Everything associated with income equality is also a serious existential threat. I read your analysis frequently. Thanks.
2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Good article on ISIS, proves your point:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/talk...acebook&utm_campaign=viceuk&utm_medium=social
With leading Republican candidates like Carson threatening to withdraw from the Republican Party and Donald Trump threatening to run as a third party, I'd say the Republican Party appears to be on the verge of breaking up.
I have heard Republican super PACs - probably Koch funded - are planning to take Trump out of the race in January with a heavy barrage of negative ads. And if that happens and if they are successful at damaging Trumps front runner status, I think it is a near certainty that Trump will run as a third party candidate.
I have heard Republican super PACs - probably Koch funded - are planning to take Trump out of the race in January with a heavy barrage of negative ads. And if that happens and if they are successful at damaging Trumps front runner status, I think it is a near certainty that Trump will run as a third party candidate.
Still Dreaming
Last month it happened that Marco Rubio appealed to hope, that one day he would be able to turn back the hands of time↱ and make gay marriage go away. The need for a chance to do it all over must be on the Sunshine junior's Christmas list.
Then again, it's kind of naughty.
While Simon Maloy↱ considers the market dynamic, it seems worthwhile to point in another direction, as well. The Republican contenders this year really don't like the Constitution. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush alike would need amendments in order to deliver even their basic refugee policies. Nor are they the only ones; Rubio himself is a world-class bigot.
Still, though, this is another occasion on which candidates hoping to swear an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution find themselves campaigning on a platform unsatisfied with the nation's charter. It must be changed, because the job they really want to do isn't allowed.
The White House fired its salvo at Donald Trump, declaring that the Republican frontrunner has effectively disqualfied himself, but this is a question that persists: Why do people who think government doesn't work want the job of governing? And why do they so loathe the Constitution they wish to swear―and in some cases have sworn―to uphold?
Given that Republicans are wont to complain of court packing any time President Obama fulfills his constitutional duty and nominates a federal judge―they even briefly flirted with the idea of simply eliminating vacant benches―it does seem worth noting that Mr. Rubio proudly boasts of his intention to stack the Supreme Court with idealogues aiming to redefine the Constitution more to his liking. This practice does, indeed, have some history in the United States, and is what brought us corporate personhood; you know, just for instance.
The interesting thing is that while the Texas junior, Ted Cruz, has ascended to prominence for his disruptive, anti-establishment credentials, Marco Rubio rides a buzzing wave of establishment favor; as Elias Isquith↱ recently explained, "Rubio has been described throughout his presidential campaign as coming from the party's supposedly reasonable, establishment-friendly wing. He is, we’re told, one of the 'adults'."
To the one, it really is kind of silly, this pretense that Marco Rubio is some manner of sober and serious candidate; to the other, following on that narrative we might wonder at his inability to grasp the dangers of chasing this hardline quarry. It is one thing to wonder about the pivot once a candidate secures the nomination, but it seems yet uncertain just how any of these Republican candidates are leaving themselves any room to maneuver.
And Rubio? He's the closest thing the establishment has to a candidate, and that seems largely on the merit of his hawkdrums. He's after women, gays, Muslims, and the Constitution of the United States of America. One could, I suppose, have worse ambitions; still, is there any point in the effort to figure out what they might be?
Well, okay, there is Art Robinson ... never mind.
____________________
Notes:
Isquith, Elias. "The disturbing truth about Marco Rubio: The establishment’s favorite is running an extremist, Islamophobic campaign". Salon. 21 November 2015. Salon.com. 14 November 2015. http://bit.ly/1X8661g
Maloy, Simon. "Marco Rubio’s desperate move to catch Ted Cruz: Grasping for evangelical votes by vowing to demolish gay rights". Salon. 14 December 2015. Salon.com. 14 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1O5ZQD3
Last month it happened that Marco Rubio appealed to hope, that one day he would be able to turn back the hands of time↱ and make gay marriage go away. The need for a chance to do it all over must be on the Sunshine junior's Christmas list.
