PeterZ wrote:And Romney vs Obama was a contest of champions? A choice between bad and worse would have been nice compared to that.
Didn't like that one either. I keep voting against these people in the primary.
Annachie wrote:Wait, Trump has policies? So far I've only heard one, building a wall. Everything else, including the wall come to think of it, is meaningless platitudes.
More the fault of the media not wanting to make any candidate talk issues.
His policy appears to be: hire the best person he can find to solve the problem and let them use any method they want to solve the problem as long as it works.
Which when you think about it is better than the alternative...
As for Hillary, she's damn near a republican.
I agree with thinkstoomuch. Me first.
Did todays results really give Trump a chance at outright? Because if he doesn't get those 1300ish delegates he wont be the nominee.
Yes, he has an outright chance. He needs to win most of the remaining primaries to get there. He won all 5, so he's on track. If he'd lost one or more of those 5 states it would have really hurt his chances.
thinkstoomuch wrote:
Lastly remember the title of Trump's book and its title.
Well we'll get to see if he's as good at the Art of the Deal as he thinks he is. Right now he's doing a lot of behind the scenes let make a deal talk. The ones that I know of:
1. Supreme court nominee - bargain with the Heritage foundation to get their support (and with them other fellow conservatives)
2. Vice president pick - bargain with Rubio/Kasick for their delegates & they get to be VP
On the hire the best guy and let them work - he's hired one of the best delegate wranglers in the Republican party to get the unbound delegates to vote for him. (The unbound delegates consists of those from five states that decided not to hold statewide votes, as well as 54 from Pennsylvania who were directly elected without declaring a presidential preference.)
If Trump is as good as he thinks he is at least one of these things will work.
thinkstoomuch wrote:Annachie wrote:Gee I wonder when Bengazi will be investigated by someone.
Oh wait, it has been.
By people who hate Hillary.
More than 10 times.
More than 20 times!
And they still found nothing.
The GOP even admitted that the investigations owed more to Hillary's Presidential aspirations than any actual belief of wrong doing.
Yet people still scream it out like there's some big wrong doing there.
I should buy shares in Kraft Foods, you know, the company that makes Kool Aid. The rate it's being drunk in the US must be staggering.
Bah I'm in a mood.
All the shitty crap the GOP, actually lets be honest, the Tea Party hijackers of the GOP, are pulling over there, our far right wing nutters are trying here.
What was the US State Department response. It was all caused by a anti islamic video. Well until the issue was sufficiently confused.
Fact it was a pre-planned anti islamic attack. At best spin control in advance of the facts at worst ...
Which amazingly enough more and more stuff that was covered up keeps coming to light. Of course you already made up your mind. So nothing hew under the sun.
Believe what you want she is truthful 84% of the time according to some. Me, I wouldn't believe her if she said the sun rose in the east. But that generally applies to all politicians.
PeterZ wrote:Bengahzi shows just how much she disdains the people she was responsible for. Criminal wrong doing? Maybe not, but certainly exposes attitudes that will determine her fitness as Commander in Chief. If you could vote, would this deter you from voting for her? Likely not, but for many here, it does. Reminding the voters of this is good campaign tactics.
As best I can tell through the smoke (for which Hillary is largely responsible), her primary responsibility for the actual incident is executive. She created an atmosphere at State, where the idiots who denied additional security etc did so in the full belief that what what their boss, Hillary wanted.
Given how much of the presidential responsibilities are executive: hiring the right people and setting the right tone so that those people will make good decisions. She doesn't look very presidential.
The spin mess that followed with the video etc is classic Clintons. They have done that exact same thing with every one of the extensive list of scandals which they created. Blame some little guy, create lots of smoke, blame it all on the right wing conspiracy. The Bengazi spin was textbook.
PeterZ wrote:Sanders and Trump are getting the anti-establishment vote from both parties. Last night shows that those folks appear to be consolidating around Trump. Bernie's momentum is weakening just as Trump is breaking 50% consistently. The polls are showing him below 50% but the vote totals show him rising above that apparent barrier.
The Republican primaries are up 70% more in total participants than 4 years ago. The Dems are down 35%. There is a big chunk of the electorate that is shifting their support from the Dems to being not republican but certainly anti-something that coalesces around Trump. They are anti-establishment. The dems are suffering because their cohesive control of their elected members show just how firmly establishment they actually are. The people's party my great aunt Sally!
This is not a movement of any fringe. This is a groundswell of folks giving the middle finger to elites that care more for their individual power than the welfare of their constituents. So keep deluding yourself thinking this is a movement of the extreme right. That delusion will foster more surprises to come.
I agree. Most of these people don't care what the fix is as long as there is one.
Tenshinai wrote:US trade agreements are totally corporate-centric and is totally shredding your economy.
Well I agree with you on that at least. Though I would modify it to: US trade agreements are totally
to the short term benefit of the corporations and is totally shredding your economy
long term. Long term the damage these things are doing hurts the corporations as well. Of course by then the corporate executives making the decision to support the trade agreements will have retired with $100 million, so they won't care.
Dayrl wrote:The theme here is union thugs, and the corrupt union movement. Out of hundreds of unions here, one had three corrupt officials, and another has been accused of stand over tactics. However the Murdock paper & TV line is that all are corrupt thugs, and checking the USA & UK papers it's the same line.
Unfortunately if you repeat lies often enough the sheeple believe them, so union official = thug.
What I've observed is that it tends to be a function of the size of the unions. The large unions seem to be run by the same sociopaths that run big business and big government. Big just seems to attract these types. However, I find it more of a betrayal when it is the unions because they are supposed to be on your side and when you see them behaving in exactly the same me first fashion as the big business/big government sociopaths....
