The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Joel W.]

So Bernie once talked to a guy back in 81' for 30 mins on the phone without being asked who he (Bernie) was and then Bernie answered, "I'm Bernie"

Wow, that is the first "dirt" I have ever heard on Bernie.

I will have to rethink everything now.

 

[Farid]

Hillary voted for the Iraq war, an illegal war which created ISIS. You'd have to convince me Sanders is a child molester to get me to believe he could possibly be more evil than that.

 

[grokit]

The hits just keep coming (from 3 different articles)...


Hillary Clinton Linked to Company Being Sued over Flint Water Crisis

"Adding to a mounting list of scandals under the family’s belt, the Clintons have now been tied to the Flint water crisis. As the Daily Caller reports, a top executive of the same agency facing multiple lawsuits for its role in poisoning the children of Flint also has ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and provides free PR for the Clinton Global Initiative."

http://theantimedia.org/hillary-clinton-flint-water-crisis/


"LAN is named in at least nine lawsuits after being “hired to oversee a refit of the city’s nearly century-old Water Treatment Plant when Flint separated from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in April 2014,” reports Crain’s Detroit.

"What’s more, in an entirely off the wall coincidence, LAN, aside from being implicated in multiple lawsuits, also has ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and provides free PR for the Clinton Global Initiative, reports Claire Bernish, writing for the Antimedia.org."

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ke...-flint-water-foreman-mysteriously-drops-dead/


"Imagine discovering the government — you perhaps took for granted — poisoned your entire community, but continued forcing you to pay the inflated bills for toxically tainted water. But instead of admitting its mistakes and taking responsibility, that same government — and the state’s governor — then also obligated you to pay the tab for its own unjustifiable defense. Worse still, imagine meager solutions were available in the form of donated water drops — but the government didn’t bother to inform you they were even taking place.

"Imagine the government sought to quash the issue by spying on those who dared speak up on social media. Now, imagine those who not only spoke up, but brought action against this blatantly corrupted government suddenly turned up dead.

"This is life — an abhorrently inexcusable reality — for the residents of Flint."

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/activists-from-all-over-deliver-aid-to-flint.html

 

[TeeJay1952]

Tucker Carlson's website.

 

[thisperson]

"There is a war going on for your mind." -Flobots

Red flags went up in my head when I read of the deaths. Coincidence? Who knows for sure.

 

[Snappo]

The hits just keep coming (from 3 different articles)...


Hillary Clinton Linked to Company Being Sued over Flint Water Crisis

"Adding to a mounting list of scandals under the family’s belt, the Clintons have now been tied to the Flint water crisis. As the Daily Caller reports, a top executive of the same agency facing multiple lawsuits for its role in poisoning the children of Flint also has ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and provides free PR for the Clinton Global Initiative."

http://theantimedia.org/hillary-clinton-flint-water-crisis/


"LAN is named in at least nine lawsuits after being “hired to oversee a refit of the city’s nearly century-old Water Treatment Plant when Flint separated from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in April 2014,” reports Crain’s Detroit.

"What’s more, in an entirely off the wall coincidence, LAN, aside from being implicated in multiple lawsuits, also has ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and provides free PR for the Clinton Global Initiative, reports Claire Bernish, writing for the Antimedia.org."

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ke...-flint-water-foreman-mysteriously-drops-dead/


"Imagine discovering the government — you perhaps took for granted — poisoned your entire community, but continued forcing you to pay the inflated bills for toxically tainted water. But instead of admitting its mistakes and taking responsibility, that same government — and the state’s governor — then also obligated you to pay the tab for its own unjustifiable defense. Worse still, imagine meager solutions were available in the form of donated water drops — but the government didn’t bother to inform you they were even taking place.

"Imagine the government sought to quash the issue by spying on those who dared speak up on social media. Now, imagine those who not only spoke up, but brought action against this blatantly corrupted government suddenly turned up dead.

"This is life — an abhorrently inexcusable reality — for the residents of Flint."

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/activists-from-all-over-deliver-aid-to-flint.html

I betcha Trump's gonna play this one to the hilt, and even tie-in, by implications most foul, Foster's mysterious death... hey... all the hokey pokey tabloids already did it, so Trump would just be piecing together the gossipy little snipits already out there, little hands up in the air w/shoulders hunched gesturing for his "I'm only the messenger, don't shoot" innocence.

