Official 2016 Election Thread

Greed

Star
Registered
The Tim Scott Primary
South Carolina's new "kingmaker" is about to get a lot more popular among GOP presidential candidates.
By Sarah Mimms

April 8, 2015 With the GOP presidential contest intensifying, Tim Scott is about to get a lot more knocks on his door.

South Carolina is poised to play a major role in the 2016 campaign, and Scott plans to walk each of the Republican hopefuls through his state and pick their brains in a series of town-hall events that he's organizing for later this year. Unlike in 2012, when Scott held smaller town hall events with the candidates, this year he may actually endorse, offering up a prize no serious presidential contender could scoff at.

The South Carolina primary could provide an opportunity for lower-tier candidates to make their mark after contests in Iowa and New Hampshire—or for leading contenders to begin sewing up the nomination. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to play well in New Hampshire's primary, while the Iowa caucuses are leaning in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's favor (a caveat: it's April 2015), giving a quartet of senators and other candidates the chance to steal headlines of their own in the Palmetto State.

Scott's predecessor in the Senate, Jim DeMint, became known as the "kingmaker" for his influential role in picking conservative candidates for Senate contests. Now Scott is in position to play the same role in the presidential race.

The first-term senator is by far the most popular politician in South Carolina, and one of the most popular in the country. A March Winthrop University poll showed Scott with a stunning 54 percent approval rating from his fellow South Carolinians. Among Republicans, a full 71 percent approve of the job he's doing in the Senate.

Those approval ratings are far higher than for any of the presidential primary contenders, and support from Scott could help broaden the voter base for any of them. Scott is well-liked among the business community as well as fiscal conservatives and among evangelical Christians; a trifecta of supporters for a fledgling presidential campaign. He is well-liked among conservative groups and the establishment. And as the party's only African American in the Senate, Scott represents a core constituency that the GOP is focused on this cycle.

In a phone interview from New Hampshire, where he is testing the waters on a presidential campaign of his own this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham praised Scott as an incredibly smart, humble man; a man of faith whose popularity in the state has not surprised his senior senator. "Tim in general is one of the nicest people I've ever met in my life in politics," Graham said. "Everybody likes Tim."

During the Senate's late-night budget vote-a-rama last month, Graham said he and fellow Republicans were sitting around chatting and watching basketball at around 11 p.m. when he noticed Scott off in a corner and asked what he was doing. " 'Doing my Bible study'—he said it very sheepishly. That's just him. He's unpretentious," Graham said.

Graham said that he and Scott have discussed the possibility of the senior senator's presidential campaign, but emphasized that he has not made a decision yet—and neither has Scott. "He's been very encouraging, thinks I have a lot to offer on national security," Graham said. "He says I'll make the state proud."

A Scott spokesman said that the senator has had very general conversations with a number of potential presidential candidates, including Graham, but emphasized that he will wait until after he has had an opportunity to commune with each of them before making a decision about an endorsement.

Scott is planning several town hall meetings with individual candidates some time in the late summer or early fall that will occur all over the state. The idea is that Scott and the candidate will take questions from attendees, and Scott and his constituents will have an opportunity to discuss issues of importance to South Carolina with a would-be president ahead of the primary. Rep. Trey Gowdy plans to join them at a few events in the Upstate as well.

One candidate who could benefit greatly from a Scott endorsement is Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky Republican, who announced that he was running just this week, is honing in on South Carolina as a major target in his presidential campaign and already has earned the backing of former governor and current Rep. Mark Sanford. And Scott could help Paul in his quest to improve the party's share of the African American vote nationally.

Paul, who was an avid supporter of Scott's appointment to the Senate in 2013, has not yet gotten in touch with the South Carolina senator about his presidential ambitions, the Scott spokesman said, despite a planned fundraiser and a separate campaign appearance in Charleston on Wednesday and Thursday.

But Scott's endorsement will be highly sought-after. His conservative bona fides could aid candidates such as Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who are viewed as more moderate, while his business acumen could offer establishment cover to someone like Paul or Ben Carson.

"His popularity is just broad and wide, among evangelical Christians, among Chamber of Commerce types. He has a disposition that it's just hard not to like Tim Scott. He's got a lot of talent," Graham said. "He's got a quiet passion."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/2016-tim-scott-south-carolina-20150408
 
In backing Van Hollen for Senate, Baker fields questions about race

In backing Van Hollen for Senate, Baker fields questions about race
By Arelis R. Hernández
April 8

Rushern L. Baker III, the African American county executive of majority-black Prince George’s, was pelted with questions Wednesday about why he is supporting the Senate bid of U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen over that of U.S. Rep. Donna F. Edwards, who is vying to become Maryland’s first black U.S. senator.

A news conference organized so Baker (D) could endorse Van Hollen, a white Democrat from neighboring Montgomery County, turned into a conversation about whether politics — and politician’s endorsements — are becoming post-racial.

Reporters cautiously reminded Baker that he also supported Brian E. Frosh, who is white, over then-Del. Aisha Braveboy, a black woman from Prince George’s, in last year’s Democratic primary for Maryland attorney general.

Baker said he bases his choices on individual relationships, not skin color. “My job is to figure out what is in the best interests of Prince George’s County,” he said.

So the question was asked again. More bluntly. Why would the black leader from Prince George’s choose the white guy over the black woman from his own county to fill retiring Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski’s trailblazing shoes?

“The reason I feel comfortable is because I know the type of senator Chris Van Hollen will be,” Baker said. “I know that on a personal basis.”

Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, who endorsed Van Hollen weeks ago and was also in attendance, stepped to the microphone to offer his own take. Leggett, who is also African American, taught Baker at Howard University’s law school years ago. He sounded more than a little professorial as he addressed the crowd.

“Let me just add a little bit to that question because I’ll have the same question, as well,” he said. “And my history goes back a little bit more.”

Leggett, 70, recounted his experiences as a student activist, participating in protests and going to jail during the civil rights movement. For many years, he said, African Americans simply wanted the opportunity to elect their own. Eventually, they relished the freedom to be selective in their choices — black or non-black, he said.

“What we fought for . . . was for the right to make the right decision,” he said.

Leggett said he and Baker, 56, decided to endorse Van Hollen because the congressman’s record on topics important to people of color “is impeccable. His leadership on all of the issues that we fought for is impeccable.”

He then struck a collective note — using “we” and “us” and gesturing to the crowd — as he delivered the heart of his speech.

“Our discussion about race, I think, isn’t inappropriate,” Leggett said. “It is one that we should look at. But we have come a very long way. We’re not quite there yet but we’ve come a very long way. And that long way says to us today that we have an opportunity to elect the best person for the job.”

Van Hollen has amassed a long list of endorsements since announcing a little more than a month ago that he would run to succeed Mikulski (D), including the entire Montgomery County Council and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Edwards has the support of the feminist powerhouse Emily’s List and other progressive groups, and has been endorsed by Prince George’s County Council Chairman Mel Franklin (D-Upper Marlboro).

On the day Edwards launched her Senate bid, former lieutenant governor Anthony G. Brown (D) issued a laudatory statement praising her and her record.

But aides to Brown, who is running for the congressional seat that Edwards must give up whether she wins the Senate race or not, said late Tuesday that the statement did not constitute an endorsement.

Brown so far has not endorsed a candidate in the Senate race, his campaign said.

Van Hollen and Edwards are the only declared candidates, but others — including Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) — are openly weighing whether to run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...97f726-de20-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html
 
Democrat seeking Senate seat swears off Wall Street cash

Democrat seeking Senate seat swears off Wall Street cash
By Emily Flitter
April 9, 2015 12:46 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Donna Edwards, pledged on Thursday to swear off all campaign donations from Wall Street banks, the latest Democrat to assail big financial institutions.

Edwards, who sits in the U.S. House of Representatives, is vying for the Democratic nomination in Maryland along with fellow Representative Chris Van Hollen. She said she was "outraged" by a Reuters report that major Wall Street banks had met to discuss ways to urge Democrats such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to soften their tone against the financial sector.

