More Prominent Republicans Balk at Trump

Is Donald Trump running on empty? More Republicans are jumping ship and refusing to support Donald Trump and planning on voting for Hillary.

More than 200 current and former Republican elected and administration officials, as well as figures from the party apparatus and the conservative media, have said in recent weeks that they simply cannot support Trump, citing his increasingly erratic statements, his lack of policy specifics and his recklessness on the international stage, with many of them saying they'd vote for Hillary Clinton instead.

In related news, Donald Trump is scheduled for a fund-raiser in Aspen on August 25. Here's what attendees will get for their $25,000:

For $25,000, a couple will get a “VIP meeting” with Trump, along with a photograph with the candidate and attendance to the reception, according to the invitation. A photo and reception costs $10,000 per couple, and $2,700 will gain an individual entrance to the reception.

The first $2,700 of each donation — the maximum amount a federal candidate or campaign committee can receive per election from an individual — will go toward Trump’s war chest, Jenkins said. The remaining contributions will go toward the RNC.

And check out this new poll on Millennials from USA Today and Rock the Vote -- they are deserting Trump and Republicans in droves.

I'm not sure whether his campaign will implode or just run out of gas -- but it looks like there's a deluge of opposition to Trump on the horizon. Hopefully get swept away.

On a related note, Jackson Browne will be playing at Red Rocks August 22. Here's his full summer tour schedule.

< Thursday Open Thread | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    THE HILL (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 08:34:06 AM EST


    If a candidate actually wants to become president, would he and his advisers plan a strategy that includes praising the mass-murdering communist dictator of North Korea? Which voters did Trump believe he would win with that one? If a candidate truly wants to become president, would he and his foreign policy advisors plan a strategy that repeatedly praises Vladimir Putin, the strongman dictator of Russia, and say he is not sure he would defend Europe nations from a Russian invasion? Does Trump believe there is a pro-Putin vote in America?

    Or, as Trump often says, perhaps there is something happening here. Some people might say he does these things because he wants to lose the election and is throwing the game to Clinton.

    I have been to many rodeos in national politics, and literally every single major player in politics that I know expected Trump to "pivot" after the conventions to appear to take more responsible positions and say fewer irresponsible and self-destructive things. Republicans believed Trump would pivot with hope; Democrats believed he would pivot with dread.

    Nobody I know believed that Trump would pivot in the opposite direction, becoming even more irresponsible and self-destructive after the conventions.

    I think (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    it started as a lark but as he got more outrageous his numbers went up with GOP primary voters. He basically can't get out of the GOP primary mode and the more people like Preibus attempt to force him into general election mode the more outrageous he gets.

    But yes, I do think he really does not want to be president. Look no further than the offers he made to VP candidates for proof of that.


    I was one of those (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    Who truly believed Trump would pivot.  You may remember.  And I still think if he has he probably would not have won but could have made a race of it.  I think the evidence of that is in the fact that he is doing as well as he is in spite of the unhinged behavior the terrible campaign and absence of any serious campaign spending.

    I'm thrilled to be wrong.


    Supposedly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:54:41 AM EST
    his lack of spending is going to show up on election day due to no GOTV operation.

    My thought is that he's not spending any money because he wants to walk away with millions for himself.


    And I think you might be right about that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    Shocking! So much money in political races now, is someone running in our most important race for a profit? He's done everything else for a profit, why not this? Is he going to write that book too?  Is that going to be the next Trump University course? Creating positive income streams through political campaigns?

    They say (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    He keeps saying "my crowds are so big!  I can't possibly lose?"  Can he really be THAT delusional?

    Talk about campaign books.  I expect some doozies when this is over.


    The bankruptcy scam... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 06:20:20 AM EST
    got milked for all it was worth by Trump, the brand marketing scam too. And just like all organized crime figures, one must find new rackets or die.

    Trump went and found a new racket. He just gotta make sure he doesn't win. With a Clinton in the race, he's not taking any chances...I'm thinking he's not finished doubling down on wtf. 12 points is still too close, Trump can't rest till he's down by 25.


    He doesn't want to walk away (none / 0) (#32)
    by makana44 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    He'll keep it all, alright. He just can't put it directly into his own bank account. But like Evan Bayh, he can keep it to spend on his next campaign. How much can he end up with? Maybe 300M? If he loses do you think his Twitter account will go silent? Do you think he will stop making speeches? And now being paid for it - probably commanding fees well north of what Hillary and Bill were getting? He will be in great demand. He can just keep running, making money and raising money, all the way to 2020 when he can truly enter as the avatar of an independent Trump Party. He will have sufficient millions of followers from day one, certainly enough to ensure his participation in the debates. And an enormous war chest. He may lose again, chaos may ensue, but at this level losing is easier and more profitable. He'll be a player. Who knows how long he can play this con? "The Art of Running"...second best selling book next to the Bible, just edging out "The AotD."

    There is widespread speculation (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    He plans a Beck style media empire.  Much has been written about this.  He has done several things that support the theory.

    "Some say" he might even do better if he can convince enough of the rubes he was "cheated".

    If Hillary wins there will be a vast industry based on conspiracy theories  and Clinton hatred.  His wheelhouse.  You could say.


    I think that is what this is morphing (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    into, even if it was not the original plan. Breitbart Media needs a new Breitbart.

    There are two or three huge holes in this theory (none / 0) (#53)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    The words "plan" and "strategy" are two of them. DT is all instinct and tactics, zero planning or strategy.

    Let's put it another way: did DT set himself up for months of daily, brutal humiliation before millions on purpose? C'mon.

    Of course he will try to cash in on this debacle some way. That's his m.o. (And what other choice does he have?) But that does not mean he planned it.


    All these Republicans who (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    just can't support Trump.  If only, the Republican party would have nominated one of the other sensible conservatives who were not extreme in their views and expressed themselves in moderate ways.  Such as:

    Fiorina, who charged Obama as being a weak leader hated by generals. She would bring back the "warrior class."  And, of course, she and she only, apparently, saw that fetus video, heart beating and legs kicking.

    Carson, who said Hillary is the devil, her hero, Saul Alinsky, was in with Lucifer.

    Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindahl were welcomed at an Iowa religious freedom rally by Preacher Kevin Swanson who blared in his speech before hand, of the Biblical justification for executing gays. And, Cruz ready to carpet bomb and make the sands glow in the dark. Huckabee and Cruz vying for a place next to the lovely Kim Davis, of the Kentucky Clerk's Office.

    Little Marco, His robotic, repetitious, "choke artist" let's dispel with the fiction that Obama does not know what he is doing..insinuating that the president of the US was purposefully destroying the country. Not inadvertent, as one of the more sane Republicans might suggest.

    Walker, didn't know for certain if Obama was a Christian, a wink and nod to maybe being....a Muslim. And, couldn't say if Obama loved America.

    Jeb, had five explanations of his Iraq position in as many days, but had an economic plan for the herculean promise to double the GDP rate of growth.  Please clap.

    I made (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    this point the other day. The GOP's problems are worse than Trump. Their problem is actually their voting base and what they have to say to get out of the primaries is toxic in a general election.

    All Pennsylvanians should be insulted (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 07:38:52 PM EST
    By Drumpf's claim that he can only lose PA because of cheating or a rigged election. He's basically saying that we are all too stupid to hold an election.

    Another Republican "balks" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    at Trump.   Little Marco Rubio,  says he stands by every balking thing he has said about Trump, "orange," con man, "small hands,"  the works.  However, he supports him and will vote for him.

    LIttle Marco, the absentee US Senator (R. FL) who disliked being senator and repeatedly said he would not run for re-election is running for re-election. Easy to see why, being a con man, is no disqualification for this guy.

    By some weird logic (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    Marco with his pro-gun, anti-gay stance said he was inspired by the Orlando shooting to run again. Personally I think he loved the free vacation time he had by being the US Senator that spent the least amount of time working.

    And, Marco (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    was so taken aback by the shooting at Pulse in Orlando, that he was featured speaker at an anti-gay conference, at Orlando. A rediscovering God in America renewal, by your basic hateful pastors and faith leaders.  The guy who is going to protect gays, Trump, was also there.  

    The long term damage (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    People like "the little Cuban fellow" and Perp Walker are doing to themselves with the "he's a con man but I'm voting for him" or "that is the definition of a racist remark but I'm voting for him" is starting to be much discussed.

    Marco has a lot to lose.  If he loses this senate race by being dragged down by Donald, which seems more likely by the day, he is probably finished politically.



    Ryan (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    That's why it was so much fun when a Republican student at this CNN town hall, a minor hero named Zachary Marcone, cornered Ryan and said to him flat-out, "It concerns me when the Republican leadership is supporting somebody who's blatantly racist and has said Islamophobic statements." He continued with a question: "How can you morally justify your support for this kind of candidate, somebody who could be very destructive?" It was the definition of tough-but-fair, because Marcone was right: Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans who've recently chosen to fall at the tiny orange toes of Trump should be made to account for that decision by the few decent people left within the party. And account Paul Ryan did. Although seemingly taken aback by the question, his answer was swift and unequivocal -- and it said every single goddamn thing you need to know about today's Republicans and the moral syphilis that's eaten big, gaping holes in their souls.

    "That basically means you're going to help elect Hillary Clinton," Ryan shot back

    Trump may be a new low... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    but the lame-arse "that basically means you're going to elect Democrat X or Republican Y" retort to questions of immorality is as old as I am.

    Kind of explains how it has come to this actually.


    Do not misrepresent Tr*mp's comments. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    That's not fair. He said quite clearly that he promised to protect "gay citizens" from physical violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists. (Exact quote, "I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.") Not that he was going to protect gays if they are not citizens, and not if they need protection from anyone else or from anything else. (Not even from extremists who profess some other religion, much less from discrimination.) Don't put words in his mouth. Why can't people stop lying about the poor guy's perfectly clear statements?!

    A bigger (pup) tent (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 03:07:20 PM EST

    The disgraced Roger Ailes has joined the Trump campaign as an advisor.

    Well, this ought to help Trump attract more women into his campaign, LOL.

    Speaking of pups (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    Outrageous fake Trump ads tested on Trump supporters

    Narrated by Triumph the Insult Dog.

    Can these people really be this stupid?  They are voting for Trump.


    Why is Drumpf (none / 0) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    campaigning in states like Connecticut and Colorado where hasn't a snowballs in heck of winning?

    It's the old (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 07:41:13 AM EST
    trick Republicans like to play. Campaign in places like CT because it makes me look like I'm winning. The most recent example in memory was George W. Bush campaigning in California.

    Out here in flyover country (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    The rank and file don't give a flip what the "prominent Republicans" think or do.

