Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[piscator]

... that's an indicator of doing something right.

Or of going so far beyond the pale that people become seriously concerned for the welfare of the country...

[Forty Two]

... that's an indicator of doing something right.

Or of going so far beyond the pale that people become seriously concerned for the welfare of the country...

Riiiiiiiighht -- because now the GOP establishment sincerely has the welfare of the country in mind, and not their own pockets. And, the Democrats, they just have the country's welfare in mind, they're not just using whatever weapons they can find to defeat their opponent. US politics is definitely known, of late, for selfless dedication to the welfare of the country.

The fact that Trump is not bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup, and is not controlled by the current leaders of the Republican Party is, well, irrelevant. And, the fact that he threatens the lobbyists and consultants because nobody has paid him for favors and access yet.... that's not the way politics works! It's all about the welfare of the country!

The US political establishment is highly selective in who and what it considers worthy of outrage and denunciation. Before Trump’s statement regarding limiting Muslim immigration, two other Republican candidates – Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz – had said that the US should limit Syrian refugees to those who are Christian. And Obama called for tightening visa rules for people wishing to enter from certain countries – ones with predominantly Muslim populations. None of those schemes led to the kind of uproar Trump received for his.

When Trump says he will act unilaterally (say, to build a wall along the border with Mexico) and not let a ‘pathetically weak’ Congress get in his way, freaked-out cry that he is a dictator!!! But I wonder where he got such notions? Could it be from Obama, who, in 2011, said: ‘We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.’ As Jonathan Turley points out, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html Obama has expanded presidential authority and has overridden Congress in areas from ‘healthcare to immigration to the environment’. Democrats cheered these moves, but now don’t like the thought of someone like Trump having such powers.

The bipartisan frenzy over Trump backfires on the political establishment in other ways. Like Trump’s suggested ban on Muslim immigration, did people say ‘here’s why Trump is wrong’; --- nope they say ‘Trump is unacceptable’, ‘un-American’, a ‘fascist’. Opponents want to banish him and his supporters from polite society, rather than tackle the arguments that they raise. That's the best way to give Trump support. It is not unreasonable for Trump’s supporters to express concerns about terrorism and immigration, among other issues. But, too often, establishment figures fail to take these concerns seriously and provide counter-arguments. Worried about Islamic terrorism? You’re an Islamophobe. Worried about immigration? You’re a bigot.

Trump is on the offensive against the entire political establishment. He has exposed a cross-party political entrenched establishment whose instinct is to try to crush him, rather than make its own positive case for the future.

[pErvinalia]

Putin IS a mini Hitler.
Where does that leave Trump's support then, 42?

So, responsible leadership in dealing with unsavory foreign leaders is to be sure to insult them and call them Adolph Hitler? Putin is the leader of one of the most important countries on the planet. Trump has said that he would work closely with Russia. What's wrong with that?

He said more than that. He said he'd get on very well with him. Get on very well with a fascist?

He also said he loves China, and would get along with China. I guess he loves and gets on well with Communists!!!

What do you think foreign policy is about? Being pals or something? Getting along well with someone in the business world means "able to work together -- able to deal with each other" -- they're not talking about yukking it up and doing shots, for fuck's sake.

Maybe that's the problem. Cozying up to Saudi Arabia, Russia and China is fairly morally repugnant.

The former secretary of state’s provocative comparison drew swift rebukes Wednesday from U.S.-Russia policy experts — including some who served under her husband, former president Bill Clinton — while attracting rare notes of support from hawkish Republicans in Congress. The comments put Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, at odds with President Obama and her former administration colleagues, who have been measured in their statements...

Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, a nonpartisan global risk consulting firm, said Clinton’s Hitler comment signaled she was trying to “stage manage” the Russia issue.

“Hillary’s too smart to actually believe that Putin’s actions are remotely close to anything that Hitler did,” Bremmer said. “The only reason she would say that is that she believes she was vulnerable in having been the architect of the failed ‘reset’ and wants to show that she’s harder-line than anybody else.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Defender her no matter what, right?

In English?

He's defending her no matter what -- i.e. he's doing what he accuses me of, "party over country."

Who's "he"? What are you talking about?

[Forty Two]

Piscator - i wasn't talking to you, Rev, originally. I had an exchange with Piscator, and you butted in. It's not all about you, you know. :-)

[pErvinalia]

It should be.

[JimC]

But rEv, these days at least it is all about you when it comes to weird urinary tract infections!

[Forty Two]

Putin IS a mini Hitler.
Where does that leave Trump's support then, 42?

So, responsible leadership in dealing with unsavory foreign leaders is to be sure to insult them and call them Adolph Hitler? Putin is the leader of one of the most important countries on the planet. Trump has said that he would work closely with Russia. What's wrong with that?

He said more than that. He said he'd get on very well with him. Get on very well with a fascist?

He also said he loves China, and would get along with China. I guess he loves and gets on well with Communists!!!

What do you think foreign policy is about? Being pals or something? Getting along well with someone in the business world means "able to work together -- able to deal with each other" -- they're not talking about yukking it up and doing shots, for fuck's sake.

Maybe that's the problem. Cozying up to Saudi Arabia, Russia and China is fairly morally repugnant.

Who said "cozying?" Define "cozying up?" Is dealing with them "cozying?"

[Forty Two]

But rEv, these days at least it is all about you when it comes to weird urinary tract infections!

Is rEv "feeling the bern" in more ways than one?

[pErvinalia]

I feel like Hillary has me in a squirrel grip!

