neutrinosalad

I agree.There are a few reasons for this. For starters Democrats as a matter of platform believe in compromise while Republicans do not. Democrat philosophy also accepts that change can be slow and incremental while Republcans believe the righteous (themselves) deserve what they deserve right now at this minute and always. Race plays a big factor too. It is simply easier to ignore minorities and women in our society. This is still a society that listens more closely, takes more seriously, pays more attention to, and etc things white males say and want. Lastly Democrats are inclusive and attempt to not to alienate anyone while Republicans are exclusive and proudly alienate people.

 

It is actually comical to me. I so often hear Democrats talking about the need to reach out to coal miners and rural males in the Mid West. Dems have conceded that messaging over the last few years has alienated people in the dust bowl. Meaningwhile Republican aren't afraid of their messaging. They aren't affraid chanting "drill baby drill" will alienate environmentalists, aren't afraid chanting "build the wall" will alienate hispanics, aren't afraid chanting "all lives matter" will alienate black lives matters, aren't afraid "grab them by the p#@!$" will alienate women. Democrats consistantly get more votes overall yet accept that they are somehow out of touch. Dems suffer from low self esteem while the republican's self esteem is through the roof. Even during Obama's years it was this way. Obama was a popular and successful President yet many Democrats were afraid of being too supportive of the ACA allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and label it Obamacare. Same goes for everything from the GM bailout to Iran deal. Dems were lukewarm at best and afraid to be too strong in their support. Republcans were very loud in their opposition and it clearly intimidated Democrats in my opinion.

If Democrats believe in compromise, then why are they promoting the idea that they need to resist everything Trump proposes regardless of the actual things he is proposing even if it is ideologically aligned with what the Democrats want (a la infrastructure deals)?

If the Democrats are so inclusive, why did Barack Obama refer to people who vote Republican as their enemies?

Example:

 

Last week, in an interview with Univision radio, Obama urged Hispanic votes for Democrats, and said: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-i-shouldnt-have-used-the-word-enemies/1#.WQTuLrpFzF4

Thanks to your rhetoric, I can safely say that Barack Obama was promoting a racist charge against white males guised as a hit on Republicans, since "only" white males vote Republican.

If Republicans dominated the conversation on the ACA, why did it get through with zero Republican votes? Scroll down on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. Zero Republican votes on the Affordable Care Act. Republicans were literally blocked out of the negotiation process from the beginning.

Ten oz, I feel like you have some legitimate criticisms, but the underlying bias through which you present your criticisms is so strong that I feel like it is a distortion of reality.

You are seriously down playing Japan's nuclear potential. They already have delivery systems in terms of carriers, subs, and aircraft in addition to materials. They are closer to having usable accurate Nuclear ballistics than North Korea is. Japan has been capable to build Nuclear ballastics for decades. Saying they don't have nuclear capability at their disposal is like saying a person in possession of a full whiskey bottle doesn't have the means to get drunk because he hasn't opened the bottle yet. They could assemble devices (nurmerous) at anytime. The choose not to assemble for a myriad of reasons. You are overstate the protection provided to them by the U.S..

 

As for Trump using bluffs to force China to the table you haven't addressed what happens if and when the bluff is called.

While everything I am saying is not 100% factually correct, at least it is a somewhat accurate approximation of the political realities of the region. Also, capability to develop nukes is not equivalent to having nukes. We can go back and forth over how close Japan is to having nukes, but the reality is that they don't have nukes. Japan does not have nukes.

And I think you are veering off of the two most important questions with regards to North Korea in the region:

-How will South Korea and Japan react to a fully nuclear North Korea?

-How will China react if South Korea and Japan begin developing their own personal nuclear arms?

Look up "South Korea Thaad" and you will see that China is having a 100% total meltdown over the deployment of Thaad, which is a missile defense system, in South Korea. How do you think China would react at a fully nuclear South Korea and Japan?

I don't know what will happen, but the bluff has been backed by force in other conflicts.

1- Japan has everything it needs material wise for nuclear weapons and already has all the delivery systems they need. Japan has 3 Aircraft Carriers, 17 Subs, over 40 Naval destoryers, hundreds of fixed land based rocket systems, hundreds of jetfighters, and etc. They have one of the top 10 most capable militaries in the world. Far superior to North Korea's. Saying Japan are under our protection is an oversimplification and not accurrate in my opinion. In post #47 you said it was a regional balance of power thing. North Korea wouldn't become more powerful than China or Japan simply by having a couple of nuclear weapons nor would North Korea be in a position to successfully invade South Korea. I understand that the fear is that North Korea might suicidally choose to launch nuclear weapons at their enemies. However that is a fear everyone lives with. The Indians fear Pakistan launching and vice versa. We (U.S.) fear Russia or China launching and so on. What give us the right to preemptively invade another country and dictate to them who their leaders will be and what weapons they can have?

 

If North Korea was involved in a civil war or proxy war like we are see in Syria, Yemen , and Somilia than there would be preemptive justification because of the likelihood that WMBDs would be used. Assad gas people for example. However that isn't the case. Is simply not wanting countries we don't like to have things justification enough to kill? If so does that mean Iran is next? and would North Korea even want nuclear weapons if not for the fact that they not having them invites preemptive attack. Because countries with Nukes are treated with more respect than countries without. We are sort of upping the value of nukes by being flagrantly aggressive as we are. Kim Jung Un surely believes that he would be treated more diplomatically if he had nukes.

 

2 - Suggesting we use the threat of force to push China is not equal to saying we are justified to invade North Korea. If you are saying that you do not want the U.S. to invade but rather are hopeful that all the saber-rattlng is a bluff to get the China's attention and put them to work diplomatically than I half agree. We should be leaning on China here. What happens if North Korea and or China calls the bluff though?

1. Think about it in the context of this, within the last 100 years, Japan has committed mass genocide and rape of the Chinese people. To this day, there exists an underlying level of hostility between the Chinese and Japanese people due to this history. Even though Japan already has a strong military, there is a significant difference between having a strong military and being a nuclear armed country. While the United States has promised Japan it will use nuclear arms if necessary to deter a military threat to its existence, that is significantly different from Japan owning the nuclear arms themselves.

If Japan begins developing a personal cache of nuclear arms that they have direct control over, I feel that the response from the Chinese people and government has the potential to be large and overwhelming (particularly in the form of force) due to the hostility that appears to exist between the two countries.

It is about maintaining stability in the region. Also, Kim Jong Un is actually seeking out nukes that can be delivered intercontinentally precisely because he believes that it would preserve his regime. It is not entirely a bluff, by engaging in a strike on the airport in Syria and using the MOAB in Afghanistan, Trump has shown that the United States is willing to unilaterally use force if it is aligned with the interests of the United States and its regional partners.

That may or may not be entirely the case. Either way it is a good reason for POTUS not to be threatening to act alone and indicating an arbitrary sense of urgency. From Taiwan to the disputed South China sea islands there are many foriegn isues to be dealt with and over playing our (USA) hand on North Korea might create a cascade of negative outcomes.

Well, I personally believe that the arbitrary sense of urgency is not so arbitrary in reality. China has been procrastinating on resolving the North Korean issue for well over a decade now and really the time has come to transition the North Korean government out of the Kim Jong Un regime towards something more stable.

And it sickens me that people want China to control the next dictator who controls NK.

Why would you expand China's dictarorial backwards influence? I smell human (and dog) rights violations.

China operates more like a top down dynasty from what I have seen than like an absolute dictatorship.

Also, we cannot expand our presence to North Korea without provoking a war with China. Competent leadership that fixes the North Korean economy and brings in political stability is more important than spreading democracy.

China has Nuclear Weapons, Japan is a defacto nuclear weapon state as they (Japan) has all the materials and tech to build nuclear weapons at any time, and the U.S. has bases in South Korea and Nuclear armed war ships and Subs off the Coast. North Korea is surrounded by Nuclear capable countries. I don't see how the balance of power is altered. It isn't as if North Korea could invade South Korea. Not with the U.S. in DMZ and along the coast.

 

This situation has been ongoing for decades. Things were heightened in the 90's over a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, heightened again during the Bush years when he labeled then one of the "Axis of Evil", then steeper sanctions put in place under Obama, and now Trump threatening war. Each U.S. President has put their our signature on the situation.

China having nuclear weapons and the United States having nuclear weapons is the status quo. South Korea and Japan being protected under the United States nuclear umbrella is also the status quo.

Now what is not the status quo is North Korea having a nuclear weapon that they are capable of reliably delivering to a large city in South East Asia (ex: Seoul, South Korea or Tokyo, Japan). If North Korea develops a proper delivery system and a stronger nuclear weapon, the political calculus would be altered in the region in a highly negative way. Japan and South Korea may perceive a nuclear North Korea as a large enough threat due to their unpredictability that relying on the nuclear umbrella of the United States is not enough to protect their people. This may drive Japan and South Korea to develop their own personal cache of nuclear weapons that they have direct control over. If China sees South Korea and Japan developing a cache of personal nuclear weapons, they may see this as a threat to their national sovereignty and want to engage in a preemptive strike against either country to tank their nuclear program. This could lead to a reaction from the United States and spark a large ground war in the region.

Now, that is just me projecting into the future based on what I know right now. Either way, the current trajectory is a bad one. The current trajectory is a constant increase in tensions between major countries in the South East Asia region where war is more and more likely each successive year.

This is why it makes sense that we should remove Kim Jong Un and replace him with someone else.

 

 

Simply listing all the ways the situation is bad doesn't justify a preemptive war in my opinion. Things are bad in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, and etc, etc, etc but we aren't about to roll in forces to remove leaders.

Currently the threat of a preemptive strike has been used as a stick to push China to take action. The carrot that has been presented is maintaining the current trade relation that is beneficial to China.

Ultimately what needs to happen is China needs to go into North Korea and change out Kim Jong Un with someone who is agreeable to China's political wishes, so that the North Korean government can be pushed towards competence and stability.

What is going on in those countries does not appear to be on a trajectory towards large scale war that has the capacity to decimate societies and damage global trade. North Korea is being treated differently due to the scale upon which destabilization of that part of the world can damage global stability.

The problem with North Korea is that if they get a proper propulsion system, they could have a nuclear arm that they could deliever to a major South Korean or Japanese city. Currently neither of those two countries have nuclear arms themselves and if they feel that the United States nuclear umbrella is not sufficient, it could lead to a nuclear arms race in South East Asia. This could ultimately spiral out of control and lead to a major ground war in the region.

Taking out Kim Jong Un is ultimately about preserving the stability and balance of power of the region.

I have been following the story and it does not appear that China has direct control over North Korea, they merely have influence over North Korea. I also saw an article that talked of a news article that one of the top Communist Party paper's printed and it appears that Chinese leadership is resistant to taking serious action because they do not want to have to deal with nuclear fallout or a massive refugee crisis in the Northeast region of China. Ultimately, the only way we are going to be able to take out Kim Jong Un is by applying constant and increasing pressure to China until they decide that the alternatives to propping up Kim Jong Un's regime is no longer worth it.

Personally, I still do not see how China could simply transform North Korea into a territory of China. They could take out Kim Jong Un and replace him with a leader that is more subservient to China. Then over time, they could introduce the influence of the Chinese government more heavily to install reforms that would lead to a more competent government in North Korea.

The biggest problem here is this is BS. Electors have asked for the information, and as the letter from them points out, this is part of the process as planned. Suggesting that providing information about foreign interference is somehow subversive is bollocks.

 

https://extranewsfeed.com/bipartisan-electors-ask-james-clapper-release-facts-on-outside-interference-in-u-s-election-c1a3d11d5b7b#.hwavkwbv5

Here's a quote from your linked article:

 

We further emphasize Alexander Hamilton’s assertion in Federalist Paper #68 that a core purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” The United States intelligence community has now concluded with “high confidence” that a foreign power, namely Russia, acted covertly to interfere in the presidential campaign with the intent of promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy. During the campaign Russia actively attempted to influence the election outcome through cyber attacks on our political institutions and a comprehensive propaganda campaign coordinated through Wikileaks and other outlets.

The electors are saying that they need the briefing as a justification to become "faithless electors" per Federalist Paper #68.

They are saying that this is based on a conclusion from the intelligence community. Yet here is an article that conflicts with that conclusion:

 

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

 

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

 

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

 

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

 

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

 

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

 

The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.

 

In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against American political organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic President Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks.

 

Reports of the assessment by the CIA, which has not publicly disclosed its findings, have prompted congressional leaders to call for an investigation.

 

Obama last week ordered intelligence agencies to review the cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the presidential election and to deliver a report before he turns power over to Trump on Jan. 20.

 

The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

 

Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

 

"THIN REED"

 

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

 

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 

Republican Senator John McCain said on Monday there was "no information" that Russian hacking of American political organizations was aimed at swaying the outcome of the election.

 

"It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. "But there is no information that they were intending to affect the outcome of our election and that's why we need a congressional investigation," he told Reuters.

 

McCain questioned an assertion made on Sunday by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, tapped by Trump to be his White House chief of staff, that there were no hacks of computers belonging to Republican organizations.

 

"Actually, because Mr. Priebus said that doesn't mean it's true," said McCain. "We need a thorough investigation of it, whether both (Democratic and Republican organizations) were hacked into, what the Russian intentions were. We cannot draw a conclusion yet. That's why we need a thorough investigation."

 

In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment.

 

Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign.

 

(Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Jonathan Oatis)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

Also, from my previous post, you know that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign is leading the "faithless elector" campaign by trying to get electoral college voters intelligence briefings.

If you cannot see that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign are trying to point blank lead an anti-democratic coup, then I do not know what to tell you.

If you want to be a super strict "by the rules" person, Trump hasn't technically won yet.

 

I mean, he's obviously going to, but you can't say that the popular vote doesn't matter because the rules don't elect people based on the popular vote and then turn around and say that trying to get the electors to vote for someone other than Trump is overthrowing a democratic election because, per the rules, the election hasn't even taken place yet, and legally the electors could still vote for whomever they wanted.

 

So nobody has actually won yet according to the rules, and the only way to argue that they have and that trying to influence the outcome still is "overthrowing" the election is if you conclude that the popular vote in each state is what elects the president.

 

But according to the rules, it isn't. As we've established, the popular vote doesn't matter. Only the electors' votes matter.

 

Funny how that works.

Yes, but the electors base their votes on the popular vote of each individual state. If the electors went against the will of the voters in each individual state based on inconclusive evidence, not only does that break public trust in the government, it goes against the very principles of our society.

Also, if the electors could vote however they wanted to each presidential election, why even have campaigns where people go out and build coalitions to win states? Why even have a representative democracy built the way it currently is right now?

If you guys which to break the principles that this society was founded on that is fine by me, but do not expect breaking the principles of this society to be without consequence.

I don't know why you've stuck your head in the sand over this. It's a bad habit.

 

And I have to say this. I really hate that so many Trump supporters have picked up his habit of lying and not checking facts. It's one of the most frustrating things to see people like you in your idiotic justifications of this stain of a human being.

I do trust Wall Street Journal and I do trust Mitch McConnell and John McCain. The fact that these three sources are raising red flags does concern me, but I want to see how the investigations turn out before I come to any conclusion.

Also, just a critique of your own quote:

 

Also in September, multiple intelligence agencies briefed House and Senate intelligence committees about information they had gathered showing that Russia was interfering with the elections, according to a congressional source close to the process. The briefers did not explicitly say that Russian hackers were trying to help Trump, but it was clear from the evidence that they presented that Russia was meddling in the elections -- and Trump was benefiting.

"There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this," this source said.

The briefers do not have evidence directly identifying Russian hackers otherwise they would have explicitly said it was Russian hackers. Instead they have circumstantial evidence that they are using to create a conclusion that it is Russia who is involved. While their conclusion could be accurate, since they are relying on circumstantial evidence (behavior of hacks over direct evidence of who was hacking) their conclusion could be wrong. This is why we need a full investigation into the hacking before we come to any conclusion.

Edit: Also, if this isn't a highly politicized leak, then why is the Clinton campaign trying to use this leak to persuade the electors?

https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/808368390402408448

The Clinton campaign is actively trying to use circumstantial evidence that suggests that Russia hacked the DNC in order to release information that would help Trump win in order to persuade Electoral College voters to become "faithless electors". If their persuasion is successful, that means that the Clinton campaigns effort would successfully overthrow our democratic election.

In a statement, Trump suggested that the CIA had discredited itself over faulty intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons stockpile more than a dozen years ago.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The belittling response alarmed people in the intelligence community, which already had questioned Trump’s temperament and lack of national security experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cia-on-collision-course-over-russias-role-in-us-election/2016/12/10/ad01556c-bf01-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.a0b4606075bc

 

The Intelligence community believes Russia worked to help Trump win. That doesn't mean Trump was in on it. However, in attacking the intelligence community is Trump willfully or perhaps just ignorantly trying to help conceal it? Is there a point when the facts of this in combination with his behavior become seriousness that our intel community have an obligation to make moves against Trump to protect the nation? Or is Trump right and our intel community simply isn't to be trusted? Either way it seems we have a brewing constitutional crisis.

