Trump's Worthless Advisers

The only thing I have to say about Trump's meaningless list of persons he might consider for the Supreme Court is that it's instructive as to the quality of the advice he's getting: Poor to worthless to absurd. The list really isn't worth any more keystrokes than that.

The most ridiculous name on the list: 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor. I wrote about him extensively when he was nominated in 2003. GW Bush couldn't get him confirmed and had to use a recess appointment to get him through. (He was finally confirmed in 2005.)The Washington Post, in an editorial, called him Unfit to Judge. You can read all my posts here. [More...]

Aside from his repugnant beliefs on almost every topic, this quote is really funny. During follow-up questioning after testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the Innocent Protection Act, he stated:

[A]ppeals "are crucial only for Monday-morning quarterbacks who try to second-guess things and create issues that are probably not real in the first place."

He also once referred to Supreme Court justices as "nine octogenarian lawyers", a comment he later apologized for.

Bottom Line: Trump has no political experience so he will be ultra-dependent on advisers. We have no idea who they are. All we know, judging from this list of judges he admires and might or might not pick, is they seem to be as poorly informed as he is.

< Paris to Cairo Flight Goes Missing, May Have Crashed In Sea | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll send Trump $27 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    If he picks Fiorina for his VP.  :-)

    I really think it might be (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:39:41 AM EST

    Governing experience
    Establishment cred
    The religious right loves him (go figure)
    If the VP job is attack dog.......

    And the guy is probably second only to Trimp when it comes to getting media attention.


    So then we get Trump AND Gingrich (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    Trying to make hay out of Bill Clinton's treatment of women.

    The levels of absurd will be incalculable.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:48:13 AM EST
    The Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    Have beaten Newtie before.

    But it would be fun to hear again about how he and his (now) wife were caught having sex in a parked car on the Hill while he was still married to wife #2....


    lol; let us know when (3.67 / 3) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    that's worse than serial philandering in the Oval Office.

    I can see... (3.67 / 3) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    the patented Teflon Trump smirk and shoulder shrug now.

    And the HRC campaign is talking about Bill Clinton as chief economics adviser...speaking of piss-poor advisers.

    If I were campaign manager I'd beg Bill to go on a 6 month humanitarian mission to Africa or something...get that eyesore outta sight!


    cause why would anyone (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mm on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    support a very popular 2-term Democratic President with an outstanding economic record?

    Some of the issues are raised above in this thread (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    It's not as simple as returning to some sort of hallowed "glory days."  He's not so "very popular" as some seem to want to think he is, nor is he anywehre near the toxic influence that FNC suggests.  But a lot of people remember without fondness, the trade issue discussed upthread, along with "welfare reform," for example.

    I'm not even saying all the criticisms of him on economics are fair.  Just pointing out that there are those who thinks he electrifies and excited voters everywhere he goes, and that's just not true.



    "Outstanding Economic Record"... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    Lloyd Blankfein, is that you?  Mark Cuban maybe?

    Mark Cuban (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    That's a good one .

    i dont understand (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by linea on Sun May 22, 2016 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    2-term presidents are ohibited from being president a third time (Twenty-second Amendment).  

    are you saying, "vote for bill clinton's wife as a was to subvert the constiution and put bill clinton back in charge?  like that Medvedev - Vladimir Purin sillyness; with Medveded an obedient puppet for Putin?  like that?


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by mm on Sun May 22, 2016 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    I agree.  You don't understand.

    Agreed, in substance. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:37:47 PM EST
    President Clinton's role in campaign, primary and general, should be carefully titrated. His presence as a former president is his best contribution, introducing speakers and speaking in platitudes.  Certainly, he should not be an attack dog, such necessities being left to campaign surrogates.

    I believe I understand the campaign's intention--deploying the talents and resources available, and selectively using his popularity and political skills.  No doubt, the thinking goes back to Al Gore's ignoring the electoral capabilities that Bill Clinton offered. And, to assure continuation of the Clinton/Obama coalition.

    However, I agree with you, albeit on a different basis, that it is Mrs. Clinton who seeks the presidency and her campaign to set forth. She is among the most qualified individuals to have ever sought this office. True, she needs support from all quarters, and family is always a part of that. That is part of a campaign, as we see with Sanders' Jane, and Trump's Malaria.

