Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Forty Two]

I think he posted somewhere he'd vote trump over the bern, so I wouldn't be surprised if a 'reasonable' repugnican made his game facing the clinton.

Me, facing such a choice, I think I'd abstain, except against the trumpster, he's far too dangerous to let get in the seat, but the others, if hte country wants to inflict itself with that, let them.

What's so dangerous about Trump? What are you afraid of him doing?

Look at Hillary, she supported NAFTA, she supports GATT and globalization, she supports MFN treatment of China with no protections to ensure a level playing field. She has been in favor of every, single military action the US has fought in since the Persian Gulf War in 1992. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fei ... 57892.html\

Do you think Trump is going to be more pro-war than her? What do you fear he going to do that is so dangerous?

[Svartalf]

a) he just might try to follow up on his bluster and leave the countries in ruins, especially if he tries to use the trump method to foreign affairs (you know, like making Mexico pay for the cost of building a certain wall, you can bet the cartels won't have it and drive the Mexican civil war into >US territory to protect their interests), or if he is too harssh with the Russians or with NKorea... he might just do a wrong move and precipitate WWIII
b) he's very skilled at bankrupting things and leaving others to take the fall, so even if he doesn't cause WWIII, he might just destroy the economy.

Hillary... tell me that the others don't support TAFTA, NAFTA, GATT and the rest... She's more concerned with having power than in exercizing it, she won't do a wrong move to avoid putting her situation in jeopardy. she wants to be a two temr president, so she can't alienate the voter.

[Forty Two]

a) he just might try to follow up on his bluster and leave the countries in ruins, especially if he tries to use the trump method to foreign affairs (you know, like making Mexico pay for the cost of building a certain wall, you can bet the cartels won't have it and drive the Mexican civil war into >US territory to protect their interests), or if he is too harssh with the Russians or with NKorea... he might just do a wrong move and precipitate WWIII

If you listen to his speeches, he tells you how he makes Mexico pay for the wall. He said, "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

If the argument against building a wall is that the Mexican drug cartels have business interests in the US which will be impacted, and they might become violent if we cut off the flow of drugs and money across the border, then that's an argument FOR the wall, not against it.

With regarding to being "harsh" -- have you seen what Hillary has said about Iran? She said in 2008 if she were elected President she would "obliterate" Iran, basically if they made one false move. I mean, there are other Presidential candidates saying they would never deal with Putin, because he's a dictator and a tyrant (Cruz). Trump says that he would have no problem working with Putin. Hillary Clinton says that Vladimir Putin is like Adolph Hitler, and she told Boris Johnson that the Europeans were "too wimpy" in their approach to Putin. Trump has said many times that the US should work together with Russia and more closely with Russia.

But, you think Trump is the loose cannon and not Hillary? Saying the president of Russia is comparable to Adolph Hitler? That's Presidential, but Trump is a loose cannon because he will work closely with Putin?

Trump was against the Iraq War, Hillary was for it. Cruz was for it. Trump was against the Libya war. Hillary was for it.

I'm not in favor of a wall, incidentally. I disagree with Trump on that.

b) he's very skilled at bankrupting things and leaving others to take the fall, so even if he doesn't cause WWIII, he might just destroy the economy.

Most successful businesspeople and inventors filed bankruptcy. Henry Ford filed bankruptcy twice.

Prez. Abraham Lincoln filed bankruptcy twice.

Prez. Ulysses S. Grant filed bankruptcy.

Prez. William McKinley filed bankruptcy.

Popular liberal Presidential candidate George McGovern filed bankruptcy

Walt Disney, Mark Twain, Rembrandt, the list goes on and on.

Trump's bankruptcies were Chapter 11, Reorganization, for casinos, not personal bankruptcy, by the way.

Two of Hillary Clinton's biggest supporters, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup filed bankruptcy. Chrysler and General Motors filed bankruptcy. Apple Computers. Texaco Oil. Lehman Bros.

The notion that trump casinos filing chapter 11 means Trump is a liability on the economy is just a major misunderstanding of what bankruptcy is.

Hillary... tell me that the others don't support TAFTA, NAFTA, GATT and the rest... She's more concerned with having power than in exercizing it, she won't do a wrong move to avoid putting her situation in jeopardy. she wants to be a two temr president, so she can't alienate the voter.

Trump does not -- unless there are provisions leveling the playing field. That's the whole crux of his campaign. That the US is being killed by these trade deals which the other countries cheat on.

And, your argument for Hillary is that she is more concerned with having power than exercising it so she won't really do anything to change the status quo. Compelling.

[piscator]

Just How Cozy Is Hillary Clinton With Wall Street?

Hillary Clinton has received a lot of campaign money from the financial industry over the years, and after she left the State Department she gave several lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs and other big banks. As Michael Hirsh puts it, this has given her a reputation for being “more than a little cozy” with Wall Street.

But is she? The truth is that I haven’t paid much attention to this question. In terms of the presidential campaign, it’s pretty obvious that Bernie Sanders is a lot tougher on the financial industry than she is. The details of their plans don’t really matter. Sanders has practically made a career out of attacking Wall Street. As president, he’d make financial regulation a top priority; he’d appoint tougher watchdogs; and he’d use the bully pulpit relentlessly to call out Wall Street’s sins.

Still, what about Clinton? How cozy with the financial industry is she? I asked about this on Twitter over the weekend, figuring that all the Bernie supporters would give me an earful. But no such luck. Mostly they just told me that she had taken Wall Street money and given Wall Street speeches. The only concrete criticism was one that Elizabeth Warren made in 2004: that Clinton had changed her view on the bankruptcy bill after she accepted lots of Wall Street money to get elected to the Senate.

But that didn’t really hold water. She opposed the bill in 1999 because she wanted alimony and child-support payments to take precedence over credit card companies during bankruptcy proceeding. The bill passed anyway, but Bill Clinton vetoed it. In 2001, she brokered a compromise that gave priority to alimony and child support, and then voted for the bill. It didn’t pass at the time, and in 2005 her compromise was removed from the bill. She said then that she opposed it.

This is classic Hillary. Once George Bush was president, she had no way of stopping the bill—so she worked hard behind the scenes to get what she could in return for her vote. Love it or hate it, this is the kind of pragmatic politics she practices. But there’s no hypocrisy here; no change of heart thanks to Wall Street money (she supported the bill when it protected women and children and opposed it when it didn’t); and no real support for the financial industry.


What else? Clinton says she gave several speeches in 2007 warning about the dangers of derivatives and subprime loans, and introduced proposals for stronger financial oversight. Apparently that’s true.
...

Clinton has consistently supported increasing the minimum wage — though not to $15. She supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act. She supports higher taxes on the wealthy. She supported repeal of the carried interest loophole in 2007. The Boston Globe, after an extensive review of her voting record in the Senate, summed up her attitude with this quote from a lobbyist: “The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful.” Citizens for Tax Justice gives her a generally favorable grade on financial issues.

The word “cozy” does a whole lot of heavy lifting in stories about Hillary Clinton and Wall Street. But what does it mean? Does she have an actual record of supporting Wall Street interests? By ordinary standards, is her current campaign proposal for financial regulation a strong one? (I’ve been impressed by her rhetorical emphasis on shadow banking, but it’s not clear just how far her proposals go in real life.) Has she protected financial interests against the Bernie Sanders of the world?

I think it’s safe to say that Clinton has hardly been a scourge of the banking industry. Until recently, her main interests were elsewhere. But if there’s a strong case to be made for “coziness,” I’ve failed to find it. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?

Me too.


http://billmoyers.com/story/just-how-co ... ll-street/

[piscator]

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

And we'll squeeze a $100billion out of Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana?
How much $$ will we WIN off canceled executive visas?

If the argument against building a wall is that the Mexican drug cartels have business interests in the US which will be impacted, and they might become violent if we cut off the flow of drugs and money across the border, then that's an argument FOR the wall, not against it.

That's more an argument FOR tunnels. Jus sayin'.

With regarding to being "harsh" -- have you seen what Hillary has said about Iran? She said in 2008 if she were elected President she would "obliterate" Iran, basically if they made one false move.

"One false move" refers to nuking Israel. Now you've revealed yourself as a hack.

But, you think Trump is the loose cannon and not Hillary?

By any standard imaginable.

And, your argument for Hillary is that she is more concerned with having power than exercising it so she won't really do anything to change the status quo. Compelling.

That seems to be your main thrust - changing the status quo. You share this sentiment with the Ku Klux Klan, Fundamentalist Mormons, and the American Communist Party, so you really need to elucidate what you want America changed to if you expect your efforts here to be rewarded. I say "Efforts" because it can't be easy to carry that "Obliterate Iran" water.

Anyone but Hillary. Party before Country. Ignorance is strength.

[laklak]

I want it changed to suit my convenience. I haven't decide exactly what my convenience is, but I want it changed nonetheless.

Hey, I think I'm a Bernie Bro!

[piscator]

[trump]Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they're "losing money" and are "dishonest." The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he's president they'll "have problems."
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

...[/trump]


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/ ... z437CFKre2


That can't be a real Trump quote. He only repeated himself once.

[JimC]

Even Seth would agree that shooting from the hip usually misses the target...

[Forty Two]

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

And we'll squeeze a $100billion out of Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana?
How much $$ will we WIN off canceled executive visas?

Quite a bit, and the pressure that puts on Mexico would cause them to come to the table and deal. That's what he's talking about. And, he's also mentioned the $50 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Impacting that will cause Mexico to deal. The price tag is estimated at about $10 billion.

If the argument against building a wall is that the Mexican drug cartels have business interests in the US which will be impacted, and they might become violent if we cut off the flow of drugs and money across the border, then that's an argument FOR the wall, not against it.

That's more an argument FOR tunnels. Jus sayin'.

From the perspective of the drug cartels, yes. So, if Mexico allows its drug cartels to tunnel into the US, then we have a problem with Mexico, a big one. They need to get their shit in order.

With regarding to being "harsh" -- have you seen what Hillary has said about Iran? She said in 2008 if she were elected President she would "obliterate" Iran, basically if they made one false move.

"One false move" refers to nuking Israel. Now you've revealed yourself as a hack.

I'm the hack? LOL. You're a poseur.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” - Hillary Clinton - quoted.

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters.

And, you left out the part I mentioned where Hillary calls Putin "Adolph Hitler." LOL. Hillary, the non-loose cannon, calls a major world leader Hitler, whereas Trump offers conciliatory language about working with him productively, and he's the wild card.

But, you think Trump is the loose cannon and not Hillary?

By any standard imaginable.

None you've offered, of course. You just think the pro-war establishment candidate - the war hawk - must be the dove. Yet, you have no evidence to support that.

And, your argument for Hillary is that she is more concerned with having power than exercising it so she won't really do anything to change the status quo. Compelling.

That seems to be your main thrust - changing the status quo. You share this sentiment with the Ku Klux Klan, Fundamentalist Mormons, and the American Communist Party, so you really need to elucidate what you want America changed to if you expect your efforts here to be rewarded. I say "Efforts" because it can't be easy to carry that "Obliterate Iran" water.

Anyone but Hillary. Party before Country. Ignorance is strength.

LOL - you don't even listen to what I write. I've said I could support Bernie, too. To me, it depends on the matchup. You're the one who is worshiping at Hillary's feet.

And, the people who elected Obama in 2008 claimed to want to change the status quo, too. But, you've lost the argument, so you go Godwin -- yes, yes, I'm with the Klan, the Mormon fundamentalists, and the American Communist Party alright. That must be it.

You support Hillary, who supported the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia/Kosovo conflicts, missile attacks by the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the Iraq Liberation Act, Afghan War, Iraq War 2003, Libyan War -- pretty much every conflict, Hillary has supported it. Yet, to you, she's the one who'll more likely keep us out of war. How you square that circle, only you can tell. But, hey, that's just me, the Communist, Polygamist, Klansman.

[Forty Two]

[trump]Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they're "losing money" and are "dishonest." The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he's president they'll "have problems."
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

...[/trump]


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/ ... z437CFKre2


That can't be a real Trump quote. He only repeated himself once.

So, you're on record as being in favor of the right to post purposefully false hit pieces? Weird, cuz these days the Left tends to support the prohibition of even truthful speech that offends people. But, that may not be you. You may be very pro free speech and on board with New York Times v Sullivan, wherein the publishing of almost anything, including blatant lies, is fair game.\

But, in any case, I disagree with Trump on this, and I don't think it is any place for the President to involve himself in libel laws. However, libel is pretty much a State issue in the US, and he'd not be able to effect much, if any, change. So, it's really a non-issue. He's just calling out the press for being liars, and many of them are. Fox News, MSNBC - these folks out and out lie, often.

[piscator]

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

And we'll squeeze a $100billion out of Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana?
How much $$ will we WIN off canceled executive visas?

Quite a bit, and the pressure that puts on Mexico would cause them to come to the table and deal. That's what he's talking about. And, he's also mentioned the $50 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Impacting that will cause Mexico to deal. The price tag is estimated at about $10 billion.

Who estimated it, some fucking dooshbag who'll say anything TRUMP tells him to? Has he walked it?
Someone should tell that knucklehead they can't even build a wall around New Orleans for $10 billion...

So, if Mexico allows its drug cartels to tunnel into the US, then we have a problem with Mexico, a big one. They need to get their shit in order.

Yeah. They should pass a law or something, huh?

I'm the hack? LOL. You're a poseur.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” - Hillary Clinton - quoted.

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters.

And, you left out the part I mentioned where Hillary calls Putin "Adolph Hitler." LOL. Hillary, the non-loose cannon, calls a major world leader Hitler, whereas Trump offers conciliatory language about working with him productively, and he's the wild card.

Yep, you're a hack. Why don't you post a video of the quote in context?

I was going to soften that comment up, but the phone rang and more important things happened. Looks like it worked out for the best.

But, you think Trump is the loose cannon and not Hillary?

By any standard imaginable.

None you've offered, of course. You just think the pro-war establishment candidate - the war hawk - must be the dove. Yet, you have no evidence to support that.

I don't have much evidence to support any of your allegations. I still don't think it's my job.

And, your argument for Hillary is that she is more concerned with having power than exercising it so she won't really do anything to change the status quo. Compelling.

That seems to be your main thrust - changing the status quo. You share this sentiment with the Ku Klux Klan, Fundamentalist Mormons, and the American Communist Party, so you really need to elucidate what you want America changed to if you expect your efforts here to be rewarded. I say "Efforts" because it can't be easy to carry that "Obliterate Iran" water.

Anyone but Hillary. Party before Country. Ignorance is strength.

LOL - you don't even listen to what I write. I've said I could support Bernie, too. To me, it depends on the matchup. .

Your priorities are shit. This is not Wrestlemania, this is the American Election of 2016.




Anyone but Hillary. Party before Country. Ignorance is strength.

[Forty Two]

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

And we'll squeeze a $100billion out of Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana?
How much $$ will we WIN off canceled executive visas?

Quite a bit, and the pressure that puts on Mexico would cause them to come to the table and deal. That's what he's talking about. And, he's also mentioned the $50 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Impacting that will cause Mexico to deal. The price tag is estimated at about $10 billion.

Who estimated it, some fucking dooshbag who'll say anything TRUMP tells him to? Has he walked it?
Someone should tell that knucklehead they can't even build a wall around New Orleans for $10 billion...

Who estimated it? The US Department of Homeland Security. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Trump plans about 1,000 miles of actual wall, utilizing natural barriers to cover the rest of the distance.. According to a Government Accountability Office 2009 report, the cost to build 1 mile of fencing at the border averaged between $2.8 million and $3.9 million. Trump has estimated his wall to be $10 million per mile, or about $10 billion, or somewhat higher, depending.

So, if Mexico allows its drug cartels to tunnel into the US, then we have a problem with Mexico, a big one. They need to get their shit in order.

Yeah. They should pass a law or something, huh?

Or, build a wall, and then track down the cartels if they try to tunnel under. And, lean on the Mexican government to handle their shit. If Americans were doing to Mexico what they're doing to us, what would be the reaction?

I'm the hack? LOL. You're a poseur.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” - Hillary Clinton - quoted.

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters.

And, you left out the part I mentioned where Hillary calls Putin "Adolph Hitler." LOL. Hillary, the non-loose cannon, calls a major world leader Hitler, whereas Trump offers conciliatory language about working with him productively, and he's the wild card.

Yep, you're a hack. Why don't you post a video of the quote in context?

That's the quote in context. If you want to dispute that, you post it. You're the one who claimed she said she would obliterate Iran only if they nuked Israel.

I was going to soften that comment up, but the phone rang and more important things happened. Looks like it worked out for the best.

If you being wrong is for the best, then I can live with that.

But, you think Trump is the loose cannon and not Hillary?

By any standard imaginable.

None you've offered, of course. You just think the pro-war establishment candidate - the war hawk - must be the dove. Yet, you have no evidence to support that.

I don't have much evidence to support any of your allegations. I still don't think it's my job.

I've supported mine. You've not supported yours.

[piscator]

So, what he means is, that if Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, we'll charge them for it through other means.

And we'll squeeze a $100billion out of Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana?
How much $$ will we WIN off canceled executive visas?

Quite a bit, and the pressure that puts on Mexico would cause them to come to the table and deal. That's what he's talking about. And, he's also mentioned the $50 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Impacting that will cause Mexico to deal. The price tag is estimated at about $10 billion.

Who estimated it, some fucking dooshbag who'll say anything TRUMP tells him to? Has he walked it?
Someone should tell that knucklehead they can't even build a wall around New Orleans for $10 billion...

Who estimated it? The US Department of Homeland Security. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Trump plans about 1,000 miles of actual wall, utilizing natural barriers to cover the rest of the distance.. According to a Government Accountability Office 2009 report, the cost to build 1 mile of fencing at the border averaged between $2.8 million and $3.9 million. Trump has estimated his wall to be $10 million per mile, or about $10 billion, or somewhat higher, depending.

Fuck what Trump says. He's a liar.
I'm a licensed engineer And I'm telling you a Great Wall of America will cost way more than $10 million a mile.


You got lowballed by a lying sack of shit, but it's probably not the first time, is it?

[Forty Two]

Maybe. But, it's no worse -- in fact not even close - the whoppers you hear from Hillary Clinton and many other politicians. If your gripe against Trump is that he's lowballing a construction estimate, you've got a fucking long road to hoe to caste him as worse than any other politician. At least Trump has built things before.

And, your "expert" opinion is worthless. Trump is estimating twice what the GAO estimated, and more than the USDoHS estimated (for half the distance).

Next you'll be pointing out that he filed bankruptcy. LOL.

[piscator]

Trump can't run his business without protection from creditors, yet you think he can do a better job running the country than Hillary.


Like I said, your priorities are fucked up.