US Election: 2016

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Or economic history: The USA created its industrial base by having the most protectionist tariffs in the history of the world. It's only after they became such an industrial powerhouse (as a result of such protectionism) that they became "free traders". Benjamin Franklin, the greatest proponent and architect of this system of protectionism, used to call the process "industry incubation", i.e. protect until adult enough to stand on its own feet.

 

[FJAG]

It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.

In light of your use of the P.J. O`Rourke quote in the tagline on your posts, I thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954

P.J. O'Rourke hate-endorses Hillary Clinton on NPR quiz show
By Nick Gass
05/09/16 07:01 AM EDT

For libertarian humorist and writer P.J. O'Rourke, Hillary Clinton is only the second-worst option available in the general election.

“I have a little announcement to make. I mean, my whole purpose in life basically is to offend everyone who listens to NPR, no matter what position they take on anything, like I’m on the other side of it," O'Rourke said on Saturday's episode of the game show "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" "I’m voting for Hillary," he exclaimed.

O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises."

"It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place," he continued. "I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.”

;D

:cheers:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.

I'm aware it was the democrats that were pro slavery as Lincoln was a Republican (also why the term "southern Democrat" came into vogue). The name of the party does not equal it's political affiliation, so I would suggest that Conservative=Democrat until the WWII is completely irrelevant (same as Republican = liberal/progressive until WWII was for Thucydides meme).

The point, of course, is that using stereotypes to describe any group of people is wrong. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.

The history of Republicans vs Democrats doesn't equal progressive vs. conservative. The point was that Thucydides meme, which essentially equates progressives to being lazy is, at best, ridiculous in the way that my meme was.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.

Not just moderates, but the top echelon. Clinton even made a big deal about how Byrd was her mentor.

 

[FJAG]

Not just moderates, but the top echelon. Clinton even made a big deal about how Byrd was her mentor.

And now for the rest of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

Which includes this eulogy from the NAACP:

In 2010, even the NAACP released a statement honoring Senator Byrd and mourning his passing:

The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Sounds like that at the time that he and Hillary had that smooch he was an upstanding guy. But let's not stand in the way of another Republican piece of misinformation by omission.

:cheers:

 

[PuckChaser]

All that tells me is that Democrats and progressives are allowed to change their way of thinking, but if a Republican or conservative does it, they're flip flopping or not genuine.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And now for the rest of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

Which includes this eulogy from the NAACP:

Sounds like that at the time that he and Hillary had that smooch he was an upstanding guy. But let's not stand in the way of another Republican piece of misinformation by omission.

:cheers:

I'll have to look for it, but Snopes was caught changing articles to better suit the Democrats. Snopes can no longer be considered an unbiased authority. However, you'll never change a Hillary Shill's mind about their Madonna, so it's not even worth the effort trying.

 

[FJAG]

I'll have to look for it, but Snopes was caught changing articles to better suit the Democrats. Snopes can no longer be considered an unbiased authority. However, you'll never change a Hillary Shill's mind about their Madonna, so it's not even worth the effort trying.

This is the 2010 press release re Senator Byrd on the NAACP's own website:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>There are no principled politicians.

Most of the people to whom I referred are not politicians.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

All that tells me is that Democrats and progressives are allowed to change their way of thinking, but if a Republican or conservative does it, they're flip flopping or not genuine.

Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, and Paul Martin were regularly criticized for flip flopping on positions. Literally just punch in any of those name and "flip flop" into google.

For Mr. Byrd- 2 points.

1. "Flip flopping" from being in the KKK to believing in racial equality isn't so much flip flopping... it's more moving from being a piece of s*&t to being a good person.

2. Attacking the Byrd relationship (and the DD one for Trump) is just another attack on the person and not their positions. Conservatives and Liberals (in Canada and the US) have to get over this obsession with attacking and trying to "bring down" individuals (Harper, Trudeau, Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, etc) and focus more on what they bring to the table. This current fascination only leads to a complete inability to have any sort of productive across the floor bi-partisan processes and frankly dumbs down our political machine to a "he said, she said" argument a 7 year old would be proud of.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most of the calls for civility and reason seem to emanate from Democrats / progressives / Canadian LPC+NPC types.  Then I find them, in print and on TV, mocking people for lifestyle, social, and political choices.  The limitations on who it is acceptable to mock are narrow, but the zone exists.

To those who are calling for it: you start - and persist - first.

And I see articles by principled Democratic objectors to Hillary are starting to emerge (read one today - certainly not the first; just the first one in a while on the aggregator sites I frequent).  I'd like to see a big splinter of each of the two teams break off and vote for the L or G candidates.

 

[FJAG]

. . . And I see articles by principled Democratic objectors to Hillary are starting to emerge (read one today - certainly not the first; just the first one in a while on the aggregator sites I frequent).  I'd like to see a big splinter of each of the two teams break off and vote for the L or G candidates.

A similar example is the recent New York Times editorial calling for Clinton to sever her ties to the Clinton Foundation now rather than waiting to be elected. While I expect that the Trump gang would call that an admission that she was corrupted in the past, most right (or maybe I should say most center and left) thinking people would just see this as logical and proper thing to do. One would hope it gets done well before the first debate.

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

2. Attacking the Byrd relationship (and the DD one for Trump) is just another attack on the person and not their positions. Conservatives and Liberals (in Canada and the US) have to get over this obsession with attacking and trying to "bring down" individuals (Harper, Trudeau, Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, etc) and focus more on what they bring to the table. This current fascination only leads to a complete inability to have any sort of productive across the floor bi-partisan processes and frankly dumbs down our political machine to a "he said, she said" argument a 7 year old would be proud of.

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree that the attacks on the Byrd-Clinton relationship vs the Duke-Trump relationship are the same thing. The Byrd-Clinton attack is an attack of Clinton as a person. Byrd disavowed the views of the KKK and spent the rest of his life apologizing for it.

However Duke still expounds his racist views, thinly veiled with less offensive names and tag lines. Trump, whether knowingly or not has reposted or retweeted or used information taken from known racist websites, put on staff people who further those views of Duke and his ilk. And when challenged on the racial undertones in his campaign refuses to disavow it. He even refuses to disavow the support from David Duke. During his tenure with the defunct Reform Party he spoke out about the involvement of Duke, and why he was not staying with the party. So the attacks on the Duke-Trump relationship is more of an attack on positions / platforms / statements and less an attack on his person.

 

[cupper]

A similar example is the recent New York Times editorial calling for Clinton to sever her ties to the Clinton Foundation now rather than waiting to be elected.

What gets me about the Clinton Foundation debacle is that they knew she would be running in 2016. Why did they not start divesting and separating from the foundation. They had 4 freaking years to do it. One interview I heard with Donna Shalala, head of the Foundation, they only started looking at winding things down and preparing for a separation from the Clintons when she declared her intention to run last year.

Again, another example of lack of good judgement, and feeding the GOP critics with more ammunition. It's insane how they bitch about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" yet continue to provide the bullets for the shooters to use against them. There aren't enough O's in the word stupid to describe how dumb they are when it comes to furthering the corruption narrative.

 

[cupper]

Somehow I think God is saying "This is all on you, I didn't do any of this"  :nod:

And to think we could have had her as the GOP nominee if things had been different in 2008. Dodged a bullet there. ;D

Bachmann: God 'raised up' Trump to be GOP nominee

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556

God raised up Donald Trump to be the Republican presidential nominee, Michele Bachmann said in an interview with a Christian news channel released Tuesday.

“I don’t think God sits things out. He’s a sovereign God. Donald Trump became our nominee. I think it’s very likely that in the day that we live in, that Donald Trump is the only individual who could win in a general election of the 17 who ran,” the former Minnesota congresswoman told CBN News’ The Brody File.

In the interview, which was filmed in her home in Minnesota last Friday, Bachmann said even though she supported Ted Cruz during the Republican primaries, the Book of Daniel “teaches us that the most high God lifts up who He will and takes down who he will,” which is why she will support the Republican candidate.

“I actually supported Ted Cruz. I thought he was fabulous, but I also see that at the end of the day God raised up, I believe, Donald Trump who was going to be the nominee in this election,” she said.

The former Republican presidential candidate is one of more than 20 members of Trump’s evangelical advisory board announced in June.
“Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know, but I do know that the Bible is true and that Daniel teaches the most high God which is one of God’s names is the one who lifts up who He will and takes down who He will and so that’s why my prayers and my actions and my work on a daily basis is to make sure that Donald Trump becomes ‘President Trump’ the first Tuesday of November this 2016,” Bachmann added.

 

[FJAG]

What gets me about the Clinton Foundation debacle is that they knew she would be running in 2016. Why did they not start divesting and separating from the foundation. They had 4 freaking years to do it. One interview I heard with Donna Shalala, head of the Foundation, they only started looking at winding things down and preparing for a separation from the Clintons when she declared her intention to run last year.

Again, another example of lack of good judgement, and feeding the GOP critics with more ammunition. It's insane how they ***** about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" yet continue to provide the bullets for the shooters to use against them. There aren't enough O's in the word stupid to describe how dumb they are when it comes to furthering the corruption narrative.

Tend to agree.

Just as an aside I just went to the Clinton Foundation website to have a look at it:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about

Interesting thing is that it was originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation but was then renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

That said however, I also noted that while Bill and Chelsea are on the board of directors (Chelsea as the vice chair and Bill just as a member, Hillary is not and neither is she listed as a member of the leadership team (as of Feb 2016)

I've also looked at the last posted financial statements (including IRS filings) and note that there is nothing unusual here for a large non-profit collecting a fair amount of contributions and also providing excellent programs. The IRS filings show that Bill, Hillary or Chelsea salary for their respective roles (Hillary was listed as a director until 12 April 2015) was $0.00 each (the same as all the other directors [except the Chair and CEO, neither of which was a Clinton]).

I expect that there would be reimbursement to the Clintons for various travel and other board related expenses and possibly some other indirect benefits but my cursory review of the fairly detailed documentation doesn't raise andy red flags (Unlike Trumps campaigns use and reimbursement of the various Trump owned properties airplanes etc)

Long story short, I really don't see what the fuss is all about vis a vis Hillary. I do think both Bill and Chelsea should also step aside (the sooner the better) primarily because of the optics (Caesar's wife [or rather husband] and daughter should be above reproach)

Anyway -- fun times, fun times.

op:

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

Bachmann: God 'raised up' Trump to be GOP nominee

. . . the Book of Daniel “teaches us that the most high God lifts up who He will and takes down who he will,” which is why she will support the Republican candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556

Does this mean that if God raises up Clinton as president then Bachmann will support Clinton? 

Or is she just a big hypocrite?  ;D

:cheers:

 

[cavalryman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556


Does this mean that if God raises up Clinton as president then Bachmann will support Clinton? 

Or is she just a big hypocrite?  ;D

:cheers:

German soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles until 1945.  Didn't do them much good, as I recall.  >

 

[CougarKing]

This won't look good for Trump if he's seen as making a last-ditch, desperate effort to get Peña Nietos' endorsement, especially since the Mexican President's predecessor Vicente Fox essentially called Trump a buffoon several months ago, when talk of making Mexico pay for a border wall was still fresh.

Washington Post

Trump weighs meeting in Mexico with the country’s president

By Robert Costa and Karen DeYoung August 30 at 9:32 PM

Donald Trump is considering jetting to Mexico City on Wednesday for a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, just hours before he delivers a high-stakes speech in Arizona to clarify his views on immigration policy, according to people in the United States and Mexico familiar with the discussions.

Peña Nieto invited both Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to visit Mexico last Friday, his office said in a statement provided to The Washington Post on Tuesday night. Although no meetings have been confirmed, the statement said, both campaigns received the invitations “on good terms.”

Trump, sensing an opportunity, decided over the weekend to accept the invitation and push for a visit this week, according to the people familiar with the discussion

(...SNIPPED)