     Sending Bill off to Tanzania is not necessary, but calibrating his contributions should put him somewhere between economic advisor and vice president- in-charge of looking out the window.  


    I didn't take her comment to mean (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    She was ACTUALLY going to put him in charge of economic matters, because that would really be a large portion of HER job.  Rather, I took the comment as a wink and nod to remind people how good the economy was under BC.  

    Good for grifters... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    and good for widening the income gap.

    My version of the glorious late 90's economy was gasoline cheaper than dirt, and once that passed so did the glorious economy.  I'm actually doing better now with another commodity cheaper than dirt...the sacrament.  Makes 99 cent gas look like 15 cent gas! ;)  

    Twas an illusion for most people, but very fruitful for the very few and some internet hotshots who cashed out before the bubble popped.  Not to mention the after-effects of the market deregulation which hit under G-Dub and Obama, mistakes which still haven't been fixed and may be worse than ever.


    Where he's really a noose... (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    around HRC's neck is on the issue of the treatment of women.

    There is an issue where HRC should have had a nuclear weapon to Trump's rubber-band gun, but because of Bill it's hard to harp too much on how much of a pig Donald is without reminding everybody of how much a pig the first First Man is.  With Trump's carnival barking deflection and media manipulation skills, it might backfire bigtime.


    I think Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    needs to adhere to the high road.  Trump's misogyny and disrespect for women are relevant in comparisons between Clinton and Trump and their impact and impingement on their respective policies.

     Mrs. Clinton need not shy away from pointing out Trump's contemporaneous attitudes based on past infidelities of her husband. A marriage that worked out its difficulties to the satisfaction of each partner and has endured for over 40 years.

     Neither do I believe that Trump's serial marriages and affairs should become an argument against Trump, per se--excluding claims to support "traditional marriage."

     The mysteries of marital relationships should not be confused or conflated with misogynistic attitudes and actions.

    But, I agree, that Bill Clinton's very public history makes the discussion tricky. Of course, Trump does not do nuance, but, most others, including his favorites, the poorly educated, do.

     The electorate did not buy into the Clinton scandal at that time, and that was 18 years ago. Mrs. Clinton is on good ground and Bill has been forgiven.

     Besides, if Evangelical wingers can forgive Ben Carson for his penchant for hitting his mother on the head with a hammer or stabbing guys, or sending robbers over to the minimum wage cashier, commonplace marriage difficulties of the past should not be an insurmountable barrier to calling Trump out for his boorishness.  


    Ivana Trump testified (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu May 19, 2016 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    during her deposition that Donald Trump raped her.  Here is TPM:

    The details surrounding the alleged rape are bizarrely novelistic even by Trumpian standards. According to Ivana, Trump was driven to freakish rage by a failed anti-baldness surgery - a so-called 'scalp reduction'. But the actions are very clear cut. According to her deposition, Trump flew into a rage, attacked her, held her down and began pulling hair out of her head to mimic his pain and then forcibly penetrated her.

    Ivana has tried to walk back her sworn testimony but has never retracted her comments directly.

    Josh concludes it may be time to confront Donald about the rape, now that he has already gone there with Bill.


    And K-dog (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu May 19, 2016 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Dems should not cower in fear.  Bill Clinton never had approval ratings so high as during Impeachment, and the Republicans contrary to all recent history lost seats in the 1998 midterms.

    Surrogates should start tweeting about Ivana's sworn testimony that Donald raped her.


    please Dems, don't do as Gore did and (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ruffian on Sat May 21, 2016 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    back away from Bill. Not that Hillary could even if she wanted to, but that was fatal in 2000.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    the problem is Trump has a ton of problems in that area. So it's going to be a wash in the "politics of personal destruction" department. Trump's policies towards women is a whole different ballgame.

    Even conservatives said that the GOP should issue an apology to Bill Clinton after nominating Donald Trump.


    kdog: In view of the year we are in now (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by christinep on Sat May 21, 2016 at 12:07:30 AM EST
    and after the countless stories of countless politicians with countless variations of sexual escapades, I'd suggest that nobody much cares about blue dresses or whatnot from 20 years ago.  Trans: Former President Bill Clinton is probably the best advisor Hillary Clinton could have in certain economic matters to which she referred--namely, designated areas that have suffered extensive job loss in recent years (e.g., coal country.) He is still one of the most popular political figure in the country.  