Then again, it's kind of naughty.
On “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Marco Rubio made clear that he, as president, would see to it that gay Americans would lose their newly won constitutional right to marriage. Asked by Chuck Todd on whether he would accept equal marriage rights for gay couples as a permanent fixture of American law, Rubio said no. “I don’t believe any case law is settled law,” he said. “Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.” So Marco Rubio, self-described candidate of the future, will roll back the advance of individual rights because that’s what our long-dead founders would have wanted, probably.
This fits into a larger pattern of increasingly direct appeals to Christian conservatives and evangelicals by Rubio. Late last month he went on the Christian Broadcast Network and, when asked about same-sex marriage, began talking up the superiority of God’s rule over civil authorities. And now Rubio has a brand new ad out aimed at people with “traditional values” who “feel out of place in our own country.”
What you’re seeing here is the Rubio response to Ted Cruz’s surge in national and Iowa polling. Just like Rubio’s ridiculously hawkish posturing goaded Cruz into taking a more aggressive stance on national security, Cruz’s success with Christian conservatives is forcing Rubio to pander harder to the religious right. He’s stoking the resentments of people who feel that the expansion of gay rights represents an abrogation of their own religious liberty. He’s still not as far to the right as Cruz, whose reaction to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage was to argue that states are not bound by the decision, but it’s pretty clear that Rubio is looking to bite into his rival’s base of support.
This fits into a larger pattern of increasingly direct appeals to Christian conservatives and evangelicals by Rubio. Late last month he went on the Christian Broadcast Network and, when asked about same-sex marriage, began talking up the superiority of God’s rule over civil authorities. And now Rubio has a brand new ad out aimed at people with “traditional values” who “feel out of place in our own country.”
What you’re seeing here is the Rubio response to Ted Cruz’s surge in national and Iowa polling. Just like Rubio’s ridiculously hawkish posturing goaded Cruz into taking a more aggressive stance on national security, Cruz’s success with Christian conservatives is forcing Rubio to pander harder to the religious right. He’s stoking the resentments of people who feel that the expansion of gay rights represents an abrogation of their own religious liberty. He’s still not as far to the right as Cruz, whose reaction to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage was to argue that states are not bound by the decision, but it’s pretty clear that Rubio is looking to bite into his rival’s base of support.
While Simon Maloy↱ considers the market dynamic, it seems worthwhile to point in another direction, as well. The Republican contenders this year really don't like the Constitution. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush alike would need amendments in order to deliver even their basic refugee policies. Nor are they the only ones; Rubio himself is a world-class bigot.
Still, though, this is another occasion on which candidates hoping to swear an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution find themselves campaigning on a platform unsatisfied with the nation's charter. It must be changed, because the job they really want to do isn't allowed.
The White House fired its salvo at Donald Trump, declaring that the Republican frontrunner has effectively disqualfied himself, but this is a question that persists: Why do people who think government doesn't work want the job of governing? And why do they so loathe the Constitution they wish to swear―and in some cases have sworn―to uphold?
Given that Republicans are wont to complain of court packing any time President Obama fulfills his constitutional duty and nominates a federal judge―they even briefly flirted with the idea of simply eliminating vacant benches―it does seem worth noting that Mr. Rubio proudly boasts of his intention to stack the Supreme Court with idealogues aiming to redefine the Constitution more to his liking. This practice does, indeed, have some history in the United States, and is what brought us corporate personhood; you know, just for instance.
The interesting thing is that while the Texas junior, Ted Cruz, has ascended to prominence for his disruptive, anti-establishment credentials, Marco Rubio rides a buzzing wave of establishment favor; as Elias Isquith↱ recently explained, "Rubio has been described throughout his presidential campaign as coming from the party's supposedly reasonable, establishment-friendly wing. He is, we’re told, one of the 'adults'."
To the one, it really is kind of silly, this pretense that Marco Rubio is some manner of sober and serious candidate; to the other, following on that narrative we might wonder at his inability to grasp the dangers of chasing this hardline quarry. It is one thing to wonder about the pivot once a candidate secures the nomination, but it seems yet uncertain just how any of these Republican candidates are leaving themselves any room to maneuver.
