• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Kilo_302 said:
Anyone left supporting Trump after this $#@#show needs to reappraise their sanity. Let's not forget the son of this paragon of moral virtue was arrested on weapons and assault charges this week. Palin herself has blamed his transgressions on PSTD stemming from his service in Iraq, and of course blames Obama for not supporting veterans. All the while she wants the US to get further involved in wars around the world.


[urlhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/sarah-palin-endorsed-donald-trump-it-is-bonkers-video][/url]

...and you're in what sort of position to say otherwise? What inside medical knowledge do you have that disproves what she's saying?

...and Obama does not support veterans. She is not lying there either.

I also see no reason to condemn her for wanting to take the fight to the extremists. Someone has too. Of course, we in Canada, with our sunny ways and rainbows will sit idly by while we hope that our non commitment to go it with the rest of the western world will ensure that the terrorists leave us alone.

Finally, Mother Jones? Seriously? Could you not get any more of a socialist left wing reference to cite?
 
recceguy said:
Finally, Mother Jones? Seriously? Could you not get any more of a socialist left wing reference to cite?

Rabble.ca and the Red Star didn't have articles about it.
 
Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump:

Yahoo News

Watch: What On Earth Is Sarah Palin Saying In This Part Of Her Donald Trump Speech?

Yahoo News
January 20, 2016

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin last night leant her support to presidential hopeful Donald Trump in her own inimitable way.

But what got people talking was not just Palin’s exuberant delivery at the rally in Iowa, or Trump’s muted reaction as he watched - but a brief segment in the speech.

(...SNIPPED)
 
recceguy said:
...and you're in what sort of position to say otherwise? What inside medical knowledge do you have that disproves what she's saying?

...and Obama does not support veterans. She is not lying there either.

I also see no reason to condemn her for wanting to take the fight to the extremists. Someone has too. Of course, we in Canada, with our sunny ways and rainbows will sit idly by while we hope that our non commitment to go it with the rest of the western world will ensure that the terrorists leave us alone.

Finally, Mother Jones? Seriously? Could you not get any more of a socialist left wing reference to cite?

I have zero medical knowledge of her son's condition, that wasn't my point. But you're free to guess again.

"Support" for veterans can only mean funding, which in fact has increased under Obama.

Finally, here's the very same video of the speech, unembedded in a website so you don't have to deal with all of that "socialist left wing" bias and can enjoy the speech directly. And guess what? IT'S STILL INSANE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb0qIZD9g7M

You'll notice SMA's non-"socialist" Yahoo link also has little trouble showing Palin for what she is.

PuckChaser said:
Rabble.ca and the Red Star didn't have articles about it.

If you're inferring I am a communist you either a) don't have a working definition of communism, or b) are just being lazy.

You'd fit right in in the front row at this Trump rally.




 
Kilo_302 said:
Let's not forget the son of this paragon of moral virtue was arrested on weapons and assault charges this week.
Interesting 'argument.'  ::)

Do you have any children?
Do you actually believe you are legally or morally responsible for each and every thing they do, or just Trump is because it fits your needs?

grasping-at-straws.jpg



For the record, I'm not remotely a Trump fan; I just don't like dumb arguments.
 
By Kilo's logic, Chrétien should have been hounded from office when his son was jailed in the 90s...

Yet, that did not happen. Instead, there was muted sympathy for a father who had probably done his best.

I guess only (small l) liberal parents get a break...
 
Journeyman said:
Interesting 'argument.'  ::)

Do you have any children?
Do you actually believe you are legally or morally responsible for each and every thing they do, or just Trump is because it fits your needs?

grasping-at-straws.jpg



For the record, I'm not remotely a Trump fan; I just don't like dumb arguments.

It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons:

First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.

Second, she has linked her son's behaviour to PTSD related to his service in Iraq. This is fine, but she's also made a political career of calling for the invasion of Iran, and increased military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her policies would create thousands of new veterans, many of whom would suffer from the same symptoms as her son. Can someone really be "pro-military" and yet also so reckless when it comes to getting involved in military entanglements, especially given the experience in Iraq?

SeaKingTacco said:
By Kilo's logic, Chrétien should have been hounded from office when his son was jailed in the 90s...

Yet, that did not happen. Instead, there was muted sympathy for a father who had probably done his best.

I guess only (small l) liberal parents get a break...

For reasons I posted above, it's different when a "family values" candidate has these issues in their own family. Republicans in particular campaign on this sort of nonsense all the time to conceal their fealty to corporate power, so it's especially rich when a hate-spewing homophobic congressman gets caught blowing a guy in an airport, or gets charged with possession of coke etc etc. Small l politicians don't base entire careers on trying to get the government back into people's bedrooms, or blaming all of America's problems on a lack of family values or Christianity. That's the sole territory of Republicans, and they're always lying through their teeth.






 
Kilo_302 said:
It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons:

First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.

Second, she has linked her son's behaviour to PTSD related to his service in Iraq. This is fine, but she's also made a political career of calling for the invasion of Iran, and increased military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her policies would create thousands of new veterans, many of whom would suffer from the same symptoms as her son. Can someone really be "pro-military" and yet also so reckless when it comes to getting involved in military entanglements, especially given the experience in Iraq?

For reasons I posted above, it's different when a "family values" candidate has these issues in their own family. Republicans in particular campaign on this sort of nonsense all the time to conceal their fealty to corporate power, so it's especially rich when a hate-spewing homophobic congressman gets caught blowing a guy in an airport, or gets charged with possession of coke etc etc. Small l politicians don't base entire careers on trying to get the government back into people's bedrooms, or blaming all of America's problems on a lack of family values or Christianity. That's the sole territory of Republicans, and they're always lying through their teeth.

Are you attempting to light your strawman on fire, Kilo ?
 
Sorry but I really don't understand.  It appears that you are saying because her son turned out a certain way that some how that negates her traditional christian values.  I don't see how his actions negates her values or that she loses credibility.  I have worked since I was 13, taught all my kids that hard work was important and living off the social services when you can work is not right but if they decide to not work it is my fault?

Everyone developes their values from all around them and not just from their parents.  For whatever reason her son picked some other values.  Her values are still valid, it is his that are perhaps wrong. 
 
Attacking Governor Palin to "disqualify" was started in the 2008 election because she potentially could have delivered a stinging defeat to "The One" and discredited the leftist narrative. The process continues to this day because she is still popular in enough places that she can potentially draw many more voters into electoral races. Her vetting of TEA Party movement candidates and their subsequent electoral victories is proof enough of that. Frankly, I expect no less from the Legacy Media, many of whom are now openly "Democrat operatives with bylines", to quote Glen Reynolds (Instapundit).

The Democrats, Republican establishment and Legacy Media fear that she still has a great deal of power to sway elections, and (sadly) I predict that even decades from now when she passes, we will see an orgy of vitriol in the press similar to what happened after Margaret Thatcher's passing.
 
Kilo_302 said:
It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons:

First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.

Second, she has linked her son's behaviour to PTSD related to his service in Iraq. This is fine, but she's also made a political career of calling for the invasion of Iran, and increased military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her policies would create thousands of new veterans, many of whom would suffer from the same symptoms as her son. Can someone really be "pro-military" and yet also so reckless when it comes to getting involved in military entanglements, especially given the experience in Iraq?

For reasons I posted above, it's different when a "family values" candidate has these issues in their own family. Republicans in particular campaign on this sort of nonsense all the time to conceal their fealty to corporate power, so it's especially rich when a hate-spewing homophobic congressman gets caught blowing a guy in an airport, or gets charged with possession of coke etc etc. Small l politicians don't base entire careers on trying to get the government back into people's bedrooms, or blaming all of America's problems on a lack of family values or Christianity. That's the sole territory of Republicans, and they're always lying through their teeth.

:blah: :rofl: :bullshit: :ignore:
 
Anyone ever consider that it might not be PTSD but rather upbringing?

He really could just be a "richard".

After all, the whole family is a paragon of family values.
 
Journeyman said:
From clutching at straw....
To broad-brush allegations....
To effectively proclaiming yourself the intellectual equivalent of Fox 'News.'

:not-again:


We're done here.

haha so when I use a source that's "left" it's immediately denounced as biased an inaccurate (even though it's youtube video) and NOW because FOX is covering the story and I'm referencing FOX I'm the intellectual equivalent.

Which media outlet are you comfortable with Journeyman? NBC, CBS and ABC are also reporting this story, and in much the same way. Are any of these acceptable?

recceguy said:
:blah: :rofl: :bullshit: :ignore:

As always, an excellent contribution and fitting for your role as Directing Staff.

Thucydides said:
Attacking Governor Palin to "disqualify" was started in the 2008 election because she potentially could have delivered a stinging defeat to "The One" and discredited the leftist narrative. The process continues to this day because she is still popular in enough places that she can potentially draw many more voters into electoral races. Her vetting of TEA Party movement candidates and their subsequent electoral victories is proof enough of that. Frankly, I expect no less from the Legacy Media, many of whom are now openly "Democrat operatives with bylines", to quote Glen Reynolds (Instapundit).

The Democrats, Republican establishment and Legacy Media fear that she still has a great deal of power to sway elections, and (sadly) I predict that even decades from now when she passes, we will see an orgy of vitriol in the press similar to what happened after Margaret Thatcher's passing.

People CAN be incredibly mean spirited in politics, and it is distasteful. Palin is no stranger to gutter politics, and nor is Trump. I'm not too worried about Trump or Palin discrediting the "leftist" narrative. If Trump wins the election, he'll either tone it down and succumb to "the system" as it were, or he'll continue to double down on his outlandish policies and prove the Left's narrative that a corporate dominated system will produce more and more extreme figures coming from the Right.
 
Kilo_302 said:
As always, an excellent contribution and fitting for your role as Directing Staff.

I only post as Staff if the post is signed as such. Otherwise I'm simply a member, with an entitlement to any opinion I wish.

Trust me. If I post to you as Staff, you won't mistake the difference again.
 
Interesting that union members are for Bernie, while union leadership is for Clinton. This makes sense, Clinton is definitely as "establishment" as it gets. I would also argue that this underlines that many of problems with (and poor opinions of) unions these days stem from the leadership capitulation to capital and corporate power. If anything, this development just shows that leadership is corrupt, and just as interested in disenfranchising its members as management is. This is a co-opting of labour, not an indictment of the concept of a union itself.

More and more it's looking like we could be in for a Trump/Sanders election in the fall. It would be the most interesting (and the most important) US election in decades.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/

For example, Clinton got an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign this week. That decision was made not by a vote of HRC’s membership list but instead by a 32-member executive board that includes Mike Berman, the president of a lobbying firm that works for Pfizer, Comcast, and the health insurance lobby. Northrup Grumman is among its list of major corporate sponsors.

The Sanders campaign blasted the group as “establishment” and said that Sanders has a much stronger record on LGBT equality than Clinton. Outspoken gay activist Michaelangelo Signorile wrote that HRC had clearly traded its early endorsement for “access to the White House” for its leaders.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees endorsed Clinton, but “it was an absolute top-down process,” said Katie Nelson of AFSCME Local Council 28 in Washington state. “If they wanted to claim this was supported by the membership, they should have had a membership vote.”

“For either candidate to get real grassroots support from NEA members, an endorsement ought to be the result of an extended dialogue with members,” said Anthony Cody, an education blogger who was a member of the National Education Association for two decades. “Hillary Clinton has engaged in a few phone calls with NEA leaders, but the membership has been left out. “

At the American Federation of Teachers, where the executive council voted to endorse Clinton, membership polling was done in the summer of 2015 — when many people in the country did not know who Bernie Sanders even was.

“To rush a nomination like that before anyone else in labor — before the AFL-CIO — was unnecessary,” said Jim Miller of AFT Local 1931. “They pretty much ran an inside game with that nomination process. It wasn’t a rank-and-file game by any stretch of the imagination.”

The United Food and Commercial Workers didn’t take a public vote. “I don’t think they reached out to membership and asked their membership who they were willing to support,” complained UFCW Local 791 member Richard Poole. The UFCW’s board and its president then offered a surprising endorsement to Clinton. UFCW’s chief nemesis is Wal-Mart, a corporation on whose board Clinton sat for six years.

The one major labor union that did allow for a vote was the Communications Workers of America. CWA followed a three-month process that included meetings with members, telephone town halls, and an online polling voting process.

“We conducted an online membership poll from mid-September to early December,” said CWA spokesperson Candice Johnson in a statement to The Intercept. “Tens of thousands of members voted in the poll, with Sanders getting a decisive majority.” Johnson noted that CWA did not endorse in 2008 because they followed the same process and the three leading Democratic candidates all received around the same proportion of votes.

“CWA had a really good model for how to do this … certainly better than what [SEIU] did,” said Ed Hunt, who is in SEIU Local 503 in Oregon and objects to his union’s endorsement process, which was based on non-binding membership polling and town halls followed by an executive board vote. “For me an ideal process would have been a process where we talk about the issues and the candidates’ stance on the issues followed by a vote.”

While all four major organizations that held membership votes endorsed Sanders, two that did not hold open membership votes also endorsed him: the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and National Nurses United.

Sanders was endorsed by MoveOn with 78 percent of voters choosing him; in the Democracy for America vote, he won nearly 88 percent; and 87 percent of Working Families Party voters chose Sanders.

Many of the groups that did not hold an outright membership vote were not entirely transparent in disclosing how they endorsed candidates. Several cited membership surveys and focus groups but did not disclose how these other processes were weighted against the decisions of executive boards.

 
Looking at Bernie Sanders, he seems to be about as attractive a person as Hillary...

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-The-trouble-with-Bernie.html

The trouble with Bernie
A moralizing scold, but for the left
BY  MICKEY HIRTEN

Here's my problem with Bernie Sanders. With few exceptions, I agree with his positions on issues. But I don't like him or his political temperament. He'd be an awful president.

I followed him carefully when I was editor of the Burlington Free Press in Vermont. Sanders was the state's sole congressman, lived in Burlington, and would periodically visit with the newspaper's editors and publisher.

Considering that the Free Press' editorial positions were very liberal, reflecting the nature of a very liberal Vermont community, one might think that meetings with Sanders were cordial, even celebratory.

They weren't. Sanders was always full of himself: pious, self-righteous and utterly humorless. Burdened by the cross of his socialist crusade, he was a scold whose counter-culture moralizing appealed to the state's liberal sensibilities as well as its conservatives, who embraced his gun ownership stance, his defense of individual rights, an antipathy toward big corporations and, generally speaking, his stick-it-to-them approach to politics.

My most memorable encounter with Sanders was during an editorial board session during a period when the Vermont Progressive Party was reconstituting itself to challenge for more seats on the Burlington City Council.

Sanders had been mayor of Burlington from 1981 until 1989, institutionalizing progressive government in the city and other Vermont enclaves. Although he has been in Washington since his election to the House of Representatives in 1991, he remained the titular head of the movement, yet refused to endorse a progressive slate seeking City Council seats or the new leadership orchestrating the campaigns.

After discussing his favorite issues — corporations, government reform, health care and the like, I asked about his unwillingness to endorse his fellow progressives. He said it wasn't his role. I suggested voters might expect him to weigh in. He disagreed, clearly annoyed at the persistent questioning. Finally I suggested that he had a larger moral responsibility to the progressive movement.

At which point he jumped out of his seat, told me to go f*** myself and stormed out of the edit board meeting. OK, maybe my persistence bordered on hectoring. But I felt he ought to provide an honest answer. My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

He returned to the meeting about five minutes after the outburst and we continued to discuss issues of the day.

The candidate you see on television working crowds, shaking hands and even smiling has undergone a presidential campaign conversion. And there is no doubt that Sanders is a smart, deft politician riding a popular, populist wave. But what is real?

I'm not alone in my opinions about Sanders. Chris Graf, long-time Associated Press bureau chief in Vermont, in an article published Sept. 30 in Theweek.com, had this to say about the senator.

“Bernie has no social skills, no sense of humor, and he's quick to boil over. He's the most unpolitical person in politics I've ever come across,” Graf said. Others who have covered Sanders agree.

Seven Days, the lively alternative weekly in Burlington, is offering extensive coverage of the Sanders campaign, reporting framed by decades of coverage. A recent article by Paul Heintz titled “Anger Management” featured current and former staff who have experienced the dark side of Sanders.

“They characterize the senator as rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile. Though Sanders has spent much of his life fighting for working Vermonters, they say he mistreats the people working for him,” Heintz wrote. Among those he cited was Steve Rosenfeld, Sanders' press secretary during his 1990 House campaign, and author of “In Making History in Vermont.”

"At his best, Sanders is a skilled reader and manipulator of people and events," Rosenfeld wrote in his account of the campaign. "At his worst, he falls prey to his own emotions, is unable to practice what he preaches (though he would believe otherwise) and exudes a contempt for those he derides, including his staff."

In the clubby media/political Vermont government bubble examples of Sanders' sour temperament and moralizing abound. His response to my challenges was perhaps a bit extreme, but not by much. He is a polarizing politician and proud of it; as Woody Allen put it in “Annie Hall”: “But for the left.”

That's not good enough. The rigid, uncompromising ideology of the Orwellian-named Republican Freedom Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives has helped paralyze government. Its members won't even compromise with the more pragmatic members of the party, preferring no loaf rather than a half.

Republicans will continue to control the House after the 2016 election. The Democrats have a chance to regain control of the Senate. Split government again. That the parties are unwilling, or at least unable, to work together accounts for the public's astounding low opinion of Congress. Add a president as unyielding as Sanders to the political mix and we may look back at the current Congress as the good times.

Which is too bad, because Sanders' positions are really good, progressive and would help Americans. He'd just be really bad advancing them.
 
Again rumors are picking up that former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is mulling a presidential bid.

Potential Bloomberg candidacy drops new wild card into already wild race

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-01232016-htmlstory.html#1134

The prospect of billionaire Michael Bloomberg launching an independent presidential bid dropped new uncertainty into an already highly unusual 2016 primary season.

The former New York City mayor has fostered presidential aspirations before. But the 73-year-old appears, like many Americans watching the raucous nominating contests, to be seeking a dose of stability in the current race.

"His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump's dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton's stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side," according to the New York Times, which first reported the development. He would be willing to spend $1 billion from his own pocket, the story said.

Coming a week before the Iowa caucuses kick off the nominating process, Bloomberg's intentions throw new political calculations into an already topsy-turvy race.

A Bloomberg candidacy could cut several ways in a three-person race as an independent challenging the two parties' nominees.

Bloomberg's campaigns against sugar-laden soda drinks and his efforts to stem gun violence would likely attract voters who hew toward Democrats, potentially stripping votes from that party's eventual nominee. His ties to Wall Street, however, could sour some seeking more populist leadership.

At the same time, Bloomberg could also have sway with more moderate-minded Republicans who would be uncomfortable if Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas emerges as the party's nominee.

Bloomberg appears to be weighing these and other factors, according to the report, and has set a deadline for reaching a decision of early March.

He is said to be most interested in making a bid if Democrats nominate Sanders and Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz. In such a case, Bloomberg apparently believes he would draw support from moderates in both parties.

Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler welcomed a possible Bloomberg bid, saying the former mayor's controversial positions would be easy to run against.

"I don’t want to get my hopes up that the 2016 campaign could be about gun control, cap-and-trade and Big Gulps," he said. "Please, please run!"
 
Although Trump has been a Democrat supporter in the past, and also a well known "pay to play" political opportunist, his words and actions in the race have solidified him in the minds of the public as a Republican (if not an establishment one).

Bloomberg is so well known for his nanny state Democrat initiatives as Mayor of NYC that he will be seen as a Democrat even if he runs as an independent. Advantage: Republicans.

 
Back
Top