[piscator]

Piscator - i wasn't talking to you, Rev, originally. I had an exchange with Piscator, and you butted in. It's not all about you, you know. :-)

I'm not defending Hillary above all, Trump's just not worthy to be President.

Your attempts to hold the Trump Clown Show as her equal or better are not going to meet with much success. Perhaps it just appears that I'm showing a lot of favoritism when it's really the facts just aren't in your corner?

...

Hillary is not Bill. She's hard as a coffin nail. And yes, she's an elite. One of the people tacky Mr TRUMP can never be no matter how much $$ he makes.

Therein lies the problem -- the establishment -- the elite - tell us they have the answer to the current economic problems, and trade deficits and manufacturing decline and reduced labor force and all the like. But, they aren't motivated to change it - and if they had the solutions, why didn't they implement them, yet?

You seem to be advancing the notion that the bought-and-paid-for elite candidates are better for the country. You sound like a solid conservative. ...

My use of the term "Elite" when speaking of Hillary and fishermen is not open to your misreading or misappropriation, unless you want to do away with elite levels of competence and effectiveness in your pogrom on 'the elite'. You either misunderstood completely, or purposely equivocated my meaning of the word to make your previous point, after I made a point to carefully delineate the meaning of my words. This is the sort of thing Animavore called you out about in another post.

When I say Hillary is an elite, I mean that Hillary is hyper-competent and extremely effective. It's a lifelong behavioral pattern for her.

Question: Who do you think has spent more time in the back of a limo - Trump, or Hillary?

Another question: Who do you think has spent more time talking to regular Americans about their problems?

[Forty Two]

I feel like Hillary has me in a squirrel grip!

[Forty Two]

Piscator - i wasn't talking to you, Rev, originally. I had an exchange with Piscator, and you butted in. It's not all about you, you know. :-)

I'm not defending Hillary above all, Trump's just not worthy to be President.

Neither is Hillary, or Cruz. They are not worthy. Trump may, however, have a new approach, and he is correct on many issues, primarily trade. And, his focus is in succeeding in trade relations and foreign relations. All the nonsense, religious side-issues are pretty much off the table with Trump. You won't see trump trying to block gay marriage, and he's not going to do anything about abortion. He winks "I'm pro Life", but then he says he's going to continue funding planned parenthood because they do a lot of good.

Your attempts to hold the Trump Clown Show as her equal or better are not going to meet with much success. Perhaps it just appears that I'm showing a lot of favoritism when it's really the facts just aren't in your corner?

...

No, since Hillary is such a liar and coat-tail-rider, that the facts do the job of showing that she does not even rise to the level of Donald Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 68938.html

There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary is not Bill. She's hard as a coffin nail. And yes, she's an elite. One of the people tacky Mr TRUMP can never be no matter how much $$ he makes.

Therein lies the problem -- the establishment -- the elite - tell us they have the answer to the current economic problems, and trade deficits and manufacturing decline and reduced labor force and all the like. But, they aren't motivated to change it - and if they had the solutions, why didn't they implement them, yet?

You seem to be advancing the notion that the bought-and-paid-for elite candidates are better for the country. You sound like a solid conservative. ...

My use of the term "Elite" when speaking of Hillary and fishermen is not open to your misreading or misappropriation, unless you want to do away with elite levels of competence and effectiveness in your pogrom on 'the elite'. You either misunderstood completely, or purposely equivocated my meaning of the word to make your previous point, after I made a point to carefully delineate the meaning of my words. This is the sort of thing Animavore called you out about in another post.

I wasn't referencing your use of the term "elite." I was using the term to refer to the "establishment." I get what you mean, in terms of referring to her as like, an elite runner -- one of superior skill and prowess. I totally disagree, and you have not presented any evidence that she possesses some amazing skill and prowess at functions, whether as Senator or as Secretary of State.

But, she is the establishment candidate - the candidate of the "elites" in the sense of the wealthy bankers and the military-industrial complex. She is funded by them. And, she supports them.

When I say Hillary is an elite, I mean that Hillary is hyper-competent and extremely effective. It's a lifelong behavioral pattern for her.

You say that, and she is effective at scheming and lying. That's for sure. She is an effective politician. But, then, too, so was George W. Bush, and so was Reagan, and so was Nixon. They had the same "elite" skills. That does not make them the best for the country, not by a long shot.

Question: Who do you think has spent more time in the back of a limo - Trump, or Hillary?

I think it's a toss up. But, whatever limo Trump road in, he paid for. We paid for Hillary's limos.

Another question: Who do you think has spent more time talking to regular Americans about their problems?

Trump, for sure on that one. Trump is far more in tune with the problems of "regular americans." That's why he is doing so well with blue collar democrats, like in Michigan. He and they agree that the trade issues are bleeding the economy of millions of jobs, and the "regular American" isn't as much concerned with dopey identity politics and race-baiting, but rather with supporting their families and ensuring there are job opportunities.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.

Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: “I urged him to bomb,” she told reporter Lucinda Frank.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 68938.html

You aren't looking at the facts about Hillary. You are looking at the false narrative.

[Forty Two]

Maybe Clinton will be charged in email scandal: http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hilla ... d-or-what/

[pErvinalia]

Utterly unable to read that on a mobile. You've got to wonder about the professionalism of a newspaper that can't offer a mobile version of their site.

[Forty Two]

Opens on mobile for me.... maybe it's you that has the problem? http://nypost.com/tag/mobile/