US Presidential Contenders

[Unorthodox]

About free trade-

A rising tide lifts all boats.  I get it; I believe it.

HowEVER - I already told the story in this thread of temping in a textile mill the day the management called all the full-time employees to a meeting to have the gall to ask them to vote for NAFTA-friendly candidates, and the woman who rhetorically said to me "Sure, I'll vote to send my job to Mexico."  Textiles (and furniture, somewhat) were the basis of this region's economy.

That mill is closed, now, -most mills around here are- and I wonder what that woman is doing to make ends meet since her job went to Mexico.

I've worked -briefly, thank god- in a lot of factories, and I've been migrant labor for several years.  You are welcome to guess what radicalized me on labor issues.  (Protip: me saying the Bosses want to make us all slaves may have been based on having been treated like one.  A lot.)

The Bossmen Love Free Trade - and it's a lot more complicated than that rising tide argument to people and regions out of work while the economy adjusts.  I don't know what the best answer is, but it isn't simple.

My 10 years working in a Fram/Bendix/Autolite manufacturing plant:

Orientation:  Working for FRAM.  Paraphrased:  Plant's been in business as long as it has because we make absolutely everything in house, on our own, no outsourcing, just buy raw materials.  This is a proven method how American products should be made, you should be proud of your work here. 

2 years later, Allied Signal buys FRAM: 
We need to improve our throughput and numbers with this Japanese management philosophy.  Let's shut down and put everyone through training and come up with these projects to improve our system (that's been working for umpteen years). 

Uno's on the Panel Air Filter line, sees "improvement" after "improvement" fail, sees writing on the wall, moves to Round Air filter line. 
3rd year:  Panel Air Filter line is 50% automated, but pieces per hour have been cut in half, third shift and regular overtime work ensues. 

Uno put in charge of Round Air Filter Packaging line, follows older philosophy and required "improvements" focus on team building and training, hand pick fantastic personnel (and demonized by many temps in the process).  Uno's shift breaks all FRAM records of pieces per hour on every model of filter, removing previous automation items that had tendency to fail. 

2 years later (now 5 years into Uno's employ) Honeywell buys Allied Signal.  Uno moves to weekend shift in shipping department.

"We need to follow the WalMart Business Model.  Just in time ordering.  Lower costs. Oh, and all managers need a degree"

All managers fired.  College kids who haven't seen a production line brought in. 

Outsourcing of items previously built in house begins. 
2 years later, shipping department is outsourced.  Uno one of only 3 employees retained to ship the manufactured items to new shipping warehouse. 

Outsourcing continues over 3 years.  Panel line closed and moved to Mexico becoming unable to keep up with production demands. 

Manager told to ask my opinion on a proposed move of the Round Air Packaging to former Panel Air location to "streamline" the round air filter production.  "Because right now, the filters have a 20 minute conveyor belt ride to the packaging station.  This is wasted time, if we cut the cycle time to make one filter by those 20 minutes it will improve efficiency."

Uno claims it's the dumbest thing he's ever heard.  Pieces per hour count, not how long it takes one from start to end.  Plus, the 20 minute ride is essential to cool the filters for the packing machines to work. 

Uno told he will never move up in company due to bad attitude. 

1 year later, Round air line scrap costs ballooned to be untenable after move, line shut down and moved to mexico. 

Outsourcing and just in time ordering results in regular shutdowns as the oil filter lines wait for parts.  Orders are beginning to fall behind.  Uno sees writing on wall and flees for greener pastures. 

Entire plant shut down 3 years later, moved to Mexico. 



Uno's opinion:

Politics would not have saved absolutely boneheaded managerial decisions. 

TQL
TPM
5S
Hoshin Rollout
Greenbelt/Blackbelt
Just in Time
(I know there's more, but just off the top of my head)

These "Improvement" philosophies are just as likely to create a worse problem than what they tried to solve.  Where the hell is common sense in todays management?  You don't need to strictly adhere to 5S to know a place needs to be organized.  Just in Time ordering?  Really?  There's a lot to say about having stock on hand.  I could go on quite a while. 

The jobs to Mexico is not as simple as changing politics.  Corporations need to pull their heads out of their collective asses as well. 

[Buster's Uncle]

You can't cure stupid, Uno; you can't cure stupid.  Or evil...

I agree that that answer is very simple.

Please don't insult me. At least try to follow your own forum rules.

  You make it insanely difficult, directly contradicting me and completely ignoring the main thrust of what you quoted.

Point acknowledged, though.


Here's the election thread from the last time around - I just re-read the lot and found it more than worth it; we kick around many of the sad, sad trends that still vex us all.  And I mentioned the Pig as a waste of human space twice, years before this crap and as a social trend, not a political one - because trash stinks.  Much worthy reading, and I put a number of things better than I have lately.
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2579.msg12250#msg12250

Adds some context to much stuff we've been kicking around recently and highly recommended.  I miss cryopyre.

[Buster's Uncle]

Question for the group, especially Rusty, but anyone a little wonky about electoral strategy and stuff-

At this point, is Kasich running for a plank in the party platform at the convention, or running for Vice President?  I would think not running for President next time - definitely no longer this time...

(I'm pretty sure Sanders was running for that first option in the first place, so no reason to stop now after he's won beyond all expectations.)

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, this is funny.  I googled Kasich while writing the last post because that name always feels spelled wrong.  When I went back to the tab a few minutes later, this story was on the first page of hits.

Kasich: 'Zero chance’ I’m someone’s vice president
The Hill
By Mark Hensch  March 01, 2016, 03:58 pm



Republican presidential candidate John Kasich insisted Tuesday he would not consider running for the vice presidency.

“Zero chance, just stop there, zero chance,” he told Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.,” specifically referencing Donald [Sleezebag]

“I have no interest,” Kasich added. "I’m going to be governor of Ohio. There is zero chance I will be anybody’s vice presidential candidate — period, end of story.”

The Ohio governor dismissed speculation that a poor showing on Super Tuesday would doom his run, saying he is focusing on winning his home state on March 15.

“I don’t know how much you know about American football, but a lot of things get decided in the fourth quarter, not the first quarter,” he told host Stuart Varney, who is British.

“I’m going to win Ohio, and then as soon as I win Ohio, everybody in this 24/7 news cycle will turn around and say, ‘Let’s talk about John Kasich,' ” he added. "I mean, that’s just the way it works."

Kasich said political newcomers like [Sleezebag] won't solve the nation's problems.

“We have a lot of voters who are just picking outsiders because they think the system doesn’t work,” he said. "When they pick outsiders and they don’t fix the system, then they get [angrier] and they pick more outsiders.

“The only way to stop it is to get the attention of these folks and explain to them that if you’re a reformer, and you really do know how to get this done, and you really have produced in the past, and you have a vision for the future, that’s how I believe you peel those voters away.”

Kasich ranks fifth in the Republican field heading into Super Tuesday, according to a RealClearPolitics average of national polls.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271348-kasich-zero-chance-im-someones-vice-president


I'll take his word for it, but running for next time or a party plank is hardly something it would be a good idea to admit...  If he really thinks winning his home state will give him a chance, well, I hope he's right and I'm wrong - getting a good president is more important than beating the Republicans, and he's the only one on that side I think has a chance of being good.

(Fifth behind who?)

[Buster's Uncle]

[Buster's Uncle]

Cough cough lol.

Speaking of manners, this is rude and makes you look unsophisticated.  No more sentences ending in "lol" - and any further smilie use that can be taken as gloating is right out, too.

[Unorthodox]

You can't cure stupid, Uno; you can't cure stupid.  Or evil...

Wasn't just that company, but I have NDRs in place for other examples I could list.  Corporations are SERIOUSLY corrupt/misguided/stupid these days. 

Don't get me started on government procurement either.  If there is any hope I have with a potential Trumpident, it's that [Sleezebag] sees that and does something.  Obama TRIED, but ultimately failed as it took all of 3 months for new loopholes to be found in his reform. 

[Buster's Uncle]

You can't cure bureaucracy, Uno.

[Rusty Edge]

Rusty, how's the third party talk coming along after last night?

I'm home again, but busy with dinner.
To pick up again, and summarize-

 Speaker Paul Ryan, Cruz and Rubio have all stated they'd support the eventual nominee of the Republican Party.

I think Carson suspended his campaign, because he couldn't see a way forward. Cruz is calling for the others to get out and make room for him. Romney is going to make a speech against [Sleezebag]. There is a lot of fear and frustration in the House and Senate about running with [Sleezebag] atop the ticket. The same with governors. In a national election, [Sleezebag] has negatives of about 70% with minorities, college educated, and millennials. He's not doing so well with women, either. Those are growing slices of the demographic pie.

[Sleezebag] himself, asks why the "Establishment" can't see that he's bringing millions of people into the party. After all, he promised not to run as a 3rd party, so why can't the Republicans do the same?
Well, the answer to that is that [Sleezebag] is alienating a lot of people nationally, too, not just within the Republican party, and will be a Boogey Man/ recruiting tool for the Democratic party.

A Romney spokesman says Romney himself will not run for president.  Other "establishment " voices say that the broad field is the best way to slow [Sleezebag] down and deny him enough delegates for a first ballot victory. Strong-arming others to get out of the race will only let [Sleezebag] win faster.
 
Cruz doesn't have very many evangelical strongholds left on the primary list.

 Rubio's support is national, but lacks the depth. So it's not as if either of them can say, if we just hang on until state X, things are gonna change  we'll win. For that matter, Rubio is trailing [Sleezebag] in his home state of Florida by 20%. A candidate that can't deliver hi home state looks pretty lame. George McGovern lame. Then it becomes hard to justify continued presence in the race. [Sleezebag] is mad at Rubio for roughing him up in the debate and on the trail, and has vowed to "hit Florida hard", Rubio knows this and is pulling out all of the stops.

 Kasich should win his home state of Ohio, it's a big state and it's winner take all delegates. He should do as well in some of the Great Lakes states as he did in New England, second behind [Sleezebag]. Maybe better, as more people pay attention the closer their primary gets. As far as I know, Kasich has been running fifth by about half a percent if you look at rolling national opinion poll averages as opposed to primary results. He's 4th in delegate counts.  He does better in the north than the south, I suspect his Catholicism factors into that. Where he shines is as a general election candidate. If he flat out refuses to be vice-president, I guess he's thinking he'd be a non-controversial convention consensus candidate.

Or, maybe he's just setting the stage so that he doesn't have to say no to the nominee if it's [Sleezebag] or Cruz. Lyndon Johnson was infuriated when Kennedy asked him to be his running mate. It was a loss of power. There was just no way to refuse gracefully.

One analyst was comparing this to 1964, when Goldwater was threatening to win the nomination, and the establishment feared he would get them slaughtered in the general election. Pennsylvania's ( then the 3rd largest state by population ) Republican governor even jumped in the race to take delegates away from Goldwater.

[Buster's Uncle]

You left out Ben Stein saying he'd vote for a democrat for the first time in his life, but good overview; thanks.


Written November 09, 2012, 12:29:57 AM, three days after the last presidential election, and as much as I've begun to try to soften my worst rhetorical edges since, needs to be said again now.

For my international friends, let me explain that this election was between two VERY weak candidates.  There’s been a lot of lesser of two evils elections during the near 30 years of my political life, but this is absolutely the worst at the presidential  level I’ve ever witnessed.

Bakrama has been a mediocre president.  Period.  Gitmo is still open, and the economy is still in the toilet.  He has failed in the area of his greatest potential, as an inspirational leader.  His healthcare reform is lame -insurance is NOT the answer- and he’s continued to try to be conciliatory in the face of the least sanely reasonable House of Representatives in modern times -they’ve appealed Obamacare 32 times, knowing for sure it wouldn‘t get past the Senate after the first time; is that sane?- for years after it was clear that trying to meet them in the middle didn’t work and never would. 

As Cry and I discussed earlier in the thread, the Socialist the right accuses him of being is just NOT what he is, when some of us would have LIKED a touch of socialism to remedy the ridiculous statist (that’s a polite term for fascist) excesses of the Bush occupation.  At the time that we needed a bold new direction following a strong and bold LEADER, his “Change you can believe in” turned out to be “Not one tenth as bad as the last guy”, which just. isn’t. good. enough.  Something about the man inspired people’s imagination.  The right has imagined him some evil Kenyan communist muslim, while the left has been disappointed he turned out not to be the progressive messiah they thought he would be, and many of them have been angry about it for over three years.

We needed a leader.  A leader who persuaded the American people of what is so plain to the rest of the world - that the Bush/Cheney way was wrong, both morally and practically, and not in our national interests.  He turns out not to be that leader.


Mitt Romney is a good man; maybe a VERY good man.  I believe that.  I don’t think he’s QUITE presidential caliber, but he might have risen to the challenge.  His problem?  To begin with, like Bakrama four years ago, he simply didn’t have enough experience as a public servant holding office to be qualified for the presidency.  A term as Governor of a populous state like Massachusetts might qualify if he’d held lower offices and worked his way up, but that and a couple of failed runs for national office is insufficient.  And to my shame, absolutely no one ever talked about this, even less than they did about Bakrama before him.  This is a country with many very stupid people in it, and stupid ideas get more traction than they should, while the smart-but-hard-to-explain ones are often unheard - TV has that effect.

The list of his problems goes on; he’s a Mormon, which is offensive to the Christians of the Republicans’ political base.  Despite what he’s said all year, he’s actually something of a liberal by Republican standards - that goes over poorly with the small-government conservatives and the social (moral) conservatives alike. 

The biggest single problem ANY Republican candidate for President faces, not just Romney, (McCain had horrible trouble with this, too, which was much of his undoing) is that the Republican Party is a deeply schizophrenic organization.  The social conservatives (those church people you Euros think so little of, and you’re right when it comes to politics) and the small-government (or what I call political) conservatives have no business being in the same party.  They mostly all agree about the low taxes and balanced budgets (although the Republicans in office are at least as bad about balanced budgets in practice - Clinton, a Democrat, submitted balanced budgets to Congress; something no Republican president in my 47 years has done) and, in theory, about small government.  And most of the political conservatives are least sympathetic to the moral stances of the social conservatives.   But those social conservatives (think Tea Party, which amusingly enough, began as a libertarian political conservative movement and than got taken over hijacked by the social conservative/idiots) always support laws regulating moral issues, always want greater powers for the police, support trade sanctions on countries they don’t like, want more guards on the Mexican border (Canadians being, apparently, white enough to not matter) and LOVED the Bush/Cheney gang while they waged war on an irrelevant-to-9/11 nation and sent American citizens to camps.  THIS is the measure of devotion to small government on the part of the statist social conservatives, which is deeply offensive to any intelligent political conservative who’s thought about it.  It’s why Ron Paul, hands-down one of the most conservative members of Congress fought the Bush gang tooth and nail.  He actually loves America and believes in the US constitution - an attitude out of style on the right, though the right mostly doesn’t realize it.

So no candidate can possibly please both Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.  All candidates for major office have that problem, but the last two Republican presidential nominees have been ruined by it.  Ruined.  Romney had to pretend to be far more conservative than he is, which hurt him horribly.  Talk on the right in the last two days indicates some thinkers on the right are beginning to realize this, but far more of the talk is about appealing to latinos - a vein pursuit, as the wealth and status quo party will NEVER have as much appeal to poor people.

Now, the part that I think will shock anyone who’s seen me talk politics online: I am a social conservative.

I grew up Southern Baptist.  That was before the denomination turned into virtually a wing of the Republican Party in the 80’s (which is a bigger reason than my later crisis of faith that you won’t catch me in a Southern Baptist church - that, and I can’t stand being around people wearing too much perfume) but it nonetheless strongly informs my world view.  I grew up around these people.  I understand them and speak their language, and still share most of their personal values.  I’m a prude, folks, just like them.

Where we part ways is in theology (Jesus said “"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", which I think applies to a LOT more than paying your taxes) and in interpretation.  Jesus said “Go and sin no more” to the adulteress he rescued, but he also said a lot more things like “Feed my sheep” and the thing about turning the other cheek.  I don’t think he’d like the wealth-and-selfishness party one whit more than the do-as-thou-wilt-as-long-as-no-one-gets-hurt party, if that.  In fact, I think he’d be on the steps of the temple railing against the modern Pharisees a lot harder than the modern Sadducees.  Just like in the old days.

I just think personal morality has no place in government; it is a matter for preaching and persuasion, and anyone who doesn’t see that misunderstood their Bible, or hasn’t thought it out.

And I furthermore think that the political conservatives are right a good half the time.  Government is a fat, stupid, inefficient thing, ravenous for your money, your time and dignity, and your freedom.  It cares about its rules more than it does about people.

Every time I have to deal with the medical profession, it is proven over and over.  Likewise for dealing with the DMV.

My problem with the social conservatives is that they are just. plain. wrong. politically, (and stupid) even though I’m technically one of them.  My problem with the political conservative is that they are heartless and selfish, and run with a bunch of jerks.  My problem with the right as a whole?  Well-

Jesse Helms’ big money and nasty attacks style - Ronald Regan’s simple (stupid) answers to complex questions and nasty attacks style.  It is religiously embraced by the right these days, and I, not all that liberal-looking outside labor issues in any decent light, have been offended and driven away and polarized by the hateful behavior, lies and fantasies of the right.  Do not dare, EVER, insinuate that I don’t love America, the US Constitution and most importantly of all freedom, justice and fairness.  -Also?  Not a big fan of Ted Kennedy over here, and sick of having him thrown up in my face 25 years ago.  I never voted for the man, and that’s just rude, and hurts your cause.

This has gotten worse, and worse, and worse -and worse- my entire political life.  (Tell me that you’ve seen as many “WHY THE RIGHT HATES AMERICA” thread and comment titles online as the ubiquitous “WHY LIBERALS HATE AMERICA” (or variations thereof) and I’ll conclude that you haven’t browsed very widely at all, or are a liar.  In either case, I won’t waste my time discussing the issues with you, because I don’t have time to talk politics with people who are stupid about politics.  Be wrong and able to defend it intelligently enough, and you’re suddenly one of my favorite people - it’s a crucial difference.)

Yeah so, my big problem with those Republican jokers?  They’re rude.  They’re hateful.  They’re selfish.  They’re loud and obnoxious liars.  They went fascist in 2001.  They haven’t turned their backs on the fascism since.  The country and the entire world deserves an apology for the monkey and his handler and all the terrible things they did. 

I deserve an apology for all the names I’ve been called for 29 years, and all the insinuations against my character, for choosing the lesser evil and registering Democratic, and for voting for the lesser evil to the best of my discernment since.

---

And so anyway, that’s what I think just happened Tuesday; more people voted against Romney than voted against Obama.  Not that many voted FOR either.

All statements contained herein are to the best of my knowledge and considered opinion true and factual.  Selah amen.

[Dio]

I must state that in many cases the majority winners after Super Tuesday often achieve the party nominations. The majority winnings of Hillary Clinton and Donald [Sleezebag] leave me with an unsettling feeling for different reasons. The fact that Hillary has shown herself willing to lie about circumstances that constitute a felony for most other people continues to cloud her reputation with me. The aspects of Donald [Sleezebag] that bother me involves the fact that he remains unwilling to unite people with actual solutions rather resort towards personal attacks.

[Buster's Uncle]

As I said to my Tennessee Republican friend on Skype last night:

[3/1/2016 9:32:11 PM] bustersuncle: Irrational.  Even if you buy into the lowbrow racist [poop] he pushes -probably insincerly- HE's not the guy.  They could have gotten SOME of the same -even in rude style- much better thought out by a much better man, supporting Christie...
[3/1/2016 9:33:22 PM] bustersuncle: [The Pig]'s just another trashy celebrity who'd do or say any vile thing for the attention.  He's scum - even if you want the racist police state, he's not the right guy.
[3/1/2016 9:34:23 PM] bustersuncle: He's the Lindsey Lohan of ugly old men.

[Rusty Edge]

Well my take on it is that Obama turned out the black vote as never before. They were voting FOR something.

I was sure that in the privacy of the voting booth, racists like my brother-in-law, or uncle, etc. and  these [Sleezebag] supporters would have struck Obama down. But they failed. Twice. There was an even  higher black turnout for Obama's re-election.
Lesson learned: never say never.

So I'm not thinking [Sleezebag] will never be the nominee.

After reading that linked article in the Atlantic about American taxation ranked about 53rd among developed countries, at least until 2020 when Obamacare expenses will drive that up, I read an article about The Leader.  I'll cut and paste the whole thing.

-can-beat-hillary-clinton/471879/]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/of-course-donald-[Sleezebag]-can-beat-hillary-clinton/471879/

How Donald [Sleezebag] Can Beat Hillary Clinton
by Derek Thompson

He spent years as a moderate. He spent years as a nationalist. Why can’t he spend six months being a moderate nationalist?

Donald [Sleezebag] and Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesdays put them on a collision course this fall. Betting markets make Clinton the strong favorite, given [Sleezebag]’s high unfavorables, his incendiary comments about minorities, and the fact that members of his own party seem eager to disavow him. But [Sleezebag]’s strengths and grand strategy make him considerably more dangerous in a general election than people seem to think.

There are two pieces of conventional wisdom about Donald [Sleezebag] that don't fit comfortably together. On the one hand, people seem to think [Sleezebag]’s appeal transcends the issues and that he doesn’t really care about policy. On the other hand, he’s considered unelectable because of his policies, like building a Mexican wall and banning Muslim immigrants.

But here’s the problem: If [Sleezebag] doesn’t care about policy and his appeal truly transcends issues, what’s stopping him from becoming a starkly different person in the general election, the same way he's morphed, with convenient timing, from a moderate businessman—supportive of Canadian health care, a friend of Democrats, an admirer of Hillary Clinton—to a nationalist demagogue?

[Sleezebag]’s most famous skill is self-promotion through bloviation. But his most underrated skill is he is a terrific panderer. He will say anything he thinks people want to hear, but he'll say it in a way that makes his pandering look like an act of courage. The ingenious subtext of much of his messaging is: “Nobody wants to hear this hard truth, but here it is: you’re right!” As a businessman, he had no problem hiring illegal immigrants. But when he sniffed out illegal immigration as a hot-button topic, he promised mass deportations, the most beautiful wall in the Western Hemisphere, and a punitive financing scheme: Mexico pays!  He trashed former klansman David Duke years ago. But when he suspected that some voters in Super Tuesday states might be sympathetic to white supremacy, he scolded CNN’s Jake Tapper for asking him to disavow somebody he’d never met.

[Sleezebag] doesn’t need to be accurate, because he’s “authentic.”

In all 15 states that have voted in the GOP primary, [Sleezebag]’s supporters have named the same quality as most important in a president: Somebody who “tells it like it is.” Does it matter that Politifact determined that 76 percent of [Sleezebag]'s statements were errors, inaccuracies, or absurd lies? No way. Somebody who “tells it like it is” doesn’t have to “get the facts right.” [Sleezebag] doesn’t need to be accurate, because he’s authentic. And yes, there is a difference. The difference between accuracy and authenticity is the difference between a British passport and a British accent. People with the former tend to have the latter, but the first is concrete and falsifiable, and the second is easily faked.

[Sleezebag] will exploit this. He will fake it until he absolutely cannot make it. He’ll fib about policy, because he doesn’t care, and maybe voters don’t either. He won’t adhere too closely to what he’s already said, because he doesn’t care, and maybe voters don’t either. (What about that Muslim database? “Well, I don’t want to talk about it much now, I’m considering all options.”) He’ll borrow shamelessly from Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama—the two candidates who gave Hillary fits—by repeatedly slamming the establishment, talking about middle class pain and anger, and promising to be a uniquely unifying force in American politics. Consider the red-and-blue state unity messages in Chris Christie’s introduction speech last night: “Donald [Sleezebag] has won Georgia and Massachusetts… Tonight is the beginning of Donald [Sleezebag] bringing the Republican Party together ... Tonight is the beginning of Donald [Sleezebag] bringing the people of our nation together to help America win again.”

Overall, [Sleezebag] will continue to alight to the majority’s latent fears and frustrations and confidently promise magical solutions. It’s not hard to imagine him sounding like an palatable moderate Republican:

Take, for example, what he might say on income inequality: The middle class has been creamed in this country. Creamed. Hillary wants to raise taxes. She might even want to raise taxes on the middle class, you never know with Democrats. But I want a big, fat, beautiful tax cut for the middle class. It will make every American family richer. It will create jobs. We’ll win and win. It will be beautiful.

A tax cut? How would he pay for that without slashing spending on defense, Social Security, or Medicare? We’ll cut so much. There is so much waste and fraud. We’ll cut and cut. You’ll get sick of cutting.

And he may be surprisingly quick to answer questions about Black Lives Matter and criminal-justice reform: We imprison so many men in this country. It’s a disgrace. When I’m president we’re going to be a tough country. But a fair country. Because that’s who I am. It’s who I’ve always been. I’m a tough, fair guy. Hillary can’t do this. Her husband passed a criminal-justice law that even she considers a disgrace. Just ask her. A total disgrace.

[Sleezebag] is also positioned to offer a devastating critique of Hillary Clinton—that she never wins: She tried to pass health care reform. Biggest disaster I ever saw in Washington. Biggest I ever saw. And that’s saying a lot. She wanted us to go into Iraq and then into Libya. Look at that mess. Worst decision in foreign policy history. Worst. NAFTA, prisons, welfare reform. You know that story about King Midas? Where he touches something and it turns to gold? Hillary’s the opposite. Everything she touches blows up. She’s a disaster.

Is it really so hard to imagine [Sleezebag] peddling a populist message that keeps the Great Wall of America (he can’t disavow that wall), dials down on the dog-whistle rhetoric toward Hispanics and Muslims, and goes hard at the economic and cultural insecurity of the middle class by promising them a gorgeous new fleet of protectionist trade deals, a big beautiful tax cut, and all the social spending they’ve come to love? Pay Less, Keep More, Win, Win, Win. It will be a incredible six months of populist pandering. And what’s worse: If it produces results and he rises in the polls, the political media will paint [Sleezebag] as a rapidly maturing centrist.

So, it is time for the to-be-sure paragraph. To be sure: Donald [Sleezebag] faces massive impediments, many of which he put up himself. He’s spent the last nine months doing his best to alienate every minority group in an electorate that is more diverse than ever. He has a history of radically hypocritical statements. His business record is a massive, beautiful, terrific Jenga tower. He is also getting beat steadily and mightily by Clinton in early head-to-head polls. Although it’s reasonable to think the gap could close in a general election campaign, you have to begin to wonder how many Americans haven’t made up their mind about this guy, already, since [Sleezebag] is a historically overexposed political product. An intended voter saying, “I’m still making my mind up about Donald [Sleezebag]” in April 2016 is like a fully grown adult saying, “I’m still deciding if I like ice cream.” You kinda do or you don’t, by now.

Hillary Clinton is the clear favorite in November. But if you think Donald [Sleezebag]’s past positions will make it hard for him to win a general election, recall that Donald [Sleezebag] does not care about his past positions. He cares about winning. He’s going to spend the next few weeks figuring out what he needs to say to win, and when he thinks he’s found those things, he's going to say them, over and over, with shameless disregard for consistency, accuracy, or morality. Factuality will be sacrificed, over and over, on the altar of authenticity. He won’t tell “the truth.” He will tell “it like it is."

Pragmatists like to seek solace in the quote, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” The quote is falsely attributed to Lincoln (fooling people is easy, it turns out, if you just repeat the fib emphatically enough), yet I wouldn’t be surprised if the Clinton campaign used the line, to contrast the Republican forefather’s virtue with [Sleezebag]’s chintzy salesmanship.

The thing about majoritarian government, though, is that nobody has to fool everybody all the time. Donald [Sleezebag]’s objective couldn’t be clearer. He only has to fool half the people once.

[Buster's Uncle]

See, and I thought Reagan was a bill of goods selling a bill of goods to the gullable...

Google Bill Maher and the Pig together to find a video of the Scumbag cussing in public during campaign speeches.  I was impressed, even given my low opinion of the Huckster going in.

This is going to turn out the voting-against vote like never before.

[Valjiir1]

The biggest, most long lasting meme regarding Hillary Clinton is the non-existent email scandal.  There is only one actual fact in this entire, years-long smear campaign, and that is that Secretary Clinton did use a personal email server for correspondence regarding Secretary of State business.  She has herself admitted this was a stupid mistake and has apologized for her judgment in this.  And that's all there is to it.  She can, in my view, be forgiven this poor judgment for two very important reasons. One, both Madeline Albright and Colin Powell used personal accounts for State Department business when each was Secretary of State.  Of course, the internet hadn't exploded into its current gargantuan form during their terms, and it's never enough of an explanation to say "well, other people did it," but the current hysteria over the fact of Secretary Clinton's use of personal email could lead one to believe it's never been done before.  It has.  It is true there were guidelines passed AFTER Secretary Clinton set up and used this private server prohibiting the use of such servers, but she cannot and should not be blamed for not being able to see the future, nor for not complying with a law that did not, at the time, exist.
 
Two, there was never ANY classified material contained in the emails exchanged via Secretary Clinton's personal account.  I can already hear the shouting, and see the fingers pointing to various news reports contending the opposite.  However, a closer perusal of those reports reveal something very interesting.  The State Department is currently reviewing all those emails as requested by the Judiciary Committee - a request with which Secretary Clinton has completely and transparently cooperated.  She has provided access to her server and emails - it is the State Department which is releasing them in small bunches as they review them.  The thing is, DURING THAT REVIEW PROCESS, the State Department has seen fit to re-classify some of the emails as "confidential" (the lowest classification of security) AFTER THE FACT.  That is, at the time the emails were sent or received, they were NOT classified in any way.  Why is the State Department reclassifying them?  I don't know for certain, and they aren't saying, but I can make a reasonable assumption that the emails referred to things which have, since the time they were sent, become sensitive security issues.
 
And that's it.  There have been no indictments of any kind, and the news that Secretary Clinton's top aide has been given immunity is just another way to smear without proof.  I'm reminded of a West Wing episode, when President Bartlet is being investigated for lying about his MS during his presidential campaign.  His aide, Charlie Young, is being advised by many of the staff members to plead the Fifth when he is questioned about what he knew and when he knew it.  Charlie has done nothing wrong, but out of a sense of loyalty to President Bartlet, he is in a quandary.  Bartlet takes him aside and tells him if he lies, or omits or refuses to answer questions in the name of protecting him (Bartlet), they are done.  Therefore, I think it is entirely possible that this aide pled the Fifth out of a sense of loyalty, because, like Charlie, he did nothing wrong.  Of course, the analogy breaks down because Bartlet DID lie, and there's no evidence that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong, but I hope you see my point.  The fact that someone pleads the Fifth is no proof of anything, despite courtroom dramas that would lead one to believe otherwise.
 
 Of course, if this aide DOES make damning accusations that prove to be true, I'll take it all back. Accusations, after all, are not in and of themselves proof of anything other than someone is making accusations. But I'm not worried.    


Hillary Clinton is an experienced, capable defender of progressive issues,  She knows how to compromise, an art which the Senate and House of Representatives need to remember.  While I have nothing but admiration for Senator Bernie Sanders, and do, in fact, support many of his positions, I cannot see him being able to make any headway at all with Congress toward actually getting his agenda enacted.  I believe Secretary Clinton can and will.  I know some have attempted to tar her with her husband's more moderate agenda when he was president, but I think it is important to note that twenty-five years ago things is this country were very different - and that both President and Secretary Clinton have progressed with the times.  People are allowed to do that.  In fact, I applaud those who do.  The ability to change one's views in accordance with changing circumstances is NOT, in my view, a cardinal sin.  To be sure, there are core principles which each person should and must have, but those should not consist of absolutely everything one thinks or believes.  In politics, the willingness to compromise is a virtue.
 
Hillary Clinton has the knowledge, the gumption, and the experience to continue the journey of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, RFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton said "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." Barack Obama said "Change We Can Believe In.'"  So for Hillary, I say, "Don't Stop Believing."