The Many Faces of US Politics...

[foxcommander]

Would you shut the fcuk up about the Kochs. You sound like Jim f**king Corr.

The liberals on here are just mad for Kochs. Can't get enough of them.

[johnneycool]

Would you shut the fcuk up about the Kochs. You sound like Jim f**king Corr.

The liberals on here are just mad for Kochs. Can't get enough of them.

I wondered where that post had gone!

[foxcommander]

Would you shut the fcuk up about the Kochs. You sound like Jim f**king Corr.

The liberals on here are just mad for Kochs. Can't get enough of them.

I wondered where that post had gone!

[dec]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

[whitey]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

[heganboy]

You reap what you sow

Do you ever think that before you post?

[seafoid]

You reap what you sow

not with Monsanto
Do you ever think that before you post?

[Declan]

From that well known liberal mag The Economist


Donald Trump wins the US presidential election
Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity = Global risk intensity|Moderate probability, High impact
March 17th 2016
Introduction
The businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican party primary, and looks the firm favourite to be the party's candidate in the US presidential election in November.

Analysis
Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion
Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.

[seafoid]

From that well known liberal mag The Economist


Donald Trump wins the US presidential election
Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity = Global risk intensity|Moderate probability, High impact
March 17th 2016
Introduction
The businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican party primary, and looks the firm favourite to be the party's candidate in the US presidential election in November.

Analysis
Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion
Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.

Good summary. Trump has aimed at feeding white evangelicals  back their resentment with entertainment thrown in. The Sunday World can do the same with crime reporting. But it is not coherent.

[dec]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

[stew]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

Semantics, why do you lot never tell the full story?

[Oraisteach]

Stew, Clinton is not my darling.  Look at the options. Trump, hell no!  Cruz, hell no!  Kasich, no chance and comes across as more kindly than he actually is.  Sanders, not a chance that he'd ever be able to enact his agenda.  So, that leaves Clinton.  Certainly not ideal, but a Democrat, and therefore more likely to be compassionate/empathetic.  Wish Elizabeth Warren had run.  But if Bernie gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.

[whitey]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?referer=https://www.google.com/

Interesting decision by NYT to edit article that originally showed Bernie in a positive light

[Gmac]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

[J70]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.