hurt by Obamacare are not, actually being hurt by Obamacare.  The law was written with a built-in expansion of Medicare to catch those who fall into the gap between getting qualified healthcare for free - through existing Medicare, the VA or Medicaid - and those who can afford to buy it.  But that provision was challenged in the courts and SCOTUS ruled that the States could opt out of the Medicare expansion, and Republican run States opted out in droves.  This had the effect of turning away near-100% Federal funding of the expansion, paid for by tax dollars from State citizens, while still having the regulations and increased taxes apply.  These are the people hurt - not by the law but by the partisan idiocy of their State government.

Concurrent to the implementation of the "job-killing" healthcare law, we have enjoyed the longest period of sustained  private sector job growth since the Great Depression.  Romney campaigned on repealing Obamacare and getting the jobless rate below 6% in four years - well Obama kept his signature law and got it below 5% in three years.

[Duman]

They don't trust the government because the people trying to sell something keep telling them they can't.

Because Medicaid, Medicare and the VA are shining examples of their success at running health care well.

[Bench]

Racism is exactly the same, or perhaps a little diminished and is has been diminishing steadily over time.  However, the election of a black man to the presidency sent racists into a tizzy - which they covered in a flimsy veil of patriotism.

Then along comes Trump, and he tells them - from day one of his campaign - that's its ok to hate "other" people out in the open.  And out they come, in all their ugly, irrational and bigoted glory.  Now, being a Donald Trump supporter doesn't mean that you're necessarily a racist; but it you're a racist, you're a Donald Trump supporter.

I agree.  I don't think race relations have changed much at all over the last 8 years, and certainly not for the worse.  It's just that it's more obvious what the relations are, both from the overtly racist reactions of some people on the right to the increased volume of the hashtag black lives matter movement. It's not worse, there's just less of a blind eye to it.

I also fail to see how Obama bears any responsibility for any perceived change, other than the fact of the color of his skin and his willingness to openly discuss the issue of racism.  It seems like a nebulous charge to me. 

 

[Limey]

I work in a small business (<15 employees) and our health care costs are up 300%, with smaller benefits. We didn't have a Cadillac plan before - an HSA (which we had to fund) and a $5k/person $10k/family deductibles.  The HSA is gone (though I still have some left, I just can't contribute pretax any longer) and the deductibles are up. No one has gotten a raise in 3 years as all the money has gone to keeping the health care costs paid.

That's always been the problem with changing health care in the nation. Most people have decent to good coverage and don't want their coverage whacked, or to end up like the VA. I'm sure a single payer plan could be done effectively, but very few people trust our government to make it happen.

At <15 employees, I do not believe that you are required to provide health insurance.  You should price out what it would cost for your employees to buy insurance themselves through the exchanges - it may well be a lot cheaper as they are being priced for a pool of "everybody" instead of a pool of <15.  Also, you should probably fire your broker.

As for single-payer, the cioverage provided by Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all single-payer, run at an overhead of less than 2% and are wildly popular among their recipients and - if misspelled tea party banners are to be believed - hard core conservatives too.

[Limey]

I fall into this camp. Outside of defense and the highway system, what does government do better than the private sector?

FEMA (Brownie excluded).  Fire departments.  Police departments.   FAA and air-traffic controllers.   The court system.  The FDA.  The EPA.  OSHA.  Basically any form of regulatory oversight (the reason much which sucks is down to such authorities being gutted and neutered, not because such work cannot be done).

Or do you think we live in Deadwood?

[HudsonHawk]

Because Medicaid, Medicare and the VA are shining examples of their success at running health care well.

They are successes given the handcuffs placed upon them.  But further, health care is not the only role of government. 

[Limey]

I also fail to see how Obama bears any responsibility for any perceived change, other than the fact of the color of his skin and his willingness to openly discuss the issue of racism.  It seems like a nebulous charge to me. 

If thinking you can be President of the United States does not qualify as "uppity", then I have no idea what does.

[Mr. Happy]

FEMA (Brownie excluded).  Fire departments.  Police departments.   FAA and air-traffic controllers.   The court system.  The FDA.  The EPA.  OSHA.  Basically any form of regulatory oversight (the reason much which sucks is down to such authorities being gutted and neutered, not because such work cannot be done).