"Wall Street won't be happy until Democrats stop listening to progressives like me and Elizabeth Warren - and instead carry out orders from the biggest banks in the world," Edwards wrote in a campaign announcement that slammed "massive Wall Street corporations" she said had crashed the U.S. economy during the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

Edwards urged Van Hollen, the leading Democrat on the House Budget Committee, to also forgo Wall Street donations. The election is in November 2016.

The announcement is a victory for the advocacy group Democracy for America, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who lost a bid for the presidential nomination to John Kerry in 2004. The group has been lobbying candidates to forswear Wall Street donations.

"If Democrats want to prove that they're not owned by Wall Street bullies, it starts by making clear that you can't be bought and we're hopeful that other House and Senate candidates will join Donna Edwards in boldly speaking out," said Jim Dean, the group's chairman.

Warren and other party activists are pressuring Hillary Clinton to take a tougher line on Wall Street if she runs for the White House as expected in 2016.

Warren and Edwards have collaborated in the past on issues emerging from the financial crisis. Warren has yet to endorse a candidate in the Maryland race prompted by the retirement of Senator Barbara Mikulski.

Reuters reported on March 27 that big Wall Street banks were so upset with Warren's call for them to be broken up that some had discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.

They said representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, had met to discuss ways to urge Democrats to soften their tone toward Wall Street, and that Citi, JPMorgan and Bank of America considered halting donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-candidate-u-senate-swears-off-wall-street-160411956--sector.html
 
Re: Democrat seeking Senate seat swears off Wall Street cash

"If Democrats want to prove that they're not owned by Wall Street bullies, it starts by making clear that you can't be bought and we're hopeful that other House and Senate candidates will join Donna Edwards in boldly speaking out," said Jim Dean, the group's chairman.

Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards

110816_donna_edwards_ap_465.jpg
 
Re: Democrat seeking Senate seat swears off Wall Street cash


The 2016 GOP field is set​


GOP%202016-Why%20So%20Many

The crowded Republican field is about to get more crowded Tuesday, when Ohio. Gov. John Kasich joins the group. So far, it includes:
from top left: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, former
Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, south Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. BOTTOM ROW, from left,
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry,
Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, and real estate mogul Donald Trump. AP

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27490585.html
 
Re: Democrat seeking Senate seat swears off Wall Street cash

The 2016 GOP Field
In a Nutshell,
Where They Stand:


The Republican free-for-all is about to become a 17-candidate scrum.

Never in modern times has a major political party had so many prominent candidates vying at once for its presidential nomination. The 2016 field is all but set, as Ohio Gov. John Kasich will formally join the race Tuesday morning and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore plans an early August announcement.

So far, familiarity and intrigue with some new players have boosted a handful of candidates to the top. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is the brother and son of presidents. Real estate mogul Donald Trump is classic Internet click bait. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are younger upstarts whose success in swing states rates them close looks from insiders.

As the race begins in earnest, here’s where the candidates stand:
TOP TIER: The Front-runners

JEB BUSH

Pros: The former Florida governor and his supporters have raised $114 million, more than double any other Republican. He can keep tapping the loyal family network that’s won the White House three times.

Con: Too tight with big donors. Plodding campaign style. And that network last won 11 years ago.



MARCO RUBIO

Video Link: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article27501070.html


Pros: At 44, the senator from Florida has the look and vigor of a new generation’s leader. Hispanic heritage is a big advantage. Stirs intrigue among the party establishment.

Cons: Backed a bipartisan path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in 2013, then took a tougher stance. A first-term senator who could be seen as too inexperienced to be commander in chief.


SCOTT WALKER

Video link: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27118840.html

Pros: The Wisconsin governor successfully battled state public employee unions. Won three statewide elections in four years. First governor in the nation to survive a recall effort.

Cons: No foreign policy or Washington experience. Can be awkward in unscripted settings. Hasn’t proven widespread appeal outside Midwest.​


SECOND TIER: Potential, but . . .

DONALD TRUMP

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime.
They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
- Donald Trump discussing undocumented Mexican immigrants​


Pros: The real estate billionaire’s stardom and bluster attract big, adoring crowds and media attention. His demands that the U.S. get tougher with illegal immigration is popular in conservative circles.

Cons: Unusually high negatives. Critics deride his immigration views as intolerant. Alienates many in his own party.


TED CRUZ

Pros: The senator from Texas’ passionate style is a big hit with conservative audiences, particularly evangelical voters. He and backers raised $51 million this year, second only to Bush among Republican presidential candidates.

Cons: Polarizing figure, disliked by many Republicans. Once called a “wacko bird” by 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain.


RAND PAUL

Pros: The senator from Kentucky inherits his father’s libertarian following. Has strong views on individual rights and a less intrusive foreign policy. Has made efforts to reach out to minority voters.

Cons: His father’s libertarian following and those strong views.


BEN CARSON

Pros: The retired neurosurgeon has a strong grassroots network. His low-key, thoughtful style plays well with conservative voters.

Cons: No government experience. Has made controversial statements. Gentle style may be too gentle in a 17-person brawl.​


TIER THREE: Struggling

RICK PERRY

Pros: The former Texas governor’s down-to-earth manner plays well with voters. Strong on issues he’s familiar with, notably economics and border security.

Cons: One of the 2012 presidential campaign’s biggest flops. Under indictment for abuse of power. Not sharp when unfamiliar with issues.


JOHN KASICH

Pros: Popular governor in Ohio, the nation’s premier swing state. Approachable and eager to talk issues at length. Carried 86 of Ohio’s 88 counties in November election.

Cons: Too moderate for national Republican electorate. Regular-guy demeanor doesn’t seem presidential. Entering the race late.


CHRIS CHRISTIE

Gov. Chris Christie won about half of New Jersey Hispanics
and one in five black voters in his 2013 re-election bid​

Pros: The New Jersey governor’s tough talking, brutally frank and popular with audiences eager for an unscripted candidate. Won twice in a Democratic state, did well with minority voters.

Cons: Hurt by George Washington Bridge scandal. Bombastic style gets tiresome and is sometimes marred by flashes of temper. Too centrist and culturally distant for Southern and Midwestern Republicans.


BOBBY JINDAL

Pros: The Louisiana governor won statewide office twice. Strong background on health issues. Talks passionately about his deep religious beliefs.

Cons: Talks passionately about his deep religious beliefs, a turnoff for mainstream voters. Highly unpopular back home, as fiscal policy has proven shaky.


MIKE HUCKABEE

Pros: The former Arkansas governor is a vigorous, entertaining campaigner, popular with Christian right audiences. A pastor with solid evangelical credentials.

Cons: Views on moral issues such as same-sex marriage are toxic to many Republican voters. Won the 2008 Iowa caucus, then fizzled fast.​


TIER FOUR: The unpredictables


RICK SANTORUM

Pros: The former senator from Pennsylvania won the 2012 Iowa caucus. Strong Christian right following. Tireless one-on-one campaigner.


Cons: Had his shot in 2012. Too many others vying for the same constituency this time.


CARLY FIORINA

Pros: The retired business executive wows crowds with her energetic style and pointed criticism of Hillary Clinton. Only woman in the Republican race.

Cons: Lost 2010 U.S. Senate race in California by 10 points. Opponents raise questions about layoffs during her time at Hewlett-Packard.​



TIER FIVE: Who?

LINDSEY GRAHAM

Pros: The senator from South Carolina is an expert on military and national security matters. Strong one-on-one campaign skills.

Cons: Lagging in money, barely known. Unclear whether he can even win his own state’s critical primary.


GEORGE PATAKI

Pros: The former New York governor won three terms in a Democratic state. Helped lead state’s recovery from 9/11 attacks.

Cons: Too moderate for conservative electorate. Barely known outside New York.


JAMES GILMORE

Pros: The former Virginia governor has a solid political resume. Former Republican Party chairman. Headed terrorism policy advisory panel under two presidents.

Cons: Last won political office in 1997. Crushed in 2008 Senate bid.


David Lightman: 202-383-6101, @lightmandavid


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27490585.html#storylink=cpy
 
Fear And Loathing At Netroots Nation

Fear And Loathing At Netroots Nation
The craziness at Netroots Nation 2015 could have been ripped from Hunter S. Thompson’s pages. And it doesn’t bode well for Democratic prospects.
By David Marcus
JULY 20, 2015

As we all prepare as best we can for the oncoming bare-knuckles brawl of the 2016 presidential election, I’ve been re-reading Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 72.” Published as a kind of compendium of Thompson’s election reporting for Rolling Stone, it remains one of the most unflinching books ever written on American politics. In between references to his rampant drug use, including thoughts on the relative value of crank to journalists, Thompson hits on some deep political truths.

He begins the book solidly convinced that the collection of freaks, young people, and minorities can overwhelm the Nixon machine. In the end he knows he was wrong, has a pretty good idea of why, and would never again put much store in the radicals to form electoral powerhouses. This weekend’s unpleasantness for the stunned former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at the Netroots Nation 2015 conference could have been ripped from Thompson’s pages. And it doesn’t bode well for Democratic prospects.

What happened this weekend at #NN15 was nothing short of a clarion call that middle-age white dudes need not apply to positions of power on the progressive Left. When poor O’Malley tried to address the concerns of the segment of the crowd shouting him down it was to no avail. Eventually, an organizer had to jump on stage as a cowed O’Malley watched his presidential prospects crash on the rocks of the new Democratic Party.

Then he said it. In response to the chants of “black lives matter,” he suggested that “all lives matter”—a statement so steeped in privileged racism that the crowd nearly sent him home in tar and feathers. Here’s the video footage:



Early on in “Fear and Loathing,” Thompson opens a chapter with this quote from Los Angeles Times reporter D.J.R. Bruckner:

There are issues enough. What is gone is the popular passion for them. Possibly, hope is gone. The failure of hope would be a terrible event; the blacks have never been cynical about America. But the conversation you hear among the young now, on the South Side of Chicago, up in Harlem or in Bedford-Stuyvesant, certainly suggests the birth of a new cynicism. In the light of what government is doing, you might well expect young blacks to lose hope in the power elites, but this is something different—a cold personal indifference, a separation of man from man. What you hear and see is not rage, but injury, a withering of expectations.

It turns out that Ta-Nehisi Coates’ low expectations for white people isn’t as new as it might seem. And the withering sense of injury expressed at Netroots by O’Malley saying “all lives matter” isn’t either. Thompson goes on to explain how this refusal to engage explained not only the black political moment of 1972, but that of all progressives. They weren’t going to stand by and allow the moderate Democrats like Scoop Jackson to pretend the nation wasn’t at a revolutionary moment. Beating Nixon wasn’t enough. He had to be beaten by the hippies, the blacks, the gays—the marginalized who would announce a new greater society of profound freedom.

They lost. They lost by a lot. They lost by a margin barely seen before or since. It turns out that the majority of Americans do not snap to attention when radicals present agendas based more on philosophy than prosperity. In 1972, progressives believed that they had seized the moment, that the unrest and popular upheavals of the late ’60s had announced the coming of a new America. They believed they had occupied the American mind. And in the early 2010s, another group of occupiers had come to believe the same thing.

These Antics Are a Road to Nowhere

In the Washington Post last week, Tom Toles explained to us how the Occupy movement, which by most accounts collapsed under its own mindlessly, non-rigorous weight, actually won. He argues that the issue of income inequality has become the issue of 2016. But Tholes forgets the other bizarre tenets of Occupy Wall Street: The progressive stack system of speaking in their general assembly, in which white men were forced to speak last; the posters lambasting President Obama and his cronies; the anti-Semitism and drug-fueled, drum-circle, pseudo-political nonsense that the movement had no authority to condemn. It’s not a buffet. You get it all.

The nonsensical antics of the NN15 protestors who would not even listen to the responses of the candidates they invited to speak are a road to nowhere. Make no mistake, difference of opinion will not be tolerated by the new vanguard of the American Left. ThinkProgress’ Zack Ford made this clear with a breathless tweet sent from NN15 as if from the front lines of the Spanish Civil War:

Zack Ford ✔@ZackFord
My exhaustion last night did not stop me from taking 15 minutes to school a Bernie supporter on her white privilege. #NN15
10:05 AM - 19 Jul 2015

But dig it, mansplaining privilege theory to some young woman who is on your team is not going to create the supportive atmosphere in the room that wins elections. It’s going to make you look like a bombastic ass, and won’t be impressive to her independent-minded parents when she goes home for Thanksgiving to sell your agenda. Smart-ass kids, as Thompson learned in 1972, are never the key to victory in American politics.

After several hundred words of brilliant description on how exactly the wheels fell off the Progressive ice cream truck in 1972, Thompson arrives at his post mort. He writes:

After months of quasi-public brooding on the Whys and Wherefores of the disastrous beating he absorbed last November, McGovern seems finally to have bought the Conventional Wisdom—that his campaign was doomed from the start: conceived in a fit of hubris, born in a momentary power-vacuum that was always more mirage than reality, borne along on a tide of frustration churned up by liberal lintheads and elitist malcontents in the Eastern Media Establishment.

He goes on to say:

After a decade of left-bent chaos, the Silent Majority was so deep in a behavioral sink that their only feeling for politics was a powerful sense of revulsion. All they wanted in the White House was a man who would leave them alone and do anything necessary to bring calmness back into their lives—even if it meant turning the whole state of Nevada into a concentration camp for hippies, ******s, dope fiends, do-gooders, and anyone else who might threaten the status quo.

Never again would Thompson trust in the capacity of national elections to result in the great new world that the right sort envisioned. He ran for office in his little town in Colorado—local government is important, after all. But his memoir of the national campaign of 1972 leaves little doubt about how the politics of guilt and blame play out.

As progressives implode into Wesleyan white girls crossing swords with gayer, less privileged, and therefore more-of-the-moment white men it’s all falling apart. Hillary Clinton was noticeably absent from NN15. Hard to blame her.

So what happens now? Has the moment finally arrived? Are we marching into the new Progressive America? Is flyover country ready to open up wrist veins over their white privilege? Can we finally admit that our entire system of government is a Citizens United-driven pay-for-play system of inequity and racism that requires the destruction of black lives to exist?

Look, our government doesn’t treat people equally. Our police don’t. Our courts don’t. Our civil servants don’t. But equal treatment for everyone has to be our goal. O’Malley was ready to talk about solutions, yet his party’s vanguard won’t let him. They make him apologize for trying.

The GOP needs to make sure it welcomes solutions, not rhetoric. If that happens, the history might repeat itself. Both sides should give Thompson’s tome a read. The Left should learn its lessons. The Right should cross its fingers.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/fear-and-loathing-at-netroots-nation/
 
Re: Fear And Loathing At Netroots Nation


"What's 'ridiculous and sad' is that President
Obama does not take Iran's repeated threats seriously. For
decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to 'destroy,' 'annihilate,'
and 'wipe Israel off the map' with a 'big Holocaust . . .
[Obama is marching Israelis to] the door of the oven"

- Huckabee said in a statement Monday​


SIERS072915%20(2)
 
Whats the point? You all going to vote for hilary *or any other democrat* anyway.

This thread is pointless.
 
Whats the point? You all going to vote for hilary *or any other democrat* anyway.

This thread is pointless.


Here ya go! Trump has all you want in a republican. Mama Grizzles and all.

source: NBC

Donald Trump: I'd 'Love' to Pick Sarah Palin for Cabinet Spot


Donald Trump says he'd "love" to include former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in his cabinet if he is elected president.

Asked on Sarah Palin's Mama Grizz Radio's "The Palin Update with Kevin Scholla" whether he'd tap Palin for a role in his administration, Trump responded "I'd love that."

"She really is somebody that knows what's happening. She's a special person, she's really a special person," he said. "She's got a following that's unbelievable."

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W6gxuqRBkNE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Trump noted that both he and Palin are targets of intense scrutiny from political foes and said that he admires the former Alaska governor's talent for taking criticism in stride.

"One of things I most admire so much about her is that she took so much nonsense, lies, disgusting lies," he said. "And she handles it so well. She's tough and smart and just a great woman."
 
Seems to me Bill was the one running that relationship.


54cab24c494254fc0996cbb1_image.jpg

Honestly, it really doesn't matter.

