http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-endorses-hillary-clinton_us_5759c842e4b0e39a28acf9b6
QuoteSen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president.
Warren gave her endorsement in an interview with the Boston Globe on Thursday.
“I’m ready,†Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.â€
In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Thursday night, Warren explained her endorsement and why she held off on endorsing during the Democratic primary, calling the work of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign “powerfully important.â€
“He brought millions of people into the political process, he brought millions of people into the Democratic Party and for me that’s what this is all about,†she added.
Warren emphasized why it’s important for Sanders’ supporters to now get behind Clinton.
“I think about what’s at stake in this election and I think about what happens if Republicans have the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives,†Warren said. “Say goodbye to the Affordable Care Act ... say goodbye to Dodd Frank ... say goodbye to a Supreme Court that is truly open and balanced and looking out for the American people.â€
Warren also stressed how much of a “threat†presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is to the American people.
Her backing of Clinton followed President Barack Obama’s endorsement, which he announced in a video earlier that day.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who competed in the Democratic presidential primary, also backed Clinton on Thursday. Clinton clinched the nomination Monday after surpassing the 2,383 delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, according to a tally by the Associated Press.
While Warren refrained from choosing sides between Clinton and Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) till now, she hasn’t shied away from sharing her thoughts on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.
Throughout the month of May, Warren took to Twitter to rant against Trump’s misogynistic, racist, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric, and used public appearances and commencement speeches to address Trump as a “small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt.â€
Her actions caught the eye of Clinton’s campaign, as HuffPost’s Sam Stein and Ryan Grim reported in mid-May:
Dripping with disdain, the 140-character [Twitter] asides got under Trump’s skin (admittedly, not the hardest of feats). He accused her of “tweeting violently†and bestowed on the senator one of his trademark churlish nicknames. “Goofy Elizabeth Warren,†he replied in tweets of his own.
The more important reaction came not from Trump, however, but from Hillary Clinton‘s campaign. Multiple sources close to the former secretary of state say that her aides took note of the senator’s ability to rile the real estate tycoon. And they recognize the value of such dart throwing from, say, someone filling out a presidential ticket.
One close Clinton confidant said that she and her aides were “thrilled to see Warren get under his skin.†Another senior Clinton adviser, who is advocating internally for Warren as a vice presidential pick, said the senator has “very influential people in the campaign pushing for her.â€
Reuters reported Thursday that Warren has considered the idea of serving as Clinton’s running mate, but has concerns. But several prominent Democrats think Warren would be an ideal VP candidate, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who hasn’t publicly called for Warren to run with Clinton but said Tuesday the country is ready for an all-female presidential ticket.
“I believe we should make up for lost time,†Reid said. “We’ve had all men.â€
Well either she knows something we don't or Baruch is right, but her approval is a pretty big boost. E. Warren for VP?
Pants suits will be all the rage in DC. I need a drink.
Is it drinking the Kool Aid when the alternative is a more of a vote-split because of the lack of endorsement? Seems like more of a tactical move to try and make sure Trump isn't elected, IMO
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 10, 2016, 12:00:08 AM
Is it drinking the Kool Aid when the alternative is a more of a vote-split because of the lack of endorsement? Seems like more of a tactical move to try and make sure Trump isn't elected, IMO
The "kool-Aid" is in reference to a comment Baruch made in another thread. He said if EW backed HC it meant she drank the kool aid and was now one of the cult, so to speak. I also said (in the other thread) that I didn't see her being VP, but she did not say she would never accept it.
Actually-after watching the Rachel Maddow show where she made the announcement, I think it is a very smart move. This puts her in a pivotal spot and could well be the difference between Sander backing HC or not. It could go a long way to unifying the party. She is highly respected by many people and especially independent women voters. That fact alone could win the election for HC.