Or do you think we live in Deadwood?

Many of your examples could be fairly debated. In any event, many of the functions you set forth are the province of local, not federal, government.I'm not saying that government has no place because that's not true; I'm merely suggesting that the federal government doesn't have a great track record outside of defense and highways. I notice that crickets chirped before anyone mentioned the postal service.

[Limey]

Many of your examples could be fairly debated. In any event, many of the functions you set forth are the province of local, not federal, government.I'm not saying that government has no place because that's not true; I'm merely suggesting that the federal government doesn't have a great track record outside of defense and highways. I notice that crickets chirped before anyone mentioned the postal service.

I noticed that there was no push-back on the support for the social safety net.  If you add up the spending on defense (16%), social security (24%), medicare (25%) and other safety net programs (10%), and veterans benefits (8%), you have 83% of what the government does that the majority of the population doesn't want messed with.   Transportation and infrastructure is 2% - and without it, commerce in this country grinds to a halt ("you didn't build that").

I have no idea where USPS fits in here, but it's a blip on the needle spending-wise - it's also pretty amazing considering that it has been deliberately hobbled.

Given all of this, what significant role of the U.S. government - other than Congress - do you think is so horribly mismanaged?

[HudsonHawk]

Many of your examples could be fairly debated. In any event, many of the functions you set forth are the province of local, not federal, government.I'm not saying that government has no place because that's not true; I'm merely suggesting that the federal government doesn't have a great track record outside of defense and highways. I notice that crickets chirped before anyone mentioned the postal service.

The crickets didn't chirp. You've gotten several responses. But since you brought up the USPS, which is a sort of quasi government agency, I think the do a fantastic job. It'd be damn hard for any completely private enterprise to match their service for the price.

[Mr. Happy]

I noticed that there was no push-back on the support for the social safety net.  If you add up the spending on defense (16%), social security (24%), medicare (25%) and other safety net programs (10%), and veterans benefits (8%), you have 83% of what the government does that the majority of the population doesn't want messed with.   Transportation and infrastructure is 2% - and without it, commerce in this country grinds to a halt ("you didn't build that").

I have no idea where USPS fits in here, but it's a blip on the needle spending-wise - it's also pretty amazing considering that it has been deliberately hobbled.

Given all of this, what significant role of the U.S. government - other than Congress - do you think is so horribly mismanaged?

I maintain that the federal government is far too large. I'd immediately dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, among others.

[Mr. Happy]

The crickets didn't chirp. You've gotten several responses. But since you brought up the USPS, which is a sort of quasi government agency, I think the do a fantastic job. It'd be damn hard for any completely private enterprise to match their service for the price.

The postal service hemorrhages money. I'd get us out of the losing postal service. The private sector can more readily provide cheaper and better service.

[Limey]

I maintain that the federal government is far too large. I'd immediately dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, among others.

Why?  Seriously?

[Limey]

The postal service hemorrhages money. I'd get us out of the losing postal service. The private sector can more readily provide cheaper and better service.

read the link in my post...get it?  About the USPS.  It has been subjected to a deliberate act of sabotage by Congress.

This isn't breathless partisan ranting.  As a government entity, they used current revenue to fund pension obligations.  Not anything a private company should do (or should be allowed to do), but they aren't a private company.  Regardless, to "fix" it, Congress passed a bill in 2006 that required the USPS to project out hiring requirements for 75 years...seventy-five years...and then fully fund pensions within 10 years for everyone they expect to hire in that time frame.  They are being required to fund pensions, not only for people they haven't hired yet, but for people who they might hire who haven't been born yet.

Without this insane regulation, which applies to them and them alone (it is unique in the public and private sector alike), they would have about a $1.5bn surplus annually.  This level of performance doesn't fit with the right wing narrative - that the government can't do anything without fucking it up - so the government jumped in and fucked it up for them.  Now conservatives point and say "See?  It's a mess"  without owning up to being the cause of it.

[HudsonHawk]

The postal service hemorrhages money. I'd get us out of the losing postal service. The private sector can more readily provide cheaper and better service.

The military hemorrhages money too, at a far greater clip. You want to get us out of that business too?  As for private companies, name one that can deliver a letter across the country for 47 cents.  BTW, the Constitution authorizes the Postal Service.  You gonna amend it or ignore it? 