All this shit is pointless because you are going to vote for the status quo, and bitch about people who disagrees with you.

At this point, who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Que?

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who frequent this political board is going to vote for the Democrat, or not vote at all.
 
Non-voter right here.

If a Bush v Clinton election doesn't make you want to vomit, then you're dead inside.
 
Honestly, it really doesn't matter.

All this shit is pointless because you are going to vote for the status quo, and bitch about people who disagrees with you.

At this point, who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Que?

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who frequent this political board is going to vote for the Democrat, or not vote at all.

If they have any brains.
 
Florida face-off: Clinton and Bush offer stark contrast in strategies

Florida face-off: Clinton and Bush offer stark contrast in strategies
Jon Ward
Senior Political Correspondent
July 31, 2015

One week before Jeb Bush jumps into the Republican free-for-all primary on a debate stage with nine other candidates, he faced off Friday with the likely Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, as the two of them gave dueling speeches to the National Urban League.

The highly anticipated showdown between Clinton and Bush, at the Urban League’s annual conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., yielded a contrast in strategies.

Clinton chose to make an attack on Bush the centerpiece of her speech, but Bush largely ignored Clinton and focused his remarks on what he did to help minorities and urban populations during his time as governor of Florida.

Clinton went after Bush aggressively over his recent comments that he wants to “phase out” Medicare. Bush supports making changes to the current system, such as means-testing benefits, because he believes it to be fiscally unsound. Clinton and her campaign have seized on Bush’s words because his comment made it sound like he was talking about ending the 50-year old health-insurance program for older Americans and because Democrats believe the changes he backs will fundamentally alter its character.

Clinton singled out Bush by ridiculing one of the central slogans of his campaign, which is that every American has the “right to rise.”

“I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a ‘right to rise’ and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare or for repealing Obamacare,” Clinton said. “People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care.”

Clinton continued her riff on Bush’s “right to rise” motif and used it to extend her critique to parts of Bush’s record as governor and her support for raising the minimum wage.

“They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you cannot seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote,” Clinton said.

A group supporting Clinton, Correct the Record, quickly followed her speech with a press release arguing that the “stand your ground” gun law Bush signed in Florida “disproportionately targeted African-Americans” and that Bush “pushed discriminatory policing and sentencing laws at every turn,” “vetoed grants to benefit African-American-owned businesses,” and created an educational standard called “One Florida” that “led to a huge drop in African American enrollment at state universities.”

Bush himself mentioned the “One Florida” program during a brief conversation following his remarks with Urban League president Marc Morial, acknowledging that the program to end race-based admissions policies in Florida’s state schools was controversial. But, he said, it actually increased minority enrollment rates in the state’s schools.

There were 33,000 African-American college students in Florida in 1999, compared to 44,000 in 2013, according to Politifact. But because Florida’s overall university enrollments have grown at an even faster pace, the percent of black students has decreased slightly, from 14 percent to 13 percent. And some in Florida have expressed concern that the black population at the state’s flagship schools — the University of Florida and Florida State University — has shrunk as many African-American students have enrolled in smaller regional schools.

Beyond addressing One Florida, Bush did not respond to Clinton in his speech or in the question-and-answer session with Morial. He spoke at length about his record on education in Florida, where he expanded school choice and charter schools. He called the current public education system the source of “the worst inequality in America today.”

“If we don’t create an education system that allows young people to reach it, we’re setting them up for a lifetime of failure,” Bush said. “I want to work with the Urban League movement to end this injustice once and for all.”

Bush touted his removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the Florida state capitol, and said that there was a 43 percent increase in black Floridians hired and appointed to the state judiciary system, that the number of minority-owned businesses in the state tripled during his two terms in office, and that “the number of black and Hispanic students passing AP exams increased four times over.”

Bush spokesman Allie Brandenburger said Clinton’s criticisms of Bush were “more false, cheap political shots to distract from the fact that Secretary Clinton has no record of accomplishment to run on this race.”

While Bush chose to ignore Clinton at the Urban League, he went after the former U.S. Senator and secretary of state later in the day for her speech in Miami supporting President Obama’s decision to restore diplomatic relations with the Cuban government and end the embargo against trading with the island nation.

Bush said Clinton’s position was “a retreat in the struggle for democracy in Cuba.” Clinton, meanwhile, tried to use the issue to cast Bush and other Republicans as “stuck in the past.” That language was noticeable push back to Bush’s own critique of Clinton during their debate over Uber and the sharing economy. Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is also running for president, have used that issue to argue that Clinton and the Democrats are themselves “stuck in the past.”

The only other Republican presidential candidate to address the Urban League meeting was retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Morial said that a number of Republicans were invited but declined. Two other Democrats also made appearances: former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

All three Democratic presidential candidates spoke about and named several of the black Americans who have been killed by police in high-profile incidents in the past year. Bush did not mention the names of victims such as Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland and others.

Discussing the racial unrest of the last year, Clinton issued “an urgent call for people to search their own hearts and minds.”

“This is about all of us looking into our hearts, examining our assumptions and fears, and asking ourselves: What more can I do in my life to counter hate and injustice? How can I make our country a better, fairer place?” she said.

Bush made a similar call, noting that this year has seen “things break down … in anger and violence.”

“When all these issues I’ve discussed make it harder and harder for people to imagine a hopeful future, then it’s easy to see why there’s anger and disillusionment,” he said. “It is up to all of us to work diligently to rebuild that trust. That happens one person at a time. One politician at a time. One police officer at a time. One community leader at a time. It begins with respect, dialogue, and the courage to reach out in peace.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/florida-faceoff-clinton-and-bush-offer-stark-125532213106.html
 
Lucky you approve since the point of posting it was to bolster the choir.


I'm not gifted with nor do I practice clairvoyant skills, such as yourself. I have no idea of the state of mind of any poster and I wouldn't presume to know.


But I do subscribe to the theory, "if you don't vote, you need to shut the fuck up . . ."


 

I'm not gifted with nor do I practice clairvoyant skills, such as yourself. I have no idea of the state of mind of any poster and I wouldn't presume to know.


But I do subscribe to the theory, "if you don't vote, you need to shut the fuck up . . ."


Why should I shut up when I'm more informed of the STATED intent and RESULTS of politician's actions than actual voters?

And for someone who pretends to take people at face value, you sure do question the legitimacy of people's position when you know that position differs from the typical Democratic line.

You, thoughtone, and Dave post for each other no matter who you're responding to. It's a known thing. Others have pointed it out over time.
 
Why should I shut up when I'm more informed of the STATED intent and RESULTS of politician's actions than actual voters?

And for someone who pretends to take people at face value, you sure do question the legitimacy of people's position when you know that position differs from the typical Democratic line.

You, thoughtone, and Dave post for each other no matter who you're responding to. It's a known thing. Others have pointed it out over time.



And this is the classic definition of PARANOIA.

Do yourself a favor, stop trolling around thinking you know what everyone else is thinking.

 
Whats the point? You all going to vote for hilary *or any other democrat* anyway.

This thread is pointless.






<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>


by&nbsp;&nbsp; M u c k r a c k e r 10021



<font face="verdana, georgia" size="4" color="#000000"><span style="float:left;color:#000000;font-size:48px;line-height:25px;padding-top:3px; padding-right:3px;font-family: Verdana, Georgia;">A</span>s former President of the U.S. Jimmy Carter stated just a few days ago, he said the United States is:


"Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"

Speaking about the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision and 2014 McCutcheon decision and their impact on the United States of America's, One Man, One Woman = ONE VOTE application of U.S. Democracy, President Carter correctly and unambiguously said:


""It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over...At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.""


In other words the United States of America is a:
PORNOCRACY



Read more HERE





This PORNOCRACY is not hidden, it is operating in public view right before our eyes. You could not say 'Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind', in fact the Koch brothers have told the world that they will spend $900,000,000 ($900 million) in bribes toward their goal of corporate fascism. Just as in medieval days, like harem concubines auditioning for the sexual attentions and favors of the sultan that owns their bodies, we see RepubliKlan presidential candidates prostrating themselves before the Koch brothers and 450 other $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres, all of them willing and hoping to sell their ass and possibly become the chosen whore who could be POTUS.


Given the irrefutable, unimpeachable truth uttered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter — How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres — 'One hand washes the other, and together they wash the face'

The answer to the question above is multi-faceted. Many Americans have decided that the answer to the imposition of CORPORATISM is to withdraw from the political economy by NOT voting at all. In the most recent mayoral elections in America's largest cities voter turnout reached all time lows; only 26% in New York City and an amazingly low 23% in Los Angeles.

The corporate television “media-of-mass-distraction” controlled by six white men has successfully conned their somnolent viewers into believing that their vote is meaningless since these viewers have been successfully propagandized into concluding that their is NO difference between politicians regardless of their party affiliation or political ideology.

The American sheeple are more concerned with the ever expanding ass of Kim Kardashian or why Ben Afleck is fucking his childrens nanny, than they are concerned about the RepubliKlan controlled congress voting to remove ingredient and country of origin labels from the meat sold in American supermarkets or that same RepubliKlan carcass voting that it is perfectly legal to dump toxic coal ash that will kill humans into America's rivers and lakes.

In this 2016 election cycle more .01% percent bribery money will be spent than in any other election cycle. Jeb BuShit and Billary Clinton have so far collected the most "shot-callers" cash. The leading Bankster firm Goldman Sachs has placed their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ bribes on Billary & BuShit; either one works for them and will protect the firms modern 'black box' money changers alchemy franchise.

Again, How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres.

The nightmare of the 'shot-callers' would be a massive voter turnout, this is why they so ardently engage in voter suppression tactics. The lower the voter turnout the easier it is to control the outcome .






Billary Clinton who is as authentic and personable as a $3 Dollar Bill is supposed to be the Democratic candidate, the ‘Left-Wing’ of the USA aircraft named CORPORATISM.

Here challenge is to generate as much enthusiasm as Barack Obama among traditional Democratic party voters without dealing with the unassailable truths about the move toward American corporate fascism that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren talk about daily.

We’ll see what happens. It’s no accident that almost all of the attacks against Bernie Sanders at this time are coming from Democrats. In the meantime let’s not forget that there are important in-your-face differences between the RepubliKlans and the Democrats.



</font>





The RepubliKlan Party <img src="http://www.jmgads.com/kkk2.jpg" width="100"> of 2015 is:

• Unapologetically proud RACIST
• Virulently HOMOPHOBIC
• Anti-Sex Education in schools
• Anti-Birth Control
• Anti- Immigrants
• Anti- ANY Minimum Wage increase
• Anti- Student Loans (big cuts in Pell grants; blocked interest rate cut on loans)
• Anti-Abortion Rights (republiklans were silent when Dr. George Tiller was murdered)
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti- Climate Change Science Reality
• Anti- Environmental Clean-Up (Piyush Jindal of LA blocked law mandating oil corp. clean up of gulf coast)
• Anti- Infrastructure $$$$ Replacement (U.S. bridges & roads are old & crumbling)
• Anti-Regulating The Banksters (want to repeal Dodd-Frank)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance (want to end it & send the existing money to Wall street)
• Anti-Medicare (want to send Grandma into the clutches of the "Health Care Mafia" with a coupon)
• Anti-Unemployment Insurance (want to end it)
• Anti- Healthy School Lunch for kids
• Anti-Education Standards (republiklans want to close the Dept. of Education & teach biblical creationism)
• Anti-W.I.C. (republiklan congress recently cut money for Women Infants & Children program)
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws (want to close the EPA & burn MORE coal)
• Anti-Food Saftey Inspections (republiklan congress recently cut US food saftey budget)
• Anti- Ingredient Labels on Food (republiklans don't want you to know)
• Anti-Progressive Taxation (republiklans against raising the 15% tax Millionaires & Billionaires pay)
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty (278 innocent people released from Death Row since 1989)
• Anti- Restoring Habeas corpus (republiklans NOT against "disappearing" people)
• Anti-Separation Of Church & State (republiklans want to mandate Christian prayer ONLY in schools)
• Anti- Government Funding of Scientific Research (republiklans have slashed funding i.e. stem cell research)
• Anti-Feminism (woman should be submissive to men; it's in the bible)
• Anti-Affirmative Action (republiklans say "there is NO racism in AmeriKKKa)
• Anti-Department of Labor (republiklans believe overtime pay should be abolished)
• Anti-Small Business Administration (want to abolish it)
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid (republiklan congress just cut food aid to AFRICA)
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants (republiklans want to dramatically cut PELL grants & other Education programs)
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance
• Anti- Universal Health Care
• Anti- Ban Against Torture (republiklans support "rectal" feeding & slicing of genitals)
• Anti- ANY Cut In Military Spending
• Anti- Pay Increase For US Soldiers (republiklans consistently vote NO)
• Anti- Increase in Veterans Benefits (republiklans want to convert military pensions into 401K's)
• Anti- Equalizing Penalty for Crack/ Powder Cocaine Conviction
• Anti- Womens Health Care (republiklans vote to defund Planned Parenthood)
• Anti- Legislation Banning Outsourcing (republiklans voted AGAINST law prohibiting outsourcing by companies $$$$$ bailed out by U.S. taxpayers)




gop-lie-strategy-lie.jpg



1117OPEDcusterWEB-articleLarge.jpg



think_its_not_illegal_yet_by_free126-d46s2wb.png
 

And this is the classic definition of PARANOIA.

Do yourself a favor, stop trolling around thinking you know what everyone else is thinking.

And what is it called when you highlight 7 of the 21 words, in just that one sentence, to change the meaning. I said I'm aware of politicians STATED intent. Not some ambiguous wording to keep the morons in line.

You hardcore fans ignore that politicians don't actually hide their goals. They just pick and choose where they are forthcoming about it.

Like I said earlier, have fun with your Bush v. Clinton election. Tell me more about your important vote.
 
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>


by&nbsp;&nbsp; M u c k r a c k e r 10021



<font face="verdana, georgia" size="4" color="#000000"><span style="float:left;color:#000000;font-size:48px;line-height:25px;padding-top:3px; padding-right:3px;font-family: Verdana, Georgia;">A</span>s former President of the U.S. Jimmy Carter stated just a few days ago, he said the United States is:


"Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"

Speaking about the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision and 2014 McCutcheon decision and their impact on the United States of America's, One Man, One Woman = ONE VOTE application of U.S. Democracy, President Carter correctly and unambiguously said:


""It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over...At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.""


In other words the United States of America is a:
PORNOCRACY



Read more HERE





This PORNOCRACY is not hidden, it is operating in public view right before our eyes. You could not say 'Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind', in fact the Koch brothers have told the world that they will spend $900,000,000 ($900 million) in bribes toward their goal of corporate fascism. Just as in medieval days, like harem concubines auditioning for the sexual attentions and favors of the sultan that owns their bodies, we see RepubliKlan presidential candidates prostrating themselves before the Koch brothers and 450 other $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres, all of them willing and hoping to sell their ass and possibly become the chosen whore who could be POTUS.


Given the irrefutable, unimpeachable truth uttered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter — How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres — 'One hand washes the other, and together they wash the face'

The answer to the question above is multi-faceted. Many Americans have decided that the answer to the imposition of CORPORATISM is to withdraw from the political economy by NOT voting at all. In the most recent mayoral elections in America's largest cities voter turnout reached all time lows; only 26% in New York City and an amazingly low 23% in Los Angeles.

The corporate television “media-of-mass-distraction” controlled by six white men has successfully conned their somnolent viewers into believing that their vote is meaningless since these viewers have been successfully propagandized into concluding that their is NO difference between politicians regardless of their party affiliation or political ideology.

The American sheeple are more concerned with the ever expanding ass of Kim Kardashian or why Ben Afleck is fucking his childrens nanny, than they are concerned about the RepubliKlan controlled congress voting to remove ingredient and country of origin labels from the meat sold in American supermarkets or that same RepubliKlan carcass voting that it is perfectly legal to dump toxic coal ash that will kill humans into America's rivers and lakes.