Ahhh. Ok I understand. I didn't get the reference,
@stromboli
Bernie and Liz are holding onto these positions of power as their best hope for affecting positive change?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 10, 2016, 12:00:08 AM
Is it drinking the Kool Aid when the alternative is a more of a vote-split because of the lack of endorsement? Seems like more of a tactical move to try and make sure Trump isn't elected, IMO
IMHO ... the sooner the Democrat party dies, the better. Hopefully the Republican party dies along with it. And people say I have no hope. But I think the odds are long on either horror going into the dustbin of history.
I thought it was significant that Hillary got Obama's endorsement too. Guess he hopes the next President doesn't indict him for war crimes, just as he didn't indict his predecessor.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 10, 2016, 01:44:50 AM
Bernie and Liz are holding onto these positions of power as their best hope for affecting positive change?
That is a definite maybe. We can expect a kinder gentler Nero administration if they stay with Hillary's program. So what kind of German are you? Will you try to moderate the Nazis ... as the German military tried to (while enjoying a near successful attempt at world conquest) ... or will you flee the country? Which for an American today, disgusted with their home country, means Canada (same as during the 60s).
It was the shared interest in imperialism that kept the German military from killing Hitler immediately. See Rommel. He was part of Hitler's inner circle in the beginning (Czechoslovakia) ... did well with his field commands ... waited until Germany was clearly losing the war before turing on Hitler (with plausible deniability that didn't impress the Gestapo).
Quote from: stromboli on June 09, 2016, 11:55:17 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-endorses-hillary-clinton_us_5759c842e4b0e39a28acf9b6
Well either she knows something we don't or Baruch is right, but her approval is a pretty big boost. E. Warren for VP?
Pants suits will be all the rage in DC. I need a drink.
Warren will not take the off of being the VP even if offered. I firmly believe she is prepping herself to become the next Dem. nominee for Pres after Hillary. And she already has my vote. :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 10, 2016, 08:55:56 AM
Warren will not take the off of being the VP even if offered. I firmly believe she is prepping herself to become the next Dem. nominee for Pres after Hillary. And she already has my vote. :)
The possibility occurred to me. Warren is nothing if not smart. A lot will depend on Hillary's getting elected and how successful she is at the job. Maddow brought up the subject of being the VP in the interview and whether "if EW were VP" she could step into the role of being president. She firmly stated that she could. She did not say either way she would refuse the offer, but she did not outright say she wouldn't. But I agree with you, I don't see her accepting the role of VP but you never know.
Since Dick and Joe ... the VP is the real President. The official President is just teleprompter fodder.
The collapse of the democratic and republican parties would be great, but we have a more immediate concern that we're dealing with... the issue of how Trump is very likely going to become our president because of a vote-split.
Warren may be endorsing Hillary now, which I personally feel is the best thing to do... I was going to vote for Hillary anyway if Sanders was booted out... but I see many people frustrated by this and wanting to vote Jill Stein. Some people I see wanting to write in Bernie's name regardless of if he's in as an independent. This will split the votes, causing Trump to have more votes than anyone. And causing a hate-mongerer to be our leader, legitimizing the hate and racism and sexism that already exists in this country.
I'd take a fake-nice Hillary over a confidently hateful Trump any day of the week
There is a reason pride is one of the deadly sins after all, it seems.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 10, 2016, 01:05:09 PM
The collapse of the democratic and republican parties would be great, but we have a more immediate concern that we're dealing with... the issue of how Trump is very likely going to become our president because of a vote-split.
Warren may be endorsing Hillary now, which I personally feel is the best thing to do... I was going to vote for Hillary anyway if Sanders was booted out... but I see many people frustrated by this and wanting to vote Jill Stein. Some people I see wanting to write in Bernie's name regardless of if he's in as an independent. This will split the votes, causing Trump to have more votes than anyone. And causing a hate-mongerer to be our leader, legitimizing the hate and racism and sexism that already exists in this country.
I'd take a fake-nice Hillary over a confidently hateful Trump any day of the week
There is a reason pride is one of the deadly sins after all, it seems.
That is a real concern. I hope Bernie does the right thing and eventually endorses her as well. It shows how far into delusion the US population is that Trump is even the nominee.
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2016, 01:25:24 PM
That is a real concern. I hope Bernie does the right thing and eventually endorses her as well. It shows how far into delusion the US population is that Trump is even the nominee.
Bernie promised to endorse Clinton a while back.
Thanks. I missed that.
Actually, after he promised to support whoever the democratic nominee was during the debates, he kinda took that back and said they have to be fair to him or else. He was on The Young Turks in the past week or two though, and confirmed that he will support Hillary if it comes down to her and Trump.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on June 10, 2016, 01:27:17 PM
Bernie promised to endorse Clinton a while back.
Link? I didn't know that last thing I saw of him when that issue came up, he very confidently resisted the idea of endorsing Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djbkwj3qlFw
It's either Hillary or Trump, and Warren is not going to endorse Trump.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 10, 2016, 01:05:09 PM
The collapse of the democratic and republican parties would be great, but we have a more immediate concern that we're dealing with... the issue of how Trump is very likely going to become our president because of a vote-split.
Warren may be endorsing Hillary now, which I personally feel is the best thing to do... I was going to vote for Hillary anyway if Sanders was booted out... but I see many people frustrated by this and wanting to vote Jill Stein. Some people I see wanting to write in Bernie's name regardless of if he's in as an independent. This will split the votes, causing Trump to have more votes than anyone. And causing a hate-mongerer to be our leader, legitimizing the hate and racism and sexism that already exists in this country.
I'd take a fake-nice Hillary over a confidently hateful Trump any day of the week
There is a reason pride is one of the deadly sins after all, it seems.
There may be elitist revolts at both conventions ... neither Hillary nor Trump might be allowed to run. Both parties are private, same as the so called Federal Reserve ... they can do anything they like. So don't count your chickens yet.
And both parties/candidates hate you, not because of your skin color, but because you aren't millionaires shelling out dough for their campaigns. Soylent hoi polloi. in that sense, Trump is the more honest one. But voters love to be lied to, and always pick the best liar. This is why Athens ... and the US are failed states. I am just returning the favor by hating them.
Turns out Warren has a generally favorable rating overall.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-republicans_us_57586d0de4b0ced23ca6c42f
She would be a good choice for VP based on her ability to confront nasty people like Trump and the Wall Street barons she already took on to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established. One gutsy lady, very smart and very capable. I'd pick her over Bernie. The Dems like her and so do many Republicans, surprisingly.
And she's a country girl from Oklahoma that waited tables in her aunt's restaurant at age 13 to help her family out. Has an extensive academic background and her husband's a rocket scientist. What's not to love?
I would love it if Warren was the VP... I'm voting Clinton either way, but if E.W. was there balancing Clinton's bullshit, I'd feel a lot more at peace with what little choice I was left with.
It's June. The election is in November. The Democrats need to close ranks. If Bernie Sanders weren't anything but a cranky piece of shit, he'd bow out and endorse Hillary Clinton. It's what has always been done. Hell, the first Bush endorsed Reagan. Johnson endorsed Kennedy. Ted Kennedy endorsed Carter. And let's not forget that Hillary Clinton endorsed Barak Obama. It's called being graceful. It's called not being a sore loser.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 09:14:27 AM
It's June. The election is in November. The Democrats need to close ranks. If Bernie Sanders weren't anything but a cranky piece of shit, he'd bow out and endorse Hillary Clinton. It's what has always been done. Hell, the first Bush endorsed Reagan. Johnson endorsed Kennedy. Ted Kennedy endorsed Carter. And let's not forget that Hillary Clinton endorsed Barak Obama. It's called being graceful. It's called not being a sore loser.
Bernie Sander's popularity is partly based on his lack of interest in or respect for "what has always been done". Hes been doing battle with the DNC establishment from day one.
Lets be clear here: Hillary Clinton has 15 million votes to Bernie Sanders' 12 million. Thats not a very encouraging lead. Nearly half of all Democrats who could be bothered to vote wanted nothing to do with her. I've frankly had enough of people suggesting that it is somehow Bernie Sanders' responsibility to ensure Hillary Clinton's general election victory. It isn't. Its Hillary's responsibility. If she wanted to get his endorsement and his supporters' votes then perhaps she should not have been to cavalier with the rules and the general concept of fairness. Perhaps she should not have "pivoted" and begun ignoring him and his 12 million supporters like they didn't matter anymore. She dug her own fucking grave and now she gets to lie in it and its not mine nor sanders nor anyone elses responsibility to ensure she wins against Trump in November.
You seem to actually believe that a possible Trump victory is somehow the fault of Sanders, but it was the revulsion with which nearly half of Democratic voters held Hillary and the establishment she personifies that is responsible for it. Its HER problem that she is so undesirable as a candidate - not our problem for seeing her that way.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 11, 2016, 09:31:32 AM
Bernie Sander's popularity is partly based on his lack of interest in or respect for "what has always been done". Hes been doing battle with the DNC establishment from day one.
Lets be clear here: Hillary Clinton has 15 million votes to Bernie Sanders' 12 million. Thats not a very encouraging lead. Nearly half of all Democrats who could be bothered to vote wanted nothing to do with her. I've frankly had enough of people suggesting that it is somehow Bernie Sanders' responsibility to ensure Hillary Clinton's general election victory. It isn't. Its Hillary's responsibility. If she wanted to get his endorsement and his supporters' votes then perhaps she should not have been to cavalier with the rules and the general concept of fairness. Perhaps she should not have "pivoted" and begun ignoring him and his 12 million supporters like they didn't matter anymore. She dug her own fucking grave and now she gets to lie in it and its not mine nor sanders nor anyone elses responsibility to ensure she wins against Trump in November.
You seem to actually believe that a possible Trump victory is somehow the fault of Sanders, but it was the revulsion with which nearly half of Democratic voters held Hillary and the establishment she personifies that is responsible for it. Its HER problem that she is so undesirable as a candidate - not our problem for seeing her that way.
Either you're willing to live w/Trump or you're not. It's as simple as that. Clinton is now your only choice. Her arrogance is a moot point. Politics is a dirty business; it's no place for high ideals - never has been, never will be. It's a filthy pit. The Clintons know that. Sanders does not. That makes her more fit for office than him. He would have been a disaster in the White House. A lamb among wolves.
Quote from: stromboli on June 11, 2016, 07:57:09 AM
Turns out Warren has a generally favorable rating overall.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-republicans_us_57586d0de4b0ced23ca6c42f
She would be a good choice for VP based on her ability to confront nasty people like Trump and the Wall Street barons she already took on to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established. One gutsy lady, very smart and very capable. I'd pick her over Bernie. The Dems like her and so do many Republicans, surprisingly.
And she's a country girl from Oklahoma that waited tables in her aunt's restaurant at age 13 to help her family out. Has an extensive academic background and her husband's a rocket scientist. What's not to love?
I am not a litmus test voter, but if I were, I would condemn her for not opposing Hillary's connections to Wall Street.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Either you're willing to live w/Trump or you're not. It's as simple as that. Clinton is now your only choice. Her arrogance is a moot point. Politics is a dirty business; it's no place for high ideals - never has been, never will be. It's a filthy pit. The Clintons know that. Sanders does not. That makes her more fit for office than him. He would have been a disaster in the White House. A lamb among wolves.
If you really think that the degree to which someone is reprehensible is proportional to their fitness for office then you are obligated to support Trump over Clinton.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 09:14:27 AM
It's June. The election is in November. The Democrats need to close ranks. If Bernie Sanders weren't anything but a cranky piece of shit, he'd bow out and endorse Hillary Clinton. It's what has always been done. Hell, the first Bush endorsed Reagan. Johnson endorsed Kennedy. Ted Kennedy endorsed Carter. And let's not forget that Hillary Clinton endorsed Barak Obama. It's called being graceful. It's called not being a sore loser.
Conspiracy theory? ... Bush got the VP, and then tried to kill Reagan. Johnson got the VP, and did kill Kennedy. Ted endorsed Jimmy, and then Ted helped get Ronald elected in 1980. Hillary endorsed Barak, knowing that in 2016, he would have her back. Barak knew better than to offer her VP ;-) There are no friends in politics so why bother with endorsements? IMHO ... nobody's endorsement has ever sways any of my votes.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Either you're willing to live w/Trump or you're not. It's as simple as that. Clinton is now your only choice. Her arrogance is a moot point. Politics is a dirty business; it's no place for high ideals - never has been, never will be. It's a filthy pit. The Clintons know that. Sanders does not. That makes her more fit for office than him. He would have been a disaster in the White House. A lamb among wolves.
He may have been the next Carter. Who was a better man out of office than in.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 11, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
If you really think that the degree to which someone is reprehensible is proportional to their fitness for office then you are obligated to support Trump over Clinton.
Nonsense. FDR had ideals - but he was able to do business. Lincoln had ideals - and was able to do business. Teddy Roosevelt, the same. Hillary Clinton does have ideals - but she can also roll up her proverbial sleeves and do business. Can Bernie Sanders?
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 09:58:17 AM
Nonsense. FDR had ideals - but he was able to do business. Lincoln had ideals - and was able to do business. Teddy Roosevelt, the same. Hillary Clinton does have ideals - but she can also roll up her proverbial sleeves and do business. Can Bernie Sanders?
Trump has ideals, and he does business for a living.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 10:52:39 AM
Trump has ideals, and he does business for a living.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Right-leaning ones - which is OK, if you lean to the right. Hillary has left-leaning ones.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Right-leaning ones - which is OK, if you lean to the right. Hillary has left-leaning ones.
Is one inherently better than the other?
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 11:01:37 AM
Is one inherently better than the other?
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
No. It's a matter of the hood ornament that one wants for the nation.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 11:12:36 AM
No. It's a matter of the hood ornament that one wants for the nation.
I see, so you're just racist against orange people like Trump.[emoji13]
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 11:13:52 AM
I see, so you're just racist against orange people like Trump.[emoji13]
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Well, boil them down, and they're both fairly centrist, especially Trump, but Clinton, too. I happen to lean more to the left, so I'd choose a left-leaning hood ornament before I'd choose a right-leaning hood ornament. But, to tell the truth, I won't be devastated if Trump wins. He's still a New Yorker - still a Democrat in Republican clothes - still essentially a centrist.
We'd've been better off w/a constitutional monarchy. Then our hood ornament could have been royal instead of political. It would have kept the muck off the flag and the vomit where it belongs - in the Congress and the Cabinet. We could have had a sweet old bag that everybody loves, waving at the crowds for our national symbol, instead of a head of state like Dubya. The Founders should have ignored Washington and have gone ahead as planned and invited one of George #3's sons over to be our king. William would have been the perfect choice. Good constitutionalist - and a brood of bastards to choose from to sit on the throne when he croaked.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 10:52:39 AM
Trump has ideals, and he does business for a living.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Why is being an honest businessman a disqualification? Why is being a dishonest businessman a disqualification? I would think the former is a disability in politics, and the latter would be a strong endorsement. But business of America is Business ... Coolidge. Of course socialists will disagree, but there are FEMA camps for them. Of course one doesn't have to a bigoted clown to be a dishonest businessman ... which is why I would hesitate to vote for Trump.
And no, Hillary doesn't get business done. If she had, then even if it was too late, she would have dropped the 101st Airborne into Benghazi and killed everything that moved ... and if she were Teddy Roosevelt, she would have not only done that, but led from the front.
I don't expect people who aren't White or who aren't male ... to endorse White males ... in today's PC politics, the gays can't vote for Hillary either, unless she comes out as lesbian, with pictures of her with Warren as proof ;-)
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
We'd've been better off w/a constitutional monarchy. Then our hood ornament could have been royal instead of political. It would have kept the muck off the flag and the vomit where it belongs - in the Congress and the Cabinet. We could have had a sweet old bag that everybody loves, waving at the crowds for our national symbol, instead of a head of state like Dubya. The Founders should have ignored Washington and have gone ahead as planned and invited one of George #3's sons over to be our king. William would have been the perfect choice. Good constitutionalist - and a brood of bastards to choose from to sit on the throne when he croaked.
Most people don't recognize that Washington pulled a bloodless coup de etat ... in 1787. Patrick Henry was furious. Washington wouldn't have made a king, because his family situation didn't have much virility in it. Same with Franklin and Jefferson. Adams would have made a good king, he defended the British soldiers accused after the Boston Massacre ... and he had good genes. His dynasty was the first, 130 years before the Kennedy clan.
It is a difficult technical question, if the HoS should be ceremonial or practical. Some states have a ceremonial President and a practical PM ... unlike GB where the ceremonial office is inherited, not elected. The American Revolution was tailor made for Washington, who was the only available candidate with any real experience (who wasn't fighting on the British side). The Constitution of 1787 was tailor made for Washington, who in effect was the military dictator of the US in 1783, since Congress was bankrupt and there was no SCOTUS. Like Cincinnatus, he followed the Roman Republic example, dropping the dictatorship and returning to his plantation. But then was responsible for restoring conservative order since the US of 1783 was a failed state, and accepted the position of Consul. In Roman republican terms, dictatorship is limited in time, for national emergency only. That is the problem with modern dictators, is they can't give up the power once the have it. Even if they go Augustus like Napoleon did, there is always a bridge too far if you don't retire at your peak.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 11:13:52 AM
I see, so you're just racist against orange people like Trump.[emoji13]
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Since Boehner established the style, it seems that orange people are hip ;-)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 11:01:37 AM
Is one inherently better than the other?
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
They both involve bombing Brown folk, taking their resources, and pissing the in face of Russia and China. Really not very good policies ;-(
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/nhlvip/pant_suits.jpg)
I am OK with women wearing anything they want, or nothing at all ;-) But I am not OK with sociopaths, no matter what they wear. We don't need another Messalina or Agrippina (wives of Emperor Claudius). A Livia would be OK (wife of Augustus) ... she didn't hesitate to kill people who got in her way, and got away with it.
There won't be any true freedom in the US, until we have elected a drag queen ;-) Too bad Conchita Wurst isn't eligible ;-))
(https://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/hillarys_behind.jpg)
Tried to find a flattering picture. Best I could do. She and Angela Merkel can rock the room together.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2016, 01:14:49 PM
Most people don't recognize that Washington pulled a bloodless coup de etat ... in 1787. Patrick Henry was furious. Washington wouldn't have made a king, because his family situation didn't have much virility in it. Same with Franklin and Jefferson. Adams would have made a good king, he defended the British soldiers accused after the Boston Massacre ... and he had good genes. His dynasty was the first, 130 years before the Kennedy clan.
It is a difficult technical question, if the HoS should be ceremonial or practical. Some states have a ceremonial President and a practical PM ... unlike GB where the ceremonial office is inherited, not elected. The American Revolution was tailor made for Washington, who was the only available candidate with any real experience (who wasn't fighting on the British side). The Constitution of 1787 was tailor made for Washington, who in effect was the military dictator of the US in 1783, since Congress was bankrupt and there was no SCOTUS. Like Cincinnatus, he followed the Roman Republic example, dropping the dictatorship and returning to his plantation. But then was responsible for restoring conservative order since the US of 1783 was a failed state, and accepted the position of Consul. In Roman republican terms, dictatorship is limited in time, for national emergency only. That is the problem with modern dictators, is they can't give up the power once the have it. Even if they go Augustus like Napoleon did, there is always a bridge too far if you don't retire at your peak.
HoS = ceremonial. My opinion, anyway. A few essential reserve powers for emergencies. But, then, I favor monarchy ... I believe that Washington would have, too, if he had had a son. Nobody is that much of a saint.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 11, 2016, 10:52:39 AM
Trump has ideals, and he does business for a living.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Trump has ideals?? :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Yeah--if you have it and Trump wants it, it will be his. His ideal is his bottom line--no matter how he gets it or who he stiffs along the way--that's why he has 3500 civil laws suits against him--he does not always pay his bills.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 11:16:53 AM
Well, boil them down, and they're both fairly centrist, especially Trump, but Clinton, too. I happen to lean more to the left, so I'd choose a left-leaning hood ornament before I'd choose a right-leaning hood ornament. But, to tell the truth, I won't be devastated if Trump wins. He's still a New Yorker - still a Democrat in Republican clothes - still essentially a centrist.
Hillary is not left-leaning though. She's a closet Republican. I'm cool with people voting for Hillary because they think she's the lesser of two evils, but I don't think it makes much sense to say that she leans left. I really like how Jill Stein put it. "Putting another Clinton in the White House is only going to make that right wing extremism greater." "So we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr09AFDPTpA
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on June 11, 2016, 04:11:17 PM
Hillary is not left-leaning though. She's a closet Republican. I'm cool with people voting for Hillary because they think she's the lesser of two evils, but I don't think it makes much sense to say that she leans left. I really like how Jill Stein put it. "Putting another Clinton in the White House is only going to make that right wing extremism greater." "So we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr09AFDPTpA
I think that Clinton is a centrist who leans a bit to the left. Trump is a centrist who leans a bit to the right. They're both centrists, as far as I can see. Neither is a joy to the far side of either party.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 11, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Trump has ideals?? :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Yeah--if you have it and Trump wants it, it will be his. His ideal is his bottom line--no matter how he gets it or who he stiffs along the way--that's why he has 3500 civil laws suits against him--he does not always pay his bills.
The US government doesn't pay its bills (it simply rotates the debt into new debt) ... so they are a perfect match ;-)
Even with the Great Depression, the US didn't get a Left leaning government, FDR was centrist. The Right was mad at him because they wanted to go full retard like Germany. There has never been a Left leaning government, or media, in the US ... except in the fevered delusions of the crazy Right.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2016, 08:29:34 PM
The US government doesn't pay its bills (it simply rotates the debt into new debt) ... so they are a perfect match ;-)
Even with the Great Depression, the US didn't get a Left leaning government, FDR was centrist. The Right was mad at him because they wanted to go full retard like Germany. There has never been a Left leaning government, or media, in the US ... except in the fevered delusions of the crazy Right.
Yeah, and like the govt. he lies about it. And just about everything else. Maybe he would be a good fit in DC.
I think Trump is a dickhead and Hilary needs to get in shape. We are putting pant suits in the White House. It's a fucking conspiracy. Yes I know she's already been there. Now Bill gets another crack at the interns? The horror!
Lol. Carry on.
Quote from: stromboli on June 12, 2016, 09:13:49 AM
I think Trump is a dickhead and Hilary needs to get in shape. We are putting pant suits in the White House. It's a fucking conspiracy. Yes I know she's already been there. Now Bill gets another crack at the interns? The horror!
Lol. Carry on.
A strawman: As long as candidate X does Y, which is something I want, I don't care if they engage in orgies or cannibalism in the White House? Engaging in moral turpitude or financial shenanigans ... will get you to lose your security clearance. But it is OK for the big guys to do it? And they know shit that nobody else should know?
For me, Bill and Hillary are Satan incarnate ... but then Shrub and Dick were Satan incarnate too. I don't know of anything too evil that George HW ever did ... other than statecraft (Nicaragua etc). Look at how we nearly lost control of the nukes to one of Hillary's campaign contributors.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 11, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
I think that Clinton is a centrist who leans a bit to the left. Trump is a centrist who leans a bit to the right. They're both centrists, as far as I can see. Neither is a joy to the far side of either party.
Well, she's certainly been pulled Left by Sanders' candidacy, which is a good thing. The further she gets from the DLC, the happier I am.
But Trump a centrist? Oh, hell no. He's a Trumpist, only and ever. The only thing he believes in is Donald Trump. And he's been running as hard to the Right as he can because that's what feeds his ego the most because that's where the cult-of-personality voters are.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2016, 10:58:49 PM
Well, she's certainly been pulled Left by Sanders' candidacy, which is a good thing. The further she gets from the DLC, the happier I am.
But Trump a centrist? Oh, hell no. He's a Trumpist, only and ever. The only thing he believes in is Donald Trump. And he's been running as hard to the Right as he can because that's what feeds his ego the most because that's where the cult-of-personality voters are.
I think people trying to label Trump in any way as a typical politician are making a mistake. He isn't anything but a carnival barker, a huckster who looks for ways to advantage himself over others for personal gain. He'll go just as far right as necessary or back to center as necessary to garner votes. Hillary may not be what people want, but she's a bit easier to pin down politically.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2016, 10:58:49 PM
Well, she's certainly been pulled Left by Sanders' candidacy, which is a good thing. The further she gets from the DLC, the happier I am.
But Trump a centrist? Oh, hell no. He's a Trumpist, only and ever. The only thing he believes in is Donald Trump. And he's been running as hard to the Right as he can because that's what feeds his ego the most because that's where the cult-of-personality voters are.
I disagree. When it comes to getting down to business, Trump is rational. He just makes a lot of noise before he does so.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 14, 2016, 11:52:00 PM
I disagree. When it comes to getting down to business, Trump is rational. He just makes a lot of noise before he does so.
Donald Trump and rational in the same sentence. Hooboy...
Cry all the way to the ballot box. There aren't any "presidential" candidates ... except rarely and superficially. And given what we now know, not even FDR would be "presidential" today. My 20th century favorites were Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower. The ones in between or since Eisenhower have been midgets.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 14, 2016, 11:52:00 PM
When it comes to getting down to business, Trump is rational criminal.
There, fixed that for you. Certainly when it comes to doing business.
Quote from: trdsf on June 15, 2016, 01:41:06 PM
There, fixed that for you. Certainly when it comes to doing business.
That hardly separates him from the pack, does it?
Quote from: trdsf on June 15, 2016, 01:41:06 PM
There, fixed that for you. Certainly when it comes to doing business.
Criminal is the only way to do business. You would know that if you had ever run one. The government would strangle every business out of business, if it wasn't self destructive for the government. Also you can't, as a competitive business, not do shady things, if you are competing with other businesses that are. Hence the race to the bottom.
By your fruits ye shall know them..... best single scripture in the bible. Trump's "track record" is one of bad management, egotistical noise making and little concern for anyone but himself. Bankruptcy what, 4 times? In bankruptcy the people you owe money to and are partners with get stiffed. Here's a list:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2068227,00.html
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
The Bankruptcies
The Hair
The Marriages
Trump Mortgage
Trump: The Game
The China Connection
Trump Casinos
The Middle East 'Policy'
Use the link and read each category. He is not equipped to be president, period.
^ And that's not even taking into account all his campaign hijinks. His latest one was going full theocrat (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/06/trump-promises-christian-theocracy-at-faith-and-freedom-conference/) to impress the fundies. Any atheist backing this loon is a special kind of idiot.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2016, 12:03:38 PM
^ And that's not even taking into account all his campaign hijinks. His latest one was going full theocrat (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/06/trump-promises-christian-theocracy-at-faith-and-freedom-conference/) to impress the fundies. Any atheist backing this loon is a special kind of idiot.
Lol. No wonder Putin would like him as president.