The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
WHAT lie, specifically? People keep saying she lied, but they NEVER QUOTE HER when they do so; without a checkable quote it's hearsay, an unsupported assertion without basis.
Clinton's been under investigation for so many years that it seems many people have fallen for the brainwashing: she is NOT a criminal mastermind, her hounders simply NEVER FOUND ANYTHING. And they HATED THAT.'
That's why we keep having Benghazi investigations: they've convinced there's a pony, or something that can be made to seem like a pony, in here somewhere.
What do Ken Starr, Darryl Issa and Trey Gowdy have in common? They've EACH wasted millions of tax dollars and untold thousands of otherwise-productive work-hours in a determined effort to find ANYTHING on HRC, and they have ALL FAILED.
The fact that they can't give up / won't let go is NOT a testament to their patriotism, or to the strength of their case, or to their sound judgment: these are unprecedented witch-hunts in American politics, and the fact that they've been allowed to stand as any kind of precedent is a signal of just how weak our country is, internally: one power-half of the country is willing to destroy the whole country in an effort to hijack the whole country. The Republicans are simply too strong strategically and financially to be effectively challenged in court over their bullshit these last 20 years (witness changes in policy/on-air 'behaviors' @ NPR - especially since the Koch brothers began 'sponsoring' Morning Edition. W/ the Kochs, there's always some control they want in return - they ARE NOT philanthropists.
It will take a big win this year, in '18, and again in '20 - not just in DC but in the states - to undo the gerrymandering lock - though I'd prefer to see legislation supporting a Federal Elections Commission that oversees the drawing of all districts, the order and regulation of all elections, and standardization of electoral practices
Last edited:
Melting Pot
Sick & Twisted
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Getting dangerous out there:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/trump-rally-tweets-jared-yates-sexton/
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/trump-rally-tweets-jared-yates-sexton/
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The Path of the Sociopath
by D.R. Tucker
August 20, 2016 3:30 PM
They did it while Louisiana drowned.
They didn’t give a damn about how many people had lost their lives, or how many people will lose their lives if we don’t transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels. They couldn’t care less about the health impacts of carbon pollution, and the fact that it is inherently unfair to deprive innocent people of a stable climate and clean air. Their arrogance has reached new heights–in fact, the level of their arrogance is as high as the sea levels will be in a few decades.
As DeSmogBlog’s Sharon Kelly reports:
A long-awaited campaign to rebrand fossil fuels called Fueling U.S. Forward made its public debut at the Red State Gathering 2016 [in Denver, Colorado last] Saturday, where the organization’s President and CEO Charles Drevna gave attendees the inside scoop on the effort, and confirmed that the campaign is backed financially by Koch Industries. Back in February, Peter Stone first reported in the Huffington Post that a $10 million-a-year effort was proposed by a Koch Industries board member, James Mahoney, and Mr. Drevna, aiming “to boost petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies for electric vehicles.” In early August, the Fueling U.S. Forward website launched, and on Saturday, the first public comments were made about the campaign by Mr. Drevna, and they revealed a lot about how the Koch-backed initiative is working to re-frame fossil fuels…
The top line takeaway from Mr. Drevna’s comments is that the Koch-funded Fueling U.S. Forward is an effort to rebrand fossil fuels, focusing on the “positive” sides of oil, gas and coal.The new initiative comes at a time when the impacts of climate change are becoming more difficult to ignore. 2016 is already on track to be the hottest year ever recorded, a mid-year climate analysis from NASA reported, and unusual storms, like the torrential rainfall that struck the Gulf Coast over the past few days causing historic flooding, have become more frequent.
Charles and David Koch built this, this monument to malevolence. We always knew they were ruthless…but to do this while Louisiana drowned as a clear result of fossil-fueled climate change is beyond heartless. This is Trumpian in its treachery.
Spare me the nonsense that the Koch family doesn’t like Trump. Yes, Charles and David may scorn Trump in public, but if the bigoted billionaire manages to turn things around and win the White House, both men will be wholly satisfied with Trump’s dirty-energy agenda. (In addition, let’s not forget that another Koch Brother, William “Death to Cape Wind” Koch, has officially boarded the Trump train.)
When Bill McKibben calls for a “war” on climate change, he’s calling for a war on Koch ideology. It’s a war that progressives, moderates and whatever remains of the rational right must be prepared to fight and win. This is an enemy that must be conquered before it conquers us.
The sociopathy of the Kochs shocks the conscience. Looking at a world on fire, they call for the use of more fossil fuels to further increase their profits as they further inflame the planet. If Joseph Welch were alive today, he wouldn’t ask the Kochs if they had any sense of decency; he’d tell them he already knew they had none.
I’ve yet to read Daniel Schulman’s 2014 Koch biography Sons of Wichita, though I imagine that Schulman was thoroughly disgusted by their disregard for their fellow human beings. (Considering their latest actions, I have to say Schulman’s title is incomplete, since obviously Wichita is not the only thing these fossil-fuel fiends are sons of.)
I give Wisconsin talk radio star Charlie Sykes credit for admitting, at long last, that the right-wing media noise machine has created a “monster” comprised of millions of Americans who are resistant to facts and logic. Of course, Janeane Garofalo basically said the same thing seven years ago, and received nothing but scorn from the right for saying so:
Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that is their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast…They‘re been doing this for years. That‘s why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture; it is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb-down a certain segment of the electorate.