 

[grokit]

Hillary Is NOT Ahead By 3 Million Votes And That’s Just Math

While the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the [mainstream] media like to say that Hillary is winning by huge numbers, the math tells a different story.

In the current primary race, we keep hearing that Hillary Clinton is ahead by 3 million votes. In fact, it’s all we hear at events and from the corporate media – that she has the lead in the popular vote and it’s a done deal. The number helps to legitimize Clinton’s campaign in the face of Sanders’ populist message. Sanders may complain about how the system is rigged and speculate that Superdelegates aren’t more loyal to their constituency, but Clinton has always been able to point out that she has the power of the popular vote.

In a recent article posted to the New York Daily News, by activist and writer Shaun King made an interesting point that could change the way we view the entire Democratic primary race. What King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.

According to King, primary races don’t just include voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, many states hold caucuses in which a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate who wins the most districts is the winner of the state.

What happens in these cases is that individual votes are not gathered, therefore no votes go to the winning candidate.

Bernie Sanders has tended to win most caucusing states. Though Sanders may take more than 70 percent of the caucus vote, these numbers don’t translate to individual votes — they add nothing to the overall count. So, states with millions of Sanders supporters are not counted among the millions in competition with Clinton’s big numbers as a result of this system.

For instance, @BernieSanders won 81% in Alaska.​

Not a single of those votes are included in the popular vote tallies.​

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) May 19, 2016​

Washington State has 7.2 million people. @BernieSanders won 71% of the votes. NONE of those votes count in the "popular vote totals".​

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) May 19, 2016​

Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.

To be clear, Clinton is still leading and has a significant advantage. But, as King points out, this race will more than likely come down to the Superdelegate vote. For that vote to be based on an incorrect score of national voters would be ignoring the reality of the Democratic demographic. Superdelegates need to weigh their decisions carefully, and we need to begin to see this race for what it is.

As King writes:

Hillary Clinton needs 615 pledged delegates to cross the threshold she needs. That’s a bit more than 65% of the delegates, and she is not predicted to win even one of the remaining states by that margin. In other words, after the final primaries are held in June, Hillary Clinton will not have won enough delegates to be the nominee.​

In that case the Superdelegates will have to decide.

King goes on:

… we really don’t know the vote difference between Clinton and Sanders.​

The Clinton campaign knows this. Their friends in the media know this, but they continue to allow the campaign to tout that 3 million number even though they know full well that it’s not accurate. The Democratic primaries and caucuses simply don’t have accurate popular vote totals.

Hillary supporters like to flaunt that she’s earned the delegates because she won certain states or won the popular vote. King calls that “a farce.”

In closing, here’s what King says, and this is a bit disturbing. And it should disturb you whether you support Clinton, Sanders, or even Trump. It should trouble you that this is happening in a democracy:

Right now, in spite of the shocking success of Bernie’s campaign, 93% of superdelegates who have made their votes clear are backing Clinton. ​

Again, the hype about them supporting Clinton because of the popular vote is a lie.

If 93% of them were supporting Bernie right now, in addition to those already in his camp, Bernie would have 2,019 delegates and Hillary would have 1,807.


http://samuel-warde.com/2016/05/hillary-not-ahead-3-million-votes/

 

[Gunky]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

A week ago, New York Daily News columnist and Bernie Sanders supporter Shaun King tweeted the following about the Democratic caucuses in Washington, which took place in late March:

Shaun King ✔ ‎@ShaunKing


Washington State has 7.2 million people. @BernieSanders won 71% of the votes. NONE of those votes count in the "popular vote totals".

11:05 AM - 19 May 2016

• 
  
• 490 490 Retweets
• 556

Whether King intended it or not, he implied that caucuses — which often require hours of participation and mean lower turnout — are representative of what would happen if a larger electorate had its say. Well, a funny thing happened in Washington on Tuesday: The state held a mail-in, beauty-contest primary — so voting was easy, but no delegates were at stake. (The Associated Press has declared Hillary Clinton the winner.) The results are still being finalized, but Clinton leads by about 6 percentage points with more than 700,000 votes counted. Sanders won the Washington caucuses, which had 230,000 participants, by 46 percentage points.

