home

Imagining a Hillary-Trump Debate

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:04:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Listening to Donald Trump "soil himself yet again" (as one CNN commentator put it last night) in his extended personal attack on Hillary Clinton during his victory tirade, I couldn't help but wonder what a debate between the two of them would look like.

How do you respond to someone who calls you "crooked", a criminal, unfit to be running for office, lacking in stamina, having nothing going for her but gender, etc?

Trump really is uncouth. I can't remember a candidate for national office in my lifetime who made personal attacks like these against an opponent. Sometimes you just want to take a shower after listening to him. And when he's not being uncouth, he's using bizarre statistics and exaggerating his importance. [More...]

In a normal world, voters would never want someone like Trump representing our country, especially in international relations. In a normal world, Hillary would decimate him. Not so much because of his position on issues, (a lot of Republicans agree with his positions, however inconsistent, uninformed and irrational) but because he's cringe-worthy on a personal level. He goes against everything we were ever taught about how to treat people.

Notwithstanding all the angry malcontents among voters, I think normalcy will prevail. Trump is trying his hardest to create an alternate reality, treating voters as if they are merely TV viewers. As if voters don't know the difference between entertainment shows and real life. No matter how angry many voters are, I expect by November they will reject his carnival barking.

This Reuters column aptly questions whether the country would vote for such a boor to be President.

Trump simultaneously self-aggrandizes and debases himself. I have enough faith in American voters, whatever their politics, to believe that sometime before November, they will have heard enough from Trump to equate pulling a lever for him with the the act of flushing the toilet. He's what goes down the pipes.

Trump's politics are almost irrelevant. He's uncouth, too much of a braggart and doesn't seem worthy of the title of leader of the free world -- or any world. While this is just my opinion, I expect it is one that will become increasingly shared by millions of people as they have more of an opportunity to listen to him.

Shorter version: We don't need to count on Trump's opponents defeating him. Trump will defeat himself. We were raised better.

< Did Trump Pay the Stones to Use "Start Me Up"? | Sanders Campaign Lays Off Hundreds of Workers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Imagining a Hillary-Trump Debate | 153 comments (153 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Exactly, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:46:32 AM EST
    Jeralyn: "How do you respond to someone who calls you "crooked", a criminal, unfit to be running for office, lacking in stamina, having nothing going for her but gender, etc?"

    We don't. Not on his boorish level, anyway. Instead, confident in our own belief that simple common decency will prevail in November, we let him and his delusional followers continue to dig their own political graves, and perhaps even offer to lend them our shovels.

    ;-D

    I just saw the Ms. Christie eyeroll (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:48:39 AM EST
    The only thing Clinton has is the woman card, and errr all the other cards too ;)

    I'll offer better than even odds that ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:16:21 AM EST
    ... we won't see Mrs. Christie onstage with Trump again. That he's perhaps offending a fair to good number of Republican women with these misogynistic slurs and sexist attacks appears to be something  that's utterly incomprehensible to him.

    Parent
    I can (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:27:24 AM EST
    already see what a Trump Hillary debate would look like. It would be the same as Bernie. She sticks to answering the questions while Trump just rants.

    You just had to go there (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:33:07 AM EST
    If it wasn't for Bernie's campaign, the Clinton campaign wouldn't be "hitting their stride" right now. They would have been naval-gazing just waiting for the general election campaign.

    By all measures, Sander's campaign has been good for Clinton, Democrats and the country at large.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    making a completely different point though. I'm talking about an actual debate. You're talking about campaigns in general.

    Parent
    Of course it is (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:53:07 AM EST
    That's why Trump spent several minutes quoting Sanders by name and listing his lies and insults while ridiculing Hillary last night.

    Unbelievable

    Parent

    Funny how things are so perfectly (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    clear for both of us, yet the other can't see it.

    Parent
    If it wasn't for Bernie (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    Trump wouldn't have had some of the lines that he quoted last night against Clinton.

    As some of us predicted, on this site, months ago, would be the result of Bernie using Dems to attack Dems.

    Parent

    There is no way to know that is true (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    but go ahead and believe it if you want.


    Parent
    Sanders is not like Trump. (none / 0) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    Come on, the Democratic debates have been models of civil discourse. And not just in comparison to the Republican debates. Sure, that last one saw a bit of shouting from both Sanders and Clinton, but still remarkably civil.

    Sanders may see everything through the lens of Wall Street reform, but he does have actual policy positions that are not insane. Trump? Not so much.

    His personal attacks on Clinton are providing fodder for Trump, but those attacks have not worked to Sanders advantage. I see no reason they will work for Trump.

    Bottom line- Sanders is no Trump. Not even close.

    Parent

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    and well-said.

    Parent
    most people on this board aren't in a (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:57:57 AM EST
    "Most people on this board wouldn't dare do what Hillary did, regarding the servers."

    cabinet level position, so they'd never get a chance to find out. however, if you're going to beat that really dead horse, then you're going to have to arrest Colin Powell and Condi Rice as well, since both of them also had private servers in their homes, used for both private & business email. I can see their point though, it's easier than running back to the office in the middle of the night, should something come up, and it didn't violate any laws/rules/regulations.

    "There should not be two sets of rules when it comes to abiding by the law."

    agreed. so far, in 25 years of attacking her, the rightwing conspiracy has yet to come up with anything legitimate, but they'll keep flinging mud, in the hopes that one day some of it will actually stick.

    a Trump-Clinton debate would consist of Ms. Clinton responding to the questions, and Mr. Trump ranting and raving, about everything and nothing at all. pretty much like his "performances" during the primaries. the media will dub Mr. Trump the "winner", without being able to tell you anything of substance that he said. get out the popcorn.

    Based on the results and the condition of (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:47:45 AM EST
    the country a large percentage of voters are ready to condemn Rice and Powell. Charge'em, try'em and if convicted, jail'em.

    Three wrongs do not make one right.

    Will Trump debate Hillary? Maybe not.

    He'll just say, "This is what I will do," and pound away on what she has done. And he has a large selection of what, at best, calls her judgement into question.

    Parent

    Don't tempt me (none / 0) (#82)
    by parse on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    however, if you're going to beat that really dead horse, then you're going to have to arrest Colin Powell and Condi Rice as well

    If arresting Hillary means we have to arrest Colin Powell and Condi Rice, I would say that's a feature, not a bug.

    Parent

    I'd amost make that deal myself. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:19:03 PM EST
    Sacrifices must be made

    Parent
    Let's be clear (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    Trump is everything you say he is.  The problem is that is exactly why he is winning.

    Back months ago when I started saying he would win the nomination I also said the clueless dismissal of his chances in the primary would evolve into equally clueless dismissal of his chances in the general.  

    We can sniff our disapproval and pat ourselves on the back for our towering moral and intellectual superiority but that won't win the election.  

    Trump is a real threat.  This is what I have been saying for a year.  He is a dangerous man.  Anyone who thinks this election will be a cakewalk for Hillary is in for a very rude awakening.  It will not.  I believe she can win it but it will not be easy and it will not be pretty.  I also believe Trump could win.   IMO we should stop congratulating ourselves and look that fact in the face.  That said I do not expect that to happen.  Most here will avoid and ignore this possibility as long as possible just as the same people did thru the entire primary process.   Knock yourself out.  I'm not going to argue with you.

    Just going on record.

    This is going to be an amazing thing to watch.  It will be like nothing ever seen in modern political history.  I believe that.  I also believe there will be more than once before November when I am deeply and truly worried about my country and its future.   Remember this, yes, many elite republicans will vote for Hillary.  And for every one of them Trump could bring in a new voter who haven't voted in years.  And remember that since the beginning of the primary republican turnout has been off the charts and democratic turnout has been.....not.  

    As far (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    as voters who haven't voted in years the GOP may have slit their own throat there with all their tactics to keep people from voting.

    We do know a few things so far. Romney got 27% of the Hispanic vote. Trump is unlikely to get even 20% of that voting bloc. How many women are going to refuse to vote for Trump is a question.

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    Here's a quote I just heard from Steve Schmidt.  Smart guy -

    Look, I think that smart democrats, and I think that certainly applies to a lot of people inside the Hillary campaign, they know what a tough and formidable opponent he is going to be in the general election.
    The notion that Donald Trump as the nominee is someone she beats in a cakewalk is absolutely wrong.  He is an asymmetrical opponent.  He is totally unconventional.  He will be unlike anybody we have ever seen in a general election contest.  He will have great amounts of energy behind his change message.  He's going to indict the failed leadership of both political parties over the last generation.  He going to say we need a clean break from it.  He is going to position her as a figure of the past in an election about the future.  So this is going to ve a very very interesting general election.

    What he said.
    And I would add Trump is giving a foreign policy speech today where most people expect him to position himself to the left of Hillary when it comes to foreign intervention and other things.  IMO if you think this will not matter in this war weary country you are mistaken.

    So, yeah, cling to Hispanics and whatever else helps you sleep.

    Parent

    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    "clinging" to anything. Just stating what we know.

    How though is he going to be on the left of Hillary when he has said he wants to go full on in the middle east? He previously has sounded more like Cruz than Sanders in foreign policy.

    Parent

    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    And one of his surrogates already said on CNN this morning that they would conduct all military operations in secret.

    Not exactly "left" of Hillary.

    Parent

    I expect an interesting (frightening) (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    Combination of policies some of which would be left and some would be right.  He's all for torture.  He's very much against foreign intervention.  He wants to back away from NATO. He wants to be neutral in the Middle East.  It's a list that fits no category.
    But if you don't think neocons are scared sh!tless, try a Google.
    They are.  If there is a third party it will come from the neocon wing of the party.
    But it will be interesting to see what the headlines are this afternoon after the speech.

    Also I would say you can almost certainly toss out everything he has said on any subject once the general election actually starts.  And yes, he can do that.

    Parent

    Would add (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    Many neocons have gone on record saying they would vote for Hillary before Trump.

    Parent
    And rightly so (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    She's a neoliberal, so there's not much difference in foreign policy terms. At least she will keep all those wars going.

    Parent
    Is Hillary Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    really the hawk she's potrayed to be?

    Unlike with domestic policy, where candidates can lay out an all-encompassing plan and make specific promises about how, say, health care would work under that plan, we understand that this is just not possible on foreign policy, that no candidate can make specific promises about global affairs over a four-to-eight-year span.

    This is because whereas the US government can at least nominally control domestic policy outright, international affairs is a realm largely beyond American control. It's also because domestic policy is much easier to plan for -- people will get sick and require health care; kids will enter school age and require education -- whereas foreign policy is more about responding to unforeseen events, so a president's most important decisions are often how they respond in a crisis.

    When we judge a candidate's domestic policy plans, we can ask questions like, Will their health care plan bring down the uninsured rate? Will their tax plan increase or decrease revenue? How will their energy plan affect greenhouse gas emissions? These are questions we can answer objectively.

    But judging how a candidate will conduct foreign policy is much more deductive and thus more subjective. In a confrontation with a hostile state, is the candidate more likely to emphasize diplomacy or coercion? If a small country falls into civil war, will the candidate use military forces to intervene and restore order? How will the candidate respond to a terror attack launched from within a chaotic failed state?

    Candidates can't present white papers explaining their policies for these sorts of hypothetical foreign policy crisis. So we are left to judge them by making inferences from their past policies and from how they seem to think about foreign policy more broadly. These are the best tools we have, but they are highly subjective and abstract.

    It is pretty easy to determine whether a presidential candidate will expand or shrink, say, access to health care while in office. It is much harder to say whether that candidate will expand or shrink American military engagement in the world.

    When we ask, say, about Hillary Clinton's reputation for hawkishness, there is no agreed upon thing we are measuring or metric by which to measure it. Different people can look at the same candidate and reach widely different conclusions based on the same data. But, looking at Clinton, it seems that the reality is more complicated and less categorical than the reputation.



    Parent
    I just want to take one moment (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    And thank President Obama for sicking JSOC on the ISIS leadership. I don't have hear about how Democrats are failing the world or how hawk Hillary will want to go beat up ISIS. It's already being done. Check and check, and the Democrat goes easily to the White House whether your rabid or fearful or both. And some bad guys will fall too.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    that's Trumps problem, IMO he will have trouble hanging on to much of the "moderate" Republican vote, any move he makes toward the center, or even worse to the left of Hillary will make it that much harder for those voters to support him.

    Parent
    Not sure where the bingo came from (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    I don't agree with that at all.  Surely we have seen that nothing he says makes any difference to his supporters.  The people who are for will be for him no matter what he says.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    keep trying to make the point that he will be formidable in the general while you correctly describe how he is driving away many Republicans. I understand that his base will support him no matter what, but any reasonable analysis suggests that he must expand that base to even come close in November. He will certainly need an overwhelming majority of Republican to do that.

    Parent
    While I think he will have (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    An overwhelming majority of republicans that's not the problem.  Any republican would.  The problem is the independents and democrats he will get.

    Parent
    According (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    to polling he gets about 2/3 of Republicans. Of course we've got months so he might get higher than that.

    Parent
    When it becomes (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    Any republican vs Hillary you will see those numbers change.

    Parent
    Who knows. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    Republicans were all over twitter trashing his foreign policy speech calling it Palinesque. It seems Sarah picked the wrong time to drop out of running for anything.

    Parent
    The neocons (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    Never supported him.

    Parent
    Capt: Indeed, the headlines will tell (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    What I've been wondering lately about the presumptive General Election situation is:  How the media is going to play it in all its obvious or somewhat subtle or explicit or implicit way.

      In the early months of the primary campaign, a number of people (including reporters themselves) have noted the preponderance of air-time accorded Trump and matters Trump ... almost everywhere one looked, listened, etc.  A significant percentage of the big media components appear to have taken on a move now to highlight all Trump errors, write strongly negative editorials and more ... all the while continuing an impressively large amount of coverage. Contemporaneously, the coverage of HRC began with the negative email stories--over & over (to the point where reporters themselves began to question the worth and the accuracy of some extensive coverage.) The next stage of coverage as to Clinton seemed to be that of characterizing her candidacy somewhat negatively as uninspiring & unfocused, especially when compared to Sanders.  With winning and approaching the position of presumptive nominee, the tenor of coverage about HRC--imo, anyway--seems on the upswing, even approaching the positive view.  So ....

    After periods of the media pushing stories about ostensible favorable/unfavorable images, what box are they occupying now???  The media will--as it always does--try for a narrative soon enough?  Will it be Hillary the Brave or Donald the Bold?  Will it be the rehabilitation story of survival, experience & seen-the-light learning of Hillary "The History-Making President" Clinton OR the dominance of Donald "America First" Trump?

    While I believe that the times and the demographics favor HRC, I would never underestimate Trump (especially in view of how he snookered the media in the defining stages of his primary season candidacy.)  I also believe that Hillary Clinton will prevail because she--of all people--will not miscalculate when it comes to the predictably unpredictable Donald Trump.

    Parent

    Not so much to the left (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:55:56 PM EST
    Trump "pledged a major buildup of the military, the swift destruction of the Islamic State.."


    Parent
    An advisor (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    Told the media there will be "no details" in his foreign policy speech today.

    As if anyone thought there would be.

    Parent

    So far (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    from what I have read his speech is nothing but a rehash of everything he has said so far about foreign policy. Build a wall, leave NATO, pretty much John Bircher foreign policy.

    Parent
    He never said (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 01:28:25 AM EST
    he wants to, or is going to, leave NATO. And, Hillary too should be careful about claiming he said that.....especially when its so easy to prove what he actually said.

    And, when the American people get to hear what he really said about NATO they'll find that his position is quite reasonable, and will get great support.

    Oh, and they'll find out that Hillary should confirm what her advisers are handing her to read to the cameras rather than just saying things that are, demonstrably, untrue.

    If this is a small example of the upcoming Trump/Hillary election we've got bigger troubles than we thought.

    p.s. For example: There are 28 countries in NATO. Every single one of them has agreed to, and committed to contributing 2% of their budgets to the NATO budget. At present, I believe only 3 countries have complied with their committment. As Trump has been bellowing to anyone who wants to listen (instead of just looking for clever one-liners to mock him with) America (The "Sucker") has been picking up the Lion's share of the scofflaws' shortfall. Soooo, what Trump actually has been saying is that IF, IF, IF, those deadbeat countries don't start paying a little bit more for their own defense, instead of saying, "screw you, Uncle Sam, YOU pay for us," then, and only then, "I'll consider another approach."

    I think a lot of people will find that appealing, and Trump will have, besides "Crooked Hillary," he can add "Lying Hillary."

    Like Howdy has been pounding the table, "You dismiss Donald Trump at your own peril."

    Plus, on a personal note; I'm getting really tired at so many here quoting this comment, or that obscure poll, exclaiming the glory, and invincibility of our beloved Queen, while scurrying around, cutting & pasting every stupid, demeaning quote some idiot posted somewhere about the Donald, and, all Trump is doing is, week in and week out, is mowing down everybody in sight, and with increasing numbers, and ever greater ferocity, who still have some suckers to fund them.

    Finally, I don't have much of a functioning sense of humor these days. I didn't swim across the Atlantic to this country to see it handed over to a guy who hasn't got the sense of patriotism in his entire body I've got in a single pube. So, Hillary isn't the best, but she's the best we've got. And, when it comes down to, at least a chance, against, maybe metaphorically, maybe  actually, certain death, I'll take that chance, and take it as if my life depended on it.

    Parent

    Sh*t I agree with Trump there... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    we've paid the bill for the defense of Europe for far too long.  

    Team Hill should have a proposed plan ready to get them deadbeats to buck up...no ticky, no missile defense!

    Parent

    I would encourage (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    Viewing of this mornings Morning Joe for some reasoned discussion of Trumps speech.  You will hear "left of Hillary" more than once.  This was a group of not entirely insane conservatives and a couple of liberals including Howard Dead who was forced to admit it was "very politically astute".