    These people are seen as "hoodoos," as one of my friend calls them, that are just DCers who will do whatever they think they need to stay at the free buffet the country has provided them for years and years.

    They are no more Republican than Hillary is.

    The Republican party is dead.

    If Trump loses a new party will be formed.

    If Trump wins the existing party will be changed toward a populist/liberal model.  

    The Republican party is dead (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 03:24:13 PM EST

    The grapes went sour early this season..

    Must be the drought conditions.


    Not sure if it's dead (none / 0) (#11)
    by pitachips on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    But they'll definitely be in the wilderness for a few election cycles. The one thing that might save the GOP is that depending on how Hillarys first term plays out, you may see the Democrats go through something similar in the near future.

    Right now it's just the fear of a GOP president is keeping the Democratic coalition together. A lot of the same issues that the GOP is struggling with (rising inequality between its core supporters, distrust/anger towards the DC and Wall St "establishment", foreign policy differences) exist within the Democratic Party and have yet to be fully litigated.

    Next couple of years will be interesting.


    The GOP (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    base sees nothing wrong with inequality. They actually embrace it and they certainly are not mad at Wall Street. The GOP's basic problem is modernity and changing demographics. They want the old social order back.

    The Democratic base (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    is for equality of outcomes.

    The Repub base is for equal opportunity.


    Yet another blatant falsehood. (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    Neither half of that assertion is remotely supportable with actual evidence.

    Facts? (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    We don't need no stinkin' facts.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:50:10 PM EST
    "Facts are stupid things."
    - President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

    SITE VIOLATOR. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    That's another nice bumper sticker (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    but as spokesperson for the entire "Repub base", you should consider the possibility that you'd almost need an equality of outcomes for there to be true equal opportunity.

    Definitely not true (none / 0) (#29)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    the possibility that you'd almost need an equality of outcomes for there to be true equal opportunity.

     Not all have the same ambitions, desires, goals or learning capabilities. People are all different.
    And many are born into totally different circumstances, that you cannot change. With the differences in family and community structures come distinct advantages, but the opportunity is still there, it just will be harder for some to grasp it.


    The Democratic base (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    Is for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

    There is nothing the Repubs (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    can do. Then dice are cast.

    Yes, it's all rigged by "the insiders" (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    Trump and his minors hath spoken, so it must be true.

    Who are we to consider these things for ourselves?


    minions.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    He's talked quite a lot lately (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    About minors.  Or miners.  Not sure.  Perhaps secondary areas of study.

    Who knows.


    Actually it is the voters who kicked over (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    the trace chains and it is the DCers who don't want to change....and even a few Demos who claimed to but when the party was over they came crying back to Mama Hillary....and Bernie took it all back..

    I wonder how he has paid for his new $600,000 vacation home...maybe Hillary gave him some of her millions from Wall Street..



    Sounds like the grapes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    are now turning from sour to bitter.

    Um (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:36:28 AM EST
    I'm not a Bernie fan, and I think it dilutes his message to be the owner of three homes (two pretty pricey), but they bought this vacation home because they were able to sell a home that had been in his wife's family.   So, despite your crass insinuation, there was nothing unseemly or secret about it.

    Let me more blunt (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 08:36:17 AM EST
    Hillary said she left the WH broke and in debt.

    Now her and Bill are worth $110 million.

    Yet Bill and her have not had a job where they made that kind of money.

    You have to be a politician to make money like that.


    Let ME be blunt (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 09:45:46 AM EST
    So what?  People want to pay lots of money to hear a former governor / POTUS and Senator / SoS speak and take pictures with them.  

    People also want to pay lots of money to ser grown men hit a baseball, shoot a basketball, throw a football. Drive a car really fast,  or shoot a small black disk across the ice and into a net.  They also pay big money to see some person act in a 90 minute movie.  Those aren't "real jobs" open to "real 'Muricans" any more than getting paid to give speeches.

    I thought conservatives were all about the free market and paying what the market will bear?  Well, the market says Hillary and Bill should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech.  Shouldn't conservatives be celebrating?


    Not for nuthin'... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    but ballplayers and movie stars aren't cashing in on "public service", they're cashing in on their talent.  

    I think this kind of profiteering off of elected and/or appointed public office should be discouraged.  

    Wanna be a multi-millionaire?  Become a top flight professional athlete, entertainer, succeed in business ethically, or even get in on the finance rackets. If you desire to serve the public, be happy with the handsome upper middle class salaries and generous benefits those positions provide...or don't do it.

    Before you say it...I am not saying any direct quid pro quo is involved, but the appearance or possibility of it is inevitable.  iow, it just looks bad...it's not too much to ask to choose one or the other.  Sh*t get rich then go into public service if you want...don't get rich off it.  Just my opinion.


    Um (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was a retired private citizen - he was "cashing in" on his insight, experience, and expertise - in other words, his talents. He was not in "public service" anymore.  No one is going to pay top money to hear Janice from Accounting expound her views of where our world is headed, just like no one is going to pay to see me play baseball or shoot hoops.  Hillary Clinton, too, was a private citizen - was she supposed to stay home and bake cookies while she contemplated if she even wanted to run for president?  Take a part time job as a bank teller?

    It only "looks bad" if you honestly believe that those speeches are filled with ways she was going to take over the world and have her audience (of hundreds of people each time) help her achieve that. Since we've heard nothing from any audience member that confirms that, maybe it's time you started believing they were more run-of-the-mill corporate speeches given by someone who isn't so run-of-the-mill.  And since she spoke to other groups, not just banks, I'm wondering if you have the same concern about her speech to A&E TV or a community college group?  She got paid lots of money there too. But I guess you may be right - after seeing her Goldman Sachs speech about empowering women, you've changed my mind - that should be a career ended.  (rolls eyes).

    (BTW - the only way you even KNOW about those speeches is because she released her tax returns.  Since you think she's shady, and since they have given her so many problems on the campaign trail, don't you think the Clintons would have been better at hiding that if they didn't want anyone to know?  But nope -  they were honest with nothing to hide).


    Actually (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    The money really started rolling in once Madame Sec became Madame Sec. And the road to Madame President was swept clean of all obstacles.
    So lets make the future President rich, that should open some doors.

    Making #hit up (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:06:14 PM EST
    Easier than having facts/evidence, but not remotely convincing.

    Trevor (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    is just your typical Trumpie shopping conspiracy theories. But hey, if conspiracy theories that come from people who throw themselves on the white house fence screaming for Obama to put down the Koran with people hauling around confederate flags, you go for it.  

    Even you (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    Know better.

    just check Bill's speech fee's, and countries with pressing issues before the State Department during Madame Sec's time there.
    And contributions to the Clinton Foundation.


    Trevor (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    your passive aggressive enabling of white nationalism is quite evident. The only thing to do is to squash the Neo Nazis like you and others at the polls.

    The Clintons are the most investigated people in the history of this country. All the investigations are to the service of the White Nationalists and Neo Nazis in this country.

    Please proceed with your service. You guys disgust me beyond belief at this point with all your conspiracy theories.


    Please have this comment (none / 0) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    It is insulting , libelous and fully without without merit.
    It just demonstrates the pure hatred displayed by some

    No (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    Trevor. The fact of the matter is I'm telling the truth and you frankly cannot handle it. At this point you can lead, follow or get out of the way none of which you have chosen. You have chosen the passive aggressive endorsement of everything Trump stands for.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    The fact of the matter is I'm telling the truth

    You are delusional and carry a whole baggage of hate with you. You make things up to suit the story in your mind, not actual facts.

    Please be explicit, where in your TRUTH have I ever stated any alliance with Neo Nazi.

    You always take far too many privileges in your "truths", but I find this quite out of line, even for you


    Trevor (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    Jbindc below blows up your own argument with actual numbers.

    Your attempts to smear Hillary and Bill are nothing but in the service of white nationalism and neo Nazism. You really need to look up the definition of passive aggressive. You don't have to directly say you support Nazis only that you want to take their opponent down with smears and lies. Which is the passive aggressive endorsement of the Nazis.

    So if you don't support Nazis then the best thing for you to do is get out of the way since you apparently cannot lead and have rejected following.

    Who is helped by what you are doing? Look at it that way. The person that you are helping is Trump.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#108)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    She left out the big bonus speeches, those for $500k or more.
    11 of 13 came from 2008 and on.
    Big Bucks baby, when your wife is Madame Sec!!!

    Trevor (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    again smears with no basis in facts. You assume that he made more money because of Hillary but there's no evidence to back that up only conspiracy theories that since she was SOS it's the only reason that he made more money.

    Again, if you don't support Nazis why do you use their tactics of smear?


    Indeed - I DO know better (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    ... than to believe your silly, specious smears.  But that's SOP for the wingnut conspiracy machine - all blather, no evidence.

    Might want to do some more research (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    Bill Clinton started making lots of money in 2001 - way before HRC became Secretary of State.  

    As I said, strange that people focus on the banks, when she made so much more per speech from the tech sector....(and d@mn - the Cardiovascular Research Foundation - how awful!)


    Some Of Hillary Clinton's Honoraria

    GE $225,500
    National Automobile Dealers Association $225,500
    Novo Nordisk $125,000
    California Medical Association (via satellite) $100,000
    tinePublic Inc $225,000
    Xerox Corporation $225,000
    Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling Industries $225,000
    United Fresh Produce Association $225,000
    tinePublic Inc $150,000
    tinePublic Inc $100,000
    Biotechnology Industry Organization $335,000
    GTCR $780,000
    Knewton Inc $225,000
    Ameriprise $225,500
    Corning Incorporated $225,500
    Cisco $325,000
    Cardiovascular Research Foundation $275,000
    Canada 2020 $275,000
    Qualcomm Incorporated $335,000
    Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $150,000
    Watermark's Silicon Valley Conference for Women $225,500
    eBay Inc $315,000

    Here's ALL the paid speeches where the money wen to CGI (ooh, both Colgate and UCLA paid Hillary $250,001 to $500,000!)



    There is this (none / 0) (#106)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    Here's a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

    2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton's presidential library foundation);

    2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins' brand);

    2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);

    2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);

    2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

    2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

    2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);

    2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);

    2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);

    2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);

    2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

    2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

    2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).

    So in the time Clinton left the White House in January 2001 and when his wife stepped down from secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton indeed gave 13 speeches for which he made more than $500,000. Eleven of those occurred since January 2009, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Only two happened before then.


    But they (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    happened before then not like it's never and of course a former Democratic president is going to make more money when there is a Democratic administration.

    Again, why are you attempting to help out Trump with your smears and lies? There's no actual proof to what you have been saying. It's only smears and inferences. Again, smears and inferences are the Nazi way. So why are you using their tactics if you don't support that agenda????


    It's funny you don't cite your link (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    But I found it - POLITIFACT, vhevking "Clinton Cash".

    But the implications you are making were not agreed to by Politifact.

    We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct

    So unless you can come up with some actual evidence of quid pro quo, you need to stop.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    The facts are there. You may make any inference from them as you please.
    Clinton supporters will say, It is just a coincidence that Bill made 13 speeches for $500k or more, and 11 of the 13 came while Hillary was Madame Sec.
    Others may say differently.
    All I did was point out the facts

    And this was my original post

    The money really started rolling in once Madame Sec became Madame Sec. And the road to Madame President was swept clean of all obstacles.
    So lets make the future President rich, that should open some doors.

    Which I believe was true


    You (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    are once again spouting a conspiracy theory with the road to obstacles being cleared. Are you ever going to stop being in the service of Neo Nazi white nationalists or are you going to continue???

    Smear and innuendo is the Nazi way, Trevor. Nazis don't need any actual evidence.


    Your "facts" mean nothing (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 08:36:37 PM EST
    ... without your ridiculous inference, for which you have absolutely no evidence.

    Oops - try again.


    Too funny (none / 0) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 19, 2016 at 05:51:12 AM EST
    Your "facts" mean nothing

    As a rabid Hillary supporter, the facts mean nothing to you.

    But they still are facts, however inconvenient they may be to your narrative.


    It's not "inconvenient" at all (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2016 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    The facts you cite - absent your specious inference/wingnut CT of some sort of quid pro quo (for which you have not one iota of evidence) - are meaningless.   But as a rabid,  rightwing,  Clinton-hater, that fact means nothing to you.

    Come back when you have something to back up your conspiracy theories.


    You know (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    he can protest all he wants but basically he's in the service of white nationalism. You can lead, follow or get out of the way at this point. If he was really all that concerned about being an aid to white nationalism he would stop getting all his talking points from white nationalist sites and just plain get out of the way.

    Free markets depend on laws (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    that prevent price fixing and no back room deals that enrich management at the expense of the stockholders and if you lie, as the head of Quest found out, you don't get to keep the money and you go to jail.

    All of which has exactly ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    ... nothing to do with the subject at hand - the Clintons and their legal speaking fees.  Unless, of course, you want to actually make an accusation rather than some craven attack by implication.  But that would require something more than silly, specious slurs.

    Consider the attack (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    done. Corruption flows from them.

    Tell me again how Bubba met with Lynch on the tarmac to talk about the kids.

    Yeah. Sure. Uh Huh.

    When pigs fly.


    It wasn't on the tarmac (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    ... and the fact that you imagine they spoke about something is your silly, little delusion.

    BTW - That "Bubba" was your POTUS, and his wife is about to be.  Can't wait for November and the thought of you waking up to that.


    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    They made money first of all from their books. Secondly they've worked their tushes off to get where they are coming from being broke to where they are now. I thought conservatives were supposed to be about hard work? And people are willing to pay them money for speeches and their knowledge. I thought conservatives were okay with that? Yeah, I know. They are fine with anything until Bill or Hillary does it. I've never seen anything like it. Bill and Hillary can literally make republicans turn into conspiracy theory spouting doomsday preppers.

    They made$110 million off their books? (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 08:12:09 PM EST
    Nope. Not even in neighborhood.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 04:44:01 AM EST
    moving the goal posts again. Books were at the beginning.

    Anyhow you'll buy any conspiracy theory that's being shopped in the fevered minds of conservatives.


    And the millions came (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    when she became Sect.

    I never thought I would see the corruption of the southern political system go national.

    I was wrong.


    Oh, good (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 07:28:59 AM EST
    lord. If you're talking about money to the foundation you do understand that Bill and Hillary are paid a salary? No, I'm guessing that you don't understand the basics the way you are talking.

    The Clinton Foundation has an A rating from charity navigator. So they manage their money quite well and Bill gets a 250K salary a year from the foundation. The fact that people suffering from AIDS in Africa can now get medication and many children here in America can now have meals doesn't mean anything to you I'm sure. After all they are the "unworthy" according to Republicans. You'd rather destroy something and sling mud at it than actually do anything positive done in the world and in the country by their foundation.

    Frank Luntz has said that if you repeat a lie five times people will believe it. You're a perfect example of his studies on voters being effective. You're the virtual rat running in circles or Pavlov's dogs.


    Pay for play (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    was the norm in Arkansas...

    And the Clintons have transferred it quite well to DC.


    After (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    a multitude of investigations there remains zero proof of your wild accusations.

    There is this (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2016 at 03:17:18 PM EST
    We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

    What a deal.

    I'm not a charity rater. I just tell you when I can't rate a charity.

    Lol and apologies to the termite commercial....


    Jim thinks that's evidence ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2016 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    ... supporting his silly conspiracy theory.

    That's funny.


    If he's going to focus on a conspiracy (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    it should be about who put the veterinary animal tranquilizer in the water at Tea Party gatherings to make them stupid enough to get behind the Trump for President movement.

    Must've been the "DC insiders".


    I think it is obvious that a rating group (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    won't rate.

    Because of Clinton's "atypical business model..."

    not representative of a type, group, or class.
    "a sample of people who are rather atypical of the target audience"
    synonyms:    unusual, untypical, uncommon, unconventional, unorthodox, irregular, abnormal, anomalous, aberrant, deviant, unrepresentative; More

    Can't even read a word definition (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 04:54:19 PM EST
    without cherry picking to make it conform to your prejudices and narrow worldview.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    using accepted definitions and synonyms is cherry picking??

