Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm not sure there's really an analog here. Bernie might cut defense spending 5%, Stein wants to cut it 50%...

I understand that the participants on this thread think there are *huge* differences between Sanders and Clinton but I've always seen them as quite similar, just the salt and pepper of the Democratic party. Jill Stein is a healthy spoonful of habanero, and Sanders supporters are just beginning to take notice of her. We'll see what happens if they discover Berniestein.

Stein is different, that's for sure, and until yesterday I had more of a stomach for arguing that Bernie was different too, only now not so much. I agree that there is not much policy difference between Clinton and Bernie on the surface, least of all when it comes to the substantive stuff. How else is a "Democratic Socialist" to make it to the US Senate these days?

But I take it further and this is another place where we disagree even as we may stroll along in the same general direction. When it comes to the fundamentals of American power, that is - who rules, there is no meaningful difference between any of them the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama or Trump. The difference isn't the substance, it's the style.

I posted this from the venerable Bill Blum a few days back.

[QUOTE]
JULY 7, 2016If You Like Obama, You’ll Love Trump!

by WILLIAM BLUM

• 
  
• 
  
  
• Email

• 

Joseph Sohm | Shutterstock.com

Oh, what fun we have with the nonsense that flows out of the mouth of Donald J. Trump. The man is suffocatingly banal, racist, dishonest, inarticulate, uninformed, uneducated, narcissistic, a bully, just plain stupid, and an asshole (or in the immortal words of my people — a schmuck!) I would guess that as the boss of his own enterprises for many years, with the power and the habit of firing people, he eventually became deeply accustomed to not having his thoughts seriously questioned or challenged, to the extent that he really believes the crap that comes out of his mouth and doesn’t really understand what others actually think of him.
But if we look at what comes out of the mouth of The Barack is there any reason to castigate The Donald for his supposedly outrageous or weird way of expressing himself? Here’s a sample:
— On numerous occasions, in reply to a question about why his administration has not prosecuted the Bush-Cheney gang for mass murder, torture and other war crimes, former law professor Obama has stated: “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards.” Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent of any crime on such grounds. On other occasions, Obama, without apparent embarrassment, has stated that “nobody is above the law”. (A public figure can be labeled stupid not just for saying or doing stupid things, but for not even realizing that the public will SEE his words or actions as stupid.)...[/QUOTE]


Now If a person is genuinely and consistently opposed to the policies abroad and at home, that person will understandably and legitimately condemn much about Trump and his views. But how those views differ in substance from the mainstream of Democratic and Republican policy over the last 15 years, I'm still not able to tell. That's why I don't share the same sense of offense on the thought of the man as some seem to.

What is the source of the condemnations of Trump from all these people? While they may differ with Trump on specific prescriptions, the policies they favor proceed from the same premises. In that sense, Trump's policies and theirs are variations on a theme; in many cases, Trump's policies are indistinguishable from those advanced by those who condemn him. We therefore must wonder: What is it about Trump that has caused them to become so unhinged?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

the next president may be in a position to appoint 4 supreme court justices, and set the court's course for a generation. 2 are pretty much a sure thing, and highly likely 3-4 if the next president serves 8 years.

scalia- dead
ginsberg- 83
kennedy - 79
breyer-77

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

the next president may be in a position to appoint 4 supreme court justices, and set the court's course for a generation. 2 are pretty much a sure thing, and highly likely 3-4 if the next president serves 8 years.

scalia- dead
ginsberg- 83
kennedy - 79
breyer-77

I have this same smaller view of the change that is possible with the 2016 election. It's mostly continued social change. The bigger change, shrinking the empire, will take much longer, require continuous activism and will take someone like a younger version of Stein raising money at levels Sanders was able to do. If that happens, maybe substantive change will come.

As I've said several times before, I focus on attempting to make real change at the local level and it's extremely difficult to change entrenched views and habits even in an organization with 2-300 people or a city with a few thousand people. I've accepted the fact that I will have close to zero real effect at the national level. I'm much more concerned about my family first and my community second.

And in the Southwest, I don't think we can save our communities long term because we're running out of water. We camp in UT, CO, NM and AZ and everywhere the conifers are dying because it no longer gets cold enough in the winter to stave off the beetles and the ever more massive fires. I'm always surprised how few people really notice that conifer blight is now nearly everywhere in the Rockies. Enough water for people can be solved. Enough for the environment is impossible.

Apologies for going so off-topic but while others want a revolution to end empire, I want to find a good place for the next generation or two for my family. It's a difficult choice as many locations will have too little water and others will have way too much water.

As I figure out this issue, which is to me my family's biggest long term, solvable issue, a Supreme Court that is not striping us of all our rights would be a nice to have.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Donald and Hobbes

highly recommended

[don't forget to click at the bottom to open up the last 3 strips]

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Donald and Hobbes

highly recommended

[don't forget to click at the bottom to open up the last 3 strips]

Whoever figured that out and put it together is a genius!

Which VP candidate will make the best Hobbes?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Whoever figured that out and put it together is a genius!

agree, and s/he put a lot of work into picking the proper photos of trump. great stuff.

Which VP candidate will make the best Hobbes?

hobbes is too calm, wise, and dry to be any politician i can think of.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

hobbes is too calm, wise, and dry to be any politician i can think of.

So there's a Gresham's Law for politicians, too.

[lektrode]

and its Pence?

Trump To Pick Mike Pence As Vice President

While hardly a surprise to those who have been following the republican vice presidential race, moments ago Roll Call reported, citing a source, that Trump will pick Indiana governor Mike Pence as his vice president. In addition to Pence, Trump has considered former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Army Gen. Michael Flynn for the No. 2 spot on his ticket

[vt]

Re: and its Pence?

This is a shock:

RAS POLL: TRUMP 44% CLINTON 37%... CBSNYT: 40% 40%...

[lektrode]

Re: and its Pence?

This is a shock:

maybe so, but certainly not THIS:

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision
by Jon Rappoport


Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision
by Jon Rappoport
July 13, 2016


“It appears to me they made a deal not to record [the key FBI-Hillary] interview.”
(This failure, as I wrote, means the interview is lost forever. No stenographic transcript was executed, either. FBI agents’ notes on the interview are useless. They can never be used against Hillary as ironclad evidence in a court of law.)


“Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview—he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”


(Indeed he did. He functioned as FBI Director, Grand Jury, Attorney General, and appellate judge. In this last role, he knowingly misinterpreted the Federal Penal Code, which clearly states that gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Hillary was, at the very least, grossly negligent. FBI Director Comey acknowledged this.)


“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation. This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations.”


“Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview [of Hillary] and prosecution opinion [on whether to file charges] takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”


(In other words, the fix was already in.)


Attkisson: “During his Congressional testimony, Comey indicated he didn’t look into Clinton’s false statements. He said he needed an additional ‘referral’ or formal request [from Congress] for the FBI to investigate whether she committed perjury under oath to Congress. ‘This makes no sense,’ said a career agent. ‘It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.’”
(There is no need to wait for a request to investigate from Congress.)


You can bet many people at the FBI are boiling over after Director Comey’s recommendation that Hillary not be charged and prosecuted.


Level of Bureau morale now? Too low to measure.


How would you feel, if you’d spent months uncovering multiple breaches of the law, all of which your boss admitted were quite real—and then he turned around and said the suspect—a Presidential candidate—was innocent?


https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...mail-decision/

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Pense? Seriously? Trump is going after the conservative republican vote instead of the Sanders supporters who might have crossed over. Bad move.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Pense? Seriously? Trump is going after the conservative republican vote instead of the Sanders supporters who might have crossed over. Bad move.

I've been thinking about this shiny!, and it might be a smart move given the choices he had. Trump has to do two things, maintain his base while he moves to the center. If he moves to the center without an anchor, he starts losing his base. Pense has street cred with evangelicals and almost anyone in the right quadrant of the voting public. Trump also has the entire "I hate the system crowd", of which, as evidenced here, many are not in the first voting block. To win he needs to sound reasonable from now to the election to collect the center/right. Pense can be his guard dog, sort of the Warren of the right, hammering home the ideology and being as tough on Clinton as Trump has been while he steps away and more professionally hammers her on her two key weaknesses, defense and honesty.

I live in a town that is about 1/2 Hispanic and 80% Catholic, (for those with a religious preference). From talking with people on the plaza it's clear that Catholic has more pull than Hispanic for anyone right of center with strong feelings about abortion. Unscientific I know but I've been surprised.

You know where I stand so this choice isn't one that makes me happy because it makes too much sense and I'm beginning to think HRC is going to make a huge mistake in a week and choose someone right of her platform to balance her ticket toward the center while she talks the platform that Bernie forced her into. If she does this it will be a huge mistake. No one, (including me), believes for a minute she will support Sanders' platform. A choice right of her will be the confirmation. She has to choose left of her so the VP talks the platform and she continues to be in the center. She owns the center now and will never own the left. If she moves away from the center and pretends to be left of Reagan, Trump will take it. Her best chance to win is to chose Warren or Sanders as VP and really let the VP role with the direction that Sanders supporters clearly outlined during the last year.

I still feel the same way about Trump. I don't think he breaks the parties, I think he breaks the world and moving to Canada is still going to mean I've got to live on this planet. We'll find out next week if HRC is 100% tone deaf. I hope not.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

it's hard to believe that hrc's veep choice will matter much. she's a VERY well known quantity. her identity in the minds of the public is very well established. the inside-baseball crowd will analyze the choice to no end, but ultimately i doubt it will shift many votes.

trump, otoh, is a rogue elephant, with his identity and positions very much in flux and/or quite vague. his choice could indeed make a difference.

and i agree with your analysis, sf2. pense nails down the right wing that might not otherwise turn out as much as he would wish. all he has to do then is not say too many crazy things, so that he appears more reliable to center and swing voters.

i read an article in the nyt times yesterday about trump's support among college educated males. in part it said that "college educated" these days is a far broader demographic than it used to be, and many of those guys [we're talking males, remember?] may have jobs that are really more appropriate for hs grads. what was NOT mentioned in the article, however, was hillary's statement some time ago that being female was a qualification for office, and that being female was a reason to vote for her. everyone knew obama was african-american and some - including me- thought that fact alone was a positive reason to hope for his election. i don't recall that he ever suggested that people should vote for him BECAUSE he was african-american. i think hillary dissed men, and now she's paying the price.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i don't recall that he ever suggested that people should vote for him BECAUSE he was african-american. i think hillary dissed men, and now she's paying the price.

She can be quite tone deaf. She'll need a smart advisor with some serious influence inside the campaign to keep her on track. From what I see, she has mostly Clinton insiders.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

trump, otoh, is a rogue elephant, with his identity and positions very much in flux and/or quite vague. his choice could indeed make a difference.

and i agree with your analysis, sf2. pense nails down the right wing that might not otherwise turn out as much as he would wish. all he has to do then is not say too many crazy things, so that he appears more reliable to center and swing voters.

Trump and Sanders appealed to the huge number of voters that's been screwed-by and is disgusted with the two-party system. They awoke a sleeping, angry giant. Voters who are non-aligned in the center or who feel betrayed by the Democratic machine and were leaning towards Trump now have to vote for a Republican who embodies everything they fear and despise about the extreme right. A lot of them be staying home or swinging back to Lady MacBeth. I know I will.

I had planned to grit my teeth, pull the lever for Trump and hope for the best but there's no way I can do that now. I'll be staying home. At least George Carlin will be looking down on me with a smile.

The question is, which bloc of voters is the bigger loss for Trump?