    Also a discussion of the so called bipartisan dissing.  

    I don't expect many here to do this.  But whatever.

    Parent

    I've said it once, I'll say it again... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    if he wasn't "white male power!" dog whistling and if he wasn't...umm, Donald Trump...I could see myself considering it.  I really could.

    I think the big chair in DC is in desperate need of an outsider, and all the seats in Congress too...and I like to gamble;)

    Parent

    A lot of Libertarianism in Trump (none / 0) (#151)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:39:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Why do you think (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Sun May 01, 2016 at 06:05:29 AM EST
    "An outsider" would be successful at doing anything in Washington?  Why do you think someone with no government experience at all would get anything done?

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#148)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    that NATO has been used as an economic vehicle for some of the post-Soviet Bloc countries. I doubt that is in the Mission Statement.

    Parent
    If you (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    think I am dismissing him you are mistaken.

    And yes, I'm sure Trump is going to make it personal. It's what he does. He also acts like he's stuck in middle school. The question is how many people will buy into what he's saying.

    Parent

    Are those people (none / 0) (#22)
    by sallywally on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    Trump voters, though?

    Parent
    All I can (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:48:41 AM EST
    tell you is the people that I know that are Trump voters are tea party types. Generally older and very upset about the "browning of America". I also know a number of Republicans that are refusing to vote for Trump and are going to write in Mickey Mouse for president.

    Parent
    Funny the differences between TN and GA (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    The Tea Party people I have attended meetings with are for Cruz.

    Look at Trump's comments re PP and taxes. Do you think those are Tea Party positions?

    The burning issue among the TP's is mostly immigration. Something Trump is seen as being stronger on than Cruz.

    He matches Cruz on national defense and beats Cruz on the issue of foreign countries defending  themselves that the TP's support. TheTPers are not neocns.

    Parent

    Certainly (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    there are some Cruz supporters. Jenny Beth Martin the local tea party grifter endorsed Cruz but Phyllis Schafly endorsed Trump and do you think she likes PP? Both Trump and Cruz seem to intersect with support around here.

    Parent
    I suspect anything can be proved by invoking the (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    name of the "Tea Party." And  I had no idea Phyllis Schafly was a member...

    "When explaining her support for Trump, Schlafly cited Trump's strong positions on promoting pro-America trade policies, curbing immigration, and defending national sovereignty -- issues which are very important to Schlafly."

    snip

    This story offers a front row view into how Cruz allies operate throughout the conservative movement. They have aggressively pressured conservatives into publicly supporting the senator--or at least not supporting someone else--and even sought to `blacklist' those who don't, so as to fit Cruz's narrative of being the one candidate who the conservative movement `united' behind."

    Best I can tell her organization predates the Tea Party hooray.

    Parent

    Regarding Phyllis Schafly, I think that ... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    ... any woman who would allow her politics to trump -- no pun intended -- the inherent humanity of her own gay son, to whom she would publicly deny his right to full equality before the law, really has no business being taken seriously by anyone on any matter. Such a contemptible person should deserve our scorn and pity, rather than a public platform.

    Parent
    Dear Donald (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:30:24 PM EST
    Is it okay with you if she has free speech?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    here's Debbie Dooley another big tea partier here in GA endorsed Trump. So like I said there's intersection within all that here. You can read what she says here

    Phyllis Schafly is concerned with the "browning of America" and has even said that Hispanics don't have "American" values. She also was mad at Nixon for his support of civil rights. It's pretty obvious where she's coming from.

    And you certainly are not going to see me defending Cruz. So I don't know why you are posting that about it. There also has been big fights down here between Cruz and Trump supporters.

    Parent

    I agree 100%. (none / 0) (#18)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    I have spoken with many educated people who openly contemplate voting Trump.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    I think the problem with seeing this is when people do not know anyone voting for Trump.

    Parent
    I think it's going to be a cakewalk (none / 0) (#60)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Trump is no evil genius.  He has hit his ceiling already.  Almost nobody who isn't already on the Trump train is going to board, and plenty of the riders are soft and will get off when the ride gets bumpy.  It's going to get really bumpy.

    Remember, Trump still hasn't really come under credible attack, save for Hillary's opening salvos.  He caught an incredible break early in the primary.  For whatever reason, all 17 million Republican candidates each independently decided that s/he would be better off attacking some other candidate that was competing with them for the "establishment lane," the "conservative Christian lane," the "New England Yacht club lane," or whatever, and nobody else thought they were running for the "batshit crazy lane," so nobody else attacked Trump until it was pretty  much too late.

    Then, FINALLY, Rubio attacked him and made a total hash of it by attempting to imitate Trump, which only made him look utterly ridiculous.  Now Cruz is attacking but Cruz couldn't convince a falling man to hit the ground.  Kasich is still keeping himself carefully above the fray and out of relevance.

    Hillary will knock that fat butt for a loop.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    The GOP went after Trump full force for a while. The problem was that it didn't work with GOP voters. That being said it's not to say that it won't work with a lot of other voters.

    Parent
    A different take (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    I don't believe that beating Trump will be a cakewalk for Hillary. I bet she doesn't think so, either. She'll need to step up her game, and I fully expect she will meet the challenge.

    This is why (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    It has to be Hillary.  I honestly believe she might be the only democrat in the country who could do this.  One thing the Clintons understand is trench fighting.  

    Sanders would lose 49 states.


    Parent

    Kevin Phillips (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    made the same point years ago. He said the Clintons are the only ones that understand how to fight the GOP.

    Parent
    Debates, and (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    the campaign.  Mrs. Clinton has odds in her favor, but, as the Captain underscores, these are only odds, not outcomes.  Surely the Clinton campaign has, and will continue to, study and test the effective means of addressing the Trump phenomena.

    An important part of that study would be to review all the debates with the clown car occupants.  Trump debates by insult and outrageous assertions, the centerpiece of the phenomena.  It is what his supporters and the media look forward to and expect. His followers dislikes Hillary with an irrational passion and they would be disappointed if he did not ridicule and make fun of her.

    But unlike the Clown Car road show, Trump will not be able to just stand Il Duce-like with some inane utterance from time to time, but will be, for the first time, one on one.