    The things you do claim.



    lol (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    yes, oh endlessly disingenuous one, only hilighting words that seem to lend creedence to your prejudices is the epitome of cherry picking.


    That's alright though, you're going to have a good four years to rage impotently about the Clintons; you may as well practice up.


    Heh (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    It's almost like you're trying to suggest the fact that their atypical means there's something wrong with it.   Good thing you can't quite spit out your accusation.  I guess even the wingers occasionally get embarrassed pushing silly conspiracy theories.

    It is an (none / 0) (#135)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    Atypical Foundation.

    It caters to the very wealthy, corporations, and foreign governments. And presents unique problems for Madame Sec in this campaign, and possible Administration



    or you could say (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    it presents atypical problems. Problems that pale however, in comparison to those of the walking atypical problem that she's running against.

    "Caters to" - you're funny (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2016 at 09:51:34 PM EST
    You mean a philanthropy that accepts donations from those groups?!?


    Not to mention the fact that "presenting unique problems" is also not evidence of any wrongdoing.  The fact that all you guys can come up with is specious innuendo is seriously funny.  Didn't you learn anything from the Clinton Chronicles, Whitewater and Vince Foster?


    Dissection of Expenditures (none / 0) (#138)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 08:05:27 AM EST

    While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton's primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

    The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

    The Federalist!!!! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha ...

    Now you're trying to be funny!


    The only (none / 0) (#140)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    Problem, is , the numbers on the tax returns are real.
    And they are no laughing matter.
    It is a bad tell, when someone attacks the source instead of the information contained within.
    If the information was faulty, or made up, it would be easier to rip that argument apart.
    When the information is true, and you have no counter,
    Then the old reliable..
    Oh, its that source, and a lol follows.

    The Clinton Foundation has many issues and questions, so many that the IRS is now investigating.
    Even after 5 years of returns were acknowledged inaccurate and revised.


    Actually, "the only problem is" ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    ... your "evidence" (snicker) - an opinion piece from a wingnut group.

    But the IRS is "investigating" and you think that means they did something wrong?!?!


    How many times have you guys pushed silly investigations in the last 25 years and failed miserably?  I can't keep count.


    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    It is an analysis of their tax returns, with the tax returns as a basis.
    Clinton Foundation Tax returns are not an opinion, well, unless they have to revise them again

    Yes, ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2016 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    ... their "analysis" and conclusions that they reach are the opinions of a silly, wingnut group.  Not a surprise that you try to push those silly, opinions.

    So no (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    facts. Just smear and innuendo? Yes, it's the conservative white nationalist way yet they've been way more transparent than Trump has been.

    Everyone knows (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:20:49 PM EST
    That Charity Navigator refuses to rate the Clinton Foundation. Stop making stuff up!!!

    Why isn't this organization rated?
    We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
    What does it mean that this organization isn't rated?
    It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    "Corruption" - heh (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    It's funny the stuff people think they can claim as fact when it only exists in their fevered imaginations.

    Obviously these hundreds of actual Republicans (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    have been fooled by the lying media and don't know what Trump is really saying, what he stands for, or what a great President he would be.

    Well, there will be one less ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    ... media critic who'll be misleading GOP voters and smearing the Trump campaign by quoting its candidate verbatim. Comedy Central's pulling the plug on "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore," effective after this Thursday.

    That's too bad, because Wilmore brought a sorely-needed African-American perspective to a white-dominated medium. We really don't need to listen to any more cynical white pundits arguing over whether or not the GOP's morphing into a white nationalist party under Trump's leadership. That conversation requires and begs for significant minority participation, since they're the ones who'll be most impacted adversely by the (now-hopefully remote) prospect of a Trump presidency.



    off-topic (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:59:48 PM EST
    you have to use an open thread. If there isn't one open, please wait until there is. Don't hijack the thread.

    Sorry about that. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM EST
    I saw the discussion spin away and tried pulling it back to the topic of Donald Trump, because I feel that our U.S. media really has failed us rather spectacularly this particular election cycle.

    First, for the better part of a year, the media has provided Trump and his GOP allies a platform from which they could demonize people of color and gin up conservative white outrage. And now -- with the notable recent exception of Khzir Khan -- they're consciously marginalizing the perspective of non-European Americans in the ensuing political debate.

    With the overwhelming majority of non-white voters now thoroughly disgusted and alienated by the GOP, the media is framing this presidential election in the context of white Republicans and how they feel about Trump, Hillary Clinton and -- most absurdly of all -- the notion of "political correctness."

    And that's truly a shame, because this discussion about our country's future needs to be about ALL of us, and not just about the current conundrum faced by GOP leaders, who've been sowing the winds of racism and xenophobia with dog whistles for the better part of 50 years, and are now reaping the resultant whirlwind of vitriol created by their efforts.



    I can't disagree with any of that. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    Bottom line in this business is audience ratings, and over the course of 18 months Larry simply didn't have them. His show was hit and miss with me. When it was on fire, it was great. But its misfires were sometimes rather painful to watch.

    (I like Trevor Noah, but my one issue with him as host of "The Daily Show" is that he's a South African who came of age in post-Apartheid Johannesburg. Because he's not an American, he's not really in any position to speak with moral authority about the African American experience.)