So, turnout was much higher in the Washington primary than in the caucuses, and Clinton did much better. Something similar happened in Nebraska, where Clinton lost the early March caucuses by 14 percentage points and won the early May primary, in which no delegates were awarded, by 7 points.

Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly. Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424. Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/opinion/feel-the-math.html

 

[cybrguy]

Feel the Math

Paul Krugman MAY 30, 2016


This is my fifth presidential campaign as a New York Times columnist, so I’ve watched a lot of election coverage, and I came into this cycle prepared for the worst. Or so I thought.

But I was wrong. So far, election commentary has been even worse than I imagined it would be. It’s not just the focus on the horse race at the expense of substance; much of the horse-race coverage has been bang-your-head-on-the-desk awful, too. I know this isn’t scientific, but based on conversations I’ve had recently, many people — smart people, who read newspapers and try to keep track of events — have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play.

And when I say a “wrong impression,” I don’t mean that I disagree with other people’s takes. I mean that people aren’t being properly informed about the basic arithmetic of the situation.

Now, I’m not a political scientist or polling expert, nor do I even try to play one on TV. But I am fairly numerate, and I assiduously follow real experts like The Times’s Nate Cohn. And they’ve taught me some basic rules that I keep seeing violated.

First, at a certain point you have to stop reporting about the race for a party’s nomination as if it’s mainly about narrative and “momentum.” That may be true at an early stage, when candidates are competing for credibility and dollars. Eventually, however, it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.

That’s why Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; she locked it up over a month ago with her big Mid-Atlantic wins, leaving Bernie Sanders no way to overtake her without gigantic, implausible landslides — winning two-thirds of the vote! — in states with large nonwhite populations, which have supported Mrs. Clinton by huge margins throughout the campaign.

And no, saying that the race is effectively over isn’t somehow aiding a nefarious plot to shut it down by prematurely declaring victory. Nate Silver recently summed it up: “Clinton ‘strategy’ is to persuade more ‘people’ to ‘vote’ for her, hence producing ‘majority’ of ‘delegates.’” You may think those people chose the wrong candidate, but choose her they did.

Second, polls can be really helpful at assessing the state of a race, but only if you fight the temptation to cherry-pick, to only cite polls telling the story you want to hear. Recent hyperventilating over the California primary is a classic example. Most polls show Mrs. Clinton with a solid lead, but one recent poll shows a very close race. So, has her lead “evaporated,” as some reports suggest? Probably not: Another poll, taken at the very same time, showed an 18-point lead.

What the polling experts keep telling us to do is rely on averages of polls rather than highlighting any one poll in particular. This does double duty: it prevents cherry-picking, and it also helps smooth out the random fluctuations that are an inherent part of polling, but can all too easily be mistaken for real movement. And the polling average for California has, in fact, been pretty stable, with a solid Clinton lead.

Polls can, of course, be wrong, and have been a number of times this cycle. But they’ve worked better than many people think. Most notably, Donald Trump’s rise didn’t defy the polls — on the contrary, he was solidly leading the polls by last September. Pundits who dismissed his chances were overruling what the surveys were trying to tell them.

Which brings us to the general election. Here’s what you should know, but may not be hearing clearly in the political reporting: Mrs. Clinton is clearly ahead, both in general election polls and in Electoral College projections based on state polls.

It’s true that her lead isn’t as big as it was before Mr. Trump clinched the G.O.P. nomination, largely because Republicans have consolidated around their presumptive nominee, while many Sanders supporters are still balking at saying that they’ll vote for her.

But that probably won’t last; many Clinton supporters said similar things about Barack Obama in 2008, but eventually rallied around the nominee. So unless Bernie Sanders refuses to concede and insinuates that the nomination was somehow stolen by the candidate who won more votes, Mrs. Clinton is a clear favorite to win the White House.

Now, obviously things can and will change over the course of the general election campaign. Every one of the presidential elections I’ve covered at The Times felt at some point like a nail-biter. But the current state of the race should not be a source of dispute or confusion. Barring the equivalent of a meteor strike, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; despite the reluctance of Sanders supporters to concede that reality, she’s currently ahead of Donald Trump. That’s what the math says, and anyone who says it doesn’t is misleading you.

 

[grokit]

Paul Krugman and the "Hillary Bros"

Krugman... Hillary's very own Judith Miller?