     And, of course, the Roveian concept of turning a strength into a weakness--Mrs. Clinton's experience and mastery of policy and details will be pooh poohed and details of matter  will be portrayed as just being bogged down in minutiae.  Unlike, the huuge vision of Trump, "and getting the best people, believe me, in the world to advise him. No problem there, believe me."

    We know the playbook. Now, what to do.  (l) Stay on the high road. (2) Ridicule the Trump policies in a clever way, by pointing them out.  That should be enough, (3) Reverse the Rovian tact: Discuss intricacies of domestic/foreign policy and explain plans for the future, (4) Debate moderators should be approved only if willing to ask fair questions,  that should be devastating for Trump, (5) Moderators should come from media in small town USA, not likely to be intimidated by Trump.

    And, of course, the debate backgrounder: (6) the selection of a Vice President.  Who knows who Trump will select, probably a woman, but maybe that Duck Dynasty guy, or some other show biz celebrity, to match, but not outshine, him.

      Mrs. Clinton's choice will be particularly crucial: no white male, not her strongest demographic anyway, or at least not necessary for thinking white males, and the best choice, in my view, would be Elizabeth Warren--having a ticket both of the same gender is not novel. Otherwise, Donna Edwards, Elijah Cummings or Julian Castro. Let the insults fly. At Trump's peril.


    The more I read about Tom (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:58:09 PM EST
    Perez, the Secretary of Labor, the more I think he would be an excellent Veep choice. He is a tried and true liberal/progressive. He is the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic and speaks Spanish. He has a resume full of experience in both state/ local politics and as a U.S. Attorney and head of the Civil Rights division at Justice.

    He is in his early 50s, so young enough to run, should he want, in 2024.

    And selecting Perez does not adversely impact the number of Democratic senators.

    Parent

    Yes, Tom Perez (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    may be a good choice, as well.  Brown University and Harvard Law; Assistant AG under Janet Reno, and, now, Secretary of Labor.  Mr. Perez has been in the cross-hairs of the Republicans and knows the terrain.  Saw him on Bill Maher's Show a few weeks back--a nice presence and good sense of humor (which he would need.) But, I'm still sticking with Senator Warren as first choice--important to the senate, but the general election is the greater good, in my view.

    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    But I do not think Hillary will pick Warren.   Just a feeling.

    Parent
    Just hope that it is (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    not Tim Kaine--qualified, but he seems to have all the get-up-and-go of a bowl of mashed potatoes.

    Parent
    I think (ok mostly hope) (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    She will go more progressive than that.   But who knows.  I'm still trying to understand Biden.

    Parent
    He has a great (none / 0) (#64)
    by sallywally on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    sense of humor, too.

    Parent
    Julian Castro (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    Hispanic, young, good resume, sparkling & almost magnetic personality, and very good speaker.  A particular plus: Clinton/Castro enhance each other appearing together or apart.  (My confession on this one: Husband has been urging this position for a few years after hearing an address in Denver and, then, after watching Hillary and Julio on stage together.)  

    Parent
    It is not written in stone (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    But unlike the Clown Car road show, Trump will not be able to just stand Il Duce-like with some inane utterance from time to time, but will be, for the first time, one on one.

    that Trump will debate Hillary. He knows that she will play the female card and try to look hurt and put upon should he zap her record a bit.(See her Senate race.)

    Trump will pound the economy and her joined at the hip with Obama's failed foreign policy. And he has already established a fire wall by criticizing the Iraq war. What shall she say? I agree with you and should not have voted for it?

    Parent

    If Trump is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    looking for an advisor, I am the greatest and the best, the best.  Believe me. No problem. And, my advice on debates for him would be not to debate Mrs. Clinton.  He would be a loser in that format. No "Little Marco" or "low-energy Jeb!" to kick around.  Better to make an excuse, such as the moderator has a whatever, than reveal the dearth of his nakedness way beyond the suggestive inferences of Marco Rubio.

    True enough, Trump will attempt to pound her on everything. That's what debate opponents do. But, there is likely to be a return volley unlike the cowering seen by the trepid clown car occupants.

    However, the problem for Trump is to be an effective pounder, he would have to know something beyond  what we have been treated to up to now: Obam-ma is bad, China is bad, we are losing, and, oh, we will build that wall, the best ever with a door.

    Parent

    That's one scenario, (none / 0) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    what actually takes place will be determined by the, "bipartisan, truth seeking, completely fair, agenda-free, totally professional," Muderators.

    We'll know in the first two minutes whether each candidate will be allowed to make, or, respond to, questions put to them.

    It's the constant: "Both candidates speaking at the same time, one speaking over the other, moderators cutting candidates off without letting him/her complete a thought, and, so obviously, looking for scandals & gotchas" that you wish there were no moderators at all and just let the candidates debate between themselves.

    Parent

    Don't forget, this guy is not new to the limelight (none / 0) (#61)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    There are reams and reams of tape on him, and he made himself look ridiculous PLENTY of times.  He's vulnerable as hell.

    Parent
    You know it's funny (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    That's exactly what his 16 republican rivals said.

    Parent
    I just can't get there today (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    And I really tried

    But all I can imagine is a Hillary Clinton inauguration.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    August 26, 2020, the centennial of the 19th Amendment.

    Yes, I am hoping to get to DC then -- and this  January, too.  My daughter already has asked for vacation days, as well.

    Parent

    Ridicule is the only way to go (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Trickster on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    He is so set up for it.

    But if he comes across like an ass, you don't actually talk to him.  You talk about him to the audience.

    Do you rememeber what a ridiculous (none / 0) (#107)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    buffoon George Bush was in 2000? He re-set the bar for stupidity and ignorance.
    Trump is smarter than W., so I would say he is qualified, by U.S. standards.  Also, people don't care about stupid quotations---they really don't.

    Parent
    "I can't remember a candidate for..." (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NycNate on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:20:12 AM EST
    "I can't remember a candidate for national office in my lifetime who made personal attacks like these against an opponent."

    Most people can't either. I've lived in DC 20 years. I have seen criminal behavior and incompetents shielded by members of their party and/or the opposition. No one calls a spade a spade here.

    Most people on this board wouldn't dare do what Hillary did, regarding the servers. Most people here couldn't imagine skirting your company's email server and setting up your own.  So people are attracted when they hear straight talk. Even if they don't necessarily agree.  

    There should not be two sets of rules when it comes to abiding by the law. I have had various levels of clearances.  Even if she Hillary could legitimately do all this, my next question is, WHY?

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:28:01 AM EST
    Because Government Software stinks on ice.  It is clumsy and implemented via contracts constructed by non users putting the eventual contractors at third remove from any actual user's needs.  

    I'd guess that Clinton wanted a system that was as fast and flexible as she was, like the ordinary email clients we're all used to, without the onerous paranoic security theatre solipsism that infects every aspect of government nowadays.

    Do you want your Secretary of State doing Secretary of State stuff?  Or do you want her banging her head on a keyboard, locked out of her "super ultra top secret secure" government email account because some idiot's idea of State Department security required changing passwords five times a week?

    I could disagree with Clinton on many issues but I can't disagree with her taking the initiative on this.

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    hackable and hacked.

    Parent
    Congratulations (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    Do you want your Secretary of State doing Secretary of State stuff?

    Yes, I do. And I want her to be smart enough to do what the lowest member of the DoS can do.

    Parent

    Stop Making Excuses (none / 0) (#47)
    by NycNate on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    I have worked in many gov't agencies.  I work in the private sector now.  I see no reason to do what she did.  Many gov't agencies use Outlook.  No different than what is used in private companies.

    Parent
    Each agency is autonomous. (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    The State Dept.'s electronic communications system and as we've seen, was antiquated and prone to hacking by a third party. There was absolutely nothing illegal about what she did at the time she did it and further, it was no different than what he two immediate predecessors did.

    You want others here to "stop making excuses for [Mrs. Clinton.]" Maybe we'll stop once you and her other Republican critics cease constantly applying an odious double standard to nearly everything she does, by which you seem to believe it's perfectly okay for a GOP-chaired House select committee to repeatedly leak classified information to the media -- there's nothing but the sound of crickets chirping from you guys about that -- yet continue to purposefully but wrongfully insinuate that what SHE did in using a private server for her work email was somehow illegal, when it wasn't.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I work for the government (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    and my agency switched to Outlook -- and it's awful, far worse than when we had our own servers.

    And so, you do not persuade me.  

    Parent

    And today, by the way, is day three (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    of yet another crash of our servers, statewide -- and our connections to Microsoft servers and more.

    We did not have anywhere near as many problems when we had our own servers on site. . . .

    Parent

    And BTW (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:25:12 PM EST
    OUTLOOK is famously the most hackable piece of software ever.

    Parent
    Check out (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    this list of instructions for hacking OUTLOOK

    Parent
    MS Outlook is horrible. (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    I had so many issues with it that I quit it altogether and never looked back. I recently dallied with it again when we converted everything to Windows 10, but it still sucks. Why Microsoft insists upon sticking with it when Windows Live Mails has been so much more user-friendly, I'll never know.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    For many the answer is simple. She is hiding something. Is she? We'll see.

    Has Trump been nasty? Yes he has. Will he be nasty to Hillary? Yes he will. Does everyone care? A few may. Many do not.

    The question will come down to this.

    Does the country truly want change? Hillary is just more of the same. Trump personifies change.

    We live in interesting times.

    Parent

    I bet he'll say something about (none / 0) (#4)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:45:19 AM EST
    going to the bathroom.

    Trump v HIllary... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    aka the 2016 Unfavorability Sweepstakes...who do you dislike least America?  

    In this corner, the prototypical politician who has worked for reviled American companies such as Walmart, Verizon, and Goldman Sachs. And in this corner, the thin-skinned loudmouth brand marketing shyster embarrassment with small hands straight outta reality TV.

    Nothing drives out the vote like Haterade...we could see record turnout in this one folks!

     

    And in YOUR corner, kdog, ... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    ... there are the terminal cynics who continue to repeat unsubstantiated insinuations and third-hand GOP talking points ad nauseum as though they were from the Holy Gospels, having apparently convinced themselves that these tired one-liners and shopworn clichés somehow pass for political wisdom.

    Parent
    Wisdom? (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    Just an observation man...the candidates with the highest unfavorability ratings in the national polls are gonna win on both sides.  

    I think that says something about the "party faithfuls" like yourself, as well as the candidates.  Like Towanda says below, the more criticism Clinton gets, the more y'all seem to like her.  Same goes for the Repub base it seems, the more we dislike Trump the more they seem to like him.  Terrible way to pick leaders, but what does an old cynic like me know right?

    So rejoice my friend!  You're ahead in the race to least dislikable, and I expect you to expand on that lead once the spotlight is down to two.

    But back to the debates...I hope they let Jill Stein in this time and don't c*ckblock her again like 2008 & 2012.  For no other reason than making Trump stand on stage and take lumps from not one but two women.  Who wouldn't pay extra to see that?

    Parent

    What it shows is (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    people don't like Sanders enough to vote for him. It's why he is over 3.1 million votes behind.

    Parent
    I did not like him enough... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    to change my registration to be able to vote for him...Busted.  He's cool, but not cool enough to put my name and Democrat next to each other on a piece of paper...it's my father's good name! ;)

    Parent
    Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    I think you're probably pretty typical. You like Bernie but not enough to actually vote for him. That seems to be the case as he seems to often get less actual votes than what the polls say he is going to get.

    Parent
    Oh I would have voted for him... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    in the general, I never miss those...I just couldn't put the Scarlet D after my name in a closed primary state.  Bernie is a better/lesser man than me there, depending on your view of the Democratic Party.

    Open primary I woulda been there, no question.

    Parent

    Exactly. You like him, but not (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    enough to put any effort into it. And, sadly for Sanders, it appears you have lots of company in the "too much trouble to actually vote for Bernie" group.

    For all her alleged negatives, Clinton's supporters actually made the effort to vote, and in rather large numbers.

