Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...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

VT, your'e not that dense, so stop trying to antagonize. Play nice.

A man - a human, homo-sapien carbon unit - attacked her. The "left" is an abstraction and abstractions just abstract, they can't throw eggs or punches and never attack people. The "left" didn't attack anyone. Some guy/gal(s) did.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to win?

...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%?

Bingo.
Let's pick on a concrete example, Tyson Chicken.

The executives at Tyson have no concern at all if hiring migrants causes problems for others.
They want 200 new hires to cut chickens for minimum wage this month under sweatshop conditions.

If that means 2,000 illegals cross the border and they take the 200 best, so what?
And if the only trouble for them is turnover when their illegals get deported, so what?

Now imagine a sliding scale of fines for the hiring company, where after the tenth time we find illegals are working there, the fines go into the millions, and the executives are subject to RICO charges and jail time for intentionally breaking US immigration laws. No more illegal chicken cutters.

This is not a hypothetical situation to me.
I was stockholder and senior staff at a little manufacturing company, and our 150 production workers were mostly immigrants.
We hired through a temp agency, hoping we could hold them responsible for checking legal status.
One day the CEO, an attorney by training, told us another company had been fined for doing just as we were.
So we had our HR folks scrutinize our staff.
We fired about 40 people here illegally, including some of our best.

When the risk of damage to the corporation and owners became vivid, we cleaned up our act.
In my experience, it works.

I don't think any amount of fences, walls, border guards or midnight raids will discourage desperate people seeking a better life.
Once the jobs for them here dry up, the problem will become manageable.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

You asked why the superdelegates should vote for the second place candidate? Very fair question, and one I would like to pose to the ones who pledged support to HRC in 2008
When she withdrew from the primaries, Clinton had won 48% of the Pledged delegates but she had the pledged support from 41% of the Superdelegates
Bernie now has 45% of the Pledged delegates and he has the pledged support from 7% of the Superdelegates

You do the math on why a 3% delta in pledged delegates leads to a 34% delta in Superdelegates

Again great post. The absolute media frenzy that is currently declaring HRC the winner is both disingenuous and a strategic ploy (I am paraphrasing this article)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a..._10206250.html

The Huff Post article describes why a superdelegate should vote for the second place candidate:

Superdelegates were created in 1984 to enable elected Democratic Party officials and some others of high standing within the Party (including, remarkably, some lobbyists) to overturn the will of the voters if the Party deems it necessary for a November general election win

and

because all the extant hard data suggests he is a stronger general election candidate than Mrs. Clinton

But will they? Will they believe the data (if it's still true)? Will they be convinced? Will they care enough to stand up to the status quo powers-that-be? Or are they bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, too?

[LazyBoy]

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.

I don't remember where I read this (maybe here):

"We've given up on Hope, but we still want Change."


Edit: I found it. I seem to be paraphrasing this:

Perhaps the most salient thing I've read recently is that ever increasing numbers of US citizens are giving up on the "Hope" part of the equation and now just want a Change.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Ok.

"The right elites attacked the middle class and poor by denying jobs."

Woody, I do recall you using the phrase "the right" at times, correct?

Yes they are people but someone is organizing this violence. Hopefully this doesn't escalate. Unfortunately the attackers are hurting their own cause.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Ok.

"The right elites attacked the middle class and poor by denying jobs."

You're right it's people not abstractions but it is organized by someone with ill intent.



http://s33.postimg.org/hug3mkfj3/vote_Page_1.jpg

Point taken and conceded. In my mind you are making a false equivalence, but I get you. You are right... I mean correct.

And you bet they're hurting their own cause. Every time these fools throw and egg or punch, another Trump voter is born. Each time they rally waving Mexican flags, Trump gets more support. They are his secret weapon, so secret they themselves don't know it.

And this is my issue with conflating these thuggies with the left. These are lumpen proles as far as I can tell by the pictures. They have no interest in revolution or politics beyond the ability to do a bit of street theater and the odd chance at looting or robbery.

Fortunately, folks at last point to a genuine left movement in America, as well as a genuine socialist (who 40 years ago would be considered run of the mill Democrat), in Sanders and his movement. They're the real deal.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman,

I believe both of our hearts are in the right place and we want to see the middle class and the poor have living standards improve on a steady basis upwards.
We just have differences on how to get there.

Thank you for your contributions as well as others here.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I find the singular lack of support from superdelegates for Bernie to be not just hard to comprehend but quite disturbing. I realize the pledges are non binding and they can still vote for him if they choose but I would have expected a few more public announcements of them switching over by now. That to me THAT is the least discussed aspect of this election cycle. No one is calling on these folks to switch in spite of the looming disaster warnings of a Billary nomination. The lack of discussion about this in the mainstream media is also significant. But all that being as it may, these are high profile people in the DNC, surely all of them can't be so enamored with Billary?

The monolithic totality of the superdelegate support helped decide the primary before we even knew who the candidates were. Even if there isn't collusion or intentional jerry rigging the system is so openly and incomprehensibly loaded that the popular vote is completely irrelevant unless you win 60% of it. If this isn't a coronation it's hard to fathom what is.

It's happening...

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

as much as i despise hillary, i have to point out that looking at bernie vs donald polling at this stage is worthless. no one is attacking bernie. hillary isn't attacking bernie because she figures she's got the nomination and wants bernie's voters. donald isn't attacking bernie because he likes bernie being around to weaken hillary. if bernie got the nomination [an hypothesis i don't think will be tested] the republican attack machine would be turned on him full force. there is no reason to think that the bernie vs trump numbers would hold up to that assault.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-...take-her-down/

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman,

I believe both of our hearts are in the right place and we want to see the middle class and the poor have living standards improve on a steady basis upwards.
We just have differences on how to get there.

Thank you for your contributions as well as others here.

++1

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

A follow-up for you, SF2.

A follow-up for you Woodsy. I think this article fairly well states my position. I won't go on because this is apparently a global warming style disagreement. I've no understanding of your position and think it's completely wrong headed, and you feel the same way about mine so we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

It is not unusual for political campaigns to make innuendoes indirectly suggesting that someone is immoral, improper, or has done something horribly wrong. It is unusual though, for a campaign’s supporters to blatantly accuse an opponent of the same party of being dishonest, a lying liar, and an evil person who cannot be trusted.

Defaming a candidate of the opposition party is one thing, if it is based on policy proposals or a character flaw borne out of past actions that predict dangerous tendencies. However, to demean a candidate’s character as dishonest and untrustworthy based on innuendo and dishonest proclamations, especially a candidate of the same party is despicable and a typically Republican ploy. It is why the perpetual claims from too many on the “Left” that Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy are beyond reprehensible.

Here is the thing; a fair number of people on the left are unaware of; the lion’s share of what they “think” they know about Hillary Clinton’s reputation “is the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.” As no small number of pundits and political observers have noted, if a liberal thinks Hillary Clinton is corrupt and dishonest, they are paying Republicans huge dividends for their quarter century of manufactured anti-Clinton talking points; not reality.

As noted in a recent Atlantic article, “no other political figures in American history have spawned the creation of a permanent multi-million-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking the Clintons.” Now, many on the left have embraced the GOP talking points and are gleeful in doing the heavy lifting for Clinton’s Republican political enemies. Enemies who have “manufactured every kind of conspiratorial scandal under the sun to hang around Hillary’s neck.”

Republicans have always despised former president Bill Clinton, “but Hillary always got the worst of it” because she is a woman and led the 1993 crusade to enact universal healthcare; an historical fact that many on the left refuse to believe and thinks is a lie and one Republicans will never forget.

Even though there is little difference between the two Democratic candidates, there may be valid personal reasons one opposes Hillary Clinton in 2016. But what is happening is that those reasons are increasingly about “the personality that’s been manufactured and sold to the Left by the GOP, not policy issues.”

The reality is that Hillary Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her tenure, and it is that history as a progressive crusader that so motivated the GOP, and now the pretend Left, to destroy her character in the first place.

As noted here, many of the conservative, and now the Left’s, attacks on Clinton are the product of “rank institutionalized sexism” focusing on her character they claim is inherently dishonest. The implication is that there is no possible way any woman can achieve anything of note without being dishonest and untrustworthy; except that according to expert “truth seekers,” Hillary Clinton is not dishonest.

For example, the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Politifact” gave Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates in either party. She easily crushes Republicans Kasich, Cruz and Trump, and Politifact rates her as more truthful than her Democratic opponent.

In fact, the former executive editor of the New York Times and a renowned investigative journalist who is no friend of Hillary or Bill Clinton, Jill Abramson, penned an op-ed in the Guardian and declared that “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” Ms. Abramson is uniquely qualified to assess Clinton’s candidacy and character after spending the past 25 years as an editor and investigative journalist carefully covering “every phony scandal that has enveloped the Clintons.”

Jill Abramson laid out her “yardstick for measuring a politician’s honesty” that includes “investigating connections between money (donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and a candidate’s official actions and lies made in the heat of an election.” Abramson’s conclusion is that “there are no instances of where Hillary Clinton did the bidding of a donor or benefactor.” It is something her opponent cannot truthfully claim, and yet is regarded by those claiming Clinton is dishonest as the epitome of integrity and honesty.

Abramson ends her opinion piece claiming that “Clinton has been mainly constant on the issues” and particularly noted that evolving, or changing positions over the course of time, is not dishonesty or lying. She also said that Clinton’s proclivity to protect her and her family’s privacy contributes to a sense of not being transparent, but that there is a double standard for anyone to insist on her “purity.”

As some Democrats know, both of the Democrats seeking the nomination are decent human beings and fundamentally honest liberal politicians. Still, there is this contention that Hillary Clinton is inherently bad because she is part of “the dreaded establishment” and its shill. Hillary Clinton is no more an establishment shill than any other male politician, and yet she is the only Democrat being assailed as dishonest and untrustworthy by other alleged Democrats. Even her opponent is part of “the establishment” if “establishment” means having to work within the U.S. government’s system of rules and are subject to its bottom line.

Hillary Clinton may not be every “liberal’s” ideal candidate, but she is not “the grotesque self-parody that a quarter-century of Republican ‘vetting’ has reduced her to” for an increasing number of voters calling themselves Democrats. As former congressman Barney Franks opined, “all of the controversies that have dogged Clinton’s entire career are either dirty lies, whole-cloth creations, or convenient manipulations by the GOP.” And now those GOP creations and manipulations are being embraced and propagated by many on the so-called Left; it leaves one to wonder who is really being dishonest and untrustworthy.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/...dishonest.html

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

It's happening...

Shuster is such a tool. Hillary is held to a completely different standard than all other recent Secretarys of State. All of them until it was recently made illegal, used their own server. Colin Powell not only didn't turn in his email from his private server, he deleted all the email. Last I heard, we're pretty much good with him. The FBI is going to ho hum this case and the Republican left can move on to some other fake offense.

As I said the other day, my estimate after DC is in is HRC 2,156 and needing only 227 super delegates. I also said, I think Bernie could win CA. It won't be by much if he does. This isn't a sporting event, winner take all. They just split the delegates. It's possible some super delegates move to Bernie's side and he'll get additional negotiating power with regard to the platform. Well done Bernie. Now get in line and support the Democratic candidate for President.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

A follow-up for you Woodsy. I think this article fairly well states my position. I won't go on because this is apparently a global warming style disagreement. I've no understanding of your position and think it's completely wrong headed, and you feel the same way about mine so we'll just agree to disagree on this one.
l

i have the misfortune of understanding both positions and sympathizing with both.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

A follow-up for you Woodsy. I think this article fairly well states my position. I won't go on because this is apparently a global warming style disagreement. I've no understanding of your position and think it's completely wrong headed, and you feel the same way about mine so we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/...dishonest.html

SF2, I like your style too much to say I'll completely give up trying to convince you, but I think that's a fair idea for us moving forward.