Will the Race for President Be Decided in the House?

[Just Walkin']

Given the fragmentation of our political system, rapid obsolescence of its underlying ideologies and the widespread hatred of its presidential candidates by various sectors of the population, it is likely that multiple parties will compete for the presidency this cycle and quite possible that no candidate will win a majority of electoral votes, thus assuring that the next president will be decided by the House. Since the House is now controlled by the GOP, this means that it is even likelier that a cadre of GOP political operatives, disaffected by the presumptive nominee, is planning for that specific outcome. Tu ergo quid dicis? Will the race be decided in the House? Will the media aid and abet or thwart and expose the charade? Numquid solutum custodes?

[marcus]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 12:22:20 AM UTC-4, Just Walkin' wrote:
> Given the fragmentation of our political system, rapid obsolescence of its underlying ideologies and the widespread hatred of its presidential candidates by various sectors of the population, it is likely that multiple parties will compete for the presidency this cycle and quite possible that no candidate will win a majority of electoral votes, thus assuring that the next president will be decided by the House. Since the House is now controlled by the GOP, this means that it is even likelier that a cadre of GOP political operatives, disaffected by the presumptive nominee, is planning for that specific outcome. Tu ergo quid dicis? Will the race be decided in the House? Will the media aid and abet or thwart and expose the charade? Numquid solutum custodes?

Hmmm, interesting speculation, JW, but I'm thinking not. Obviously, I could be wrong on this, but I think the race will be decided on Election day or the next day.

At this point, and again this is speculation, I think that Bill Clinton will not be First Gentleman on January 20, 2017.

[Will Dockery]

You are thinking Trump or will someone else rise to the top by that time?

[marcus]

As of today, I'm thinking Trump will win. Of course, things can change quickly, but it seems that he is a much stronger candidate than Clinton.

[Rachel]

What is WRONG with her?!?!??! I wish she'd WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! or maybe she/her team has a secret plan? Don't want to get people too interested/excited so early before the election, then they get bored and tired, and don't go out to vote. (should i have not said that? :-///)

Reminds me of the whole Springsteen Born in the USA (Born to Run?) well, whatever, that album where he has the handkerchief in back pocket, and it was everywhere for a while, on the news, $500 dollars a ticket, but just like mania, the body can't sustain that kind of high for too long, and crashes.

Maybe she doesn't want people to crash too soon.

[Rachel]

And she SERIOUSLY needs to fix her voice.

She needs to sit over with her head bent over medicated steam machines, breathing, every morning, to relax and heal her voice. (i made that up. never heard of them, but they must exist, or can be invented!)

[Rachel]

and she needs to tame down/adjust the lipstick. she should get professional help there.

[Rachel]

sad, but true.

(i can't help in that department!) (i'm just as clueless)

[marcus]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11:58:48 AM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> What is WRONG with her?!?!??! I wish she'd WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! or maybe she/her team has a secret plan? Don't want to get people too interested/excited so early before the election, then they get bored and tired, and don't go out to vote. (should i have not said that? :-///)
>
> Reminds me of the whole Springsteen Born in the USA (Born to Run?) well, whatever, that album where he has the handkerchief in back pocket, and it was everywhere for a while, on the news, $500 dollars a ticket, but just like mania, the body can't sustain that kind of high for too long, and crashes.
>
> Maybe she doesn't want people to crash too soon.

Well, if she doesn't want people to crash too soon, she is doing a good job of it.

[Will Dockery]

Seems to me that Hillary, election after election, just /expects/ that America kind of owes her a Presidency, like "Bill had his time, not it's my turn."

If it were established that Bill Clinton was whispering ideas in her ear, in effect, almost giving him a third term, I think she'd have a landslide.

That's my motive for voting Clinton again this year... because her husband Bill did a great job, and no I don't give a damn whether anyone agrees with me on that or not.

:)

It may not be well known to non-southerners, but the earlier mentioned George Wallace, when he was Governor of Alabama, ran out of terms to be elected, so his wife, Lurleen Wallace ran, and won. Alabama was a pioneer in that way, having one of the earliest (or she may have been first, at least in the Deep South) female Governor of a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#First_Gentleman_of_Alabama

It was well-known that if he wasn't calling the shots, Wallace was at least whispering in his wife's ear... and she was listening.

So, yeah:

Hillary in 2016.

:D

[JD Chase]

What is WRONG with people???!!! People need to WAKE UP!!! God forbid that disgusting, vile, dispicable buffoon becomes president! He is unpalatable for a MILLION reasons!!!

Many people want an inexperienced president... The question is: WHY??? Would you want your doctor to be inexperienced? Your lawyer? Your accountant? Your plumber? Your pilot??? Why shouldn't a president have at least SOME political experience???

[Rachel]

it's very simple, i think?

all they're thinking about is money.

he's rich. he knows how to make money. he's independent. he's not working for or indebted to anybody. he's doing it for us, for america. he has no fear. he's showing us he really is a good person by not hiding anything with his political incorrectness. he's going to make america great again. we're all gonna be rich!

[JD Chase]

It's just pathetic that so many people believe him! "Make America great again"??? HOW? There are never any specifics... Beyond building a YUGE wall and kicking all Mexicans out of the country... And he is NOT straightforward... He is always, constantly changing his tune on the issues... He is a con man, he is a narcissistic demagogue who is NOT about helping America... He is for one person only, HIMSELF!!!

[Rachel]

even i don't believe THAT.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 12:00:32 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
>
> And she SERIOUSLY needs to fix her voice.

They said that about Bob Dylan also.

:)

[JD Chase]

What do you believe?

[Rachel]

I don't know.

:-(

(i think he's kinda pathological, though...sort of insane...)

[Just Walkin']

Bill did a horrible job as president. It was his administration that set the stage for the financial collapse and the mass incarceration of millions of young black kids in private for-profit prisons. He squandered the peace dividend on PR and feel-good incentives for his supporters while putting in place the New Jim Crow. He also destroyed the economy of Haiti, ignored the plight of Rwanda and wreaked havoc in the Balkans. He is the one who set the democratic party agenda back 50 years, making democrats more like republicans so that the GOP could move even farther right.

What did he do that was so good, besides creating the illusion of peace and prosperity? Name three things of any lasting value:

[M. Rick]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 10:18:54 AM UTC-7, Rachel wrote:
> it's very simple, i think?
> all they're thinking about is money.

Money and power, propelled by fear and greed, characterized as national pride. If you don't have the money then at least you can enjoy deporting the Muslim (i.e. Arab Muslim) who works at the gas station. It was the year when the pigs finally disposed of their human masks.

[M. Rick]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11:07:49 AM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
> What did he do that was so good, besides creating the illusion of peace and prosperity? Name three things of any lasting value:

Why is that an illusion if most people did all right with Clinton, much better than with the following Presidents? 60% + approval (might be higher were it not for the impeachment). High approval among blacks, the majority now voting for Hillary Clinton. Googling "Bill Clinton Accomplishments" -
https://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html
http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[luisb...@aol.com]

Your stuff is such a downer. No wonder Trump's winning. And you never thought the bitter clingers would come looking for you. How about self-deporting? Have you looked into that? I mean for yourself.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Stop. Please. Just. Stop.

[RichL]

"Just Walkin'" <kens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e7bbc17-8781-41d6...@googlegroups.com...

Nope.

[Just Walkin']

Because in reality people's real income went down, their assets diminished, their jobs disappeared and their futures mortgaged for the feeling of doing better in the here and now. Please note that feeling better doesn't mean doing better.

The sad fact is that the consequences of any given policy in this society aren't felt for 10-20 years. The low doc loans with variable interest rates that permitted people of color to buy their first homes were made even as their real incomes were going down. Bush's "ownership society" - key to his gaining public support for his wars - were built upon this scam. We all know what happened to those loans, and their underlying properties.

But people don't follow the policy scams; they follow the personalities. That is why people who got their first home, even as their incomes declined, jobs outsourced and assets shrunk, credit Clinton with their progress and fault Bush for their setback when they were both part of the same financial deception of switching and replacing income with credit.

What we have here then is the cognitive dissonance so essential for a system in decline to preserve its own reputation with its own participants, even as they (99% of them at least) are doing much worse off today than before Clinton took office. Remember, this has been going on since the mid-seventies when the basis of true prosperity - manufactured value - for all began to be dismantled and left behind forever. The sad truth is that the profitability of capitalism had been rapidly shrinking and the only way to save it is to claw back social services, cut taxes and drive down salaries and at the same time offer credit to offset the shortfall.

Again, it is wrong to say "Clinton good, Bush bad" when they were both executing stages of the same long term program to save our decrepit system. But the mass media never says this hence people only know what their newsreaders tell them. Both squandered golden opportunities to invest the peace dividend in true prosperity and gave it to their friends instead, spending their own time on PR. Study the record and you'll see that the last 40 years have been a long staged decline of our real economy and all governments since have played a role.


http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice

https://www.umass.edu/economics/sites/default/files/Kotz.pdf

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/

[M. Rick]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 3:36:47 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>How about self-deporting? Have you looked into that? I mean for yourself.

As opposed to "self-deporting" someone else? I'm planning to dress up as an Arab Muslim and wait for the deportation squad.

[M. Rick]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 3:38:00 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> Stop. Please. Just. Stop.

You shouldn't take it so personal, Sonny. It's just business. I'm willing to stop posting here but my price is $15,000. As with Trump's proposals to ban all Muslims, build a wall on the border, and expand the use of torture, my price is just a suggestion open to negotiation.

[M. Rick]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
>> What we have here then is the cognitive dissonance so essential for a system in decline to preserve its own reputation with its own participants, even as they (99% of them at least) are doing much worse off today than before Clinton took office.

That's incorrect. After Bush bailed out the banks, real estate prices in prosperous areas rebounded. The prices of that real estate along with equities have reached unforeseen heights. Hard to get a fix on individual wealth, but I'd speculate that about 30% of Americans have done quite well since Clinton. I'm talking primarily about working class folks who put their kids through school and paid off their mortgages. If we add up their houses, retirement funds, salaries, government and/or corporate benefits, they're millionaires or close to it.

[Just Walkin']

When I lived in the suburbs, it looked like that to me too. But living in the city, I now tend to believe it's more like 10% have prospered in the manner you've describe. The rest, not so much. Same kind of hard-working folks but living on the other side of town with many more across the tracks. In numbers, they dwarf the folks of which you speak. Sorry, things look way different in the real world of working class people, at least here among people who are actually working.

As for the unprecedented heights of the market, less and less people are participating. Similarly, real estate prices may be up in some areas this season, but less and less people are entering the market. HGTV has pulled out all the stops trying to stimulate an appetite in the young for real estate and its seductive partner, debt.

[nate]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11:21:06 PM UTC-4, Just Walkin' wrote:
>
> As for the unprecedented heights of the market, less and less people are participating. Similarly, real estate prices may be up in some areas this season, but less and less people are entering the market. HGTV has pulled out all the stops trying to stimulate an appetite in the young for real estate and its seductive partner, debt.

The late comedian Kineson (sp) had a very bad line about the starving peoples in the desert of African nations - "what the fuck are you living in the desert for? MOVE OUT OF THERE!!!!" So I could throw that back on those who live in the inner city, I suppose.....

*shrug*

- nate

[Just Walkin']

Ad therein lies the fallacy of the American definition of "freedom."

[Will Dockery]

What did Bill Clinton do that was good?

For starters, he stopped the Original George Bush from getting a second term.

:)

[JD Chase]

And I never would have been an invited guest to the Whie House! One of the most memorable, thrilling events of my life.. ☺️

[Just Walkin']

And of course he ran the nation the same way Bush would have had he been re-elected, perhaps even more militaristically than the spook's spook would have at the time. And now Hillary is following the playbook of both Bushes, in fact now owns it, as far as foreign policy goes.

So, discounting stopping GHWB's reelection, what else did Clinton do that was any good?

[Just Walkin']

Remember: Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" who ultimately raised taxes; Clinton ran as a "conservative democrat" who ultimately did away with a number of entitlements.

[Will Dockery]

Okay, I had a long list of things Clinton supposedly got right and that Bush trashed, which I was using back when Obama was running the first time, and used it to say, "This is why McCain doesn't need to be President, since he promised we'd get more of the same with him as with Bush."

I understand that this list of the "good things" Clinton did can now be picked apart, and by both sides, now, Trump supporters and Sanders supporters alike are trashing Hillary and the Bill Clinton legacy with great zeal... and the only person I can see winning from this is Trump.

Hillary Clinton loses and Donald Trump wins... is that really, really what Sanders folks want for the next four years?

I'm just not seeing how anything good can come of this, as is.

I wonder if there's any chance Sanders will wind up trying to run as a third party candidate?

[Just Walkin']

Not at all. They do not want either candidate to win. They are both seen as part of a vile and corrupt system.

> I'm just not seeing how anything good can come of this, as is.
>

Nothing good can ever come from either Trump or Hillary. We're in a pickle.

> I wonder if there's any chance Sanders will wind up trying to run as a third party candidate?
>

In 4 years perhaps. There will be consequences for whichever party loses this race and Bernie's Army needs to be ready to pick up the pieces.

But to be a spoiler this year? Not a good idea, unless another Republican runs an on anti-Trump ticket as well, splitting the vote even further. That is where the premise of my question comes in: In a multi-party race, it is possible no candidate will have sufficient electoral votes to win and the race will be thrown to the House.

So here's the real question then: In a 4-way race, can Bernie win enough electoral votes to keep it out of the House? Can any of the candidates?

[DianeE]

"Just Walkin'" <kens...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fa9f11fa-626c-4c6b...@googlegroups.com...

-----------------
That's not the *real* question; that's a completely hypothetical question.
Sanders has ruled out running as a 3rd party candidate. Repeatedly.

DianeE

[Just Walkin']

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 10:01:01 PM UTC-5, DianeE wrote:
> "Just Walkin'"

I agree with you, DianeE. He has repeatedly stated that he will not run a third party campaign. He told me so himself and I believe him. But he has purposefully avoided any discussion about participating in a 4-party race.

At present, Hillary is counting on GOP defections from the Trump misanthropy to offset the loss of a huge percentage of Bernie voters whom she'll never capture. There's a risk that any one of these GOP establishmentarians can go rogue on her and field a 3rd party candidate sapping her voting strength further. In that case *someone* will have to run to keep the independents away from Trump. The calculus here is not Bernie's ambition; it is the fervor with which the anti-Trump wing of the GOP wants to fight for its legacy and create an opening for him.

The real question facing social engineers on both sides is whether it is best to channel this voter insurgency through existing structures and concentrate its power at great risk in consolidated entities or break the dual monoliths apart, fragment the system and diffuse the power through multiple entities, also at great risk. The fact that these possibilities are being discussed is telling. The cards are already on the table.

[M. Rick]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:47:29 PM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
>Not at all. They do not want either candidate to win. They are both seen as part of a vile and corrupt system.

“I’m tired of getting pushed around.”
“I like telling people what to do.”
“The system is built on greed.”
“I deserve more money and benefits.”
“I vote my conscience.”
“I can’t control my addictions.”
“Someone else is to blame.”
“We want to take pride in our country.”

[Just Walkin']

Doesn't sound like any Bernie supporter I know.

Or are you quoting the little voices going on in your head?

[marcus]

Here's what Bernie supporters and campaigners are saying about securing Super Delagates. This is a video from yesterday. Start watching at the 15 minute mark of the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9aD8hgZqAE

[RichL]

"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0674d856-1078-4682...@googlegroups.com...

What a pile of disingenuous bullshit (and this isn't the first time I've
seen this argument).

Bernie strongly objected to the influence of superdelegates at the outset
(remember his comments after the New Hampshire primary)? He argued that
only pledged delegates should matter, and that the superdelegates' votes
should track those of the pledged delegates.

Now the tune is changing? And we're supposed to, among other things,
consider the results of nearly meaningless general-election polling (more so
because the Republicans have wrapped up their battle while the Dems are in
the middle of theirs) rather than pledged delegates who were chosen in
primaries and caucuses? Please.

Oh and by the way, the most recent polling averages from Real Clear Politics
show people favoring Clinton over Sanders by six points, with the gap
widening over time. So much for that theory.

[marcus]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:33:31 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> "marcus" <> wrote in message

> > Here's what Bernie supporters and campaigners are saying about securing
> > Super Delagates. This is a video from yesterday. Start watching at the
> > 15 minute mark of the video:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9aD8hgZqAE
>
> What a pile of disingenuous bullshit (and this isn't the first time I've
> seen this argument).
>
> Bernie strongly objected to the influence of superdelegates at the outset
> (remember his comments after the New Hampshire primary)? He argued that
> only pledged delegates should matter, and that the superdelegates' votes
> should track those of the pledged delegates.
>
> Now the tune is changing? And we're supposed to, among other things,
> consider the results of nearly meaningless general-election polling (more so
> because the Republicans have wrapped up their battle while the Dems are in
> the middle of theirs) rather than pledged delegates who were chosen in
> primaries and caucuses? Please.
>
> Oh and by the way, the most recent polling averages from Real Clear Politics
> show people favoring Clinton over Sanders by six points, with the gap
> widening over time. So much for that theory.

One thing I got from that video and from hearing Jeff Weaver in recent days is that the media is now adding together the pledged delegates and super delegates and calling them all pledged delegates which inflates what Clinton has as pledged delegates in their reporting to the public

What is wrong with a candidate decrying a particular inequity or unfair practice, but playing by its rules when it's the only game in town, and his opponent is playing by them. Obama did it when raising campaign funds while stating how badly money was interfering with campaigns. Why shouldn't Sanders use part of the "rigged" system in his favor. He may not be successful in convincing super delegates to support him. However, he already has demonstrated his honesty by refusing massive campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy and by putting together a very successful grassroots funding system.

He has been and continues to be the one candidate with an overabundance of honesty, candor and integrity.

[M. Rick]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:35:29 PM UTC-7, marcus wrote:
> He has been and continues to be the one candidate with an overabundance of honesty, candor and integrity.

An overabundance of BS. I guess Bernie turned out to be a populist fraud, much like John Edwards. No surprise that some of the cheerleaders have turned violent. It doesn’t take much to push people over the edge.

[DianeE]

"M. Rick" <insomn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ac1fdb9-cbce-4b11...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:35:29 PM UTC-7, marcus wrote:

> He has been and continues to be the one candidate with an overabundance of
> honesty, candor and integrity.

An overabundance of BS. I guess Bernie turned out to be a populist fraud,
much like John Edwards. No surprise that some of the cheerleaders have
turned violent. It doesn't take much to push people over the edge.

------------------
Edwards: "It's not my kid!" (It was.)

Sanders: Gave son his last name, willingly supported him, has close
relationship with him to this day.

Absolutely identical.

DianeE

[RichL]

"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:0cd585e0-f571-4e4c...@googlegroups.com...

Well, for one thing, I was disappointed in Obama for rejecting public
funding for his 2008 campaign and accepting big money while criticizing the
excessive influence of big money in campaigns. Why doesn't Bernie accept
SuperPac money while criticizing SuperPacs? It's the only game in town!

To me it tarnishes his image to be inconsistent like that. And I'm not
coming at this from a pro-Hillary stance, since I voted for Bernie.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I really dislike the dishonesty...all in the name of taking the moral high ground.

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4b1e9cb7-f038-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

------------
Dishonesty in the name of taking the moral high ground?
Sounds like this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

DianeE

[luisb...@aol.com]

I've seen that. What's cool is on the SNL skit where she admits that she screwed up on gay marriage (though I think she was right the first time). I wish more politicians did that. I think she kind of did that with the Iraq war, but may have that wrong.

I thought the term that Democrats used when they do they 180s or won't admit they were wrong is to say, "I evolved." They think that makes it more sanitary or something...I haven't quite figured it out. She doesn't do that here.

Have you seen Donald's MO? He'll just state the exact opposite position from last time as though the first time never happened. It reminds me of the advice men give each other: Even if she sees you in the process of slamming the other woman with her own eyes, you deny it. You tell her the problem is with her eyes or her imagination...anything. But always deny.

Trump '16!! My Trump '16 website: http://www.epictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151215-045328-9939.jpg




>
> DianeE

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d66151a8-b6e7-4dcc...@googlegroups.com...

> Trump '16!! My Trump '16 website:
> http://www.epictimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151215-045328-9939.jpg

I prefer "make America grate again."

[JD Chase]

"Make America hate again"
Though the "again" isn't accurate... Trump just seems to help lift people's hatred and bigotry more to the surface...

[Just Kidding]

If you haven't done so, go a little googling and look up Clinton's
speech on the Senate floor during the debates prior to the Iraq War
vote. While she has since admitted in retrospect that the vote in
favor was a mistake, her speech shows that it wasn't an unreasoned or
entirely unreasonable vote at the time.

[RichL]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kas6kblcu2li2l2u6...@4ax.com...

For anyone who took what turned out in retrospect to be misinformation
promulgated by the Bush administration (intentionally or not) at face value,
a vote in favor was NOT unreasonable.

And let's not forget: the actual resolution authorized Bush to use the Armed
Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate". It was not a resolution to go to war. It left the
determination to Bush.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> "Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >

> > If you haven't done so, go a little googling and look up Clinton's
> > speech on the Senate floor during the debates prior to the Iraq War
> > vote. While she has since admitted in retrospect that the vote in
> > favor was a mistake, her speech shows that it wasn't an unreasoned or
> > entirely unreasonable vote at the time.
>
> For anyone who took what turned out in retrospect to be misinformation
> promulgated by the Bush administration (intentionally or not) at face value,
> a vote in favor was NOT unreasonable.

That wasn't Clinton's situation. That's a narrative designed to get people off the hook. Clinton maintains--and it's believable--that she saw the war resolution as a big stick to force Hussein to let in the inspectors so he could be disarmed if they found wmds. Her defenders maintain she was duped by the Bush people because they never intended to let the inspectors do their work.

[Rachel]

just following these last three posts (open on my page...) just wondering...

i hear bernie say he knew all along...didn't he?

how could he know? what was *that* about?

(if anybody feels like talking me even though i barely read anything and can't follow along... :-///)

[luisb...@aol.com]

Many people like weapons inspector Scott Ritter believed the wmd threat was non-existent. But they were drowned out by reputable publications like the NY Times, who promoted the administration line about Hussein planning to nuke us or Israel in the wake of 9.11. (Clinton had already bombed Iraq over non-comliance with inspections.) Bernie presumably talked to the doubters, or his advisors read their articles. That's my guess.

[marcus]

I knew all along too, but I'm not a senator, so no one cares.

[Rachel]

But you guys are saying Clinton's position at the time was truly the most rational/reasonable based on the available intelligence at the time? Kinda like Bernie just got lucky?

[marcus]

No, Bernie was smart enough to see through the smokescreen. Hillary the Hawk couldn't...or wouldn't.

[Rachel]

but JK was saying it wasn't unreasonable...

i'm confused.

i'm certain JK is smart enough to look back and say, she missed. bernie is a genius!

but he didn't say that.

[marcus]

He was being charitable.

[Rachel]

JK, is this true?

Do you think in fact Bernie was sharper in his analysis of the information at the time? And if so, what is the purpose of defending Hillary, when the future of the country and the world is at stake?

Does he see things better, and make better decisions????? Would he make a better president, or what?

Oh, I'm so stupid. I have no idea what's going on. Everybody here reads and reads and reads and reads, and watches all the news, etc..., I have no idea what's going on.

:-(((

[JD Chase]

Have to heartily disagree with you, Rachel! You seem quite smart and sharp to me!

[Rachel]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 11:19:41 AM UTC-7, JD Chase wrote:
> Have to heartily disagree with you, Rachel! You seem quite smart and sharp to me!

Thank you, Mr Chase! :)

i'm going to TRY and start an exercise program.

because quite frankly, i feel dull and boorish. frazzled and shattered.

lost. crazy. all over the place. directionless. wrong. guilty. ashamed. over-stimulated.

it's bob dylan's birthday. and it's quite apparent that it has nothing to do with me. :-(((

[luisb...@aol.com]

This is all academic. Neither of them is getting in the way things are shaking out and the way Hillary's running her campaign.

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:38:53 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
>> "Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> >
>> > If you haven't done so, go a little googling and look up Clinton's
>> > speech on the Senate floor during the debates prior to the Iraq War
>> > vote. While she has since admitted in retrospect that the vote in
>> > favor was a mistake, her speech shows that it wasn't an unreasoned or
>> > entirely unreasonable vote at the time.
>>
>> For anyone who took what turned out in retrospect to be misinformation
>> promulgated by the Bush administration (intentionally or not) at face value,
>> a vote in favor was NOT unreasonable.
>
>That wasn't Clinton's situation. That's a narrative designed to get people off the hook. Clinton maintains--and it's believable--that she saw the war resolution as a big stick to force Hussein to let in the inspectors so he could be disarmed if they found wmds. Her defenders maintain she was duped by the Bush people because they never intended to let the inspectors do their work.
>

WTF are you talking about?

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <rach...@gmail.com>

It wasn't necessarily the 'most' rational or reasonable position, but
it was arguably both; unfortunately, it was also wrong. Sanders and
others who opposed granting Bush the authority to go to war against
Iraq weren't lucky, but they did have a higher degree of skepticism
about the arguments in favor of giving Bush that authority and they
ultimately proved to be right. These things happen, but it would be
nice if there was more skepticism and less trust in these matters.

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:12:42 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>

You make it sound like Clinton was the only one whor fell for Bush's
b.s., which is totally untrue. So why is she the one who's labeled
"the Hawk"? Again, if you haven't done so, read her floor speech
concerning the reason for her vote on the war.

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>

No, I was being realistic and fair. What was the vote in the Senate
again?

[Just Kidding]

No. See my response elsewhere.

>
>Do you think in fact Bernie was sharper in his analysis of the information at the time? And if so, what is the purpose of defending Hillary, when the future of the country and the world is at stake?

The Iraq war authorization was not an easy vote for a variety of
reasons. Some got it right, some got it wrong. In fact, more got it
wrong than right. I'm not defending Hillary, I'm just trying to point
out that she was far from alone in being wrong yet if you believe
everything you read she's the one who was the bloodthirsty hawk.

>
>Does he see things better, and make better decisions????? Would he make a better president, or what?

I haven't read Sanders' reasons for opposing the war authorization,
but I assume that he would oppose most wars....not that there's
anything at all wrong with that. Would he make a better president?
Maybe, maybe not, but that one vote shouldn't be the deciding factor.

>
>Oh, I'm so stupid. I have no idea what's going on. Everybody here reads and reads and reads and reads, and watches all the news, etc..., I have no idea what's going on.
>
>:-(((

So read and read and read and watch the news.

[Just Kidding]

What does that mean?

[Just Walkin']

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:05:06 PM UTC-5, Rachel wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-7, marcus wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Just Kidding"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >

Rachel, nearly everyone in the world knew that the Bush-Cheney story about WMDs in Iraq was a lie except for the stooges that bought into the manufactured evidence that they conned Colin Powell into presenting at the UN and those who stood to benefit. Why else would they out Joe Wilson (and Valerie Plame) but for the rare glimpse of the truth he offered us? Of course, the lie was drummed into the average American's head 24-7 by all media outlets until the administration got the results they were after - the blanket authorization for war and the prelude to their much vaunted "clash of civilizations."

Remember, there is a difference between objective intelligence and directed intelligence. Cheney did not ask his minions if there was a link between Hussein and bib Laden. Rather he ordered them to "find a link." He and his cronies needed to fit the reality into the script they crafted to put boots on the ground and fatten the treasuries of his defense contractor pals, not to mention the Bush family business, Halliburton.

The point being made by many in the Bernie camp is not that Hillary made a mistake or she was deceived; it was that she was in cahoots with the perps all along and, in fact, was one of the deceivers on the Democratic side. That is what makes her so dangerous; she's an out-and-out warmonger masquerading as a peacemaker and has half a generation fooled.

[Rachel]

man, i just find that so hard to believe, and yet on the other hand, possibly probably, and SO disheartening. :-(((

makes me wanna just crawl away into a hole and disappear. :-(((

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:52:08 PM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:

> The point being made by many in the Bernie camp is not that Hillary made a mistake or she was deceived; it was that she was in cahoots with the perps all along and, in fact, was one of the deceivers on the Democratic side.

They've made a lot of similar allegations without much substance. I'm not talking abou the majority of Sanders voters but the minority. The majority is going to vote for Clinton because Trump is more unacceptable than Bush.

[Rachel]

possibly probable (typo)

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT), Rachel <rach...@gmail.com>

If you find it hard to believe, it's probably because it's not
believable.

[Rachel]

i find it hard to believe that robert zimmerman is bob dylan, but apparently, it's true!!!

[Rachel]

i just can't put it together, a human being being the cause of that music!!!!!! when i listen to it, it's hard to believe that it's a person behind it!!!!!!! it's beyond human!!!!!! (in my remedial opinion)

i think that's been said before, people meet him, and are like, "you're bob dylan?!??!??!!"

i can't relate, man.

and when i see pictures of the real bob dylan, i go insane.

oh well. :-((

[Rachel]

and i get amnesia. it's fueling my insanity, but i can't remember who's behind it!

[DianeE]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:qmj9kbhjjh204h8i4...@4ax.com...

--------------
I don't find it hard to believe at all. Which part is hard to believe? The
part about Bush and Cheney profiting from the Iraq war is pretty well
documented. The part about Clinton being an out-and-out neocon masquerading
as a progressive/moderate (she changes that label to fit her audience of the
day)? That's not hard to believe. So.....what part is hard to believe?

DianeE

[marcus]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> I haven't read Sanders' reasons for opposing the war authorization,
> but I assume that he would oppose most wars....not that there's
> anything at all wrong with that. Would he make a better president?
> Maybe, maybe not, but that one vote shouldn't be the deciding factor.
> >
>

He didn't fall for the WMD argument. He didn't think Hussein was a threat and didn't think he had WMDs.

It was pretty transparent that Bush wanted to finish the job that his Daddy didn't do and 9/11 gave him the pretext because the American people were scared shitless.

[Just Kidding]

The last part. Where's the evidence that she's "an out-and-out
neocon"?

[DianeE]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:9j5akblhom2m59so6...@4ax.com...

> The last part. Where's the evidence that she's "an out-and-out
> neocon"?

---------------
<sigh> Look, I am convinced by that NYTimes mag article "How Hillary Clinton
Became A Hawk" and by the youtube video "Hillary Clinton Lying For 13
Minutes Straight." You may say, if you want to, that these things simply
confirm my pre-existing prejudices against her. I'm willing to admit that
possibility, but they seem like very strong evidence to me.

DianeE

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:04:54 AM UTC-5, DianeE wrote:
> "Just Kidding"

And that is just the mainstream poop on Clinton. Here is what the left is saying about her:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/

I cite this site because it is the same one that our very own PSB posts his column to, giving it healthy Dylan content, of sorts.

[M. Rick]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 1:56:38 PM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
>http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/

I know it's hard for Clinton haters and Obama apologists to accept, but Clinton is not primarily to blame for Obama's foreign policies. Nor is she "stealing the nomination" from Sanders.

[Just Walkin']

No one is blaming her for anything anyone else did. Her foreign policy positions predate the Obama administration. In fact, they predate his ascendance in the Senate.

But since you brought it up, Obama did give her enough rope to hang herself, then hung her out to dry as he brought in another deceiver by the name of Kerry to make nice after all the damage she caused.

But yes, he was the CEO of our war machine so we'll have to give him the credit, or the blame, for both their actions.

As for her stealing the nomination: You can't say she stole it if it was in the script to begin with. If anything, Sanders is pulling a shoot.

[DianeE]

"Just Walkin'" <kens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a76e4d32-dd1c-4203...@googlegroups.com...

-----------
What does "pulling a shoot" mean?

Thanx DianeE

[M. Rick]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:43:05 PM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
> No one is blaming her for anything anyone else did.

No one? I count at least one "political writer based in Paris."

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 8:01:21 PM UTC-5, DianeE wrote:
> "Just Walkin'"

> >> I know it's hard for Clinton haters and Obama apologists to accept, but
> >> Clinton is not primarily to blame for Obama's foreign policies. Nor is
> >> she "stealing the nomination" from Sanders.
> >
> > No one is blaming her for anything anyone else did. Her foreign policy
> > positions predate the Obama administration. In fact, they predate his
> > ascendance in the Senate.
> >
> > But since you brought it up, Obama did give her enough rope to hang
> > herself, then hung her out to dry as he brought in another deceiver by the
> > name of Kerry to make nice after all the damage she caused.
> >
> > But yes, he was the CEO of our war machine so we'll have to give him the
> > credit, or the blame, for both their actions.
> >
> > As for her stealing the nomination: You can't say she stole it if it was
> > in the script to begin with. If anything, Sanders is pulling a shoot.
> -----------
> What does "pulling a shoot" mean?
>
> Thanx DianeE

Carny talk, used in wrestling, when a wrestler decides to toss the script and go for the pinfall. Pulling a shoot oftentimes means blowing the kayfabe.

[Just Walkin']

I should have said, "no one here..."

[DianeE]

"Just Walkin'" <kens...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0677e148-d061-4d19...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 8:01:21 PM UTC-5, DianeE wrote:
>> "Just Walkin'"
>> >

>> > As for her stealing the nomination: You can't say she stole it if it
>> > was
>> > in the script to begin with. If anything, Sanders is pulling a shoot.
>> -----------
>> What does "pulling a shoot" mean?
>>
>

> Carny talk, used in wrestling, when a wrestler decides to toss the script
> and go for the pinfall. Pulling a shoot oftentimes means blowing the
> kayfabe.

-------------
I imagine that must be very rare in wrestling. Seems like if you went
off-script you'd never work in the industry again, n'est-ce pas?

However, Sanders trying to set up a debate between himself and Trump seems
like a brilliant shoot-pulling move to me. Clinton refused to debate
Sanders; now she's faced with the prospect of Sanders and Trump taking turns
tearing her to pieces for 2 hours straight. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Trump calls
Sanders "Crazy Bernie"--I'd say he's crazy like a fox.

DianeE

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 3:48:31 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:

>
> However, Sanders trying to set up a debate between himself and Trump seems
> like a brilliant shoot-pulling move to me. Clinton refused to debate
> Sanders; now she's faced with the prospect of Sanders and Trump taking turns
> tearing her to pieces for 2 hours straight. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Trump calls
> Sanders "Crazy Bernie"--I'd say he's crazy like a fox.

At this point, there are only two things that are all but certain. First, that your girlfriend Hillary won't get indicted since Obama & Co would never allow the Atty General to pull such a move given the paper trail that might lead back to the White House with Servergate. And secondly that the Democratic party will never run Bernie as their nominee. Oh...and third: Hillary could never be confirmed to be Attorney General with this rap on her.
>
> DianeE

[Just Walkin']

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:48:31 PM UTC-5, DianeE wrote:
> "Just Walkin'"
> >> >
> >> > As for her stealing the nomination: You can't say she stole it if it
> >> > was
> >> > in the script to begin with. If anything, Sanders is pulling a shoot.
> >> -----------
> >> What does "pulling a shoot" mean?
> >>
> >
> > Carny talk, used in wrestling, when a wrestler decides to toss the script
> > and go for the pinfall. Pulling a shoot oftentimes means blowing the
> > kayfabe.
> -------------
> I imagine that must be very rare in wrestling. Seems like if you went
> off-script you'd never work in the industry again, n'est-ce pas?
>
> However, Sanders trying to set up a debate between himself and Trump seems
> like a brilliant shoot-pulling move to me. Clinton refused to debate
> Sanders; now she's faced with the prospect of Sanders and Trump taking turns
> tearing her to pieces for 2 hours straight. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Trump calls
> Sanders "Crazy Bernie"--I'd say he's crazy like a fox.
>
> DianeE

Not that uncommon, especially during the steroid era. You've heard about all those wrestlers who had to go wrestle in Japan? A good percentage of them pulled shoots and had to go overseas to make a living...

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7a5b6e14-d243-4fa7...@googlegroups.com...

---------------
Oh, but he's going out with style. He's not going quietly and obediently to
the failed candidates' graveyard. I'm really proud of him, my homeboy.

DianeE

[luisb...@aol.com]

Personally, I think he should run even though he's completely full of shit. But so is the GOP nominee and he's gonna run.

And so, it appears, is HRC. BHO actually seems half decent by comparison. It's all too much. Being full of shit no longer precludes one from running for the highest office in the land. Cato was right.


>
> DianeE