US Presidential Contenders

[Spacy]

As much as I dislike the guy, he has done 2 very good things:

1) Firmly disproved in the eyes of most Americans that the media is unbiased, and is the ultimate judge of who is and isn't worthy to sit in the Oval Office.  The media hates him (although I expect the producers kinda like him, as he gives them constant sound bites), and have tried to turn every little thing he has said from molehill to mountain - and when he gives them mountains they tend to get lost because of how poor the media has been.  If you think for one second he did the treason Ms Clinton did as sec of state, how would the media be covering it up for him like it is trying to do for her...  I don't think he will win the general election - but even if he doesn't this will be a long lasting legacy of his campaign I think - although the media will do its best to erase it.

2) he turned the lights onto all the elephants in the room.  Particularly the problems of ILLEGAL immigration.  Hey, even the native americans are immigrants, just came over a few thousand years before the rest of us is all.  Although he also wants to change legal immigration - that gets him the negative press - his ideas about ILLEGAL immigration are at least someone willing to take a stand on following the laws.  He also is willing to address Islamic EXTREMISM.  The fact that a religion that has over 22% of the worlds population tends to produce a disproportionate large number of people who basically go bat [poop] crazy and take out large numbers of other people when they do so is a major problem, particularly when their leaders have renamed the US the "Great Satan".  Nobody else has even been willing to say that there is a problem.  Hell, Obama generally even refuses to use the phrase islamic extremism.   To a lesser extent, there is also the elephant of racism in the US.  Movements such as Black Lives Matter are worthy movements, but have inherent flaws in that they imply that "white lives don't matter".   These three ideas have really, when you look at it, defined his campaign to the average Joe Republican.  These are issues that they care A LOT about and the voters showed that to the GOP.  Everybody I know who supports him do so because of these issues, in spite of his many other flaws.  Expect the house and senate seats over the next couple of years to really start looking at these issues in particular and the GOP start to shove these issues ahead of all others.

The fact that the Dems say that they are not issues (or very minor ones) will also be interesting to watch in these lesser campaigns.

[Rusty Edge]

And then there's this from a guy who should have retired already-

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58885b65cf714811964305b99ca78d93/mccain-obama-directly-responsible-orlando-shooting

McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orlando shooting
By ERICA WERNER
 
Jun. 16, 2016 5:56 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. John McCain said Thursday that President Barack Obama is "directly responsible" for the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, because of the rise of the Islamic State group on the president's watch. But he later issued a statement saying that he "misspoke."

"I did not mean to imply that the president was personally responsible. I was referring to President Obama's national security decisions, not the president himself," McCain said in his statement, issued as his initial comments were drawing heated criticism from Democrats.

McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential election, spoke to reporters in the Capitol Thursday while Obama was in Orlando visiting with the families of those killed in Sunday's attack and some of the survivors.

"Barack Obama is directly responsible for it, because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, al-Qaida went to Syria, became ISIS, and ISIS is what it is today thanks to Barack Obama's failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq," a visibly angry McCain said as the Senate debated a spending bill.

 "So the responsibility for it lies with President Barack Obama and his failed policies," McCain said.

The gunman, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and injured more than 50 in the attack at a gay nightclub. The 29-year-old Muslim born in New York made calls during the attack saying he was a supporter of the Islamic State. But he also spoke about an affiliate of al-Qaida and Hezbollah, both of which are IS enemies.

In the aftermath of the shooting, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald [Sleezebag] has accused Obama of putting U.S. enemies ahead of Americans. [Sleezebag] also has suggested that Obama himself might sympathize with radical elements.

Democrats criticized [Sleezebag] and some Republicans tried to distance themselves from his remarks.

McCain is seeking a sixth Senate term from Arizona and is locked in a tight race. He has a Republican primary on Aug. 30 — the day after his 80th birthday — and a likely general election matchup against three-term Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick.

Questioned on his startling assertion, McCain initially repeated it: "Directly responsible. Because he pulled everybody out of Iraq, and I predicted at the time that ISIS would go unchecked and there would be attacks on the United States of America. It's a matter of record, so he is directly responsible."

However, about 90 minutes later, McCain issued his statement saying he misspoke, though his statement continued to lay blame for the attack on the president's policies — just not on the president himself.

"As I have said, President Obama's decision to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 led to the rise of ISIL. I and others have long warned that the failure of the president's policy to deny ISIL safe haven would allow the terrorist organization to inspire, plan, direct or conduct attacks on the United States and Europe as they have done in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino and now Orlando."

Democrats quickly pounced on McCain's criticism.

Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said McCain's "unhinged comments are just the latest proof that Senate Republicans are puppets of Donald [Sleezebag]."

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bernie-sanders-offers-no-concession-address-supporters-n594091

Sanders was more of the same- No concession, no endorsement.

He thanked his supporters  for their work, money, and attendance. Said he will work to defeat [Sleezebag].

He looks forward to working with Clinton on his terms.

[Rusty Edge]

There was always a nagging thing in my head that wondered if that attack might not have been staged.  (yes, I'm THAT paranoid)  My original thinking was that it would help T rump, but he played it so horribly (and yet predictably), perhaps it's the opposite.  Is there any reasonable chance he could be replaced on the ticket barring him bowing out?

Well, speak of the devil and he appears!
-face-delegate-mutiny-convention/story?id=39940520]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-face-delegate-mutiny-convention/story?id=39940520

Why Donald [Sleezebag] May Still Face a Delegate Mutiny at the Convention
By ALANA ABRAMSON and Katherine Faulders
Jun 17, 2016, 3:35 PM ET

The efforts to stop Donald [Sleezebag] from securing the nomination at the Republican National Convention are heating up, with nearly three dozen delegates dialing into a conference call yesterday to discuss coordinating methods to block his coronation in Cleveland.

The conference call, titled "free the delegates," was led by Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate and a member of the GOP's rules committee, which shapes the rules of the convention. Unruh, who is pledged to Ted Cruz, wants to create a rule enabling delegates to abstain from voting for [Sleezebag], even if they are bound to him, if they feel it violates their moral or religious beliefs.

According to participants, there were approximately 30 people representing 15 states on the nearly hour-long phone call. According to one call participant, the focus was on coordinating the multi-state effort, and less on the official plan of action, which is in the works. News of the call was first reported by the Washington Post. Another phone call is scheduled for Sunday night.

"This call will introduce us to each other in preparation for an open “national leadership” call in a few days," the invitation, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News, explains.

Out of the conference call came a centralized method of managing the data, and talks to create a website explaining the mission, Unruh said.

The idea is to coalesce behind a plan to stop [Sleezebag] and not unite behind a particular person, though many are former Cruz supporters.

Even if Unruh has managed to develop grassroots support for this idea, however, it is still an uphill climb for this to actually happen.

A conscience clause can only be implemented if it is approved by a majority of the rules committee. And even if the rules committee approves it, it still needs to be approved by a majority of the delegates on the convention floor.

According to current rules, delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to -- which is based on primary and caucus votes. [Sleezebag] has garnered 1,543 delegates, according to ABC News' most recent estimate, more than the 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination outright.

Also under current rules, if a candidate does not receive more than half of the delegates on the first ballot, some are released on the second ballot to vote for whomever they want.

Efforts to stop [Sleezebag] have focused on fomenting dissent among delegates pledged to the real estate mogul or putting delegates in place who would not vote for [Sleezebag] on subsequent ballots.

The group claims that more than half the delegates who will be at the convention in July do not want [Sleezebag] as president or the candidate for the Republican Party. But Unruh says she was the only member of the rules committee on the call last night. And other members of the committee have told ABC News they aren’t on board.

“Donald [Sleezebag] won it fair and square,” Cindy Costa, a delegate from South Carolina who is also serving on the rules committee, said last week. An unbinding rule is not only unrealistic and unfair, she said, but would cause “magnificent chaos.”

Kelly Arnold, chairman of the Kansas Republican Party and another member of the rules committee, told ABC News last week he is going to do “what’s in the best interest” of the GOP.

"I don’t see myself making any drastic changes," he said.

[Sleezebag] released a statement calling the effort “totally illegal.”

"I won almost 14 million votes, which is by far more votes than any candidate in the history of the Republican primaries,” [Sleezebag]’s statement read. “I have tremendous support and get the biggest crowds by far and any such move would not only be totally illegal but also a rebuke of the millions of people who feel so strongly about what I am saying. People that I defeated soundly in the primaries will do anything to get a second shot -- but there is no mechanism for it to happen.”

The RNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ABC News’ John Kruzel contributed reporting. "

[Buster's Uncle]

Cruz' idea, I bet...

[Agora_Black_Flag]

I voted for Bernie in the Caucus but I will not be voting for Hillary or [Sleezebag] come election time. There is going to be a serious third party contender this year. Whether its Bernie independent/Green, Gary Johnson LP Libertarian, or Jill Stein Green Party. I will probably go with them.

People are just too pissed off with the mainstream choices. Gary Johnson is already on all the ballot in 50 polling at 11-13% (needs 15 for debates) and they are saying Jill Stein will be on the ballot in all 50 come election time.

This will be one for the history books.

[DrazharLn]

Bernie isn't gonna split the vote. That would be crazy.

And considering voting for T rump? The man is a lunatic!

Voting him in would seriously hurt American foreign relations, even if his legislative power was completely neutered by congress. And if his power wasn't neutered? That's a bad time for everyone.

[Spacy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-special-report-hundreds-gop-000000630.html

Getting rid of [Sleezebag] is sounding more and more likely.  Not probable yet, but getting there.
Shame the Dem's won't do the same thing for the traitor.

[Buster's Uncle]

It is a shame - but when you're QUITE so hard on her, you lose a lot of credibility with me.

[Lorizael]

Clinton's just a run of the mill morally bankrupt politician. Nothing special about her. Any candidate you think doesn't have skeletons probably does, and if they don't, being president for more than six months will give them some.

[Sleezebag] is an altogether different beast.

[Buster's Uncle]

^This.

I'm hardly the Hildog's biggest fan -that would be Valjiir1, who posted in here a few months ago- but start mentioning Vince Foster and I stop listening.

-It's like Bakrama; plenty of stuff he ACTUALLY did didn't do that he deserves kicking around about, so why the constant crap-talking about imaginary shortcomings?  Don't waste my time with the Anne Coulter talk; I was sick of it over a decade before Anne Coulter.

[Spacy]

Setting up a private server to store email and classified documents while secretary of state.  The server itself is proof of criminal activity - and a disregard for rules and regulations more suited to an absolute monarch than a presidential candidate. 

Her constant dismissal of the matter, and the FBI investigations snail pace, is just prolonging the agony.  (The 'Anne Coulter' version is that her buddy Obama is delaying the investigation to see if she wins the election, than she can bury it, and if she doesn't win his hands never got dirty and the investigations prints its 500-600 page report in due course.)  It would be far better for all involved to just publish even a prelim report to clear the air (unless she is guilty). 

And remember how the world ended up learning about her server: through the investigation on her conduct in Benghazi.  She is the one who preferred to lie and blame the attack on a spontaneous response to a movie that hardly anybody had heard of rather than admit that her and the administration's plans for Libya had gone so far astray.



Personally, I think it is almost a guarantee that she will win by running against [Sleezebag] (well, more like he will loose).  Which, is kind of a shame in regards to this issue because there will always be suspicion that will never be resolved unless you get some Watergate Tape type of evidence someday.  The whole disprove the negative thing, here, really, will server to screw her if she wins.