Thanks to right-wing radio, Fox and the wingnut blogosphere, we have far too many Americans who scorn science and reject reason…far too many Americans who think the lies of Charles, David and William Koch are the truth…far too many Americans who will suffer as a result of the actions of the fossil fuel industry and its media allies.
They did it while Louisiana drowned.
While Louisiana drowned.
Damn them.
by D.R. Tucker
August 20, 2016 3:30 PM
They did it while Louisiana drowned.
They didn’t give a damn about how many people had lost their lives, or how many people will lose their lives if we don’t transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels. They couldn’t care less about the health impacts of carbon pollution, and the fact that it is inherently unfair to deprive innocent people of a stable climate and clean air. Their arrogance has reached new heights–in fact, the level of their arrogance is as high as the sea levels will be in a few decades.
As DeSmogBlog’s Sharon Kelly reports:
A long-awaited campaign to rebrand fossil fuels called Fueling U.S. Forward made its public debut at the Red State Gathering 2016 [in Denver, Colorado last] Saturday, where the organization’s President and CEO Charles Drevna gave attendees the inside scoop on the effort, and confirmed that the campaign is backed financially by Koch Industries. Back in February, Peter Stone first reported in the Huffington Post that a $10 million-a-year effort was proposed by a Koch Industries board member, James Mahoney, and Mr. Drevna, aiming “to boost petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies for electric vehicles.” In early August, the Fueling U.S. Forward website launched, and on Saturday, the first public comments were made about the campaign by Mr. Drevna, and they revealed a lot about how the Koch-backed initiative is working to re-frame fossil fuels…
The top line takeaway from Mr. Drevna’s comments is that the Koch-funded Fueling U.S. Forward is an effort to rebrand fossil fuels, focusing on the “positive” sides of oil, gas and coal.The new initiative comes at a time when the impacts of climate change are becoming more difficult to ignore. 2016 is already on track to be the hottest year ever recorded, a mid-year climate analysis from NASA reported, and unusual storms, like the torrential rainfall that struck the Gulf Coast over the past few days causing historic flooding, have become more frequent.
Charles and David Koch built this, this monument to malevolence. We always knew they were ruthless…but to do this while Louisiana drowned as a clear result of fossil-fueled climate change is beyond heartless. This is Trumpian in its treachery.
Spare me the nonsense that the Koch family doesn’t like Trump. Yes, Charles and David may scorn Trump in public, but if the bigoted billionaire manages to turn things around and win the White House, both men will be wholly satisfied with Trump’s dirty-energy agenda. (In addition, let’s not forget that another Koch Brother, William “Death to Cape Wind” Koch, has officially boarded the Trump train.)
When Bill McKibben calls for a “war” on climate change, he’s calling for a war on Koch ideology. It’s a war that progressives, moderates and whatever remains of the rational right must be prepared to fight and win. This is an enemy that must be conquered before it conquers us.
The sociopathy of the Kochs shocks the conscience. Looking at a world on fire, they call for the use of more fossil fuels to further increase their profits as they further inflame the planet. If Joseph Welch were alive today, he wouldn’t ask the Kochs if they had any sense of decency; he’d tell them he already knew they had none.
I’ve yet to read Daniel Schulman’s 2014 Koch biography Sons of Wichita, though I imagine that Schulman was thoroughly disgusted by their disregard for their fellow human beings. (Considering their latest actions, I have to say Schulman’s title is incomplete, since obviously Wichita is not the only thing these fossil-fuel fiends are sons of.)
I give Wisconsin talk radio star Charlie Sykes credit for admitting, at long last, that the right-wing media noise machine has created a “monster” comprised of millions of Americans who are resistant to facts and logic. Of course, Janeane Garofalo basically said the same thing seven years ago, and received nothing but scorn from the right for saying so:
Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that is their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast…They‘re been doing this for years. That‘s why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture; it is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb-down a certain segment of the electorate.
Thanks to right-wing radio, Fox and the wingnut blogosphere, we have far too many Americans who scorn science and reject reason…far too many Americans who think the lies of Charles, David and William Koch are the truth…far too many Americans who will suffer as a result of the actions of the fossil fuel industry and its media allies.
They did it while Louisiana drowned.
While Louisiana drowned.
Damn them.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Break On Through (To the Other Side): Part I
by D.R. Tucker
August 21, 2016 11:30 AM
With apologies to Rachel Maddow, let’s play a game of “Debunktion Junction.”
True or false: there is widespread progressive anger over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s attempts to attract Republican support.
Absolutely false.
The New York Times missed the mark by a mile when it promoted the idea that there are legions of liberals who loathe Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle. Note the nonsensical nature of this opening:
Liberal Democrats and progressive activists have grown wary of the state of the 2016 presidential race, chafing at Hillary Clinton’s big-tent courtship of Republican leaders they have long opposed and fearing the consequences of shaping the contest as a referendum on Donald J. Trump.While few have questioned the electoral strategy of bringing Republicans into the fold by casting Mr. Trump as a singular threat to democracy, both skeptics and some admirers of Mrs. Clinton have come to view her decisive advantage in the polls with mixed emotions.She may win by a mandate-level margin, they say. But what, exactly, would the mandate be for?
A progressive vision, of course. Isn’t that obvious?
The stench of sexism in these “Hillary just can’t wait to sell out the left!” stories is overpowering. Would a male progressive Democratic candidate face these allegations of ideological disloyalty and treachery?
What Clinton is doing is smart politics. She knows that there are millions of “cloth-coat Republicans” (to use progressive radio icon Thom Hartmann’s phrase, which refers to a famous line in Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers” speech) who are only now waking up to just how perverse their party has become. These Republicans were too busy raising their kids and working hard at their jobs to consume excess quantities of reactionary radio and Fox filth; prior to the rise of Captain Claptrap, many of these folks were completely oblivious to the GOP’s descent into dementia, just as many Americans were completely oblivious to the issue of police brutality prior to the age of smartphones.
Clinton would be politically irresponsible not to offer these “cloth-coat Republicans” an opportunity for an oasis from Trump’s obnoxiousness and opprobrium. She is a skilled and savvy enough politician to convince these GOP refugees that a new political home guided by progressive principles will provide nourishment, comfort and hope.
Bernie Sanders would not have endorsed Clinton if he did not sincerely believe that the former Secretary of State would work tirelessly to advance the progressive cause as President. For every Bernie-or-Buster who still thinks Clinton is a cold, calculating “corporatist,” there are two or three or four (or more!) erstwhile Sanders supporters who have come to the conclusion that the Vermont Senator’s words at the Democratic National Convention were accurate.
The “Hillary’s plotting to sell out the left” narrative is hack journalism at its worst, a desperate attempt to promote the idea that Clinton is just as dirty and deceitful as the Donald. It is this sort of reckless reporting that will drive discriminating news consumers to media entities that do not embrace the false-balance ethos, media entities that aren’t willing to proclaim “both sides do it” when only one side does, media entities that can recognize the moral difference between progressive politics and regressive politics.
Nancy LeTourneau noted a few days ago that we could be bearing witness to the rise of “Clinton Republicans.” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) has also noted that, in the battleground Buckeye State, what remains of moderate Republicanism is now gravitating towards Clinton. Clinton can attract these voters without betraying progressive principles; it can be argued that she is uniquely qualified to convince these voters that, as vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine put it in his DNC address, “f any of you are looking for that party of Lincoln, we have got a home for you right here in the Democratic Party.” Ask yourself: how many progressives really believe that Clinton is somehow selling out by asking “cloth-coat Republicans” to buy in?
by D.R. Tucker
August 21, 2016 11:30 AM
With apologies to Rachel Maddow, let’s play a game of “Debunktion Junction.”
True or false: there is widespread progressive anger over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s attempts to attract Republican support.
Absolutely false.
The New York Times missed the mark by a mile when it promoted the idea that there are legions of liberals who loathe Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle. Note the nonsensical nature of this opening:
Liberal Democrats and progressive activists have grown wary of the state of the 2016 presidential race, chafing at Hillary Clinton’s big-tent courtship of Republican leaders they have long opposed and fearing the consequences of shaping the contest as a referendum on Donald J. Trump.While few have questioned the electoral strategy of bringing Republicans into the fold by casting Mr. Trump as a singular threat to democracy, both skeptics and some admirers of Mrs. Clinton have come to view her decisive advantage in the polls with mixed emotions.She may win by a mandate-level margin, they say. But what, exactly, would the mandate be for?
A progressive vision, of course. Isn’t that obvious?
The stench of sexism in these “Hillary just can’t wait to sell out the left!” stories is overpowering. Would a male progressive Democratic candidate face these allegations of ideological disloyalty and treachery?
What Clinton is doing is smart politics. She knows that there are millions of “cloth-coat Republicans” (to use progressive radio icon Thom Hartmann’s phrase, which refers to a famous line in Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers” speech) who are only now waking up to just how perverse their party has become. These Republicans were too busy raising their kids and working hard at their jobs to consume excess quantities of reactionary radio and Fox filth; prior to the rise of Captain Claptrap, many of these folks were completely oblivious to the GOP’s descent into dementia, just as many Americans were completely oblivious to the issue of police brutality prior to the age of smartphones.
Clinton would be politically irresponsible not to offer these “cloth-coat Republicans” an opportunity for an oasis from Trump’s obnoxiousness and opprobrium. She is a skilled and savvy enough politician to convince these GOP refugees that a new political home guided by progressive principles will provide nourishment, comfort and hope.
Bernie Sanders would not have endorsed Clinton if he did not sincerely believe that the former Secretary of State would work tirelessly to advance the progressive cause as President. For every Bernie-or-Buster who still thinks Clinton is a cold, calculating “corporatist,” there are two or three or four (or more!) erstwhile Sanders supporters who have come to the conclusion that the Vermont Senator’s words at the Democratic National Convention were accurate.
The “Hillary’s plotting to sell out the left” narrative is hack journalism at its worst, a desperate attempt to promote the idea that Clinton is just as dirty and deceitful as the Donald. It is this sort of reckless reporting that will drive discriminating news consumers to media entities that do not embrace the false-balance ethos, media entities that aren’t willing to proclaim “both sides do it” when only one side does, media entities that can recognize the moral difference between progressive politics and regressive politics.
Nancy LeTourneau noted a few days ago that we could be bearing witness to the rise of “Clinton Republicans.” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) has also noted that, in the battleground Buckeye State, what remains of moderate Republicanism is now gravitating towards Clinton. Clinton can attract these voters without betraying progressive principles; it can be argued that she is uniquely qualified to convince these voters that, as vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine put it in his DNC address, “f any of you are looking for that party of Lincoln, we have got a home for you right here in the Democratic Party.” Ask yourself: how many progressives really believe that Clinton is somehow selling out by asking “cloth-coat Republicans” to buy in?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Unlike Pierson, this talking head does a MUCH better job of making her points without infuriating those who tend not to believe the bullshit.
Pierson is great at motivating the base, but Conway is MUCH better at getting to everyone else. She will prove a good choice for the campaign, but it won't be near enough at this point. All of Trump's previous misbehavior is on video, and video doesn't go away.
And that is all assuming she can fix him and reduce his misbehavior going forward. Unfortunately for the campaign, Banner will be doing exactly the opposite with Trump.
Watch for the big fistfight between Conway and Banner. It is inevitable...
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
This is a long article but worth the read. Who knows what Trump will really do if he became president? He changes his mind so much or maybe it's just plain lies. Nobody can phathem what a Trump presidency would look like. This is from a few months ago. Kellynne Conway was saying something different far as the wall or deportations would go. It's sounds like Kellyanne is doing most of the thinking for Trump.
Viewpoint: How would Trump remove 11 million people from the US? - BBC News
BBC.com › news › magazine-36114246
Apr 25, 2016 - Exactly how would Donald Trump deport 11 million ... The demonisation of Mexicans, the wall, the asset freeze, the ... How is Trump going to pull even that trick off? .... 21 August 2016.
Edit
Interesting we haven't seen as much of Kristina Pierson lately. She's just too crazy for anyone to take her seriously. Big difference between Kellyanne Conway and Kristina Pierson. One is professional and one is an angry amateur.
Viewpoint: How would Trump remove 11 million people from the US? - BBC News
BBC.com › news › magazine-36114246
Apr 25, 2016 - Exactly how would Donald Trump deport 11 million ... The demonisation of Mexicans, the wall, the asset freeze, the ... How is Trump going to pull even that trick off? .... 21 August 2016.
Edit
Interesting we haven't seen as much of Kristina Pierson lately. She's just too crazy for anyone to take her seriously. Big difference between Kellyanne Conway and Kristina Pierson. One is professional and one is an angry amateur.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Here ya go, @lwien Obviously you are not alone...
If Trump loses, will he launch Trump TV?
Reliable Sources
Is a new media company the logical next step for Trump if he loses? Kurt Bardella and Ken Stern discuss the possibilities with Brian Stelter.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/21/if-trump-loses-will-he-launch-trump-tv.cnn
If Trump loses, will he launch Trump TV?
Reliable Sources
Is a new media company the logical next step for Trump if he loses? Kurt Bardella and Ken Stern discuss the possibilities with Brian Stelter.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/21/if-trump-loses-will-he-launch-trump-tv.cnn
lwien
Well-Known Member
Yup. This bulb lit up in my head about 4 days ago. Wasn't too hard to connect the dots.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
What, you mean like Manhattan? 
Stephen Bannon hire shows Donald Trump's campaign plans on losing 'in the most destructive way possible'
Donald Trump’s effort to bring on new campaign chief Stephen Bannon could mean he’s "planning to lose in the loudest and most destructive way possible.”
Adam Edelman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, August 20, 2016, 6:54 PM
Make America great again — by lighting a match and flicking it into the dumpster of a floundering campaign.
The reshuffling of Donald Trump’s brain trust could be a white flag — an intentional effort to tank the presidential election in spectacular fashion.
The GOP nominee’s presidential bid emerged from its most disastrous stretch to date so wounded that Trump had no choice but to pull a few strings, outwardly as a last-ditch try to make his race with Hillary Clinton more competitive.
But the shakeup last week, some experts say, was actually to seal his fate — a “yuge” November loss — by bringing in flashy advisers who will just let him be himself, and let his circus tent crash and burn.
Republican Donald Trump shakes up his campaign strategy by bringing in Breitbart News' Bannon as campaign CEO and promoting pollster Kellyanne Conway to campaign manager.
(Danny Moloshok/Invision/AP)
“Trump may indeed be planning to lose in the loudest and most destructive way possible,” David Birdsell, dean of the Public Affairs School at Baruch College, told the Daily News.
That was Birdsell’s response when asked about Trump’s decision to bring in Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of far-right news and opinion site Breitbart.
As one of the chiefs of Breitbart, which has essentially served as a propaganda machine for Trump, Bannon has been integral in overseeing the organization’s embrace of all things white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant.
Breitbart News, in recent years, has given mouthpieces to controversial columnist Milo Yiannopoulos, who was banned from Twitter for life for his overtly racist and hateful statements, and to Austin Ruse, whose Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), was labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What on Earth could explain Trump putting his campaign in the hands of such an apparent fringe — albeit successful — figure?
“The move ignores the deep discomfort most Americans feel about the alt-right crowd. Trump’s winking flirtations with the far right have been distressing enough,” Birdsell said. “But Bannon is firmly established in this world; the daylight between Trump and some of the ugliest corners of the American polity is about to shrink to a nullity.”
It’s a head-scratching move that will likely solidify his popularity among his base, but do little to attract voters among other demographics he needs to win a majority in the Electoral College in November.
“He’s already doing just fine among the far-right and among less-educated whites … and the problem is that there aren’t enough such people in the country to put him over the top,” Birdsell explained. “It might look better if they were concentrated in battleground states, but they’re not. Many are already in safely red states such as Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.”
To win the election Trump would need to carry every deep red state Mitt Romney did in 2012 and then take a combination of swing states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and/or Colorado — which are decidedly not pivoting to the far-right.
Rodell Mollineau, a partner at political strategy firm Rokk Solutions, agreed and suggested that, even if Trump had wanted to hire someone with a proven record of winning, he wouldn’t have been able to.
“These changes don’t help Trump win anything,” Mollineau told The News. “I’m sure Bannon will help Trump sling mud at his enemies and amplify his lies but at this point in the campaign the Republican nominee needs operatives with real experience who understand how to win elections.”
“The truth is most operatives who could actually be helpful won’t touch Trump with a 10-foot pole and Trump’s ego and insecurities have stopped him from pursuing those folks anyway, so you get folks like Bannon running the ship,” he said.
Kellyanne Conway, president and chief executive officer of Polling Co. Inc./Woman Trend, was also promoted to campaign manager because Trump believes they are "people who love to win and know how to win."
(Chris Goodney/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In a brief response to questions over the motives behind the decision to hire Bannon, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that, “Mr. Trump wants to win” and directed The News to the press release distributed by the campaign that announced Bannon’s hire.
In that release, Trump lauded Bannon, as well as Kellyanne Conway, who was promoted to campaign manager, as “highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win,” ignoring the fact that neither Bannon nor Conway has any experience running a campaign.
The moves came just 82 days before the general election and with Trump trailing Clinton by double digits in a slew of national polls and in Florida, Colorado and Virginia.
The hires, however, aren’t the only evidence that Trump could be trying to throw the election. Trump waited until this past week to make his first TV ad buy for the general election — an unusually late start for critical airtime. Spots in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia will begin airing next week.
Still, some insiders think it’s too early to draw conclusions about Trump’s motives.
“Reorganization is an attempt to let Trump be Trump with some refinements,” said David Caputo, president emeritus and professor of Political Science at Pace University.
“We will have to see the tenor of the TV ads and the campaign behavior moving forward to see if a desire to win, which means — to broaden his appeal, wins out over ideology,” Caputo said.
Last week, the nominee even waved off concerns about his plummeting poll numbers and increasing GOP defections, suggesting he might not really care whether he spends the next four years in the White House or in the Caribbean.
“At the end (of the campaign), it’s either going to work or I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” Trump told CNBC.
Stephen Bannon hire shows Donald Trump's campaign plans on losing 'in the most destructive way possible'
Donald Trump’s effort to bring on new campaign chief Stephen Bannon could mean he’s "planning to lose in the loudest and most destructive way possible.”
Adam Edelman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, August 20, 2016, 6:54 PM
Make America great again — by lighting a match and flicking it into the dumpster of a floundering campaign.
The reshuffling of Donald Trump’s brain trust could be a white flag — an intentional effort to tank the presidential election in spectacular fashion.
The GOP nominee’s presidential bid emerged from its most disastrous stretch to date so wounded that Trump had no choice but to pull a few strings, outwardly as a last-ditch try to make his race with Hillary Clinton more competitive.
But the shakeup last week, some experts say, was actually to seal his fate — a “yuge” November loss — by bringing in flashy advisers who will just let him be himself, and let his circus tent crash and burn.
Republican Donald Trump shakes up his campaign strategy by bringing in Breitbart News' Bannon as campaign CEO and promoting pollster Kellyanne Conway to campaign manager.
(Danny Moloshok/Invision/AP)
“Trump may indeed be planning to lose in the loudest and most destructive way possible,” David Birdsell, dean of the Public Affairs School at Baruch College, told the Daily News.
That was Birdsell’s response when asked about Trump’s decision to bring in Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of far-right news and opinion site Breitbart.
As one of the chiefs of Breitbart, which has essentially served as a propaganda machine for Trump, Bannon has been integral in overseeing the organization’s embrace of all things white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant.
Breitbart News, in recent years, has given mouthpieces to controversial columnist Milo Yiannopoulos, who was banned from Twitter for life for his overtly racist and hateful statements, and to Austin Ruse, whose Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), was labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What on Earth could explain Trump putting his campaign in the hands of such an apparent fringe — albeit successful — figure?
“The move ignores the deep discomfort most Americans feel about the alt-right crowd. Trump’s winking flirtations with the far right have been distressing enough,” Birdsell said. “But Bannon is firmly established in this world; the daylight between Trump and some of the ugliest corners of the American polity is about to shrink to a nullity.”
It’s a head-scratching move that will likely solidify his popularity among his base, but do little to attract voters among other demographics he needs to win a majority in the Electoral College in November.
“He’s already doing just fine among the far-right and among less-educated whites … and the problem is that there aren’t enough such people in the country to put him over the top,” Birdsell explained. “It might look better if they were concentrated in battleground states, but they’re not. Many are already in safely red states such as Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.”
To win the election Trump would need to carry every deep red state Mitt Romney did in 2012 and then take a combination of swing states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and/or Colorado — which are decidedly not pivoting to the far-right.
Rodell Mollineau, a partner at political strategy firm Rokk Solutions, agreed and suggested that, even if Trump had wanted to hire someone with a proven record of winning, he wouldn’t have been able to.
“These changes don’t help Trump win anything,” Mollineau told The News. “I’m sure Bannon will help Trump sling mud at his enemies and amplify his lies but at this point in the campaign the Republican nominee needs operatives with real experience who understand how to win elections.”
“The truth is most operatives who could actually be helpful won’t touch Trump with a 10-foot pole and Trump’s ego and insecurities have stopped him from pursuing those folks anyway, so you get folks like Bannon running the ship,” he said.
Kellyanne Conway, president and chief executive officer of Polling Co. Inc./Woman Trend, was also promoted to campaign manager because Trump believes they are "people who love to win and know how to win."
(Chris Goodney/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In a brief response to questions over the motives behind the decision to hire Bannon, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that, “Mr. Trump wants to win” and directed The News to the press release distributed by the campaign that announced Bannon’s hire.
In that release, Trump lauded Bannon, as well as Kellyanne Conway, who was promoted to campaign manager, as “highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win,” ignoring the fact that neither Bannon nor Conway has any experience running a campaign.
The moves came just 82 days before the general election and with Trump trailing Clinton by double digits in a slew of national polls and in Florida, Colorado and Virginia.
The hires, however, aren’t the only evidence that Trump could be trying to throw the election. Trump waited until this past week to make his first TV ad buy for the general election — an unusually late start for critical airtime. Spots in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia will begin airing next week.
Still, some insiders think it’s too early to draw conclusions about Trump’s motives.
“Reorganization is an attempt to let Trump be Trump with some refinements,” said David Caputo, president emeritus and professor of Political Science at Pace University.
“We will have to see the tenor of the TV ads and the campaign behavior moving forward to see if a desire to win, which means — to broaden his appeal, wins out over ideology,” Caputo said.
Last week, the nominee even waved off concerns about his plummeting poll numbers and increasing GOP defections, suggesting he might not really care whether he spends the next four years in the White House or in the Caribbean.
“At the end (of the campaign), it’s either going to work or I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” Trump told CNBC.
Amoreena
Grown up Flower Child
I saw it and thought it was very funny, as Oliver's stuff usually is. Wish Trump really WOULD do that.Did anyone else catch John Oliver tonight and his dissertation of what Trump SHOULD do? Pretty funny...but it makes ya wonder what in the fuck would happen if he really did that?
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
lwien
Well-Known Member
Don't miss it. It's a must see.....
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Gotta wait for the youtube...Did anyone else catch John Oliver tonight and his dissertation of what Trump SHOULD do? Pretty funny...
Ahh... Here it is. Gotta love Oliver...
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12582836/donald-trump-john-oliver-last-week-tonight
Love the tanning bed...
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
That the attack in Benghazi was actually a protest over an internet video.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The Hope Gap
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 22, 2016 10:06 AM
Last week WIRED took the unusual step of endorsing a presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton. Here is their rationale for endorsing optimism.
I’d quibble with them about the benefits of “fake meat,” but otherwise that is a powerful statement about the two options that are available to us as we assess our future. The breakdown between a mindset of scarcity vs abundance is something I’ve written about before based on Lynne Twist’s book “The Soul of Money.” And while it might be easier for a group of techies at WIRED to believe in a future of abundance, this is a critical point they make:
All of that aligns in an interesting way with and article by Andrew McGill on the data Martin wrote about recently. McGill points out that Trump supporters are not the most economically stressed – but the most isolated from the kinds of changes we’re seeing in this country. Then he points to this:
Think about that…if you assume that life is worse today for people like you than it was 50 years ago (1966), you’re probably a Trump supporter. You’d be hard pressed to find many people of color, women, or LGBTQ people in that group. There are probably even a lot of white men who wouldn’t want to go back 50 years. But that is the group Trump is appealing to.
The whole mindset of scarcity leads to zero sum game thinking and a fear that the expansion of opportunity for some means a diminishment for others. It cuts off hope for the future and inspires the building of figurative and literal walls. The folks at WIRED pretty well articulated the alternative. That is the hope gap we are seeing played out in this election.
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 22, 2016 10:06 AM
Last week WIRED took the unusual step of endorsing a presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton. Here is their rationale for endorsing optimism.
Right now we see two possible futures welling up in the present. In one, society’s every decision is dominated by scarcity. Except for a few oligarchs, nobody has enough of anything. In that future, we build literal and figurative walls to keep out those who hope to acquire our stuff, while through guile or violence we try to acquire theirs.
In the other future, the one WIRED is rooting for, new rounds of innovation allow people to do more with less work—in a way that translates into abundance, broadly enjoyed. Governments and markets and entrepreneurs create the conditions that allow us to take effective collective action against climate change. The flashlight beam of science keeps turning up cool stuff in the corners of the universe. The grand social experiments of the 20th and early 21st centuries—the mass entry of women into the workforce, civil rights, LGBTQ rights—continue and give way to new ones that are just as necessary and unsettling and empowering to people who got left out of previous rounds. And the sustainably manufactured, genetically modified fake meat tastes really good too.
