If the Political Class (proper noun) were even half as powerful as people think they are, Trump would not be the nominee.

At 6/18/16 11:10 AM, Obama2016 wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and assert our presidents will be forever untouchable.

Thanks, Bill.

That's an odd way of spelling Richard.

At 6/18/16 02:01 PM, Obama2016 wrote: ....as though Nixon didn't resign.

Does the sand fill in your eyes and ears after awhile?

Sorry, I forgot about all those days he spent in prison for all those laws he broke. Thanks, Gerald.

At 6/18/16 12:54 AM, FinaLee wrote: You know, after seeing the Ron Paul craze back in 2012 and now this, I've come to the conclusion that most online communities are hardly representative models of the entire nation.

Well yeah, just look at this thread and you'll see how little grasp of even basic recent political history these folks have. I in part blame the current educational system. I remember in High School I had a class called "America from 1865" and it basically stopped at WW2, college too. Everything I know about American political history since then is self researched....these guys look like they haven't done even close to that. Go read up on the '72 election kids, it's relevant.

Edit: Except @Feoric, he clearly did the basic research. Probably some more, but he's swinging at softballs so of course he's hitting home runs for those in the know to see.

@aviewaskewed my history education in high school dramatically tapered after the end of the Vietnam War. We also had a gap between 1870 and 1900. I remember what the teach said about it too: "Okay, so we're just going to skip ahead a little bit here. Nothing really big happens. We just get a couple of pretty bad presidents. Anyways, who here knows about Theodore Roosevelt?"

I think it's low-information voters being attracted to his character. He's a billionaire who says and does what he wants, and that can be very appealing to people who feel disenfranchised.

At 6/18/16 06:46 PM, FinaLee wrote: @aviewaskewed my history education in high school dramatically tapered after the end of the Vietnam War. We also had a gap between 1870 and 1900. I remember what the teach said about it too: "Okay, so we're just going to skip ahead a little bit here. Nothing really big happens. We just get a couple of pretty bad presidents. Anyways, who here knows about Theodore Roosevelt?"

Yeah, very similar here.

I think it's low-information voters being attracted to his character. He's a billionaire who says and does what he wants, and that can be very appealing to people who feel disenfranchised.

I think he's the perfect storm of a lot of bad impulses coming together. I think I'm going to very soon do a separate blog post to try and work through my thoughts on him that I've so far failed to articulate here because the opinion and the analysis is ever changing.

At 6/18/16 06:26 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Edit: Except @Feoric, he clearly did the basic research. Probably some more, but he's swinging at softballs so of course he's hitting home runs for those in the know to see.

I actually first got into politics via Ron Paul. Meme candidates have an upside: they get people involved in the process who probably otherwise wouldn't be interested, for better or worse. I was a huge libertatian dipshit for about a year or so before I realized how absolutely insane American libertarianism actually is, and that realization set me down a path of "unlearning" the nonsense spoonfed to me by Mises et al. That's a pretty common story among my friends as well. I'm sure Trump is/will be performing that same role for at least one other person somewhere down the line.

At 6/18/16 06:26 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well yeah, just look at this thread and you'll see how little grasp of even basic recent political history these folks have. I in part blame the current educational system. I remember in High School I had a class called "America from 1865" and it basically stopped at WW2, college too. Everything I know about American political history since then is self researched....these guys look like they haven't done even close to that. Go read up on the '72 election kids, it's relevant.

Yeah, mine was sorta like that. In elementary school, we kept going up to the Civil War. Then I think they figured we got the point and expanded a little more, but we didn't study anything past the '60s up until I was in junior year. Interestingly enough, there was a pretty big emphasis on the '70s energy crisis as well as the end of Communism.

I graduated in 2002. I don't know what schools teach now, but I imagine it's worse.

So the polls for the last week or so have Trump trailing Hillary in the general election by double digits. He's clearly losing a lot of steam, but anyone think those polls may not all be that true? They all said it was impossible for Trump to even become the nominee and he won it by a landslide, getting the most votes in Republican primary history. You think they may be underestimating him?

At 6/19/16 03:32 AM, mothballs wrote: So the polls for the last week or so have Trump trailing Hillary in the general election by double digits. He's clearly losing a lot of steam, but anyone think those polls may not all be that true? They all said it was impossible for Trump to even become the nominee and he won it by a landslide, getting the most votes in Republican primary history. You think they may be underestimating him?

YES! They are underestimating him! I said at the beginning, don't take this as a joke. A lot of people did and they didn't expect him to get as far as he has! If anyone is doubting that he has a chance of winning the election, they have another thing coming. That first debate will be make or break.