    Parent

    Effort I have no problem with Case... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    Joining the Democratic Party is/was the problem. I've had major qualms all my life, to put it mildly.

    This was uncharted territory for me...sure I had my preferences of who the nominees would be before, but I really didn't care because I knew I couldn't vote for them. This was the first Democratic primary where a contending nominee got me excited.  

    On second thought, Howard Dean did a little bit...but he flamed out so fast it was moot.

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    but aren't you kind of relying on other people to tote the load for you in the primary? IMO it sounds like well, if they nominate Bernie I'll vote in the general but I'm not going to go to the trouble to sully myself to help him win the primary?

    Parent
    Yeah, that's it! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    Cast your presidential ballot for Jill Stein, a woman who's own political effectiveness is such that she could barely muster 20% of the vote in a recent race for a Massachusetts State House seat in a very liberal Boston district.

    And then three decades from now, you can explain to your fellow barflies how you held fast to principle and refused to compromise. In the meantime, nobody really cares what Jill Stein has to say about Donald Trump, because only a relative handful of people even know who she is in her own native Boston, never mind throughout the rest of the country.

    You know, it's rather hard for me at this point to take you at all seriously in these discussions, when you make such conscious and deliberate choices to self-marginalize as you do. And that's exactly what you've done by repeatedly touting the virtues of Bernie Sanders in recent threads, while so studiously avoiding any personal commitment on your part to actually support his candidacy with your vote.

    If you cannot or will not support any major party candidate in this election, that's entirely your decision. But don't then mock everyone else for their own respective choices, as you did here by advocating on behalf of a candidate who otherwise -- by your own admission, no less! -- apparently wasn't worth your own effort to register as a Democrat in your state's recent primary.

    For all the good such "advocacy" does, you might just as well have been shilling for Francois Hollande's re-election in the upcoming French presidential election, 12 months hence.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    What it really says something about (none / 0) (#153)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:59:05 PM EST
    is the short-lived and, ultimately, fluctuating perceptions about those under the most continuous heat of the spotlight.  I'm sure that you will recall from so many past elections, the "frontrunner" early on in the cycle is the one about whom the least is known.  You know, the knight-in-shining-armor will come via this unknown person.  The halo effect typically goes away as we begin to know more about a person or suitor :)  

    Parent
    More likely (none / 0) (#155)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:21:39 AM EST
    the outcome would be

    ... Clinton stand on stage and take lumps from not one but two opponents.

    and

    Who wouldn't pay extra to see that! :(


    Parent
    Yes, your constant haterade (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    will motivate me, even more, to vote.

    Parent
    I think you are (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    Correct.  Lots of voting against.

    A smart person once said no one ever got registered to vote for someone.  They get registered to vote against someone.


    Parent

    But...but... (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    That's not what Bernie and his supporters told me!

    Wall Street does not appear too thrilled with the prospect of a Clinton presidency

    Parent

    Did you READ that article? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    Other than the headline, I don't think Hillary Clinton is mentioned. It's all about them hating Trump. The closest thing to Wall St not being thrilled about Clinton is:

    "But it's not just Trump that has investors worried. Some 37 percent in Tuesday's poll said they don't know, or are unsure, whether it's best any of the current contenders win -- whether a Republican or a Democrat.

    Parent

    Apparently you missed the part (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    Where it said that around half want John Kasich.

    So while it didn't go into detail, it certainly be destroys the tired meme of "She's bought and paid for by Wall Street."

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:14:34 PM EST
    Is "Kasich" another way to spell "Clinton"? What does rather having Kasich have to do with not being thrilled with Clinton? The headline could have said Wall St not thrilled with Dr. Strangelove for President and been just as correct.

    Are You really so mesmerized by Clinton that you can't even read and comprehend words?
     

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 05:18:10 AM EST
    Do you not understand that when asked whom they would like to see as president, most did NOT say Clinton, contradicting the memes put forth by Bernie and his supporters that HRC is so bad because Wall Street loves her?

    Parent
    OK, I lost the pig wrestling match (none / 0) (#149)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    you like the parsing words thing more than I do.

    Parent
    Of course they would say that (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    Remember "Don't throw me in the brier patch!"

    Parent
    Conservative media - types (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    just have to be secretly PRAYING for an HRC win, lest they have to spend the next 4 years defending He-who-wears-a-dead-animal-on-his-head.

    You didn't even mention (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    The coming fight over the platform.  Trumps folks say they are going to change it.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    maybe this is why the GOP establishment is not too upset anymore with Trump. They are going to use him as the fall guy to dump all the evangelical clap trap from their platform.

    Parent
    My Problems With Both Candidates Is (none / 0) (#58)
    by RickyJim on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    Hillary: I can't imagine voting for a neocon if that is what she really is. I would like to see how she responds to any isolationist bait Donald throws at her.

    Donald:  I don't really know how he feels about anything.  It's possible that he would do a good job as President, but anything is possible.  

    Heading to lunch and switched on Sirius CNN and (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cashmere on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    MSNBC.  Initially Trump was giving his "foreign policy" speech.  It appears over now, but all the networks are talking about is Cruz and Fiorina!  Must be infuriating the Donald right now...  Hahaha.

    Frankly (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    the speech was ignore worthy from what I read. It was just a rehash of everything he has been saying for months and months.

    Parent
    Cruz-Fiorina "16! (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:06:31 PM EST


    I am totally confused by this. (none / 0) (#74)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    Why does a person who is not yet the nominee and does not look likely to be one, need a running mate?
    And, Fiorina? Is this like McCain picking Palin because they think that women are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman?

    Parent
    I think the plan might be (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:20:46 PM EST
    for Fiorina to reprise her primary persona as female attack dog going after Clinton. The GOP seems to believe that anything a woman says about another woman can never be called sexist or misogynistic.

    Parent
    It has nothing to do with Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    it's just trying to get the GOP female voters to vote for Cruz in the remaining states in an attempt to force a non-1st ballot Trump victory.

    Parent
    You might just be on to something (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    Every single person waving a flag behind Ted is female.

    Parent
    And I think the one (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    Standing next to him in the front has on a T shirt that says "I'm with stupid"

    It might say something else if I put on my glasses but I'm not going to do that.

    Parent

    Why ruin the mental picture (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:16:55 PM EST
    I'd love for that to be true and posted on Twitter.

    Parent
    It actually read: (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:48:01 PM EST
    "My grandparents voted for Ted Cruz, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"

    Parent
    1. last ditch effort to get the nom on (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    the second ballot, if there is one, and help in Indiana.

    2. YES!!!!!!

    Parent

    There's a special place in hell... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    for women who don't support other women...so suck it up and send Fiorina your support on this (useless) endeavor V! It is your chromosomal duty;)

     

    Parent

    LOL, well played sir (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    I do support the Cruz/Fiorina ticket over the other GOP alternative...Trump/Trump, so I am doing my bit for the sisterhood!

    Parent
    I like Cruzarina (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    Sounds like a tutu might be involved

    Parent
    Nice try, Cruz, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    but iFiorina is ineligible to be his running mate. According to the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, "in case of removal from office, his death or resignation, the vice president shall become president."  And, since iFiorina is too ugly to become president, she is too ugly to be vice president.  (cf. Trump, Donald)

    Parent
    Anyone else notice (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    Teds campaign sign has a burning American flag?

    LINK

    Parent

    Definitely (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    The Severity Ticket.

    Parent
    iFiorina (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    may be the second choice of Cruz. After all there was a very conservative, Wheaton Christian College alumn and family values Republican just waiting in the wings. Maybe the first choice was ruled out by Judge Durkin,since he now has a commitment that precludes acceptance.

    Parent
    I'm thinkin (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    His first choice of an announcement today was an endorsement from Mike Pence.  Which has been oddly absent.  And that has not gone unnoticed.

    Yeah, I think Carly was plan B.

    Parent

    I wouldn't say oddly absent (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    Everyone doesn't have to voice an endorsement. Those that do are looking for publicity for themselves as much or more as for those they endorse.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    But Ted wants it.  Bad.

    Parent
    What about Ivanka? (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    Hell in a handbasket! LOL

    Sh*t with any luck, should the electoral college ruin our century, maybe Ivanka will be the woman behind the mental midget curtain. Like Nancy Reagan was when Ronnie lost his marbles at the tail end of his second term.

    Parent

    I knew if I read TL long enough (none / 0) (#117)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:13:20 PM EST
    I do support the Cruz/Fiorina ticket over the other GOP alternative...Trump/Trump

    I would find a comment from you that would make me say, NO, HELL NO!!
    Cruz/Fiorina = Trump/Trump = equally loathsome.

    Parent

    Best quote yet (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    "It was a clever strategy by Ted Cruz to get her delegate"

    Parent
    It is a tough call (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    I change my mind about it hourly. Luckily it is totally out of my control.

    Parent
    No worries. I would rather spend an (none / 0) (#116)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    eternity in that special place in hell than lend any kind of support to Fiorina.

    Parent
    Bernie laying off staff per NYTIMES (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cashmere on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Bernie laying off staff and focusing on the remaining states.

    http://tinyurl.com/jkartmu

    I saw that (none / 0) (#121)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    I know he's not running out of money, but I guess the campaign is winding down and he probably won't need them for the general :(

    Parent
    Off Topic (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    Hastert's plea deal recommended up to 6 months in prison, The Judge gave him 15 months and called him a serial child molester. Probably not a smart judicial comment since that wasn't the charge before him. Either way Tom Delay must not have much pull.

    Hastert's serial molesting became ... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:59:50 PM EST
    ... part of the public record, since he admitted to such as his rationale for paying hush money to one of his victims. What a thoroughly loathsome creature he turned out to be! As such, his Dec. 1998 election as Speaker of the House provides a wholly appropriate historical and hypocritical capstone on the 1998-99 GOP effort to impeach Bill Clinton for marital infidelity.

    Parent
    A Presidential pardon (none / 0) (#113)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    would be one of Cruz's first official acts.
    Seriously, I don't know if Hastert will even make it to prison. His health is terrible, and the stress of this sentence could hasten the end.

    Parent
    True, the plea (none / 0) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    deal was based on bank fraud, rather than sexual abuse charges which were beyond the statute of limitations.  

    However, the sentencing took into account not only the basis for Hastert's structuring to avoid banking rules, but also, the recent falsehood of Hastert that he was being extorted by false accusations of improper sexual relations by one of his victims.

     This caused Individual A to have his phones tapped, bank accounts monitored and the initiation of other investigations.  Hastert also contacted the brother (a long-time political ally in Illinois) of one of his victims for help in his case.  The judge noted, too, that Hastert tried to use his influence to manipulate the FBI and US Attorney's office.

     A part of Hastert's sentence, besides the jail time, includes two-years of supervision upon release, $250,000 fine, entrance into a sex offender treatment program, and prohibition from contacting victims.  Hastert's attorneys made an apology, on behalf of Hastert, for his actions. The judge indicted that if Hastert would have told the truth when confronted by the FBI, they would not have been there today.

    Parent

    I will never forget that quote, (none / 0) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    coming out of the Nixon, Watergate days. High level pundits were discussing why Nixon, with the walls, inexorably, closing in on him didn't resign, and retire.

    One of the High Priests of Political Journalism stated, "There is no aphrodisiac as all-consuming, and as powerfully irresistible as that of Political Power."

    (maybe paraphrased slightly)

    Maybe Hastert proves that point.

    I googled that quote (none / 0) (#154)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    and landed right back here.  You've achieved the rarest of rara avis, the single google hit:
    1 result (0.60 seconds)


    Parent
    You may be thinking of Henry Kissinger (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 06:42:38 AM EST
    From wikipedia Kissinger page:
    Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
    As quoted in The New York Times (28 October 1973)
    Lesser known variant: Power is the great aphrodisiac.
    As quoted in The New York Times (19 January 1971)


    Parent
    there's an open thread for Hastert (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    please do not comment on him in this thread. It's off topic.

    Imagining a Hillary-Trump Debate | 153 comments (153 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment