The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Pelado]

Drumpf not happy with his former primary opponents:

"They signed a pledge saying they will abide, saying they will back the candidate of the party," Drumpf said during a campaign appearance in Bangor, Maine, adding, "They broke their word. In my opinion, they should never be allowed to run for public office again because what they did is disgraceful."

Kasich's team reminding everyone that they've made a big mistake:

Kasich has been using his campaign email list to fundraise for down-ballot Republicans such as Sen. John McCain along with candidates for House seats after the Ohio governor dropped out of the presidential race in May. But his letter on Wednesday, entitled "The Latest" and authored by senior adviser John Weaver, highlighted the recent findings of a Ballotpedia poll that look bad for Drumpf.

Weaver argued that the poll results "confirm what we said throughout the campaign: John Kasich was the very best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton."

"Under a modeled electorate, Drumpf loses every swing state by 6-12 points. Governor Kasich wins 6 out of 7 swing states. Speaker Ryan wins 2 out of 7 swing states," the email reads.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politi...ump/index.html

[Northwestcoug]

In other words, you are voting strategically and against Trump, because you can't make an argument to overcome her negatives. Just admit that. I respect your right to be wrong, that is the essence of libertarianism, as opposed to liberalism which dictates a nanny state so that nobody fails or makes any mistakes. You proved my point by being incapable of identifying any virtues of Hillary. But you are correct, she is without virtue.

However, you didn't answer any other questions. Do you believe the country will be better off because you identify with the Democratic Party's economic platform? Do you trust the Democrats to spend your money more wisely? Do you trust them to spend less than the GOP?

No, let me repeat exactly what I said above:

Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the nation will be better off politically and economically under her leadership, as opposed to Trump's.

I don't think I can make it more clear than that. If there were a better GOP ticket, I would strongly consider it. But there isn't, so I am voting for the better choice.

As for your economic questions: after the last GOP executive and legislative leaderships, yes, for now I'm cautiously inclined to hand the reigns over to the democrats. Other than serious-sounding talk, I have seen little GOP action for serious fiscal sustainability.

[Omaha 680]

This has to mean no charges will be recommended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us...rver.html?_r=0

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.

The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.

[Topper]

No, let me repeat exactly what I said above:

Here is where your language betrays you. The term "better" implies a good. You have already stated numerous times that Trump is not good, and thus are using the term as a form of comparison which supports my characterization of your approach to being one of strategic by choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The nation being better off has nothing to do with any virtue of your selection. Just being not as bad is not a virtue. Thus, you must admit she is without virtue as you have yet been unable to identify one.

Economically, it is naive to argue or to believe that the GOP will do what it says. The GOP argues in favor of fiscal conservatism, and some isolated officials endeavor to pursue austerity, but party leadership once faced with rewarding its acolytes does so. The GOP might spend less, but not a lot less. The Dems make no pretense of spending less. They believe you can spend yourself into prosperity with the perpetual credit card of the advantage of printing money. The GOP acts contrary to its belief and the Dems act consistent with their errant beliefs. Both are recipes for economic harm.

[Northwestcoug]

Here is where your language betrays you. The term "better" implies a good. You have already stated numerous times that Trump is not good, and thus are using the term as a form of comparison which supports my characterization of your approach to being one of strategic by choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The nation being better off has nothing to do with any virtue of your selection. Just being not as bad is not a virtue. Thus, you must admit she is without virtue as you have yet been unable to identify one.

Economically, it is naive to argue or to believe that the GOP will do what it says. The GOP argues in favor of fiscal conservatism, and some isolated officials endeavor to pursue austerity, but party leadership once faced with rewarding its acolytes does so. The GOP might spend less, but not a lot less. The Dems make no pretense of spending less. They believe you can spend yourself into prosperity with the perpetual credit card of the advantage of printing money. The GOP acts contrary to its belief and the Dems act consistent with their errant beliefs. Both are recipes for economic harm.

Sure, Topper. You keep fighting that semantic battle.

[byu71]

Here is where your language betrays you. The term "better" implies a good. You have already stated numerous times that Trump is not good, and thus are using the term as a form of comparison which supports my characterization of your approach to being one of strategic by choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The nation being better off has nothing to do with any virtue of your selection. Just being not as bad is not a virtue. Thus, you must admit she is without virtue as you have yet been unable to identify one.

Economically, it is naive to argue or to believe that the GOP will do what it says. The GOP argues in favor of fiscal conservatism, and some isolated officials endeavor to pursue austerity, but party leadership once faced with rewarding its acolytes does so. The GOP might spend less, but not a lot less. The Dems make no pretense of spending less. They believe you can spend yourself into prosperity with the perpetual credit card of the advantage of printing money. The GOP acts contrary to its belief and the Dems act consistent with their errant beliefs. Both are recipes for economic harm.

I know there are some solid, including yourself, lawyers on this board. There is no doubt lawyers are needed and valuable in our society.

That being said, around 60% of Senate are lawyers, 37% in congress are lawyers. 81 republican and 123 democrat. I looked this up on google.

No wonder there is more and more government regulation.

Since Dodd-Frank I will bet more lawyers have been hired at financial institutions than financial advisors. It is a "you can't do this because we might get sued mentality". I don't think this is just going on in my industry. No wonder the economy can't get off of it's butt.

[old_gregg]

This has to mean no charges will be recommended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us...rver.html?_r=0

while it's the wrong decision in an objective sense, it's worth it to see how bernie folks implode.

[Topper]

Sure, Topper. You keep fighting that semantic battle.

It's not semantics. It's reality, you are casting a vote in favor of a human completely without virtue.

[byu71]

No, let me repeat exactly what I said above:



I don't think I can make it more clear than that. If there were a better GOP ticket, I would strongly consider it. But there isn't, so I am voting for the better choice.

As for your economic questions: after the last GOP executive and legislative leaderships, yes, for now I'm cautiously inclined to hand the reigns over to the democrats. Other than serious-sounding talk, I have seen little GOP action for serious fiscal sustainability.

I am going back and forth on who to vote for. I can't last through hearing either one of them talk. My limit is about 2 sentences.

However, it would be so tough for me to vote for a person who has the support of people like Pelosi, Boxer, Hary Reid, Bernie and the liberl media.

My question for you is would you vote for Hillary and then a republican running for Congress so they can offset what she and her friends want to do?

[bluegoose]

Is anyone buying this statement from Trump that he is releasing his personal loan for his campaign, making it a donation instead? I've read that a number of potential GOP donors are hesitant to make any donations until it become official with the FEC, as they would rather not donate, only to have it all head right back into Trump's personal account.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...99572230975492

[Topper]

I am going back and forth on who to vote for. I can't last through hearing either one of them talk. My limit is about 2 sentences.

However, it would be so tough for me to vote for a person who has the support of people like Pelosi, Boxer, Hary Reid, Bernie and the liberl media.

My question for you is would you vote for Hillary and then a republican running for Congress so they can offset what she and her friends want to do?

Et tu Brute? Don't do it. Don't go to the Dark Side. There is still good in you.

Vote Gary Johnson with a clean conscience. If you sully yourself by voting for the Manchurian Candidate, you will forever be stained and tainted. Cleanse yourself of all that is unholy, my friend.

[byu71]

Et tu Brute? Don't do it. Don't go to the Dark Side. There is still good in you.

Vote Gary Johnson with a clean conscience. If you sully yourself by voting for the Manchurian Candidate, you will forever be stained and tainted. Cleanse yourself of all that is unholy, my friend.

Ease your mind. I can envision myself heading to the booth to vote for Hillary and before I actually do I throw up all over myself. After being cleaned up by my nurse who goes everywhere with me, I will vote for Johnson, Trump or write in someone.

[SCcoug]

This has to mean no charges will be recommended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us...rver.html?_r=0

lol @ the NY Times.

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

lol @ the NY Times.

Embedded Tweet

She did say the meeting with Bill was a mistake. Well, she didn't use the word "mistake", which was probably intentional.

[Northwestcoug]

I am going back and forth on who to vote for. I can't last through hearing either one of them talk. My limit is about 2 sentences.

However, it would be so tough for me to vote for a person who has the support of people like Pelosi, Boxer, Hary Reid, Bernie and the liberl media.

My question for you is would you vote for Hillary and then a republican running for Congress so they can offset what she and her friends want to do?

To be determined. The PNW doesn't produce the most stellar GOP candidates. The anarchist strategic vote for me would be to vote democrat down the line, more as an 'eff you and get your act together' to the GOP. But at the same time, I really do want to see two healthy, serious political parties running for office. So in the PNW, the GOP needs all the help it can get, and it may need more votes to establish itself for the future. But then again, I'm at the precipice of voting democrat for awhile anyways. I am repulsed by the social policies of the GOP, and I'm not convinced that they are serious about fiscal responsibility. And I'll only consider the Libertarian ticket when they stop being crazy.

Or maybe I'll move to Canada. Justin Trudeau is kind of a heartthrob.