Coincidence? I think not. We are heading towards disaster.
Bolt:
Would it be fair to say that Bill had Perot…and Hillary has Trump…?
(Lucky indeed).
1 Like
Incredibly so. I mean. Here is a great quote that sums the whole thing up:
“I’m beginning to think it is rigged and Trump is a Clinton plant. If he was, what would he do differently this week?” Josh Holmes, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said sarcastically in an email.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290596-trump-casts-doubt-on-electoral-system
Not sure if you mentioned this one specifically, but QED:
Yikes. Actually, I had no idea about this. I mean, in my mind, he’s discredited by simply associating with Alex Jones and lending his personality to Infowars and Prison Planet, but his outright trutherism is the crown jewel of nuttery.
I didn’t watch this video but you’re telling me Clinton is somehow having people killed in the process of her getting to the WH? I am not a conspiracy theorist and all the crazy ones out there about 9/11, Denver Airport, etc. are ridiculous. This one is probably the same thing.
Thank ye sir. I always wonder about Japanese views on America. Hereabouts we tend to hear less about it than any other big player, for no discernible reason.
1 Like
Like I said, I will look it up because while those things may sound crazy on the surface, but if explain in the right context it may not be.
For instance, while the Civil War was over slavery, what started the war wasn’t as simple as, “The succeeded and they have slaves! Blast them!” Tensions were high anyway, and part of what played into the war starting and happening when it did was the triangle trade with England. Which raised the price on agricultural goods the north depended on and used to get delay/ virtually tax free before skyrocketed in price. Clearly the CSA was trying to ‘rub it in’ by doing this and it was at least a catalyst for the war. Had the south been amiable partners who maintained direct trade with the North, who knows what would have happened. There may have been a war anyway, but the drums of war through the 1850’s up to 1860 would not have been beaten as loudly had the South worked out equitable trade deals with the North and not try to rub it in their face.
So saying ‘tarriffs’ were the reason for the Civil War would be overall incorrect, the triangle trade with England played a role. Let’s not whitewash American history too much. There were those in the North who clearly hated slavery and it was a big issue for them. Others were like people are with abortion today “Well I don’t agree with it, but I am not going to tell somebody else what to do.” to “That’s fine have your slaves, but for God’s sake keep them in the South!”.
And I don’t know what you mean by the 'Vast ediface of the Federal Government is unconstitutional". Again, I want the context. If he was talking about recent Executive overreach, we know at least one measure that was struck down by the supreme court, and the excessive use of Executive Orders for matters that should have been handled by congress, then I wouldn’t totally disagree. Executive overreach on major issues was a problem for the Obama administration and for that which was not unconstitutional, walks a razor thin line.
That’s why I wanted proof as to whether he’s screeching like a banshee, or are these extricated from more nuanced discussions. Context makes a difference.
I am not so sure it was ‘completely predictable’ at least not as to the high level and the sophistication in which it was carried out. We are not a banana republic. I could see a little twisting of the dials a little at the local/ lower levels. But people elevated as high at Wasserman, should have known how to keep her hands clean. At least, learn when not to look. And like I said, we are not a banana republic. Quite frankly, I don’t expect it to happen here, especially after something like Watergate, which wasn’t that long ago toppled an administration.
LOL! Well you know the GOP process was at least fair because NOBODY wanted Trump to win, myself included.
Overall I agree with your assessment. Since you are on the other side of this, what are your thoughts on what effect this will have on the Sanders supporters? Prior to this, I expected them to fall in line and at least vote 90% Hillary. Now I am not sure what they are going to do.
Now I am thinking 10% Hillary, 10% Trump, 80% Third Party/ Write in/ No vote. That’s purely guessing based on how pissed they seemed, but people in this country have a very short memory, so who knows by Nov.?
Do you have any insight as to what they are going to do? Are the moving as a collective unit or fracturing?
My only exposure to Sanders supporters are college students, who never had a job (even an menial one), play video games all day, don’t know the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution and I don’t know have even bothered to register to vote. So I don’t think that’s a good measure of the ‘FeeltheBern’ movement.
It seems a little odd that all of these people associated with Clinton are dropping like flies isn’t it?
I am not a conspiracy nut, but this is not the first time body-counts have been associated with Hillary. There was a big scandal about Vincent Foster, with whom she had an affair with and was involved in the Arkansas Project and White Water in the '90’s. The death was ruled a suicide, but the incidents surrounding the death made the details murky at best.
When in doubt, rub’em out.
Maybe they got to Christopher Hitchens too, who for all his faults, was a loud critic of the Clinton’s? Or maybe they were just lucky with him.
If this were the first time I have heard of people dying mysteriously around the Clinton’s, I would probably dismiss it. But this isn’t the first time. Throughout the '90’s, this kind of shit followed them around the entire time.
To be honest, I kind of forgot about all that stuff, but this brings it up fresh into memory.
I pretty much agree with your guesstimate. I expect most Millennials that supported Sanders to not vote and/or go 3rd party.
As to the percentage, that’s anyone’s guess. I think for the Sanders supporters that were looking for what they consider a genuine person that’s not a career politician they will look to Johnson or a write-in. That appears to be the consensus for the 30 and under crowd that I know anyway.
I still don’t fully understand how Bernie was ever considered an outsider and I don’t see how Johnson is truly an outsider either (outside of D.C. sure, but not outside the political class), but that’s what I keep hearing about why younger folks like Johnson now.
For those that want the free stuff, I think they just stay home or vote Clinton.
I still think, barring some crazy revelation beyond what we’ve already seen, Clinton will crush Trump and Johnson.
I actually think Trump and Johnson will finish within 10%-15% of each other in the popular vote. 25%-30% Trump 15%-20% Johnson.
And @pat
It’s hard to say re: Sanders supporters. I have no special knowledge and they are a generally unreliable voting bloc.
However, I do still believe the worst is yet to come for Hillary, and the kinds of things we learn will actually be seen by Sanders supporters as validation, and they have a chance to keep the fire lit under these folks when they otherwise might lose interest before election day.
These supporters are idealists, not pragmatists, and want to vote their conscience. If there continues to be a steady drip of evidence of Hillary’s insiderism and corruption (or, of course, a bombshell), and I think there will be, I think they are going to show up at the polls this year and vote for Stein (maybe Johnson, if he really connects with them on social issues).
2 Likes
Julian Assange was on the Bill Maher show last Friday and he said he would be dropping Hillary emails until the election comes. He also said he was working on getting Trump’s tax returns as well. Should be interesting to say the least.
I agree this is Clinton’s election to lose. Having Trump as the R candidate is a gift wrap for her. However, given her nefarious past and the shit that just keeps coming up, despite the media’s best efforts (some of them are implicated in those emails too, CNN and NBC are honourable mentions) to suppress, the stink continues to rise to the top.
My belief is that it hinges on the first debate. Trump has enough on Hillary to have a non-stop 3 hour tirade without having to bring up a single thing that is not in question about her and her past. Whether he is smart enough to pull it off is another matter altogether. That, or a major terrorist act on U.S. soil would seal it for Trump.
This period is a lull. Trump will say something stupid and lose points. And another corpse from Hillary will break it’s tether and float to the top on Hillary and then she will lose points.
Barring something major, it all hinges on the debates. I hope Trump has a tutor and goes to finishing school for a month.
In the end, I vote on the issues which to me, are still bigger than the candidate who claim to represent them. So my vote will go to the clown with the big red-nose and the floppy shoes unless hillary turns miraculously pro-life, then I may reconsider.
Okay. I agree with everything you said here.
Are there any Sandars supporters who know the pulse of that camp? Where they are leaning. I know some are so pissed they are willing to vote for Trump, just to piss Hillary off. That’s amazing to me…
Trump wants to eliminate death tax and make all child care expenses tax deductible.
Now we wait for the hundreds of “experts” to chime in on why this will leave nothing but a scorched earth for future Americans.
How’s he planning on covering all of the lost tax revenue?
any guesstimate of how much that is?
I’m not sure. The “death tax” accounts for something like 1% of tax revenue, but the child care deduction could be a big deal. I pay about $15k a year for daycare for 1 kid and, for MD, that’s pretty darn cheap. I know folks with 1 kid paying $25k+ in other counties.
The only thing I have to go on is the Tax Foundation says the static impact of the GOPs tax plan is, iirc, about a $2.4T loss of revenue and around a $200B loss using their dynamic scoring. Left-leaning analyses put their plan at a $4T loss. The Trump plan uses the same brackets from what I’ve read with the addition of the child care deduction. I don’t know how similiar the two plans are, though.
I’d say a conservative (not as in politically conservative, but accounting conservative) estimate would be $2.5T-$3T in lost revenue.
That’s a lot of ground to make up.