It will certainly be interesting to see what the Bernie supporters think when Trump moves to the left of Hillary on a few issues they care about.
Now that is Trump v HRC
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
That's why as many people as possible should vote third party rather than stay home. Lower turnout is a subtle reminder, but a jump in third party votes is a measurable messages to the two parties. Of course, they won't listen but people don't listen to lots of things, but at least you can try.
We're talking Libertarian here I think? Right? Those folks are kinda like lieberals but maybe not in everything? Is that right?
But it would really be hard to - ya know - vote for them. I think they are mostly for those unisex bathrooms aren't they?. I just can't see myself going into one of those his@her bathrooms and, well you know - doin it right next to some stranger in drag. Some person who looks like Grizzly Adams in an evening gown or a look alike Rachel Maddow chick who sounds just like Soupy Sales. And what about the traditional circular urinal? Will they be a thing of the past when the Libertarians gain political power? I'm used to "usin" them.
Look, I saw this movie once called "Crying Game" and I was completely flumoxed when I left. No way did i think """that""" was gonna happen. Talk about surprised!!! I wandered the streets for days like a Zombie. No, no, no to those liebertarians!!!!! I want those bathrooms to stay just like they are!
I'm not pushing the Libertarian party but I think you have the wrong idea about them rabbit . They are for small government, fiscal conservatives, and the government staying out of personal business . I don't believe they would want any laws about bathrooms . Again I'm not a libertarian but if that is a of voting and avoiding Trump or Hilllary then I will do that.
Libertarians wouldn't want government having a say in bathrooms period. They may come off as social moderates simply because they don't think most of those issues are governmental concern to begin with.
But really they are very far right. I identify with them on most everything except gun control.
But really they are very far right. I identify with them on most everything except gun control.
My reservations about Libertarians concern drug policies. Many want to make pot legal and have lesser penalties for other drugs. But they got 1% of the vote last time. If people vote for them rather than Trump or Clinton they might get 2 to 5 percent. Gary Johnson is not going to be president. It's just a way to mark "NONE OF THE ABOVE."
And just like that he's already considering a $15 minimum wage.
MItt lost a lot of votes from his campaign manager's "Etch a Sketch" comment about resetting his views for the general election. Yet Trump gets a pass for basically rubbing everyone's nose in his remaking himself for the general as "Presidential", as if it is a new role he is going to play.
Why? Well, so far he's given us nothing except we will WIN (whatever that means) and America will be Great again (whatever that means),. His only commitments are to build a wall, restrict Muslims, be tough but have really friendly relationships with our allies, be tough on China (not Putin), and put businessmen and generals in charge of policy.
He's also been vocal that he will basically run a very negative campaign that will attack HRC and Bill personally and professionally. An easy alternative to providing specifics about how he is going to "Win" or "Make America Great Again".
7 Months of being on the front page or top of the news every day, and no one knows who he is or what he will do.
This system is broken.
Why? Well, so far he's given us nothing except we will WIN (whatever that means) and America will be Great again (whatever that means),. His only commitments are to build a wall, restrict Muslims, be tough but have really friendly relationships with our allies, be tough on China (not Putin), and put businessmen and generals in charge of policy.
He's also been vocal that he will basically run a very negative campaign that will attack HRC and Bill personally and professionally. An easy alternative to providing specifics about how he is going to "Win" or "Make America Great Again".
7 Months of being on the front page or top of the news every day, and no one knows who he is or what he will do.
This system is broken.
Last edited:
I loved in his Indiana victory speech that he denounced NAFTA as Bill Clinton's biggest mistake. The basic idea for NAFTA was laid out by Ronald Reagan - All honor to his name - in his 1980 presidential campaign.
Facts
NAFTA was bipartisan
Agreement signed by Bush 41 1992
Implementation Act signed by Clinton 42 1993
Passed House and Senate with a large number of votes from both parties.
Environmental Accord and Labor Accord signed in following years.
GHWB and WJC share blame and credit.
Pacific Agreement began wit Hillary negotiating but she is now against.
Passed mostly by Republicans signed by BHO 44.
NAFTA was bipartisan
Agreement signed by Bush 41 1992
Implementation Act signed by Clinton 42 1993
Passed House and Senate with a large number of votes from both parties.
Environmental Accord and Labor Accord signed in following years.
GHWB and WJC share blame and credit.
Pacific Agreement began wit Hillary negotiating but she is now against.
Passed mostly by Republicans signed by BHO 44.
Nafta never passes without Clinton's support and Gore's prime time debate with Ross Perot. Go back and watch that debate. Perot might have been a squirrel but he was dead on about the impact of Nafta on this country's industry and jobs. Gore was the appointed cheerleader for the Act and gathered enough support for its passage. Imagine...a business man having a better understanding of the effects on corporate America of a trade agreement than career politicians.
That would be Ted Cruz. However, an unbalanced person that runs over people with their car does seem like the perfect Trump running mate.
Oh lord, trying to blame NAFTA on one party is a waste of time. Free trade was accepted economic policy at the time regardless of party. The labor unions knew it would hurt them, but the accepted theory of comparative advantage was that it benefited every participating economy as each could optimize what it did best.
Reality is that unless the better developed economies could move their work forces up the productivity scale and pay them for that improved productivity, the labor force in better developed countries would suffer a decline in wages. So we shipped very good manufacturing jobs overseas but were unable to replace those jobs with more valuable work. Not everyone could become a software programmer, especially after 20 years as an iron worker.
Reality is that unless the better developed economies could move their work forces up the productivity scale and pay them for that improved productivity, the labor force in better developed countries would suffer a decline in wages. So we shipped very good manufacturing jobs overseas but were unable to replace those jobs with more valuable work. Not everyone could become a software programmer, especially after 20 years as an iron worker.
What I don't understand is why we didn't learn any lessons from Nafta? Why we continue to enact similar trade pacts despite clear evidence that such pacts costs living wage jobs? Big corporate money I suppose buying White House influence. WATU is correct....both parties are culpable.
I would agree that the trade pacts are a bi-partisan affair, even though Democrats are backed by union voters, they have done little to help those voters through trade legislation. I find Trump's hammering away at bad trade deals one of the reasons he has done so well with GOP voters, which is directly at odds of the corporate interests of his own party. But Trump also rallies against corporate and special interest money in politics, also defying his own party, plus his complete disinterest in entitlement reform, which begs the question. Is Trump the face of the GOP now, or is the so called establishment GOP of core conservative members (Speaker of House Paul Ryan for example), who believe in radical entitlement curtailment coupled with massive income redistribution up the income ladder, the face of the GOP going forward?
Excellent questions. Trump remains a cypher which seems to be one of his assets. People can read whatever they want into him but view him a shaking up unfair system. What is disturbing is his penchant for blaming those most disinfranchised and poorly treated already: immigrants, muslims, hispanics coupled with the violence he inspires.
Whatever we think of him, he has destroyed the old recipe for winning a candidacy and maybe a Presidency.
Trump fights to delay Trump University trial date. This is the only one of the three suits against him that could go to court before the election. My lawyer friends don't buy Trump's argument;. The question is "Will the judge buy it?"
Truly... And the same could have been said about our current princeps only 8 short yrs ago.... Only we know more about Trump than we have ever learned about BHO.
Is Trump even a named defendant in that case? Comparing it to a criminal FBI investigation touching on national security and sharing top secret intelligence aren't even in the same universe.
Relevant leak from the FBI investigation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html
If they can't prove malicious intent, then they don't have a case. They also point out that the Romanian hacker guy is probably lying about accessing her emails. At this point, I highly doubt the FBI will bring charges. Hopes of getting her deposed, as mentioned above are not part of the FBI investigation. They are related to a lawsuit brought by a watchdog group, which is suing her over her emails. It will likely go nowhere, but I think their plan is mainly to get her deposed and hope she slips up and says something stupid during deposition that will embarass her. Color me skeptical at this point that any of this will go anywhere.
Also, back on topic of HRC vs. Trump. Hillary has released her first ad of the campaign. It is going to get nasty: https://amp.twimg.com/v/85d61190-d754-468a-9c04-35b58ec11532
The article you quoted doesn't say what you are saying, WATU. It says he wants the trial to be either before or after the convention. That is reasonable. Trail dates have been moved for lesser reasons.
As far as raising Trump's lawsuit every time Hillary's problems get mentioned, they are not related. I would be fine with both losing their cases. One being guilty doesn't take away from the other being guilty.
As far as raising Trump's lawsuit every time Hillary's problems get mentioned, they are not related. I would be fine with both losing their cases. One being guilty doesn't take away from the other being guilty.
Since when did malicious intent become a standard? I've heard that rumor also.
But if I do something reckless and cause harm yet I have no intent to, I don't get off. Get drunk, speed through a school zone. You get caught, no one was hurt. You didn't have an intent to do harm. You still broke the law. And you weren't too concerned about it. She is not be accused of Treason. General Petraeus didn't have an intent problem but he was removed from the Army and had his retirement cut.
Scofflaws are okay now?
But if I do something reckless and cause harm yet I have no intent to, I don't get off. Get drunk, speed through a school zone. You get caught, no one was hurt. You didn't have an intent to do harm. You still broke the law. And you weren't too concerned about it. She is not be accused of Treason. General Petraeus didn't have an intent problem but he was removed from the Army and had his retirement cut.
Scofflaws are okay now?