 

How badly do the GOP want this win. How badly do anger white conservatives want this win. Trump is not in office yet and has already heightened tensions with China, already bullied U.S. defense contractors (Boeing & United Technologies), has ignored Intel briefings, and is now openly antagonizing the CIA for doing their job. Trump is revealing himself to be the exact threat so many of us feared he would be. As a nation do we have the ability to correct this mistake. Does our constitution (inner and legal) allow for us to step back from the edge? We can not allow the cynicism, racism, and partisanship that got Trump elected allow this man to take office. We have a real crisis on our hands.

In this case it is not the intelligence community that is suggesting this. It is the CIA that is suggesting this and it is merely an inference that is being promoted here. The FBI has dissented from the CIA's inference because there is no direct evidence suggesting that Russia hacked the DNC or Democrat's accounts.

I repeat there is no evidence that the DNC or Democrats were hacked by Russia, it is only an inference made by anonymous people who supposedly work for the CIA.

Also, the bolded part is part of the problem. You are suggesting that white people who lean right are the problem with this country. Sounds pretty racist to me.

Techinically he isn't elected yet. He isn't elected until the electors meet and make it official. That is part of the problem currently. If the Senate (controlled by the GOP) opens a full blown investigation as is being requested they risk electors bailing on Trump. So it wouldn't be a matter of impeachment but rather a matter of Trump not being elected which would mean the GOP could lose the White House. If they can continue to dismiss the issue until Trump's victory is secured by the electors than they are assured to keep the White House regardless of what a potential investigation reveals.

The biggest problem here is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are actively working to overthrow a democratic election that was won through the rules. The problem here is not Trump, the problem is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are trying to use inference and circumstantial evidence to overthrow a democratic election.

Also, what happens if they succeed? It could lead to chaos.

Edit: It would be nice to get a well reasoned and rational rebuttal before the downvotes start coming in.

 

Trump is the most divisive political figure in contemporary American politics. He specifically targeted and vilified various minority groups during his campaign. There has been a spate of hate crimes against these minority groups since the election result was announced, so neither side of politics has a monopoly on antisocial behavior.

 

Are protests really that surprising, given the platform Trump ran on?

Except a lot of these hate crimes are unsubstantiated by evidence showing that they happened.

Two cases:

 

A student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated a story that she was attacked and had her hijab rippped off, police said Thursday.

The attack was one of several reported in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory.

In a press release Thursday afternoon, the Lafayette Police Department said that during the course of their investigation into the woman’s complaint, she “admitted that she fabricated the story about her physical attack as well as the removal of her hijab and wallet by two white males.

“This incident is no longer under investigation” by the department, the statement said.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on-2-campuses-say-they-were-attacked-by-men-invoking-donald-trump/

and second one: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-student-reported-trump-inspired-attack-admits-made/story?id=43442471

Hijab story is fabricated.

Another one:

Based on the fact that the police responded saying it had not been reported, story is also fabricated.

------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand attacks on Trump supporters are backed up by video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=165&v=GfJenokrmb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52EoprTSouU

Follow up on the video that Elite Engineer posted on the first page of the thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=cr_17ZCJLg8

------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me the evidence of the hate crimes please. So far the hate crimes that I am seeing that are backed up by evidence are coming from anti-Trump people.

Think about this for a second, the anti-Trump people are violently attacking people who support a man, and we have video to back that up. At the same time, there is so far little to no (video or police report) evidence of pro-Trump people violently attacking minorities or anyone else.

Do you see the hypocrisy of what is going on here in terms of ACTIONS that people are taking?

This latest revelation broke Chris Matthews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9eYU51D3Qg

This is glorious!

If it were emails on a Republican's computer, they'd be screaming from the rooftops how the government invades their rights and the victims of witch hunts.

 

This non-scandal is partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Fox is already reporting how Republicans plan to impeach Hillary for her emails.

 

It never ends. The race to the bottom.

Please read this article all the way through:

 

A retired four-star general pleaded guilty in federal court Monday to lying to investigators who were examining leaks about a secret U.S. government hacking program directed at Iran’s nuclear program.

After pleading guilty before Judge Richard Leon in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., retired Gen. James Cartwright faces probation or up to six months in jail at his sentencing next year, though the judge could impose a stiffer sentence if he chooses.

Mr. Cartwright issued a written statement after his plea, saying he accepted “full responsibility” for making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about whether he’d communicated with journalists writing about the U.S. hacking program.

“It was wrong for me to mislead the FBI,” Mr. Cartwright said. “I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn’t want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it.”

The criminal charge marks the latest instance of the Obama administration pursuing criminal charges against current or former government officials for allegedly talking to reporters about sensitive subjects.

Last year, retired Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information after he shared national security secrets with his biographer, with whom he had an extramarital affair.

In 2013, the administration came under criticism from First Amendment advocates for seizing reporters’ phone records as part of leak investigations. As a result, the Justice Department required greater oversight from senior officials involving such cases.

In the new case, Mr. Cartwright is accused of lying to investigators about conversations with two journalists, David Sanger of the New York Times and Daniel Klaidman, then working at Newsweek and now deputy editor of Yahoo News.

Mr. Sanger wrote articles and a book about a mysterious computer virus known as Stuxnet that disabled centrifuges in one of Iran’s nuclear facilities, hampering that country’s ability to advance toward a nuclear weapon. Researchers and reporters eventually traced Stuxnet to the U.S. government.

The Central Intelligence Agency, working in conjunction with the Idaho National Laboratory, the Israeli government, and other U.S. agencies, ran the classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to people familiar with the effort.

According to a court document, Mr. Cartwright in November 2012 “falsely told investigators that he was not the source of any of the quotes and statements’’ in Mr. Sanger’s book. “Cartwright also falsely told investigators that he didn't provide or confirm classified information to David Sanger,’’ the document adds.

A spokeswoman for the New York Times said Mr. Sanger’s reporting was based on sources in multiple countries.

“These investigations send a chilling message to all government employees that they should not speak to reporters. The inevitable result is that the American public is deprived of information that it needs to know,” the spokeswoman said.

Mr. Cartwright is also accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with Mr. Klaidman. According to officials, the general “had confirmed certain classified information’’ in an email to Mr. Klaidman.

The court documents don’t indicate which alleged discussions between Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Klaidman were part of the investigation, but in 2012 Mr. Klaidman wrote an article about U.S. efforts regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

Mr. Cartwright, 67 years old, served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 until 2011. In that role, he was seen as a close adviser to President Barack Obama.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/retired-general-charged-with-lying-about-leaks-to-reporters-1476729375

This general was charged with misleading the FBI. Who pursued him? Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton has mislead and lied to the FBI multiple times about her server! And what has happened? Absolutely nothing. Again Loretta Lynch was unwilling to declare charges against Clinton and she and Barack forced James Comey into a position where he would have to let the investigation go on national televison.

There are two standards being applied here and it will ultimately erode the American people's trust in the Justice system. But hey, Hillary has gotta win. Who cares about equal treatment under the law. Am I right?

 

John McCain who has just said that he will block ANY nomination for the SCOTUS that Clinton might make - in what way does that make him fit to be part of government; let alone POTUS?

McCain is literally going senile. It is becoming abundantly obvious at this point. He's still better than Ann Kirkpatrick (his opposition this year) though.

Yep - I was fantasizing about putting the whole sorry lot up in the dock. Our legislature here in the UK is essentially a rubber stamp of the Executive - a famous jurist once styled UK government as an Elective Dictatorship; once the general election dust has settled and a party with a majority has taken office in government then parliamentary oversight is sorely lacking. The United States seems to have reached the other far extreme - in which a directly elected (remember uk prime minister is not directly elected) President is hamstrung for purely partisan party reasons (ie not policy based but party based).

The problem with the United States is an increasing loss of internal cohesion. On our current path, the country is on the road to breaking up into smaller pieces unless some superhero president can swoop in and resolve the disarray that is occurring.

A lot of what is happening right now are different states, ethnic groups, and classes are forming factions and fighting each other rather than working on problem solving. At least that's what I see in the news all the time. It is not a partisan problem, it is an everyone problem.

 

I haven't read through all the links, but how many are going to be like this one, an attempt to circumvent the blockades on judicial appointments the Republicans have only erected against this one president? How many of these accusations are going to be simply your right-skewed perspective on how Obama had to fight upstream through two terms to get the respect every other POTUS has been given as part of the job?

So it is okay for a man to circumvent our laws because the other side is being quote unquote "too difficult"?

This kind of circumventing of the rules bends the separation of powers and consolidates more power underneath the executive branch exactly like I talked about.

Also, if this was not struck down as unconstitutional it would set a precedent for a Republican president to do the exact same thing where he (or she) could load up the judicial branch with people who are ideologically aligned with them with absolutely no opposition to question the appointments.

Edit:

(emphasis added)

 

'nuff said. If you can't link this to the president then it's a BS accusation. Though as I recall, it was revealed that liberal groups were investigated too. No targeting.

Ahh, but here's the thing. Since the IRS exists within the executive branch, underneath the president's leadership, the president bears part of the responsibility. Is this not how we view our leaders today?

It is the same for Steve Job's at Apple. When Apple was failing in the 80's Steve Jobs took the brunt of the blame and when it succeeded, he took the brunt of the accolades even though he had a large team working underneath him.

".....What is the evidence that Trump matches up with this demographic of disaffected TWCM (Traditional White Christian Males) and for the reasons I note? Well, first there is the basic voting pattern data. At the aggregate polling level Trump is appealing to angry White men, who have lower than average socio-economic status. A second feature of Trump’s rise that lends credibility to this analysis is that his candidacy is not really driven by any clear ideology because, in fact, Trump is all over the ideological/political map. It is much better described as a cult of personality. It is what Trump’s personality symbolizes that drives his current base...."

The reason why it is hard to identify any sort of ideological construct that Trump follows is because his ideology does not fall within the normal right left boundaries that have existed in the modern era of American politics.

I was skimming through an article of the New Yorker about Trump and here is a little line about him in the article that really struck me about how pin-point accurate it was about Trump and what he believes:

 

 

When Trump talks about what he will create and what he will eliminate, he doesn’t depart from three core principles: in his view, America is doing too much to try to solve the world’s problems; trade agreements are damaging the country; and immigrants are detrimental to it. He wanders and hedges and doubles back, but he is governed by a strong instinct for self-preservation, and never strays too far from his essential positions.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term

Trump's ideological perception of the world is based around basic human instincts of survival rather than political constructs. When you begin to look at him from that perspective, you will see that his core beliefs have remained unchanged for 30 years, and his behavior begins to make sense.

Back this up. (probably should go in a new thread) You don't get to claim this without support.

I will back it up. I am going to broaden it though since this is a new thread and this will just be a collection of things that have been done by the Obama Administration that have led me to dislike his presidency. A lot of these things are what I see as overreach or distasteful rather than purely being "rule by executive fiat". I will add some commentary, but otherwise I will leave it to people to judge for themselves. Also, I will pre-empt this by saying that I am currently ideologically inclined to be critical of the Obama Administration, so everything is going through that filter.

Obama's move on deferring enforcement of immigration is unconstitutional:

 

The President’s claim of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters threatens to vest the Executive Branch with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant it. For if a President can refuse to enforce a federal law against a class of 800,000 to 1.76 million individuals, what discernible limits are there to prosecutorial discretion? Can a President decline to enforce federal laws barring that class from voting in federal elections? Can a President decline to enforce the deportation statute against all illegal immigrants because of a belief in an “open borders” policy? Can a President who wants tax cuts that a recalcitrant Congress will not enact decline to enforce the income tax laws? Can a President effectively repeal the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters, or workplace and labor laws by refusing to fine violators?

Source: https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/conference/ilroundtable/ILR13_CDDavidDelahuntyJohnYoo.pdf

Source: http://cis.org/Obama-Deferred-Action-Amnest-Executive-Action-Unconstitutional

The interesting thing here is that on the basis of the law, what Barack Obama is doing is unconstitutional, but it could be "made" constitutional if you stack the courts with people who are ideologically inclined to agree with his actions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the IRS to suppress political dissent:

 

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under sections 501©(3) and 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.^[33][34][35] In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes.^[35] Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.^[36] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:^[37][38][39]

• referenced words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy" in the case file;^[34][35]
• outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
• involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
• had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
• advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
• were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare;
• questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,^{[Note 2]} only 4 were approved.^[41] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive", "progress", "liberal", or "equality".^[41][42]However, the IRS also selected several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny. An affiliate of the liberal group Emerge America had its request for tax-exempt status denied, leading to a review (and the eventual revocation) of the larger Emerge America organization's tax-exempt status.^[40] The conservative National Review states that a November 2010 version of the IRS's BOLO list indicates that liberal and conservative groups were in fact treated differently because liberal groups could be approved for tax-exempt status by line agents, while tea party groups could not.

The IRS targeted political groups opposed to the Affordable Care Act or associated with the Tea Party and gave them increased scrutiny. Obama was not directly implicated in this, but the IRS does fall underneath the executive branch and its behavior was politically aligned with what he wanted.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AG, Eric Holder, was selected by Obama.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rosen_(journalist)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

The growth of executive authority is a part of a larger trend, so it may not all be Obama.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may very well be the scariest answer that has ever been delivered on a Presidential debate stage. I certainly can't think of one since the dawn of televised debates. This is the kind of shit that you get in banana republics and third world countries.

 

Donald Trump's inability to accept defeat in any circumstance could do serious lasting damage to the long term stability of our country, and that's not something I say lightly.

I wish you had the same concern of Barack Obama ruling by executive fiat as you do of Trump saying he would not accept defeat. For the last eight years, Barack Obama has openly defied the constitutional boundaries of the presidency and consolidated power underneath the executive branch, yet no one seems to bat an eye. On top of that there is evidence (if you believe Wikileaks) that Hillary has used the foundation to sell United States government favors to foreign entities and businessmen while she was in the State Department.

Trump, however, questions whether or not Hillary's corruption will extend to the election process, and now is the time to freak out. Me thinks there is a (partisan) double standard here.

The worst part is that Trump says awful things about women, but the man who's almost certain to replace him if he steps down actually does awful things to women.

 

Trump insults them. Pence puts them in danger: http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/6/13174852/mike-pence-trump-vp-debate-abortion-women-dangerous

This media circus just distracts from that fact.

The abortion debate is one of the things that perfectly highlights why American politics can be so frustrating. Both Republicans and Democrats use abortion as a wedge issue in order to fire up their base while simultaneously not having any overarching desire to really push the needle in either direction in any significant way. You can defund Planned Parenthood, but that does not legally negate Roe v Wade. Women who want an abortion will still be able to get an abortion even if it is harder to do so.

The interesting thing is the factional aspect of the debate. Ultimately, taking a factional approach to abortion does not even make sense. The reality is that women should have access to abortion for the first trimester while in the final trimester, you have a fetus that is essentially becoming a fully formed child that could survive independently of the woman's body that should have some level of human rights. In the second trimester that is a grey area. Roe v Wade actually lays this all out in a logical format and it should have been the final word on the discussion. Yet, here we are, taking sides on this issue even though the seminal case laid out the issue in a pretty rational format.

It just goes to show how our politicians use wedge issues as a way to fire up their base in order to maintain power rather than solve problems pertinent to Americans today.

Here's a little blurb on Roe v Wade:

While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life." The trimester framework addressed when a woman's fundamental right to abortion would be absolute, and when the state's interests would become compelling. In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.^[36] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."^[37] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."^[38] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."^[37] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.^[39] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.^[40] In 1992, however, the plurality of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy made a subtle move away from the physician's-rights approach of Roe and toward a patient's-rights approach in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The plurality in Casey, explicitly confirming that women had a constitutional right to abortion and further upholding the "essential holding" of Roe, stated that women had a right to choose abortion before viability and that this right could not be unduly interfered with by the state.^[41] They asserted that this right was rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.^[42]

From this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

 

Unfortunately, capitalism is the source of our nation's wealth and power. Admittedly, it has been good for our citizenry compared to the citizens of certain other nations and political systems. The problem with capitalism is that it unleashes greed, which is a compelling, almost insurmountable force that will always find a way into system. It's a force that will never go quietly back into Pandora's box no matter the public benefit, not in America--in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that this force for greed was a huge part of what drove colonialism. A huge part of colonialism surrounded opening up trade routes with and extracting resources from countries across the world, by force if necessary. It was a thing that pre-dated the United States by a long shot. People have always been this way.

It has evolved though recently into a more benevolent form. The good and bad side of the capitalistic drive is dependent upon the duality of human nature. On one side there is overt human selfishness and tribalistic behavior, while on the other is a capacity for large scale cooperation. The challenge of good governance is figuring out how to employ legal mechanisms that place dams on the river of human desire in order to direct it into a constructive path that leads to this inherent selfishness benefitting society as whole rather than waging a path of destruction.

 

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

 

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

 

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

 

The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

 

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

 

Or, I'm trying to show what the shoes look like on your feet. I can't figure out why on Earth decent people who claim to be Christians are playing politics with this potentially catastrophic disease. Can you tell me why the GOP is delaying funding for Zika research so they can remove support for birth control at a time when that might help fight the disease? Couldn't they find a better way to hurt poor people?

False.

Democrats and Republicans were working in a bipartisan way to approve the bill until Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader for Democrats) came riding in on horseback, inserted Planned Parent hood as a wedge issue and killed the bill in hopes of securing votes for the elections occurring later this year.

 

Pollsters regularly show that Congress is less popular among the public than infectious diseases, and Senate Democrats on Tuesday helped explain why. After spending months demanding more funding to combat the Zika virus, they voted down their own priority to foment the chaos they believe will work to their political benefit in the fall.

 

The White House asked Congress for $1.9 billion by July 4 to address mosquito-borne Zika, which can cause a birth defect called microcephaly. A bipartisan compromise stripped out spending unrelated to Zika but otherwise granted the $1.1 billion request in full for prevention, research, education, health services, international aid and vaccine development.

The measure passed the Senate 89-8 in May, with 44 Democrats in favor and none opposed. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid emerged on Tuesday to ambush the House-Senate conference report compromise, which the House has already passed and can’t be amended.

Mr. Reid called the bill “the most irresponsible legislation I have ever seen in my 34 years in Congress,” and as a specialist in that field he would know. Inventing pretexts that happen to overlap with their campaign themes, Democrats blocked the Zika money, 52-48.

Since microcephaly is a natal condition and Zika can be transmitted sexually, Democrats naturally conscripted “women’s health” as a wedge. The bill makes block grants to hospitals, local health departments and public insurance programs like Medicaid. Democrats objected because the bill does not specifically identify Planned Parenthood as a candidate for grants.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-zika-democrats-1467155866

Let's give a round of applause for Harry Reid for his Herculean effort to kill even the most simple spending bill by going out of his way to insert partisan issues into non-partisan problems.

Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually.

I will be voting for Trump and I am well educated on what is going on politically.

Also, Trump is a rebuke to the neocons who hijacked the party starting in the sixties and the conservative movement that also has latched onto the party starting in the sixties.

The people who are voting for Trump want someone who will not only recognize their cultural and economic needs, but will work to help them survive in the future be it through job programs or social care.

The conservative movement fueled by the Koch brothers and the neo-cons are both self serving ideological movements that do not address the needs of working class people. Donald Trump (if he wins the nomination, which he technically has not yet) winning the Republican nomination is a literal punch to the face of both of these movements.

The people of the Republican party have spoken. Also, Donald Trump may pick up Bernie supporters since he speaks to the kind of economic populism that Bernie has. The main difference between Trump and Bernie is that Trump has a nationalistic edge to him, similar to that of Berlusconi and Putin.

Also, imaatfal, you may need to look in your own back yard before judging Trump's rise. Last I heard Nigel Farage's UKIP party is growing in strength and power in the United Kingdom and it speaks to some of the same impulses that Trump does. The same could be said of National Front in France or Alternative for Deutschland in Germany, both of which are growing quite rapidly.

The problem with the PC rhetoric is that the right see it to dismiss zenophobic and racist concerns, all the while being sensitive flowers bitching about the mean, unfair media.

 

Somehow, the irony is lost on the low information voters. Jimmy Dore said it well, The Trump supporters think the things Trump says, believing everyone thinks like them, but are being blocked by society from speaking the truth. They don't realize that they are racists and xenophobes, just that it isn't polite to talk about how inferior other people are.

Let me start off by saying that I believe in the principles of inclusion, egalitarianism, equal rights etc. Just as a safety measure here, I will have you know that my closest friends are second generation immigrants from Mexico and due to living in a large city, I have friends and acquaintances that cross almost all ethnic and racial boundaries. So if you want to brand me a racist for disagreeing with you, fine, but my lifestyle says otherwise.

The problem with modern progressivism is that it has transformed from its basic principles to promoting racism and sexism.

Let me show you one example of this, Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter has been actively promoted in the mainstream media as a "Civil Rights Group" even though they actively segregate white people from their meetings:

 

Black Lives Matter Nashville issued the following statement:

After several months of meeting at the North Branch library, on Wednesday (2/19), the Nashville Chapter of Black Lives Matter was contacted through email and by phone that

library administrators received complaints regarding BLM’s policy of general meetings being open to black and non-black people of color only.

Although meeting rooms are available to local organizations for use of a “cultural” nature, we were informed that “due to the library policy of open meetings for meeting room use,” all future meetings held at the library would be cancelled.”

They also berate white people purely on the basis that they are white and exist.

 

Protesters reportedly shouted “F– you, you filthy white f–-” “f– you and your comfort” and “f– you, you racist s–.”

“Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march,” The Review reported. “They confronted students who bore ‘symbols of oppression’ such as ‘gangster hats’ and Beats-brand headphones. The flood of demonstrators opened the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.”

Men and women were pushed and shoved by the group, the newspaper claimed.

One woman was reportedly pinned to a wall by protesters who shouted “filthy white b–-” in her face.

These were students studying in a library.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/black-lives-matter-protesters-berate-white-student/

They have been courted by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They have been lifted up and promoted by mainstream media.

