• 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

Our side, conversely, must regain the confidence to smash and reshape reality, and push back against the Right's weaponized fatalism.

Should have read that last line first. It would have saved reading the rest of the article.

A propaganda piece by the opposition, that even invokes Godwin's Law.

I'm glad there counter protests at his rallies. It shows the opposition is starting to be genuinely scared that they are going to have trouble with him and that they are starting to take him seriously.
 
How the first 100 days of a Trump Administration might play out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/29/donald-trump-first-100-days-president-actions-elections-2016-column/79425180/

Ack! Here come Trump's first 100 days: Column
Paul Mero 1:22 p.m. EST January 29, 2016

If you listen carefully, the Donald will tell you exactly what he'd do on stepping into the Oval Office.

A little less than a year from now the next president will be sworn in. The first 100 days of a new presidency sets the tone for every other day. They send a message to Congress and the world about the kind of leader we have elected — not just in terms of policy, but also in tone, style and temperament.

Beyond an assassination attempt on his life, Ronald Reagan’s first 100 days were focused on economic issues. Breaking congressional gridlock, he displayed the art of presidency, meeting with Senate and House leaders, gaining their trust and then convincing them to adopt the most sweeping tax and budget changes in the 20th century.

Bill Clinton began his first 100 days with two controversial executive orders on abortion and gay rights followed by what admirers called deficit reduction and opponents called the largest tax increase in history. By the time George W. Bush slogged his way through court cases about hanging chads, a confrontation with China, and Bill Clinton’s scandals, there was hardly any time left in his first 100 days to confirm his unexpectedly controversial selection for attorney general and pass a large tax break.

And while Barack Obama’s first 100 days included trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay detention camp, passing an economic “stimulus” package, and getting several controversial nominees through the confirmation process, we could reasonably ask, following a tradition of examining presidential leadership dating back to Franklin Roosevelt, what would President Donald Trump’s first 100 days look like?

Based on Trump’s comments and claims so far on the campaign trail, as well as extensive research into his activities, we have a reasonably certain idea of what Trump would do bursting out of the gate as our new president.

Although he is ever unpredictable, the first thing President Trump would do is to celebrate his own ascendancy. This man loves the spotlight.

It might be hard for him to stop the celebrations and get down to business. But once he did, immigration would surely be on his mind.

By hook or by crook, President Trump would stop immigration — legal and illegal — until he got his head around the issue from the watchtower of the White House. He is very clear about what he would do: He would begin the deportation of all undocumented immigrants, regardless of family circumstances, commence building a fence or wall along our southern border, assign his Justice Department to challenge birthright citizenship, order the shutdown of certain mosques, and call on federal authorities to identify and track all Muslims living in the U.S.

Attacking the economy, President Trump would slap a 45% tariff on Chinese imports, triggering a trade war. Protecting his innate business sensibilities, Trump would likely crack down on the influence of unions against big business, encourage the legal taking of private property through expanded use of government eminent domain, and promise to sign legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.

On foreign affairs, President Trump’s first 100 days would be spent understanding the “nuclear triad,” and coming up with a stated plan to deal with ISIS, outside of his noted willingness to kill their family members if they get in the way.

And, of course, there is China. In addition to triggering a trade war, President Trump would move to stop China’s manipulation of currency.

At his first chance, President Trump would likely seek to remove John Roberts from his chief justice role on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Otherwise, President Trump would be very slow to move on agency appointments but would dramatically cut the budgets of the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. He also would very likely order all drug enforcement operations to cease and call on Congress to tax and legalize drugs as the only way to stop the "drug czars” from profiting instead of his government.

If there is time left in his first 100 days, President Trump would likely continue to investigate the validity of former President Obama’s birthplace, lift regulations on nutritional supplements and business bankruptcies, and sign an executive order creating National Losers Day in honor of Rosie O’Donnell, Arianna Huffington, Cher, Mark Cuban, Megyn Kelly and other identified “losers” of President Trump’s disliking.

Of course, who knows? We’re only taking him at his word.

Paul Mero is CEO of The Leadership Project for America.
 
And more on Clinton's (self inflicted) email woes:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/issa-fbi-director-would-like-to-indict-clinton-and-abedin/article/2581811

Former House Oversight chairman: 'FBI director would like to indict Clinton and Abedin'
By Gabby Morrongiello(@gabriellahope_)•1/29/16 2:50 AM
FBI director dodges questions about Clinton's email
Washington Examiner

MANCHESTER — California Congressman Darrell Issa, who previously led an investigation into Benghazi as former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, says the FBI "would like to indict both Huma [Abedin] and Hillary Clinton" for conducting sensitive government business on an unsecure, private email server.

"I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak," the Republican heavyweight told the Washington Examiner Thursday, during a debate watch-party at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's New Hampshire campaign headquarters.

"I think he's in a position where he's being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk," Issa said, referring to FBI Director James Comey, who previously told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would conduct a "competent," "honest" and "independent" probe into Clinton's handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state.

Still, Issa suggested Clinton's wrongdoing is obvious.

"You can't have 1,300 highly sensitive emails that contain highly sensitive material that's taken all, or in part from classified documents, and have it be an accident," he said. "There's no question, she knew she had a responsibility and she circumvented it. And she circumvented it a second time when she knowingly let highly-classified material get onto emails in an unclassified format."

Issa's comments come just two days after former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, claimed he has friends in the FBI who "tell [him] they're ready to indict and they're ready to recommend an indictment."

"They also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public," DeLay said Tuesday during an interview on Newsmax TV.

Clinton, who turned over her private email server to the Justice Department in August, has repeatedly downplayed her growing email scandal throughout her presidential campaign. Last Wednesday, she described new revelations about the level of classified intelligence contained on her unsecure server as a "leak" by Republicans.

"This, seems to me, to be, you know, another effort to inject this into the campaign. It's another leak," the Democratic presidential hopeful told NPR.

Despite mounting evidence against the former first lady and the FBI's alleged desire to recommend an indictment, according to Issa, the California congressman says it is unlikely Clinton will face criminal charges during the election cycle.

"I've worked with both the last attorney general... and this attorney general, and I really don't believe they'll do it," Issa told the Examiner. "Doing it, by definition, would end her run for president."

He continued, "So do I think the Democrats are in an odd situation where the only thing they can do is hold their nose and hold back on and indictment?"

"Sadly, yes," Issa said.

Instapundit asks the obvious question:
So what happens if and when Hillary isn’t indicted? As Roger Simon noted last week, “The most obvious part is that the rule of law will have, for all intents and purposes, ended in the United States. Equal justice flew out the window.  How does the public react to that?”

and:
Her disregard wasn’t casual. It was a conscious and involved scheme to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, and possibly also Obama Administration scrutiny of her actions. She put the nation as a whole at risk, along with individual lives of intelligence sources, for political reasons: to avoid accountability.

This is an individual who belongs in a Federal prison, not the campaign trail.
 
recceguy said:
Should have read that last line first. It would have saved reading the rest of the article.

A propaganda piece by the opposition, that even invokes Godwin's Law.

I'm glad there counter protests at his rallies. It shows the opposition is starting to be genuinely scared that they are going to have trouble with him and that they are starting to take him seriously.

Well again, Trump himself is retweeting a Twitter account called "White Genocide,"  a user that had a picture of Trump putting Bernie Sanders into a gas chamber. He's based his campaign largely on fear, racism and xenophobia. He's called Mexicans "rapists" and wants to build a wall to keep them out. His own spokeswoman has used language like "pure breed" and recently defended the use of that language. Godwin's Law doesn't apply; he's made the comparison more direct than anyone else could have.
 
Sometimes reading the Onion seems to be more like reading real news than a satire....

http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261

Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers

NEWS IN BRIEF
January 29, 2016
VOL 52 ISSUE 03 
Politics · Politicians · Hillary Clinton · Election 2016 · Bernie Sanders

HUMBOLDT, IA—After making sure to douse every home, farm, and business located in the municipality with gasoline, retreating Clinton campaign staffers reportedly set the central Iowa town of Humboldt ablaze Friday to stem the advance of Bernie Sanders volunteers. “Once we received word the Sanders campaign had begun canvassing in nearby Fort Dodge, we only had a matter of hours to burn everything to the ground,” said communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who tossed a lit torch through the window of the town’s hardware store before rushing over to help a group of Hillary for America workers erect a roadblock made of dead livestock to prevent all entrance to and exit from the city. “With so little time left before voting day, we simply can’t allow them to establish a foothold in this part of the state. Besides, you can’t convince anyone to caucus for Bernie Sanders if the civilian population is gone and all that’s left is smoldering rubble.” At press time, Clinton campaign staffers were spotted rigging a nearby bridge with C-4 as they hastily retreated to Algona.
 
Donald Trump hints about reactivating the retired Iowa class battleships.

Seriously? Let the old warriors rest! It's a different world now from the last time these ships were active in the early 1990s.

From his speech in Los Angeles on the USS Iowa museum 4 months ago:

Youtube link

*Time segment 9:30-9:45

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Talks National Security Aboard Battleship USS Iowa San Pedro LA Rally
 
So will Representative Love be ready to run for POTUS in 2020?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/01/mia-love-single-subject-rule-constitutional-amendment--reynolds-column/79605158/

Want to know why voters are so mad? Mia Love has the answer: Glenn Reynolds
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:05 p.m. EST February 1, 2016

To thrive, voters in a democracy need to understand what is going on better than lobbyists.

We’ve seen it over and over: Congress passes huge bills, like Obamacare or the recent omnibus spending bill, that contain hundreds of provisions, and occupy thousands of pages — or tens of thousands if you include the ensuing pages of regulations. These bills are so long that literally no one has read the whole thing. They’re not so much bills, really, as Christmas trees on which lobbyists and legislators hang their goodies.

A bill that’s so long that nobody can read it is, naturally, pretty likely to escape scrutiny. With thousands of pages and hundreds or thousands of provisions in the bill, what’s the chance that any particular provision will be noticed or criticized?

And even if a few provisions are criticized, when they’re tied to a bill that rewards literally hundreds of constituencies, there’s not much chance they’ll be shot down. Legislators, and special interests, have a vested interest in sticking together and being sure that the whole bill passes. Individually, most of these lousy provisions wouldn’t pass, but when banded together for mutual protection they can.

The result is something that doesn’t look much like the legislative process as we teach it in school. There aren’t hearings on each provision, there isn’t a lot of public debate, and there’s essentially no back-and-forth. Often, most of the provisions are written by lobbyists and inserted by tame members of Congress. The public isn’t really represented at all. That’s not an accident — it’s by design.

Enter Congresswoman Mia Love, a Republican from Utah. She wants to introduce a “single subject rule” to federal legislation. Says Love, as quoted by the Deseret News: "Members of both parties have made a habit of passing complex, thousand-page bills without hearings, amendments or debate. ... That process and the collusion that goes with it are why we are $18 trillion in debt and why the American people have lost trust in elected officials."

Her bill, H.R. 4335, would do the following according to Love's congressional website:

•Require that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject;
•End the practice of attaching controversial legislation to unrelated, must-pass bills;
•Require the subject of a bill to be clearly state in its title;
•Make void in appropriations bills, general legislation that does not pertain to the underlying (appropriations) bill;
•Make the legislative process more transparent to the public


Importantly, the bill also provides for judicial review, allowing a court to strike legislation that doesn’t comply. And, in keeping with Love’s philosophy, the bill is just over three pages long.

This isn’t exactly a new idea. Many states, such as Mia Love’s Utah, or my own state of Tennessee, have provisions in their state constitutions that limit legislation to a single subject. Some also provide for judicial review. And Love isn’t the first to propose such a rule: In fact, Brannon Denning and Brooks Smith proposed a constitutional amendment, the “Truth In Legislation Amendment,” in a law review article over a decade ago. (Coincidentally, their piece was published in the Utah Law Review.)

Whether enacted legislatively, or by constitutional amendment, a rule that a bill must have a single subject and a descriptive title would go a long way toward limiting cronyism and corruption. Personally, I would prefer a constitutional amendment that, like Tennessee’s provision, would allow anyone to sue and have a bill struck down if it did things not included in its caption. A statute like Love’s is second-best, and given our political class’s willingness to skirt the rules, probably a poor second-best, though still worth trying.

The deeper problem is that neither Congress, nor the voters, seems sufficiently attached to clean government to make it work. In the old days of what is now nostalgically referred to as “regular order,” one set of congressional committees had to authorize spending, while another had to appropriate funds. Spending bills — and general legislation — advanced after subcommittee and committee hearings in which issues were discussed publicly, followed, sometimes at least, by amendments. This gradually broke down with the growth of gigantic omnibus bills, and once politicians realized they could get away with it, the kitchen-sink approach to legislation became the norm.

As Rep. Love notes, this is how we wound up with an enormous debt and with a Congress that few Americans respect. The old days were hardly a paradise of clean government, but they look like that now, by comparison with what we’ve got. Her bill is, at least, a step in the right direction. Will it pass? We can hope.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
 
I'm wondering if the pundits are giving Cruz and the evangelical vote more credit than they deserve in the Trump decline. Rubio has made some unexpected progress, and I suspect a lot of his gain was at the expense of Trump.

As it is, Trump will more than likely take New Hampshire, as the electorate is vastly different and less likely to go for Cruz. The big question going into New Hampshire will be can Rubio maintain the momentum he has and parlay it into potential wins in South Carolina and the south.

In order to do that he will need to beat back Cruz in South Carolina, and Trump could help with that.
 
Trump and Sanders are manifestations of long standing discontent by the electorate against the political class. How long-standing became clear when I heard about this advisor to Pat Buchanan: Samuel Francis and his essay "From Household To Nation" which seems to have predicted much of what has come to pass with an eerie prescience:

http://www.fgfbooks.com/guest/160129Buchanan.html

Guest Commentary
January 29, 2016

Over the past week, Rush Limbaugh dissected the advice that Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Sam's perceptive forecasting that a populist candidate — such as we see in Donald Trump — would emerge on the political scene. Below is an article by Pat Buchanan discussing this issue.

Sam Francis Predicted a Trump-like Populism
by Patrick J. Buchanan

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The lights are burning late in Davos tonight.

At the World Economic Forum, keynoter Joe Biden warned global elites that the unraveling of the middle class in America and Europe has provided "fertile terrain for reactionary politicians, demagogues peddling xenophobia, anti-immigration, nationalist, isolationist views."

Evidence of a nationalist backlash, said Biden, may be seen in the third parties arising across Europe, and in the U.S. primaries.

But set aside Joe's slurs — demagogues, xenophobia.

Who really belongs in the dock here? Who caused this crisis of political legitimacy now gripping the nations of the West?

Was it Donald Trump, who gives voice to the anger of those who believe themselves to have been betrayed? Or the elites who betrayed them?

Can that crowd at Davos not understand that it is despised because it is seen as having subordinated the interests of the nations and people in whose name it presumes to speak, to advance an agenda that serves, first and foremost, its own naked self-interest?

The political and economic elites of Davos have grow rich, fat and powerful by setting aside patriotism and sacrificing their countries on the altars of globalization and a New World Order.

No more astute essay has been written this political season than that of Michael Brendan Dougherty in "The Week," where he describes how, 20 years ago, my late friend Sam Francis predicted it all.

In Chronicles magazine, in March 1996, ("From Household To Nation") Francis, a paleoconservative and proud son of the South, wrote:
"ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interest and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better."

What we saw through a glass darkly then, we now see face to face.

Given his success, other Republicans will emulate him. Already, other candidates are incorporating his message. The day Francis predicted was coming appears to have arrived.

And was it not presidents and Congresses of both parties who mired us in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and negotiated the trade deals that have gutted American industry?

The bleeding of factories and manufacturing jobs abroad has produced the demoralization and decline of our middle class, along with the wage stagnation and shrinking participation in the labor force.

Is Trump responsible for that? Is Socialist Bernie Sanders, who voted against all those trade deals?

If not, who did this to us?

Was it not the Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats?

Americans never supported mass immigration.

It was against their will that scores of millions, here legally and illegally, almost all from Third World countries, whose masses have never been fully assimilated into any western nation, have poured into the USA.

Who voted for that?

Religious, racial, cultural diversity has put an end to the "bad" old America we grew up in, as we evolve into the "universal nation" of Ben Wattenberg, who once rhapsodized, "The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality."

James Burnham, the ex-Trotskyite and Cold War geo-strategist whose work Francis admired, called liberalism "the ideology of Western suicide."

If the West embraces, internalizes and operates on the principles of liberalism, Burnham wrote, the West with meet an early death.

Among the dogmas of liberalism is the unproven assumption that peoples of all nationalities, tribes, cultures, creeds can coexist happily in nations, especially in a "creedal" nation like the USA, which has no ethnic core but rather is built upon ideas.

A corollary is that "diversity," a new America and new Europe where all nations are multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual, is the future of the west and the model for mankind.

Yet, large and growing minorities in every country of Europe, and now in America, believe that not only is this proposition absurd, the end result could be national suicide.

Trump is not the last of the populist-nationalists.

And when one considers the millions who are flocking to Trump and Sanders, it is hard to believe that the establishments of the two parties, even if they defeat these challengers, can return to same old interventionist, trade, immigration and war policies.

Given his success, other Republicans will emulate him. Already, other candidates are incorporating his message. The day Francis predicted was coming appears to have arrived.

Angela Merkel may have been Time's Person of the Year in 2016, but she will be lucky to survive in office in 2017, if she does not stop the invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet Joe Biden's dismissal that it is reactionaries who oppose what the progressives of Davos believe is not entirely wrong. For as Georges Bernanos wrote, when Europe was caught between Bolshevism and fascism:

To be a reactionary means simply to be alive, because only a corpse does not react any more — against the maggots teeming on it.
 
Thoughts, cupper?

Yahoo Finance/Business Insider

Donald Trump dismisses audience after getting booed at the debate
By Brett LoGiurato and Colin Campbell | Business Insider – Sat, 6 Feb, 2016 9:22 PM EST

Real-estate mogul Donald Trump confronted a Republican debate audience that repeatedly booed him during an exchange with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R).

Their sparring come over eminent domain — the power of the government to force people to sell their private property — which many conservatives have long criticized.

After Trump defended the general concept of eminent domain as a "necessity" for government, Bush jumped in with a specific critique of the developer's record on the topic.

(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:

I haven't watched any of the debates so far (life's too short), but I'm not really surprised that the crowd responded the way that they did. It continues to show Trump is just bluster and no substance. His go to response when challenged on record or lack of knowledge / experience is to throw back the insults and go on the attack.

Unfortunately though, it still doesn't hurt his chances of taking NH. Down the road, maybe.

I'm still waiting to see who he's going to gun down in the middle of 5th Avenue.  ;D
 
The Democrat/Liberal Progressive world view in a nutshell. Too bad more people haven't realized that the "freestff" they get in exchange for voting to become serfs is a very poor bargain indeed:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226096/

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: Mrs. Clinton’s Ode To Serfdom.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not qualified to be president of the United States of America, because she doesn’t know what the United States of America are.

Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”

There is a very old English word for people who are required to perform service as a rent for their existence, and that word is serf. Serfdom is a form of bondage. Americans are not serfs. We are not sharecroppers on Herself’s farm or in vassalage to that smear of thieving nincompoopery in Washington that purports to rule us. We don’t owe you any damned rent.

The American proposition is precisely the opposite of what Herself imagines: The U.S. government exists at our sufferance, not the other way around.

Analysis: True. But our erstwhile ruling class needs to be reminded of this rather forcefully. Plus:

Herself’s invocation of serfdom is the logical extension of “You Didn’t Build That”-ism, the backward philosophy under which the free citizen is obliged to justify his life and his prosperity to the state, in order to satisfy the economic self-interest, status-seeking, and power-lust of such lamentable specimens as Elizabeth Warren, a ridiculous little scold who has never done a single useful thing in her entire public life.

The American model is precisely the opposite: Government has to justify itself to us. . . . They owe us service: services they routinely fail to perform.

We’ve got jihadis shooting up California while the government doesn’t even bother to track visa overstays or properly scan entrants from Pakistan by way of Saudi Arabia (because what could possibly go wrong in that scenario?) in spite of being legally obliged to do so. Instead, the powers that be in Washington are literally masturbating the day away when they aren’t busy poisoning veterans to death with dope. These people—these people—are going to lecture us on citizenship? How about you skip the homilies and do your damned jobs?

Or just go home, and trouble us no more.
 
Trump would win a general election against Sanders, IMHO. Sanders just has too many impractical ideas

Canadian Press

Two political revolutionaries are on the cusp of capturing today's N.H. primary
[The Canadian Press]
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press

February 9, 2016
MANCHESTER, N.H. - A pair of protest candidates riding a message of rage against the political and economic machine are on the cusp of an until-recently-unthinkable triumph: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are favoured to win today's New Hampshire primary.

They're barely even members of their respective political parties. But if the polls are correct, the billionaire ideological contortionist and the independent, Democrat-bashing socialist will emerge victorious tonight.

It just so happens that one's campaign slogan calls for a political revolution; the other had the song, "Revolution," blaring from the loudspeakers as he ended his final rally Monday.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Right now I am rooting for Bernie because the epic meltdown when Hillary is rejected y the party (again) will be soooooooooo entertaining.

:pop:
 
Does anyone outside NH really care if Kasich is 2nd after Sanders and Trump?  ;D

CBC

Sanders defeats Clinton, Trump wins in New Hampshire
The Associated Press
The Canadian Press
February 9, 2016

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Bernie Sanders won a commanding victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, and Donald Trump also scored a big win in a triumph of two candidates who have seized on Americans' anger at the Washington political establishment.

Both outcomes would have been nearly unthinkable not long ago. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, beat a former secretary of state and first lady once seen as the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. While Clinton remains the favourite in the national race for the Democratic nomination, the win by the Vermont senator could be a springboard into a competitive, drawn-out primary campaign.

(...SNIPPED)

 
Another one leaves the race...

Associated Press

Carly Fiorina ends 2016 Republican bid for President
[The Canadian Press]
Catherine Lucey, The Associated Press
February 10, 2016


DES MOINES, Iowa - Former technology executive Carly Fiorina exited the 2016 Republican presidential race Wednesday, after winning praise for her debate prowess but struggling to build a winning coalition in a crowded GOP field.

"While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them," Fiorina wrote in a Facebook statement.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Back
Top