And Rubio? He's the closest thing the establishment has to a candidate, and that seems largely on the merit of his hawkdrums. He's after women, gays, Muslims, and the Constitution of the United States of America. One could, I suppose, have worse ambitions; still, is there any point in the effort to figure out what they might be?
Well, okay, there is Art Robinson ... never mind.
____________________
Notes:
Isquith, Elias. "The disturbing truth about Marco Rubio: The establishment’s favorite is running an extremist, Islamophobic campaign". Salon. 21 November 2015. Salon.com. 14 November 2015. http://bit.ly/1X8661g
Maloy, Simon. "Marco Rubio’s desperate move to catch Ted Cruz: Grasping for evangelical votes by vowing to demolish gay rights". Salon. 14 December 2015. Salon.com. 14 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1O5ZQD3
The blossoming bromance between Trump and Putin is most interesting, though I guess it shouldn't be unexpected. They have much in common. While the rest of the Republican candidates want to shoot down Russian airplanes, Trump wants to create a Trump-Putin mutual admiration society.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-bromance/index.html
Trump continues to advance in the polling and is now polling at 39%. As I have said before, I think Trump will be the Republican nominee. But according to the British odds makers, Rubio will be the Republican nominee. I think there is money to be had here. I don't think most folks, especially those outside the country, understand and appreciate how crazy the Republican Party has become.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-bromance/index.html
Trump continues to advance in the polling and is now polling at 39%. As I have said before, I think Trump will be the Republican nominee. But according to the British odds makers, Rubio will be the Republican nominee. I think there is money to be had here. I don't think most folks, especially those outside the country, understand and appreciate how crazy the Republican Party has become.
Last edited:
Huckabee ... Mad
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is a bit frustrated with his two-point standing in the polls, and he focuses his ire on fellow Christians:
To the one, it's worth noting that he's not telling most of us anything new about conservative fundraising operations. But accusing Christian organizations of abiding by "secular standards" might well be fighting words. The former Arkansas governor denounced his Christian political brethren for talking about prayer when they "don't necessarily believe that it will change things".
That portion of the electorate known as the Religious Right is faithless; we might observe the dichotomy 'twixt conservatives who call for prayer in order to reduce violence and those who think packing heat in the sanctuary is the better option, and recognize that the two conditions are apparently not exclusive―pretending faith in God is a lot easier when one has no faith in His Will.
Sadly for Huckabee―though probably to general societal benefit―the dejected Republican presidential candidate overlooks the conservative evangelical disdain for reality. If Huckabee does what he says he would do, he would be stopped in the courts, and the fundraising operations could spin even faster conning people into thinking their five or twenty or hundred dollars will abolish the Supreme Court. This myopia might well be the important point; if Mr. Huckabee cannot recognize the obvious reality right in front of him, he probably shouldn't be president.
In the meantime, the phenomenon of watching the corpus Christi eat itself never quite gets old. Once upon a time it was simply a contrast between claiming communal solidarity in Christ to the one, and refusing to answer for troubles in the community by excluding other people from Christianity―the bottom line is that Christianity and Christians are not supposed to be regarded as merely human unless that frailty is the frame for an appeal to supremacism. This sense of superiority runs back nearly to the beginning, and while Southern Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and others might hate Catholicism and Catholics, none of the Protestants or later reformers seem to have considered abandoning the traditional hubris of Christian heritage.
While Huckabee is not blazing new trails or shattering barriers, that he has turned against his conservative evangelical brethren with what passes for fighting words―conservatives really don't like when liberals, for instance, express similar sentiments about right-wing fundraising―is not insignificant: He is accusing the Religious Right of betraying Christ.
And, really, that ought to count for something.