    I just hope that Wilmore's voice continues to be heard in other venues, so that white pundits and journalists are the nearly-sole arbiters of what does and does not constitute racism and xenophobia in this country.

    I mean, I'm the white husband, father and in-law of Hispanic Americans who've experienced such odious bigotry as Donald Trump's first-hand, and I wouldn't presume to speak for them on this particular issue.

    I can only speak as someone who's borne witness to such prejudice myself, relay second-hand what family members have described repeatedly as a humiliating and dehumanizing experience, and note my own fear for their safety.

    But personally, I have no idea what it's like to be the deliberate target of someone's race-based wrath and subjected to personal threats, and / or have my citizenship and patriotism questioned by sole virtue of my complexion and skin color.

    When white people like Trump, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are freely allowed to redefine racism over the nation's airwaves, it shouldn't surprise us that they do so in an manner which both suits themselves and furthers their own purposes, first and foremost.

    That's why the perspectives offered by people such as Larry Wilmore, Maria Hinajosa and Jorge Ramos are so important. And when those voices are being marginalized, we need to speak up ourselves and demand that they be heard.


    Correction to third paragraph: (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    "I just hope that Wilmore's voice continues to be heard in other venues, so that white pundits and journalists are NOT the nearly-sole arbiters of what does and does not constitute racism and xenophobia in this country."

    My bad.


    Another (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    Trump video deposition

    Nevertheless, Trump's team has fought to keep the video out of the public domain. Trump's lawyers filed a motion seeking to keep the video under seal, but D.C. Superior Court Judge Holeman denied that request.
    "Counsel for Landlord has worked to avoid transforming a breach of contract lawsuit into a three-ring circus that is tried in the media and the 'court of public opinion,'" Woods wrote in a motion filed last week. She cited Curiel's decision not to release the Trump University videos. "Videotapes are subject to abuse," she warned.
    However, Holeman--an appointee of President George W. Bush--seemed unimpressed by those arguments.
    "Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants seeking ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in damages....Nevertheless, Plaintiff repeatedly seeks to prevent inquiry into or disclosure of available and relevant evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Trump, an active participant in the business transactions at issue," the judge wrote in an order Thursday. "The public's interest is heightened in an action involving a candidate seeking public office....Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested relief."
    Barring some charge of heart by Holeman or a move to appeal to a higher court, release of the videos seems likely. A court spokeswoman had no immediate comment Monday when asked about plans for release of the videos.

    In the Euphoria Over the Trump Meltdown (none / 0) (#38)
    by RickyJim on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 09:51:08 PM EST
    Nobody here seems to be worried about what Hillary's neocon sympathies might get the country into.  Somebody who is as close to Benjamin Netanyahu as she is, certainly scares me.  Who will be her Secretary of State?  Might Kerry stay on?

    How exactly is Hillary Clinton ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    ... "close" to Prime Minister Netanyahu? That's a question you need to ask yourself and then examine in depth using a multitude of sources, without an inordinate reliance on the hyperbolic political punditry of the late Democratic primary season.

    In fact, one of the surprising revelations from the release of Mrs. Clinton's State Dept. emails has to do with her serious concern about how to deal with Netanyahu's ego and psyche.

    I don't believe that Mrs. Clinton is anywhere near as close to Bibi Netanyahu as you presently perceive her to be. As Secretary of State, she found his general intransigence terribly frustrating to deal with, as has her successor John Kerry and many of her department colleagues. With the possible exception of a one or two right-wing GOP members of Congress, I don't think there's anyone in our government who's close to him at all.



    why (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25:44 AM EST
    can't hillary have neocon tendancies but not like netanyahu? i realize that many (most?) neocons are very pro-isreal but is that a requirement? is neocon anything more than a synomym for warmongering?

    "Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of... American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force."


    Read Her AIPAC Speech (none / 0) (#49)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    Link. A little bit one sided, wouldn't you say?  While she was Secretary of State, she allegedly used the F word when trying unsuccessfully to get Netanyahu to agree to a settlement freeze, but I have heard nothing that could be construed as critical of Mr. N's policies during this campaign.  Also she doesn't seem to be sympathetic to the idea that the ISIS problem could be taken care of by other states in the ME, without US military meddling.

    "She allegedly used the F word..." (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    And that's what you're basing your interpretation on?  She probably uses "the F word" when she is unsuccessful at getting a dinner reservation.

    And newsflash - ISIS just isn't in the Middle East, nor only affects those who live there. Are you saying the US doesn't have an interest in getting rid of them?


    What exactly do you want Mrs. Clinton to do? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    Denounce Israel as a tool of Zionist hoodlums? For obvious reasons that isn't going to happen, not the least of which is its bad politics, given that most Americans are generally pro-Israel.

    Do I wish that the U.S. would use its leverage over Israel to take Netanyahu to the woodshed and compel him to be less provocative and heavy-handed with regards to his actions in the West Bank and Gaza? Yes, I do.

    And that's exactly why I support Hillary Clinton, because her speech to AIPAC notwithstanding, the active pursuit of a peace accord between Israelis and with the Palestinians is far more likely to occur under her administration than it would under Trump or any other Republican.



    NH GOP State Rep. Al Baldosaro, ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    ... who serves as Trump's advisor on veterans' affairs and right-wing delusions, wishes to clarify for the record that he's not advocating for Hillary Clinton's assassination, as some in the liberal media have falsely claimed. Rather, he merely wants her to be shot for treason.

    Glad Al could square that away for us. Now, I'm merely left to wonder whether it's possible that I'm having a prolonged acid flashback 30 years after I last dropped, or if these people are simply fckn insane.


    Did he clarify (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    whether he had in mind any sort of indictment first, or trial, or sentencing or anything?

    Oh, you goody two-shoes lawyer types ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    ... always want to gum up the works, don't you?



    120 Repiblicans send a letter (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 03:54:16 PM EST

    Mark Halperin, a fairly reliable Trump apologist, said this mornng that he had been thinking they would give him until Labor Day before doing anything like this but "his sources" (and the man has pretty good republican sources) tell his it could happen any time.

    Basically they are done.

    That was this am.

    That number (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    has gone up 50% in a week I think.

    Close (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    It was 70 when it first appeared in a link here.

    Michael Moore writing at HuffPo

    I'm not saying I necessarily believe or agree with any of this.

    But it's entertaining

    Donald Trump never actually wanted to be president of the United States. I know this for a fact. I'm not going to say how I know it. I'm not saying that Trump and I shared the same agent or lawyer or stylist or, if we did, that that would have anything to do with anything. And I'm certainly not saying that I ever overheard anything at those agencies or in the hallways of NBC or anywhere else. But there are certain people reading this right now, they know who they are, and they know that every word in the following paragraphs actually happened.

    Soon, though, his karma caught up with him. Calling Mexicans "rapists" should have disqualified him on Day One (or for saying Obama wasn't born here, as he did in 2011). No, it took 13 months of racist, sexist, stupid comments before he finally undid himself with the trifecta of attacking the family of a slain soldier, ridiculing the Purple Heart and suggesting that the pro-gun crowd assassinate Hillary Clinton. By this past weekend, the look on his face said it all -- "I hate this! I want my show back!" But it was too late. He was damaged goods, his brand beyond repair, a worldwide laughing stock -- and worse, a soon-to-be loser.

    Many now are sensing the end game here because they know Trump seriously doesn't want to do the actual job -- and, most importantly, he cannot and WILL NOT suffer through being officially and legally declared a loser -- LOSER! -- on the night of November 8th.

    Isn't this the same Michael Moore ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    ... who only a few short weeks ago was telling us that Trump was going to win? Why, yes, I do believe he is. To be perfectly honest, Moore's another guy whom I'd like to see Sierra Foxtrot Tango Uniform for the duration of the campaign.

    You are welcome to your opinion (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:01:30 PM EST
    There is a legitimate concern about complacency.  I worry about the constant talk of how it's over.

    It is not.


    Oh, Heaven forbid, no! It's not over ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    ... until we grind these yahoos into the dust by 20+ percentage points. It's not enough just to win. Hillary's victory must be decisive and overwhelming, and the Democrats' triumph must be across the board so that henceforth, there is no question whatsoever that unbridled and fact-free wingbattery is NOT a legitimate policy position.

    I think you mean (none / 0) (#80)
    by JanaM on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 09:16:44 PM EST
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

    Excellent stance.


    Thank you for the correction. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 02:11:02 AM EST
    Yes, that's what I meant. My bad. Now it's time for me to Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

    I'm watching Tr@mps "law & order" (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    Speech in WI.  There is a very strange thing happening.  The cheering and booing is uncannily synchronized.  Not just starting but stopping.  It's like Olympic level synchronicity.

    You know there has to be a guy holding up signs.  "Applause", "cheer","boo" and importantly "STOP"


    You should watch.  I'm hoping to see the sign guy.

    Now "USA USA USA" -- "STOP"

    This is really quite a thing (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    George Orwell would be impressed.

    Yes, that was my (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    observation as well.  And, conclusion.

    Shake-up at the Trump campaign: (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 17, 2016 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    Paul Manafort's been demoted, likely due to recent revelations about the $12.7 million in cash payments he allegedly received as a consultant to pro-Putin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who's since been ousted from power and is living in exile in Moscow.

    Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon and GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway have been named to replace him as the campaign's CEO and manager, respectively. We can likely look forward to the Trump campaign adopting an even nastier tone.


    Clarification..... (none / 0) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 18, 2016 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    You stated:
    ".....Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who's since been ousted from power and is living in exile in Moscow."

    Should have read:
    ".....Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who was elected in a democratic, fair, and open, election (as confirmed by Jimmy Carter) by Ukraine's citizens, and was ousted in a violent coup de'tat by right wing neo (and, not so neo) Nazis, and, who were aided and abetted by U.S. Assistant SOS,  Victoria Nuland. Ms. Nuland, who many insiders believe will be Hillary Clinton's choice as our next Secretary of State, is married to Robert Kagan, the famous Neocon, and author of the PNAC, "The Project for the New American Century." (get an advanced idea for what our foreign policy may look like)

    In a now famous telephone hack, Ms. Nuland is caught saying, "phuck the EU" when speaking to Ambassador, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, and his questioning what the EU might think of America's meddling in Ukraine's affairs.


    I Am Happy to Find Out (none / 0) (#126)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 19, 2016 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    that there is somebody besides me here who is worried about what damage HRC's neocon tendencies and associates will bring after her inauguracion.  All we can do is worry since the alternatives are even more worrisome.  Vicky Nuland's late father Sherwin gave a nice series of lectures on the history of medicine in the Teaching Company series so I was originally disposed to like her.  However, right now her Russian stance scares me more than Donald Trump's.
    Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers. He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.