What If The Republicans Win?

[vt]

Re: Cruz Control?

DC, I agree there is no middle, which is why I proposed a new majority party in the middle. Both parties have been captured by theri extremes to the detriment of the American people.

You don't attack and always provide well reasoned posts of value. I wasn't referring to you at all.

We need someone like Webb. He is not as hawkish as some think. I don't feel he would have gotten us into Iraq.

[Raz]

Re: Cruz Control?

...
The American people are not fed up with both extremes. The American people are both extremes. Like I said: There's no middle anymore. This isn't 1994. It's not even 2004...

I agree. And this is why I also agree with a statement once made by the Woodsman that "we're not going to vote our way out of this".

We've reached the place where half of the country has an ethical, social and moral world view that's irreconcilable with the other half. We are most certainly no longer the "United States" in any real sense of the word.

Best to begin negotiating a somewhat friendly divorce than to allow this to continue until a million Americans lose their lives in a very nasty civil war.

[vt]

Re: Cruz Control?

Raz and DC, while it appears the country is split down the middle, I have a different take.

James MacGregor Burns in his 1963 book spoke of four parities influenced by the Presidency on one side and Congress on another.


"Dennis H. Wrong
February 1, 1963 Issue

The Deadlock of Democracy: Four Party Politics in America
by James MacGregor Burns

We all know that struggle between the President and Congress has been a constant of American political history and that only the strongest Presidents have managed to win Congressional acceptance of domestic programs which were at all bold. This is, in fact, what defines a “strong” President. One of them, Woodrow Wilson, said that the real rulers of the country were the chairman of the standing committees of Congress. Other observers have referred to our double party system: one system operating in Presidential elections and the other in Congressional elections. The logical corollary of such a double system, each with two competing parties, is a national four-party system of Presidential Democrats and Republicans and Congressional Democrats and Republicans. The subject of James MacGregor Burns’s new book is this four-party system, and the ways in which it frustrates Presidential leadership.

For this is a book with a thesis. Though Burns’s view of Congressional parties is always temperate , he advocates stronger Presidential leadership, more cohesive and truly national Presidential parties. He wants Kennedy to break the grip of Congress on domestic legislation. He has written a highly effective brief for Presidential leadership at a moment when Kennedy stands high with the public, while liberal-left opinion has become disenchanted with his cautious politicking.

The Deadlock of Democracy will probably have great influence. It can be compared with Samuel Lubell’s The Future of American Politics, published in 1952"

From Amazon

The public has changed, but in a different way the Burns wrote about over 50 years ago.

42% identify as independents, 31% Democrats, and 25% as Republicans. This is not a 50% split. If the independents can come to power, and be successful in governing, then the civil war can be avoided.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/re...ependents.aspx

I believe a rare, charismatic independent can win and change the landscape of American politics

[Woodsman]

Re: Cruz Control?

Webb's no conservative...

Your man crushing on Webb is clouding your perception, old bean. Oh, but the heartbreak ahead is just so predictable. True love means never having to say "I'm sorry," so lets agree to disagree on Jimbo's conservative bona fides for the moment.



And whose attacking? It was practically an endorsement. Even National Review has nice things to say about the guy.

Webb has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 1948. You almost have to wonder how Webb would be doing in the GOP presidential primary

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...y-jim-geraghty

But I do agree with you. I fully expect "a rare, charismatic independent" will soon "change the landscape of American politics." He'll be on a white horse, quite possibly a general or colonel, and most definitely one never to be confused as a democrat.

It will change the landscape, all right. You won't even recognize it.

[santafe2]

Re: Cruz Control?

There is no middle anymore. Webb's a Southern Reagan Democrat. Chafee's a Northeast Liberal Republican. There's a reason they're both suffering in the 1% range in a field of only 5 candidates. 1990 is 25 years ago. Back then there was room for Chafee and Webb. Clinton's probably the closest thing to an electable centrist up there. But she's a chameleon. No telling who she is, where she's from, or what she believes. Wherever she goes, she'll sound like her audience. But in 2016 it will be more about the base than ever.

There is a middle and it's occupied by Wall Street, the MSM and the billionaire class. Hillary is a good fit for them but no liberal under 30 will show up to vote for her so while she won't get massive turnout she'll get most of the female vote left of Ann Coulter. Sanders is a modern McGovern. If the 20 somethings on the left get him nominated, he'll get crucified in the general election.

The Republicans are a 19th Century clown trolley but it doesn't mean one of them won't get elected with a billion or two behind the nominee. None of them can beat Clinton because Wall Street knows she'll do less than Obama, (if that's possible).

There is no good answer for the bottom 60% in the US. If you're there, you're the problem and as soon as your worth more to the economy in jail than out...sorry.

The idiots on the left think they're making progress because they're getting legalized drugs and open marriage and the idiots on the right actually think the idiots on the left are the problem. The right would put a fascist regime in the US to stop gay marriage and abortions. The left will continue to strengthen the oligarchy as long they get legal drugs, open marriage, etc.

Did anyone else notice that the super liberal, save the world Democrats debated on pay TV? No cable poor people? Too bad, you should be in jail where we provide pay TV and ensure you can't vote.

The Democratic strategy is simple: Crank turnout in Reno/Vegas, Hollywood/Miami, Boulder/Denver, Des Moines/Davenport, Cleveland/Akron/Youngstown, Arlington/Alexandria, and Nashua/Manchester. Then you win....So this leaves a tough needle to thread. Democrats have to veer to the right if they want big money donors, and most of them do.

Nominate Hillary. Wall Street and Big Pharma provide the money along with the federal and state employee unions. Other than her husband and Obama, no one can lie like she does. Maybe Christy but he's damaged goods. I think Hillary would be smart to lean left in the election to fool the 20 something liberals and put Webb on the ticket to fool the vast middle. If the Republicans run another one of their famous draft-dodging chicken hawks, he'll destroy them.

If I were a Republican strategist I'd be talking to the Koch bros and encourage them to back Sanders and run merciless attack ads against Clinton. I'd be in every college ginning up the young to get their man on the ballot. Once done, I'd have a talk with Mr. Romney and job done.

For the Dems it's Clinton or lose. For the Republicans it's no Clinton or lose. For the bottom three quartiles it's a lose lose. You'll get continued oligarchy or you get the true beginning of fascism in the US. This does not end well.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Cruz Control?

As a British citizen, with some experience of the United States, I have a quite different viewpoint. To me, the greatest "problem" the US has is not right or left, Republican or Democrat, it is the failure of either side to take control of US Foreign Policy; the result of which is, the real risk stems from the now billions of citizens in surrounding nations, all thoroughly fed up to the back teeth with the impositions placed upon them by US Foreign Policy.

For many decades, Presidents AND Congress have gifted full and very effective foreign policy to the United States Central Intelligence Agency, who in turn, have created a cabal of leadership, both established in "a thousand Lily Pads" spread throughout the rest of the planet, supported by "friendly" to their internal distorted mindset, leadership within the US Armed Forces, that allowed them to continue, unhindered, "Doing things to people". This has not just destabilised the administration of the US, it has also created "friendly to their interests" administrations within their "close friends" abroad.

Now, today, we have the means to see what stupidities have been set into place, (and the resulting discord created), that clearly threatens the long term interests of every nation, especially the US, who once espoused the idea of freedom and democracy; because the one thing the CIA have NEVER been delivering is precisely that freedom.

The nett result is that all of us, Brits as well as the US, face a far far greater threat than discord within our own nations.

As I see it, when you create an organisation that has both unlimited power and funding, with a complete blanket of secrecy constantly protecting their hidden interests of destabilising the rest of the planet; in whose long term interest - if not their own first and foremost - are they acting?

Indeed, it can be surely argued, an internal civil war will suite the CIA in allowing them to take complete control of the United States as a nation. They have destabilised the rest of the planet; the only place left is their own nation.

What we need and may never see, is a US President with the forethought to quietly, without a lot of fuss and bother, close down Langley and all the other agencies involved and take it back to farmland. Quietly retire the lot of them and with no way back again. Set an example to the rest of the planet that the US is no longer in the business of destabilising other nations; including their "friends".

A peaceful planet might just bring a true sense of peace within the US nation itself, and prevent such an internal civil war.

But take my word for it, if you all leave Langley as it is, sooner rather than later, the rest of the planet will have to do it for you. And that will be far far worse for the people of the US, than anything so far debated herein.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Cruz Control?

I agree. And this is why I also agree with a statement once made by the Woodsman that "we're not going to vote our way out of this".

I've also been on that page for quite a while. It's going to take a monetary event to change anything substantial.

We've reached the place where half of the country has an ethical, social and moral world view that's irreconcilable with the other half. We are most certainly no longer the "United States" in any real sense of the word.

Best to begin negotiating a somewhat friendly divorce than to allow this to continue until a million Americans lose their lives in a very nasty civil war.

Some believe that "divide and conquer" is part of the plan. It's no different here in the North. East vs. West, French vs. English, pro-pipeline vs. ecos, pro vs. anti-niqab etc... the list is endless. The key difference is that Canada & our dollar are immaterial on a global scale. Should the USA begin to "divorce" it would most certainly lead to a fracturing of your currency into 2 - same would happen here.

I'm pretty sure they would fight that with everything they've got - so I hope your scenario, Raz, doesn't come to fruition. Things would get very sporty for you guys, and I'd be gone sipping tea at my off-grid farm.

[santafe2]

Re: Cruz Control?

As a British citizen, with some experience of the United States, I have a quite different viewpoint. To me, the greatest "problem" the US has is not right or left, Republican or Democrat, it is the failure of either side to take control of US Foreign Policy; the result of which is, the real risk stems from the now billions of citizens in surrounding nations, all thoroughly fed up to the back teeth with the impositions placed upon them by US Foreign Policy.

Apparently, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Woodsman]

Re: Cruz Control?

...What we need and may never see, is a US President with the forethought to quietly, without a lot of fuss and bother, close down Langley and all the other agencies involved and take it back to farmland. Quietly retire the lot of them and with no way back again. Set an example to the rest of the planet that the US is no longer in the business of destabilising other nations; including their "friends".

Age and experience often gives some men the courage to tell the truth. To others it grants the wisdom to keep silent. I'm still not sure which one is the better gift, but I'm pretty sure which one you received, Chris.

We had a president such as you describe. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy and he was said to be murdered by one Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and motivated by nothing but an insane desire for notoriety.

Here's a great lecture by University of Georgia Professor of Law Emeritus Donald E. Wilkes Jr that summarizes what we've learned about the events of November 22 1963.

We've also learned a few more things about the weeks prior.

On November 1 1963, a plot to murder Kennedy was foiled in Chicago with the arrest of Thomas Arthur Vallee, a disgruntled ex-Marine who served at a secret U2 air base in Japan and had involvement with training anti–Castro Cubans.

The story of Special Agent Abraham Bolden is instructive here.

On November 9th 1963, Miami Police secretly recorded a conversation between one Joseph Milteer, a right-wing extremist tied to the White Citizens Council organization, and a police informant named Willie Somerset where Milteer called Kennedy "a marked man" and correctly predicted JFK would be murdered from "an office building with a high-powered rifle."

Miami cops uncovered death plot before President Kennedy killed
Ex Miami officer says plot known before JFK killed
Police file confirms Secret Service knew of plot to kill JFK

On November 22, the attempts ceased.

The next president who made a similar effort to what you suggested was reported in May 1979 to have been targeted by one Raymond Lee Harvey, an Oswaldo Ortiz and others unknown.

St. Petersburg Times - May 11, 1979; Evidence of plot to kill Carter mounts
Toledo Blade, May 30 1979; US drops case of 2 men in plot to murder president

By July Carter asserted he had "lost control" of the government.

I don't recall any other president since with the steel to attempt oversight or control of the organization you mentioned. Ever since it seems they pretty much have carte blanche, politically. One former director even became president.



Last year the most recent director admitted his charges hacked into the computers of the Senate office in charge of its oversight. Nothing came of it but a few speeches and articles. The Justice Dept. declined any further inquiry.

But surely these are all isolated events, unrelated to each other and mere curiosities of history. Isn't that right boys?



As for a neo-Civil War. I've long believed that we've had one already. Men like the handsome gents above made sure the Right side won. Patriots all.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Cruz Control?

Age and experience often gives some men the courage to tell the truth. To others it grants the wisdom to keep silent. I'm still not sure which one is the better gift, but I'm pretty sure which one you received, Chris.

We had a president such as you describe. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy and he was said to be murdered by one Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and motivated by nothing but an insane desire for notoriety.

Here's a great lecture by University of Georgia Professor of Law Emeritus Donald E. Wilkes Jr that summarizes what we've learned about the events of November 22 1963.

You may very well be right about the need to remain silent Woody, but someone has to stand up and say it like it is; though I am not so sure about the word courage; many might say; stupidity!

Here in the UK we now know that the fatal shot was fired accidentally by the poor fellow trying to climb onto the back of Kennedy's car and the entire process was covered up from start to finish.

I was about to get out of my car, then a mark 1 Standard Vanguard, (with a Motorola push button radio that I had found on a scrap yard still on) as I listened to the news as my left foot landed on the lay-by in Shirley, Southampton as I was going to a birthday party. Stunned was not the word for it. Drank too much and ended up sat on a stool crying like a baby. Mind you enjoyed the girls trying their best to cheer me up.

None of us will ever forget that evening.

[Woodsman]

Re: Cruz Control?

You may very well be right about the need to remain silent...

Ancient history, Chris, and only concerns geezers like us on the last leg of the trip. To the kids today, it's as relevant as the McKinley Administration. Feel free to say or write whatever. Honestly, few give a damn and it's just so easily dismissed as evidence of a mental defect.

...Here in the UK we now know that the fatal shot was fired accidentally by the poor fellow trying to climb onto the back of Kennedy's car and the entire process was covered up from start to finish.

Ha! You're obviously talking about my buddy Bonar's wacky theory. Tell you what, though, "besiball has been berry berry good" to Bonar. It was touch and go when his book was first published and the poor guy just barely missed getting wiped out in a libel suit.

But in this arena, getting it wrong is no hindrance to success. Bonar had his revenge once the object of his attention passed and with him any legal threat. His Mortal Error was repeated in the run up to the 50th anniversary media blitz in the Reelz channel documentary based on Bonar's book. And of course the sales of the reissued edition of Mortal Error had a nice bump.

Oh and the fellow who ran up to the limo was Clint Hill, not George Hickey as the loony theory attests. By all accounts, Hill was a dutiful agent faithfully performing his job. Mrs Kennedy was said to have held him in the highest regard and of all the men at work protecting JFK that day, his was the most exemplary performance.

..None of us will ever forget that evening.

I suspect the old satyr JFK would have approved of your palliatives .

[lektrode]

Re: Cruz Control?

uh huh - and like 5o'clock, its always 1963 and selma - somewharz, right woody?

Artist's Impression Of Who (Really) Won The Democrat's Debate?


the comments on this one are priceless...

The verdict is in from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debates: Bernie Sanders’ message influenced viewers by leaps and bounds over the next most discussed candidate, Hillary Clinton.