    We all know that you do not like the Clintons ... that & the obsessive dislike that Repubs attach to Bill & Hillary Clinton doesn't change his persisting respected status among most Americans.  Should HRC succeed in her Presidential quest, I am sure that the First Dude's role will be both historically unique and very appropriate.


    I'm so surprised you would make this (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 29, 2016 at 07:39:10 AM EST
    Comment. My friend who doesn't really believe in marriage, something I also believed when I was younger. You have always been someone who seemed to believe we are each very individual, even when it comes to a significant other, we don't carry the sins of and in fact have no control over the actions of another.

    No Matter What (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    This will be the ugliest election for President that we have seen in a very, very long time.

    As Kramer would say, "Giddy Up."


    She (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    was talking about him working with Appalachia. Of course, we're supposed to ignore them i guess .

    Don't ignore them... (3.67 / 3) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    but don't send a man who provides economic assistance to grifters to help Appalachia...it's hard enough to make ends meet!

    He's (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    very popular there and who should she send Bernie? Who has not a clue as to what they are experiencing there?

    Yeah, K-dog I get it. It's all about the grievances.


    I'm from "there" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    A lot of people in, for example, Western NC, who are struggling financially still, blame Clinton and NAFTA.

    Perhaps moreso than they should, but blame him many of them them do.  

    It is not correct to say that Bill Clinton is "very popular" in Appalachia, in my opinion.

    Who should she or anyone else "send down there"?  Her advocacy for affordable and even free child care is a step in the right direction.  How about more of that, and less surrogates.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    a lot do and then a lot of them don't blame Bill either. They also remember the 90's as a time when they had jobs and extra money. A time of peace and prosperity.

    The people who blame NAFTA are ignoring realities and looking for a convenient scapegoat. Factories were leaving that area for years before NAFTA. I mean if you're going to blame NAFTA you might as well blame raising the minimum wage increase.


    I agree that NAFTA is not fundamental culprit (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    But I also agree with critics of our trade policies.  What came in the oughts to be called "protectionism" was not always thus disparaged.  And now we appear to be back in a cycle where voters are making it clear that they want better deals when it comes to Trade.  All candidates, aspirants, apologists, lovers, dreamers, & me, can ignore this at our peril.

    And I still think to win those voters over (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    In the numbers that she would like to win them over, it's not going to be about personality or surrogates or nostalgia.  It really will, on some levels, come down to policy, for all the mud that's being slung, for all the fears that are being felt.  

    That's why I mentioned her child care proposals--several of my family and friends in that area bring that up very early when listing things that cause them to consider voting for Clinton.


    The child (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    care thing really matters to people who have been shelling out a ton of money for child care. I tend to agree that most voters are going to tune out the mud slinging and look for something that they think is going to make their lives better.

    Those of us lucky enough to be able to afford (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    Child care, with adults in the home at work, really have no idea how crippling that issue can be.

    There are other such issues onto which she can latch, and credibly fight for some of these states that are in play.  I still think student loan relief is an issue big enough, vital enough to our whole economy and national morale, resonant enough with middle and working class people across the country, that she can run with it through the summer.  But only if she really believes it matters and is willing to fight for it.  

    And when the neocons realize that there will be no "third party alternative" for GOPers , somma these people are going to turn to Clinton.  In my opinion, it will help her with the same voters we are discussing, if she tells the Kristols to go to hell, when they arrive at her door.


    Also people don't see how they may be (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    benefiting from NAFTA in the form of low prices for food, clothing, and other goods. It is a cycle of people wanting to only pay so much for a pair of jeans resulting in low wages here and elsewhere, resulting in people only being able to afford to pay so much for a pair of jeans.  

    Strike NAFTA and see where prices end up and go from there? I guess it might be a useful experiment, or educational exercise.


    Personally (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    I would rather see them keep NAFTA, and instead put some labor protections in place here.  

    As many have been pointing out more eloquently than I can articulate, there's nothing intrinsically noble about manufacturing work.  Hell, before Unions and a whole lot of labor movement efforts, those factories were exploitative death traps.

    And there's no reason why one cannot work in retail or service in the US, to name two examples, and command a living wage and health benefits.  

    Now, as then, it comes down to what kind of society do we want to have.  Which people matter, here?


    As someone (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    who was in retail in the heart of textile company I can tell you we used to have textile workers that would come in to the store I worked in and complain about stuff not made in the USA. However the stuff that was made in the USA they would complain was too expensive for them. Then they would get in a foreign car and drive off. And that's back in the day when none of the foreign car companies actually made anything in the US. My mother in law was the worst. She would scream about all this and then one day I said you drive a Volvo. So apparently it is okay to put "those other people" out of jobs like auto workers in the US.

    Good points all (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    And why I think the more important issue is to protect workers in the US in whatever industries and whatever sectors,public or private . We need to push back hard against the "Wisconsin model" and redeem Unions from the pariah status that the right and that neoliberalism generally, has inflicted . Right now things are such a mess though , we aren't even recognizing just how asymmetrical, how truly shwarped our economy and our social contract really has become .

    Minimum wage increases are only the tip of the iceberg . It's time, not for a "Revolution," but for a New New Deal.


    Well, golly gee, kdog! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    Maybe she should send Jill Stein.

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    Maybe there's noone to "send."  Just make her case and hope it resonates with struggling people whose votes are very much in play this election. There's no magic person whose sheer charisma will do it.

    And in my opinion, the swipe at Stein is unnecessary and ugly.  She's right on a hell of a lot more than she's wrong about.  


    Yes glanton... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    but she's a nuisance.  A nobody.  No master of market manipulation and fraud ever gave her a campaign contribution...she's suspect! ;)

    ... save for you and a few of the other political purity faeries floating around in the ether.

    Jill Stein is a political poseur. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    Like every other Green candidate I've even known and seen, she doesn't do the heavy lifting of campaigning and party building, but instead issues memoranda via press releases, outlining her positions of whatever topic of the day that happens to fancy her.

    If she truly had the political courage of her positions, she'd run as a Democrat. But she won't, because that's too much work. It's far easier to stand in the bleachers and heckle the players, labeling everyone who's out there competing "corrupt" and "corporate shills." Her Mother's Day tweet in which she implied that Hillary Clinton was a lousy mother was revolting.

    It takes neither courage nor effort to run for public office as a fringe party candidate. All that's required is pretentiousness, which is a personal characteristic that Jill Stein possesses in abundance.



    Which route is easy? (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:06:20 PM EST
    I've heard people accuse Bernie Sanders of taking the "easy route" by running as a Dem instead of running Green or forming his own party . Which is it ?

    Stein's right on a lot of things is all I said.


    And I said that Jill Stein ... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:44:20 PM EST
    ... is irrelevant to the present discussion, because she doesn't want to get her Birkenstocks dirty. As for Bernie Sanders, he became competitive by joining the Democratic Party and I have to respect that. He made himself a power player in national politics by sheer force of personal will. So, between Sanders and Stein, who deserves to be taken seriously and who doesn't?

    If Stein isn't willing to jump knee-deep into the fray and throw some elbows, then quite honestly, who cares if she's "right"? Because trust me, nobody's listening to her except a relative handful of left-wing outliers whose tin-foiled hats are tuned in exclusively to their own echo chambers. And that will bear out come November's results.

    There's a dirty little secret about politics that most of my fellow leftists refuse to acknowledge. And it's that at its base core, politics is NOT about right or wrong. Rather, it's about the attainment of power and what you can do with that power, whether it's for good or otherwise.

    Attaining and retaining power requires at least some ability to compromise. Sometimes, you have to give some things up for the greater long term good, with the unspoken notion that you're not giving them up for long if you can help it.

    The worst thing that's afflicted U.S. politics of late is a given candidate's increasing reliance upon Manichean points of view, advocating for a world where compromise is no longer acceptable. Well, nobody -- and I mean, NOBODY! -- wins in the long term when our politics is reduced to a zero sum game. Because as our own late Gov. John Burns once told a colleague in rebuke, "Any goddammed fool can draw a line in the sand."