Do you remember the scandal back in 2003 with the way the Bush administration manipulated the media? Judith Miller from the New York Times got information from "American Officials" on materials being imported into Iraq and she wrote articles that told the dangers of Saddam's nuclear ambitions. Then prominent members of the administration went on television shows and pointed out the New York Times articles in support of their position. Most people considered it pretty underhanded.

Recently Gerald Friedman, an economics professor at the University ofMassachusettsAmherst, did some economic modeling on Bernie's proposals and found it projected phenomenal results in the economy, with GDP growth rates of 5.3 percent per year!

Uh oh. Can't have that. After all, Hillary says the numbers don't add up. Every economist she talks to...

And then, suddenly, four former members of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, (of many former members), issue a letter, saying Friedman’s claims were exaggerated, even grandiose, and undermines "the credibility of the progressive economic agenda". It also went after the Sander's campaign for citing from it! I guess Bernie can’t can’t quote from economists — Only Hillary can!

Enter Paul Krugman - the Nobel Prize winning economist much beloved by liberals everywhere. Having read the letter Mr. Krugman blogged about it on Feb 17, conveniently one day before the Nevada Town Hall. He said this is a very big deal. He warned his readers about Bernies' Voodoo economics. He said that Sanders is engaging in a fantasy and treating these economists as "right-wing enemies".

Then, at the Nevada Town Hall, Hillary drops Krugman's name when she references her list of economists. That name carries some weight.

Bernie supporters take a lot of heat about being "Bernie Bros". But let's not pretend that Hillary doesn't have her Bros. Harry Reid for the longest time claimed neutrality. But Hillary would not have won Nevada without "Bro Reid" stepping in at the last minute and mobilizing the casino workers.

Hillary said in her victory speech, "Some may have doubted us, but we never doubted each other!" Like Hell. Not five days previous Hillary was trying to downplay Nevada as a state that was "a lot like Bernies' base". She knew she was in trouble, Reid bailed her out. This is the mark of an establishment candidate.

And then there's "Bro Matthews". Chris Matthews has been dismissing Bernie since at least last November. Making a big deal distinction between Democrats and Socialists. He has consistently given Hillary softball interviews, agrees with her, belittling Bernies' followers for being impractical.

Chris Matthews convinced me his concerns were purely ideological. But no. All along Chrissy had a conflict of interest. This is a big disappointment. I knew MSNBC had Scarborough on, but I always thought the station had standards. They put Brian Williams on probation for his tall tales. Keith Olbermann was fined and put on suspension for political donations. But somehow the "Bro Matthews" situation isn't even worth bringing up. As far as I know, neither the station or Matthews have bothered to address it.

Now we have "Bro Krugman". This is really sad. Krugman is a guy I would read on a daily basis. I didn't understand the really wonky stuff, but he could explain the flaws of trickle down, show why government spending can be a good thing and how the debt isn't as urgent a problem as Republicans like to insist it is. He helped me understand why inflation was not a current threat. Paul Krugman shows that economics can have a social conscience. That having a head isn't worth much without having a heart. Besides, I like his musical tastes. It's fun to be a fan of Paul Krugman.

But now he's calling Bernie supporters the problem. We're too passionate. We have no business casting doubt on these eminent economists. It just shows our cynicism.FourorFiveblogsin a rowKrugman vented his frustration with "Bernie Bros" and the Sanders' campaign over this letter slammingProfessorFriedman. He warned us NOT to accuse these people of being corrupt or looking for a job!

And then Krugman did to Friedman exactly what he was warning us not to do with the eminent economists: He accused Friedman of being a shill for Bernie. Krugman implied Friedman was angling for a job with a possible Sanders' administration. He called it the corrupting influence of being an outsider!

And then the clouds parted, a beam of sunlight shown through and Jamie Galbraith stepped onto the scene. Hey now - Mr Galbraith ain't no slouch. He's an "eminent economist" also. The son of renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, James served as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee for Congress back in the early 80's. Galbraith sent a letter to Krugman's eminent economists chastising them for unaccountable criticism of Friedman's work. They gave no details. The gave no analysis. No references at all. You really need to read this letter. It's not complicated and very plain to see his point. (PDF)

Just two pages, and if you’re a Bernie Fan it is inspirational. If you’re not a Bernie Fan it is still something to ponder.

But I quote two remarkable paragraphs:

"What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

"Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political."

Krugman has yet to respond to this. Maybe he is actually looking at the research.

But isn't this curious: Hillary needs to slam Bernienomics. Four former administration economists put out a letter slamming Bernie's plans without any documentation. Paul Krugman takes the bait and the next day Hillary is pointing to Krugman for support of her position against Sanders. Shades of Judith Miller. Is this what a Clinton administration will look like?

Once you're in the tank it's hard to get out. Judith Miller to this day defends her reporting. I hope Paul Krugman can rise above it.

The Clinton side makes it a past time to trash Sanders' proposals. They constantly remind us that Congress will be deadlocked and Bernie will get nothing done. They constantly ignore that Hillary will have the same problem, (Sorry, Hillary cannot have it both ways: She can't be the archenemy of the Republicans on the one hand, and then be the one to work with Republicans to get things done on the other. Of course, maybe she'll just adopt the Republican agenda like her husband did).

But this whole Krugman episode makes me wonder what responsibility Hillary has to the truth.


https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/23/1489637/-Paul-Krugman-and-the-Hillary-Bros

 

[cybrguy]

I'm quite certain y'all would find fault with Jesus Christ if he came out for Hillary. I can find you plenty of writers who would gladly trash him for ya. But it wouldn't change anything.

There are only 2 people who can be elected President in the 2016 general election. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. There IS a third candidate running, Gary Johnson, but he can't win. What he COULD do, however, if Bernie supporters would decide they can't vote for Hillary and vote for him instead, is keep Hillary from getting to 270, and let the House of Representatives choose the President. I think it is pretty clear that the HoR would NOT choose someone who a real supporter of Bernie Sanders would want to be President. I don't expect that to happen as I expect most who vote for Johnson will be Republican, or at least right leaning. But it could.

Bernie is history. That has been so for over a month. You can whine and cry about it until the cows come home, but it wont change anything. Bernie's chance has passed. I certainly understand the frustration that comes along with that knowledge for some, but the parties have chosen their nominees.

You have 2 choices for President. Choose wisely.

 

[Nooky72]

 

[CarolKing]

Have Governor Jerry Brown endorse Bernie Sanders for president.


California Governor Jerry Brown endorse Bernie Sanders
Here is a petition if you are a legal CA voter.

 

[cybrguy]

Really? You guys think it is appropriate to tell the Governor of a state who he should endorse or vote for? Really? How American... NOT!

CK, I'm a little shocked you would go for this. I mean I get that you like Bernie and that is fine, but this really isn't...

 

[grokit]

If we're going openly evil, let's go big or not at all.

 

[CarolKing]

Do you really think Jerry Brown will endorse Bernie Sanders before the primary - No. Just curious how many people will end up signing it. Jerry Brown will endorse who he wants after the CA Primary.

WA Bernie won the caucus, in OR Bernie won. Why not CA?

Edit
when you think about it Jerry Brown's politics he's kinda like both of the 2 democratic candidates. Jerry Brown is a bit of a rebel.

At first I didn't think that Bernie would consider a VP ticket. Im thinking he may think about it if asked.

 

[cybrguy]

WA Bernie won the caucus, in OR Bernie won. Why not CA?

Oh, I don't know, how bout the fact that Wash and ORE are 78.9 and 83.5 percent white respectively compared to California being 46.7 percent white. Never mind why minorities tend to vote for Hillary, it only matters (for this discussion) that they do.

Besides, Jerry Brown has never responded well to being told what to do so I don't think that helps their cause either.

 

[lwien]

 

[Gunky]

What would it say about Jerry Brown if he endorsed a candidate because a bunch of people signed a petition asking him to? The petition only makes it harder for him to endorse because then it looks like he's caving to pressure from whiners. It would also make him look a bit meshugah, endorsing a candidate who has already lost. What smart pol does that? People, get over it. Bernie lost when he lost NY. CA has over 500 delegates. Even if Bernie, against all odds, won CA, Clinton would still take 100 delegates absolute minimum. That gives her the nomination right there. The Bernie thing is becoming a mass delusion. Wake up, it's over folks!

Fivethirtyeight gives Clinton a 96% chance of winning CA and similar odds in NJ. I know, bernie bros will just say Nate Silver is in the tank for Hillary (because, you know, Bernie is holy and there is a great conspiracy against him). And in challenging Silver's accuracy they are in the company of greats like Carl Rove, who insisted Romney was winning and still would win...

 

[grokit]

Judge orders Trump University documents released

US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s order alludes to the importance of the public knowing everything about their representatives. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump must release the estimated 1,000 pages of documents by Thursday.

In his order requiring Donald Trump to release a thousand pages of internal documents pertaining to his now-defunct real estate university, a federal judge said the documents should be public because Trump is contending for the highest office.

“[The] Defendant became the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue,” wrote US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego. Mr. Curiel referred to a previous case to state that in deciding public disclosure courts must weigh “whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and ... whether the case involves issues important to the public,” reported The Washington Post.

By Thursday, Trump must release the documents, which include “playbooks” that advised sales personnel how to market Trump University. The trial is set for November, the same month as the presidential election.

In his order, Curiel did not agree with Trump’s attorneys that the documents contained “trade secrets.” Rather, the judge’s order alludes to the importance of the public knowing everything about their representatives. While Trump has been criticized for dodging public scrutiny because he has not held office before, past presidential candidates have been on the losing end of this debate, as their personal lives (including their infidelities) have become public record.

The documents are part of two class-action lawsuits two former students brought against Trump, calling the school a scam, as well as a third, $40-million suit by the New York Attorney General, which accuses the company of operating an unlicensed university. The lawsuit Curiel is presiding over in San Diego “states that Trump University’s nationwide seminars and classes were like infomercials and pressured students to buy more but didn’t deliver as promised in spite of students paying as much as $35,000 for seminars,” wrote the Associated Press.

more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/0529/Judge-orders-Trump-University-documents-released

 

[CarolKing]

Jerry Brown is a progressive but he's supporting Hillary Clinton is what is says this morning. Time to unite the party is what he's saying. Brown ran against Bill Clinton in 92.

below - This reeks of desperation. A little late in the game.

Republicans who oppose Donald Trump have spent the better part of a month trying to draft a third-party presidential candidate, and they may have succeeded. Conservative writer Bill Kristol, one of the leading members of the #NeverTrump movement, said Monday that “there will be an independent candidate” in the 2016 race. So, who is Kristol’s third-party candidate?

Kristol didn’t say, revealing only that they’re “impressive” and will have “a strong team and a real chance.” But we can certainly speculate. The most obvious draftee is Mitt Romney. The 2012 Republican nominee has been one of the most forceful voices against Trump from within the GOP, and helped launch the effort to recruit a third-party challenger after Trump clinched the nomination. He had a one-on-one meeting with Kristol in early May, and Kristol all but admitted that he tried to convince Romney to run during this meeting.

Romney has ruled out a 2016 candidacy on many occasions, but according to Kristol, he may be reconsidering.

“The real last chance here is with Mitt Romney, who has said ‘no’ but who I think is thinking seriously about it,” Kristol said on May 26th. “He is a very serious person, he really knows that Trump should not be president of the United States. He strongly believes that Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States.”

 

[HellsWindStaff]

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/23/1489637/-Paul-Krugman-and-the-Hillary-Bros

Good article, was going to post something similar last night but forgot. Paul Krugman's opinion, does it really mean much? He was writing similar hit pieces denouncing Obama in lieu of Clinton in 2008.

If Jesus Christ had a history of bias, I'd think we'd still point out the bias right? I found both articles interesting and thoughtful, but the source is important. For us to turn a bind eye that Krugman isn't a Hilarybro would be disingenuous and we should read his article with that lens in place.

 

[Gunky]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...claims_there_is_no_drought_in_california.html

Trump says no drought in CA. Uh huh.

 

[cybrguy]

I think it is fairly safe to say that if Donald's lips are moving, he is either telling a lie, making shit up out of whole cloth, saying something totally ignorant, being a bigot, being a bully, threatening someone, or some combination of the above.

I can not believe that America elects a man like this as dogcatcher, let alone POTUS.

 

[His_Highness]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the repubs, out of desperation......

Searched out, propped up and supported a strong non-primary winning republican candidate in the general to trump, Trump? And in turn, Bernie decided to run as an independent because the repubs threw in a last minute ringer?

Crazy right?