In this 2016 election cycle more .01% percent bribery money will be spent than in any other election cycle. Jeb BuShit and Billary Clinton have so far collected the most "shot-callers" cash. The leading Bankster firm Goldman Sachs has placed their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ bribes on Billary & BuShit; either one works for them and will protect the firms modern 'black box' money changers alchemy franchise.

Again, How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres.

The nightmare of the 'shot-callers' would be a massive voter turnout, this is why they so ardently engage in voter suppression tactics. The lower the voter turnout the easier it is to control the outcome .






Billary Clinton who is as authentic and personable as a $3 Dollar Bill is supposed to be the Democratic candidate, the ‘Left-Wing’ of the USA aircraft named CORPORATISM.

Here challenge is to generate as much enthusiasm as Barack Obama among traditional Democratic party voters without dealing with the unassailable truths about the move toward American corporate fascism that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren talk about daily.

We’ll see what happens. It’s no accident that almost all of the attacks against Bernie Sanders at this time are coming from Democrats. In the meantime let’s not forget that there are important in-your-face differences between the RepubliKlans and the Democrats.



</font>





The RepubliKlan Party <img src="http://www.jmgads.com/kkk2.jpg" width="100"> of 2015 is:

• Unapologetically proud RACIST
• Virulently HOMOPHOBIC
• Anti-Sex Education in schools
• Anti-Birth Control
• Anti- Immigrants
• Anti- ANY Minimum Wage increase
• Anti- Student Loans (big cuts in Pell grants; blocked interest rate cut on loans)
• Anti-Abortion Rights (republiklans were silent when Dr. George Tiller was murdered)
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti- Climate Change Science Reality
• Anti- Environmental Clean-Up (Piyush Jindal of LA blocked law mandating oil corp. clean up of gulf coast)
• Anti- Infrastructure $$$$ Replacement (U.S. bridges & roads are old & crumbling)
• Anti-Regulating The Banksters (want to repeal Dodd-Frank)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance (want to end it & send the existing money to Wall street)
• Anti-Medicare (want to send Grandma into the clutches of the "Health Care Mafia" with a coupon)
• Anti-Unemployment Insurance (want to end it)
• Anti- Healthy School Lunch for kids
• Anti-Education Standards (republiklans want to close the Dept. of Education & teach biblical creationism)
• Anti-W.I.C. (republiklan congress recently cut money for Women Infants & Children program)
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws (want to close the EPA & burn MORE coal)
• Anti-Food Saftey Inspections (republiklan congress recently cut US food saftey budget)
• Anti- Ingredient Labels on Food (republiklans don't want you to know)
• Anti-Progressive Taxation (republiklans against raising the 15% tax Millionaires & Billionaires pay)
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty (278 innocent people released from Death Row since 1989)
• Anti- Restoring Habeas corpus (republiklans NOT against "disappearing" people)
• Anti-Separation Of Church & State (republiklans want to mandate Christian prayer ONLY in schools)
• Anti- Government Funding of Scientific Research (republiklans have slashed funding i.e. stem cell research)
• Anti-Feminism (woman should be submissive to men; it's in the bible)
• Anti-Affirmative Action (republiklans say "there is NO racism in AmeriKKKa)
• Anti-Department of Labor (republiklans believe overtime pay should be abolished)
• Anti-Small Business Administration (want to abolish it)
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid (republiklan congress just cut food aid to AFRICA)
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants (republiklans want to dramatically cut PELL grants & other Education programs)
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance
• Anti- Universal Health Care
• Anti- Ban Against Torture (republiklans support "rectal" feeding & slicing of genitals)
• Anti- ANY Cut In Military Spending
• Anti- Pay Increase For US Soldiers (republiklans consistently vote NO)
• Anti- Increase in Veterans Benefits (republiklans want to convert military pensions into 401K's)
• Anti- Equalizing Penalty for Crack/ Powder Cocaine Conviction
• Anti- Womens Health Care (republiklans vote to defund Planned Parenthood)
• Anti- Legislation Banning Outsourcing (republiklans voted AGAINST law prohibiting outsourcing by companies $$$$$ bailed out by U.S. taxpayers)




gop-lie-strategy-lie.jpg



1117OPEDcusterWEB-articleLarge.jpg



think_its_not_illegal_yet_by_free126-d46s2wb.png

Yea, only the Republican Party is the problem. If only the Democrats could secure a veto-proof majority with a Democratic president. Oh wait, they had that and ACA and Dodd-Frank was the result.

Big banks admitted to felony criminal activity and paid billions in fines for trillions in fraudelent activity. The weren't force to break up like Arthur Andersen. Instead, JUST LIKE POLITCANS ADMITTED, they are TOO BIG TO JAIL.

muckraker, please tell us more how only half of white people are the problem. I need you to supplement the tales that thoughtone provides on a daily basis.
 
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>


by&nbsp;&nbsp; M u c k r a c k e r 10021



<font face="verdana, georgia" size="4" color="#000000"><span style="float:left;color:#000000;font-size:48px;line-height:25px;padding-top:3px; padding-right:3px;font-family: Verdana, Georgia;">A</span>s former President of the U.S. Jimmy Carter stated just a few days ago, he said the United States is:


"Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"

Speaking about the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision and 2014 McCutcheon decision and their impact on the United States of America's, One Man, One Woman = ONE VOTE application of U.S. Democracy, President Carter correctly and unambiguously said:


""It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over...At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.""


In other words the United States of America is a:
PORNOCRACY



Read more HERE





This PORNOCRACY is not hidden, it is operating in public view right before our eyes. You could not say 'Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind', in fact the Koch brothers have told the world that they will spend $900,000,000 ($900 million) in bribes toward their goal of corporate fascism. Just as in medieval days, like harem concubines auditioning for the sexual attentions and favors of the sultan that owns their bodies, we see RepubliKlan presidential candidates prostrating themselves before the Koch brothers and 450 other $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres, all of them willing and hoping to sell their ass and possibly become the chosen whore who could be POTUS.


Given the irrefutable, unimpeachable truth uttered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter — How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres — 'One hand washes the other, and together they wash the face'

The answer to the question above is multi-faceted. Many Americans have decided that the answer to the imposition of CORPORATISM is to withdraw from the political economy by NOT voting at all. In the most recent mayoral elections in America's largest cities voter turnout reached all time lows; only 26% in New York City and an amazingly low 23% in Los Angeles.

The corporate television “media-of-mass-distraction” controlled by six white men has successfully conned their somnolent viewers into believing that their vote is meaningless since these viewers have been successfully propagandized into concluding that their is NO difference between politicians regardless of their party affiliation or political ideology.

The American sheeple are more concerned with the ever expanding ass of Kim Kardashian or why Ben Afleck is fucking his childrens nanny, than they are concerned about the RepubliKlan controlled congress voting to remove ingredient and country of origin labels from the meat sold in American supermarkets or that same RepubliKlan carcass voting that it is perfectly legal to dump toxic coal ash that will kill humans into America's rivers and lakes.

In this 2016 election cycle more .01% percent bribery money will be spent than in any other election cycle. Jeb BuShit and Billary Clinton have so far collected the most "shot-callers" cash. The leading Bankster firm Goldman Sachs has placed their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ bribes on Billary & BuShit; either one works for them and will protect the firms modern 'black box' money changers alchemy franchise.

Again, How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres.

The nightmare of the 'shot-callers' would be a massive voter turnout, this is why they so ardently engage in voter suppression tactics. The lower the voter turnout the easier it is to control the outcome .






Billary Clinton who is as authentic and personable as a $3 Dollar Bill is supposed to be the Democratic candidate, the ‘Left-Wing’ of the USA aircraft named CORPORATISM.

Here challenge is to generate as much enthusiasm as Barack Obama among traditional Democratic party voters without dealing with the unassailable truths about the move toward American corporate fascism that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren talk about daily.

We’ll see what happens. It’s no accident that almost all of the attacks against Bernie Sanders at this time are coming from Democrats. In the meantime let’s not forget that there are important in-your-face differences between the RepubliKlans and the Democrats.



</font>





The RepubliKlan Party <img src="http://www.jmgads.com/kkk2.jpg" width="100"> of 2015 is:

• Unapologetically proud RACIST
• Virulently HOMOPHOBIC
• Anti-Sex Education in schools
• Anti-Birth Control
• Anti- Immigrants
• Anti- ANY Minimum Wage increase
• Anti- Student Loans (big cuts in Pell grants; blocked interest rate cut on loans)
• Anti-Abortion Rights (republiklans were silent when Dr. George Tiller was murdered)
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti- Climate Change Science Reality
• Anti- Environmental Clean-Up (Piyush Jindal of LA blocked law mandating oil corp. clean up of gulf coast)
• Anti- Infrastructure $$$$ Replacement (U.S. bridges & roads are old & crumbling)
• Anti-Regulating The Banksters (want to repeal Dodd-Frank)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance (want to end it & send the existing money to Wall street)
• Anti-Medicare (want to send Grandma into the clutches of the "Health Care Mafia" with a coupon)
• Anti-Unemployment Insurance (want to end it)
• Anti- Healthy School Lunch for kids
• Anti-Education Standards (republiklans want to close the Dept. of Education & teach biblical creationism)
• Anti-W.I.C. (republiklan congress recently cut money for Women Infants & Children program)
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws (want to close the EPA & burn MORE coal)
• Anti-Food Saftey Inspections (republiklan congress recently cut US food saftey budget)
• Anti- Ingredient Labels on Food (republiklans don't want you to know)
• Anti-Progressive Taxation (republiklans against raising the 15% tax Millionaires & Billionaires pay)
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty (278 innocent people released from Death Row since 1989)
• Anti- Restoring Habeas corpus (republiklans NOT against "disappearing" people)
• Anti-Separation Of Church & State (republiklans want to mandate Christian prayer ONLY in schools)
• Anti- Government Funding of Scientific Research (republiklans have slashed funding i.e. stem cell research)
• Anti-Feminism (woman should be submissive to men; it's in the bible)
• Anti-Affirmative Action (republiklans say "there is NO racism in AmeriKKKa)
• Anti-Department of Labor (republiklans believe overtime pay should be abolished)
• Anti-Small Business Administration (want to abolish it)
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid (republiklan congress just cut food aid to AFRICA)
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants (republiklans want to dramatically cut PELL grants & other Education programs)
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance
• Anti- Universal Health Care
• Anti- Ban Against Torture (republiklans support "rectal" feeding & slicing of genitals)
• Anti- ANY Cut In Military Spending
• Anti- Pay Increase For US Soldiers (republiklans consistently vote NO)
• Anti- Increase in Veterans Benefits (republiklans want to convert military pensions into 401K's)
• Anti- Equalizing Penalty for Crack/ Powder Cocaine Conviction
• Anti- Womens Health Care (republiklans vote to defund Planned Parenthood)
• Anti- Legislation Banning Outsourcing (republiklans voted AGAINST law prohibiting outsourcing by companies $$$$$ bailed out by U.S. taxpayers)




gop-lie-strategy-lie.jpg



1117OPEDcusterWEB-articleLarge.jpg



think_its_not_illegal_yet_by_free126-d46s2wb.png

Yea, only the Republican Party is the problem. If only the Democrats could secure a veto-proof majority with a Democratic president. Oh wait, they had that and ACA and Dodd-Frank was the result.

Big banks admitted to felony criminal activity and paid billions in fines for trillions in fraudelent activity. The weren't force to break up like Arthur Andersen. Instead, JUST LIKE POLITCANS ADMITTED, they are TOO BIG TO JAIL.

muckraker, please tell us more how only half of white people are the problem. I need you to supplement the tales that thoughtone provides on a daily basis.
 

Typical non-substantive greed response; a response that with its ad hominem attack reveals that the poster didn’t even read and comprehend the post they are responding to.

<span style="background-color: #FFFF00">Yes the current 2015 incarnation of the RepubliKlan party IS THE PROBLEM. They want an ideological dictatorship with a charismatic cult leader as the public face of their fascism.</span>
Sounds familiar??? We've seen this movie before, but never in America


The RepubliKlan party has moved from the ‘right-wing’ of the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s to the extreme over-the-cliff religious fascist party that they are today.

Look at the list of things todays 2015 RepubliKlan party is ANTI- and then wrap your mind around the reality that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon all former republiklan presidents would not be ANTI- but would actually SUPPORT at-a-minimum 80% of the items on the list.

The top members of the RepubliKlan carcass on the night that Obama was first inaugurated, had a meeting before the man even slept his first night in the white house and said “we are going to fuck this ****** up”



.......FACT 1. In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives"

200px-Do_Not_Ask_What_Good_We_Do_Cover.jpg


download entire book for iPad, Kindle, computer
Code:
http://depositfiles.com/files/7kaf8o1g9
Draper wrote that on inauguration night, 2009, during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

FACT 2: Draper wrote the guest list included:
The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich


FACT 3: Newt Gingrich confirms meeting took place in an interview with Al Sharpton's Politics Nation on June 12, 2012

FACT 4:
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>Two months after Paul Ryan's covert meeting where they plotted to sabotage the US Economy, in March 2009, Rep. Pete Sessions said Republicans should follow the model of the Taliban in its battles against President Obama.</b></span>

In the March 2009 interview with National Journal Rep Sessions said:
"Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required with the other side"

~Rep Pete Sessions, March 2009 to National Journal


Rep Pete Sessions went on to say:
"If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency ... I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them"



<span style="background-color:yellow"><strong>FACT: Newt Gingrich confirms meeting took place in an
interview with Al Sharpton's Politics Nation on June 12, 2012</strong></span>
<table border="9" width="700" cellpadding="2" bordercolorlight="#800080" bordercolordark="#800080" bgcolor="#FFFF8A" height="400">
<tr>
<td><div>

<strong>SHARPTON</strong>: "In fact, let`s go to a book that Mr. Draper wrote about the night of the inauguration. There was a meeting at a hotel near the inaugural ball, about a mile away ... He writes about that night the plan was to show united and unyielding opposition to the president`s economic policies ... And Draper writes that you told the group -- you, Newt Gingrich - said",

<strong><em>"You will remember this day...you will remember this day the seeds of 2012 were sown</em></strong>. "<br />

<strong>SHARPTON</strong>: If there was a commitment from day one, before he ever took a seat<br />behind the desk of the Oval Office, that everyone was going to obstruct<br />him, then what he`s done has been almost unbelievable, against those kind<br />of odds, Speaker Gingrich.<br /><br />
<strong>NEWT</strong>: It was an important meeting and I was glad and honored<br /> to be part of it.
<br />
<strong>SHARPTON</strong>: I`m glad you admit you had it. </div>


</td></tr></table>

It is not difficult to find out if Mr. Draper's book is accurate. Let's look at the digital video.








<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>







Obamacare (ACA) was passed via reconciliation, only 51 votes needed. Not one single republiklan in the house voted for the initial Obama $800 Billion stimulus bill, not one; despite the fact that the extreme recession that the country was in was caused by their man BuShits $3,000,000,000 trillion dollar tax cut which was unpaid for, their man BuShits complete lack of enforcement on the banksters subprime scam (his brother Jeb BuShit was working for Lehman Brothers which ultimately collapsed)
The $2 Trillion dollar fiasco called the Iraq war; which created ISIS. Dodd frank had only 3 republiklan senators vote for it, the other republiklans were sucking the banksters dicks despite the almost collapse of American capitalism.

As far as the Billary Clinton democrats are concerned, anyone who actually read what I posted, can without ambiguity, discern how I fell about them; they are total Corporate Fascist.

So in the reality based world it’s not about “half of white people” its about what are the megatrends that will affect the USA in the next 25 years. Imagine if SCOTUS gutted Obamacare, imagine if SCOTUS had ruled that same sex marriage was illegal; what would of happened to the millions of same sex couples who were already married?? For you as a self-acknowledged non voter it’s all irrelevant, you are like a Jew living in Nazi Germany prior to 1939 when Hitler sealed the borders. A jew who kept hoping and believing that somehow what Hitler was saying about Jews would pass and that somehow he would just go away and things would return to “normal”. Albert Einstein, a jew, was a top physics professor in Germany in the 1930’s; as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein moved to the U.S.A., he knew what time it was because he was an informed German citizen who could see what Hitler represented from day one. It wasn’t irrelevant to him.