Source: Politico
Unless, of course, as TheAntiMedia.org's Claire Bernish rightly rages, you prefer the convenient swill of pre-planned, pre-packaged, predictable corporate media propaganda that unanimously sang Clinton’s praises while completely ignoring one essential thing - you know, reality.
Regardless of your opinion of the candidates, or politics for that matter, elections amount to a fascinating study in propaganda — and though parsing engineered narrative from fact usually requires at least a modicum of effort, the case of Hillary’s resounding ‘ghost victory’ wins the Captain Obvious Propaganda Lifetime Achievement Award.
First, a look at corporate media’s pundits, headlines, and a few tidbits of content whose obsequious drivel seems more comic fodder than serious political commentary.

Vox: Hillary Clinton silenced her critics

“This is the Hillary Clinton that Democrats have been waiting for. The most important aspect of Clinton’s performance though, wasn’t whether she won — she did — but how she connected to progressive Democrats […] Perhaps it took a little competition, but the passion Clinton sometimes lacks on the campaign trail was in full force Tuesday night. She was having fun.”

The New York Times: Who Won and Lost the Democratic Debate? The Web Has Its Say

“Bloggers, commentators and the Twitterati quickly weighed in on the first Democratic debate, scoring the winners and losers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).”

NPR: Clinton Takes First Steps To Dispel Doubts About Candidacy

“Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the most to lose, may have come away having gained the most. [Clinton performed] more ably than in any other major media appearance since her best debates and speeches in 2008 […] At times, she even appeared to be enjoying herself.”

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton won the Democratic debate, simply by saying ‘no’

“All debate wins come down to some form of managed expectations: campaigns hint to reporters what their goals are, topically; reporters lecture campaigns on what those goals should be; and the candidate who more effectively conveys the most things in the overlap of that Venn diagram then gets called the winner until the next week’s polls.

But if you need to pick a winner from Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton will do.”

‘I was going to have Death by Chocolate, but mincemeat will do’ — are they serious?
Click on image to enlarge.
TheAntiMedia.org's Claire Bernish goes on...

Typical of most major headlines, a less discerning individual might imagine Clinton’s debate appearance as a light-hearted, self-assured popularity coup that made other candidates’ presence a mere footnote on the evening — because that’s precisely what this flood of not-so-deftly-crafted punditry begs of you. And what it lacks in subtlety, it doesn’t bother to make up for with accuracy, either.

In fact, according to viewer polls during and immediately following Tuesday’s debate, Bernie Sanders not only stole the show, he might as well have filled out the change-of-address card for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue post-haste.

A liveblog poll conducted of Facebook by U.S.News indisputably showed Sanders so far ahead that if it were the only statistic in consideration, you’d wonder if the other candidates even bothered showing up: fully 82% — 1,877 people of 2,297 who participated — declared Sanders the Democratic debate ‘winner.’

Twitter experienced similar indications of a landslide popularity win for the self-described Democratic-Socialist, who received 407,000 mentions Tuesday night — more than the total mentions for all other candidates lumped together. Social media appeared swept off its feet as 42,730 more people followed Sanders on Twitter (compared to Clinton’s 25,475 new fans) — even more to the point, though mentions of Hillary Clinton were positive 56% of the time, Sanders garnered favorable comments 69% of the times his name came up.

At the peak of debate mentions around 7 pm, Sanders name or Twitter handle appeared 12,000 times per minute to Clinton’s 8,300. The Independent from Vermont also claimed the most retweets of the night, 12,000, for his passing comment, “The American people are sick of hearing about your damn emails,” directed at Clinton.

Things are not always how they appear - and corporate media pushing Hillary Clinton as Tuesday’s Democratic debate standout might be propaganda’s equivalent to throwing bologna against a wall and hoping it will stick. Maybe if enough people headline-share this article, propaganda cunningly seems to consistently think, no one will notice it’s bullshit.

But plenty of us notice. Indeed, more people notice the lies every day.
On a final note, for all the talk of winners and losers, arguably the worst loser of the night is perhaps the most pressing current issue in foreign policy: Syria. With just seven total mentions by the candidates throughout the debate, the tumult in Syria didn’t even come close to Americans and their guns — a topic that came up 20 times

[Woodsman]

Re: Cruz Control?

uh huh - and like 5o'clock, its always 1963 and selma - somewharz, right woody?

You betcha, Lek. You keep riding your trick pony and I'll ride mine. See you at the waterin' hole, cowboy.

The US drone assassinations

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

The assassination complex

Key points:

• Congress has avoided legislating the issue or even defining the word “assassination.” This has allowed proponents of the drone wars to rebrand assassinations with more palatable characterizations, such as the term du jour, “targeted killings.”

• One top-secret document shows how the terror “watchlist” appears in the terminals of personnel conducting drone operations, linking unique codes associated with cellphone SIM cards and handsets to specific individuals in order to geolocate them.

• “The military is easily capable of adapting to change, but they don’t like to stop anything they feel is making their lives easier, or is to their benefit. And this certainly is, in their eyes, a very quick, clean way of doing things. It’s a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said. “But at this point, they have become so addicted to this machine, to this way of doing business, that it seems like it’s going to become harder and harder to pull them away from it the longer they’re allowed to continue operating in this way.”

• The source underscored the unreliability of metadata, most often from phone and computer communications intercepts. These sources of information, identified by so-called selectors such as a phone number or email address, are the primary tools used by the military to find, fix, and finish its targets. “It requires an enormous amount of faith in the technology that you’re using,” the source said. “There’s countless instances where I’ve come across intelligence that was faulty.” This, he said, is a primary factor in the killing of civilians. “It’s stunning the number of instances when selectors are misattributed to certain people. And it isn’t until several months or years later that you all of a sudden realize that the entire time you thought you were going after this really hot target, you wind up realizing it was his mother’s phone the whole time.”

• Within the special operations community, the source said, the internal view of the people being hunted by the U.S. for possible death by drone strike is: “They have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves. They’re just a ‘selector’ to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in the target’s life cycle that you are following them, you don’t even refer to them by their actual name.” This practice, he said, contributes to “dehumanizing the people before you’ve even encountered the moral question of ‘is this a legitimate kill or not?’”

• ... documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

• The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — “enemy killed in action” — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike.

• The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”

• According to one secret slide, as of June 2012, there were 16 people in Yemen whom President Obama had authorized U.S. special operations forces to assassinate. In Somalia, there were four. The statistics contained in the documents appear to refer only to targets approved under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, not CIA operations. In 2012 alone, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there were more than 200 people killed in operations in Yemen and between four and eight in Somalia.

• The architects of what amounts to a global assassination campaign do not appear concerned with either its enduring impact or its moral implications.

Full report:

https://theintercept.com/drone-paper...ation-complex/

[vt]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

No, NO, NO, NO!!

WASH POST: REPUBLICAN PARTY PANIC;

MOVE TO DRAFT ROMNEY



While they are at it I hope Trump, Carson, and Bush drop out too.

[Woodsman]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

GOP to draft loser from last election...

The problem the GOP seems to have is with their voters. Maybe instead of new candidates, the GOP needs new Republican voters?


General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RCP Average	9/2 - 11/4	--	--	47.7	43.0	Sanders +4.7
McClatchy/Marist	10/29 - 11/4	540 RV	4.2	53	41	Sanders +12
Quinnipiac	10/29 - 11/2	1144 RV	2.9	46	44	Sanders +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	10/25 - 10/29	847 RV	3.4	50	41	Sanders +9
CNN/ORC	10/14 - 10/17	956 RV	3.0	53	44	Sanders +9
PPP (D)	10/1 - 10/4	1338 RV	2.7	44	44	Tie
SurveyUSA	9/2 - 9/3	900 RV	3.3	40	44	Trump +4

All General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Polling Data