The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

If you could leave your partisan echo chamber for a moment Gunky you would realize that some of us are speaking about the rule of law, and the equity thereof, and not politics here. At first I was glad H was cleared but now I can see it didn't solve anything. This won't end anytime soon, but it will go away over time, however some will never be satisfied.

Silat said:

Politics is getting the way of common sense.

Click to expand...

true, but not in the context you're referring too.

The cloud of controversy surrounding Clinton’s email use at the State Department will continue to hang over her campaign for the White House. She has yet to offer a credible explanation for why she used a private server while she was secretary of state. Later this month Democrats will nominate her as their candidate for president. But, because of her “mistake,” as she now calls it, her lack of judgment and trustworthiness will continue to be questioned by Clinton opponents.

This I copied from the WA Post.

On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month into Clinton’s tenure, the issue came to a head. Department security, intelligence and technology specialists, along with five officials from the National Security Agency, gathered in a Mahogany Row conference room. They explained the risks to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, while also seeking “mitigation options” that would accommodate Clinton’s wishes.

“The issue here is one of personal comfort,” one of the participants in that meeting, Donald Reid, the department’s senior coordinator for security infrastructure, wrote afterward in an email that described Clinton’s inner circle of advisers as “dedicated [BlackBerry] addicts.”

Clinton used her BlackBerry as the group continued looking for a solution. But unknown to diplomatic security and technology officials at the department, there was another looming communications vulnerability: Clinton’s BlackBerry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.

Those officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.

It all seems very careless and ignorant of modern technology. When we think of the what could have been uncovered by other countries? We will never know for sure if any info got in the wrong hands.

cybrguy said:

Give me a break. What a ridiculously incomplete description, snappo. Shame on you...

Click to expand...

Snappo said:

Back off!!! I was just echoing what I half-heard on CNN... that's all the info they gave while I was multi-tasking and half-heard it anyway. Good for you and your better info... ain't you just the hotsy totsy know-it-all ...thanks for the generously given clarification. Cut the crap with your usual snide personal attacks NOW!

Click to expand...

Gentle people.....



This is exactly how these kind of threads get shut down and people start getting points.

If we can't 'speak' to each other respectfully and have to start being condescending or rude..... I'm gonna get the whip out and close this fucker down.

We're pretty civil here compared to most of the facetwits out in the politicosphere.

For example this is bs, but that doesn't stop it from making the rounds...


The beauty of memes like these, is many people won't read the accompanying text.

Enjoying a typical Donald Trump speech. I can tell he does have notes up by his podium. He's doing a lot of elaboration in Trump fashion. Using the same lame statements over and over again.

He's was patronizing I thought to Bernie and Bernie's supporters. I can't see them voting for Trump. They may end up writing Bernies name on the ballot or just not vote at all.

He continues talking about how bad Obama Care is but I havent heard his plan in all his speeches

Trump is entertaining, I'll give him that much but he's laughable. Do we want bad or crazy?

He keeps reminding his followers that the Republican Party doesn't need to be unified. He will be telling everyone who is VP will be in a few days. Tomorrow Newt Gingrich will be with Trump campaigning.

This might be fun. Pig castrater and chief?

VP vetting? Trump meets with Sen. Joni Ernst
Published July 05, 2016

Sen. Joni Ernst in the running to be Trump's VP?

Donald Trump on Monday spent part of his July 4th with Sen. Joni Ernst -- fueling speculation that the Iowa freshman senator could be on the short list of his vice presidential picks.

Ernst told Fox News they had a "good conversation," adding, "I will continue to share my insights with Donald about the need to strengthen our economy, keep our nation safe, and ensure America is always a strong, stabilizing force around the globe."

Earlier, Trump tweeted, "I look forward to meeting (Ernst) today in New Jersey. She has done a great job as Senator of Iowa!"

Over the weekend, Trump met with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and his wife, though a Pence spokesman said "nothing was offered."

The spokesman, Marc Lotter, added, "The governor had warm, productive meetings with the Trumps." He declined to say where the Saturday meeting was held. Pence is running for re-election against Democratic former state House Speaker John Gregg.

Trump and Pence discussed Pence's policies during his term as governor which began in 2013, Lotter said. He also declined to discuss Pence's level of interest in the position, echoing a comment from Pence last week that he did not want to talk about "a hypothetical."


Trump tweeted Monday about his Saturday meeting with Pence.

"Spent time with Indiana Governor Mike Pence and family yesterday. Very impressed, great people!” Trump tweeted.

As Pence and his wife arrived for a concert Sunday night at Conner Prairie, a history park in Fishers, the governor again declined to discuss whether he was interested in the position. He reiterated his support for Trump's candidacy and said the Trumps "couldn't have been more kind and gracious" during the meeting.

Trump has never held public office and is considering a small group of political veterans as potential running mates.

People with direct knowledge of Trump's vetting process say the list includes Pence, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.

In addition to serving as governor, Pence served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years.

He also at one time had his own presidential ambitions but last year ruled out a run after his popularity fell in the wake of criticism over his handling of the state's religious objections law.

Kind of a win win for Repubs with regards to Clinton.

Had she been charged or investigated further, she would be criminally unfit for president.

Since she isn't, the story pushed is how it's the same old systemic BS and what applies to politicians doesn't apply to you or me....which is an idea Trump has trumpeted for awhile

Have you guys seen lyingcrookedhillary.com ? Kudos to Trump for those advertisements..... They resonate much more with me than Pat Toomey and Katie McGinty firing soft shots at each other on their ads around me.

@HellsWindStaff if we end up getting Trump as our commander and chief of our country I will remember the comments here on FC. If Americas elects Trump they will get what they vote for. The president sets the tone for the country. Do we want a bigoted, buffoon that encourages racism and pits one group of citizens against the other? If you vote for Trump and he wins that's what we will get.

I am tired of this mans name calling. He's not qualified to be the countriy's dog catcher. He's going to do for the country what he did to for businesses. Claiming bankruptcy and refusing to pay his bills. Causing the rest of the world to question our sanity and common sense.

I am wondering about what kind of things he wants to do for the country and I haven't heard any specifics. I haven't heard anything about how he will fix medical insurance? He says how horrible Obama Care is but doesn't let us know how he will do it.

Trump continues how he will send Hispanic families back to Mexico. I know a lot of really nice Hispanic families. It needs to be easier for these families to get their citizenship. They are afraid to even start the process because of Trumps racists rantings on TV.

Read about Trump's dad because that's where he learned how to be the person he is today.

I can't even imagine voting for Trump. If you don't like Hillary write in somebody else's name or vote for the 3rd party candidate. Your vote is your personal choice. Do what you feel you need to do.
At this point I want anybody else but Trump.

I didn't know that a person can continue bankruptcy over and over again like The Donald has done.

CarolKing said:

I am tired of this mans name calling. He's not qualified to be the countriy's dog catcher. He's going to do for the country what he did to for businesses. Claiming bankruptcy and refusing to pay his bills. Causing the rest of the world to question our sanity and common sense.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much the case Hillary just made in Atlantic City in front of one of his casinos.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/new...l?sr=fb083115trumpbankruptcies1045aVodTopLink

"No major US company has filed for Chapter 11 more than Trump's casino empire in the last 30 years"

Interesting to see that the timing of the 'Hillary not getting a criminal case' coincides with the release of the chilcott report into the bush/blair iraq war.

Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant...


U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) talks to reporters after a Republican caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on April 29, 2014.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
As contenders quit, Trump’s challenge is finding a willing VP
07/06/16 04:08 PM

By Steve Benen
In 12 days, the Republican National Convention will get underway, and before the festivities begin, we’ll probably know who Donald Trump has chosen as his running mate. Between now and then, all the presumptive GOP has to do is choose a partner – and hope he or she is amenable.

That last part may be easier said than done. A variety of prominent Republicans have already said they’re simply not interested, including Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Today, as the Washington Post reported, the list got a little longer.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has recently emerged as a finalist in the search for Donald Trump’s running mate, told The Washington Post in an interview Wednesday that he has taken himself out of consideration for the position.

Corker said that he informed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee of his decision during their day together on Tuesday, when the senator had a series of meetings with campaign officials in New York and then flew with Trump to an evening rally in North Carolina.

This doesn’t come as too big of a surprise – if you saw Corker and Trump together yesterday, you know the two didn’t seem especially comfortable around each other – but the senator did fit the mold for the kind of person Trump is reportedly looking for. Indeed, given Corker’s lengthy career in government, quiet demeanor, and interest in foreign policy, the senator brings qualities to the table that Trump desperately needs.

But in the end, Corker didn’t want the gig. Neither, evidently, does Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who’s been under consideration despite only one year on Capitol Hill, but who told Politico she’s already conveyed to Trump that she’s focused on her Senate duties. “I think that President Trump will need some great assistance in the United States Senate and I can provide that,” she added.

Under normal circumstances, we’d expect to see senators and governors quietly scrambling, hoping for VP consideration, but these aren’t normal circumstances. Republicans hoping for a long and successful career are understandably concerned about being associated with Trump and his many, shall we say, issues.

Ordinarily, running on a national ticket, even an unsuccessful one, improves a politician’s stature and national credibility, but it’s hard to blame these GOP officials for keeping Trump at arm’s length. He carries with him a political toxicity that infects those around him. Would-be running mates have to be responsible when weighing the impact such an association would have on their careers.

So who’s left? A friend asked me the other day who’ll get the Republican nod, if I had to guess, and I’ll tell you what I told him: I have no idea. Part of the problem is that Trump is so erratic and irrational, it’s hard to fathom what kind of criteria he’ll use to evaluate possible vice presidents in the first place.

I saw someone note the other day, for example, that Trump believes short last names convey “power” better than longer last names. I have no idea if that was a joke, if Trump actually believes that, or both. He’s an unpredictable sort of candidate, and not necessarily in a good way.

That said, as best as I can tell, the short list probably includes former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. Mike Pence, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sen. John Thune, Sen. Tim Scott, and my personal dark horse, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin.

Or maybe it’ll be someone else entirely. There’s nothing normal about Trump’s candidacy, so there’s no reason to expect his running-mate search to play by anything resembling traditional rules.

This guy sure would've loved to have a potus calling in favors to ignore legal precedent...

...does the fact that hillary's guilty, yet not indictable, mean she's "too big to fail" ?


Peak FBI corruption? Meet Bryan Nishimura, found guilty for ‘removal and retention of classified materials’

In a scandalous announcement, FBI director James Comey moments ago said that “although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” and he gave extensive evidence of just that, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

He added that “prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.”

What is shocking is that the FBI director was clearly ignoring the U.S. code itself, where in Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” it makes it quite clear that intent is not a key consideration in a case like this when deciding to press charges, to wit:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

What is even more shocking is that according to Comey, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

Well, we did. Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to “unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials” without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

more:
http://thecrux.com/peak-fbi-corrupt...emoval-and-retention-of-classified-materials/

Has Trump Reached the Self-Sabotage Stage?
by Martin Longman
July 7, 2016 2:21 PM

In my lifetime, and I’m assuming in the life of the United States of America, there has never been a major-party candidate other than Donald Trump who anyone would think to ask if they’d actually serve as president if elected as president. But that’s what New York Times reporters asked Trump during a recent interview with him in his New York office. His answer wasn’t what you’d expect.

Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.

“I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens,” he said, minutes before leaving his Trump Tower office to fly to a campaign rally in New Hampshire.

And he definitely left more than a spoken impression.

But the only person who could truly put any doubts to rest seemed instead to relish the idea of keeping everyone guessing, concluding the recent conversation with a you’re-on-to-something grin and handshake across his cluttered desk.

“We’ll do plenty of stories,” Mr. Trump promised enigmatically. “O.K.?”

Now, maybe he’s just messing with people’s minds, but it hardly helps him to leave the impression that he considers this just a game and that he won’t serve as president even if elected. It’s actually a kind of dangerous impression to leave at a time when he has not yet actually been confirmed as the nominee of the party.

I think this show was a lot more fun for Trump when he was leading in the polls and he wasn’t responsible for anyone else’s fate. Maybe, consciously or unconsciously, he actually wants to have the nomination wrested away from him in Cleveland. That’ll make him much more of a martyr than a loser, or at least he might feel that he can spin it that way.

One does get the impression that for a man running for president, Trump is remarkably uninterested in actually being president. Possibly we could get rid of him just by having him hang around the White House for a few days. It is very unlikely that he would like doing the kind of work a president actually has to do.

The rightwing blogosphere/talk radio/fox news world is going insane about the fbi thing, which was to be expected, but evidently the populist left is having a hard time with it too. Not only is it far from over, but the pre-convention timing of the announcement could really hurt hillary's downstream momentum. Here is a relatively tame analysis, that includes the six laws that she violated in case there's any confusion.

Frankly, I think she should just say that she wanted to keep the vast rightwing conspiracy watergate plumber (could substitute isis al queada jihadist) crowd from reading her emails, because she was convinced that the official channels of communication were somehow (she's actually clueless) insecure

I have snipped the text descriptions of the individual laws to fit, click the article link for their entirety.


In Clinton Case, Obama Administration Nullifies 6 Criminal Laws

When the Obama Administration, on July 5th, ruled that in regard to Hillary Clinton’s privatized email system while she was Secretary of State, “Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” to a grand jury, because “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” they ignored the following six U.S. criminal laws, each of which undeniably describes very well what she did:

——

18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

——

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

——

18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

——

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

——

18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

——

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

——

Those laws are consequently null and void, by Executive action. When Congress (which is supposed to be the Legislative branch of the government) passed those laws, what were they describing, if not this? Of course, they did describe there what Clinton has, in fact, done.

If we are a nation “of laws, not of men” (as that old basic description of democracy phrased it), then Ms. Clinton will be prosecuted, at least through the grand jury stage, on (at least) those grounds. The decision regarding her innocence or guilt will be made by jurors (first by the grand jurors, of course, and if they find there to be a case, then by a trial jury), not by the broader public — and also not by the nation’s Executive: the President and his appointed Administration. That is what it means for a government to be a functioning democracy. Any government which violates this principle — that it is “of laws, not of men [including women]” — is not functioning as a democracy: it’s something else.

In addition to these criminal laws, there are also federal regulations against these matters, but violations merely of federal regulations (such as these) are far less serious than are actions that violate also federal criminal laws (such as the six laws that are listed above).

She isn’t even being sanctioned for the violations the State Department’s own regulations (or “rules”).

This is not a partisan issue. I was until recently an active Democrat, and I joined with millions of other Democrats who expressed condemnation when George W. Bush was allowed to get away with many severe crimes (such as this) while he was in office; and one of the reasons why I was trying to find someone to contest against President Obama in Democratic primaries for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination was that Obama had refused to prosecute his predecessor’s crimes against this nation. But now this same Obama is nullifying at least these six laws in order to win as his successor Hillary Clinton, who surely will not prosecute Obama for his many crimes (such as this and this) while he has been leading this nation and destroying our democracy.

I parted company from the Democratic Party when I gave up on both Parties in 2012 as they and the government they operate have been since at least 1980 — not at all democratic, but instead aristocratic: holding some persons to be above the law (that researcher there called the U.S. an “oligarchy,” which is simply another word for the same thing — rule by the top wealth-holders, not by the public: not a “democracy”).

There can be no excuse for Obama’s depriving the public, via a grand jury decision, of the right to determine whether a full court case should be pursued in order to determine in a jury trial whether Hillary Clinton’s email system constituted a crime (or several crimes) under U.S. laws. The Obama Administration’s ‘finding’ that “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” would need to have been proven, in order for her to have been prosecuted under any U.S. criminal law, is a flagrant lie: none of the above six U.S. criminal laws requires that, but the only way to determine whether even that description (“clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”) also applies to Clinton would be to go through a grand jury (presenting the above-cited six laws) and then to a jury case (to try her on those plus possibly also the charge that there was “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”). But now, those six laws are effectively gone: anyone who in the future would be charged with violating any one of those six laws could reasonably cite the precedent that Ms. Clinton was not even charged, much less prosecuted, for actions which clearly fit the description provided in each one of those U.S. criminal laws. Anyone in the future who would be charged under any one of these six laws could prove discriminatory enforcement against himself or herself. (In the particular case discussed there, discriminatory enforcement was ruled not to have existed because the enforcement of the criminal law involved was judged to have been random enforcement, but this condition would certainly not apply in Clinton’s case, it was clearly “purposeful discrimination” in her favor, and therefore enforcement of the law against anyone else, where in Clinton’s case she wasn’t even charged — much less prosecuted — for that offense, would certainly constitute discriminatory enforcement.) So: that’s the end of these six criminal laws. The U.S. President effectively nullified those laws, which were duly passed by Congress and signed into law by prior Presidents

And that’s the end, the clear termination, of a government “of laws, not of men”.

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/...ama-administration-nullifies-6-criminal-laws/

Ha ha hee hee ho ho...


GOP accidentally does Clinton a favor with James Comey hearing
07/07/16 04:11 PM

By Steve Benen
Congressional Republicans had a nice, simply morality tale to tell. The main narrative was a little thin – any story built around email server protocols is going to be dry – but GOP lawmakers had clearly identified protagonists and antagonists. Just as importantly, they’d convinced much of the media that their tale was as important as it was riveting.

Today, however, Republicans lost the plot.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton’s email server protocols were careless, no sane prosecutor would find her actions worthy of an indictment. House Republicans, who were counting on an indictment to improve the GOP’s election chances, were apoplectic and hastily threw together a hearing, forcing Comey to go to Capitol Hill to explain himself.

What Republicans didn’t realize is the degree to which they were doing Clinton and Democrats a favor. NBC News reported on the proceedings:

FBI director James Comey stuck to his guns Thursday and defended his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime for her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Summoned to appear before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey insisted again that Clinton “did not break the law” and that there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime. “That’s just the way it is,” Comey said.

I honestly have no idea what Republicans thought they were going to achieve with this spectacle. Did GOP lawmakers expect Comey to declare, “Now that you’ve yelled at me for a few hours, I’ve changed my mind and now support criminal charges against Clinton”?

Before the hearing Republicans had a series of fairly specific talking points: Clinton lied to the FBI; she created a national security threat; she plays by a different set of rules than everyone else. But instead of simply repeating those talking points, GOP lawmakers invited the FBI director – a lifelong Republican, whom GOP officials have repeatedly praised for his honesty – to testify about how wrong the party’s arguments are.

“We have no basis to believe she lied to the FBI,” Comey said. Asked about Clinton benefiting from a different set of rules, he responded, “It’s not true.” Asked about classified emails, Comey said there were only three messages – each of which were not properly marked classified when she received them.

In other words, congressional Republicans had the bright idea of holding a hearing with a credible witness who was perfectly happy to explain to them how wrong they are.

Making matters worse, GOP lawmakers forgot who the villains and heroes were supposed to be in their story. Republicans were supposed to make Clinton the scoundrel of this narrative, but today, they decided instead to go after the director of the FBI – because he had the audacity to say a Democrat didn’t commit a crime.

But what’s to be gained from going after Comey? The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted during the Q&A that the hearing “was meant to be about Hillary,” but it instead devolved to the point in which “Comey is angrily defending his integrity against conspiracy theories.”

And that helps Republicans, how?

As if that weren’t enough, note that on Tuesday, the story looked like Comey vs. Clinton – the FBI director didn’t think the Democratic candidate broke any laws, but he clearly wasn’t pleased with some of her decisions, and he delivered a public rebuke. Now the story is Comey vs. Republicans – GOP lawmakers had some baseless allegations and reckless conspiracy theories, some of which targeted Comey directly, and they asked the FBI director to give testimony knocking down each of their bad arguments.

For their part, Democrats suddenly found themselves keeping up with Republican attempts to change the subject – talking about Clinton’s emails is suddenly less important than talking about Comey’s credibility and reliability.

When congressional Republicans take stock this evening and reflect on their failed gambit, one wonders whether they’ll appreciate the fact that this Comey hearing was a bad plan, executed poorly. The last time Democrats were this pleased with GOP hearing, it was Clinton’s 11-hour Benghazi Committee testimony – in which Republicans made fools of themselves and their conspiracy theories, and Clinton turned her entire presidential campaign around.

It helps sometimes to be blessed with incompetent enemies.

All the Nominee’s Enablers


Paul Krugman JULY 8, 2016

A couple of weeks ago Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, sort of laid out both a health care plan and a tax plan. I say sort of, because there weren’t enough details in either case to do any kind of quantitative analysis. But it was clear that Mr. Ryan’s latest proposals had the same general shape as every other proposal he’s released: huge tax cuts for the wealthy combined with savage but smaller cuts in aid to the poor, and the claim that all of this would somehow reduce the budget deficit thanks to unspecified additional measures.

Given everything else that’s going on, this latest installment of Ryanomics attracted little attention. One group that did notice, however, was Fix the Debt, a nonpartisan deficit-scold group that used to have substantial influence in Washington.

Indeed, Fix the Debt issued a statement — but not, as you might have expected, condemning Mr. Ryan for proposing to make the deficit bigger. No, the statement praised him. “We are concerned that the policies in the plan may not add up,” the organization admitted, but it went on to declare that “we welcome this blueprint.”

And there, in miniature, is the story of how America ended up with someone like Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee and possible next president. It’s all about the enablers, and the enablers of the enablers.
At one level, all Mr. Trump has done is to channel the racism that has always been a part of our political life — it’s literally as American as apple pie — and hitch it to the authoritarian impulse that has also always lurked behind democratic norms. But there’s a reason these tendencies are sufficiently concentrated in the G.O.P. that Trumpism could triumph in the primaries: a cynical political strategy that the party’s establishment has pursued for decades.

To put it bluntly, the modern Republican Party is in essence a machine designed to deliver high after-tax incomes to the 1 percent. Look at Mr. Ryan: Has he ever shown any willingness, for any reason, to make the rich pay so much as a dime more in taxes? Comforting the very comfortable is what it’s all about.

But not many voters are interested in that goal. So the party has prospered politically by harnessing its fortunes to racial hostility, which it has not-so-discreetly encouraged for decades.

These days, former President George H.W. Bush is treated as an elder statesman, too gentlemanly to endorse the likes of Donald Trump — but remember, he’s the one who ran the Willie Horton ad. Mitt Romney is also sitting this one out — but he was happy to accept Mr. Trump’s endorsement back when the candidate was best known for his rabid birtherism.

And Mr. Ryan, after a brief pretense of agonizing about Mr. Trump, is now in full attack-dog mode on the candidate’s behalf. After all, the Trump tax plan would be a huge windfall for the wealthy, while Hillary Clinton would surely sustain President Obama’s significant tax hike on high incomes, and try to push it further.

Click to expand...

Scott Walker backs away from anti-Trump insurgency while John Kasich tiptoes toward it


Republican presidential candidates, from left, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Scott Walker confer after a forum, Aug. 3, 2015, in Manchester, N.H. (Photo: Jim Cole/AP)

The idea of a convention insurgency against Donald Trump continues to loom as a possibility, but one Republican governor who had been floated as a possible leader of any rebellion in Cleveland against Trump took himself out of the running for any such role this week.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told the state press corps he’d like to speak at the GOP’s four-day convention that starts July 18, and hinted Wednesday that his decision to reverse course and support Trump was based on his belief that any effort by the roughly 400 anti-Trump delegates out of the 2,472 headed to Cleveland has no chance to wrest the nomination away from the presumptive nominee.

“It’s now clear who the RNC delegates will vote to nominate. And he is better than she is,” Walker wrote on his Twitter account, implying that up until recently, he thought the effort to stop Trump had some chance of succeeding.

However, there are delegates from Walker’s own state of Wisconsin, as well as from Colorado and New Jersey, who are heading up an anti-Trump plan. There are different accounts of how close they are to having enough votes on the 112-member rules committee to force a vote on the convention floor to unbind delegates from the results of the primary and allow them to vote for someone other than Trump.

And the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the effort is “remarkably close to getting past the first hurdle.”

Less than a month ago, Walker said it was “just sad in America that we have such poor choices right now,” referring to Trump and Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee. And he said two weeks ago that delegates should vote in Cleveland according to their conscience, and not necessarily according to the popular vote in their state’s primary.”

But just as Walker took himself out of the anti-Trump conversation, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has hinted he’d like to enter it.

Kasich told the Washington Post’s Dan Balz Tuesday that delegates should not automatically vote for Trump in Cleveland. “They have to weigh their responsibilities against their consciences, and then make a decision about what they want to do,” Kasich said.

Adding further to the intrigue, an email was sent out Tuesday from Kasich’s campaign — which he suspended in May but did not formally end — that touted the results of an NBC News poll that came out the same day that showed Kasich beating Clinton by 8 points in a general-election matchup.

“Perhaps most surprising are the results of a Clinton vs. Kasich November matchup,” said the portion of the NBC News article that was included in the Kasich campaign’s email. It cited Kasich’s ability to win over larger numbers of Democratic and Independent voters than either the 2012 Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney, or House Speaker Paul Ryan.

John Weaver, who ran Kasich’s presidential campaign, said, “No one is stoking the idea of Kasich running against Hillary, other than, I guess, NBC, who did one survey, and the other news outlets. We are not.”

“We are showing that a positive, inclusive, conservative reform agenda is the right one for Republicans running down-ballot. And that Kasich, the most popular Republican in the country, will be a positive force in trying to help us keep control of Congress, etc.,” Weaver said.

But Tim Miller, a spokesman for an anti-Trump group, Our Principles PAC, said that Kasich was “basically signaling that, should there be some sort of revolt, his name will be in the mix.”

Miller also said that Walker and Kasich both seemed to be staking out positions with an eye on how it would affect another run for president in 2020.

“Walker’s calculation is that Hillary is going to be president, and you need to be the one out there who is fighting her,” Miller said.

Choose widely when you vote this November.
Your choices are between spins.
Spin one way and you go with the flow of truth, the Tao.

Spin the other way and your kids' world will be the delightful one known to those places in the world where the best armed war-lord rules in the 'king-of-the-hill' game of life.
Either spin may feel comfortable now. One will be negated by truth. Do not misunderstand causation and the truth of unexpected consequences.

Don't like the status quo? Ask the average Iraqi how well the republican world-view has served them.
Ask the people of Brownbeck's Kansas and Jindal's Louisiana.

I first thought to drop this in the guns thread, but as politics is part of everything, and I am told that the gun is never a problem, I will face the cold truth that there is problem in the heart of America that I lay at the feet of that tribe of Americans with one or more of the following problems that make factual-izm (sic) irrelevant; tribalism, republicanism, tendency to project, tendency to be intemperate, tendency to ignorance*, tendency to hate and exclusion and fear. Below are links to some of their spins today.

These are a specific few of the articles I saw when reading my usual rounds for the second time today.
I'll ignore the many other stories about the regressive tribe that did not arise from the Dallas 2nd amendment soldier taking his citizen's right to declare war on the government that oppresses.
Remember, there is no ruling-authority that gets to say when the '2nd amendment' uprising is to begin.
There are some in the tribe who believe in proactive killing (Bush's doctrine of preemptive war, anti-abortionists), but I do not lay that observation upon the following writers.

Police group director: Obama caused a 'war on cops'

Not Even The Deaths Of 5 Dallas Cops Can Get Republicans To Admit US Needs Gun Reform
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07...-relations-worse-dallas-police-shootings.html
Conservative writer blames ‘race-baiting Pocahontas’ Elizabeth Warren for death of Dallas cops
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07...-relations-worse-dallas-police-shootings.html
It's Not Just Joe Walsh Who Thinks Obama Shot Those Cops
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07...-relations-worse-dallas-police-shootings.html
Drudge, Former Rep. Joe Walsh React To Dallas Shooting With Racism And Hate
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07...-relations-worse-dallas-police-shootings.html
Trump Campaign Official Is Blaming Hillary Clinton For Dallas Police Shooting

Birther Trump Blames Obama For Making Race Relations Worse After Dallas Police Shootings

Each of these essays is spin; spin is everywhere. Learn to recognize where there is more or less fact behind the spinning expressions of opinion.
I invite those of you who frequent the right-wing blog sites to post examples of their spin on the social sickness of our society. The more that Super-Sunday Americans can learn about the Republicans' true plans for America's future, the harder will be their sell of 'sic-em' social policies.

Believe the tribe that says it wants to abolish the ACA, Social Security (and all nets), local community control (Republican's say they are for it but pass laws to restrict communities from having local control, reduce taxes on those who could pay taxes, denies science, promotes Religion when that is absolutely unconstitutional (Article VI, clause 3), promotes second-class citizenship for natural people and first-class for corporate people, etc.

*"Ignorance" is a very specialized word that is too easily misunderstood and used. Look up "avidya"
Google is your friend

BTW, I reject ALL violence but am guilty of the violence caused by using words in ways that create disturbance for some.

It's an intensely difficult situation and I'm glad I don't have to live in the middle of it. All well and good to say it's the people not the guns but if there are no guns, there are no mass shootings, if there are less guns, there are less mass shootings.

There's a reason criminals have easy access to guns, it's because the general population has relatively easy access to guns. Individual freedom comes with collective responsibility unfortunately no one wants to take ownership of the issues.

Interestingly, it wasn't a good guy with a gun that stopped the dallas shooting, it was a robot with a bomb, the irony is probably lost on some.

“The Mindless Menace of Violence”
by Nancy LeTourneau
July 8, 2016 9:53 AM


The story about what happened in Dallas last night is still developing. We all still have lots of questions about exactly what happened. It’s important to keep that in mind as the finger-pointing begins.

But here’s something we already know. These kinds of events are happening so fast in succession that they start to build on one another. As I watch the news, it feels like the whole world is in chaos. And yet, as I sit here and look out my window, everyone I see is going peacefully about their day’s business. Keep that in mind. Most Americans aren’t toting around guns and firing them off at the slightest provocation.

And yet, we are certainly living in violent times. It’s not the first time things have felt like this in America. As you await the development of the news coming out of Dallas, I suggest that you listen to an excerpt of the speech Robert Kennedy gave the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. The similarity between the events of those days and what we are experiencing right now is captured by how his words are exactly what we need to hear today.


Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily – whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence – whenever we tear at the fabric of life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded…

When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies – to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear – only a common desire to retreat from each other – only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force…

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember – even if only for a time – that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek – as we do – nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

I have nothing to add. Kennedy got it exactly right that day back in 1968. It is no less true today than it was back then.

gangababa said:

Your choices are between spins.
...there is problem in the heart of America
(Bush's doctrine of preemptive war...)

Click to expand...

There's definitely a problem, and we proved it by re-electing that bitch even after his illegal doctrine. This should tell us that a trump presidency is much more of a possibility that the msm spinmasters will ever admit. Hillary has taken a big blow and trump will spin it hard. We are truly at the mercy of idiots.