    Perfect is always the enemy of good. If it's more important to you that your candidate be 100% in sync ideologically with your own worldview than actually be electable to public office, then you're orbiting above the earth's ozone layer and wasting everyone's time.



    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    Only one lost his job because of it, and it wasn't Bill Clinton (who isn't running, by the way). Of course, there's also the asking of wife #2 for a divorce while she was in the hospital....

    Like I said - they've squashed Newtie before and he brings nothing new to the table.


    What you say is true jb (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    But it's also true that the crazy right loves that Newt went after Clinton.  Even if he lost.   Maybe especially if he lost.  Do-over.

    Uh, no, jb. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Newt asked Wife No. 1 for a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. As for Wife No. 2, well, she was served with divorce papers while she was back in Ohio attending to her sick mother. But all that's okay, because Newt is now a good Catholic. In fact, he wrote the book on how to be a good Catholic -- literally.

    I hope Trump does pick him as his running mate, if only because the astonishing display of hypocritical self-righteousness and unctuous sanctimony will make for truly grand theater. Their base will egg them on, and they're both egotistical enough to actually go there. It would be a precursor for their political annihilation.



    My bad (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    If Newt is Trump's VP, we're gonna have to get scorecards to keep track of Trump's 3 wives and Newt's 3 wives...

    One other thing (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    WHAT a story it would be.

    One silver lining (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Even though it would largely be mudslinging, many of us could also use this as a moment, in ways including these Boards, to raise the level of discourse about exploitation of women and misogyny more generally . I mean Trump's treatment of women will be a thing that gets talked about , as will Bill's, as will Hillary's, and as would Newt's.

    We might wish it was about candidates' policies but if the narrative goes where it's gonna go, we can find ways to be constructive there too .


    I think it would offer possibilities (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    And risks.  Newt is whatever else a very astute politician.  

    Who the hell knows who he will pick really.  He might Omarosa.


    Well, Gingrich wasn't so astute that ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:21:28 PM EST
    ... he was able to hang on to power in 1998, was he? While, he's certainly nobody's dummy, his penchant for overplaying his hand proved his downfall.

    Trump is like (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    the barking dog who caught the car. Now, what to do? Surely, Trump is smart enough to know that he is ignorant in what to do next--all that governance and stuff.

      He did a great job in the primaries, astutely recognizing that as a one-eyed man he was king in the land of the blind. My guess is that he is gearing up for the general in a manner he envisions for his potential administration-- the Russian Czar/Boyar organization.  He will be the grand front man, with all the trappings. He likes that.  The Boyars will rule in that they will  come up with policies and what to do with them.  He will be the Republican Establishment's face and facade. Literally, a Potemkin Village candidacy, and what would be the same for a Trump Administration.  

    Trump's signature of "the wall" will likely never make it past the nobles.  Already, the immigrant round-up is being re-sold as a "metaphor."  All just part of the primary, all suggestions.  The Heritage Foundation will be tasked with ideas and names, such as the shopping list of potential justices. Paul Ryan will call the shots in legislation.  The Supreme Court will do the heavy lifting on social issues. Pryor is a good example of an extremist, including among the most anti-gay judges.

    POLITICO (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    Bottom line peeps (4.00 / 1) (#48)
    by smott on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    Trump has a very good chance of winning this thing.
    Sanders continues to roll grenades under the Democrats' door.
    The media continues to pretend Trump is not an absolute existential threat.
    And that Clinton is a criminal.

    Berniestas who weren't even alive during the Clinton years reliably spout right wing talking points that could have come straight from a Rush Limabaugh Hate Radio script. And of course they'll stay home and not vote for Clinton, to protect their precious snowflake-ness. We've raised a generation of narcissists that are now about to kill us.

    Our media has not just let us down, they have enormously contributed to what might be the biggest tragedy in a century - the election of Donald Trump.

    It's actually happening.

    There's a long way to go (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    And Hillary Clinton is no passive recipient of fate . She has a lot to say about how this election goes , still.  It feels like we are on the cusp of going to the polls because this has been going on forever, but we're only just getting started .

    Instead of slamming on millenials, it might not be the end of the world to consider their concerns .  It was after all our generation that fucked up the economy , invaded Iraq, made drone-bombing trendy, made college an insane financial burden, and privatized much of what we , as kids, were able to think of as public goods .

    So a bit less high horse rhetoric and a bit more understanding seems in order .


    It is what it is (4.00 / 1) (#53)
    by smott on Thu May 19, 2016 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    As for Clinton, she is absolutely passive and must be where it comes to criticizing Sanders. Her hands are tied.

    The Press, not so much. But Sanders remains almost entirely un-vetted. Does anybody think a guy with this temperament is any more suited that Trump? Total abdication by the MSM.

    I have three nephews who I love , who are all millennials. Sorry if you think I'm slamming on them but  (as I have told them) they have the misfortune of arriving at voting age at a critical time, and they do not have the luxury of putting their feelings above what is best for their country. In fairness, some who came before them did. But they are not that fortunate, and have a larger responsibility. The idiots in NV should be ashamed of themselves, but I suspect they are not, and that is what I mean about our being at fault for raising a generation of self-centered narcissists.

    If you are going to excuse them by putting everything on our generation, then knock yourself out. I didn't vote for Bush, in fact I changed my citizenship in order to vote against him. If I blame us, it's as I said, for raising a self-centered generation.

    And you're missing the Press, who helped enable the very worst in our political sub-culture, who enabled Nader, who enabled the Swift Boaters and ignored GW and his coke-stroked Natl Guard BS. And on and on.

    Call me high horse if you will. I didn't fuck up the economy, or invade Iraq, or anything else you mentioned. I did my best to vote against and work against all that. To the extent of giving up my birthright/passport, and more.

    And re the High Horse -  I actually think it's a truly nauseating "High Horse" that Sanders and his whole campaign have ridden thus far. The notion of purity, that if you don't support him you're tainted. That if you could even consider voting for Clinton you're an un-redeemable sell-out.

    THAT is some serious High-Horse sh-t. I can't touch that.

    But if you want to blame me/us, then go ahead. We raised the Millennials who now have a huge responsibility.   Which I fear they will abdicate by not voting.


    Unvetted (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:01:57 PM EST
    indeed. We know voluminous details about Hillary's life, all the way back to her Goldwater Girls. She has been excoriated for many of those details from the left, the right and the media again and again.

    Meanwhile the MSM virtually ignores any in depth probing of Bernie's history. Erstwhile hippie, undying revolutionary, lifetime politician, a "working class hero" who never held a steady job. He is never hounded about his past.



    That's because (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:18:06 PM EST
    they are aiding and abetting the GOP. If Bernie was the nominee the hounds of h*ll would be unleashed on him and it would be very ugly.

    It sure will. (4.50 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:34:56 PM EST
    Just for starters, they'd note that Bernie was a deadbeat dad who chose to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. By the time Election Day rolls around, half the country would be convinced that Bernie was one of the real-life leftist apparatchiks interviewed by Warren Beatty in the 1981 film "Reds."

    Not (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    to mention his praise of Castro and the Sandinistas, on tape no less.

    So you think (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Fri May 20, 2016 at 07:34:05 AM EST
    Scott Nearing, Henry Miller, and Dame Rebecca West were simply "real-life left wing apparatchiks"?

    That foreshortened synopsis could be an excerpt from Bill O'Reilly's American history series.


    This pronounced tendency (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Fri May 20, 2016 at 08:10:47 AM EST
    to follow the Right's lead into the abyss of stupidity in order to head them off at the electoral pass is what gave us Wall Street deregulation and Democrat tax cuts for the wealthy..

    And if the situation now calls for a little old fashioned fifties red-baiting, so be it..


    Get real, dude. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 20, 2016 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    Bernie's gotten a free ride for the most part. Nobody's run negative ads against him this entire primary season, and the media hasn't really looked at him at length.

    If you genuinely think that remains the case if he becomes our party's nominee, then not only do you not even know your own preferred candidate, but you're also appallingly and inexcusably naive. That's not red-baiting. That's the reality.

    So, wise up.


    Wow (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 20, 2016 at 08:15:14 AM EST
    From the resident Kissinger whiner.

    Welcome to Bernie's Revolution,Cap'n, ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 20, 2016 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    ... where repeatedly missing the point has sadly become par for their course. Like I noted earlier, there is no "us" in them.

    Yeah, another inconvenient truth.. (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri May 20, 2016 at 03:03:05 PM EST
    that Her Highness identifys with and pets confirmed war criminals..

    You had to bring that up, just when I was in good mood.


    I (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 19, 2016 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    think it's mostly about ratings, they want a horse race now and in the fall.

    That being said the very essence of the MSM aids and abets the GOP by keeping the electorate stone cold stupid.


    The MSM doesn't keep them stupid (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    It a symptom not a cause

    The failure (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 20, 2016 at 06:24:21 AM EST
    of mainstream journalism is the root cause.

    Day after day I watch lies going unchallenged or presented as arguable points until they are accepted as conventional wisdom.

    Day after day I watch history being misconstrued, ignored, expunged and cherry picked to fit a particular narrative.

    I woke up this morning and watched Chris Cumo and Jeffery discussing Bill's sex life for the umpteeth time. I know exactly what the cause of the nausea I felt.

    When Cumo suggested that voters might find Trumps latest typical bombast regarding the Egyptian airliner 'comforting' my mental health took a nose dive.


    Paul Krugman (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 20, 2016 at 07:07:58 AM EST
    explained it as the media going the way of what they think voters think. They are purporting to pretend they are just like all the voters all across the country.

    If a country id depending on journalism (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 20, 2016 at 07:37:14 AM EST
    To be educated that is not a failure of journalism.   It's a failure of the education system, the political system responsibly for the education system and the family unit.

    I watch and read the stupid media as much as anyone you know.  It has not made me stupid.


    Site Violator (none / 0) (#89)
    by Nemi on Sat May 21, 2016 at 06:30:14 AM EST
    I was alive for the Clinton years... (3.00 / 2) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2016 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    even voted for the guy...then I peeled back the veneer of the "Democrats Good/Republicans Bad" paradigm for a closer look and did not like what I saw.

    Sounds like you've convinced yourself that criticism and concerns about Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership and vision and fundraising practices as a whole are simply a result of Right Wing propaganda and a biased media and dumb narcissistic millennials. I think that is not only a false assumption, but a dangerous one that prevents the Democratic Party from ever addressing the legitimate reasons people are tired of Clinton and Democratic Party business as usual.  

    Maybe it ain't the millenials that are fooled, maybe it's the longtime loyal always fall in line Democrats that keep blindly accepting "Democrats Good/Republicans Bad" that are fooled?



    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 21, 2016 at 07:36:28 AM EST
    kdog, you are mistaking the playing field for the teams. Political parties are basically organisms that survive on a diet of votes. There is hard empirical evidence that the American electorate moved hard to the right during the last quarter of the 20th century and into the first years of this century. In your diatribes against the Clintons and the Democratic party you always leave out that unfortunate fact.

    You absolutely refuse to consider that maybe, just maybe Democrats were trying to do the best they could in the hostile environment that existed and still exists.

    You actually describe the actual environment here  

    Right Wing propaganda and a biased media and dumb narcissistic millennials
    although I would substitute politically naive and overly idealistic as a description of the millennials.

    Sure it's easy to imagine that if only the Democrats had been more like Bernie for the last 30 years we would now be enjoying single payer, free college and income equality, but to imagine that you would have to create a political reality that never existed.

    Who is fooling who here ?


    Verily I say unto you, Kdog, (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 20, 2016 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    it has been revealed unto us that because some elements of right wing criticism of the Saints Clinton are false, that all elements of criticism of the Saints Clinton are false.

    Did The Fool on the Hill... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2016 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    also have himself convinced it was all the people in the valley that were the fools and he's the only smart one?  Is that just how this thing work Mr. Natty?

    I'm more of a  "I'm a fool and so is everybody else" kinda guy myself;)


    that's silly (none / 0) (#96)
    by linea on Sun May 22, 2016 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    bernie supporters dont listen to Rush Limabaugh and only have a vague notion that he's some republican conspiracy kook.  people i know havent liked the clintons since the obama-hillary kerfuffle and because  bill clinton passed the Defense of Marriage act.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 22, 2016 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    have been propagating Rush's memes all over social media. So if you're right then they are completely ignorant of what they have been doing and have no idea where the memes came from.

    And I guess they also do not realize that DOMA kept the country from passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


    DOMA was passed by a GOP-led Congress ... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 22, 2016 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    ... to short-circuit a 1993 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin (74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44. May 5, 1993) which upheld an earlier lower court decision finding that the State of Hawaii had no legally compelling rationale to bar the plaintiffs -- a lesbian couple -- from obtaining a marriage license. This was the very first time anywhere that a court had actually broached the subject and ruled that LGBT couples had a fundamental right to marry.

    It's a shame that people choose to have a highly selective memory about the actual history of this and other subjects, because in fact you are correct, we were otherwise facing a very real threat from the right to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to mandate that marriage was between one man and one woman.

    Had Clinton vetoed DOMA, Congress would have overridden. In 1996, polls showed that over 70% of the country opposed same-sex marriage, and that number quite obviously included lots of Democrats. Hawaii was literally Ground Zero in this battle and was its catalyst, so I'm very familiar with the subject.



    I saw the judge list yesterday (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:51:31 AM EST

    The upside I think is this is just a part of this hard veer to the right he is being forced to make to get the right wing on board.  

    I really thought once he got the nomination he would go for the center.  And I think that was the plan.  In as much as there was a plan.  But the talk of a mutiny and a third party spooked him.  On top of all his other electoral problems I'm thinkin this is probably the final insult to the injury of his electoral prospects.

    Right and left are getting confusing. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ragebot on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    Trump seems way to the right of establishment Republican positions on trade and immigration, and the Democratic positions as well.  Bernie is fairly close to Trump's position on trade and well to the right of the Democratic position.

    But Trump is way to the left of the establishment Republican positions on other things like transgender bathrooms and similar social issues.

    Both Trump and Sanders have done much better than conventional wisdom would suggest.  It might be that part of their appeal is that they do not fit well into the conventional definition of left and right.


    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    Trump is not actually about convictions or even positions.   I don't think he has either.  It's about saying whatever you have to say at any given time for the desired result.

    Which is one of the things that are going to make him very interesting to run against.


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by glanton on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    with your assertion that Trump is to the "right" of Republicans on Trade, or that Sanders is to the "right" of the Democrats on trade.

    It seems pretty clear that Trump and Sanders are both to the left of both parties' establishment leaders, on that issue.


    Your disagreement (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by ragebot on Thu May 19, 2016 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    is understandable.  We do seem to be in agreement that both Trump and Sanders are not in step with the mainstream thinking of their respective parties.

    Voltaire was famous for saying 'if you would speak with me first define your terms'.  In this case our disagreement may be due to us not using the same definition of the terms.

    I define Trump's position as being in favor of fair trade, which can include free trade.  NAFTA was suppose to have provisions for things like what I will call fair labor standards like no sweatshops and such.  NAFTA was suppose to have provisions for environmental standards as well.  Both of these things make products more expensive and are ignored by many trade partners that undercut US produced goods.  Not to mention some trade barriers that increase the price of US produced goods in some countries.  Another area of concern is intellectual property theft.  It is true stealing intellectual property can lower the cost of goods and services.  It also reduces profits to those who created the property, which often turns out to be US companies.  A lot of the provisions of NAFTA and TPP were not drafted by congress, rather hammered out in secret talks by folks with motives favored by those who contributed to established pols.  So is Trump/Sanders position on what I will call free/fair trade to the right or left of establishment pols who want more government intrusion in trade.

    I would point out the trade pacts (possibly by their very nature) have to be very long and complicated.  This makes it a problem for a single person to completely understand the trade pact.  I would posit that huge hard to understand legislation is more to the left than the right, but would understand those who take the opposite position.

    In any case I still claim both Trump and Sanders are popular for their anti establishment positions, be those positions defined as left or right.


    Site Violator (none / 0) (#90)
    by Nemi on Sat May 21, 2016 at 06:31:46 AM EST
    "Monday-morning quarterbacks" (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 19, 2016 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    I'm stunned.  

    At first glance I thought you were quoting Trump.

    Nice (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 20, 2016 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    word salad.