____________________
Notes:
Mantyla, Kyle. "A Dejected Mike Huckabee Is Now Just Burning Bridges With The Religious Right". Right Wing Watch. 7 January 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 13 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1SOJQpc
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is a bit frustrated with his two-point standing in the polls, and he focuses his ire on fellow Christians:
Huckabee recently spoke with Fox News pundit Todd Starnes about his feelings toward the leaders of the Religious Right establishment who, he feels, abandoned him and he did not hold back as he accused them of not actually wanting to see an end to abortion or gay marriage because they raise too much money campaigning on those issues.
"As I've often said, 'I don't go to them, I come from them,' but because of that I do understand them. And a lot of them, quite frankly, I think they're scared to death that if a guy like me got elected, I would actually do what I said I would do, and that is I would focus on the personhood of every individual, we would abolish abortion based on the Fifth and 14th Amendment, we would ignore the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. And you know what the result would be?
A lot of these organizations wouldn't have the ability to do urgent fundraising because if we slay the dragon, what dragon do they continue to fight? And so, for many of them, it could be a real detriment to their organization's abilities to gin up their supporters and raise the contributions, and I know that sounds cynical but, Todd, it is what it is."
(Mantyla↱)
To the one, it's worth noting that he's not telling most of us anything new about conservative fundraising operations. But accusing Christian organizations of abiding by "secular standards" might well be fighting words. The former Arkansas governor denounced his Christian political brethren for talking about prayer when they "don't necessarily believe that it will change things".
That portion of the electorate known as the Religious Right is faithless; we might observe the dichotomy 'twixt conservatives who call for prayer in order to reduce violence and those who think packing heat in the sanctuary is the better option, and recognize that the two conditions are apparently not exclusive―pretending faith in God is a lot easier when one has no faith in His Will.
Sadly for Huckabee―though probably to general societal benefit―the dejected Republican presidential candidate overlooks the conservative evangelical disdain for reality. If Huckabee does what he says he would do, he would be stopped in the courts, and the fundraising operations could spin even faster conning people into thinking their five or twenty or hundred dollars will abolish the Supreme Court. This myopia might well be the important point; if Mr. Huckabee cannot recognize the obvious reality right in front of him, he probably shouldn't be president.
In the meantime, the phenomenon of watching the corpus Christi eat itself never quite gets old. Once upon a time it was simply a contrast between claiming communal solidarity in Christ to the one, and refusing to answer for troubles in the community by excluding other people from Christianity―the bottom line is that Christianity and Christians are not supposed to be regarded as merely human unless that frailty is the frame for an appeal to supremacism. This sense of superiority runs back nearly to the beginning, and while Southern Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and others might hate Catholicism and Catholics, none of the Protestants or later reformers seem to have considered abandoning the traditional hubris of Christian heritage.
While Huckabee is not blazing new trails or shattering barriers, that he has turned against his conservative evangelical brethren with what passes for fighting words―conservatives really don't like when liberals, for instance, express similar sentiments about right-wing fundraising―is not insignificant: He is accusing the Religious Right of betraying Christ.
And, really, that ought to count for something.
____________________
Notes:
Mantyla, Kyle. "A Dejected Mike Huckabee Is Now Just Burning Bridges With The Religious Right". Right Wing Watch. 7 January 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 13 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1SOJQpc
Cruz got a very large loan from Goldman Sachs to pay for his senate campaign. This is the guy who claims to be an outsider. This is the guy who manages and he didn't disclose it as he is required to do...oops.
What's amazing is the bunch of them actually have an electorate to appeal to. Doesn't say much for America. Looking at Paul Ryan's body language during O'bamas last State of the Union Address was pathetic. They've cornered the market on intellectual dishonesty and want to stuff it up our collective ass. Hopefully Trump will blow a fuse in mid rant. Remember the flic Scanners? Like that.
Hopefully it will signal the end of Republican nonsense when Trunp gets blown out. It should be pretty interesting waiting for Trumps concession speech. We should put the Governor of Michigan in the joint for what he's done to the folks in Flint. How can you be that ignorant and be elected to public service?
You do him a favor by calling it ignorance. What was he ignorant of?
It's deluded principle in action, leading directly to incompetence and failed governance, but he does not recognize this as incompetent government - he regards it as bad luck, while he was doing everything right. He's a true believer in the myth of running a government like a business, the poor getting what they deserve for not working harder, and environmental concerns as hippy woo. He will also file this as an example of what happens when a government provides a service, instead of the private markets.
Rightwing authoritarian government, like fat grandpa gymnastics, is fuck-up city. Always has been, always will be. The basic problem with a Trump or Cruz or Rubio or Bush or Carson Presidency is that they are not competent to be President. They don't have the skill set, or the natural ability.
I wonder if the Republicans and so-called independents who parrot right-wing talking points, namely those who fear government and claim to see Nazi-Commie-Muslim-Jew post-fascist conspiracy theories in everything President Obama does would sit by quietly while, say, President Trump and a Republican Congress adopt the Michigan emergency management plan?
The story of Michigan emergency management has, the entire time Republicans have run this program, been an example of why it is so hard to take the right-wing, end-is-nigh mass-delusional tantrum seriously, but also why we need to take it seriously.
Health insurance? Republicans think this is fascism. Human rights? The end of the free world, according to Republicans. An appointed dictator displacing local government and destroying local education systems and civic infrastructure to the point of poisoning an entire city? Apparently Republicans have no problem with this.
The story of Michigan emergency management has, the entire time Republicans have run this program, been an example of why it is so hard to take the right-wing, end-is-nigh mass-delusional tantrum seriously, but also why we need to take it seriously.
Health insurance? Republicans think this is fascism. Human rights? The end of the free world, according to Republicans. An appointed dictator displacing local government and destroying local education systems and civic infrastructure to the point of poisoning an entire city? Apparently Republicans have no problem with this.
Canadian Ted has branding problems. First, it was that Canadian birth and citizenship thingy and now the image of him as a man of the people is being eroded with the disclosure that he has received loans totaling nearly a million dollars from Wall Street firms which he failed to disclose as he was required to do. That should spell trouble for Canadian Ted.
Obama added $10 trillion to the national debt and achieved what? The economy is sputtering. He gave the money to Wall Street, so rich could get richer, the number of poor would increase and so the middle class gained nothing, but higher medical bills due to ObamaCare. Say Obama had not been able to inflate the meager economy with deficit spending, what do you think would have happened?
Republicans aren't against health care but they are against a health care system as corrupt and incompetent as ObamaCare. Why do you think they need to mandate ObamaCare with laws and IRS goons. Because it is a piece of crap that nobody would buy, if given the option to shop elsewhere. The Republican plan will not use a mandate to force people to buy crap.
Only the Republican candidates are talking about overhauling the tax code. The Democrats always talk about rising the tax rates for the wealthy. Obviously they don't understand how the tax system works, Anyone with half a brain knows, deduction and exemptions is where the big tax savings is. Tax rates can be written on one page, so why do we need 75,000 pages. This is for deductions and exemptions, where the richest people can afford the teams of experts who can cancel out tax rates with deductions.
If you simplify the tax code, to 2-4 pages, you remove most of the deductions and exemptions. Then the rich and poor have a level playing field. For example, the Clinton Foundation makes use a loopholes so they don't have to pay any taxes on hundred of millions of dollars. If we reduce the tax code to 4 pages, then these rich people will pay their fair share.
The Republicans believe in immigrants; legal immigrants. They don't believe that anyone who starts their stay in America, by breaking laws, should be given better treatment than citizens. Only the democrats reward criminal behavior, thereby encouraging it. Maybe the next time Nancy Pelosi has a party at her mansion, we can break into her house like illegal aliens do to the country. According to her feigned sympathy for those who don't maintain legal boundaries, she should allow us to eat at the big table. That is a laugh. She would act worse that any republican, if it was her house.
Obama and Hillary, due to their foreign policy, has allowed 100,000's of people be to killed. There are also million refugees who have been displaced, all due to the effectiveness of liberal bias.
Democrat corruption will be on display shortly, when Hillary is charged with misuse of classified information. What is expected to happen is she will be pardoned buy the democrat controlled injustice department. This will trigger a movement against government corruption, and will demonstrate how the ruling class is not accountable. This will create a landslide.
Thanks for correcting me. Wow give me a break I'm an old hippy. My hippy philosophy was very youthful idealism. I don't sound like much of an idealist but I really am. Great post iceaura. I really enjoy reading your comments including the hippy one.
That should be an interesting answer. Guess I'll have to take him off ignore to hear the answer. I kinda thought he bailed from darkening the forum doorstep. Then I thought what if he died? How would that make me feel? Glad to hear Wellwisher is alive and spewing bullshit. Ignore function can get serious.
Geez Ted say it isn't so. You're not an intellectually dishonest sociopath are you? Say it isn't so. You're a pretty good journalist in my mind. IE joepistole.
Wellwisher said:
(1) The PPACA is RomneyCare is the Heart Act. You want to call Bob Dole corrupt and incompetent, go ahead. But Republicans have also denounced the individual mandate as Nazi, and if anyone intends to call Bob Dole a Nazi, they are pretty much disqualifying themselves from the discussion. But sure, go ahead and call the Heritage Foundation incompetent, or Bob Dole corrupt. Compared to single payer, the individual mandate is excremental, but it's also all the people could get in order to fend off the corrupt insurance industry.
(2) There is no Republican plan, and no projected time that we will see one.
(3) Rumors of Republican plans over the last five and a half years either (A) include the individual mandate, or (B) don't work, but (C) aren't really plans, anyway; in the end, the best you can hope for of those sketches is Obamacare lite: increased cost and reduced benefit to policyholders, but there's still a mandate.
Given that there is an historical record of these aspects, it seems absurd at this time to simply make it up as you go and hope nobody notices.
Stop making it up as you go. Find yourself a real clue.
The corrupt insurance industry. We all know what would be best for Americans. The single payer that was initially proposed and shot down by oligarch interests. Folks that don't recognize the intellectually dishonest self serving aspects of the New Republican message are asking for it. No more constructive than the neoconservative nonsense instituted by the neocon lackey GW Bush. Lots of folks died because of the insane analysis and incoherent tactics used during the move to institute a New American Empire. The core goals were insane. Conduct two wars at the same time. Establish a constabulary presence in different theaters of the world. Use lean and mean tactics [complete bullshit miliatarily] to reach these goals. And a bunch more stuff that was not good for Americans regardless how they frame it. So what's wrong with Americans that are so easily manipulated by a bunch of oligarch nonsense? That's a question that I wouldn't mind hearing you address. Thanks for not being a member of that group and writing down coherent opinions that reveal you have researched to a meaningful conclusion. BTW Wellwisher you should ask Tiassa how you could improve. This is off topic and I know you're a Seahawks fan. I'm trying to switch my loyalty to the Seahawks since Dean Spanos has ruined any possiblity of my 'further' association with the Charger organization. My initial choice is based on my love of the kind of football being coached, successfully I might add, in Seattle and I recently moved to Brookings on the Oregon coast so I can no longer fall prey to my desire to actually attend games in San Diego. Maybe I'll come up to Seattle next season. Should be a war this week. Go Seahawks. I've been a Trojan fan my entire life so go Coach Carroll and the rest of his staff.
Last edited:
Yeah that Regal pic of Putin on his horse was pretty impressive. The kind that always impress narcissist wannabes. BTW my favorite journalist is Rachel Maddow. The comparison she made between the George Wallace campaign technique and what Donald Trump is doing was special. Culminating in the conclusion that Trump displays his narcissism by never believing he could be wrong on any subject and a complete self serving belief in the power of intellectual dishonesty. I kinda paraphrased that so I hope I'm not out of line. My wife used to have to tell me to shut up about Trump while she's trying to watch his tv show. I watched it because I enjoy being with my wife and sometimes it's instructive on how not to make an unintentional fool of yourself make on tv. Anybody that thinks this guy has superior management skills is whacked.
Last edited: