The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[CuckFumbustion]

He was in pretty good company: http://bigfrog104.com/presidential-extramarital-affairs/

And those are just the ones we know about......

If you had to guess, if you put ALL of the senators and ALL of the congressmen in one pot, say over the past 20 years, what percentage of them would you say were involved in extramarital affairs keeping in mind what comes with one who has power.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's close to 80%.

Power is an aphrodisiac. How strong is it? Well perhaps even Nixon had a mistress whom he used to play chess with.
MI6 took spy snaps of Nixon and Chinese ‘mistress’

I'm more concerned with how a politician handles themselves when they are trying to not get caught. Like how Todd Courser created some false messages to, in his mind, cover his tracks. He caused more damage to others and his family then If he simply came out with it.
Inside Michigan State Representative's Attempt to Cover-Up Secret Affair With a Fake Sex Scandal

@grokit Thanks for revealing yet another potential cover-up by Monsanto.
Zika HOAX exposed by South American doctors: Brain deformations caused by larvicide chemical linked to Monsanto; GM mosquitoes a 'total failure'

This fits right in with how insecticide companies using 'neonicotinoids' have been wiping out honey bees.

So that's the connection. with the drop of the bee population. Thanks for clearing that up.
EPA’s preliminary risk assessment pegs insecticides as dangerous for honey bees

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees

I might just try to watch part of the Dem debate. Since we are getting a few steps closer to deciding on a Democrat.

 

[cybrguy]

Clinton finally knows what she wants to say about Bernie Sanders

02/12/16 08:00 AM—Updated 02/12/16 08:10 AM

By Steve Benen
On Wednesday night, Bernie Sanders appeared on MSNBC and noted a persistent political challenge. “There’s a huge gap right now between Congress and the American people. What presidential leadership is about closing that gap,” he said. Asked if he believed President Obama had closed that gap, Sanders added, “No, I don’t. I mean, I think he has made the effort.”

For Democrats, this perspective has it largely backwards – if there’s a “huge gap right now between Congress and the American people,” Dems argue, it’s because Congress is run by radicalized Republicans who won’t compromise and who remain indifferent to pressing national needs. Suggesting the White House is somehow to blame is central to the GOP’s pitch.

Which, of course, makes it precisely the sort of rhetoric that Hillary Clinton is eager to use against her rival. Indeed, it led to an exchange in last night’s debate in Milwaukee that helped capture much of what the Democratic primary is all about. As MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald reported:

“The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans,” Clinton said.

Sanders, clearly agitated, called that a “low blow” and shot back, “one of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

“Last I heard, a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job,” he said, his voice growing louder.​

Clinton had a detailed response at the ready. “You know, senator, what I am concerned about, is not disagreement on issues, saying that this is what I would rather do, I don’t agree with the president on that, calling the president ‘weak,’ calling him a ‘disappointment,’ calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for re-election in 2012, you know, I think that goes further than saying we have our disagreements.”

For the former Secretary of State, President Obama is both sword and shield. When pressed on some of the more controversial aspects of her record, Clinton notes the similarities between her and the president – effectively daring Sanders to condemn Obama directly. When given the opportunity to go on the offensive, Clinton uses Obama to question the independent senator’s loyalty and commitment to a Democratic agenda.

It’s a message that played well among Dems in Milwaukee, but just as importantly, it’s likely to land on fertile soil in South Carolina, where Democrats give the president a 93% approval rating.

Just as importantly, I got the sense Clinton, after months of campaigning, finally figured out what she wanted to say about the persistent opponent who’s turned out to be far stronger than expected. It came, oddly enough, in Clinton’s closing statement in the final couple of minutes of the event.

“You know, we agree that we’ve got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again. But here’s the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on.

“And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We’ve got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it before, the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right.

“But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I’m going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don’t think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.”​

There’s no denying the fact that Sanders is a disciplined candidate with a powerful message: big banks and the very wealthy have rigged the economy in their favor, squeezing the middle class and creating unsustainable economic inequality. But if you listen to Sanders in a forum such as a debate, it’s obvious that he routinely works these concerns into as many answers as humanly possible. Whether you consider his focus “specific” or “narrow” depends largely on whether or not you’re inclined to support him.

But Clinton seems to believe she can start using this specificity against Sanders, characterizing him as a “single-issue candidate.” Clinton hopes Democrats start to see Sanders, who has admitted more than once that his campaign is doing far better than even he expected, as a protest candidate highlighting the issue he cares most about – which isn’t necessarily bad, but which doesn’t necessarily make him presidential material, either.

The White House is about breadth and complexity, the argument goes, and even if you agree with Sanders, it’s hard to deny his principal focus on the one issue that drives and motivates him.

As Slate’s Jamelle Bouie put it, “She paints the Vermont senator as too blinded by his focus to see or understand the unique problems faced by different minority and underprivileged groups, as evidenced by his clear discomfort with topics outside of income inequality…. She zeroes in on Sanders’ great strength – his incredible consistency – and makes it a liability.”

It’s probably the best and most compelling criticism Clinton has come up with to date – a series of similar critiques were tried and rejected – and it’s a safe bet Democrats will be hearing a lot more of it in the weeks and months to come.

 

[His_Highness]

Studying your opponent and turning the opponents strength's into weakness....same thing was done recently when Chris Christie called out Rubio's rehearsed tag line.

The best part was when Christie would purposely attack Rubio with something unforeseen causing Rubio to seek the safety of the tag line. Christie would then call out the repeated tag line with 'there he goes again repeating that line' which unsettled Rubio more causing him to, you guessed it, repeat the tag line again.

The difference between Hillary doing it to Sanders is that Hillary does it with subtlety and guile instead of a direct, belligerent attack.

I'm feeling the bern but I have to admit Hillary did a nice job.

 

[cybrguy]

I think Christy acted pretty effectively as a suicide bomber with that Rubio attack. I don't think Rubio will recover because it effectively emphasized what everyone already worried about with him. I'm not sure that it really hurt Christy that much, but his demise was always a bridgegate trial away anyway...

 

[grokit]

Look Who Just Endorsed Bernie Sanders!
If you’re wondering who has the best plan to protect the economy of the country, 170 of the world’s top economists say the answer is Bernie Sanders.

In a letter endorsing Sanders, their reasons were clearly outlined:

"In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’ plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass Steagall.”

The anger over the 2008 collapse is still a major issue with people on both sides of the political fence. The fact that the American people bailed out the banks that caused millions to lose their homes, their life savings and their jobs has not been forgotten. The anger that those banks have grown larger and have the potential to do even worse harm to the economy and, therefore, the lives of average Americans, is a place where Tea Party Republicans, Occupy protesters and the average American converge. The message Sanders delivers speaks to the desire to see the perpetrators punished and the excesses of Wall Street reined in with reforms that have been proven to work in the past. Despite protestations from those who are against reinstating a 21st century version of the law and are putting forth the argument that it would not have prevented the financial meltdown, Glass Steagall performed brilliantly for 60 years before being watered down by the Reagan administration and being abolished by the Clinton administration.

Below are the individuals who signed the letter:

Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only):

1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
...
170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College


http://samuel-warde.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-endorsed/

 

[howie105]

Studying your opponent and turning the opponents strength's into weakness....same thing was done recently when Chris Christie called out Rubio's rehearsed tag line.

The best part was when Christie would purposely attack Rubio with something unforeseen causing Rubio to seek the safety of the tag line. Christie would then call out the repeated tag line with 'there he goes again repeating that line' which unsettled Rubio more causing him to, you guessed it, repeat the tag line again.

The difference between Hillary doing it to Sanders is that Hillary does it with subtlety and guile instead of a direct, belligerent attack.

I'm feeling the bern but I have to admit Hillary did a nice job.

Clinton was/is not performing up to expectations and was openly hearing about it from her supporters so she did what most politicians do when things start looking weak she cranked it up. The happy we are all friends here in the party presentation is being replaced with a more aggressive approach towards Sanders. That path has the usual associated pitfalls, most obvious in this case is possibile alienation of the party opposition to the point they aren’t going to be there later if you need them and aggression makes you look mean which plays into one of the prescriptions of Clinton some folks already have. You just have to love watching this whole dance play out.

 

[cybrguy]

Debate promises reinforce differences between Dem candidates

02/12/16 08:40 AM—Updated 02/12/16 08:42 AM

Fairly early on in last night’s Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders, responding to a question about the criminal justice system, made a vow that drew hearty applause from the Milwaukee audience.

“Here is a pledge I’ve made throughout this campaign, and it’s really not a very radical pledge,” Sanders said. “When we have more people in jail, disproportionately African American and Latino, than China does, a communist authoritarian society four times our size. Here’s my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country.”

It’s a sentiment that nearly all Democrats (and even many Republicans) would find compelling, but NYU’s Mark Kleiman highlighted a problem: it’s a promise Sanders wouldn’t be able to keep.

If we elide the distinction between prisons (holding people convicted of serious crimes) and jails (holding people convicted of minor crimes and people awaiting trial), it is true and important that the U.S. leads the world in incarceration. That’s a disgrace. (I seem to recall having written a book on the topic.) We should do something about that, and there are things to do about it. A President can do some of them.

But of the 2.3 million people behind bars in this country, fewer than 10% are Federal prisoners. The rest are in state prisons and local jails. If the President were to release all of the Federal prisoners, we would still, as a country, have more prisoners than any other country. So Sen. Sanders was very specifically making a promise he has no way of keeping. Either he knows that or he does not.​

There’s no doubt that Sanders’ pledge is well intentioned, but in a case like this, the details get in the way.

All of which reinforces an important difference between Sanders and Hillary Clinton: the former thinks big and bold, without too much concern for realism or practical limits, while the latter is almost preoccupied with not over-promising.

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum had a funny piece on this dynamic overnight, noting Sanders’ grand plans – single-payer health care, free college, an overhauled justice system, etc. – to which Clinton recommends caution and step-by-step progress.

[T]his is the bind Hillary Clinton is in. Bernie Sanders delivers all these big, stemwinding proposals and doesn’t really have to explain how he’s going to pass any of them or get them paid for. But he sure is visionary!

Hillary, conversely, is just constitutionally incapable of talking like this. When a problem is raised, her mind instantly starts thinking about what works and who will vote for it and where the payfors are going to come from. And that means she sounds like an old fuddy duddy patiently explaining why your bright idea won’t work. No wonder young voters don’t care much for her.​

For all the talk about Clinton’s embrace of President Obama – and Sanders’ belief that the president hasn’t gone far enough – it’s the Vermont senator who’s adopted Candidate Obama’s unbridled optimism about what’s possible. No matter the issue, Sanders doesn’t want to talk about what’s realistic; he wants to tell his supporters, “Yes we can!”

Clinton’s response, in effect, is, “Well, maybe! If we recognize institutional and fiscal limits! And work with stakeholders in a deliberate way! And accept the fact that federal policymaking is incredibly difficult and we won’t get everything we want all at once!”

Idealism vs. realism in a nutshell.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

I think Christy acted pretty effectively as a suicide bomber with that Rubio attack. I don't think Rubio will recover because it effectively emphasized what everyone already worried about with him. I'm not sure that it really hurt Christy that much, but his demise was always a bridgegate trial away anyway...

Is there enough scandal to sink his chance as a VP. I mean Christie. Part of me says he might pair up with Jeb. He is still in the race for some purpose.

Studying your opponent and turning the opponents strength's into weakness....same thing was done recently when Chris Christie called out Rubio's rehearsed tag line.

The best part was when Christie would purposely attack Rubio with something unforeseen causing Rubio to seek the safety of the tag line. Christie would then call out the repeated tag line with 'there he goes again repeating that line' which unsettled Rubio more causing him to, you guessed it, repeat the tag line again.

The difference between Hillary doing it to Sanders is that Hillary does it with subtlety and guile instead of a direct, belligerent attack.

I'm feeling the bern but I have to admit Hillary did a nice job.

I was already tired of Rubio's taglines, O.K all the Canidates's taglines.
Christy may very well have been as tired Rubio repeating himself as I was. Truth is they all do it to a certain extent. For me it just became self referential.
Christy would minutes later use his own "The American People are _____ " statements and shyed away from some of the more direct questions. Which nobody else seem to pick up on. He just says it with more intention.

The difference between Hillary doing it to Sanders is that Hillary does it with subtlety and guile instead of a direct, belligerent attack.

+1 I don't have a dog in this fight. So It is easier for me to pick up on that.

Debates are hard for me to watch because there is very little solid debate or information for me going on within the 2 hour format. I'm usually aware of most of the things they are about to reveal to a newer audience, So I try not to let that be an interpretation of them repeating the same message to the point of nausea.

But, I need something more comprehensive to make a more informed decision. Isn't C-Span hosting debates anymore? I likes the raw quality of hearing and seeing what is going on the floor minutes before the event takes place. Then you hear everybody getting themselves warmed up for the event. No slick intro or talking head telling you what is about to happen. Just room noise and announcers prepping themselves minutes before the event. Perfect way to get settled in. IMO

 

[His_Highness]

@CuckFumbustion - Thanks for reminding me ...... I'm satisfied with the 'who you stand for' and 'what you'll do' but often find myself yelling 'How' will you do it!!!

 

[CuckFumbustion]

@CuckFumbustion - Thanks for reminding me ...... I'm satisfied with the 'who you stand for' and 'what you'll do' but often find myself yelling 'How' will you do it!!!

+1 on that across the board. "How will you do it?' or how about "How will we pay for it?' or 'Will we get the return from it as promised?'. The salient points rarely seemed to be addressed. I can understand anybody who doesn't follow politics closely full time being frustrated by all of this.

Examine closely how certain bills actually do get passed or vetoed and you already know that is not how the sausage is made. Contrast that to the rhetoric being put out and it casts an entirely different picture. Watching a debate is almost a sifting process for me.

