Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6694
Reputation: 239.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:36 am    Post subject: Bernie Sanders ? have democrats lost their minds Reply with quote

( I guess well find out if he actually wins tonight but it certaintly does appear that he will win New Hampshire , we saw something very similar in Canada with Jack Layton , another older personally likable left wing politician . there is definity a lot of similarities between the two of them . but I think democrats are really losing their minds if they think he represents a solution for the worlds problems and at 74 he should be retiring not running for president )


Politics

Feb 9 2016, 6:09 am ET


Bernie Sanders Suddenly Looking and Sounding Like a Front-Runner

by Kasie Hunt


DERRY, N.H. — Bernie Sanders, frontrunner?

It sure feels like it on the campaign trail, where the famously independent senator is suddenly acting like a presidential candidate who might have something to lose — complete with a lengthy motorcade, little access to a candidate ensconced in the protection of the Secret Service, and a cadre of top aides more focused on protecting their candidate from mistakes than trying to convince skeptics that yes, he does have more than a snowball's chance in hell of taking on Hillary Clinton.

It's something of a switch from the improvisational feel that marked the Sanders campaign as recently as ten days ago. Way back then, the Vermont senator often traveled in a lone rental car, had a handful of private security at only his biggest events, and his advisers were still struggling to convince many reporters that he posed any kind of threat to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

"Tomorrow, if we have a good voter turnout," a confident Sanders said just hours before New Hampshire polls were set to open, "I think that we're going to have a very, very good night."

It's the closest he's come to declaring victory in what's been a week of exacting expectations management on both sides of the Democratic nomination fight. But it still amounted to a passing reference to his wide polling lead over Clinton.









Facebook
Twitter
Google Plus
Embed

 Young Women Flocking to Sanders in New Hampshire, Polls Show 2:40




The rest of Sanders' final campaign day was standard campaign speech after standard campaign speech, focused on money in politics and the plight of working Americans struggling to get by. Sanders said not a word about the day's major headline: startling comments from Bill Clinton on Sunday night criticizing Sanders' supporters as "sexist" and "profane."

"When you're making a revolution, you can't be too careful about the facts," the former president told Clinton supporters in Milford then. "You're just for me or against me."

In response, the Sanders campaign had only a written statement from spokesman Michael Briggs, who called the remarks "disappointing." The candidate himself steered clear of questions from reporters Monday, a change from his typical style of holding regular press conferences and a general (if sometimes begrudging) willingness to take on-the-fly questions from reporters. Indeed, Sanders agreed with top aides that the best strategy for the final 24 hours before voting starts was to stay the course — and carefully avoid accidentally sparking a flap that could push New Hampshire's notoriously late-deciding voters to swing to Clinton.





"They [the Clinton campaign] want to have a different campaign than what we've had the last few weeks," said Tad Devine, the Sanders campaign's senior strategist. "This is a preferable route for us, and we'll try to stay on message."

Further changing the come-from-behind attitude that marked the run-up to voting in Iowa: The addition of the Secret Service, who have become an overwhelming presence at Sanders events since arriving to protect him on the trail last Tuesday. Suddenly, a campaign that often announced events at the very last minute has to plan ahead and stick to a schedule. The challenge is accommodating the senator himself, who is prone to making last minute decisions and still prefers to conduct his campaign — and life — as most little-recognized senators do.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, for example, he doesn't make the kind of staged but unannounced stops at New Hampshire diners or coffee shops to woo voters with a handful of press in tow (known to reporters as "OTRs," for "off-the-record," because they are kept off the official schedule).

Instead, he'll decide on the fly he wants to stop for a bite to eat or for a cup of tea. One day this week, it was a diner near Peterborough. On Monday, having tea with his wife at the Bridge on Elm restaurant meant he had to ditch the two press buses that had been traveling in his motorcade. (At nine vehicles and with state trooper escorts complete with sirens and police lights, the motorcade was more like a general election nominee's than a long shot primary contender's.)

When he arrived, he and his wife sat together at a table. The lone network reporter who'd been tipped off by campaign staff was kept back in a hallway, every entrance to the room where Sanders was seated blocked by Secret Service. There was no glad handing with patrons, no asking for votes, no staged photo-op, no pool reporter carefully detailing of which kind of tea he liked.





But remaining anonymous isn't so easy any more, and he was recognized by a number of patrons in the small restaurant. He and his wife stopped briefly to chat.

But he didn't linger long.

"Hey, Bern!" said one admirer.

"Hey, how are you?" he said, before walking out the door.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic.....er-n514256
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6694
Reputation: 239.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( both trump and sanders won last night but whats more interesting is the numbers , state wide 228013 people voted in the democratic primary but 260621 people voted in the republican primary , which is significant as New Hampshire is not a red state and has not voted for a republican for president since 2000 , so for the republicans to beat the democrats in turnout is significant )


Trump, Sanders ride U.S. anti-establishment tide to New Hampshire win


Steve Holland and Amanda Becker, Reuters

First posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 08:07 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 01:14 AM EST


MANCHESTER, N.H. - Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders coasted to victory on a wave of voter anger in the New Hampshire presidential nominating contest, thrashing traditional U.S. politicians in a display of anti-establishment power.

Sweeping wins by Trump, a New York billionaire, and Sanders, a democratic socialist, on Tuesday testified to the sizable share of American voters upset at U.S. economic conditions and willing to send a shockwave to Washington in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

New Hampshire's verdict sets up a tough fight for Republicans in South Carolina on Feb. 20 and for Democrats there on Feb. 27. Some of the most monumental campaign battles in elections past have been fought in the state that holds the first primary election of the American South.

For Trump, New Hampshire showed he has staying power and can take a punch after losing on Feb. 1 to Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the first contest, the Iowa caucuses. His win showed pundits were wrong to think he would ultimately self-destruct based on his penchant for insults and imprecise plans for the presidency.

Democrat Hillary Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state and former U.S. senator, now looks wounded, trailing Sanders by 60 to 39% based on 86% of the returns.

The wife of former President Bill Clinton, Clinton barely won Iowa and now has been trounced in New Hampshire, where young voters liked Sanders' populist proposals to break up big banks and have the government pay for free college tuition.

"People have every right to be angry but they're also hungry, they're hungry for solutions," Clinton, 68, said after congratulating the 74-year-old Sanders. "I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better."

Clinton was headed to New York, home to her campaign headquarters, to regroup with top aides and prepare for Thursday's Democratic debate. Her campaign has denied reports it is considering a shakeup but acknowledged it would be natural to add members to their team as the campaign progresses.

Sanders said his victory showed "we have sent the message that will echo from Wall Street to Washington, from Maine to California, and that is that the government of our great country belongs to all of the people and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors."

Some 73% of voters say they think the United States is on the wrong track, and these disaffected people make up a majority of the support bases for Trump and Sanders, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

They are worried about the economy and distrust establishment politicians they perceive as being part of the problem.

SHADOW-BOXING TRUMP

Trump, 69, who has campaigned to deport illegal immigrants and temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States, was in first place with 35% of the vote on the Republican side based on 88% of returns.

At his victory rally, Trump dispensed with niceties. He congratulated other candidates in the race but promised to soon return to his pugnacious approach.

"Tomorrow: boom, boom," he said, shadow boxing while his supporters cheered.

The New Hampshire Republican race did little to clear up confusion about who would emerge as the establishment contender to Trump on the Republican side.

Ohio's Republican governor, John Kasich, won a spirited fight for second place in New Hampshire, with Cruz, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida fighting for third place. All four were headed to South Carolina.

Bush, the son and brother of former presidents, lived to fight another day, making something of a comeback after a strong debate performance and solid weekend of campaigning.

"While the reality TV star is doing well, it looks like you all have reset the race," Bush told supporters. "This campaign is not dead. We're going on to South Carolina."

Rubio failed to dispatch Bush, seeing a drop in his support after a debate on Saturday in which he drew criticism for repeating rehearsed lines from his stump speech.

"I did not do well on Saturday night - listen to this: that will never happen again," Rubio told supporters.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who called out Rubio for his robotic debate, fell behind the others in the voting and canceled plans to go to South Carolina, a sign he could drop out soon.

DISENCHANTED VOTERS

Independent voters wield special clout in New Hampshire, second in the series of state-by-state contests that lead to the parties' formal presidential nominating conventions in July, because they can vote in either party's primary.

At a polling station in Manchester, Joan and Roland Martineau said they voted for the two candidates they believed they could trust to shake things up.

Joan, 68, went for Sanders. "I like this views, I like the way he speaks, I think I can trust him," she said.

Roland, 73, a registered Republican, went for Trump, a man he said was "more honest" than other candidates. But he said he would back Sanders over Trump in the general election in November.

Clinton had for months been the front-runner nationally. But a Reuters/Ipsos poll done Feb 2-5 showed Clinton and Sanders now in a dead heat.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a memo that the Democratic nomination would "very likely" be decided in March, with the support of black and Hispanic voters key to victory. The next primary races are in Nevada and South Carolina later this month.

"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African-American and Hispanic voters," Mook wrote.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016.....re-primary
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't see a path to Victory for Sanders.

He basically tied in Iowa but as a result of the Super Delegates from the State Clinton has 30 Total Delegates to Sanders 21, in New Hampshire where Sanders won with more than a 20% margin of victory him and Clinton both walk away with 15 delegates each as 6 Super Delegates threw their support behind Clinton.

To put this into perspective when you factor in the Super Delegates and then the Elected Delegates Clinton leads Sanders 461 - 50.

Then you factor in the South;
South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee will all be sorted by March 2nd and likely leaning heavily toward Clinton.

Unless Sanders can run the table in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and simply dominates Massachusetts on Super Tuesday I can't see Clinton not having the nomination sewn up by March 15th unless there is a simply dramatic shift in support in the South.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6694
Reputation: 239.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
I just don't see a path to Victory for Sanders.

He basically tied in Iowa but as a result of the Super Delegates from the State Clinton has 30 Total Delegates to Sanders 21, in New Hampshire where Sanders won with more than a 20% margin of victory him and Clinton both walk away with 15 delegates each as 6 Super Delegates threw their support behind Clinton.

To put this into perspective when you factor in the Super Delegates and then the Elected Delegates Clinton leads Sanders 461 - 50.

Then you factor in the South;
South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee will all be sorted by March 2nd and likely leaning heavily toward Clinton.

Unless Sanders can run the table in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and simply dominates Massachusetts on Super Tuesday I can't see Clinton not having the nomination sewn up by March 15th unless there is a simply dramatic shift in support in the South.


I don't really understand how the democrats pick their nominee or how super delegates work . even if Clinton wins which is possible , she still has a big problem with sanders and fact so many people who vote democrat voted for and support him . I can't really see her picking a 74 year old independent socialist senator from Vermont as her vice president running mate .
so things get tricky and confusing for her even if she wins democratic nod eventually . she can either become even more left wing to appeal to his radically left wing supporters or the unthinkable him as her running mate
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
I just don't see a path to Victory for Sanders.

He basically tied in Iowa but as a result of the Super Delegates from the State Clinton has 30 Total Delegates to Sanders 21, in New Hampshire where Sanders won with more than a 20% margin of victory him and Clinton both walk away with 15 delegates each as 6 Super Delegates threw their support behind Clinton.

To put this into perspective when you factor in the Super Delegates and then the Elected Delegates Clinton leads Sanders 461 - 50.

Then you factor in the South;
South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee will all be sorted by March 2nd and likely leaning heavily toward Clinton.

Unless Sanders can run the table in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and simply dominates Massachusetts on Super Tuesday I can't see Clinton not having the nomination sewn up by March 15th unless there is a simply dramatic shift in support in the South.


I don't really understand how the democrats pick their nominee or how super delegates work . even if Clinton wins which is possible , she still has a big problem with sanders and fact so many people who vote democrat voted for and support him . I can't really see her picking a 74 year old independent socialist senator from Vermont as her vice president running mate .
so things get tricky and confusing for her even if she wins democratic nod eventually . she can either become even more left wing to appeal to his radically left wing supporters or the unthinkable him as her running mate


Is Sanders a reflection of the Democrats base moving far left;
Or simply a reflect of the fact that there was no creditable alternative to Clinton?

While Sanders and his camp should be applauded for attracting young voters and folks who generally would not vote in a primary or caucus, how many of those Sanders votes are simply Democrats who don't particularly like Clinton or are not thrilled that this entire process was basically suppose to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton?

Would Sanders have the same success if Joe Biden ran?
Elizabeth Warren? John Kerry? or any more conventional known Democrat?

I would argue likely not.

While Sanders has made it interesting, I would be shocked is he was even a consideration for President after March 15th.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6694
Reputation: 239.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
I just don't see a path to Victory for Sanders.

He basically tied in Iowa but as a result of the Super Delegates from the State Clinton has 30 Total Delegates to Sanders 21, in New Hampshire where Sanders won with more than a 20% margin of victory him and Clinton both walk away with 15 delegates each as 6 Super Delegates threw their support behind Clinton.

To put this into perspective when you factor in the Super Delegates and then the Elected Delegates Clinton leads Sanders 461 - 50.

Then you factor in the South;
South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee will all be sorted by March 2nd and likely leaning heavily toward Clinton.

Unless Sanders can run the table in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and simply dominates Massachusetts on Super Tuesday I can't see Clinton not having the nomination sewn up by March 15th unless there is a simply dramatic shift in support in the South.


I don't really understand how the democrats pick their nominee or how super delegates work . even if Clinton wins which is possible , she still has a big problem with sanders and fact so many people who vote democrat voted for and support him . I can't really see her picking a 74 year old independent socialist senator from Vermont as her vice president running mate .
so things get tricky and confusing for her even if she wins democratic nod eventually . she can either become even more left wing to appeal to his radically left wing supporters or the unthinkable him as her running mate


Is Sanders a reflection of the Democrats base moving far left;
Or simply a reflect of the fact that there was no creditable alternative to Clinton?

While Sanders and his camp should be applauded for attracting young voters and folks who generally would not vote in a primary or caucus, how many of those Sanders votes are simply Democrats who don't particularly like Clinton or are not thrilled that this entire process was basically suppose to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton?

Would Sanders have the same success if Joe Biden ran?
Elizabeth Warren? John Kerry? or any more conventional known Democrat?

I would argue likely not.

While Sanders has made it interesting, I would be shocked is he was even a consideration for President after March 15th.



the race would be a lot different if there was other high profile candidates but it still appears sanders has some solid support out there .

I'm just shocked so many democrats think a 74 year old sanders is or should be the future of the party , its just crazy really , whats even more bizarre is his supporters think he is going to win , especially after new Hampshire .
he's much like jack Layton , personally likable and believable but his ideas and policy is whats dangerous and truly scary , a socialist president really ?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6694
Reputation: 239.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

forgot to add , also think the democrats turn left can be explained by the turnout , if you look at new Hampshire a state with a high number of so called independents , the republicans brought out more voters to recent primary than democrats ( something not seen since 2000) . I think that many moderate or maybe soft centre right democrats or independents are leaving the party and going for republicans instead . so the democrats that remain are more liberal and more left wing and so gravitating to a more left of centre nominee .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4370
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's six weeks later, and the estimated delegate count is: Hillary 1243 to Bernie's 925. It's a lot closer than anybody expected back in February.

Hillary waits to find out what will happen to the charges about her violations of State Department security measures. In other words, the e-mail scandal.

Someone close to her is likely to be the fall-guy. If its covered up, there will be a huge stink at the FBI, and perhaps a lot of resignations. And, of course, the evidence might 'leak' to the media if it doesn't go to trial. Either way, Hillary is set up to take a major hit before primary season is over.

And it looks anything but certain that she can dominate her own state! Bernie is neck-and-neck with her in New York, with almost 300 delegates at stake.

It seems to me that if Bernie takes a plurality of delegates in New York, it will be symbolically important. Some of the super-delegates may start slipping away. And voters may be turned off at the lies and the 'above the law' attitude of the Clintons. Maybe only the Bernie supporters will show up.

At present, the Democrats think she can easily beat Trump. I don't see it myself, but what will happen if they start to think that she might lose?

The tectonic plates of American politics are shifting. Nobody can be too sure about how things will work out.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Super Delegates are the nomination processes "speed bump" the GOP now wishes it had in place.

Sure, Bernie has momentum but lets not forget when we toss out 1243 Vs. 925
What we actually mean is 1739 Vs. 1070 when you factor in those Super Delegates.

Clinton is still cruising to the nomination; she has 1739 / 2383 of the delegates she needs with more than 200 Super delegates not committed of which she will get the majority of .

For the sake of argument she needs around 500 pledged delegates to lock up the nomination assuming she only gets 150 of the remaining super delegates;

She will likely be close (if not there) by April 26th and should have the entire thing done and dusted after the 17th of May; even if the South does propel her New Jersey will on the 7th of June.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4370
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know why having as set of special delegates -- Karl Rove calls them the Democrat House of Lords, and he has a point -- has to do with the Republican's problems.

Do you really want the Republican 'establishment' to maintain control of the nomination process?

The second biggest reason Bernie is doing so well is the same reason Obama did so well in the primaries ... there are that many Democrats who will vote for 'anybody but Hillary'.

Apart from being an awful candidate, she's an awful person! She was the 'enforcer' end of the Clinton tag team. Bill had all the charm. When I say 'awful', I mean her record in office, as well as the cloak-and-dagger stuff.

What did she ever do to deserve the nomination, other than marry Bill? Some feminist!

She's a documented liar with an criminal indictment hanging over her head. (Watch the pros substitute Elizabeth Warren for her, leaving Bernie pounding his pudding if/when the legal storm hits.)

But, beyond that, she is a wooden, low-energy old lady whose as crooked as they come. Why else would she have a private server so she could escape Freedom of Information requirements? Why? Likely because she's the 'inside man' for the Clinton Foundation ...er ... that should be the Clinton money-laundering operation.

I won't even mention her later policy disasters as a Secretary of State.

The third reason is the millennials. I will forego describing the mind-set of what a century of public education has produced. Bernie is dangling the prospect of forgiving student debt in their faces. But the students are propagandized as never before with leftist nonsense. They feel the need to 'feel safe' ...

(I suppose you fell the same about Trump?)

But the biggest reason both Bernie and Donald are triumphing is because the system of politics is so corrupt. The bankers have bought Congress. It's a kind of treason at the top.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I don't know what having as set of special delegates -- Karl Rove calls them the Democrat House of Lords, and he has a point.


There is a certain irony in that statement from Karl Rove;
The GOP is burning millions of dollars in an attempt to block a Trump nomination and are effectively salting the Earth with their likely candiaite.

If the party had any mechanism like the Democrats did they wouldn't be in the position they are in now.

Bugs wrote:
Do you really want the Republican 'establishment' to maintain control of the nomination process?


I have Trump on one side and the establishment backing Ted Cruz on the other;
The GOP has effectively ceded the 2016 Presidential election to the Democrats in a year where it should have been a cakewalk.

Its clear the grassroots and the establishment have no idea what they are doing nor how a general election works.

Neither should have control of this process.

Bugs wrote:
The second biggest reason Bernie is doing so well is the same reason Obama did so well in the primaries ... there are that many Democrats who will vote for 'anybody but Hillary'.


On this point we are in complete agreement.
As I said above, I don't feel that Sanders is a product of "change" but rather one of a Democratic electorate who doesn't want to be forced into a candidate they don't particularly like.


Bugs wrote:
The second reason is the millennials. I will forego describing the mind-set of what a century of public education has produced. Bernie is dangling the prospect of forgiving student debt in their faces. But the students are propagandized as never before with leftist nonsense. They feel the need to 'feel safe' ...


Even in 2008 the youth vote didn't power in as expected; they may get you to the ticket but counting on youth vote for an election is always dangerous.

Students tend to rally around a candidate with great zeal on both sides of the aisle, even Ron Paul had a huge campus following in 2012.

Bugs wrote:
I suppose you fell the same about Trump?


I am not sure what you mean?

My thought on Trump is very much that I have no idea what he stands for, he has been fairly vague but I can't fault him because its worked very well for him. Why give your opponents ammo when you don't have to.

At the end of the day I think that Trump leads the GOP to a Mondale-esk defeat unless he becomes a very different type of leader in the general,

But at the same time the GOP attempting to derail his nomination is disgusting.

For whatever warts he may have, he has brought millions of new voters to the GOP and while I am certainly not his biggest fan watching the GOP spend millions trying to block his path to 1,237 so that someone who has not campaigned for a second over the last year could potentially win the nomination is one the biggest perversions of democracy I have seen in a while.

While I may not have voted for Donald Trump if I was a card carrying Republican the reality is that he respected their system of selecting a President and is going to come damn close to the number he needs to win the nomination and could very well be thwarted on the floor of the Convention by someone like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan (For the sake of argument) is not right.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4370
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is the Republican elite spending all its money trying to stop Trump? Ask yourself why they wouldn't simply accept the verdict of the primaries?

What's at stake for them? Well, they have a pretty good thing going. And why would the election of Trump threaten that?

Like a lot of Canadians, you can't understand that these are not normal times. There is a sizable chunk of both parties who want to see the spending brought under control and who are starting to realize that a Congress and the President have no reason to act.

Policy coming out of Washington is not the resultant of the different voices in the country. Something overpowers that, and a lot of Americans put it down to corruption. They look at the monstrous profits made by the too-big-to-fail banks, and see that they are the biggest contributors to both political parties. They see the Republican leadership line up with Obama time and time again. even in the latest round, funding money to pay for medical care for illegal immigrants, who are flowing into America without check. (Border guards are being forced to release those they catch into the population, where they disappear.)

I could list off the instances where the Republicans have folded in front of Obama, and despite the public taking over both houses of the legislative branch, they cannot stop the spending. The present leadership won't even let the words "Islamic terrorist" be uttered!

This frustration has been rising for at least eight years. Bush may have been a disappointment, but Obama has only made everything worse. (What problem has he fixed? Name one!) Thinking Americans feel that they are in a pretend economic recovery, that the jobs are going away -- the job growth that is reported is really the adaption of the economy to the employers' benefits package foisted on small business to finance Obamacare. Part-time jobs are replacing full-time jobs in the lower service sector. The stock market -- another indicator the public once used to gauge the health of the economy -- is driven by the Federal Reserve.

People don't understand theoretical economics very well, but they have a feeling there has been no economic recovery, that the interests of the Democrat Party have a greater priority than those of the American poeple -- which is what the immigration issue is all about.

All the respectable politicians of stature have failed them.

Forget the millennials, that's the situation at present for the people that can't afford $60,000 tuitions for their children.

Hillary is reputed to be in Goldman Sachs pocket, and the list goes on and on. All of these people are tainted. What to do? That's the reason Boehner had to go. Even with previous hero, Paul Ryan as speaker, it didn't change.

And that's the background to these primary elections.

The question is why the Republicans won't accept the verdict of the people? Why would they waste $millions on attack ads on their own likely candidate?

It gives credence to the conviction that the system is corrupt and broken. The elites -- of both parties -- are clearly on a different path from the people, and they are not inclined to give in.

So, Trump steps up and announces -- he will self-fund his run, and he thinks the border should be closed until all this is fixed. And he becomes all but indestructible within the Republican Party almost immediately. The media tries to ruin him ... but he's on twitter, where they have less control, and he handles them.

Across the aisle, Bernie enters the race because, to him, it is just too obvious that the Clintons have bought and paid for Hillary's nomination, and while he has no animus towards her, he feels it isn't right. He goes issue-shopping and arrives where he is. Now, I think, he realizes that he just might head off Hillary. And, of course, some of Hilary's criminal past seems to be catching up to her. An FBI investigation is closing, and she is so-oo guilty ... that if it gets to an indictment, she's toast as a candidate.

It's rotten to the core. At this point, the Republicans are perfectly willing to blow up their party rather than go along with this, as they have. Personally, I think it's a rational choice. Don't worry about the money -- its from people like Soros and Goldman anyway.

========================================

You say you don't know what he stands for, policy-wise. Funny, you probably aren't much more aware of Cruz's positions, or Kasich's, or Hilary's even. Bring up policy and eyes glaze over. This is about selecting someone to clean up the mess.

What would you do, in this situation? At this point, I don't think think there's any way out that does not involve precipitating a depression. In fact, in classic economics, a depression is the 'cure' for the problems. The poor operators go broke, and the prudent ones buy their assets, and the show goes on. But present economic policy is aimed at avoiding, at all costs, even a slump. Right now, banks are actively trying to get inflation up, UP? Yes, they want higher prices, they want to solve the problem of the bankers' stupidity by making the rest of Americans poorer -- and us too, by the way.

Is there anyone anywhere that can justify impoverishing Main Street to enrich Wall Street?

Trump is no dummy, and he knows banking. If he isn't America's last best hope of a reversal of Obama's policies, who is? Forget all the Nate Silver stuff. In ordinary times, it's probably a good guide. But what we are seeing is a social movement coalescing around changing the direction of state, against the centralized power of the huge administrative structures of society.

As the Chinese say ... may you live in interesting times.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Why is the Republican elite spending all its money trying to stop Trump? Ask yourself why they wouldn't simply accept the verdict of the primaries?

What's at stake for them? Well, they have a pretty good thing going. And why would the election of Trump threaten that?


For me this isn't about establishment Vs whomever;
I have made my position on the GOP blocking a Trump nomination clear above;

The only thing that matters to me is getting a GOP president while maintaining a Senate and Congressional majority and assure the first act is a new Supreme Court appointment.

I am not convinced that Trump can win in a general;
In the same way I wasn't sold on Romney being able to win a general;

This is basically the same discussion we had in 2012;
http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f.....11303.html

That discussion took place largely in August so there is time for a Trump course correction but who knows.

I hope I am incorrect about Trump because given a Clinton or Trump option there is no contest but again I am not convinced he can win.

Bugs wrote:
You say you don't know what he stands for, policy-wise. Funny, you probably aren't much more aware of Cruz's positions, or Kasich's, or Hilary's even.


In this case I would disagree;
I would argue I am far more aware of Cruz & Kasich's because they actually publish them:

https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/
https://www.johnkasich.com/issues/

In conjunction with a voting and legislative record.

Donald Trump has a series of position on his site;
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

But hasn't exactly been clear on the mechanism of implementation or the potential legal issues that they may face, however as I said above he really hasn't needed to as he has largely cruised to a significant lead without having to get too deep into policy.

While I may be in the minority, I actually base my preference almost entirely on policy & elect-ability

Bugs wrote:
Bring up policy and eyes glaze over. This is about selecting someone to clean up the mess.


Sure;
But is it unreasonable to ask how someone plans to clean up said mess?

Trump arguing that he is a businessman and a great negotiator may lend me some comfort on the Economic front, but there are more issues than economic ones that need to be addressed.

I don't want this to be another 2012 where we get so tied up in how terrible the other candidate is for the Democrats that we don't focus on actually winning the election because we are ourselves selected an equally unelectable candidate.

While it may not seem like it;
You and I do share the same end goal.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4370
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree with you on the issues. Trump's issues have changed the whole campaign. Immigration. Economic nationalism.

Here's some help. I think he has aid enough to give people an idea of his positions, but he is not developing policy papers of length and specificity that won't be implemented anyway.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

In the American system, you can't really promise an outcome, because Congress has a lot to say about the legislation, and it isn't a winner-tale-all system like ours.

The real difference where Trump differs from Cruz is Trump's economic nationalism. When the free trade calls went out, I was all for it, but I believed that it would be the worse jobs that would go to China, and the lost jobs would be replaced with better ones. But that hasn't happened, and a this point, it doesn't seem likely to happen.

I don't know myself how I would vote on that. I fear Canada will get hurt.

He also is proposing charging other nations for American military protection. This is a scary idea, but can anyone deny that we Canadians get off cheap? Particularly when the Liberals are in power?

I'd like to see the log-jam broken. I'd like to see the end of Obama, and all his crooked cronies. I'd like to see the economic reforms we need so bad. I'd even like to see the Clinton's behind bars. So I suppose I am a lot more open to Trump's presidency as a result.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are certainly some aspects of a Trump platform that I find interesting;

My biggest concern is elect-ability;
You can have a wonderful candidate with wonderful ideas but it amount to a cup of coffee is they don't get elected.

I guess the question that I have for you is do you feel that a Trump ticket can beat a Clinton ticket in November?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Bernie Sanders ? have democrats lost their minds

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB