Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary?

by Original Quill Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:37 pm

Salon wrote:Charles Koch goes full Tyrion Lannister: His threat to back Hillary hints at the brothers’ devious game of thrones

Charles Koch goes full Tyrion Lannister: His threat to back Hillary hints at the brothers’ devious game of thrones.

In a tactical maneuver worthy of Machiavelli — or perhaps of Tyrion Lannister, the manipulative dwarf-genius played by Peter Dinklage on “Game of Thrones” — billionaire businessman Charles Koch hinted this weekend that he and his brother are so unhappy with the current implosion of the Republican Party that they might support Hillary Clinton instead. When asked during an ABC News interview whether Clinton might be preferable as president to either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, Koch said, “Let me put it that way: It’s possible.”

A million gleeful, puzzled or outraged social-media posts followed. Was the GOP’s best-known bankroller, half of the two-faced Sun King at the tippety-top of the 1 percent, merely being “facetious,” as a Guardian story put it? Was Chuck trolling his so-called friends and sworn enemies with an idle jest? Was it simply frustration talking? Was he, mirabile dictu, being sincere about preferring a more or less known quantity to the Pennywise-the-Clown horror-show of a Cruz or Trump presidency? I don’t know and it doesn’t much matter; one can only gape in admiration.

I’m completely serious. Even by Kochian mind-control standards, that was a mini-masterstroke, sowing terror and confusion in all directions. Who were the Koch brothers seeking to undermine with this seemingly bizarre pronouncement, and who were they trying to help? Was this meant to make the surviving Republican candidates come crawling back, or was it an ass-backward false-flag attack on Clinton, designed to boost Bernie Sanders’ fading campaign? Is this the beginning of a fateful alliance of former foes that will sweep its way to the throne, with the Kochs jointly playing Tyrion and Hillary Clinton as Daenerys Targaryen, the fearsome Mother of Dragons?

One can hypothesize, but it’s like medieval scholarly debates about the physical substance of angels or the omnipresence of God: Human language fails to capture the all-encompassing essence of the thing in question. One answer might be that the current state of reality displeases the Kochs, and they have set out (yet again) to reshape it to their desired coordinates. Another interpretation is that they were simply reminding us that they remain in power no matter who wins, and no matter what that person may have said to get elected.

One payoff arrived almost immediately, when Clinton felt compelled to issue a statement assuring us she had no intention of riding into town on a Koch-fueled dragon. She was, she tweeted, “not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.” I am not devoid of empathy for the Clinton campaign in this context, which was the veritable definition of a no-win situation. To begin with, spurning the support of any super-rich people can only be painful, and runs deeply counter to the Clinton Way of Knowledge.

Clinton had no choice, of course, but the cloudy strangeness of that tweet, a non-sentence with no clear subject or object, is the result of Kochian black magic at work. Some unspecified person does not want the endorsement of unspecified others, for these specific reasons. Are those the only reasons a candidate should reject the Kochs’ backing, or even the main ones? Does that imply that if the brothers took a more enlightened view of climate change and the Voting Rights Act, Clinton would be happy to make friends?

I don’t claim any of that will make a significant difference in the Democratic race, or that the campaign ads Bernie Sanders’ team is no doubt constructing from that material at this moment can sway many hearts and minds in Connecticut and Maryland and Pennsylvania and the other Northeastern states that vote on Tuesday. But that indirect and terrified Clinton tweet is like a million unforced errors in one; phrased more honestly, and perhaps more effectively, it would say, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” It should serve notice that even when it looks like the Kochs have lost their ability to control political outcomes, they still have the power to cloud men’s minds, like the mysterious hero of the old radio serial “The Shadow.” Women’s minds too!

When I say that the left has persistently underestimated the political agility and ideological commitment of the Koch brothers and continues to do so, I don’t mean activists or political opponents who have directly struggled with the range and depth of their strategy. But I think too many commentators and too much of the left-liberal public fall back on lazy stereotypes: A couple of greedy rich guys who aren’t all that bright and whose motives are transparent, seeking to safeguard their giant piles of money and reward their friends while corrupting the political process.

I believe that’s wrong on every level. The Kochs are intelligent men driven by complicated but entirely sincere ideological convictions that go far beyond self-interest. Their strategy is highly sophisticated and has multiple valences, and they genuinely believe that their Citizens United vision of a capital-dominated, quasi-libertarian pseudo-democracy is the best bet for ensuring American prosperity and social order over the long term. They are not racists or xenophobes, at least not in the Trump-Cruz pandering fashion. One can certainly argue that the economic policies they advocate have pernicious social effects that are amplified by racial disparities, but that’s a different question.

If anything, the Kochs have actively sought to decouple the Republican brand from the politics of whiteness, which they (correctly) perceive as toxic to the party’s long-term electoral health. The Charles Koch Institute, one of the brothers’ dozen or so nonprofits, has devoted significant resources to exploring criminal justice reform, and has worked with many individuals and institutions far outside the conservative comfort zone, including the ACLU, the MacArthur Foundation, Van Jones, and Black Lives Matter activist turned Baltimore mayoral candidate DeRay Mckesson. Similarly, the Kochs are not much interested in the GOP laundry list of troglodyte social issues, and have sought to steer the party away from such obsessions. David Koch spends much of the year in Manhattan and is perhaps the city’s most prominent balletomane; New York City Ballet’s home in Lincoln Center now bears his name. Do you suppose he has some major personal problem with gay people?

When I say that the left has persistently underestimated the political agility and ideological commitment of the Koch brothers and continues to do so, I don’t mean activists or political opponents who have directly struggled with the range and depth of their strategy. But I think too many commentators and too much of the left-liberal public fall back on lazy stereotypes: A couple of greedy rich guys who aren’t all that bright and whose motives are transparent, seeking to safeguard their giant piles of money and reward their friends while corrupting the political process.

I believe that’s wrong on every level. The Kochs are intelligent men driven by complicated but entirely sincere ideological convictions that go far beyond self-interest. Their strategy is highly sophisticated and has multiple valences, and they genuinely believe that their Citizens United vision of a capital-dominated, quasi-libertarian pseudo-democracy is the best bet for ensuring American prosperity and social order over the long term. They are not racists or xenophobes, at least not in the Trump-Cruz pandering fashion. One can certainly argue that the economic policies they advocate have pernicious social effects that are amplified by racial disparities, but that’s a different question.

If anything, the Kochs have actively sought to decouple the Republican brand from the politics of whiteness, which they (correctly) perceive as toxic to the party’s long-term electoral health. The Charles Koch Institute, one of the brothers’ dozen or so nonprofits, has devoted significant resources to exploring criminal justice reform, and has worked with many individuals and institutions far outside the conservative comfort zone, including the ACLU, the MacArthur Foundation, Van Jones, and Black Lives Matter activist turned Baltimore mayoral candidate DeRay Mckesson. Similarly, the Kochs are not much interested in the GOP laundry list of troglodyte social issues, and have sought to steer the party away from such obsessions. David Koch spends much of the year in Manhattan and is perhaps the city’s most prominent balletomane; New York City Ballet’s home in Lincoln Center now bears his name. Do you suppose he has some major personal problem with gay people?

If the Kochs were really and truly driven by greed, they wouldn’t have bothered spending all that money in all those directions. They could do what most really rich people do, which is what Donald Trump did for years: Spread the money around in politics, and make sure you don’t miss the winners. They are driven by a desire for power, but not purely for its own sake (another difference from Trump). They want power because they believe they are uniquely enlightened and uniquely qualified to wield it, and it suits their cause just fine if you and I convince ourselves they’re nothing more than rich and obvious rubes.

All of which is to say that the Koch brothers are almost always more dangerous than they look, even in a state of apparent dejection and defeat. Do they have transcripts or tapes documenting whatever the hell Hillary Clinton said to all those Wall Street bankers? (I didn’t even think of that until just now.) One could apply much the same formula to Tyrion Lannister: Those in Westeros who have fallen afoul of his devious and far-reaching intelligence have learned to appreciate it (however briefly), but to much of the realm he remains a ridiculous little man driven by greed and envy. Whether this weekend’s Koch-Clinton dance of dragons is a premonition of scourging fires ahead I couldn’t tell you. But the Koch brothers, as usual, are several moves ahead of us in the game of thrones.

The Koch Brothers, with their well-orchestrated plan for Republican domination through money, are seeing the wheels fall off their wagon. Did I predict the inevitable destruction of the Republican Party 6-years ago? Welllll?

Even the might Koch Brothers cannot put humpty-dumpty back together again.

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2011-08-11-humpty

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:54 pm

Are the Koch's very rich or very powerful?

by Original Quill Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:26 pm

Forbes, The World's Billionaires wrote:David Koch shares control of $115 billion (sales) Koch Industries with his older brother Charles. Koch Industries has interests in oil pipelines, refineries, building materials, paper towels and Dixie cups, and is growing with acquisitions fueled by the company's prodigious cash flow. He's also joined his brother's campaign to raise and spend almost $900 million on political activity, education and issues like criminal-justice reform in the run-up to this year's presidential election.

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:12 pm

Thanks quill - I realise I could've googled it (so apologies but I was kept busy elsewhere) but What I wanted to ask, what I should've asked is, why would Clinton be opposed to having a powerful and rich backer to her campaign?

by Independent Thoughts Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:14 pm

Like I've always said, we have two Democrats running for president this year. Their official party banner means nothing.
They're two of the same.

Regardless who wins the presidential election, they will not fix your life. Only you can do that. Some of you political fanatics that worship and mindlessly follow your party ideologies need to find a red pill and wake up.

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? A-Party-of-One

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? A-Party-of-One

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:16 pm

Trump is a democrat? How did you work that out Independent thoughts?

by Independent Thoughts Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:30 pm

He’s been a Democrat for most of his life.
Here’s some irony: Trump contributed to Hillary’s presidential campaign in 2007, and twice in 2009.
He’s contributed millions to Democrat candidates and causes over the years.

He supports funding for Planned Parenthood.
He’s pro-choice.
He believes that people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing – something that the Republicans have campaigned against.
He believes in higher taxes for the rich.
The list goes on and on...

Republicans (and certainly not the conservatives) do not agree with Trump on these issues. He’s far too liberal for their tastes and far too rough around the edges to be the face of their party, as far as they’re concerned.

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:32 pm

I'd love to see what some of the Trump-haters say about this lol

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:37 pm

eddie wrote:Thanks quill - I realise I could've googled it (so apologies but I was kept busy elsewhere) but What I wanted to ask, what I should've asked is, why would Clinton be opposed to having a powerful and rich backer to her campaign?

Because they buy political influence, she'd be beholden to them (mind you, she's beholden to so many already) and it would be the Koch brothers running the USA.

Have a read of this and you might understand:

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/koch-brothers-exposed-fact-sheet.pdf

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:44 pm

Right that's actually what I thought but I wanted confirmation because I'd never heard of the Kochs.

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:45 pm

They are really powerful in America, and not very nice people.

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:46 pm

So I see.
So much corruption. It runs like bad blood throughout the world.

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:29 pm

It certainly does.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:47 pm

IndependentThoughts wrote:Like I've always said, we have two Democrats running for president this year. Their official party banner means nothing.
They're two of the same.

Regardless who wins the presidential election, they will not fix your life. Only you can do that. Some of you political fanatics that worship and mindlessly follow your party ideologies need to find a red pill and wake up.

Republicans are on their way out, so it's like backing a born loser. And among the Democrats, you have one candidate who is partly tainted, and another who is probably not electable.

So this is truly an election where you have to parse the decision. I think of a couple of things: 1) keep us out of a war that is none of our business; 2) the next couple of Supreme Court Justices; 3) complete the course of healthcare legislation to full socialized medicine.

First, Republican candidates are aching for another war. If it's not ISIS, it's Iran. If not Iran, well hell let's help Israel grab some more land. Ted Cruz has said, "ISIS and Iran have declared war on America." So he's already there. Trump has said: "But we're going to have to do something very strong over there. We're going to have to take away the energy, the fuel, the money from ISIS, because, in the case of ISIS-- I've been saying this for years. We have to stop the source of money. And the source of money is oil." Nice...ever the crafty business man, multi-tasking in the meantime.

Second, a Republican president would complete the conservative makeover of the US Supreme Court. This, in turn, would overturn decisions on abortion, racial equality, gender equality, democratic principles, immigration and matters of health and education. Alternatively, with a 4 - 4 Court presently, we could move the Court back to the left with a Democratic President. A Democratic President would also prove the futility of blocking appointments.

Third, there are two primary roles of government: defense and health. Think of these roles as defending us from the enemy without, and defending us from the enemy inside us. Other roles pale in the face of these two. It is lunacy that we spend so much on defending us from enemies outside, and do nothing to fight cancer, MS, Strokes, Coronary disease, kidney failure or Alzheimers. Granted, it's easier to blow shit up and kill babies, than save them, but WTF...are we lazy??

Here's betting that a Democratic administration will spend at least as much on health as on blowing the fuck out of children, hospitals and places of worship, in regions where we have no business whatsoever!

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:55 pm

I find both Trump and Hillary terrifying.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:43 am

Earlier this year David Koch gave an enterview to our local TV station and '60 MINUTES'; in both of those he hinted at a 'group' of select investors that were weighing their options for stopping the 'TRUMP' train momentum...and now 3 months later he's put this idea out here Mad

It would appear that the upper echelon {million dollar club} of the GOP are tried of waiting for the rank and file to get their sh*t together and are grabbing the controls. This has got to be making 'ole comb over' queasy and a few sleepless nights!
I'm on my tablet...I'll find that article and link tomorrow on my PC files---it was very telling...those millionaires & billionaires and their behind the scenes political maneuvering that impacts all of us mire mortals. Suspect

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:40 am

eddie wrote:I'd love to see what some of the Trump-haters say about this lol

it's true largely
although more correctly he votes for his self interest.
But he was definitly more friendly with the Clintons than the Bushs

As i said ages ago the trump hillary combo will ensure thee status quo and make sure someone like Bernie doesn't get up and give power and resources back to the people.
Wink

I don't see why anyone would be terrified of clinton she is literally 'more of the same' a 'zero change' vote.

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:22 am

No offense to the non-Americans in this thread, but you're making the same mistake many (maybe most) of my fellow (dumb) Americans make -- you attribute far more power to the president than the office actually holds.

Bernie Sanders has beautiful ideas in his mind that are worth fighting for, and that I believe will be achieved. But he's like someone in 1939 saying he was just going to march his army right into Germany and do away with the Nazis once and for all. A noble idea, but crucially lacking in the "how" department.

Clinton is a candidate willing to acknowledge what she and the movement she leads are up against. There's no guarantee the Democrats are going to take back the Congress. Even if they do, you can bet there will be a number of Democrats with right-leaning constituencies who will look to curry favor with their voters (or just garner fame) by blocking ambitious progressive agenda items.

Obama wanted to create a government health insurance program that would compete against the private market, to help lower health care costs for Americans. The Republicans were having none of it. Then he proposed private non-profit health insurance companies for the same purpose. Not one Republican was in favor. Then he did away with the idea of not-for-profit health care entirely -- and still, not one single Republican voted for health care reform.

Obama got it passed anyway, and why? Because when you're trying to change a country that has conservative hooks dug as deeply into it as the United States, where for decades the word "liberal" was used, quite effectively, as a slur, you take what you can get and play a game of inches.

The conservative movement is so powerful in this country that if you asked any liberal in 2005 whether they'd live to see the first black president, they'd say "probably not," and if you'd asked them on June 25, 2015 whether they'd live to see gay marriage legal in every state, they'd say the same.

I'm sorry. I know I'm expressing this melodramatically. I'm even using short, punchy sentences now. I know what the effect is. I'm a writer. Drama.

But seriously, no matter how wonderful a presidential candidate's policy proposals are, he can't just get elected, wave a magic wand, and make it so. I do think that Bernie Sanders would be a very good president, I just don't think he'd be able to enact one tenth of what he's proposing, and promising more than they could realistically deliver is what has the Republican Party on the brink of having Donald Trump for a candidate.

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:33 am

@ben
And Quill will tell you the consevrative have fallen apart.

Really all bernie has to acheive is remove some tax breaks from the ultra rich. literally Give them something they say they want like a Flat tax rate. All he has to do is NOT outlaw the next thing that will break their monolopy, all he has to do is NOT support TPP. Literally all he has to do is actually be different unlike the Clintons Bushs or obama which are all working for the same people. He doesn't have to do anything he just needs to STOP doing things for them.
he just has to spend taxes on serivces for the people and NOT give it to billionaires in bailouts.

And US liberals have been wrong about what CAN be done if they try. as proven by Black president and gay marriage. US liberals need to take the lead because if anyone else tries to fight those that oppress much of the world the USA will attack them literally.

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:08 am

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
And Quill will tell you the consevrative have fallen apart.

Really all bernie has to acheive is remove some tax breaks from the ultra rich. literally Give them something they say they want like a Flat tax rate. All he has to do is NOT outlaw the next thing that will break their monolopy, all he has to do is NOT support TPP. Literally all he has to do is actually be different unlike the Clintons Bushs or obama which are all working for the same people. He doesn't have to do anything he just needs to STOP doing things for them.
he just has to spend taxes on serivces for the people and NOT give it to billionaires in bailouts.

And US liberals have been wrong about what CAN be done if they try. as proven by Black president and gay marriage. US liberals need to take the lead because if anyone else tries to fight those that oppress much of the world the USA will attack them literally.

Seriously, he would have a long, hard political slog just to do the things you're mentioning. You can't make any changes to the tax code without Congressional approval. Not doing things for the rich? Spend the treasury on services for the people? Those are great ideas, but again, you have to get that past Republicans, who have proven to be able to wield outsize influence even in the minority. (Why? Because they're great at divisiveness and lying, i.e. "pull the plug on Grandma")

First black president? Well, he did follow Bush. I really think any Democrat was going to win that election. Gay marriage? Chalk that one up to the Supreme Court correctly reading the constitution for once. I think the left in the U.S. has enjoyed some favorable circumstances in the past decade and cannot afford to start thinking anything's a slam dunk.

Again I have to go back to Trump. Back in the 2014 election, Republicans told their supporters they were going to repeal Obamacare. There was no way they could have achieved that, but they said it anyway. What do you get two years later? A bunch of angry Republicans who realize they were lied to and now are jumping on the Trump bandwagon. I don't want to see that happen to the furthest-left major political party in the U.S.

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:11 am

IndependentThoughts wrote:He’s been a Democrat for most of his life.
Here’s some irony: Trump contributed to Hillary’s presidential campaign in 2007, and twice in 2009.
He’s contributed millions to Democrat candidates and causes over the years.

He supports funding for Planned Parenthood.
He’s pro-choice.
He believes that people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing – something that the Republicans have campaigned against.
He believes in higher taxes for the rich.
The list goes on and on...

Republicans (and certainly not the conservatives) do not agree with Trump on these issues. He’s far too liberal for their tastes and far too rough around the edges to be the face of their party, as far as they’re concerned.

Ah -- now that Trump is going to win the nomination and get crushed in the general election, the Republican pretending to be an independent has to smear the inevitable loser with the best slur he can come up with -- HE'S REALLY A DEMOCRAT!

Pathetic.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:32 am

Wow some really interesting reads and Pov's.

Trump mentioned Obamacare alot in that video I put up ("trump - enough of the nice!")

Very interesting stuff

I got to say, from my teeny tiny limited knowlegde, as an outsider, Sanders seems the way to go.

Trump I dislike and Clinton.....I think I dislike her more than I trump.

by Eilzel Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:59 am

eddie wrote:Wow some really interesting reads and Pov's.

Trump mentioned Obamacare alot in that video I put up ("trump - enough of the nice!")

Very interesting stuff

I got to say, from my teeny tiny limited knowlegde, as an outsider, Sanders seems the way to go.

Trump I dislike and Clinton.....I think I dislike her more than I trump.

I understand the dislike of Clinton, she is a stereotypical career politician, but she is more predictable than Trump. Clinton would be more of the same as under Obama (who for all his flaws has been a massive improvement over the last few administations).

Trump would drive America into the abyss. He says women who have abortions should be punished, thinks wages are too HIGH, opposed same-sex marriage, stirs racial hate against blacks, Muslims and Mexicans, has offended numerous countries already (to hell with diplomacy) and thinks talking about dick size is appropriate in a Presidential debate.

Sanders would have been great, but that dream is rapidly disintigrating sadly Sad

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:28 am

I always thought Clinton would win anyway.
It seems a foregone conclusion to me.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:55 am

Eilzel wrote:
eddie wrote:Wow some really interesting reads and Pov's.
Trump mentioned Obamacare alot in that video I put up ("trump - enough of the nice!")
Very interesting stuff
I got to say, from my teeny tiny limited knowlegde, as an outsider, Sanders seems the way to go.
Trump I dislike and Clinton.....I think I dislike her more than I trump.
I understand the dislike of Clinton, she is a stereotypical career politician, but she is more predictable than Trump. Clinton would be more of the same as under Obama (who for all his flaws has been a massive improvement over the last few administations).

Trump would drive America into the abyss. He says women who have abortions should be punished, thinks wages are too HIGH, opposed same-sex marriage, stirs racial hate against blacks, Muslims and Mexicans, has offended numerous countries already (to hell with diplomacy) and thinks talking about dick size is appropriate in a Presidential debate.

Sanders would have been great, but that dream is rapidly disintigrating sadly

Bernie = Don Quixote and those windmills; I liken him to the first time Ralph Nader ran for POTUS and big auto went after Ralph like he was out to shut down all the manufacturing/assembly plants in America. I think Bernie's continual speeches about going after 'Wall Street' have those very same 'SECRET MILLIONAIRE' club members sweating bullets and working the controls behind the curtain at a manic pace!
But I don't 'GET' the I HATE HILLARY group; if the worst personality trait she has on her pro vs con list is her bull-headed way of using her habitual email that she had own up the most --- well would the other prior Sec. Of States survive the same scrutiny that all of her emails have been subjected too? I'm not excusing her abject/will full disregard...but I absolutely don't think she'd place this country in jeopardy on a whim!!!
She's not that STUPID

And right now, she's light years more qualified to lead this country then any of the other wanna-be's on the GOP side of the ticket!

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:59 am

I think the very fact she is in a "fake" marriage makes her a liar and hypocrite.
What message of marriage does she send out??

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:00 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
I understand the dislike of Clinton, she is a stereotypical career politician, but she is more predictable than Trump. Clinton would be more of the same as under Obama (who for all his flaws has been a massive improvement over the last few administations).

Trump would drive America into the abyss. He says women who have abortions should be punished, thinks wages are too HIGH, opposed same-sex marriage, stirs racial hate against blacks, Muslims and Mexicans, has offended numerous countries already (to hell with diplomacy) and thinks talking about dick size is appropriate in a Presidential debate.

Sanders would have been great, but that dream is rapidly disintigrating sadly
Bernie = Don Quixote and those windmills; I liken him to the first time Ralph Nader ran for POTUS and big auto went after Ralph like he was out to shut down all the manufacturing/assembly plants in America. I think Bernie's continual speeches about going after 'Wall Street' have those very same 'SECRET MILLIONAIRE' club members sweating bullets and working the controls behind the curtain at a manic pace!
But I don't 'GET' the I HATE HILLARY group; if the worst personality trait she has on her pro vs con list is her bull-headed way of using her habitual email that she had own up the most --- well would the other prior Sec. Of States survive the same scrutiny that all of her emails have been subjected too? I'm not excusing her abject/will full disregard...but I absolutely don't think she'd place this country in jeopardy on a whim!!!
She's not that STUPID
And right now, she's light years more qualified to lead this country then any of the other wanna-be's on the GOP side of the ticket!

I don't hate, she scares me. I think she has taken far too much money over the years which will mean she is influenced. I don't like her foreign policy one little bit.

I know Ben says that Bernie would not be able to do half the things he has said he wants to because of Congress. But at least he'd be trying to do them.

by Eilzel Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:02 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
I understand the dislike of Clinton, she is a stereotypical career politician, but she is more predictable than Trump. Clinton would be more of the same as under Obama (who for all his flaws has been a massive improvement over the last few administations).

Trump would drive America into the abyss. He says women who have abortions should be punished, thinks wages are too HIGH, opposed same-sex marriage, stirs racial hate against blacks, Muslims and Mexicans, has offended numerous countries already (to hell with diplomacy) and thinks talking about dick size is appropriate in a Presidential debate.

Sanders would have been great, but that dream is rapidly disintigrating sadly
Bernie = Don Quixote and those windmills; I liken him to the first time Ralph Nader ran for POTUS and big auto went after Ralph like he was out to shut down all the manufacturing/assembly plants in America. I think Bernie's continual speeches about going after 'Wall Street' have those very same 'SECRET MILLIONAIRE' club members sweating bullets and working the controls behind the curtain at a manic pace!
But I don't 'GET' the I HATE HILLARY group; if the worst personality trait she has on her pro vs con list is her bull-headed way of using her habitual email that she had own up the most --- well would the other prior Sec. Of States survive the same scrutiny that all of her emails have been subjected too? I'm not excusing her abject/will full disregard...but I absolutely don't think she'd place this country in jeopardy on a whim!!!
She's not that STUPID
And right now, she's light years more qualified to lead this country then any of the other wanna-be's on the GOP side of the ticket!

I agree she is 1000x better than any Republican candidate. My hate is due to her just lying. She lied about the TPP, her previous oppositions of same sex marriage, her visit to Bosina 'under sniper fire' and many other things. If she just owned up and admitted her views changed it wouldn't be so bad. But she just changes with the tide. She doesn't 'lead'. And then when she does change her views she pretends that she held that view all along. Being a liar and having no convictions is why I dislike her.

That said, she would provide stable hands and not destroy the US (and subsequently damage the global) economy like the GOP would.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:13 pm

eddie wrote:I think the very fact she is in a "fake" marriage makes her a liar and hypocrite.
What message of marriage does she send out??

Hmmm...that's a PLATFORM --- that's an agenda confused

I'm often dismayed by the way that my gender can't support each other but finds ways to tear each other down and it's alway's so evident for a political position; now we're going to establish a morality code by which to gauge ALL of our politicians Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2190311264

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2190311264

Great, then by all means let's make it a straightforward no holds barred method of selecting---everone is fair game; now, who gets to do that back ground verification '?', what questions need to be asked '?', how far back into a marriage/relationship will we be allowed to dig for the real good DIRT?
Would you really want to open that 'Pandora's Box'?

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:19 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
eddie wrote:I think the very fact she is in a "fake" marriage makes her a liar and hypocrite.
What message of marriage does she send out??
Hmmm...that's a PLATFORM --- that's an agenda
I'm often dismayed by the way that my gender can't support each other but finds ways to tear each other down and it's alway's so evident for a political position; now we're going to establish a morality code by which to gauge ALL of our politicians
Great, then by all means let's make it a straightforward no holds barred method of selecting---everone is fair game; now, who gets to do that back ground verification '?', what questions need to be asked '?', how far back into a marriage/relationship will we be allowed to dig for the real good DIRT?
Would you really want to open that 'Pandora's Box'?

If we went by 'who has had a partner cheat and did they take them back or not' many would be out on their ear. Most are quite sure Prince Philip has cheated during his marriage, perhaps the Queen should send him packing?

There political decisions are the only things that interest me.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:
Bernie = Don Quixote and those windmills; I liken him to the first time Ralph Nader ran for POTUS and big auto went after Ralph like he was out to shut down all the manufacturing/assembly plants in America. I think Bernie's continual speeches about going after 'Wall Street' have those very same 'SECRET MILLIONAIRE' club members sweating bullets and working the controls behind the curtain at a manic pace!
But I don't 'GET' the I HATE HILLARY group; if the worst personality trait she has on her pro vs con list is her bull-headed way of using her habitual email that she had own up the most --- well would the other prior Sec. Of States survive the same scrutiny that all of her emails have been subjected too? I'm not excusing her abject/will full disregard...but I absolutely don't think she'd place this country in jeopardy on a whim!!!
She's not that STUPID
And right now, she's light years more qualified to lead this country then any of the other wanna-be's on the GOP side of the ticket!

I agree she is 1000x better than any Republican candidate. My hate is due to her just lying. She lied about the TPP, her previous oppositions of same sex marriage, her visit to Bosina 'under sniper fire' and many other things. If she just owned up and admitted her views changed it wouldn't be so bad. But she just changes with the tide. She doesn't 'lead'. And then when she does change her views she pretends that she held that view all along. Being a liar and having no convictions is why I dislike her.

That said, she would provide stable hands and not destroy the US (and subsequently damage the global) economy like the GOP would.

I guess my tolerance BAR for lies has more of a collateral human life form quantifier attached to it; GWB and his crew have yet to be bumped off that top spot. And as I age, my cynical opinion about ALL politicians has been modified greatly in regard for that HONESTY ISSUE! I just accept that it's a given that they're going to tell me what they think I want to hear Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2086560741

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2086560741

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:27 pm

A person's character is just as important as their political leanings.
Look how many times you've all said you don't like a politician.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:00 pm

eddie wrote:I think the very fact she is in a "fake" marriage makes her a liar and hypocrite.
What message of marriage does she send out??

A person's character is just as important as their political leanings.
Look how many times you've all said you don't like a politician.

Certainly...and on my scale of weighty issues vs your scale of weighty issues the importance for morality might not land on the same target areas Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 2190311264

But for me to hold steadfast that there's some super human with such a flawless moral history {unblemished/walks on water} that would be running for any of my countries political positions --- well, I'd be stumbling around over to the GOP side of the isle yet again and throwing my votes to that side of the isle.

Character vs Their Public Opinions vs Their Legal Standing on Issues vs how many times this human has flip/flopped on any given hot button issue for me = MY VOTE It's complex and shouldn't be done lightly, IMO

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:44 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
And Quill will tell you the consevrative have fallen apart.

Really all bernie has to acheive is remove some tax breaks from the ultra rich. literally Give them something they say they want like a Flat tax rate. All he has to do is NOT outlaw the next thing that will break their monolopy, all he has to do is NOT support TPP. Literally all he has to do is actually be different unlike the Clintons Bushs or obama which are all working for the same people. He doesn't have to do anything he just needs to STOP doing things for them.
he just has to spend taxes on serivces for the people and NOT give it to billionaires in bailouts.

And US liberals have been wrong about what CAN be done if they try. as proven by Black president and gay marriage. US liberals need to take the lead because if anyone else tries to fight those that oppress much of the world the USA will attack them literally.

On the ‘do nothing’ thesis, you are mixing apples and oranges. You need to understand American government better. For example, the flat tax rate, besides being a colossally bad idea, would involve a major legislative push, perhaps lasting decades. Just because you are giving away the store does not mean everyone else wants to. It would hardly happen from passive inaction.

Being different sometimes means sitting on your hands, but more often it means spending mega-tonnes of energy. You need to know more about the game. The strongest unilateral power a president has is the executive order. But that’ll get you impeached.

Ben is correct in that the Constitution was constructed with the idea of frustrating any kind of 'direct action'. In the parlance of the framers, it was known as 'checks and balances'. The president can embark upon a program only by suggestion, with the hopes of the real 'doers' in Congress will pick up on the suggestion. Now, of course they do get together and orchestrate. But if the Congress is in the hands of the other party, all cooperation is off.

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:02 pm

Ben wrote:Obama wanted to create a government health insurance program that would compete against the private market, to help lower health care costs for Americans. The Republicans were having none of it. Then he proposed private non-profit health insurance companies for the same purpose. Not one Republican was in favor. Then he did away with the idea of not-for-profit health care entirely -- and still, not one single Republican voted for health care reform.

On this we disagree. Republican opposition to Obama had nothing to do with healthcare. The Republican opposition to Obama had only to do with the fact that Obama was black, and Republicans are racist.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was originally created in a RW think tank, The Heritage Foundation. It was a RW response to socialized medicine, inasmuch as it relied on private market dynamics. It was first introduced in a state (Massachusetts) by a Republican governor (Mitt Romney), which tells you where it's roots are.

Did that mean anything to Republicans? No. Why? Because they didn't oppose the legislation; they hated the black president. The legislation was just the symbol...Obama could have proposed a 0% rich tax and promised a war on 5-fronts--a RW ers wet dream--and Republicans would still have hated it, because Obama is a black man.

The Republican Party today is just a recreation of the Civil War...the South, with all of its passion, lost remember because slavery and racism are immoral. Now the Republican Party is in the same sort of dilemma. It is going down as sure as Atlanta and Vicksburg. The Republicans are going down, not merely because they lost, but because they lost by standing upon immoral ideas. Americans have moved on...just as they had moved on in the 1860s.

By standing up and resisting, Republicans made of themselves a symbol of immorality, just as the South did. Standing tall and proud in 1861, in gray uniforms, they were mowed down by changing times and the passing of an immoral ideology. The same thing is going on today. Racism is being mowed down by young voters, by minority voters, by everyone but the old, white men.

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:05 pm

Well, I think that whether it was racism or not, the Republicans were against Obamacare because it was Obama's policy, and their stated agenda (as you know) was to oppose everything he proposed.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I think that whether it was racism or not, the Republicans were against Obamacare because it was Obama's policy, and their stated agenda (as you know) was to oppose everything he proposed.

Ronald Reagan is 'SPINNING' in his grave!

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 1a1178ae7c2bce955b1554d91c6f2a0c

by Independent Thoughts Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:20 pm

Ben wrote:Ah -- now that Trump is going to win the nomination and get crushed in the general election, the Republican pretending to be an independent has to smear the inevitable loser with the best slur he can come up with -- HE'S REALLY A DEMOCRAT!

Pathetic.

Yes, Ben, we know. Unless someone is a smelly hippie with an "I heart Obama" tattoo on their butt that they had made in a tattoo tent at an Occupy Wall Street protest, then they're a stinking Republican. Blah, blah, blah...

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what? It's a duck.
Donald is a Democrat. Period.

If you disagree then you should try to strengthen your argument with more than just poo-flinging. I noticed you didn't bother challenging my list of his Democrat-ish stances. Certainly, not even you would try to sell this audience some drivel that he's a conservative. Just be happy that your next president will be a Democrat... albeit, deep down inside.
You and I both know Hillary will not win this year's presidential election. That is wishful thinking on your part.

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I think that whether it was racism or not, the Republicans were against Obamacare because it was Obama's policy, and their stated agenda (as you know) was to oppose everything he proposed.

Because of his race. Remember, he was black first, then he was elected President.

I don't see any way around it. When Republicans speak of 'them' (McConnell-Boehner) or 'returning the country to the way it used to be' (Trump), or any words about the 'other' people, they are distinguishing themselves as an all-white power structure as it was before Obama.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:31 pm

Independent, can you tell me why he's a democrat running as a Republican then?
Or am I not getting it?

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:40 pm

These days, when we speak of Republican or Democrat, we are making semantical distinctions. The Republican Party has become so splintered as to be unrecognizable.

I agree that Trump is not an ideological conservative. The problem is, he may be worst. He doesn't state what he stands for, and it appears he is running on a cult of himself.

He has changed so often that nothing in his past can give anyone a reliable indicator of what he is. He appears to be a man in later-stages of male menopause. Lol.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:08 pm

Can't you be right on some issues and left on others?

by Independent Thoughts Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:14 pm

eddie wrote:Independent, can you tell me why he's a democrat running as a Republican then?
Or am I not getting it?

Political expediency. He has no party loyalty, just personal ambitions. He doesn't care which party he runs under. He just wants to be president.
He's very liberal in many ways. He's 85% Democrat. The other 15% runs against Democrat values:
- He's very Pro-capitalist
- He's very much for a strong national defense
- His immigration rhetoric is more aligned with Republicans.

That 15% translates well for him with the general population for the very top-2 issues on most voters' minds: The economy and our national defense.

The sour mood towards Obama's past several years combined with the landslide wins by Congressional Republicans in the past two elections made it pretty obvious to Trump who's team to play on:
The Republicans.

Trump is a shrewd guy. His presidential ambitions go back a decade. His campaign has spent less than any Republican candidate, and has yielded greater results.

As far as what makes Donald a Democrat...
Hearing it from the man, himself, would have a greater impact than me telling you about it. Check out this video:

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:57 pm

You seem to know a lot about him.
I find him weirdly interesting, I must say. I find that he's a bit more human than most politicians which is why he's so disliked.....like he's a "warts and all" person.

I don't like him much, I didn't even when I used to be into watching boxing years ago and he'd crop up.

But despite my dislike, I find myself compelled to learn more because there's something I can't put my finger on.

Now I'll watch your video

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:00 pm

Hmmm. Any way the wind blows.

So who's the real Trump?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:31 am

Trump is bizarre. But he probably wouldn't be as bad as Ted Cruz.

Anyway, it's silly to try to evaluate any Republicans, the party is in such disarray.

by 'Wolfie Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:46 am

IndependentThoughts wrote:Like I've always said, we have two Democrats running for president this year. Their official party banner means nothing.
They're two of the same.

Regardless who wins the presidential election, they will not fix your life. Only you can do that. Some of you political fanatics that worship and mindlessly follow your party ideologies need to find a red pill and wake up.

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 3489511464

ONCE AGAIN, "Independent" Thoughts proves that he is little more than a clueless conservative troglodyte...

AND THAT he's probably never had a genuine "independent" thought in his life..

NOT TO WORRY, I/T -- another year or two, and you might be old enough to actually vote for yourself !

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 1763903427

Um...Charles Koch backs Hillary? 1763903427

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:12 pm

Independent Thoughts wrote:Regardless who wins the presidential election, they will not fix your life. Only you can do that. Some of you political fanatics that worship and mindlessly follow your party ideologies need to find a red pill and wake up.

We ask only that the Republicans and conservatives get out of the way. Will they stop their endless wars and constant international meddling? Will they allow women to control their own bodies and make the same wage as a man? Will they stop inventing ways to keep ethnic minorities from voting?

If Republicans and conservatives could just stop looking for ways to make the lives of others miserable, we would be satisfied.

by Ben Reilly Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:14 pm

IndependentThoughts wrote:
Ben wrote:Ah -- now that Trump is going to win the nomination and get crushed in the general election, the Republican pretending to be an independent has to smear the inevitable loser with the best slur he can come up with -- HE'S REALLY A DEMOCRAT!

Pathetic.

Yes, Ben, we know. Unless someone is a smelly hippie with an "I heart Obama" tattoo on their butt that they had made in a tattoo tent at an Occupy Wall Street protest, then they're a stinking Republican. Blah, blah, blah...

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what? It's a duck.
Donald is a Democrat. Period.

If you disagree then you should try to strengthen your argument with more than just poo-flinging. I noticed you didn't bother challenging my list of his Democrat-ish stances. Certainly, not even you would try to sell this audience some drivel that he's a conservative. Just be happy that your next president will be a Democrat... albeit, deep down inside.
You and I both know Hillary will not win this year's presidential election. That is wishful thinking on your part.

I will bet you $1,000 that Clinton will win, right here and now. The idea that Trump has any chance at all must be the product of a deeply confused, if not diseased, mind.

Oh, and if Trump is such a Democrat, he's still won the majority of Republican primary votes. Are you saying that your party's supporters are so stupid that all one needs to gain its base's support is to claim to be a Republican?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:36 pm

Gallup wrote:During the Dec. 1-Jan. 11 time period, Trump's overall image was 33% favorable and 58% unfavorable, for a net favorable rating of -25. Among "pure" Republicans, Trump's net favorable rating was +27 -- sixth out of the nine GOP candidates we are tracking. But the new analysis shows how deeply negative Trump's image is among Americans who don't identify as Republicans, with a net favorable rating of -70 among Democrats and -27 among independents, by far the most negative of any candidate.

Candidate Net Favorable Ratings, by Party

The next GOP candidates rated most negatively among Democrats are Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, with net favorable ratings of -37 and -34, respectively.

Since January Republicans have gone down relative to Clinton. Clinton will be the next president. She is showing her muscle in these, the waning days of the primaries, burying poor Bernie (who is also popular).

According to PEW Research, Democrats outweigh Republicans 48% to 38% (includes tilting), so that when we reach the general election the disparity will only grow. If we filter for female voter, the numbers explode.

It's President Clinton all over again.

by Sponsored content