 

[cybrguy]

Report: Iranian Official Says GOPers Tried To Stall Prisoner Swap For 2016 Election

ByTierney Sneed
PublishedFebruary 11, 2016, 1:02 PM EST


An Iranian official said "Republican rivals of the current US administration" attempted to stall last month's Iranian-U.S. prisoner swap until the eve of the U.S. presidential election, Tasnim News Agency reported.

According to the semi-official Iranian news outlet, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, made the claims during a speech Thursday at a rally in Yazd, Iran.

"In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current US administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people [American prisoners] and continue this process [of talks] until the eve of US presidential elections,” Shamkhani said, according to Tasnim.

"We acted upon our independent resolve and moved the process forward,” Shamkhani said.
The prisoner swap Shamkhani referred to included Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and three other U.S. citizens imprisoned in Iran, who were freed in exchange for the release of seven Iranians.

The swap was negotiated alongside the White House's nuclear deal with Iran, and the prisoners were released just before the economic sanctions on Iran were set to lift as part of the nuclear deal.
-----------------
How Patriotic...

 

[CuckFumbustion]

"In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current US administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people [American prisoners] and continue this process [of talks] until the eve of US presidential elections,” Shamkhani said, according to Tasnim.

Reminds me a little of this with the Reagan/Carter election. Just how calculated are these things? October Surprise conspiracy theory

 

[cybrguy]

What Is Scarier Than Donald Trump?
By David Rothkopf 21 hours ago

Donald Trump, at first glance, appears to be a better punchline than he is a candidate. Not a day goes by when someone doesn’t quip to me about his or her plans to move to Canada or New Zealand if he is elected. Websites are having a field day with his hair. (“#trumpyourcat” is a particular favorite.) Comedians and impressionists love him. He’s a laff riot. And then he goes and wins the New Hampshire primary. There’s nothing funny about that.

It is certainly an indictment of America’s electoral system that a candidate who has spewed racism can win an election for village dog catcher much less a primary to represent one of our two political parties in the contest for the presidency. In that indictment, there is plenty of blame to go around. The media have legitimized Trump by taking him seriously and effectively handing over their studios and microphones to him on his terms. They joke with him in bantering interviews and yet fail to really dig into his past, his bankruptcies, his dubious business partners, his record of over-promising and under-delivering to those who had placed their trust — and their cash — with him.

Plenty of blame lies with Trump, who has consistently chosen to take the low road on the campaign trail unless an even lower one was available to him. By attacking Mexicans and Muslims and cherished American values, he has stirred up hatred and fear whenever he thought it would play to his advantage. He has promised to violate our Constitution and once again ridiculed our values with his assertion that he would do something “much worse” than waterboarding terrorists. He is repulsive. But he has also demonstrated enough smarts that we can know this kind of vileness is a choice. He believes it is working for him…because it is.

And it’s for this reason, that far worse than Trump are those who are choosing to vote for him. They argue that he is an alternative to the status quo and that alone is sufficient justification for giving such a man a better chance at becoming president with each of their votes. They buy into his proposed false choice between the corruption and dysfunction of Washington and “anything else.” They ignore his utter lack of qualifications. They sidestep his twisted and repugnant character or lack thereof. They are more to blame than the candidate. Any idiot can declare he wants to be president of the United States; it takes a real special kind of disregard for facts, national interests, our children’s future, and America’s standing in the world to actually vote for such an idiot.

Although again, there is plenty of blame to go around. Republican commentators and candidates who for decades have denigrated government, have embraced the neo-Orwellian nonsense that all government is bad and all markets are good, and who have then chosen to support dysfunction over cooperation that might inadvertently benefit their opponents have sent a message these voters have received: Your vote, your government doesn’t matter. The markets and “family values” will take care of things…though that’s never been the case in all of human history. Though, as FP contributor Rula Jebreal recently pointed out at the opening of the New York Live Arts Idea Festival in New York City, there is an apparent contradiction in the “values” being espoused by some GOP presidential candidates who are quick to deny a woman’s right to choose so as to “protect the life of the unborn,” but nonetheless unflinchingly embrace the carpet-bombing of the Middle East, which is sure to claim untold numbers of innocents.

But as bad as Trump and his enablers in the media or among GOP leadership are, they are not the most worrisome thing about the real estate mogul’s ascendancy. Trump will win other primaries. He may even be the GOP candidate for president –although that still seems an unlikely outcome to me as establishment forces coalesce around an ever-smaller field of viable options. But he is unlikely to win the presidency. His negatives are too high. He has enough support to win pluralities within the GOP but the vast majority of Americans would never vote for him. He will lose in the end and he will crawl back into the reality television swamp from which he oozed months ago.

