US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

Thank you Cher.  We've been really hard on HRC in this thread, and it's good to hear a dissenting POV.

(I didn't think that scandal season of The West Wing was very good, BTW - they should have had the guts to have Bartlet guilty of something a little more interesting/juicier.  It was a bit of a failure to commit.)

I don't remember what you were wearing for an avatar before, but I'll hook you up if you have any request.  -Or if you recall, a re-upload will fix it.

[Buster's Uncle]

I see that Miley Cyrus has called the Jerk a nightmare and implied she'll leave the country if he's elected.

So bad news for the anti-Scumbag movement...

[Unorthodox]

I'm swiftly approaching Hillary as the "better the evil you know" candidate.  There's no one in the Republican party left standing with a reasonable shot that appeal to me. 

Which means my vote wouldn't count for much since this state will always be red. 

[Buster's Uncle]

I'll note that I've approved of her performance in the executive branch - I just don't like her as a candidate, or her collaboration as a Senator.  As I've said before, when we get stuck with her as President -this has always been her race to lose- she'll probably do a good job, if you can stand the shouting of the full-time Clinton-haters...

I'd really prefer not to endure that last...

[Buster's Uncle]

Mitt Romney tells Donald [Sleezebag] voters they’re ‘suckers’
By Olivier Knox  1 hour ago



Donald [Sleezebag] has run an unapologetically coarse, give-the-elites-the-finger presidential campaign, ruthlessly mocking his rivals, attacking Latinos and Muslims, trampling long-held conservative ideas, and bluntly dismissing the Republican establishment. The tinsel-haired showman has promised delighted supporters that he will take on the politicians who have betrayed them and lead Americans to victory over the global forces that have crushed their hopes of living the American Dream.


On Thursday, twice-failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney — the living, breathing, immaculately coiffed human embodiment of the same Republican establishment that [Sleezebag] publicly reviles and of the economic currents that he exploits but claims to despise – tried to convince the reality star’s supporters that they are “suckers” being taken in by a dangerous con man.

“Donald [Sleezebag] is a phony, a fraud,” the millionaire investor told a friendly audience at the  Hinckley Institute of Politics in Salt Lake City  . “He’s playing the American people for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.”

Romney, who was referring to the red baseball caps bearing [Sleezebag]’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, did not endorse any individual Republican candidate for president in 2016 and sharply attacked Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton as unfit for office. The result was a speech that the former Massachusetts governor might have given had he run.

It was a litany of attacks, personal and policy-based, reaching as far back as the failure of vanity projects like [Sleezebag] Vodka and as close as [Sleezebag]’s ugly tangle with Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly.

Romney notably led an all-out attack on arguable [Sleezebag]’s biggest strength: His reputation as a savvy and hugely successful businessman. What about [Sleezebag] Airlines? [Sleezebag] University? [Sleezebag] Mortgage? [Sleezebag] Vodka?

“A business genius, he is not,” the former Massachusetts governor said.


And Romney previewed what strategists in both parties have suggested could be the best line of attack against [Sleezebag]: That his missteps cost others dearly.

“His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them,” he said.


Romney repeatedly returned to sharp assaults on [Sleezebag]’s temperament and his judgment.

“Donald [Sleezebag] says he admires Vladimir Putin, at the same time he’s called George W. Bush a liar,” Romney said. “That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.”



Mitt Romney. (Photo: Rogelio V. Solis/AP)


Romney’s broadside came as part of an escalating and increasingly desperate-feeling GOP establishment attack on [Sleezebag], whose Super Tuesday romp left him the party’s 2016 front-runner. The effort includes ramped-up efforts by the anti-[Sleezebag] Our Principles Super PAC .

It’s not clear whether any of this will work. It’s late in the cycle. [Sleezebag] voters seem to regard even accurate media coverage as an illegitimate attack on their guy. And his opponents have yet to catch fire with Republican primary voters, or do much to take down [Sleezebag], who has also shrugged off campaign-trail criticisms from former president George W. Bush. Meanwhile, in Washington, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has scolded [Sleezebag] for failing to denounce the KKK sufficiently loudly – and drew a threat in response.

“Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him. And if I don’t, he’s going to have to pay a big price, OK?” [Sleezebag] said at his Super Tuesday-night press conference.

Romney’s attacks were awkward in part because he courted, and secured, [Sleezebag]’s endorsement in 2012 – after the brash-talking New Yorker made himself the standard-bearer for racist-tinged “birther” claims that President Barack Obama was ineligible for the White House.

Still, Romney assailed [Sleezebag]’s calls for banning Muslims from entering the United States, as well as his regular blasts against Latino immigrants.

“He’s a man, who as you know, begged me, and I mean begged me for my endorsement four years ago,” [Sleezebag] said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a few hours before the speech.

“We backed him and I helped him and raised money for him, and I did everything, but he didn’t do the job, he didn’t have the capability to do the job,” [Sleezebag] added.

Romney argued that it’s not too late to derail the [Sleezebag] train. And he even proposed a strategy in which Republican voters should cast their ballots for whichever of [Sleezebag]’s rivals seems most likely to beat him in a given state - an effort to deny him the majority of delegates. That could lead to a brokered nominating convention, with an uncertain outcome.

In a recent  Yahoo News interview, Romney’s top 2012 strategist  , Stuart Stevens, suggested that the clash with [Sleezebag] was far from preordained.

“Donald [Sleezebag] had a choice in the very beginning: to become a serious candidate for president or to run as kind of a Jesse Ventura candidate,” Stevens said, referring to the blunt-speaking former professional wrestler and action movie actor who starred in “Predator” and later became governor of Minnesota.

“Had he become a serious candidate for president, he would have taken the time and done the work to study policy, and really learned a lot. He, in Iowa, would have been meeting with business people, small-biz people, asking their ideas,” Stevens continued. “He would have been meeting with teachers and students and parents and talking about education. He would have been doing these things that candidates that want to succeed and are serious do.”

But “instead, what he’s done is what he enjoys. He’s at a point in his life where he doesn’t do anything he doesn’t enjoy,” the consultant said. “What does he enjoy? He likes having these big rallies and going out and ranting for an hour. That’s fine — it just has very little correlation to what you need to do to get elected president.”

-voters-theyre-162616616.html]http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-tells-donald-[Sleezebag]-voters-theyre-162616616.html


One photo of an Ugly Old Man omitted.  I don't pretend to not have my biases.  What the handsome old man is quoted as saying in the headline - truth; unvarnished pure truth.

[Buster's Uncle]

In the following scan from an 80s issue of What If, Captain America is actually denouncing the excesses of the (ultra right-wing supervillain/terrorist group) Secret Empire having taken over America with a Cap imposter and gone -literally, in this case- fascist.



Thing is, I think his speech applies 15 years ago and applies now...

[Rusty Edge]

I doubt if Romney changed many minds. The party establishment probably said "YEAH!!" and the [Sleezebag] supporters probably see it as proof they are taking over, and it's time to press on.

I heard somebody compare this year's election to 1968, with [Sleezebag] as sort of the re-incarnation of George Wallace.  Here's an interesting article on the topic-
-george-wallace-racist-ghost-432164]http://www.newsweek.com/donald-[Sleezebag]-george-wallace-racist-ghost-432164

I watched the debates again, of course. Believe me, it would be great if The Leader could directly answer a question neither bad mouthing his competitors ( who by the way are losers), nor bragging about his popularity ( which, by the way is amazing!).

[binTravkin]

Buncle on the "empire" thing, you came out of WW2 with huge "soft" power influence due to loans and a system of international treaties, most of which were designed to create buffer between you and your enemies.
NATO, WTO, Marshall plan, India Green Revolution, etc., are/were all designed so that with some help, locals would become useful both to U.S. as well as improve themselves.
Apart from some misguided policies (mistakes happen) in Central America and probably a few others, the countries U.S. historically helped, were better off with U.S. than without.
As you can also see, even if U.S. holds influence, it is neither absolute, nor irreversible, nor unsurmountable as would be the case with real empires (at least until they are close to disintegrating).
Just see "Castro & Cuba", "Merkel & Germany", etc.

For a person who has lived in a real empire, U.S. people saying they have an empire sounds like you're in a different world.

We used to look up to U.S. the entirety of soviet years, especially the years before disintegration.
Even with the problems U.S. had (nobody's perfect) it was a "dreamland" of the type found in fairy tales compared to the murky place we were in.
People literally would not believe it can be so good as they tell about the level of prosperity and individual freedoms in U.S..
We had this Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty thing which was mostly just telling as it is and people were saying it's all "capitalist propaganda" because it could not be true and would not work that way.

When we joined NATO, there was a celebration in the streets. We joined it by a referendum. A dozen countries did.
Are empires built by referendums w/o foreign troop presence?
There was no real opposition to joining NATO & WTO in most countries that did.
Compare it to joining EU, where doubts remain even after living in it for decades and reaping a lot of benefits from that (see Brexit).

U.S. until recently was THE center of good in the world not because it's perfect or has no problems, but because it is still an order of magnitude better than almost every other country of global significance and because people trust U.S. not to outright annex them, which is not the case with pretty much any other influence they could come into, and thus view U.S. as a kind of protector which has little if any interest in themselves other than keeping them intact/free.

---
I guess vonbach is the residental forum troll?
I assumed he was serious, but the medieval tax comment cleared all doubts.
---

That having said, from the discussions I get a feeling that there are quite a few myths going around in U.S. which are influencing how people vote;

The information is there, at your fingertips.
Myths about your guilt, your high taxes and other perceived ills can be dispelled in a few minutes.

I don't remember which of your presidents said, but it went something like "Give people the truth and trust them to make the right decision".
It's now 21th century and you can obtain the truth yourselves (or at least identify a lie) and there's no excuse not to because its easier than endlessly discussing a lie.

On Bernie topic, even if it's obsolete by now.
Here are some quotes from great people on merits of socialism.
They are both true. We have seen it in person.



Yes, and don't bring up Sweden, Finland or Denmark.
Their ability to run socialism for so long is well researched and it's a mix of historical circumstances, culture and high taxes, neither of which you have or want to have.
And they have been backtracking from it since a few years, as they also are facing problems with sustainability of their model.

I doubt if Romney changed many minds. The party establishment probably said "YEAH!!" and the [Sleezebag] supporters probably see it as proof they are taking over, and it's time to press on.

Exactly.
The establishment is so clueless that they have been actively empowering [Sleezebag] for the most of time.
There's hoping [Sleezebag] wins nomination but not the seat and GOP establishment is toppled to create that party into something better, like closer to original ideals of free market liberalism.

[Buster's Uncle]

bin, you should be put out that Senator Graham didn't do better - big on free markets and foreign intervention.

I'll try to respond to your points in a little detail later when I've woken up and caught up on my morning routine...

[binTravkin]

I'm not a U.S. citizen, and even if I were, I know politics from inside a little - the basic learning is, politicians are like cars on used car lot.
You may like this one better visually or this one could be more fit for your needs, but don't fall in love with any or you're likely in for a disappointment.

I am also not promoting anyone, just pointing out that some of the "features" of candidates which you either ignore or even consider beneficial are not, as well as some of the background you are using to evaluate candidates and the way your country is going, is based in false assumptions, such as the "american guilt"/"we have enemies because what we did" myth or that your taxes are high.

[Buster's Uncle]

And I'm here on the ground in the middle of it, with the Bossmen more danger to me than Putin -maybe-.

If Sanders was going to win, this would be a different conversation.  The juggling act I have to make is supporting a Perot Effect that one hopes will influence HRC in office the way Perot influenced her husband to submit balanced budgets to Congress -something he would have been unlikely to break sloppy tradition doing otherwise- and not any of the kooky far-right stuff Perot pushed.  Mrs. Clinton is VERY business-friendly, and isn't going socialist -ever- because Mr. Sanders did well.  -But one only hopes she'll remember that one of the things government is good for is to protect the masses from the robber barons.

[binTravkin]

Since you're talking about robber barons, you might really like this book:
http://books.simonandschuster.com/Red-Notice/Bill-Browder/9781476755748
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Notice-Finance-Murder-Justice/dp/147675571X

[Buster's Uncle]

This would be a post-1990 situation?

[binTravkin]

Not sure what you are asking, but if you've ever heard of Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 of U.S, or "The Magnitsky Act", this is a book by Bill Browder, an american whose business partner was Magnitsky and got killed (in 2009).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act
http://www.billbrowder.com

[Buster's Uncle]

I was asking whether it was during the wild west of business in Russia since the commies went away - just to be sure, even though it didn't look likely that high finance was exactly a Brezhnev kind of situation.