[Buster's Uncle]

Please understand that I say the following not out of support for Mrs. Clinton, but because I believe it's a big stack of hate-lies swallowed whole and regurgitated uncritically by pretty much everyone on the right.

 

-You do not even the cause of hating Mrs. Clinton a service in this.  Mr. Clinton got away with it precisely because the haterz came on too hard, and over half of everyone stopped listening.

[Unorthodox]

Setting up a private server to store email and classified documents while secretary of state.  The server itself is proof of criminal activity - and a disregard for rules and regulations more suited to an absolute monarch than a presidential candidate. 

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that you might know someone who has been a part of an FBI investigation revolving around the mishandling of classified information and items, and might have a little more perspective than most people on what is going on and what the rules are and were. 

1:  At the time of it's setup, the server was 100% Kosher with the rules, bordering on regular practice. 
2:  During the time of it's use, the rules changed slightly in insisting official copies be kept, BUT IT WAS STILL LEGAL TO HAVE A PRIVATE SERVER.   
3:  At present, private servers are against the rules, but that can't be retroactively applied here.   
 
Sorry.  Was it best practice?  No.  Was it discouraged?  sorta.  Was it known the rules would outlaw it at some point?  Yes.  Was it ILLEGAL?  [fuddle-duddle] no. 

Her constant dismissal of the matter, and the FBI investigations snail pace, is just prolonging the agony.  (The 'Anne Coulter' version is that her buddy Obama is delaying the investigation to see if she wins the election, than she can bury it, and if she doesn't win his hands never got dirty and the investigations prints its 500-600 page report in due course.)  It would be far better for all involved to just publish even a prelim report to clear the air (unless she is guilty). 

Anyone that's been in an FBI investigation thinks this one is moving at a blisteringly fast pace. 

So far the State Department has publicly released more than 30,000 of Clinton’s own emails. Of these 22 were classified by the State Department as “top secret,” 65 as “secret” and 2,028 as “confidential.”

These are PRESENT classifications.  Doesn't mean they WERE classified at the time.  "Confidential" could be anything as simple as personal info on someone.  I can't speak to the others, but to say that I've witnessed pieces of equipment with components widely commercially available be classified for reasons I don't comprehend.  However, I'm willing to believe they were either not classified at the time or improperly marked as unclassified at the time just based on my experience.  I consider this dismissively, myself.  I very highly doubt anything will come of it, aside from maybe someone getting in trouble for improper marking. 

And remember how the world ended up learning about her server: through the investigation on her conduct in Benghazi.

Actually, no one cared, despite the fact she was under investigation back to 2013, and the private emails existing being publicly available knowledge at that time.

Original committees (6? 8? whatever) found nothing. 2014, Republicans appointed a new committee in fine partisan muckraking.  They asked for the emails, and Clinton turned them over to no fanfare from the public. 

Wasn't until 2015 (after the election cycle started to pick up) that a 'hacker' dumped some of the emails that the media picked up on it, leading to all the public 'outrage' now. 



I don't care for Clinton, and think she's all kinds of dirty politician for other reasons, but the email thing is just silly. 

[Buster's Uncle]

In short, it's fake.  Nobody's buying this manufactured 'scandal' except the haterz who already did - just like every manufactured 'scandal' the professional haters have manufactured on her and her scumbag husband.  It's a bill of goods.

It's no better than the imaginary socialist Muslim Obama who isn't a moderate with no fight in him like the ACTUAL Obama.  -A pack of lies, mixed with half-truths and irrelevancies, in short.

The ghost of Lee Atwater can try to foul the world crapping in our hats and telling us it's perfume, but I don't have to buy it - and you don't to believe it or keep offering the same ol' hatful of rank, stinky, runny poop, which is all it is.  Acting like that for three decades straight is why the right's in so much trouble now.  Slag Clinton and Obama -and whomever else- for the ways they really suck -not a short list in either case- and stop wasting everyone's time being ugly with the make-believe.

Please.