Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

as long as we're airing our predictions/opinions:

i agree with sf's 1st position but not the 2ns: i, too, know that hrc will get the dem nomination UNLESS she's indicted before the convention. i would bet long odds on this outcome. i think, btw, that it's unlikely she'll be indicted by the obama justice dept, even if the fbi makes a referral, which itself is in doubt.

otoh, i'm far from convinced that hrc will win the general. in fact, i think it likely that the donald will win. i would give about 2:1 odds on a small amount of money on that, but not longer odds than that. come to think of it, i've already bet on this at 2:1 with a son-in-law.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

as long as we're airing our predictions/opinions:

i agree with sf's 1st position but not the 2ns: i, too, know that hrc will get the dem nomination UNLESS she's indicted before the convention. i would bet long odds on this outcome. i think, btw, that it's unlikely she'll be indicted by the obama justice dept, even if the fbi makes a referral, which itself is in doubt.

I'm less sure a mere indictment will cause her to quit, jk. Ever since I read that piece by the young man from Georgia, I've been cogitating on this one.

Look at her history, her approach to the many controversies - the "stand by your man" bimbo eruptions, Whitewater, the Lincoln Bedroom rentals, futures trading scam, Rose Law Firm frauds, etc. - to realize how much she thrives in these adversarial environments. Hillary still holds the singular honor of being the only First Lady ever to be be forced to testify before a grand jury. Recall how cool and expertly she handled the situation; how she perjured herself with such aplomb. It feeds her colossal chutzpah and sense of entitlement; she can't help herself.

If it happens that HRC is indicted, I don't believe she will quit on her own initiative. It's just not in her nature as I've observed over the last 25 years. But who in the Democratic Party (the Party of Clinton, after all) has similarly pendulous testicles to give her "the talk?" You think Barbara Boxer or John Podesta want that job? Not happening.

So if Hillary is indicted, I expect her to take the party down with her. I wouldn't doubt that they've devised some circular firing squad to ensure discipline. Understand, unless she wins she will have nothing but a legacy of ashes. Without the power of government, she has nothing to offer to her benefactors. She can't deliver what she doesn't have and without that, what is she?

It's all or nothing. There is no saving some for the swim the back. The boats are burned. Either she wins the presidency or loses everything. I don't think she quits because of some indictment. If anything they are as we speak working on plans "C" and "D" to counter it.

otoh, i'm far from convinced that hrc will win the general. in fact, i think it likely that the donald will win. i would give about 2:1 odds on a small amount of money on that, but not longer odds than that. come to think of it, i've already bet on this at 2:1 with a son-in-law.

I don't gamble, but given the circumstances I'd hold out for longer odds; it's a winner.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

Given the probation that Patraeus got, and that worst case, that would be the most she'd get, I don't see indictment as a factor at all.

When the Bill Cosby story broke....what, a year ago, the first thing that went through my mind was, this is all about Bill Clinton. Not because I thought that what Bill Cosby was doing wasn't evil, but, simply why this, and why now? There are plenty of stories about predators currently at work in Hollywood, and currently at prey, and none of these get any real traction (ie, no criminal cases).

Instead, I saw it as sort of a shot over the bow to the Clinton's.....which at the time, she had not announced her candidacy. And now she has, and now we have several women speaking out about both Bill's violent acts and her complicity to help bury the evidence.

I think those stories have a lot more damage potential (I don't think it is even begun to get promoted compared to how things will get) than an indictment if the indictment was to happen quickly before the end of the summer, and she settles for probation so it can all be swept under the rug.

But, from what I hear from my college boy, and what we've seen in multiple notable cases in the media, RAPE is a big issue in the minds of the college aged and probably in the 20 somethings, which are an important voting block for Hillary to win (and they love Sanders).

That is where I think the driver of her winning / losing will be.....and I think it is too late for her to divorce Bill, which would have helped....she is so blind she is still looking for his support!

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

kim jong-un endorses trump! [only slight exaggeration in that summary of mine]

of course, the feeling is mutual. Trump on North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un: 'You Gotta Give Him Credit'

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Zombie time at campaign Hillary. Trumps strength vs. Clinton sleepwalking.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/zomb..._sleepwalking/

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

this just in:

Paul Ryan Finally Folds, Will Vote For Donald Trump

and...
Hillary Clinton Proves Democrats No Longer Oppose Endless Wars


heh - as IF they ever have - seems to me most, if not all of em, since 1913 (incl WW1+2, korea, nam - have been initiated by Dems when they had control of all 3 branches - just like in 1913 when they rammed-thru the Fed Reserve act, the income tax and more to the point - just like in 2009 - when the had veto-proof margins of control of all 3 branches, could do ANYTHING they wanted to, and did - rammed-thru bailouts of TBTFinc, rammed-thru obomba care etc etc, ad nauseum...

can hardly wait to see what kind of s__t they pull with - exec orders - as they run down the clock.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...And unless the Democratic Party returns to its traditions, who needs it? It's clear they hate people on their left, don't want us in their party, don't count our votes when we win, and won't hear our demands, so why bother "working within the system?" They won't represent their natural and traditional constituencies, so ufck 'em. Go Trump.

A follow-up for you, SF2.

Why do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don’t just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say “Hell no!” to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

And they don’t come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents—one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate—and any change will be better. One reader writes:

“If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:

A. Not vote for president in November.
B. Vote for Trump.
C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.

"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats.”

Or as another reader puts it:

“I don’t want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I’d like to think I’d have the guts to do it.”

To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail, the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.

Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown. They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being solidly behind Hillary—older, professional women who live in major cities—who regard Trump as an acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons....

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

The comments are definitely more your speed.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

This seems a fight for the future of the Democratic Party - is there room in it for true progressives or not?

Zooming out, however, it continues to worry me that in both Canada and the USA we seem to have decided that the progeny, siblings and spouses of former national leaders are the appropriate choices to take us to the future. I think both nations are doomed if that is the limit of our respective available leadership talent pool.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

This seems a fight for the future of the Democratic Party - is there room in it for true progressives or not?

Zooming out, however, it continues to worry me that in both Canada and the USA we seem to have decided that the progeny, siblings and spouses of former national leaders are the appropriate choices to take us to the future. I think both nations are doomed if that is the limit of our respective available leadership talent pool.

it's not a limited pool of potential talent. it's the importance of your rolodex, or your family's rolodex. it's all your money connections. it's systemic and won't change until or unless we change how elections are financed, which i don't see happening.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

The best argument for electing Donald Trump

From Paul Horwitz:

... a Trump presidency would be a goldmine for interest in and study of constitutional law. If he should win the presidency, I venture the following predictions:

1) There will be an immense rebirth of interest in the salutary aspects of federalism and separation of powers--on the ground, in popular conversation, and certainly in legal academic work. "Rights" talk, although never non-existent, will take a backseat to "powers" and "structure" talk. Those liberal federalists, like Heather Gerken, whose work has been admired but perhaps seen as somewhat eccentric from the main direction of constitutional study, will be joined by many new adherents, and there will be considerable conservative-liberal crossover in those fields
.
2) Sentiment about congressional gridlock, and especially about congressional gridlock as a justification for creative and unilateral executive action, will shift overnight. Mann and Ornstein will receive many new fans, albeit those new readers will, in effect, mentally convert all the negative adjectives in that book to positive ones. Lawyers and legal scholars who minimized or celebrated President Obama's fairly aggressive use of presidential power will similarly reverse polarity almost immediately...

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...ional-law.html

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The best argument for electing Donald Trump

From Paul Horwitz:

... a Trump presidency would be a goldmine for interest in and study of constitutional law. If he should win the presidency, I venture the following predictions:

1) There will be an immense rebirth of interest in the salutary aspects of federalism and separation of powers--on the ground, in popular conversation, and certainly in legal academic work. "Rights" talk, although never non-existent, will take a backseat to "powers" and "structure" talk. Those liberal federalists, like Heather Gerken, whose work has been admired but perhaps seen as somewhat eccentric from the main direction of constitutional study, will be joined by many new adherents, and there will be considerable conservative-liberal crossover in those fields
.
2) Sentiment about congressional gridlock, and especially about congressional gridlock as a justification for creative and unilateral executive action, will shift overnight. Mann and Ornstein will receive many new fans, albeit those new readers will, in effect, mentally convert all the negative adjectives in that book to positive ones. Lawyers and legal scholars who minimized or celebrated President Obama's fairly aggressive use of presidential power will similarly reverse polarity almost immediately...

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...ional-law.html

this is rather like saying that a benefit of trump's election would be to bring heightened scrutiny to the actions of the secret police. no wonder you added a smiley to your introduction!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

This is not America. The right of free speech and peaceful assembly is a bedrock of our nation. Whatever one thinks of Trump no one has a right to physically attack someone attending a speech.

The left attacks a lone woman, a man separated from others? They are cowards and they are the reason why independents will use the vote to protest this behavior.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-San-Jose.html

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

This is not America. The right of free speech and peaceful assembly is a bedrock of our nation. Whatever one thinks of Trump no one has a right to physically attack someone attending a speech.

The left attacks a lone woman, a man separated from others? They are cowards and they are the reason why independents will use the vote to protest this behavior.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-San-Jose.html

And people wonder why Trump appeals to so many...I hear the faint sound of "illegal Mexican rapists taking your jobs" playing in the background...

"...Many of the protesters carried the Mexican flag during the demonstration, which was eventually diffused once local police made the decision to move in and make some arrests. A few of the demonstrators also burned an American flag outside the convention center..."

From AP:

"...The mayor, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments had to deal with.

“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo said..."

The Democrats would seem to be in serious trouble if this self-serving response is the best they can come up with.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

All of us are immigrants; some just got here a little sooner. We need and prosper through immigration.

What doesn't work is immigration without reasonable controls. The policies in place now are allowing too much illegal immigration that is actually very unfair to those trying to immigrate legally. We are favoring about 6% of the global population that happens to be close to our southern borders and discriminating against the vast numbers from Asia, Africa, Europe, and the middle east.

We could allow a larger percentage than 6% of legal immigrants from our neighbors because they are close by, but the numbers coming illegally are way beyond any definition of fairness.

We also need to question whether current policies are not favoring the elites with cheap labor to compete with legal citizens of our nation. Is this unfair aid to the 1%?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

It seems like today's leftists are borrowing thoughts from the past:

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virture"




https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/a...-made-illegal/