Progressives have promoted a group that clearly advocates for anti-white racism.

 

Last time I checked, there are no criminal charges whether standing or alleged regarding Hillary.

 

Fox News parrot much?

rangerx, the FBI is in the process of indicting Hillary Rodham Clinton over having extremely sensitive government information on a non-government server that she used for personal purposes.

This is all over the news.

She is a criminal and I hope she gets charged for her crimes.

The reason Trump is polling so well is because he isn't a politician. And the reason why that is so important is because working class Republicans and the right wing of the party, have been told, repeatedly from all sources connected to that party, that what they truly need is someone who is not a politician and not connected to Washington. Trump merely tapped into their biggest fears and has told them what they truly want to hear. The fears that have been fed by that party for years now.

 

Trump, is, to put it bluntly, their chicken that has returned home to roost. He is the ungodly child that the ultra-conservative pundits and Tea Party supporters have been demanding to support their values. And the Republican Party did nothing to stem that flow or tide of sentiment over the last few decades. How can any of them truly be surprised that it has now come to this?

Bells, you should read my post above. I listed off a number of the "established elite" who are behind Marco Rubio's campaign and explained why you should not vote for an establishment candidate out of the Republican party. Namely they are a threat to any semblance of the idea one could have of moving towards a more peaceful world since the current established Republicans have a tunnel vision obsession with nation building in the Middle East. Even George W Bush earlier this week was talking about putting soldiers on the ground in the Middle East and expanding our military at a Jeb Bush rally.

If Trump represents ultra-conservative and libertarian (small government) values, why does he openly support Medicare and social security? Can you explain that?

 

Hmm - Nate S currently has Nevada at 38-39 Trump and 19-20 Rubio. Does it really make sense that ALL the support for Bush et al once they sod off will home in on Rubio? Cruz / Carson / Trump (the wingnut group - the cringe fringe) got about 60pct of the vote in SC - if those voters were gonna toe the line and vote for a mainstream party candidate wouldn't they have done so already.

 

Rubio took a beating the first time the ire of a demogogue was turned upon him (25 secs) - could he survive a debate with Trump and Cruz both kicking him? Cruz might reasonably think that whoever is left in a one on one with Trump will have a fine chance when everyone wakes from the trance

People need to wake up to Rubio. Rubio is literally as dumb as a pile of rocks, which makes him easily controllable. His main backers have been Sheldon Adelson and Norman Braman. Both of those guys are connected to the AIPAC and the Neoconservative group. It appears that the Sheldon, Norman and the Neocons as a whole have identified Rubio as their easily controllable puppet.

That is why Marco Rubio is getting so much face time and media support.

Now check this out:

"The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what's necessary," John Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bushadministration, recently wrote in the New York Times. "Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."

John Bolton is a known Neocon.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-heilbrunn-iran-framework-republican-neocon-response-20150403-story.html

The latest genius idea the Neocons have been pushing is for regime change in Iran. That means that if Marco Rubio ends up in the office, the Neocons will be calculating in the background on how to engage in a boots in the ground war with Iran. Given the fact that Iran has deepening economic and military ties with Russia and China, engaging in such a war smells like the start of World War III.

Not only that but given the fact that George W Bush was the poster boy for Neocons, it would also mean tax cuts for the rich and the blue collar workers getting screwed over harder than ever.

When you put all the dots together, it becomes clear that Marco Rubio is literally the worst choice out of the three.

Of course there are. I think a Trump presidency would be worse than W's when it comes to removing obstacles to profit that were originally set up to protect People instead of corporations. He'll open up new areas of greed and corruption, new ways to use the Constitution for toilet paper, he'll fulfill the industrial-military dream of full-scale chaos and destabilization while growing the War on Terrorism^TM brand to its maximum business potential, all the while giving more power to govern to the mega-corps.

 

Fear, fear, fear, but trust the Donald to take care of you. You're going to have to give up a lot for that care. Mostly integrity, competency, and stuff like that we weren't using much anyway.

 

But I still remain fairly certain none of this is going to happen. Ultimately, I'm going to trust that People won't give up and actually vote T.

Phi, Trump has been the most vocal critic of the Iraq war during this primary season.

Here is just one example:

Trump said the war in Iraq led to instability in the Middle East that gave rise to the Islamic State. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy,” he said. “One thing about him: He killed terrorists. Now Iraq is [a] harbor for terrorism.”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-war-in-iraq-haunts-the-2016-presidential-contest/2016/02/16/f29b8686-d44e-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

He cares more about the people than any establishment candidate ever will. Look at this:

The group, which included state Reps. Eric Eastman and Max Abramson, was eager for Trump to earn their support by going on the record against the Medicaid expansion, an issue that comes before the New Hampshire Legislature this week. Conversations with the campaigns of Trump’s rivals had paid dividends: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz delivered detailed, on-video condemnations of state Medicaid expansion in response to questions at local events. Trump’s state chair, Andrew Hemingway, said he thought he could get his boss to weigh in at a rally Thursday in Portsmouth, according to a person at the meeting. But the next night, Trump took a pass.

“I want to get rid of Obamacare and get you something great,” Trump vaguely offered. “We have some people that won’t be able to live. We have to help people. Don’t we have to help? What are we going to do, let them die in the street?”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/09/trump-disqualifies-himself-for-the-gop-nomination-again/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

Trump would not say he was against Medicaid expansion. He supports helping people financially. He's just being monumentally stupid when it comes to think about how that stuff needs to be financed... through taxes.

I understand that Trump is a buffoon and says some ridiculous crap, but there are some legitimate reasons for why people support him. A significant portion of the Republican base is against interventionist wars and they just want someone who will try to help them. Trump has been pretty consistent on both of those things and it is a part of the reason why he is winning.