[HudsonHawk]

I maintain that the federal government is far too large. I'd immediately dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, among others.

Because history shows that for-profit companies can regulate themselves better?

[HudsonHawk]

read the link in my post...get it?  About the USPS.  It has been subjected to a deliberate act of sabotage by Congress.

This isn't breathless partisan ranting.  As a government entity, they used current revenue to fund pension obligations.  Not anything a private company should do (or should be allowed to do), but they aren't a private company.  Regardless, to "fix" it, Congress passed a bill in 2006 that required the USPS to project out hiring requirements for 75 years...seventy-five years...and then fully fund pensions within 10 years for everyone they expect to hire in that time frame.  They are being required to fund pensions, not only for people they haven't hired yet, but for people who they might hire who haven't been born yet.

Without this insane regulation, which applies to them and them alone (it is unique in the public and private sector alike), they would have about a $1.5bn surplus annually.  This level of performance doesn't fit with the right wing narrative - that the government can't do anything without fucking it up - so the government jumped in and fucked it up for them.  Now conservatives point and say "See?  It's a mess"  without owning up to being the cause of it.

Not to mention the USPS is required to report their finances as if they were a private company, but they aren't allowed  to operate that way and aren't allowed to make money. 

[jbm]

Because history shows that for-profit companies can regulate themselves better?

No shit, the "get rid of the EPA mindset" baffles me.  What fucking world do people live in?  It's analogous to not having police, on the supposition that thieves will police themselves, or that private citizens will investigate crimes themselves, and then sue those they find culpable.  Fucking insane.

There are likely rules that need flexibility, or need to be eliminated entirely, just like all laws.  People should certainly fight to eliminate or change those rules, but the overreaction I often hear is poorly thought out.

[Limey]

No shit, the "get rid of the EPA mindset" baffles me.  What fucking world do people live in?  It's analogous to not having police, on the supposition that thieves will police themselves, or that private citizens will investigate crimes themselves, and then sue those they find culpable.  Fucking insane.

There are likely rules that need flexibility, or need to be eliminated entirely, just like all laws.  People should certainly fight to eliminate or change those rules, but the overreaction I often hear is poorly thought out.

Texas is the poster child for deregulation.  Remember that chemical plant in the middle of the town of West that blew up, killing the town's volunteer fire fighters who responded to a fire but had no idea what was in there?  (It was a giant stockpile of improperly stored and highly volatile ammonia).

Well the company that owned it carried only $1mm of insurance...that's all.  They filed for bankruptcy within days of the explosion and the owners walked away scot free while West was left with a giant hole in the town, its hearts and their finances.

Personal responsibility and self-regulation only work if there are proper consequences to malfeasance.  Texas has done about as good a job as any State of eliminating both regulations and avenues for restitution, so it's open season on the residents with no concerns of having to face any kind of music beyond being tagged in some harsh Tweets.

[Phil_in_CS]

related: I've always felt the president is like the head coach. Gets way too much credit when things are going well, and way too much blame when they're not. Constitutionally, foreign affairs is where the president has the most authority. Issues like the post office and EPA are (should be) up to congress.

[HudsonHawk]

related: I've always felt the president is like the head coach. Gets way too much credit when things are going well, and way too much blame when they're not. Constitutionally, foreign affairs is where the president has the most authority. Issues like the post office and EPA are (should be) up to congress.

They are (in the case of the Postal Service, it's in the Constitution).  The President can no more get rid of the EPA or the IRS than you or I can.  It's just a table pounding talking point to stir up ignorant the rabble.

[Fredia]

not taking sides but trump is not the first politician  to make promises he cant keep

[Bench]

They are (in the case of the Postal Service, it's in the Constitution).  The President can no more get rid of the EPA or the IRS than you or I can.  It's just a table pounding talking point to stir up ignorant the rabble.

While agencies like EPA and IRS are established by the legislature, they act through the executive branch so the President does have authority over what/how they do their job.  You're right that they can't executively dispense with these agencies, but there is executive discretion in what they prioritize.  For instance, the President can instruct immigration agencies not to prioritize certain deportation cases (say, for instance, undocumented parents of American citizens or undocumented people who were brought here as children by their parents), but he can't do away with deportation altogether if that is a legislatively authorized function of the agency.

[Limey]

While agencies like EPA and IRS are established by the legislature, they act through the executive branch so the President does have authority over what/how they do their job.  You're right that they can't executively dispense with these agencies, but there is executive discretion in what they prioritize.  For instance, the President can instruct immigration agencies not to prioritize certain deportation cases (say, for instance, undocumented parents of American citizens or undocumented people who were brought here as children by their parents), but he can't do away with deportation altogether if that is a legislatively authorized function of the agency.

Pffft.  President Trump will sue to get his way.  All the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.  Eh?  Oh.

[MusicMan]

Pffft.  President Trump will sue to get his way.  All the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.  Eh?  Oh.

Well, he's said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would go after Hilary's e-mails.

[Bench]

Well, he's said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would go after Hilary's e-mails.

He better give them a raise if he's going to be heaping time consuming additional duties on them. 

[Limey]

Well, he's said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would go after Hilary's e-mails.

Because that then dead horse would still be worth flogging?  Although, given his remarks today, punishing women is one of his policy priorities.

That, and non-proliferation, which he intends to achieve by letting Japan, South Korea and probably Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons.  At least he says "nuclear", not "nookuler", but I'm not sure that I prefer the guy that can say the one word while not understanding what "proliferation" means.  Congrats Trump!  I now miss W.

[HudsonHawk]

Well, he's said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would go after Hilary's e-mails.

He fundamentally misunderstands the judicial branch of government. He thinks the SCOTUS is his own little gang of henchman.

[Fredia]

it kinda  becomes that way depending on the number he gets on the court

[HudsonHawk]

it kinda  becomes that way depending on the number he gets on the court

No it doesn't. The SCOTUS doesn't investigate alleged crimes at partisan request.

[MusicMan]

No it doesn't. The SCOTUS doesn't investigate alleged crimes at partisan request.

"That's not how the Force works!"

[Uncle Charlie]

Interesting article on FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/).

If the first ballot fails to result in a nominee, I've got to think that the combination of the lack of Trump's political ground game combined with the history of Rule 40 will lead to a Cruz nomination.  With the delegates being largely elected by the individual state establishments, you'll have a combination of Cruz / Bush / Rubio and some Kasich supporters.  Cruz has a deep ground game and given his elect-ability would likely be begrudgingly supported by the delegates who would otherwise support the remaining guys.  Trump, while receiving a large amount of votes, doesn't have a voter profile of folks who go to precinct and state conventions to become delegates...his support will dwindle through subsequent votes.

Then there is Rule 40, which as RCP has pointed out in the past isn't quite as big of a deal as it's being made out to be.  The number of states required (currently set at in which a person on the national ballot must have won a majority of the delegates can simply be changed to manage the size of the ballot.  The trick is do you make it / leave it at 8 thereby eliminating Kasich and Rubio, or do you lower it to 2 in order to create more options, or do you eliminated it. If it's left at 8, Cruz will be the likely nominee as he will probably get there and it will only be him and Trump. Given the dwindling support for Trump likely by delegates...that leads to Cruz.

It will be a crazy convention - the fall-out, whether Trump succeeds or doesn't, will be massive.

[austro]

It will be a crazy convention - the fall-out, whether Trump succeeds or doesn't, will be massive.

And you're likely to see a lot of protests about various things outside the convention, too. Cleveland will be hopping.

[Fredia]

well you know CLEVELAND ROCKS

[Limey]

Cruz has a deep ground game and given his elect-ability would likely be begrudgingly supported by the delegates who would otherwise support the remaining guys.

With Cruz, elect-ability is a relative term.  He runs close to Clinton in current match-ups, but I strongly suspect that he's going to be like all of the Republican front-runners / nominees of recent years - the more you see them the worse they look.  Of course, Clinton is likely to have the same problem (I think Bernie looks better the more people are exposed to him).

What gets me is that Bernie smokes all these fools (you can check out all the head-to-heads at the above link).  Cruz runs close to Clinton, but is toast vs. Sanders.  Trump just gets whooped more.  So the most electable Democrat is Sanders, who's getting effed over by the party establishment; and the most electable Republican is Kasich, who's getting shut-out (currently) by the base, and will get effed over at the convention by the party if it even comes to that.

Basically, the primaries are a sham, solely intended to elicit campaign donations from the faithful.

[MusicMan]

So the most electable Democrat is Sanders, who's getting effed over by the party establishment

The reason for the latter is that "Democrat" has to be put in quotes for Sanders.  He rejoined the party only to run for President; he is in no way a real Democrat.  He is a Socialist, which is fine if that's your flavor preference, but it sure isn't Democrat.

[BudGirl]

I do think people need to listen to what Bernie is selling.  While you don't have to give away the farm, you have to realize that people want reasonable access to the farm.  In other words, education needs to be affordable, healthcare needs to improve, etc.  He's got issues that need to be addressed.  I doubt they will be because the things people want are the things that more often than not are ignored. 

[Limey]

I do think people need to listen to what Bernie is selling.  While you don't have to give away the farm, you have to realize that people want reasonable access to the farm.  In other words, education needs to be affordable, healthcare needs to improve, etc.  He's got issues that need to be addressed.  I doubt they will be because the things people want are the things that more often than not are ignored.

Bernie is opening the eyes of many people to what is possible.  One frustration of the media coverage* is that Bernie is challenged over and over again as to how he is going to pay for all the "free shit" (copyright FNC)  he's giving away, while the Republican candidates get a pass on their extensive tax-cutting and increased military spending proposals - which is really just free shit for rich people.

Well:
1)  Bernie's math - when you add up everything he's promising - doesn't work; but
2)  The Trump/Cruz/Kasich (and Rubio/Carson/Christie etc. etc.) tax plans alone don't add up in a worse way.


* The other main frustration is that Trump's every bowel movement is shown live on 5 news networks, but when Bernie puts 15,000 asses in seats at a rally or out-raises the other candidates while taking zero $$$s from corporate donors (and having zero Super-PACs under his control on his side and he would not communicate with them in any way at all even if he did), the networks barely even mention it.

[chuck]

The reason for the latter is that "Democrat" has to be put in quotes for Sanders.  He rejoined the party only to run for President; he is in no way a real Democrat.  He is a Socialist, which is fine if that's your flavor preference, but it sure isn't Democrat.

Turn off Fox News, sir, and slowly back away from the remote.

[Bench]

The reason for the latter is that "Democrat" has to be put in quotes for Sanders.  He rejoined the party only to run for President; he is in no way a real Democrat.  He is a Socialist, which is fine if that's your flavor preference, but it sure isn't Democrat.

Politically he's been an "Independent" who worked closely with the "Democrats."  He'd probably prefer to be called a "Democratic Socialist" than either a "Democrat" or a "Socialist." 

[das]

I fall into this camp. Outside of defense and the highway system, what does government do better than the private sector?

Disease control/response
Weather forecasting
Space exploration
Fleet management
Policing
Land Management

It took me 10 seconds to think of these.  There are many, many more.

[Phil_in_CS]

Interesting interview w/ Newt Gingrich is Salon
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/newt_gingrich_discusses_the_merits_of_donald_trump.html

Forget Trump. Seventy percent of Republicans between Trump, Carson, and Cruz have repudiated their [GOP Establishment's] world.

If you take that 70% and add in those that are voting against Hillary, there's a big chunk of the voters that are very unhappy with the powers that be. They may all want different things, but that's the wave Trump is riding.

[pots]

  In other words, education needs to be affordable

The problem with education is everyone has been convinced you aren't anything without a college degree.  And it has been ingrained that the more prestigious that degree is, the better you are.  And for many careers that is total bullshit.  But the brainwashing of needing a degree has been instilled multiple generations now.  Driving demand higher and higher.  And since a prestigious degree comes from an institution with a history, you have limited the supply.  Hence the ridiculous hike in tuition. 

Take IT for example.  A brilliant person with just a few online courses and an internship is 100 times more useful then a moron that jumped through the hoops and a quarter of a million dollars later has a piece of paper that says they are smart.  Funny thing is, a good many of the those prestigious universities require an internship to graduate.  If they didn't, their product would be completely useless in the workplace. 

[Jacksonian]

Interesting interview w/ Newt Gingrich is Salon
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/newt_gingrich_discusses_the_merits_of_donald_trump.html

If you take that 70% and add in those that are voting against Hillary, there's a big chunk of the voters that are very unhappy with the powers that be. They may all want different things, but that's the wave Trump is riding.

A guy I know told me this weekend that during a business trip to Florida recently he talked politics with a female client.  She said she couldn't stand Trump but was going to vote for him anyway.  Why?  He's different.  And we need different.  She seemed to think she was in a very large group of people with that way of thinking.  Which would explain to some extent why polling isn't reflecting subsequent voting as well as it has in the past.

[Jacksonian]

The problem with education is everyone has been convinced you aren't anything without a college degree.  And it has been ingrained that the more prestigious that degree is, the better you are.  And for many careers that is total bullshit.  But the brainwashing of needing a degree has been instilled multiple generations now.  Driving demand higher and higher.  And since a prestigious degree comes from an institution with a history, you have limited the supply.  Hence the ridiculous hike in tuition. 

Take IT for example.  A brilliant person with just a few online courses and an internship is 100 times more useful then a moron that jumped through the hoops and a quarter of a million dollars later has a piece of paper that says they are smart.  Funny thing is, a good many of the those prestigious universities require an internship to graduate.  If they didn't, their product would be completely useless in the workplace.

My STEM faculty friend would disagree.  His take is that as a second or third generation (I don't remember which) tenured faculty member he can attest that the tuition skyrocketing is due mostly to the vast increase in faculty salary wages.  According to him STEM and business faculty command salaries now that FAR outpace inflation relative to one or two generations ago.  Finding business and STEM faculty who can research and competently teach is difficult so demand is very high leading to 6-figure or near 6-figure salaries for newly minted Ph.D.'s much less experienced faculty. 

[pots]

My STEM faculty friend would disagree.  His take is that as a second or third generation (I don't remember which) tenured faculty member he can attest that the tuition skyrocketing is due mostly to the vast increase in faculty salary wages.  According to him STEM and business faculty command salaries now that FAR outpace inflation relative to one or two generations ago.  Finding business and STEM faculty who can research and competently teach is difficult so demand is very high leading to 6-figure or near 6-figure salaries for newly minted Ph.D.'s much less experienced faculty.

I love this argument.  In order to maintain the ability to create degrees that the world doesn't need we need to spend more and more money  Damn it, these kids need a degree!


And don't forget your history majors and your criminal justice majors.  Everyone must have a degree!

[BudGirl]

The problem with education is everyone has been convinced you aren't anything without a college degree.  And it has been ingrained that the more prestigious that degree is, the better you are.  And for many careers that is total bullshit.  But the brainwashing of needing a degree has been instilled multiple generations now.  Driving demand higher and higher.  And since a prestigious degree comes from an institution with a history, you have limited the supply.  Hence the ridiculous hike in tuition. 

Take IT for example.  A brilliant person with just a few online courses and an internship is 100 times more useful then a moron that jumped through the hoops and a quarter of a million dollars later has a piece of paper that says they are smart.  Funny thing is, a good many of the those prestigious universities require an internship to graduate.  If they didn't, their product would be completely useless in the workplace. 

I agree that not everyone needs a college degree.  I do think some careers need training/education.  I hope when I hire an electrician he knows what to do with the wires.  Skilled labor jobs are going to be paying quite well in the near future, better than they are now because too many people are too good to do those jobs. 

I also think in Texas we need to worry about our primary and secondary education systems.  Teaching a test is not the way to go.  While some of the kids coming out of high school can learn a lot from a book and walk and text at the same time, they have no clue what to do without a phone/computer.

[Limey]

Interesting interview w/ Newt Gingrich is Salon
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/newt_gingrich_discusses_the_merits_of_donald_trump.html

If you take that 70% and add in those that are voting against Hillary, there's a big chunk of the voters that are very unhappy with the powers that be. They may all want different things, but that's the wave Trump is riding.

How Cruz - a career Canadian politician - gets lumped in with the anti-establishment crowd, is beyond me.   Yes, the right side of the electorate has rebelled against those who have fleeced them for decades, but Cruz is an insider all the way - one that everyone hates because he's an odious piece of shit - but an insider nonetheless.

[Phil_in_CS]

How Cruz - a career Canadian politician - gets lumped in with the anti-establishment crowd, is beyond me.   Yes, the right side of the electorate has rebelled against those who have fleeced them for decades, but Cruz is an insider all the way - one that everyone hates because he's an odious piece of shit - but an insider nonetheless.

That's the role Cruz presents, just as Trump presents himself how he chooses. How Cruz, of Princeton, Harvard Law, a Rehnquist clerk, W staffer, got to be an outsider is a mystery to me. He's got lots of reasons, but they sound as genuine to me as Trump's reasons.

[BizidyDizidy]

Didn't he get booted out of W's presidency and then worked his way back up as an "outsider"?

[Limey]

Didn't he get booted out of W's presidency and then worked his way back up as an "outsider"?

...by being Texas' Solicitor General and then a U.S. Senator?

[Limey]

That's the role Cruz presents, just as Trump presents himself how he chooses. How Cruz, of Princeton, Harvard Law, a Rehnquist clerk, W staffer, got to be an outsider is a mystery to me. He's got lots of reasons, but they sound as genuine to me as Trump's reasons.

Exactly.  He talks like an outsider, and no one - not even his opponents - have even bothered to call bullshit.

[BizidyDizidy]

...by being Texas' Solicitor General and then a U.S. Senator?

Right, but I think being an "outsider" means you act like a dick while you do those jobs.

[pots]

I agree that not everyone needs a college degree.  I do think some careers need training/education.  I hope when I hire an electrician he knows what to do with the wires.  Skilled labor jobs are going to be paying quite well in the near future, better than they are now because too many people are too good to do those jobs. 

I also think in Texas we need to worry about our primary and secondary education systems.  Teaching a test is not the way to go.  While some of the kids coming out of high school can learn a lot from a book and walk and text at the same time, they have no clue what to do without a phone/computer.

Just to clarify my position, there are a lot of careers that I would want coming out of a college/university.  The problem is society has moved the educational minimum bar from GED to bachelor's degree. 

I do agree education at the GED/HS diploma equivalent and earlier are not up to snuff in a lot of areas of our country (issues I believe need to be solved at the local level).   Pre-K programs are not widely available like they should be.  My daughter is currently enrolled in a pre-K program and has grown tremendously because of it.  Tuition for that is quickly eating into retirement funds though.  A lot of folks wouldn't even have that option.  There are some pre-K programs available in some areas, but we wouldn't be eligible for them (not poor enough for the free stuff and not rich enough to not care). 

[MusicMan]

Turn off Fox News, sir, and slowly back away from the remote.

Trump thread: I hit post, you decide.

[HudsonHawk]

How Cruz - a career Canadian politician - gets lumped in with the anti-establishment crowd, is beyond me.

The same way Trump got lumped in with successful businessmen.  He simply tells people he is, and they buy it. 

[HudsonHawk]

Just to clarify my position, there are a lot of careers that I would want coming out of a college/university.  The problem is society has moved the educational minimum bar from GED to bachelor's degree.

In other words, we've been on this "education is the key to a better future" too long, and we need to walk that back with some "well, just not for you, junior...we can't have a strong middle class without some of you poor folks to set the bar"?

[pots]

In other words, we've been on this "education is the key to a better future" too long, and we need to walk that back with some "well, just not for you, junior...we can't have a strong middle class without some of you poor folks to set the bar"?

Thanks for making my point.  I said you do not need a bachelor's degree for many very successful careers.   It's your attitude that has just stated that someone is less than another person because one person went to college and got a bachelor's.   You are completely brainwashed into thinking a bachelor's degree is important.   My sister got an associate's degree learning radiology.   Took more training to get into ultrasound.  25 years later, she is running her department at a hospital right now.  The hospital had a management position open for exactly what she already was doing but she was ineligible due to not having a bachelors degree.   Do you see how stupid that is?

[HudsonHawk]

Thanks for making my point.  I said you do not need a bachelor's degree for many very successful careers.

This is true.  But your argument is that too many people are getting educated, and some of them need to stop.  Who decides that Person X shouldn't go on to college and should be content with his GED?  You?     

It's your attitude that has just stated that someone is less than another person because one person went to college and got a bachelor's.

If that's what you read from my statement, then you're dumber than I ever thought.