Polls are a measurement of a sample of the electorate. You can pick apart any poll based on technicalities like sample size, MoE, methodology etc, but trend lines don't lie. He's clearly nosediving, and you don't even need to look at the polls to see that.

I won't go so far as to say that whatever Trump accomplished in the primaries doesn't matter, but the general election is much different than the primaries. He needs to play to a different audience, and that means Trump as a candidate needs to change. So far he's given zero indication that he even wants to consider that prospect.

At 6/19/16 01:02 PM, Feoric wrote: I won't go so far as to say that whatever Trump accomplished in the primaries doesn't matter, but the general election is much different than the primaries. He needs to play to a different audience, and that means Trump as a candidate needs to change. So far he's given zero indication that he even wants to consider that prospect.

Exactly. The general election is now about trying to get the WHOLE of a state to vote for you, not just the parts of it that are friendly to your message and motivated to see it continue forward. Another thing that aided Trump I feel was the field was so cluttered and for the longest time he had a bit of an "underdog" status, even as the front runner, he was the guy saying the kind of shit that Repub candidates usually sugar coat. He was also the guy running against a very crowded field of less then palatable candidates for the general public.

But now he's facing someone who's been running for President for about 20 years or so, she's ready, and he's just handing her all the ammo she needs to start picking at his weaknesses, plus the party is still rumored to be gearing up against him and to potentially deny him the nod with a rules change come the convention.

So what now...

It is absolutely now going to be Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton in the General Election. Funny thing is, if you're a Democrat who likes Hillary then the choice is easy for you, I honestly don't even know why you watch a single debate other than to laugh at Donald Trump. If you're a Democrat who likes Bernie Sanders then the choice is still probably easy for you as in Hillary is better than Trump, that is a lesser of two evils choice though. If you're a sensible minded Republican though... this election just outright sucks.

I've tried to remain centered about Trump, but it just doesn't help out in anyway. I was skeptical of Hillary's E-Mails, but considered it a witch hunt at the same time. Now seeing as she did lie and she is pretty much going to get away free, I'm not saying put her in jail, but SOME punishment.

Honestly, I'm looking to vote for Gary Johnson in this year's election.

At 7/12/16 10:26 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Honestly, I'm looking to vote for Gary Johnson in this year's election.

Be VERY wary of the wolves in sheep's clothing known as the American Libertarian Party. It's a far cookier and less reigned in Republican Party. Not in the Ogre sense as Trump is, but more of a Goblin sense a-la the Pauls.

Anyone who holds social freedom in any esteem, should watch their vote very carefully.

At 7/12/16 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Be VERY wary of the wolves in sheep's clothing known as the American Libertarian Party. It's a far cookier and less reigned in Republican Party. Not in the Ogre sense as Trump is, but more of a Goblin sense a-la the Pauls.

Anyone who holds social freedom in any esteem, should watch their vote very carefully.

Oh believe me, I know the Libertarian Party can seem out there. Gary Johnson though is one of the more level headed Libertarians. I like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but they seem to just go a bit too far.

Okay so Trump has publicly "invited" Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Now although I don't think this is an act of treason, (its close but unless he is doing it or is getting something directly from it, it isn't treason as far as I know), it is highly unethical to be asking a foreign government to spy on a member of state in your own country.

At 7/27/16 07:28 PM, LordJaric wrote: Okay so Trump has publicly "invited" Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Now although I don't think this is an act of treason, (its close but unless he is doing it or is getting something directly from it, it isn't treason as far as I know), it is highly unethical to be asking a foreign government to spy on a member of state in your own country.

It's very disturbing. But coupled with all the praise Trump and Putin have heaped on each other, plus Trump saying as President he would "consider" recognizing Russia's claim to Crimeia, and that when asked about Russia and his ties to it, Trump's camp immediately said they'd never release his tax returns. I think it might be time for the FBI to launch an investigation into what ties he may or may not have with Russia. The picture is becoming very disturbing.

fuck donald trump

At 7/29/16 03:19 AM, Omegeist wrote: >Asking Russia to reveal the 30,000 missing clinton emails to the media sarcastically

I didn't detect any sarcasm personally. Even if it was, it was a dumb move to be seen asking a foreign power, an enemy foreign power in fact, to engage in cyber espionage/

I think it is quite clear any Russian involvement with these emails is entirely Clinton's problem and hardly any reason to blame her lies and carelessness on Trump.

Either you're shifting the goal posts, or you misunderstood what I said. I don't blame Trump for Hillary's bad decisions regarding the emails. My concern is that someone who wants to be President invited a hostile foreign power to commit espionage. A foreign power he owes a lot of money to (American banks have blackballed Trump. This is probably also why he won't release his tax returns, it'd be hard to explain away all that Russian funding), and one that he shares an extremely friendly relationship with.

Whether or not you agree with that sort of mindset is subjective.

No, it's not. It raises very serious questions about Mr. Trump and who he's actually working for.

I guess my point is that the whole conspiracy of Trump being secretly KGB or something is nonsense.

Is it though? Because there's enough there to at least suggest Trump owes Russia and if we put him in the Oval Office he may be paying them back at our expense.

idk If this gets you concerned about US security what is your opinion on the original email scandal with Hillary?

I think what she did was incredibly stupid. Just like when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice did it. As the Russians have shown with the DNC if you leave security holes, foreign powers can and will exploit them. I do however feel like there's a massive level of hypocrisy here in that I've just pointed out two recent former Secs of State who did what Hillary did but have barely been mentioned (if at all) while Hillary has been treated as though she went and handed out printed copies to every enemy nation on the planet.

At 7/29/16 09:56 PM, Omegeist wrote: I wouldn't consider Russia an enemy. There has been an increase in tension recently but relations are not cutthroat.

They aren't as much as some others, but Russia has never really been a friend, and Putins domestic policies are a complete 180 from what we do. At best they're a "frenemy". Definitely people to be watched, especially since the evidence is leading us to believe that they're behind the DNC hack at the government level.

If you don't see the sarcasm in Trump's comment then I don't really know what to say other than if his statement was a legitimate request and Trump was secretly involved with Russia wouldn't he be a little more coy about it?

You'd think so. But Trump has made so many other boneheaded statements that he then tries to defend and double down on I really don't put anything past the guy. Especially when he knows his campaign and the media will simply jump in and say "well, what Mr. Trump MEANT was..."

United States classified information should be made secure enough so that even if hackers were verbally invited to obtain it they would not be able to.

What? How does that absolve Trump of the poor decision to make that statement, even in jest? Yes the data should be secure, but damn sure no citizen, and ESPECIALLY no Presidential candidate should be daring a foreign power to try it. That's two completely separate things.

A foreign power interested in our secrets is not going to wait for someone like Trump to invite them to hack into government documents.

Very true, but that doesn't mean he should be making statements like that. Because it makes me question his judgement as so many other things have.

Even if Russia suddenly revealed the 30,000 emails Clinton deliberately deleted and all sorts of security consequences ensued it would still be entirely her fault.

The DNC one's less so, since that was on their organization, Russia is not accused of hacking anything off her private server.

I am not shifting the goal posts. If this release of information worries you then you have Clinton to blame. Trump has held no public office. He doesn't have any passwords to give the Russian government.

But his STATEMENT, which is what I've been objecting to all along, is/was inappropriate. THAT is my whole point.

As for the tax returns It is not illegal for him to withhold releasing them to the public (to my knowledge.)

It's not, but it's become a tradition that people find important in showing a "trust" between the candidate and the public. For Trump to not do that, and continue to say it's because of something (audits) that WOULDN'T stop him from doing so is another one of those questions about how much Trump can be trusted. It leads naturally to the question "what is he hiding?"

Finally I know Trump has done business within Russia (none of which I believe was successful) but I would appreciate it if you would tell me more about this secret government Russian funding he is receiving.

It's not necessarily secret government funding. It's the possibility of bank loans (which in Russia that may also include a government hand). But then there's just all the "Putin is a great guy and I know him" then "I don't know that man at all". Both statements CAN'T be true.

Here's a good article from the Post. Taught me a few things as well.

I was referring to his seemingly hands off policy with Russia. It is subjective. You clearly have your opinion and I have mine. Personally I believe we shouldn't be putting our foot up Russia's ass. I can assure you that I have no involvement with Russia and I agree with that policy.

I'm not saying go after them. But his hands off policy about letting Russia basically just HAVE Crimeria is a little worrying and looks somewhat like "appeasement" to me. But then as I pointed out above I'm just not comfortable with someone who blatantly lies as much as Trump does. It's not even like you have to dig that hard to see the lies and the flip flops.

Powell and Rice didn't really do what Clinton did.

Looks like I read a bad report a couple months back. This one seems to agree with you. But it also suggests that this may in part be because Powell is refusing to cooperate any more then he already has.

Besides that Clinton is on the presidential trail. She is under the microscope. She got caught and shame on her. Not only was it stupid but it was also extremely dishonest. She was our employee as secretary of state and I don't think she should be promoted to president.

Fair enough.

In his zeal to one up Hillary, Donald Trump immediately leaked one of the classified serets he was just given...

At 7/30/16 03:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In his zeal to one up Hillary, Donald Trump immediately leaked one of the classified serets he was just given...

Or just blatantly made shit up, at best.

At 7/30/16 03:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In his zeal to one up Hillary, Donald Trump immediately leaked one of the classified serets he was just given...