In the other future, the one WIRED is rooting for, new rounds of innovation allow people to do more with less work—in a way that translates into abundance, broadly enjoyed. Governments and markets and entrepreneurs create the conditions that allow us to take effective collective action against climate change. The flashlight beam of science keeps turning up cool stuff in the corners of the universe. The grand social experiments of the 20th and early 21st centuries—the mass entry of women into the workforce, civil rights, LGBTQ rights—continue and give way to new ones that are just as necessary and unsettling and empowering to people who got left out of previous rounds. And the sustainably manufactured, genetically modified fake meat tastes really good too.
I’d quibble with them about the benefits of “fake meat,” but otherwise that is a powerful statement about the two options that are available to us as we assess our future. The breakdown between a mindset of scarcity vs abundance is something I’ve written about before based on Lynne Twist’s book “The Soul of Money.” And while it might be easier for a group of techies at WIRED to believe in a future of abundance, this is a critical point they make:
When we say we’re optimistic, it isn’t just because we can point you to a trove of evidence that we’re all very, very lucky to be alive right now: We live longer, we’re less violent, and there’s less extreme poverty than at any time in human history. And it’s not just because optimism is endemic to Silicon Valley, though that’s also true. It’s because of the way optimism conditions how people act in the world. As Stewart Brand, one of our heroes, once described in these pages, people behave better when they think things are improving: “If you truly think things are getting worse, won’t you grab everything you can, while you can? Reap now, sow nothing. But if you think things are getting better, you invest in the future. Sow now, reap later.”
All of that aligns in an interesting way with and article by Andrew McGill on the data Martin wrote about recently. McGill points out that Trump supporters are not the most economically stressed – but the most isolated from the kinds of changes we’re seeing in this country. Then he points to this:
I’d argue the real dividing line is optimism. Consider this: Two-thirds of Hillary Clinton’s supporters think the next generation will be in better shape than we are today, or least the same, according to Pew Research. The reverse is true for Trump’s camp. Sixty-eight percent of his supporters think the next generation will be worse off. What’s more, the vast majority of Trump voters say life is worse today for people like them than it was 50 years ago. Only two percent —two!— think life is better now and that their children will also see improvement.
What we’re seeing is a hope gap.
What we’re seeing is a hope gap.
Think about that…if you assume that life is worse today for people like you than it was 50 years ago (1966), you’re probably a Trump supporter. You’d be hard pressed to find many people of color, women, or LGBTQ people in that group. There are probably even a lot of white men who wouldn’t want to go back 50 years. But that is the group Trump is appealing to.
The whole mindset of scarcity leads to zero sum game thinking and a fear that the expansion of opportunity for some means a diminishment for others. It cuts off hope for the future and inspires the building of figurative and literal walls. The folks at WIRED pretty well articulated the alternative. That is the hope gap we are seeing played out in this election.
Judge orders State Dept. to review 14,900 new Clinton emails (before the election)
snipped:
"The 14,900 documents referred to by Boasberg are believed to include emails that were not included among the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton previously turned over to the State Department after her use of a private email server and private email account became public last year.
And this was snipped from it. lol.
"Her people have been trying to pin it on me ... The truth is, she was using (the private email server) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did," Powell told People on Saturday."
link
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSKCN10X1A1
We need an emergency do over, right now! She is not going to make it until Nov and if she does, they will just impeach her, then.
snipped:
"The 14,900 documents referred to by Boasberg are believed to include emails that were not included among the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton previously turned over to the State Department after her use of a private email server and private email account became public last year.
And this was snipped from it. lol.
"Her people have been trying to pin it on me ... The truth is, she was using (the private email server) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did," Powell told People on Saturday."
link
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSKCN10X1A1
We need an emergency do over, right now! She is not going to make it until Nov and if she does, they will just impeach her, then.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I realize there are a bunch of you who really hate the Clintons and can't imagine that they could do ANYTHING positive, but maybe it time to start with...http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/22/some-facts-about-the-clinton-foundation/
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/22/some-facts-about-the-clinton-foundation/
Some Facts About the Clinton Foundation
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 22, 2016 3:40 PM
When the right wing started talking about the Clinton Foundation early in this election season, the headlines often made it sound like “foreign donors” were contributing to Hillary’s campaign rather than her family’s charitable non-profit. That’s where all this started. With the release of more emails, major media outlets and political commentators began to envision problems in terms of optics, if not actual conflicts of interest. And so it is likely that if Hillary is elected president, the foundation will either cease to exist or the initiatives will be taken over by some other groups.
It seems to me that an awful lot of information has been left out of this discussion. Perhaps a few facts are in order. First of all, when it comes to foreign donors, that has actually been part of the Foundation’s vision from the beginning.
A big part of their work is developing public/private partnerships where private money is used to leverage local government investment in their areas of interest (global health and wellness, opportunity for girls and women, childhood obesity, economic opportunity and growth, and addressing the effects of climate change).
Secondly, based on the Foundation’s 990 and the Clinton’s tax returns, it is clear that neither Bill, Hillary nor Chelsea have ever received a salary or any other compensation from the foundation. Quite the opposite is true. In 2015, the Clinton’s actually donated $1 million to the foundation. In other words, neither Hillary’s campaign nor the Clinton’s themselves have profited from this work.
Thirdly, what about the emails that show collusion between Clinton’s work at the State Department and the foundation. I’m going to let Kevin Drum summarize that one.
On the flip side, what has the Clinton Foundation accomplished?
I understand the reason the Clinton’s have decided that they should discontinue involvement in these efforts when/if she is elected president. But let’s be clear that it has nothing to do with any impropriety on their part or the Foundation’s. And I’d like to associate myself with these remarks from Neera Tanden.
Neera Tanden @neeratanden
Weird to me the lack of ambivalence in good hearted people at the idea of closing a charity that helps global poor 1 https://twitter.com/ericboehlert/status/767430984522276864 …
1:42 PM - 21 Aug 2016
P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) – which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an “A” rating from that watchdog.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/22/some-facts-about-the-clinton-foundation/
Some Facts About the Clinton Foundation
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 22, 2016 3:40 PM
When the right wing started talking about the Clinton Foundation early in this election season, the headlines often made it sound like “foreign donors” were contributing to Hillary’s campaign rather than her family’s charitable non-profit. That’s where all this started. With the release of more emails, major media outlets and political commentators began to envision problems in terms of optics, if not actual conflicts of interest. And so it is likely that if Hillary is elected president, the foundation will either cease to exist or the initiatives will be taken over by some other groups.
It seems to me that an awful lot of information has been left out of this discussion. Perhaps a few facts are in order. First of all, when it comes to foreign donors, that has actually been part of the Foundation’s vision from the beginning.
We believe that the best way to unlock human potential is through the power of creative collaboration. That’s why we build partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, leaner, and better; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow.
A big part of their work is developing public/private partnerships where private money is used to leverage local government investment in their areas of interest (global health and wellness, opportunity for girls and women, childhood obesity, economic opportunity and growth, and addressing the effects of climate change).
Secondly, based on the Foundation’s 990 and the Clinton’s tax returns, it is clear that neither Bill, Hillary nor Chelsea have ever received a salary or any other compensation from the foundation. Quite the opposite is true. In 2015, the Clinton’s actually donated $1 million to the foundation. In other words, neither Hillary’s campaign nor the Clinton’s themselves have profited from this work.
Thirdly, what about the emails that show collusion between Clinton’s work at the State Department and the foundation. I’m going to let Kevin Drum summarize that one.
So what about the latest batch of emails. Do they really show “seedy dealings” by Team Hillary?
I dunno. One is from a Clinton Foundation executive asking a Hillary aide if she can set up a meeting for a big donor with someone at State. The Hillary aide says she’ll see what she can do, and then blows it off. In another, a foundation executive asks for help getting someone a job. He’s told that everyone already knows about the guy, and “Personnel has been sending him options.” In other words, he’s blown off. In yet another, it turns out that a Clinton aide spent some of her own time helping the foundation look for a new CEO.
So….what? People in Washington schmooze with people they know to help other people they know? Shocking, isn’t it? My guess is that the average aide to a cabinet member gets a dozen things like this a week. If all we can find here are two in four years—both of which were basically blown off—the real lesson isn’t that Hillary Clinton’s State Department was seedy. Just the opposite. It was almost pathologically honest.
I dunno. One is from a Clinton Foundation executive asking a Hillary aide if she can set up a meeting for a big donor with someone at State. The Hillary aide says she’ll see what she can do, and then blows it off. In another, a foundation executive asks for help getting someone a job. He’s told that everyone already knows about the guy, and “Personnel has been sending him options.” In other words, he’s blown off. In yet another, it turns out that a Clinton aide spent some of her own time helping the foundation look for a new CEO.
So….what? People in Washington schmooze with people they know to help other people they know? Shocking, isn’t it? My guess is that the average aide to a cabinet member gets a dozen things like this a week. If all we can find here are two in four years—both of which were basically blown off—the real lesson isn’t that Hillary Clinton’s State Department was seedy. Just the opposite. It was almost pathologically honest.
On the flip side, what has the Clinton Foundation accomplished?
The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he [Bill Clinton] noted at the initiative’s annual meeting…
Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said…
The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 “commitments to action” – concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem – by its members.
One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.
Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said…
The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 “commitments to action” – concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem – by its members.
One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.
I understand the reason the Clinton’s have decided that they should discontinue involvement in these efforts when/if she is elected president. But let’s be clear that it has nothing to do with any impropriety on their part or the Foundation’s. And I’d like to associate myself with these remarks from Neera Tanden.
Neera Tanden @neeratanden
Weird to me the lack of ambivalence in good hearted people at the idea of closing a charity that helps global poor 1 https://twitter.com/ericboehlert/status/767430984522276864 …
1:42 PM - 21 Aug 2016
P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) – which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an “A” rating from that watchdog.
Last edited:
I don't hate the Clinton's FYI, I will vote for her, if she makes it.
I really, really hate the fact we are stuck with her.
I realize there are a few of you who really love the Clinton's and can't imagine that they could do ANYTHING negative, but the "pay to play" stuff will come out, if it's not already.