   You are completely brainwashed into thinking a bachelor's degree is important.   My sister got an associate's degree learning radiology.

It is for certain things.  What if I don't want to be a radiologist?

Do you see how stupid that is?

I see how stupid it is that you think that you or anyone else should just pick a few folks to stop all that learnin' and pick up the shovel, just so you can say "see...*my* degree means something".  Your attitude reminds me of the idiots who complain that they don't like living somewhere because there are too many people, and some of them should just move away to make it more appealing to you.  If only the rest of the world would get behind what you want...

[Bench]

My sister got an associate's degree learning radiology.   

I think this qualifies as education.  Likewise all the pre-K  stuff you were talking about. 

[chuck]

Trump thread: I hit post, you decide.

In all fairness you could equally have been instructed to drop the New York Times.

[pots]

This is true.  But your argument is that too many people are getting educated, and some of them need to stop.  Who decides that Person X shouldn't go on to college and should be content with his GED?  You?     

My argument is that if you are shooting for a career that does/should not require a bachelors to be successful at then you shouldn't be pressured into getting a bachelors degree.  And if you still want to get one anyways then you are fully on your own but have no special standing when it comes to landing a job then someone who is just as qualified but chose to get training and start working.

If that's what you read from my statement, then you're dumber than I ever thought.

Your words:
 "well, just not for you, junior...we can't have a strong middle class without some of you poor folks to set the bar"

You are equating a bachelors degree with moving from the poor to middle class

It is for certain things.  What if I don't want to be a radiologist?

If your career choice requires(should require) a bachelors level or higher education then you go get that.  If the cost of that education is more then you can afford then the industry for that the degree needs to pay higher (in order to post-college pay for loans as it does now) or perhaps that industry should provide funding for people to receive that education.   

I see how stupid it is that you think that you or anyone else should just pick a few folks to stop all that learnin' and pick up the shovel, just so you can say "see...*my* degree means something".  Your attitude reminds me of the idiots who complain that they don't like living somewhere because there are too many people, and some of them should just move away to make it more appealing to you.  If only the rest of the world would get behind what you want...

Your constant equating to picking up a shovel as the sole option of not getting a bachelors is ridiculous.  It was funny in Caddyshack.  And I have no idea where you think I am boasting my degree or at all sad I can't.  I received a bachelors degree in technology at a respected school.  It was a total waste of money.  Learned almost everything from my first internship.  21 years employed now.  Very good at what I do.  And if I were to switch companies, some person in HR would require me to have a bachelors. 

[pots]

I think this qualifies as education.  Likewise all the pre-K  stuff you were talking about.

An associates, non-liberal arts version, is most often training for a specific job.  Very useful.  My wife got a paralegal associates degree.  Very useful for a variety of jobs.  Now she also, previously in life, got a bachelors in history but we won't go there.

The problem is an associates only will exclude you from many jobs you are highly qualified for (especially with a few years on the job under your belt). 

[HudsonHawk]

My argument is that if you are shooting for a career that does/should not require a bachelors to be successful at then you shouldn't be pressured into getting a bachelors degree.  And if you still want to get one anyways then you are fully on your own but have no special standing when it comes to landing a job then someone who is just as qualified but chose to get training and start working.

No one has argued that, especially me. That's a complete straw man.

Your words:
 "well, just not for you, junior...we can't have a strong middle class without some of you poor folks to set the bar"

You are equating a bachelors degree with moving from the poor to middle class

No, I've said we've been telling generations of people that education is what's going to get them a better job and improve their lives, and now you're complaining that too many people have an education, and it's devalued yours.  Sorry that my degree somehow makes you feel yours wasn't worth it.

If your career choice requires(should require) a bachelors level or higher education then you go get that.  If the cost of that education is more then you can afford then the industry for that the degree needs to pay higher (in order to post-college pay for loans as it does now) or perhaps that industry should provide funding for people to receive that education.   

The "industry", whoever that is, doesn't owe you anything, especially a job. Universities owe you less. That you think you're entitled to something is a far bigger problem than too many people with degrees.

Your constant equating to picking up a shovel as the sole option of not getting a bachelors is ridiculous. 

Again, if that's what you got out of it...

And "constant"?  I mentioned a shovel once, and you're already overwhelmed by it?