For those of you who want to know how and why it is the current 21st century RepubliKlan parties fault for our broken congress (Senate & House) which enjoys a 10% approval rating,

READ:
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism


Download eBook
Code:
http://depositfiles.com/files/qb794gjon


9200000021180539.jpg






The following is an excerpt from
It’s Even Worse Than It Looks:
How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, guests on this week’s Moyers & Company.



....Six years ago, we wrote The Broken Branch, which sharply criticized the Congress for failing to live up to its responsibilities as the first branch of government. Based on four decades of watching Congress, ours was a sympathetic perspective, one that reflected our appreciation of the inherent messiness of the legislative process within the constitutional system. Reconciling diverse interests and beliefs in America’s extended republic necessarily involves adversarial debates and difficult negotiations.

But there was no denying the impact of broad changes in America’s wider political environment — most importantly the ideological polarization of the political parties — on how Congress went about its work. We documented the demise of regular order, as Congress bent rules to marginalize committees and deny the minority party in the House opportunities to offer amendments on the floor; the decline of genuine deliberation in the lawmaking process on such important matters as budgets and decisions to go to war; the manifestations of extreme partisanship; the culture of corruption; the loss of institutional patriotism among members; and the weakening of the checks-and-balances system.

While we observed some improvement after the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, the most problematic features of the system remained. We thought them unlikely to abate absent a major national crisis that inspired the American public to demand that the warring parties work together. America got the crisis — the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression — and a pretty clear signal from the voters, who elected Barack Obama by a comfortable margin and gave the Democrats substantial gains in the House and Senate. What the country didn’t get was any semblance of a well-functioning democracy. President Obama’s postpartisan pitch fell flat, and the Tea Party movement pulled the GOP further to its ideological pole. Republicans greeted the new president with a unified strategy of opposing, obstructing, discrediting, and nullifying every one of his important initiatives. Obama reaped an impressive legislative harvest in his first two years but without any Republican engagement or support and with no apparent appreciation from the public. The anemic economic recovery and the pain of joblessness and underwater home mortgages led not to any signal that the representatives ought to pull together, but rather to yet another call by voters to “throw the bums out.” The Democrats’ devastating setback in the 2010 midterm elections, in which they lost six Senate seats and sixty-three in the House, produced a Republican majority in the House dominated by right-wing insurgents determined to radically reduce the size and role of government. What followed was an appalling spectacle of hostage taking — most importantly, the debt ceiling crisis — that threatened a government shutdown and public default, led to a downgrading of the country’s credit, and blocked constructive action to nurture an economic recovery or deal with looming problems of deficits and debt.

In October 2011, Congress garnered its lowest approval rating (9 percent) in polling history. Public trust in the government’s capacity to solve the serious problems facing the country also hit record lows. Almost all Americans felt their country was on the wrong track and were pessimistic about the future. The public viewed both parties negatively, and President Obama’s job approval rating was mired in the forties. The widespread consensus was that politics and governance were utterly dysfunctional. In spite of the perilous state of the global economy — and with it the threat of another financial crisis and recession — no one expected the president and Congress to accomplish anything of consequence before the 2012 election.

Paradoxically, the public’s undifferentiated disgust with Congress, Washington, and “the government” in general is part of the problem, not the basis of a solution. In never-ending efforts to defeat incumbent officeholders in hard times, the public is perpetuating the source of its discontent, electing a new group of people who are even less inclined to or capable of crafting compromise or solutions to pressing problems. We have been struck by the failure of the media, including editors, reporters, and many “expert” commentators, to capture the real drivers of these disturbing developments, and the futility of efforts by many nonpartisan and bipartisan groups to counter, much less overcome, them. We write this book to try to clarify the source of dysfunctional politics and what it will take to change it. The stakes involved in choosing who will lead us in the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court in the years ahead are unusually high, given both the gravity of the problems and the sharper polarization of the parties.

In the pages that follow, we identify two overriding sources of dysfunction. The first is the serious mismatch between the political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Parliamentary-style parties in a separation-of-powers government are a formula for willful obstruction and policy irresolution. Sixty years ago, Austin Ranney, an eminent political scientist, wrote a prophetic dissent to a famous report by an American Political Science Association committee entitled “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report, by prominent political scientists frustrated with the role of conservative Southern Democrats in blocking civil rights and other social policy, issued a clarion call for more ideologically coherent, internally unified, and adversarial parties in the fashion of a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy like Britain or Canada. Ranney powerfully argued that such parties would be a disaster within the American constitutional system, given our separation of powers, separately elected institutions, and constraints on majority rule that favor cross-party coalitions and compromise. Time has proven Ranney dead right — we now have the kinds of parties the report desired, and it is disastrous.

<span style="background-color: #FFFF00">The second is the fact that, however awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the center of American politics, it is extremely difficult to enact policies responsive to the country’s most pressing challenges.</span>

Recognizing these two realities and understanding how America got here is key to taking the right steps to overcome dysfunctional politics....


<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/64859467" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>



<hr noshade color="#660033" size="8"></hr>





Racist Roots of GOP War on Obama


Right-wing Republicans in Congress are plotting to cripple the U.S. government if Barack Obama,
the first African-American president, doesn’t submit to their demands. The battle pretends to be over
the size of government but it echoes the whips, chains and epithets of America’s racist past.



<img src="http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/scan00012.jpg" width="150">
by Robert Parry | July 24, 2013 | http://consortiumnews.com/2013/07/24/racist-roots-of-gop-war-on-obama/

The United States finds itself at a crossroad, with a choice of moving toward a multicultural future behind a more activist federal government or veering down a well-worn path that has marked various tragic moments of American history when white racists have teamed up with “small government” extremists.

Despite losing Election 2012 – both in the presidential vote (by five million) and the overall tally for Congress (by one million) – the Republicans are determined to use their gerrymandered House “majority” and their filibuster-happy Senate minority to slash programs that are viewed as giving “stuff” (in Mitt Romney’s word) to poorer Americans and especially minorities.

Republicans are gearing up to force a series of fiscal crises this fall, threatening to shut down the federal government and even default on the national debt, if they don’t get their way. Besides sabotaging President Barack Obama’s health reform law, the Republicans want to devastate funding for food stamps, environmental advancements, transportation, education assistance and other domestic programs.

“These are tough bills,” Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Kentucky, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, told the New York Times. “His priorities are going nowhere.”

A key point is to slash help to what the Right sees as “undeserving” Americans, especially people of color. The ugly side of this crypto-racist behavior also surfaced in the gloating by right-wing pundits over the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Fox News pundits, in particular, have mocked the outrage over the verdict from America’s black community and Obama’s personal expression of sympathy.

It is now clear that Obama’s election in 2008 was not the harbinger of a “post-racial” America, but rather the signal for white right-wingers to rally their forces to “take back America.” The fact that the modern Republican Party has become almost exclusively white and the nation’s minorities have turned more and more to the Democratic Party has untethered the GOP from any sense of racial tolerance.
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW"><b>
There is now a white-supremacist nihilism emerging in the Republican strategy, a visceral contempt for even the idea of a multi-racial democracy that favors a more vigorous federal government. Some of these extremists seem to prefer sinking the world’s economy via a U.S. debt default than compromising with President Obama on his economic and social agenda.</b></span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW"><b>
Though the mainstream media avoids the white supremacist framing for the political story – preferring to discuss the upcoming clash as a philosophical dispute over big versus small government, — the reality is that the United States is lurching into a nasty struggle over the preservation of white political dominance. The size-of-government narrative is just a euphemistic way of avoiding the underlying issue of race, a dodge that is as old as the Republic....................</b></span>





What I don't understand is how do so-called "Black Conservatives" defend this.

Do they simply deny that there is some kind of rising or emergent white-supremacist nihilism ???

How can they square these tactics with themselves ???

This is where I would really like to hear from some of those who call themselves "Black Conservatists" explain or dispute Robert Parry's opinions in the article above.


 
Last edited:
Back
Top