His supporters, however, will remain. As will their anger. They will be a force in American politics for years as the changing demographics and economic models of this country and the likelihood of continuing dysfunction in Washington will continue to feed the anxiety that triggers their bitterness, irrationality, and irresponsibility. They are not the Tea Party with its libertarian message founded on an economic rationale and at least tenuous philosophical rationale. They are Sarah Palin voters gone even further off the tracks. They are the bad seeds of an American version of Europe’s dangerous nationalist parties — France’s National Front, Italy’s Northern League, the U.K.’s UKIP, or Hungary’s Jobbik. (What’s more, they crave an authoritarian boss to set things right, as recent articles and polls have indicated.)

And while Trump may soon depart the campaign trail in search of whatever life forms he must next consume to satisfy his titanic narcissism, he will leave behind a cadre of Americans — a solid core of whom are white, male, and not particularly well-educated — who harbor the notion that the world was once a better place for them and that those days are permanently over. (The world was never a particularly kind place to these alienated working and middle class voters or their forebears, even if they were white and male. They are nostalgic for a time that didn’t really exist. Because class issues always left their antecedents feeling disenfranchised, out of the club, angry at the establishment. But things seem worse now as we live at the tipping point when by a a few decades’ time minority populations will outnumber the former majority and where economic growth no longer seems to be creating the kind of jobs that once were the bread and butter of the middle class — notably those in our atrophying manufacturing sector — and the richest keep getting richer and leaving everyone else farther and farther behind.)

We can laugh at Trump. But we cannot and must not laugh at what is fueling his candidacy. Parties that evolve from feelings of disaffection and alienation like those in Europe today and in the past are capable of horrors as they have so often proven. For that reason no American should see the recent Trump victory as anything less than a call to arms to stop the further degradation of U.S. democracy by thugs. We must recognize that if we don’t hear the concerns that are fueling the rise of this group, if we don’t see and challenge the missteps by media elites and pundits who have enabled the legitimization of their views, then we are inviting the rise of forces that are a greater threat to our country — and its values — than any of the terrorists or foreign bogeymen that have dominated the conversations in our presidential debates to date.

 

[Adobewan]

Report: Iranian Official Says GOPers Tried To Stall Prisoner Swap For 2016 Election

ByTierney Sneed
PublishedFebruary 11, 2016, 1:02 PM EST


An Iranian official said "Republican rivals of the current US administration" attempted to stall last month's Iranian-U.S. prisoner swap until the eve of the U.S. presidential election, Tasnim News Agency reported.

According to the semi-official Iranian news outlet, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, made the claims during a speech Thursday at a rally in Yazd, Iran.

"In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current US administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people [American prisoners] and continue this process [of talks] until the eve of US presidential elections,” Shamkhani said, according to Tasnim.

"We acted upon our independent resolve and moved the process forward,” Shamkhani said.
The prisoner swap Shamkhani referred to included Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and three other U.S. citizens imprisoned in Iran, who were freed in exchange for the release of seven Iranians.

The swap was negotiated alongside the White House's nuclear deal with Iran, and the prisoners were released just before the economic sanctions on Iran were set to lift as part of the nuclear deal.
-----------------
How Patriotic...

"Liked" @cybrguy post, but again, it would be great if we had a "Hate" or "WTF?!" button for posts we're glad were shared but have content you don't "like".

What Is Scarier Than Donald Trump?
By David Rothkopf 21 hours ago

Donald Trump, at first glance, appears to be a better punchline than he is a candidate. Not a day goes by when someone doesn’t quip to me about his or her plans to move to Canada or New Zealand if he is elected. Websites are having a field day with his hair. (“#trumpyourcat” is a particular favorite.) Comedians and impressionists love him. He’s a laff riot. And then he goes and wins the New Hampshire primary. There’s nothing funny about that.

It is certainly an indictment of America’s electoral system that a candidate who has spewed racism can win an election for village dog catcher much less a primary to represent one of our two political parties in the contest for the presidency. In that indictment, there is plenty of blame to go around. The media have legitimized Trump by taking him seriously and effectively handing over their studios and microphones to him on his terms. They joke with him in bantering interviews and yet fail to really dig into his past, his bankruptcies, his dubious business partners, his record of over-promising and under-delivering to those who had placed their trust — and their cash — with him.

Plenty of blame lies with Trump, who has consistently chosen to take the low road on the campaign trail unless an even lower one was available to him. By attacking Mexicans and Muslims and cherished American values, he has stirred up hatred and fear whenever he thought it would play to his advantage. He has promised to violate our Constitution and once again ridiculed our values with his assertion that he would do something “much worse” than waterboarding terrorists. He is repulsive. But he has also demonstrated enough smarts that we can know this kind of vileness is a choice. He believes it is working for him…because it is.

And it’s for this reason, that far worse than Trump are those who are choosing to vote for him. They argue that he is an alternative to the status quo and that alone is sufficient justification for giving such a man a better chance at becoming president with each of their votes. They buy into his proposed false choice between the corruption and dysfunction of Washington and “anything else.” They ignore his utter lack of qualifications. They sidestep his twisted and repugnant character or lack thereof. They are more to blame than the candidate. Any idiot can declare he wants to be president of the United States; it takes a real special kind of disregard for facts, national interests, our children’s future, and America’s standing in the world to actually vote for such an idiot.

Although again, there is plenty of blame to go around. Republican commentators and candidates who for decades have denigrated government, have embraced the neo-Orwellian nonsense that all government is bad and all markets are good, and who have then chosen to support dysfunction over cooperation that might inadvertently benefit their opponents have sent a message these voters have received: Your vote, your government doesn’t matter. The markets and “family values” will take care of things…though that’s never been the case in all of human history. Though, as FP contributor Rula Jebreal recently pointed out at the opening of the New York Live Arts Idea Festival in New York City, there is an apparent contradiction in the “values” being espoused by some GOP presidential candidates who are quick to deny a woman’s right to choose so as to “protect the life of the unborn,” but nonetheless unflinchingly embrace the carpet-bombing of the Middle East, which is sure to claim untold numbers of innocents.

But as bad as Trump and his enablers in the media or among GOP leadership are, they are not the most worrisome thing about the real estate mogul’s ascendancy. Trump will win other primaries. He may even be the GOP candidate for president –although that still seems an unlikely outcome to me as establishment forces coalesce around an ever-smaller field of viable options. But he is unlikely to win the presidency. His negatives are too high. He has enough support to win pluralities within the GOP but the vast majority of Americans would never vote for him. He will lose in the end and he will crawl back into the reality television swamp from which he oozed months ago.

His supporters, however, will remain. As will their anger. They will be a force in American politics for years as the changing demographics and economic models of this country and the likelihood of continuing dysfunction in Washington will continue to feed the anxiety that triggers their bitterness, irrationality, and irresponsibility. They are not the Tea Party with its libertarian message founded on an economic rationale and at least tenuous philosophical rationale. They are Sarah Palin voters gone even further off the tracks. They are the bad seeds of an American version of Europe’s dangerous nationalist parties — France’s National Front, Italy’s Northern League, the U.K.’s UKIP, or Hungary’s Jobbik. (What’s more, they crave an authoritarian boss to set things right, as recent articles and polls have indicated.)

And while Trump may soon depart the campaign trail in search of whatever life forms he must next consume to satisfy his titanic narcissism, he will leave behind a cadre of Americans — a solid core of whom are white, male, and not particularly well-educated — who harbor the notion that the world was once a better place for them and that those days are permanently over. (The world was never a particularly kind place to these alienated working and middle class voters or their forebears, even if they were white and male. They are nostalgic for a time that didn’t really exist. Because class issues always left their antecedents feeling disenfranchised, out of the club, angry at the establishment. But things seem worse now as we live at the tipping point when by a a few decades’ time minority populations will outnumber the former majority and where economic growth no longer seems to be creating the kind of jobs that once were the bread and butter of the middle class — notably those in our atrophying manufacturing sector — and the richest keep getting richer and leaving everyone else farther and farther behind.)

We can laugh at Trump. But we cannot and must not laugh at what is fueling his candidacy. Parties that evolve from feelings of disaffection and alienation like those in Europe today and in the past are capable of horrors as they have so often proven. For that reason no American should see the recent Trump victory as anything less than a call to arms to stop the further degradation of U.S. democracy by thugs. We must recognize that if we don’t hear the concerns that are fueling the rise of this group, if we don’t see and challenge the missteps by media elites and pundits who have enabled the legitimization of their views, then we are inviting the rise of forces that are a greater threat to our country — and its values — than any of the terrorists or foreign bogeymen that have dominated the conversations in our presidential debates to date.

Scarier than both Trump and Trump voters, is a system corrupt and perverse enough to drive a shockingly large percentage of Americans into the arms of a con man like Trump.

 

[CarolKing]

This is strictly from the heart, Trump would be disaterious but better than most of the Republicans that are running.

@Gunky i don't know that. It's just my opinion. Take a deep breath, I'm just an amateur political opinion maker on the subject, what the hell do I know. Who knows what he says about cannabis he would actually follow suit on. He could be a disaster but do you have a crystal ball? I don't, I'm just shooting from the hip.

 

[Gunky]

This is strictly from the heart, Trump would be disaterious but better than most of the Republicans that are running.

How can you even know that? He has no real defined policies besides stupid ones (border wall) or cruel ones (torture), illegal ones (killing the relatives of terrorists) or bigoted, xenophobic scapegoating... He exemplifies the notion of a government by men rather than by laws. He's not even a good businessman, he's just a jerk.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

Scarier than both Trump and Trump voters, is a system corrupt and perverse enough to drive a shockingly large percentage of Americans into the arms of a con man like Trump.

I posted some videos of Trump supporters in this thread speaking their minds. I hear some of you snickering out there. Some are disenfranchised but many of them were TV babies who talked only about his success as a businessman. No solid political points to be made on their behalf or being a fed up tea partyier or disenfranchised worker. They just saw him on the TV and then Herp derp. Another Trump supporter.

This is strictly from the heart, Trump would be disaterious but better than most of the Republicans that are running.

Not sure I agree with that, But I can understand your sentiment. It sure does feel like a race to the bottom doesn't it? I laughed when Linsey Graham mentioned choosing between Trump or Cruz as a choice between "being shot or poisoned?". I guess you'd prefer buckshot. Or is Trump supposed to be the poison? Anyway, Can't believe the press hasn't mentioned more of Cruz's bomb dropping 'policy'. He comes off as being pretty twisted person mentioning how much carnage he is willing to commit to 'impress' us.

 

[CuckFumbustion]

One thing about this election season is without doubt. It sure is interesting.

Buckshot and Poison. Yea I think I already know the Secret Service names for these guys are already.

Cast your vote. Is Trump or Cruz Buckshot or Poisen? Choose a side.
I'm casting mine early:
Trump=Buckshot Cruz=Poison Christie=Bludgeon Rubio=Pellet Gun Bush=Choking Hazard

 

[cybrguy]

You are forgetting to blame Obama for the crucifixion, AND the volcano that swallowed Pompeii. You need to include EVERYTHING he is responsible for, after all.​

 

[cybrguy]

Sanders and Trump Prove that Authenticity Works, and That Big Money and Corporate Media Aren’t As Powerful As Some Think

One of the most satisfying storylines of the 2016 election is the befuddlement of establishment intelligentsia at the powerlessness of the traditional tools used to win elections. Under the normal laws of politics, candidates must do obeisance before the gatekeepers of the press—be they from Fox News or the New York Times—or be mercilessly pilloried and hounded out of contention. The normal assumption of politics is also that money wins out: candidates must secure the support of wealthy donors and organizations in order to be competitive, and must be able to spend large sums to win votes. It’s also a truism that disciplined candidates with a very consistent message and skill at only answering the questions they wish they were asked instead of the ones they are actually asked will succeed and be praised for their campaign acumen, while those who shoot from the hip and speak their mind will be gaffe-prone failures.

These unspoken assumptions about politics—that honesty is punished while kowtowing to big money and media gatekeepers is rewarded—are a large reason for the apathy of American voters. Many Americans across the spectrum are turned off from politics completely because they believe the system is so badly rigged that corporate interests and their supposed tools in the media always get their way, and anyone who speaks truth to power is automatically sidelined before they can effect real change.

Until this election cycle it was easy to bathe oneself in cynicism and declare a pox on the whole enterprise.

But not anymore. Each in his own way, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are proving that authenticity can win the day, and that big money and big media aren’t as powerful as many have thought.

Consider Donald Trump, who is engaged in a multi-front war with Fox News, the Koch Brothers, the mouthpieces of the National Review and the entire Republican establishment—and winning. (To a somewhat lesser extent, the nearly universally reviled Ted Cruz can make the same claim.) Wealthy Republican mega-donors who expect to control GOP politics have found themselves sidelined, shocked and flummoxed by the Trump/Cruz phenomenon and its imperviousness to the unprecedented amounts of money being funneled into conservative Super PACs. Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise has been more risible than rising, wasting around $100 million only to see its candidate flounder in the polls. Trump, meanwhile, has spent comparative little. His campaign has focused on winning earned media and organic support from the GOP base, and as a result Trump remains in a dominant position to become the Republican nominee.

But it’s not just Trump who is bucking the power of big money. It’s also Bernie Sanders, who started so far behind his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that he was considered little more than a message candidate due to his comparative lack of funding and support. Clinton and her team made the bet that whatever messaging damage she might do to herself by accepting money from Super PACs and wealthy interest groups would be more than offset by the power of that financial backing to win votes and support. But Sanders’s small dollar donor strategy has turned out to be far more effective not only because it creates a sustainable and expanding fundraising juggernaut, but also because it allows the Sanders campaign to maintain a compelling and authentic brand image. Both Trump and Sanders can rightly claim, each in their own way, not to have been bought by the special interests.

And both are succeeding because of it.

Nor has the press been any more effective in pushing more status quo candidates forward to victory. In Trump’s case, the entire media world has been fervently hostile. Yes, the press has boosted Trump’s campaign by continuing to give him coverage (he’s great for ratings, after all), but the coverage on all sides has been relentlessly negative. It’s an old adage that there’s no such thing as bad press, but that has only been regarded as true up to a point. Nearly everyone in journalism spent months laughing Trump off as a flavor-of-the-week candidate with no staying power, based on both a genuine collective delusion and a wishful thinking attempt at prophecy fulfillment. As the campaign wore on, both mainstream and liberal press organs have lambasted Trump for every outrageous gaffe and statement with no effect. The conservative National Review dedicated an entire issue to attacking Trump. The mighty Fox News, meanwhile, has been cowed and sent into disarray by Trump’s apparent triumph in their ongoing feud. Ted Cruz, for his part, has been savaged almost as much as Trump from every ideological corner, and nonetheless has moved into a strong 2nd place.

And Bernie Sanders? It can easily be argued that Sanders would have gained far more traction much faster had the entire traditional media establishment not made the conscious decision to ignore his campaign for months. Press outlets that are belatedly taking Sanders seriously now often report in near bewilderment about his surprisingly strong showing in Iowa and crushing victory in New Hampshire. A large number of Democratic voters are only just now learning about Sanders and his platform, and yet his campaign is still poised to perform well as the race moves to Nevada and a more diverse electorate.

Threaded through this narrative is the question of authenticity and message discipline. Marco Rubio is easily the most disciplined candidate on either side of the aisle, repeating his stump speech talking points with mindless precision in response to any question—a tendency for which he was often praised by pundits and viewed as a rising star by establishment donors. But instead of catapulting him to the front of the pack, his robotic delivery was exposed by Chris Christie during the last debate and caused his poll numbers to rapidly deflate. Donald Trump, by contrast, has famously little message discipline yet continues to soar largely on account of his perceived authenticity. On the Democratic side, of course, Hillary Clinton is perceived as one of the most reliable and careful candidates on the stump. Bernie Sanders does hammer away at his messages about inequality and Wall Street, but can become irritable and sidetracked by unexpected events and hostile questions. And yet, as with Trump, all the momentum is with Sanders not in spite of that fact but because of it.

Much as cynics and jaded pundits might declare otherwise, money and media don’t have as much control as is often believed. Authenticity is a blessing even at the price of the occasional gaffe, while relentless message discipline grates as inauthentic.
Voters really do matter; issues matter; passion matters.

Many may cringe at what they see as uncouth discourse and populist strategies taking control of our politics. But it’s inspiring to know that there is still hope in America on both sides of the aisle for a politics based on appealing to the actual core passions and desires of the voters, rather than the narrowly constrained support of moneyed interests and collusive media gatekeepers.

 

[Gunky]

Consider Donald Trump, who is engaged in a multi-front war with Fox News, the Koch Brothers, the mouthpieces of the National Review and the entire Republican establishment—and winning. (To a somewhat lesser extent, the nearly universally reviled Ted Cruz can make the same claim.)

If 33% favorable rating and 56% unfavorable counts as "winning", yeah I guess you could say Trump is "winning". The author of the piece, under guise of attacking the establishment and media, ends up doing a media con job on readers himself. The entire narrative of Trump as upstart anti-establishment winner is overblown bullshit. Trump's support is pretty much 100% congruent to the great unwashed bigoted, lower-class, poorly educated white segment of our population. That's about a third of republican voters, maybe a little more. Somewhat less for the general population. Yay for Trump, he consistently brings out the haters! What a winner, eh? Stupid media meta-narrative!

 

[cybrguy]

What is most common between Bernie and Donald is that they are both selling the public a bogus bill of goods. Neither can accomplish what they promise they intend to do, but it doesn't matter to their followers because they are so angry with the staus quo that they will support anyone who promises to destroy it. The fact that they cant do what they promise (many of their followers must realize this) is less important than expressing their anger.

Sadly, what they don't realize is that selecting EITHER of them to occupy the White House would do incredible damage, not just to America, but to how we are viewed around the world and any influence we may have in moving humanity forward. And should we lose that influence, who gets it as a result may lead to the next world war...

This is pretty scary stuff...

 

[CarolKing]

Antonin Scalia dead at age 79. He was nominated by Ronald Reagen. This will change the supreme court big time. He was a conservative. Thank goodness Obama will be able to appoint someone else. The republicans will argue with whomever Obama nominates.

 

[CarolKing]

Ted Cruz just said that the next president should nominate the next successor. That would be too long of a time to wait, 11 months.

Watch these assholes not allow any of Obama's nominations. The American people can watch this fiasco.

 

[cybrguy]

One of the many reasons holding the Senate is so important.