Not saying that it is okay, or that is the way it should be. But intent is crucial because the statute she allegedly violated specifically says it is a felony to willfully and knowingly disclose secret information to unauthorized individuals. If they don't think they can prove that, then it will be an uphill battle to make it stick in front of a judge.
Intent matters for other crimes too. If I murder someone, willfully and knowingly, it is a lot different than if I accidentally hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Malicious was my editorializing. The statute stipulates willfully and knowingly, which fit the bill for him. Basically, she is getting off on incompetence.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree it's the right thing.
A further note on Petraeus. He essentially had his clearance stripped and was fired, which I don't think was unreasonable. Since Hillary has already left her job and presumably no longer holds a clearance, it is kind of hard to punish her the same way. It's not like they can bar her from running for president.
And, for what it is worth... I will vote for HRC over Trump. I would also vote for Petraeus over Trump in a heartbeat. The alleged crimes they both committed pale in comparison to what I expect to come out of a Trump administration.
Political witch hunt considering both Condi and Colin did the same thing. (AKA the Poke Defense). The FBI went into the far more deeply than they had to because otherwise they'd be accused of favoritism. Likely will be anyway.
What bothers me about all this is that HRC has a record to run on; has had to make tough decisions and vote on sensitive issues. The idea of a perfect record is a political fiction. Trump has never had that kind of responsibility or scrutiny. Bunch of law suits and bankruptcies that he blows off as just business. HRC no way.
Am I a big HRC fan? No, but this is a weak field and she is the best prepared of the bunch. Perhaps I'm still affected by The Economist (no liberal rag) listing a Trump presidenty as one of the top risks the world faces.
What bothers me about all this is that HRC has a record to run on; has had to make tough decisions and vote on sensitive issues. The idea of a perfect record is a political fiction. Trump has never had that kind of responsibility or scrutiny. Bunch of law suits and bankruptcies that he blows off as just business. HRC no way.
Am I a big HRC fan? No, but this is a weak field and she is the best prepared of the bunch. Perhaps I'm still affected by The Economist (no liberal rag) listing a Trump presidenty as one of the top risks the world faces.
Last edited:
Patreus landed on his feet. I think he took a position at KKR and taught a graduate seminar at Princeton. No tears.
Condi and Colin used exclusively used their personal email account for State Dept business receiving hundreds of top secret emails and then stored the data in a basement at some mom and pop shop? Dude.......
I'm not a Trump guy but assuming Hillary is found to have committed a similar offense as Petraeus (someone we revoked his clearance) are when then going to give Hillary that same clearance if she's elected? Obviously she must have it but the logic is puzzling. One is deemed to risky for top secret while we give the other that status....for similar acts?
I'm not a Trump guy but assuming Hillary is found to have committed a similar offense as Petraeus (someone we revoked his clearance) are when then going to give Hillary that same clearance if she's elected? Obviously she must have it but the logic is puzzling. One is deemed to risky for top secret while we give the other that status....for similar acts?
Last edited:
Come on now. Order of magnitude. Rice and Powell's accidental dozen emails might get the average soldier an article 15. Hillary's deliberate work around and subsequent hundreds, perhaps thousands, of emails would get an average person thrown in jail.
Again, what Hillary did has nothing to do with Trump. Burn them both. If Hillary were to be unable to run for health reasons or whatever, the Party could nominate someone else. Senator Eagleton of Missouri was removed as McGovern's running mate when it was found he had had mental problems.
Concerning murder, in Oklahoma, murder one is premeditated. Murder 2, is reckless disregard for human life causing a death. And there is manslaughter.
Why did Hillary do her email the way she did. "For my convience."
I don't want Trump or Hillary. Talk about our broken system, California, with the largest population of any state, now has no voice in who the president will be. New Hampshire has much more clout.
As far as disclosing information willfully, her lawyer and his staff, Blumenthal, her advisors all had access to Top Secret Plus information. Huma had access, just like the general's girlfriend.
Concerning murder, in Oklahoma, murder one is premeditated. Murder 2, is reckless disregard for human life causing a death. And there is manslaughter.
Why did Hillary do her email the way she did. "For my convience."
I don't want Trump or Hillary. Talk about our broken system, California, with the largest population of any state, now has no voice in who the president will be. New Hampshire has much more clout.
As far as disclosing information willfully, her lawyer and his staff, Blumenthal, her advisors all had access to Top Secret Plus information. Huma had access, just like the general's girlfriend.
I don't want to go into Condi and Colin Powell's stuff at all, as I think it is never a good debate position to do the whole "But someone else did something similar" thing.
But I'll play devil's advocate and suppose that you may be right. So then, in that case, now what? You've got a scofflaw on one had, but the 800 orange gorilla in the room wants Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapon programs. How do you think China and Russia will respond to that? To me, the difference is so stark as to make this year a no brainer.