I'm no fan of Trump, but Snopes can be your friend. No, he didn't do that.

At 7/30/16 09:58 PM, Gario wrote: I'm no fan of Trump, but Snopes can be your friend. No, he didn't do that.

So he was talking out of his ass. Not as bad as leaking classified material, but in the world of general campaigning, still quite bad.

At 7/30/16 09:58 PM, Gario wrote:

At 7/30/16 03:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In his zeal to one up Hillary, Donald Trump immediately leaked one of the classified serets he was just given...

I'm no fan of Trump, but Snopes can be your friend. No, he didn't do that.

I had my suspicions.

I feel for all American voters your choices are a lying criminal, or a business criminal.

Sure they haven't been convicted, but then again , some of the biggest murderers on the Planet, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, were never convicted or even charged for the deaths of the millions their actions caused.

Doesn't change the fact.
You have 2 choices for President, heads or tails of the same coin made from a flaming pile of shit.

That is truly unfortunate

At 7/31/16 12:37 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Doesn't change the fact.
You have 2 choices for President, heads or tails of the same coin made from a flaming pile of shit.

That is truly unfortunate

Hence why I'm voting third party.

At 7/31/16 03:15 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 7/31/16 12:37 PM, morefngdbs wrote: You have 2 choices for President, heads or tails of the same coin made from a flaming pile of shit.

That is truly unfortunate

Hence why I'm voting third party.

Good luck with that , & I mean that truly.

Here in Canada we have 3 major parties, & a handful of others.

The last Federal election , people were so fed up by the policies of division & the Party in power for over 10 years getting there with well under the 50 % mark...like 34 ,35% of the popular vote.
That Unions, Veterans, Pensioners all got involved in "Strategic voting"
So when it looked like the Liberals & NDP would take enough votes out of a district that the PC candidate would again win by the narrowest margin. They posted to everyone there before the election Vote Liberal or Vote NDP ....the candidate with the best chance to beat the PC & it worked . It worked so well that the Party in power is a ghost of what they were.

Real change is happening up here after 10 years of cronyism , & dictatorial hold on our Government institutions. Our scientists were gagged on threat of losing their jobs if the PC's said ( & they did) running oil pipelines up rivers without impact studies ...would be no problem ever !
Emperor Harper managed to unite the country against him & his party ...first time in memory .Just an FYI the Prime Minister in this country has a hell of a lot more power than the US President. When it comes to doing whatever they like in the country. The Provinces do not have the power to stop Prime Minister policies laws etc, that States have to curb the President.
The Prime Minister is not accountable to a congress, & if his Party has a majority can pass whatever laws 7 changes they want to . The only slow down is the Senate & they are limited in what they can do. If its a Senate dominated by the party in power, then it simply becomes a rubber stamp on the Prime Ministers whims !

Our system works best when its a minority Government & 2 Parties have to cooperate to rule. That's when actual governance for the people takes place instead of 'help ourselves & our buddies" as is the case of any single Party in control.

At 8/1/16 02:20 PM, SansNumbers wrote: Because of our broken ass voting system, voting for the third party you would like to see in office would be acting against your interests more than throwing your ballot into a garbage can. This is not the time to push a 3rd party vote, because if none of the candidates get 270 electoral votes (which is realistically the best case scenario for a 3rd party candidate) then the House of Representatives will decide who is president. Since they are a Republican majority, we will all be saying hello to President Trump because a bunch of people thought they were going to be clever and subvert the system.

That and neither candidate is really electable. Honestly look at their policies, it's either someone who's very right wing, but socially doesn't give a shit (to the point in places where I think some essential protections might fall away), or someone who's super left wing, doesn't know what she's talking about a lot of the time and panders to anti-vaccers.

That's the TRUE problem that Third parties in this country need to deal with before they can even start to gain traction: They have to stop being crazier alternatives to the big two parties. Until they do that, they've got no chance in hell.

Top Republicans still distancing themselves from the nominee. I have never seen anything like this, never even heard of anything like this. You've got the nominee for President, and yet every major name in the party can't run far enough away or denounce his statements quickly enough.

At 8/1/16 02:20 PM, SansNumbers wrote: Because of our broken ass voting system, voting for the third party you would like to see in office would be acting against your interests more than throwing your ballot into a garbage can. This is not the time to push a 3rd party vote, because if none of the candidates get 270 electoral votes (which is realistically the best case scenario for a 3rd party candidate) then the House of Representatives will decide who is president. Since they are a Republican majority, we will all be saying hello to President Trump because a bunch of people thought they were going to be clever and subvert the system.

I'm well aware that it is next to impossible for a third party to win but I'm not really liking Hillary and I'm sure as hell not voting for Trump so that leaves me in a tough spot.