US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:Not ironic at all. Since Reagan the GOP has been either the Dem lite party or anti-Democrats. Republican leadership have defined themselves by what Democrats believe. They share the same donors by now. Witness the Koch brothers supporting Hillary over Trump.

The Koch's have stated quite clearly they are supporting neither.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... lood-libel


They won't support Clinton because she's a Democrat, they won't support Trump because he's a dangerously unstable diagnosable narcissist with no capacity for exercising any degree of self control. (I mean FFS, how stupid do you have to be to pick a fight with the grieving mother of a fallen US serviceman? But he can't stop himself, he HAS to yell and rant at anyone who criticizes him. It's a compulsion. Will work wonders in a President of the most powerful nation on earth, I'm sure. )

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-backed-major-republican-donors.html

The particulars are off but the overall direction is there.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Not ironic at all. Since Reagan the GOP has been either the Dem lite party or anti-Democrats. Republican leadership have defined themselves by what Democrats believe. They share the same donors by now. Witness the Koch brothers supporting Hillary over Trump.

The Koch's have stated quite clearly they are supporting neither.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... lood-libel


They won't support Clinton because she's a Democrat, they won't support Trump because he's a dangerously unstable diagnosable narcissist with no capacity for exercising any degree of self control. (I mean FFS, how stupid do you have to be to pick a fight with the grieving mother of a fallen US serviceman? But he can't stop himself, he HAS to yell and rant at anyone who criticizes him. It's a compulsion. Will work wonders in a President of the most powerful nation on earth, I'm sure. )

PeterZ wrote:http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-backed-major-republican-donors.html

The particulars are off but the overall direction is there.

You know you won't find me arguing Clinton isn't for sale... or that her economic leaning are not essentially those of a Reagan Republican with some quibbles here and there. Not surprising she draws a lot of right wing donor money given the alternative they have this year...

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-backed-major-republican-donors.html

The particulars are off but the overall direction is there.

You know you won't find me arguing Clinton isn't for sale... or that her economic leaning are not essentially those of a Reagan Republican with some quibbles here and there. Not surprising she draws a lot of right wing donor money given the alternative they have this year...

Great! We have something I can quibble with. She is not drawing right wing donor money. She is drawing the neocon crony capitalists. There is a big difference.

Reagan believed in a level playing field where performance would separate the winners and losers. Bush v.1 believed in crony capitalism with the elite shaping the playing field. Bush v.2 doubled down. Mr. Clinton was hampered by Newt or he would have doubled down first. Just look at how he used Haiti to jump-start his Foundation. Obama got to really pick and choose economic winners with that porkulus bill. Sloyndra anyone?

As I said, since Reagan, Republicans have been trying to be Democrats that non-Democrats would vote for. They would advocate an anti-democrat platform but govern like Democrats with a slightly different set of elite winners. So, Hillary is not drawing right wing elites, she is drawing the Republican sect of the crony capitalists. All crony capitalists want government to guarantee their success. This is not right wing at all. It is by definition socialist.

First, we must remember:
it was not Republican politicians (Congressfolk, etc.)
who nominated Trump. It was a large plurality (not a majority)
of voters in the Republican Primaries who did it.
The GOP Pols. hate it but are stuck with it - for the present.

The GOP Congressfolk do have another string to their bow,
if Trump is elected. He would carry a Republican Senate and
House of Representatives with him, just about certainly,
but they would be GOP Regulars, *not* Trump-lovers.

If a newly-elected President Trump were sufficiently offensive,
Then the GOPfolk in the House would have the votes to Impeach
him, so that GOP Regular Mike Pence would become President,
IF the Senate votes to convict Trump.

BUT the (expected if Trump wins) GOP Senate majority would,
almost that certainly, be less than 2/3rds of the Senators.
To convict Trump, and replace him with Pence,
they would need some Democratic Senators' votes.
This leads to The Question Of The Winter:
Would Senate Democrats hate and despise Trump so much,
that they vote to replace him with Regular GOPer Pence?

If the GOP Regulars seriously wanted Trump removed by
impeachment, Then they should have nominated a VP candidate
more acceptable to the Democrats than Trump!

Be that as it may, they still might be as optimistic in the
Winter of 2017 as they were in Fall 1998, when they seemed to
have really believed that the 45 Dem Senators would give them
at least 12 votes to convict-&-remove Bill Clinton.
Remember that in those cases, five and ten GOPers *refused* to
convict, joining with *all* the Dems to give an aquiting tie
in one case, and a Not Guilty majority in the other!

But the Tea Party in the House might still be optimistic.
I wonder if they spike their tea.

HTM, PHL

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:First, we must remember:
it was not Republican politicians (Congressfolk, etc.)
who nominated Trump. It was a large plurality (not a majority)
of voters in the Republican Primaries who did it.
The GOP Pols. hate it but are stuck with it - for the present.

The GOP Congressfolk do have another string to their bow,
if Trump is elected. He would carry a Republican Senate and
House of Representatives with him, just about certainly,
but they would be GOP Regulars, *not* Trump-lovers.

If a newly-elected President Trump were sufficiently offensive,
Then the GOPfolk in the House would have the votes to Impeach
him, so that GOP Regular Mike Pence would become President,
IF the Senate votes to convict Trump.

BUT the (expected if Trump wins) GOP Senate majority would,
almost that certainly, be less than 2/3rds of the Senators.
To convict Trump, and replace him with Pence,
they would need some Democratic Senators' votes.
This leads to The Question Of The Winter:
Would Senate Democrats hate and despise Trump so much,
that they vote to replace him with Regular GOPer Pence?

If the GOP Regulars seriously wanted Trump removed by
impeachment, Then they should have nominated a VP candidate
more acceptable to the Democrats than Trump!

Be that as it may, they still might be as optimistic in the
Winter of 2017 as they were in Fall 1998, when they seemed to
have really believed that the 45 Dem Senators would give them
at least 12 votes to convict-&-remove Bill Clinton.
Remember that in those cases, five and ten GOPers *refused* to
convict, joining with *all* the Dems to give an aquiting tie
in one case, and a Not Guilty majority in the other!

But the Tea Party in the House might still be optimistic.
I wonder if they spike their tea.

HTM, PHL

The biblical "code name" for the nations before Zechariah 12:9>14:11, is Babylon, which translates to 'confusion' from the tower of Babel. OTOH, many voters make their choices from their personal experiences, rather than principle. Alternate reality storyline: Nixon visited Martin Luther King while he was in prison to show solidarity

Example:

http://constitution.com/black-man-think-trump-sent-god/

No, neither Trump nor Clinton is from God. I think most rulers are very confused, and often confuse voters also

DDHv, you should lay off the kool aid.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Meanwhile, Trump has already thrown up warnings that the election may be rigged, and that if he loses, it will only be by vote manipulation.

Whether or not he is able to win without it is not known at this time.

Honest question for you people insistent on electing Trump: If he loses, will you accept that result or will you join Trump and his stooges in crying about how the election was obviously rigged?

The E wrote:Honest question for you people insistent on electing Trump: If he loses, will you accept that result or will you join Trump and his stooges in crying about how the election was obviously rigged?

I honestly don't know. It depends on just how many coincidences are involved. Hillary has already offered federal appointments to donors. How many people will materially gain from her election to President? Will those people find ways to bend the rules? I honestly don't know how it will work out.