Trump wants database to track Muslims in US; Carson compares Syrian refugees to rabid dogs If either of these turkeys wins the election, I'm moving to Canada. So far, the Canadians may have problems, but they seem to have a handle on sanity.

Don't slow down as you approach the border or I might leave footprints on your back.

Well, the one thing you can say about the Republicans so far is that they're certainly much more entertaining….sometimes generating a laugh, sometimes a gasp. And, periodically I even have to check the calendar to see what year is it.

A major political party disintegrating into factions one of which celebrates its own ignorance? Racist violence and anti-immigrant xenophobia running amok? Should be obvious that it's 1856.

If you can wangle a way to 'prove' you qualify as a Syrian refugee, you could move to the front of the line. Otherwise it'll take you months if not years to negotiate the byzantine immigration route (almost as convoluted and costly as the American one).

That is true. I'm trying to get a visa into Canada right now and it's a painful and cumbersome process.

¿Qué pasa? Normally Americans (non-felons) are allowed access to Canada with little ado.
You were up here before in the not-so-distant past for book promotion and didn't seem to have any difficulties in crossing the border. What's changed?

It seems to me that anyone seeking asylum from President Trump or President Carson would go to the head of the line.

I think if it were me seeking asylum in a "friendly English-speaking" culture, I might consider either New Zealand or Australia as alternatives with a much warmer climate....

I'm just sayin'....

A couple problems with either of those choices:

Australia's fauna (with the exception of mammals) are almost all venomous. Antivenins to counteract snake envenomization need to be specific; consequently, especially in the outback, you're probably doomed if you're bitten.

New Zealand — which is a wonderful place, even if you can't live in Hobbiton — is by and large free of all venomous creatures. However, the ozone hole over the whole country (ie, both islands) pretty much guarantees that over time you will become a walking melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Moreover, if you're over 56 and/or don't have a desired occupation or NZ$500,000 to invest in the country (and not just in your own home), you ain't getting a permanent resident visa.

But of the two places, go for NZ. Jeffrey Masson's SLIPPING INTO PARADISE : WHY I LIVE IN NEW ZEALAND (2004) is a gem of a book and a good start for tourists and potential expats.

And, Air New Zealand has the best airline safety video….ever.

wow...

I'm trying to get a work permit/residency visa, rather than just visit. My partner and I have started a company that's headquartered in Vancouver, but technically I'm not allowed to do any work for the company unless I'm in the US. If I work from the US, Oregon wants a bite out of the company in the form of taxes (there's a state income tax on non-local companies that have a "business presence" in the state).

I used to suspect that tax departments had agents whose only role was to ensure there were sufficient rules to 'cover ALL the bases'. Now I'm sure.

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed. Your quest is going to take a long time and cost a lot. You might be better off moving to Vancouver, WA; that way OR can't touch you (pun intended).

is "telecommuting" considered "doing business"? That would seem to be an outrageously broad coverage, since that would mean even someone stopping in a hotel on a business trip and logging in over the vpn would put a 'business presence' in the state as they stayed the night.

Yep!

My sister got tripped up (albeit not precisely in tacit's sense) when she moved from MD to CO; if she were to get paid for telecommuting her employer would be subject to all of CO's rules and taxes regarding employees (That may be universal among the states.) and wasn't willing to assume the burden.

I doubt that anybody'd try to tax a person overnighting in a hotel (not yet, anyhow ), but in tacit's instance he's "maintaining a place of business" in OR by his presence and, therefore, subject to taxation by the state. (If the rules haven't changed, the business's income would probably be allocated to OR based on the proportion of sales, salaries, and assets located or occurring in OR.)

The way things are going, should that come to pass, a better bet would be to bend over and kiss your ass good-bye. Maybe even hope to join the Rapture.

Moi, I just hope to make it across the Rainbow Bridge (or at least the bridge to Terabithia) before the gates permanently close.

The Smartness Act of 2015

Legislation to ensure minimum academic standards for government officials. This would likely eliminate most candidates for office. And not a moment too soon.

That's hilarious (or is it?). If that were real legislation, the current congress probably couldn't understand it. But, that's never been a barrier to passing laws.

As a former teacher, I wish that there were minimum standards for becoming parents. Biological urges always trump brains.

It seems that nuttiness must be a prerequisite even to be a Republican Senator. According to a New York Times editorial:

"While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."

Of course! Congress doesn’t want to pass any legislation that might cut into the profits of the arms industry and according to reports this last pair spent over $25,000 on guns. After all, along with Wall Street they are some of the biggest contributors to campaign funds and even better, “dark” money that doesn’t have to be accounted for. Similarly congress has passed legislation that prohibits collecting data on mental illness as related to gun violence, in spite of the pleas of many reputable mental health experts.

However even if congress passed legislation prohibiting persons on a watch list from purchasing guns or explosives this latest pair of terrorists were not on anyones watch list in this or any other country. They were completely under the radar.

According to the CBC, this New York Times editorial (End the Gun Epidemic in America) appeared on the front page of today's printed edition — for the first time since 1920!

No matter what the public thinks off the front page editorial, to quote a current GOP Presidential front runner, "The New York Times is a failed anachronism and has no meaning in today's world." His words, definitely not mine.

Of course, a year from now, the same will likely be true of the current GOP Presidential front runner.

I certainly look forward to that!

And one of the Republican Presidential candidate hopefuls, Governor Chris Christie, described the editorial as "typical Liberal claptrap".

Hmmmm....his response sounds to me like typical Republican claptrap.

Actually, I'm looking forward to the upcoming Republican debates. I'm certain that, if the party is going to maintain the image projected thus far, a tiny car is going to drive out onto the stage and the candidates will get out one-by-one, wearing very long shoes and round red noses.

Actually, a year from there won't be anyone running, except away, since the election will have come and gone over a month earlier.

A more likely scenario? Tromp [sic] will likely have gotten his wish and the space between the 49th parallel and the Rio Bravo will have become a no man's land (certainly not a DMZ); 300+ million bystanders will have become global pariahs.

The only problem will be what to do with Alaska (49th state).
A nice gesture would be to make Seward's Folly a parting gift back to Russia, leaving behind a plaque commemorating the ancient land bridge's contribution to human pollution of the western hemisphere. (Anybody care to calculate what the original purchase price of ca $7 million might be in today's dollars?)

Hawai'i won't be an issue, given "global warming" and the predicted multi-meter increase in ocean level. It might be entertaining to watch the polluted waters of the Pacific creep up the sides of Mauna Loa and the last survivors pleading, "Don't nobody make a wave."[*]
[* To recycle/extend the punchline from a very old joke that many of the OFs who troll this forum might remember from their adolescence ... or not.]

By the bye, that front page editorial (End the Gun Epidemic in America) is now the most frequently viewed/emailed/tweeted/Facebook-shared NYT article.

Or...........

Trump may be gone long before then. I don't think he ever wanted to be President, and his position in the polls is an unwanted turn of events in his real plan....which was simply to get into the race long enough to enhance his "brand".

For a selfish egotist like Trump, being President just doesn't make sense.

Right now his wealth gives him all sorts of freedoms. He can board his private plane or one of his yachts and head out to one of his many palatial residences, or anywhere else, to do whatever he wants. In any of his business meetings he gets to say "We're doing it my way. If you don't like it, you're fired".

If Trump became President, all that would go away.

He would find (as he already knows) that there are all sorts of blocks to his being able to do whatever he wants when he wants, or simply to dictate his wishes. He would be faced with doing something he finds loathesome - seeking consensus and making political compromises. In order to make those changes in his usual modus operandi, Trump would have to be a person sincerely interested in someone other than himself. He is not.

Now that his plan (hang around long enough to enhance his "brand") has back-fired, Trump has to extricate himself. How better than to make more and more outrageous statements so that the party will be forced to turf him? It's perfect.

As he wipes his brow with a loud "whew!", he gets to say: "Well, I could have fixed everything but you didn't want me". And, he has provided all the funding for his "campaign" so he isn't beholden to any PAC or other contributors.

Mission accomplished: Trump's "brand" gains.

Ryck, you're so logical. Too bad that Mr. Trump doesn't share that trait. So, he may REALLY want to be president. Of course, as you implied, that would be a comedown in terms of his power (whatever that may be).

I don't disagree with your main thesis, but I also didn't mean to suggest that Tromp would become president, only that his push for a "wall" to keep out undesirables might take the shape of the entire lower 48.
However, there have been boobs elected to the office and, given the current mentality which seems prevalent in the US, stranger things could happen.

Unfortunately, that statement is woefully short on details. Look at legislation like the Patriot Act that was drafted and passed on a kneejerk reaction just like this one. The final analysis found it included no effective oversight and proved to be a very invasive, disliked, and difficult to get rid of piece of legislation.

Typically, congress moves too slowly. Sometimes they actually move at a good pace. And then from time to time, they rush things way too fast. They do it to make it look like they're on top of something that they don't know anything more than "my party rep said to vote YES on this". Vultures sometimes use this opportunity to slip in some ugly pork because "nobody's going to vote against this bill, and they don't want to waste time trimming off the pork in committee".

Passing bad legislation is just as much of a problem as not passing good legislation. Until I read the teardown on what they passed, I'll reserve judgement on this holdout. He may have had some very good reason(s) to object to it. Congress is known for this.

I think you may have misunderstood. Mark Kirk of Illinois was the only Republican who wanted to prevent people on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist from acquiring weapons or explosives. The rest of them thought the status quo is just fine.

I believe this is the point the President has been making - if it's not safe for these people to board an aircraft, it can't be safe to allow them to buy guns and explosives. As he said in his speech yesterday: "Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy semiautomatic weapons?"

We're in sync of that one. He's already suggested that a wall along the Canadian border might also be needed.

And current polls suggest that it could happen. However, I'm going to stick with my thought for now because he's become even more outrageous (read: panicky) by spouting easily disproven, totally fictitious stories.

But, just in case, are you dusting off your traveling bags?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" In the case of congressional-level legislation, things are so mired in politics and pork that you almost never get exactly what you ask for. You could declare martial law and that would be a wonderful way to keep weapons and explosives out of the hands of terrorists. But at much too high of a cost. With laws its particularly important to look at how a law is going to be exercised, exactly who it CAN be applied to (and not just "who we're intending on applying it to, this is a COMMON mistake), what oversight (if ANY?) there will be, and when (if EVER?) the law will expire. There are a few other major ones but these are the big three.

The reason I said "kneejerk reaction" earlier is because the rush to push through legislation to catch C, D, and J often casts an overly broad net that technically applies to B through L. When questioned on this, they almost universally say "well of course this law isn't meant to be applied to everyone, we trust the cops and the judges to only apply it to C/D/J even though technically they can apply it fully to B-L. Trust us." The problem with this approach is it is fundamentally flawed. Cops enforce the law, they are not supposed to interpret and selectively apply it. They expect the laws to be written accurately and concisely. Judges just make sure the process is fair, within the definition of the law, so if you're G, you're technically within B-L, and you're fair game. The only way to prevent abuse is to rule it out by writing a good law that carefully defines application to C, D, and J.

This is just one aspect of a good law / bad law. I mentioned oversight and expiration also, and these, if skipped in the drafting or done poorly/incompletely, can have just as damaging of effects.

Please don't support badly written laws just because they have good intentions. There are way too many examples of just how horribly wrong this can go. And in a country where power, politics, and money are driving forces, something that can be abused is virtually guaranteed TO be abused.

"The Donald" is a master practitioner of the big lie (if you tell a big enough lie often enough and loudly enough people will come to accept it as the truth) which was so artfully and successfully used by Adolph Hitler in Germany. "The Donald's" demonizing of Muslims is a virtual mirror image of Hitler's pogrom against the Jews. Just as in pre-WWII Germany it is a distraction from the failures/unwillingness of the government to effectively address pressing economic and social issues of the time.

Unfortunately since the other potential nominees have no real program of their own, when they see "The Donald" gaining traction with his outrageous statements they are all too willing to jump on the bandwagon with him. Negative politics have always been with us, but this campaign has turned into a battle of who can be the most negative and outrageous.

I could go on but it would leave me with a sour stomach and bad attitude for the rest of the day. On 911 I promised myself I would not permit the terrorists to make me fearful and I am trying mightily to make the same promise about the current crop of presidential candidates. Sadly I am far more successful not fearing the terrorists than I am the politicians.

As previously used by the British in WWI and others much before that. The quote "In war, truth is the first casualty" was from a Greek dramatist Aeschylus about 500 BC.

World War I was so gruesome that Britain had trouble getting people to enlist, so they embarked on a propaganda campaign alleging atrocities in Germany - which were subsequently proved false. However, the campaign proved to be very successful and was key in defeating Germany.

The Nazis recognized this and based their propaganda campaign on the British model of WWI.

Me too. The idea that the most powerful nation in history could be led by a bozo leads to stomach upset. Oh wait, it already has been….George Bush.

Pendragon's sig, which I've long appreciated but am now beginning to fear.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is an independent run by Trump, who I don't think is at all likely to get the nomination, that will split the crackpot vote.

Which George Bush? 41 or 43? 41 is IMHO an honorable man and deserves kudos for his conduct of the first Gulf War. The mission was accomplished and then we got the H___ out. IMHO, 43 is nowhere near the same caliber as his father and rather than being leader he was used by others whom he unwisely trusted like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

George W…..hands down.

When I was young, I was taught that anyone can become president. I'm beginning to believe it. Will Rogers

I don't remember the source, or the exact quote, but it has a distinctly Mark Twain sound to it: "Any man capable of getting himself elected president is unfit for the position." Or something to that effect. I think there was another one on a similar vein: "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

For myself, I believe that the mere fact of wanting to be president should automatically disqualify the candidate.

Bingo, jchuzi. You win the prize. I've felt that exact sentiment for years now.

I remember potential presidential candidates in my youth making the same declaration and I am certainly not THAT old.

I heard yesterday that Karl Rove (definitely NOT on my list of favorite politicians) has recently asserted the nation was better served when the presidential candidates were selected in a cigar smoke filled room at the party national conventions than it has been under today's primary system. It startles me to find I agreed with Karl Rove on anything, even the time of day, but I think he is absolutely correct in this assertion.

Today's primary system virtually guarantees only candidates on the extreme edges of the political spectrum will be nominated.

Perhaps Groucho Marx? He also said he would not want to belong to any organization that would have him as a member.

Agreed about both Rove and his statement.

We may get back to basics next year, though, with the possibility of a real "brokered convention" (which, according to Wikipedia, would be the first one since 1952) looming large, I think.

When was that? I always thought the American primaries process was in your Constitution.

It may well be, but if so it's not mandatory.

Up to a point, most states did not run primaries and nobody ever came to the convention as "The Candidate", but at some point the states began jumping on the bandwagon to the point where the ultimate candidate now only rarely gets to the convention without enough first ballot delegates to clinch the nomination.

Here's some background.

It would appear that Donald Trump's dislike for Muslims does have a limit. It seems to stop at the point they help to make him richer.

Many states have long held party primaries or conventions to select delegates to the parties national convention, but just as the two parties are not in the constitution neither is the method of nominating candidates for the presidency. The process for selecting delegates is up to the individual state and varies greatly from state to state and even then it is up to each political party whether or not they want to participate.

Trump & the GOP vs. a young man from Homs. As American as Apple pie in the sky, Banksy said.

Just when I thought the Republican leadership race couldn't possibly get goofier, Trump rolls out whiney Sarah Palin to endorse him….the person who is most likely why John McCain lost.

Har, har, har….please stop….har, har, har….

But the Tea Party loves her, and he needs their support.

Edit: Better yet, what's her angle playing up to him? Another VP run?

Or maybe Defense because of the vast experience she's gained from living next door to Siberia?

Cruz followed the Palin/Trump endorsement by stating how much he admired and respected Palin. One newspaper got it right, with this on their front page: "Hate minds think alike."

Unless it's a Green candidate, no matter who gets into office, we gotta get that wall up soon. Otherwise it's gonna resemble a zombie apocalypse up here.

On the other hand we could use such migrants to build roads up north — think above 60° North.

The republican presidential race this time around has been by far the most entertaining long-running event in quite awhile. They don't have anything positive (that's sane) to say about themselves, can't point fingers for the most part because they've all got the same dirty laundry, so the entire race has devolved into a "race to the bottom" to see who can appear to be the most extreme republican.

How bad is it when trump wants to build a giant wall and kick out all the muslims and the other candidates are calling him too moderate?? Time to get out the popcorn and enjoy the show!

Popcorn sales skyrocketing... Iowa... I think you're on to something.

The Most Mystifying Lines of Sarah Palin’s Endorsement Speech

They're only 'mystifying' until you realize that they're the ravings of a lunatic describing the character and behavior of a congener.

However, as a linguist, I must say I enjoy Palin's inadvertent neologisms (such as the portmanteau squirmish). Lewis Carroll she ain't, so most (if not all) of her coinages are merely slips of the tongue/mind. Credit where it's due.

The Poetry of Sarah Palin.

I know right? And as I'm in Iowa, the primary madness starts here!

Took note of that. Now, with the highest TV ratings ever for Republican primaries, what political strategist would lay to waste all that opportunity to sell popcorn and didnt sponsor the debates? Iowa. Corn country.

Steven Colbert's reaction to Palin's endorsement speech:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/stephen-...-its-hilarious/

The funniest 7 minutes on TV in a while.

And now Cruz is more of a possibility. What a chilling thought. How many Republicans had to lose any ability to think rationally in order for these two to advance this far? I believe it was George Carlin who said: "In America, anyone can become president. That’s the problem."

Are you keeping your bags near the door, Jon and joemike?

For what it's worth, every year it seems there are fewer and fewer good candidates choose from because getting the job is pure hell, every detail of your personal life, your career and that of every family member is made public and used to defame you. Like no one ever did a dumb thing at some time in their life?

I think most competent, intelligent people are not trying to be President. They're using their skills and knowledge to make money, make a real difference in this world, or just live a peaceful life.

Since I am a lifelong Texan, I am all too familiar with Ted Cruz. It is widely known here that Cruz is intensely disliked by his fellow Republican Senator from Texas (an otherwise useless politician) as well as most of his other Republican colleagues in the Senate. He has little to no support from the Texas Republican regulars and gets the bulk of his support from the net-know-nothings (a.k.a. Tea Party) in the wealthy suburbs of Houston and Dallas. As President he would likely have major opposition from the Democrats and also from his fellow Republicans in the Senate. Thus effectively neutering his presidency, which IMHO might be the better option. Heaven help the U.S., the clown with the bad comb-over (Trump) might actually be able to get some of his programs (or is that pogroms?) through congress.

I understand Medellin, (yes that is the one in Columbia). Thailand, and Panama all have thriving U.S. ex-pat communities. I wonder if they will accept my health insurance?

The good news is they've gotten this far in the primaries. That just means "These are the best we can pick, given the choices we have."

Hopefully that doesn't have a lot of bearing on the actual election.

Though really the dems don't have very stellar options either. Hillary is the most popular but a lot of people don't like her. This may be one of those election years where we really have to pick the one we hate the least ;P

Right. We get what we deserve after making the job of becoming President so brutal and costly. That was just the first primary.

And yet, over on the Democratic side, Sanders is making quite a splash without having any PACs….and he's connecting with young people with a message about changing the way things are. No matter what anyone might want to say about the complexity of the American system, there's no doubt it provides the best show.

Not to put too fine a point on it ...
There is not a single presidential candidate of any political stripe who could conceivably "do America proud" (if elected). They're all a bunch of feckless bumblers.
Talk about effete electoral slates — to use of one Spiro Agnew's favorite words. (For all his foibles he was at least literate.)
An amazingly sad state of affairs.
Even Eldridge Cleaver (back in 1968) had charisma, albeit zero electability.
Talk about the beginning of the end ....

Which should probably be prefaced with IMHO.

It goes without saying that it's my opinion ... but hardly humble.

There hasn't been a decent and/or competent administration since WWII with the possible exception of Ike's (and that from one who once upon a time staunchly believed in and supported Camelot) and in the past couple decades the legislative branch of government has turned into a joke if not travesty.

Ike warned about the military-industrial complex ... and nobody listened. And look what happened!

There's precious little between the 49th parallel and the Rio Bravo which is worth preserving. IMO. (Most of it is owned by the Chinese anyway.)

On the other hand ... there are 5 fingers and this: Why Canada Should Be Elected US President in 2016

Never mind. The truth is out there: http://www.fox.com/the-x-files

You betcha!

I believe there are a few historians who would disagree and point to LBJ as one of the most productive U.S. Presidents. And, granting that LBJ had twice as much time in office, he accomplished a lot more than JFK.

I was never a fan of LBJ, largely because of the LBJ Corporation's notoriously predatory business practices in Texas and I was a friend of John Tower the first Republican elected to a national office from Texas since reconstruction, so as much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with your assessment of his presidency. LBJ had a knowledge of Washington politics and a talent for political horse trading that was second to none. The Kennedy's got the adulation and glory, but it was LBJ who got the really tough legislation through congress. However in today's Washington it is doubtful he could get a congressional pay raise through congress.

I was present when Bob Schiefer announced his retirement from Face The Nation. During that very interesting evening he made a comment that gave everyone in the room a long pause for thought when he said, "Washington is broken and I don't know if it can be fixed." A sobering thought coming from one of the smartest and most thoughtful journalists alive today.

Breaking news: The Washington Redskins are changing their name. They are eliminating "Washington" because they feel that it sets a bad example for young fans.

Hillary Clinton Versus Donald Trump. Who will win?

Breaking news: The Seattle Seahawks thought about changing their name to the Washington Seahawks, but the team did not want to be connected with all that sleeziness in the nation's capitol. Then again, Frank Underwood has been trying to get things done, even though his methods are, to say the least, questionable.

What it all boils down to is: Where is Gort when we really need him?
_ _ _ _ _

If you're missing the allusion, check out “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951).

While some may hold that LBJ served well on some fronts — his bid for the "Great Society" — one shouldn't forget that he escalated the Vietnam war, and the draft was expanded dramatically under his administration, putting many family men and other unfortunates in harm's way in arguably the most detested and unethical war in the country's history.

Deteriorated into a matter of how many people could be killed instead of how much North Vietnam could be held back from invading South Vietnam. It may have been the first war fought for number of kills alone. (Just saw a documentary.) Actually, where slang for getting killed became 'wasted,' just a big waste of young lives. LBJ gets no pass for that one.

Tore the fabric of society apart in the 60's, John Lennon became a threat to the US government simply with the chant "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

First war the US 'lost' and I believe the longest one up until then.

Now this is tin foil hat time, but this explanation I heard for the Irag invasion when the WTC attack was done by Saudis makes sense. After the Vietnam war, Nixon took us off the gold standard because of the tremendous war debt. The currency became backed by oil, which has always been traded in dollars. Saddam Hussein didn't care much for Bush after the first Iraq war and threatened to stop trading oil in dollars but the Saudis wouldn't because they and the Bush's went way back. It is possible that Vietnam led to Iraq many years later. Rant over.

No one will argue that there was anything positive about the Viet Nam war (the roots of which are in the Eisenhower administration) but it doesn't wipe the slate clean on the fact that LBJ did produce a lot of good legislation for America.

In addition to his "Great Society" legislation - which included laws upholding civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and the abolition of poverty, President Johnson also:

...signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 outlawing most forms of racial segregation and providing equal housing opportunities regardless of race, creed, or national origin.

...passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawing discrimination in voting.

...signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education Act to improve funding to schools, especially those in poor districts.

...created programs to tackle poverty - such as Head Start, food stamps, Work Study, Medicare, and Medicaid.

...established the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts to support humanists and artists.

...appointed Thurgood Marshall - the first African American justice on the Supreme Court.

Yup, he did all that. Credit where it's due.

Oh yeah ... and the other LBJ and her campaign in those great societal years to "Beautify America".
I still have the button which reads: No more ugly children! Sterilize Lady Bird!!

If the upcoming Scalia replacement debacle doesn't convince the greater electorate that the Republican party is truly trying to kill America, nothing will.
The GOP has scuttled the political process so completely over the past 8 years and seems to feel that they should paid by the tax dollar for essentially doing nothing for the good of the people.
I'm reminded of "King of Hearts" (1966 movie, starring Alan Bates) — only getting back into the asylum won't help.
Think irreparably nutsy cuckoo.

If you don't think it's been a hell of a fascinating year politics-wise 'til now, just think about what it'll be like with the two upcoming shows going on at the same time.

Whew!

What would you think about President Labamba nominating Trump for the post? Consider the almost limitless possibilities and implications!

Ah luvs it!
Jackals eating their young.

On the other hand, as you say, it'd resolve so many of the GOP's problems:
— It would eliminate the embarrassing front-runner for president.
— It would allow them not to close down Washington in an election year.

But if they bought into it they'd be buying a pig in a poke.

There's no telling what that bozo might do given the credibility of the black robes, although I'm sure we could count on his throwing judicial precedent out the window.

(In reality, I'd really prefer to see him as an independent presidential candidate.)

I have said before that as a Texan, I was never a fan of LBJ, but every spring as I drive the highways in this state to see the roadsides emblazoned with bluebonnets and indian paint brush I am grateful to Lady Bird Johnson for championing the planting of wildflowers by the state highway department. A program that cost virtually nothing and contributes to the pleasure of everyone.

The program was indeed wizard ... although I do miss the far less intrusive Burma-Shave jingles, which also helped to keep one alert on the road.

Just a pig; he hides not his light in a poke (or under a bushel). Even though he's not worthless (as he is wont to brag), he's still a putz.
The reality is that without a law degree and some sort of creditable tenure in the profession, he fails the test and could never seriously be nominated for the job. {sigh}

There is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, for a Supreme Court Justice to have a law degree or judicial experience. I don't recall who it was, but I have read that at least one well respected Supreme Court Justice had neither. But unless the Republicans win the Whitehouse or lose their Senate Majority it appears unlikely that any vacancy on the Supreme Court will be filled in at least the next five years.

Five years? I bet Donald Trump will get it through faster than that!

To quote LBJ "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than passage of the Civil Rights Bill FOR WHICH HE FOUGHT SO HARD."

"The Medicare bill was lost, and he (Kennedy) went immediately on television to declare that this "most serious defeat for every American family" would be a key issue in the fall campaign."

See "JFK remarks at Amherst College October 1963" at Arts.gov, the website of the National Endowment of the Arts.

On June 11th, 1963, president John F. Kennedy issued Proclamation 3542, forcing Governor George Wallace to comply with federal court orders allowing African-American students to register for the summer session at University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and all persons acting in concert with him to cease and desist from obstructing justice.

President Kennedy initiated the planning for the "War on Poverty" [Great Society?] in 1963 after reading an article by Michael Harrington entitled "The Other America."

On the Audubon website, "Rachael Carson and JFK, an Environmental Tag Team."

After Thurgood Marshall was Chief Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund, JFK appointed him to the United States Court on f Apoeals for the Second Circuit. Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when LBJ appointed him to Solicitor General. In 1967, Johnson nominated him to the Supreme Court saying " It was the right thing to do."

Credit where credit is due. LBJ may not have been a brilliant thinker but he did finish the work of what would have been a second term in office for JFK and that is a good thing. Escalating the war in Vietnam Nam was his own bad judgement.

Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy Administration, unemployment benefits were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution control act was passed to protect the country’s rivers and streams, and an agricultural act to raise farmers’ incomes was made law.[4] A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed areas. A few antirecession public works packages,[3] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[5] were introduced. Major expansions and improvements were made in Social Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction, library services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[6] Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced, food distribution to the poor was increased, and there was an expansion in school milk and school lunch distribution. The most comprehensive farm legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and marketing orders. In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was established as the focal point in government for the “planning, negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control agreements.”[7] Altogether, the New Frontier witnessed the passage of a broad range of important social and economic reforms.[8]

How's that all workin' for ya?

There may be no official or Constitutional requirement or qualification for serving on the Supreme Court, but I venture to say that a backwoods yokel and reformed moonshiner with a first-grade education ain't gonna get the bid ... although in light of recent rulings it might be worth a shot.

I get your point. My verbose list of accomplishments, between the War on Poverty and the New Frontier, was intended to put LBJ's record in office in perspective.

Perspective is always a good idea. I'll rely on the words of Robert Dallek, author of "Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973".

"Johnson was not content to simply embrace JFK's proposals. He successfully took up the cudgels for the voting rights, open housing, immigration reform, environmental protections, consumer safety bills, cabinet departments of transportation and housing and urban development, cultural reforms like the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and the Freedom of Information Act. The War on Poverty also became part of his presidential legacy. Head Start, food stamps, elimination of urban slums, public housing, expanded social security, legal services and expanded welfare to needy citizens added up to an assault on poverty that reduced the percentage of Americans living in penury from roughly 23 percent to 12 percent. Although a number of Johnson's initiatives fell short of what he hoped they might accomplish, his domestic reforms added up to a record of liberal alterations that rivaled FDR's New Deal.

Moreover, Johnson's civil rights actions permanently transformed the South. They destroyed the long standing de jure and de facto traditions of racial segregation and opened the way to equal treatment of African Americans in every region of the country. Johnson himself believed that this was his greatest achievement. He was right. And his claim on presidential greatness here is served by the reality, which he glimpsed at the time, that his support of black equality would allow the Republican Party to eclipse his Democratic Party in his native Texas and across the rest of the South."

Thanks for the explanation. His administration seemed so chaotic, the progress so scattered.

A wild guess but I suspect that the folk in Ferguson MO (and several other communities) might have a bone to pick with that rosy view.

Maybe. Or they might lament that things have not worked out the way previous presidents intended.

President Johnson did open the way to equal treatment of African Americans in the United States. That is a fact and it remains a part of his legacy, which does not change because of current events.

If we can revise history based on current events, then I assume we'd have to downgrade the legacies of many presidents back to and before President Lincoln.

When you think about it and examine history, it seems as though it's exclusively the far right cuckoos who engage in political assassination. That may be about to change.

I suppose it depends upon whether you think extreme right and extreme left lie at opposite ends of a line or at adjacent points on a circle. William McKinley, for example, was assassinated by an anarchist who aspired to pal around with Emma Goldman.

There is no question that racism still exists. But racism is not exclusively a Southern phenomena, and pockets of virulent racism can be found almost anywhere in this country and in every county in the world. There used to be a truism that in the South people hated the race but loved the individual while in the North they loved the race but hated the individual. While serving in the military during the Vietnam conflict I ran into that often enough that I believed it to be true. I could tell several personal stories that would attest to that. Suffice it to say that in my experience the Southerners got along pretty well with one another, but the most blatant racism showed up among those from the North.

Living in Texas I can attest to the dramatic changes in race relations that have taken place since LBJ's presidency. Race relations are not perfect, but from where I sit, the nexus of conflict is most often cultural and economic and only coincidentally racial. Before LBJ become president Texas schools where separate but equal{/i] (more accurately [i]separate but and UNequal. Today they are fully integrated (and too often woefully underfunded but that is another subject). Before LBJ housing was racial segregated but now that segregation is very much economic. When i saw an older white security guard drinking coffee and chatting companionably with the young black woman manager of a Mississippi motel I knew the worm had turned. I live in a very heterogeneous area of Fort Worth and there are occasional hurt feelings and ill will, but most of those bumps are cultural and/or economic in nature, although it would be easy for a lazy headline writer to characterize them as racial.

It is part of the human condition those who perceive they have something to lose (the illusion of power and/or control) fear and resist change. That does not excuse the actions/reactions of the Ferguson, MO officials and police (or some of the wing nuts in the Texas legislature). Culture may be the most difficult change to make and some will never be able to do it. But, no one lives forever, and if you look closely at the racists in this country, their average age is increasing much faster than that of the general population. So hopefully racism will eventually die out or at least tamped down to a level society can tolerate. That kind of cultural change is measured not in years but generations.

True. Anarchists lie beyond the pale of generalization.

Honest, cross my heart and spit in a circle, I am not trying to make a pun but….that is a great point.

"We always did feel the same. We just saw it from a different point of view."

—Bob Dylan, Tangled Up in Blue

Tromp win


America
-30-

"You've got a point there." (Yelled out by someone in the crowd when Oblio and Arrow return from the Pointless Forest.)

Harry Nilsson, The Point

Tromp, excuse me? The real Tromp might have called Trump a 'blaaskaak'*, and could make it stick!

*) = blowhard

Or is grelber punning on trompe-l'Å“il?

Sure. Why not.

If Trump wins all states tomorrow, then it is definite that it will be a race between Hillary and The Donald. Who do you want?

And, I just saw this on yahoo.com:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/0...ck-anyway.They/

First Christie, and now Cruz and Kasich (although not as definitive as Cruz).

I personally prefer Hillary to Donald, Sanders to Donald, Chairman Mao to Donald, Mickey Mouse to Donald, or an old and slightly moldy rutabaga to Donald.

But at least Donald tells it like it is! Unfortunately, it will most likely be Hillary, which means we'll have 4 more years of Obama crap.

Telling it like it is gets you crap like David Duke, Al Sharpton and their yucky ilk.

Yep. Gotta bring back the good ole days of Jim Crow and your grandma swinging from a cottonwood tree (grâce à Chris Rock and Lady Day [Strange Fruit]).

America's best bet is to return to the days of the Roman Colosseum and settle issues by gladiatorial combat.

Didn't that just happen in the Republican debates?

Not even close. It's important to see heads and limbs rolling around the arena. Take a page from Daesh or other killing fields in recent history.

[Moi, I'm going to my blissful place in Vanilla Sky ~ Abre los ojos.

wel it looks like Trump and Clinton steamrolled SuperTuesday.... what amazes me is I haven't heard anyone drop out yet. Makes me wonder just how many people we're going to have on the presidential ballot this year? And what percentage of the popular vote the winner will get? There's a very good chance this year of the president being elected with the lowest ever percentage of the popular vote.

What we need, but will probably never get:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Sadly this is unlikely to be applied here simply because too much of the population is too dumb to understand why this would work better.

Do other countries that have many parties use alternative voting?

You mean aside from Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Martin O'Malley?

Oops! And Jim Webb.

In Canada, we're on the way to throwing out First Past the Post ballots. This, from the election platform of our newly elected federal government:

"We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform."

Yay.

Coming up on the other side of things I've said in this thread, I was trying to think if it was possible to have any silver lining in a Trump election victory.

I wonder if it's possible that a candidate, who states a commitment for change from the status quo, could get the Republican Party disconnected from the clutches of the Koch brothers. That would be good for both the Republicans and America.

it's too bad inline images don't work... it's worth your click

http://blacksheepzart.com/resources/vote%20cthulhu.jpg

Face it! America is well on its way to becoming a pariah state.
It augurs well for foreign incarnations of Disney World and Disneyland.
Who gives a flying fig* for the good ol' US of A (other than members of FTM)?! After the next election let 'em stew in their own fecal juices.
[* Look up the figurative/derogatory sense of "fig" in virtually every other language than English (eg, фигл смаслом).]

Well, it looks like both Cruz and Rubio will stay in a little while longer. Rubio got his first victory in Minnesota, and the Florida primary election is 13 days away, Tuesday, March 15th. Here's the actual schedule:

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

Cruz won Texas and Oklahoma, but that was expected. But, I still expect to see Trump getting more wins (there are a number of other ones on March 13th).

Really? To start…off the top of my head I'd suggest the 10's of 1,000s of Canadians whose livelihoods rely on the nearly $700 billion dollars in trade we do with Americans.

And, when it comes to neighbours, I'm sure many Canadians would rather have the U.S. than Russia, Saudi Arabia or any number of less than desirable countries next door. We have a long and envied history of peaceful coexistence that, in my mind, is worth a lot.

Remember that each major party will have only one nominee, regardless of how many live through the primaries.

Makes me no nevermind. When the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) comes into effect, even more will be employed.


That's pretty much irrelevant since one can't change physical neighbors. As the Germans say: Quatsch! "Peaceful coexistence" is a convenient fiction which only exists because the "800-pound gorilla in the room" deems it acceptable for the moment. The days of Laura Secord are long since gone. Just remember what happened with the Avro Arrow and national pride.

Yes, that is valid. And, at this point, it is looking more and more like the nominees will be Donald Trump for the Republican Party, and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party.

200 years of neighbourly conduct and the longest undefended border in the world is neither fictional nor momentary.


I have no idea what that means, relative to our relationship with the U.S. The demise of the Avro Arrow is directly attributable to the actions of a petulant Conservative Prime Minister.

And, national pride? I don't understand what that has to do with having the U.S. as a neighbour. I'm sure there are some who are not proud to be Canadian (for whatever reason) but I am more sure that the naysayers are vastly outnumbered by those who believe in Canada.

How do I unsubscribe from this string? My mailbox is filling up too fast!!!

Patent nonsense and/or revisionist history.
JFK bullied Diefenbaker — and I've never forgiven The Chief for kowtowing — into burying the Avro Arrow in exchange for "protection" by American ICBMs. The Arrow was the most advanced jet fighter/interceptor of the day — and the Americans didn't like the competition at all. Think military-industrial complex. The written record is extremely clear on this.

Solicitations from The Donald, Hillary, or both?

To use your words: Patent nonsense and/or revisionist history.

The Avro Arrow program was cancelled in February 1959, two years before JFK became President.

You're absolutely right! I may be conflating/confusing that with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
(My only possible excuse is that the whole political moose-mess south of the border really throws me for a loop and fratzes my neurons.

That particular blame can be laid properly on Ike's doorstep — Ike, of course, being coiner and doom-crier vis-à-vis "the military-industrial complex".
JFK and Dief had one of the more guarded "friendly" state relationships in modern history (ie, they despised each other).

EDIT — Here's a quote that might be a good choice for candidates in the current US fracas:
"I don't campaign. I just visit with the people."
— John G. Diefenbaker (during a 1965 campaign picnic)

EDIT — Interesting side note: there's an exhibit at the Diefenbaker Canada Centre (at the University of Saskatchewan) which has a 1960's telephone which when the receiver is lifted plays a 'cordial' call between Kennedy and Diefenbaker at the inauguration ceremony for the Canada-Alaska Microwave System in 1961.

By the bye, Cape Breton's latest advertising campaign to lure settlers from south of the border is getting extensive news media coverage lately. 'Tis a lovely place.

All that said, I think it's time for a long warm bath with maybe a little aroma therapy.

I knew after 'Super Tuesday the FTM new posts would be fast and furious.

I've already decided to vote for this well-qualified candidate and I refuse to be sweet-talked out of my decision by some sleezy pol.

Technical question….everyone who dropped out so far did so without having won any support. If Rubio drops out, what happens to his 116 delegates?

They're pledged to him for the first ballot at the convention. Should a second ballot be necessary, expect all hell to break loose. (I wonder if Trump's troopers will be clubbing lame-duck delegates into submission with folding chairs?)

BTW, Paul, Huckabee, and Fiorina have 1 delegate each, and Jeb Bush has 4. The latter raised over $100 million for his campaign. Twenty-five million dollars per delegate! Good thing he's not going to be setting fiscal policy.

Thanks for that.

Interesting TV this morning, watching the Republican party roll out Mitt Romney with a major volley to disrupt the Trump momentum. The party's old guard is clearly very frightened….even pushing the guy, who a while ago they all professed disdain for, Ted Cruz.

It may come down to a choice between tents - the Circus tent or the Revivalist Meeting tent. Meanwhile, Hillary smiles.

It is not how many voters does a candidate appeal to, rather how many voters has the candidate NOT offended.

Here's the guy we need:

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Saul-Goodman-in-his-office.jpg

Yeah, Saul Goodman for President!

S'aul Good, man.

Except......Trump has had disparaging remarks for pretty much everyone, and he's out front.

And a great campaign slogan/banner: Better Call Saul!

We, The People of Fine Tuned Mac, Hereby Nominate Saul Goodman (aka Slippin' Jimmy) for President of the United States of America.

"Hi, I'm Saul Goodman. Did you know that you have rights? The constitution says you do! And so do I."

Since Bob Odenkirk was also the sheriff in Season 1 of "Fargo" (the best series ever!), I'm positive he wants Billy Bob Thornton (aka, Lorne Malvo) as his running mate:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/farg...=20140226220226

Some campaign slogans they can use are:

"You've grown up believing there are rules. There aren't. We used to be gorillas. All we had is what we could take and defend"

"Some roads you shouldn't go down. Because maps used to say there be dragons here, but now they don't.. But that don't mean the dragons aren't there"

I watched a TV blurb this morning from a rally that Trump held following the debates last night. It seems clear to me that, if nothing else, this guy knows about picking buttons and how to push them.

He referred to the fact that Carrier is moving their production to Mexico which will put 1,400 Americans out of work. His response essentially (I can't quote exactly) was that, as President, he would call the CEO of Carrier to say he hopes that Carrier enjoys their new plant in Mexico. However, every air conditioner they send into the U.S. will be met with a 35% tax.

For any American who has had their job shipped to another country, that is an appealing big button. Further, the idea is black and white, none of the grayish nuance that seasoned politicians prefer.

It seems to me that Trump (and I'd add, Bernie Sanders) have tapped into something percolating in the American electorate - the same old, same old has to go. Meanwhile the political elite has yet to wake up.

Of course, he neglected to say that, even as President, he doesn't have the power to levy that tax. He seems to think that he can govern by bluff and intimidation. The Constitution doesn't work that way, but how many voters understand that?

You're absolutely tight….and I'm quite sure Trump knows he wouldn't have the power but he also knows the answer to your question, "…how many voters understand that?" Not a lot.

Interestingly, the CNN item was followed by an interview with a union leader expressing concerns about lack of understanding.

This race has changed from seeking the best presidential candidate to finding someone who can beat Trump and, with the exception of John Kasich, the remaining alternatives are IMHO also pretty scary.

1. I'd be drinking a lot too if I lived down there.
2. You give credit to Tromp [sic] for a mentality above that of a cricket. (Sorry, crickets.) I suspect he's never read and/or understood the Constitution.
3. Apparently most of the voters are morons (current company excepted), given the outcomes of the caucuses and primaries.

“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” Lao Tzu

"He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them." Sun Tzu


I don't think that Canadians get to point fingers...after all, we kept Stephen Harper in as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2015.

On the other hand, if he were to win and carry Congress such a tax would be a legislative possibility.

I think an awful lot of people would find the idea of penalizing companies that move jobs out of America to be an appealing idea.

Plain and simple, Trump says it like it needs to be said. Just about all his ideas are what the vast majority of us want. And, at least he is direct in saying that he needs to get around all the political BS.

It is unfortunate, though, that he'll most likely have a Congress (even if it's dominated by Republicans) who will still be mired in politics, and thus limit and/or stop some (or maybe all) the things he'd like to get done.

Pure and simple, the man is a nutbar with a flair for pandering to mindless fanatics who can barely manage to keep their various sphincters functioning.
Purer and simpler, you get what you pay/pray/play for.

On this side of the border opinion has it that: President Trump? Pass the smelling salts.

And this New York Times op-ed piece pretty much says it all: Donald Trump, the Great Betrayer.

Define "us".

So many folks in the US are frustrated and fed up with all the political BS that goes on in DC. And, the "us" is represented by just about all those folks who are voting for him the primaries.

Could it be?! Er ist wieder da / Look who's back

"[He] today is taken seriously among all classes of [Americans]. He is feared by some, enthusiastically hailed as a prophet and political economic savior by others, and watched with increasing sympathetic interest by the bulk who, apparently, are merely biding the psychological moment to mount [his] bandwagon. ... Another condition favorable to the outburst of the movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure."

"A sophisticated politician credited [him] with peculiar political cleverness ..., saying: 'You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas .... It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.' "

To see history repeating itself, check out:
New Popular Idol Rises in Bavaria (The New York Times, November 21, 1922).

....nah, The Donald isn't vocally anti-semitic in his rants....

That's why I scratched that from the quoted passages.

Regardless, though, he is the most Hitler-esque individual to ever run for any high American political office of whom I'm aware. (Didn't he prophesy [sic] just a a day or two ago that "They'll follow orders!"?)

Seems to me at least that somehow the Bill of Rights has become the only part of the Constitution that most people think is important. I'm not sure that many besides political junkies really understand the whole balance of power thing. It's the same people who think the First Amendment means you can say anything they want to that think a President can do anything he wants to.

I suspect that his "commands" will subside if he wins. He'll see that such actions will not work in DC. But, again, as grelber posted above:

"Another condition favorable to the outburst of the movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure."

Yup, that is at the "grass roots" level, although similar frustrations are at higher levels, too.

To his credit, he has raised some issues that were not even being discussed, specifically the Immigration and Trade Imbalance issues. No one can dispute his proposal to build a high wall (I heard 50 feet high) along the4 US-Mexican border, but I'm not sure how he's going to get Mexico to pay for it. And his remarks about the trade imbalance with China and Mexico are also accurate, and although his proposals seem "rough", that could be what it takes.

Particularly not after Mexico's president has disdained talking to him...likening him to Hitler. (I've heard that he intends to build it using Middle-Easterners as slave labor. )

Edit: "No one can dispute...." is a pretty broad statement; documentation would be in order.

Edit 2: Eleven Reasons Why Donald Trump Is Not Adolf Hitler

Edit 3: Anxiety Over Trump Presidency

Well, let's take a look at that. Trump has said:

- The country is in decline because of foreign countries, and we need to be willing to go to war with those foreign countries to make this country great again.

- A lot of the problems this country faces are because of a religious minority. We need to force members of that religion to register with the government. We need to keep members of that religion out of the country. The government should have the power to shut down the places where those people worship.

- The press should not be free to criticize the leader of the country. Newspapers that criticize the leader should be punished.

- The government should be free to use torture on its enemies.

I can recall another politician who said those exact same things. Is this what you refer to as "saying it like it needs to be said"? It seems to me that it didn't end so well for the last politician to promote these ideas.

Don't care about what the Mexican president said. If Trump can get him to pay for the wall, all the better.

And, here is excitement about Trump's candidacy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=anxiety%...rump+presidency

Also, just yesterday, he won 2 more states.

I don't know about "play" but, on the "pay" and "pray" fronts, but my guess is that the next two weeks are going to see a barrage of ruthless anti-Trump attack ads sponsored by the sectarian right and by funding covered in Koch brother fingerprints.

The intention of the ads will be to push Cruz to the front, a prospect I find be just as scary as Trump....maybe even scarier.

I forgot about one of the longest standing and most acrimonious quarrels between Canada and the US, namely the softwood lumber dispute (economic value in the billions of dollars annually), which has been writhing around in the foreground and/or smoldering in the background for over 3 decades (ie, since the time of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau — yes, Justin's father — and President Ronald Reagan).

It is bound to be raised at the state dinner for Justin Trudeau at the White House later this week. A slightly dated discussion may be found in Canada's softwood lumber rematch with US awaits Trudeau. You may also check this out in Wikipedia under Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute or just Google it.

Hmmm... Cruz 69 delegates + >50% in each of the states he won, Trump 53 delegates, but only 35 of 92 in the states he won in.

You need to re-examine your understanding of the word "win".

(And your "excitement" is pretty much all dated.)

I think the priority at the moment, with which I agree, is ensuring that Trump doesn't win the candidacy before the convention.

The Koch Brothers don't seem all that high on Cruz either, and what they've got in mind for the convention is anyone's guess...not to mention great bar conversation.

I've done a bit of reading about the American system (gosh, it's convoluted) with the "Primary states", "Caucus states"….and within the Primary states, 4 different kinds. This all leads me to wonder about the 'quality' of wins vis-a-vis card-carrying Republicans.

One of the primary types is 'closed' which, as I understand it, means only Republican party members can vote. In yesterday's primaries, Trump's two wins were closed primaries. So, getting to the question, what do we deduce from the fact that Trump seems to be doing well with the Republican core?

If no one has the candidacy going into the convention, does it leave the field open for an entirely new candidate? If so, that could make things really interesting.

Trump didn't really win in those states...


He only tied Cruz vote-wise in LA and barely beat him in KY...apparently the result of their closed primaries.

He is apparently vulnerable in the "closed primary" states, because much of his voter base is people who have heretofore been non-voters who won't be able to just walk in and vote.

Whole new ball game, because pledged delegates are free to vote their heads after the first (failed) ballot.

All of that kerfuffle could be beside the point.
As I think has been brought up before in this forum (long ago), the manner of choosing President and Vice-President is laid out in Article II of the Constitution, some of which has been superseded by Amendment XII — to wit, the Electoral College.
There is absolutely no constraint (other than eligibility) on whom the Electoral College can choose to fill those posts, irrespective of any election process, which could be ignored if the members so desired.
As a wholly bizarre example, irrespective of whoever won the popular vote on Election Day in November, the Koch brothers could be so elected (assuming that they fulfilled all eligibility criteria).
Chew on that one for a while.

Although it has never done so, the Electoral College could, indeed, do as you say, but to date there haven't even been a whole lot of instances of individual Electors bolting, let alone an en-masse event.

Depending on who runs, though, this year's election could conceivably inspire a few Electors to bolt and possibly swing a razor thin election.

I'm not ready to think about it yet.

Edit: It didn't even happen in '00, Bush v Gore when only 3 (self?)righteous Electors could have overturned the Supreme Court's decision...but Trump could be a-whole-nother matter.

Faithless Electors

First, my "excitement" is not dated. But, your non-excitement is pre-historic!

Second, here is the up to the minute, non-dated Republican delegate count:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

Trump leads Cruz by 84 delegates so far. I do agree, though, that Trump has recently been more vulnerable. We'll see as the campaign moves along.

In actuality, Kasich seems to be the most experienced and mature candidate. He has experience in balancing the budget in DC, was very, very effective as Governor of Ohio, and has not stooped to name calling any of the other candidates. Unfortunately, folks are not voting for him much.

Excellent question, and a real possibility. Even if Rubio wins Florida, it still looks like a 2 man race, Trump and Cruz.

Interestingly, even if Trump (or any candidate) "secures" the necessary 1,237 delegates before the convention starts, it seems there are ways the first ballot could become "aborted":

http://lawnewz.com/important/how-the-gop...y-of-delegates/

If something like that were to happen, I think the Republican Party will then be devastated, as all those Trump supporters would be definitely pissed, and thus a vast majority of them would not vote for the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, such a process basically is selecting a "minority" candidate. I also suspect that if such back door sleazyness occurs, Trump will definitely feel disrespected (and rightly so), and would 1) run as an independent, and 2( of course not support that "minority" candidate.

In instead he does not have the necessary 1,237 delegates by the time the convention begins, then it could be a "rat" race as to who gets nominated. The logical choice would be Kasich (based on what I said above in my prior post), but given he has not secured many delegates (and I suspect, not many more by the time the convention begins), it is doubtful that he would be the nominee.

Did you look at the dates of the articles listed in your linked Google page?


Now what in the hell does that mean? It's not even cute!

It's the truth, whether you can figure it out or not!

And, your delegate "links"/counts were incomplete. My link above, to the actual delegate count, is definitely not dated. Your "links" are partial stats.

This article is a good explanation of what could happen at a "fractured" Republican convention (also mentions things I said above):

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0306-mcmanus-gop-crackup-romney-20160306-column.html

And, another good take on this:

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-dubious-prospects-of-the-stop-trump-movement/

As usual, you haven't disappointed me.

Edit: Actually, I didn't link to anything, but the count I posted of Saturday's primaries is the same one shown in your linked doc.

I guess the truth hurts, ie, your thinking being prehistoric. Typical for you.



My post showed the entire delegate count, including what happened yesterday. Man, can't you read?

As usual, you haven't disappointed me.


So what? It was out of context and nothing everybody didn't already know.

I posted Saturday's results in response to your


Man, can't you read?

Edit: Saving the Mods the trouble, this line of discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned.

It is getting nasty.
Ad hominem arguments serve no useful purpose (other than to give those using them some sort of [dubious] relief), and the perpetrators risk exclusion from the forums (as has happened in past). At the very least the offending thread risks being closed and/or deleted.

Now, getting back to non-flammable discussion ...


Lack of consideration of subverting the "democratic process" via the charter documents of the democracy might well be due to ignorance. I'd venture to say that at least 95% of Americans (and 99.99% of the rest of the world's population) have no clue about the formation of the Electoral College or its mandate and potential powers. One can only dream ....

Though I think that may have been stolen from an earlier one by Mark twain (Samuel Clemens)

Something more along the lines of "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected president is unfit for the position" I think?

And now, Apple joins the fray. Apple CEO Tim Cook attends secret meetin...un, report says

….along with some other "big money" folks and a few politicians who I find pretty scary…Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Karl Rove.

It seems to me that this is a perfect example what the American electorate has been saying they want to be rid of - big money and back room deals hijacking the will of the people. Shame on Cook, Page, Musk and Parker.

hee hee hee ... (As I said [#39269], you get what you pay for.) hee hee hee

I fail to understand why you think this is funny. One in seven Canadian jobs rely, directly or indirectly, on our $750 billion in trade with Americans. A Trump victory will have a decidedly adverse affect on that trade.

And, as I said before, Canadians don't get to point fingers. We sat back for 10 years while PM Stephen Harper hijacked the will of the people in favour of his friends in business.

I find it funny because it's hilarious. Bumbling jackasses and jackals all. (No offense to actual jackasses and jackals, who have their own issues to deal with.)
After the way the Republicans have effed up the democratic process in Washington, they deserve exactly what they get.

Masochist to Sadist: Hit me.
Sadist to Masochist: No.

I stand by my sadomasochistic commentary.
And I can point my finger wherever I please.

Of course you can but it still doesn't mean there's humour in shadenfreude.

I made out OK.


Au contraire. In fact, that's the definition of schadenfreude: "pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune."

Ah luvs it!

Anyone who seriously contemplates voting for Trump should read Donald the Dangerous.

One should also read Mein Kampf (preferably the new, annotated version) to see the familiarly incoherent ramblings of a similar malcontent.

Thousands of seniors without proper housing, all the children living below the poverty line, and those who can't get timely healthcare, et cetera, didn't make out OK. However you did, so good for you.


I have a reasonable facility with English and yet I don't see anything in the definition to support your contention that deriving pleasure from another person's misfortune is humourous.


Of course. I wasn't expecting otherwise.

Minor (I hope) misunderstanding: I was referring to the candidates and their supporters, and all the schmucks who ground the democratic process to a standstill in Washington (and by extension the entire Republican Party over the past 8 years) — as noted in Post #39337.
Let's leave it that. (I dislike flames, implicit or otherwise.)

That was back in December. This week, I have a crow and potatoes in the oven. I wonder what other vegetable I need on the side?

I was reminded of the above when I saw this quote today in the front of Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money":

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

Louis Brandeis

Googling Is Believing: Trumping the Informed Citizen
The Big Media threat that worried Noam Chomsky 30 years ago has been replaced by a new one, manufactured by us.

Although present media were absent in Mark Twain's time, he did have a relevant quip: "If you do not read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read it, you are misinformed."

Samual Clemens was an accurate reporter of the human condition and new technologies and media not withstanding his observations are still all too true.

Salt lightly with a Republican's tears

Harking back to my earlier post* about history repeating itself ...

After the contretemps at Trump's attempts at rallies in Chicago, Kansas City, etc, the descriptions attendant on same could be exactly those in the 1922 article, albeit sans blackjacks and revolvers (at least for now).

(* It seems that the article is no longer available at the link provided, so it may have to be requested from the NYT's archive on an individual basis, if you didn't catch it earlier.)

And the only thing "cerebral" about Tromp are the parasites lurking and feeding therein which may be the only salvation in the current political morass. Eat away, my lovelies, until there's nothing left but drool.

With President Obama's nomination of Merrick B. Garland, a centrist appeals court judge, Senate Republicans refuse to consider the president’s choice, even though they respect him.

And still the Republicans can't see the forest for the trees, ie, can't see that their obstructionist behavior in the democratic process fuels the fire which has elevated Tromp to point of destroying the party.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Ah well, stupid is as stupid does.
(Spiro would have called them effete. Barry would have just shaken his head and sighed.)

Nominee Visits Tense Capitol as GOP Digs In Against Vote
Brushing aside stirrings of defections in their ranks, GOP leaders vowed that they would not hold hearings or a confirmation vote for Judge Merrick B. Garland this year even if a Democrat wins the White House in November.

To call GOP leaders a-holes does a major disservice (ie, is really insulting) to a-holes.
Every move they make to destroy democracy demeans their essence within and without the country. Small wonder Tromp is in the ascendancy ... of what I'm not quite sure.
At the end of the day everyone loses.

They're hoist, because it's consistent with their position that the people should speak, and they're stuck with extending it to the possibility of Hillary carrying the Senate.

They can actually be considered to look good in this instance in their own dumb-ass way. (Hmmm... It would be interesting to see what Obama would do if they try to do a 360 if there's a new Democratic Prez and Senate come November.)

I'm willing to trade a few more months of an 8 Justice Court for a nominee selected and parsed entirely by Democrats.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the people did speak: they elected Obama to the presidency ... twice.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't count!

Of course not, Mitch.

Another pet peeve is the incorrect use of the term "lame duck".
The correct definition is: an official (especially the president) in the final period of office, after the election of a successor. In the case of the US presidency this time around that's a period of 73 days.

I'm glad to hear that from someone else, Iwas wondering if I was the only one that caught that. Though it seems to apply better to presidents that served one term and did not win re-election for their second term, particularly (and typically) when the elected is of the opposing party.

An article in today's New York Times could, mutatis mutandis, describe Tromp and his campaign:

Parrots Are a Lot More Than ‘Pretty Bird’
Out of the cage, they speak their own language, make tools, and wreak havoc on plants and researchers’ efforts alike.

At this point the only media coverage (not 'news' coverage, mind you, because it ain't 'news') of/on Tromp I can abide is that provided via The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Otherwise I just tune out and go to my happy place.

You may find there's a line.

According to the Sunday issue of the Montreal Gazette, "Google searches for “how to move from the U.S. to Canada” soared by over 1,000 per cent in the week following the recent Super Tuesday primaries that Donald Trump dominated."

The Gazette also noted, "One U.S. poll last week found 28 per cent of Americans would consider moving to Canada if Trump becomes president."

Similar article:


It goes on to say

Looks like Canada will be competing for those seeking political asylum.

Here's a journalist's take on the Trump candidacy: My Shared Shame: The Media Helped Make Trump

It had to happen: There is now a term for having totally unacceptable candidates running for President, namely Electile Dysfunction.

As it turns out, the U.S. does not have a monopoly on totally wacky right-leaning politicians, as evidenced in this report. Gads.

Indeed. The Earl's "upheaval" has been grist for everyone's mill ... and most everyone is more or less ignorant of all the facts — from use (and misuse) of antibiotics, hormones and growth promotants to what constitutes humane treatment and slaughter of food animals.

Bottom line: It was (as such things usually are) a business decision on the part of Earl's, namely the bottom line.

Besides, who but yuppies and dinks and the horny after-work crowd even goes to Earl's? Noisy, crowded and over-priced.

That might be the case, but it's what the voters want. As it is, I see a Trump/Christie ticket as being "dynamite". Not sure who Hillary is going to pick.

I see it as a ticket to be dynamited!

Some folks may feel that way, but that of course will not happen. In fact, their impact will be stronger than dynamite!

Something along the lines of a V-2, I imagine.

Why not wait until it (inevitably) self-destructs?

Much more than a V-2! In fact, it will be like any of the following:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-top-ten-most-powerful-missiles-in-the-world

The impact will be incredible!

Don't think it will self destruct. They get along very, very well, and Chiristie will be a perfect addition to the ticket. But alas, unless some "classes" of voters support the ticket (I'm thinking women, minorities (immigrants), and black), Hillary and her running mate will most likely win. Unfortunately, she is not much better.

Because the thought of Trump not giving up and spending the next four years building an organization is just about as frightening as the thought of his winning!

And speaking of "self-destruct", does the thought of Trump's teaming up with Christie, who was among the least popular of the dregs in the Republican nomination process, make you think of McCain/Palin?

A Trump/Christie ticket would be WAY more "attractive" that McCain/Palin. Both Trump and Christie are "straight from the cuff, no beating around the bush" guys. and that appeals to a number of voters.

Again, though, I suspect Hillary (with her running mate) will win the election, due to too much opposition to Trump, primarily from the women and minority sectors of the population (and some others). But again, Hillary is not much of an improvement.

The other thing, of course, is that if Trump were to win, once he gets in office, he will soon realize that it will be difficult, at best, to get around the political "fractured" process in DC, and get anything done. For example, building the wall is an excellent idea, but that will be difficult for him to get that accomplished. Hillary does not plan on building one.

Yup. And therein lies Trump's greatest weakness, as evidenced by his various reactions during the campaign so far. He is unable to resist any bait.

All that Hillary Clinton needs to do is periodically 'toss something out there' and move on. Trump will seize it, complete with the hook, and proceed to do or say something incredibly stupid…..every time.

Meanwhile Hillary will be making speeches about issues that matter and generally looking like she belongs in the White House while the Donald looks like he belongs in a mad house.

Both the presidential candidate and his running-mate coming from northeastern states - the NY Metro area in particular - will not sit well with much of the electorate, and that combined with the fact that Christie has already proven himself a loser leaves Trump/Christie a particularly weak ticket.

In his own way, Trump is as weak a candidate as McCain was, but Christie will hurt his campaign worse than Palin hurt McCain's.

Edit: "Big Nasty New York" and "Little Nasty New Jersey" is NOT what I'd call the sort of diversity the electorate wants to see in a presidential ticket.

This electoral go-round (in the sense of "a flight path typically taken by an aircraft after an aborted approach to landing") might best be described as Walt Disney meets Freddy Krueger — a great ticket.

Here's an enlightening read: Run on a Ticket With Donald Trump? No, Thanks, Many Republicans Say. My favorite part is Senator Lindsay Graham's take on accepting a second spot on a Trump campaign: “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”

I also like Chris Christie's response at a recent news conference, where he said he would evaluate the offer “for any position in government”. IMHO, it demonstrates just how stupid he is….and hence a running mate who would ensure that Trump loses.

A smart politician would have answered: "I'll be pleased to accept any position where I am able to serve the American people".

Instead, Christie replies with the equivalent of: "I'll take any job that keeps my snout in the public trough."

It is comment like that where I wish this forum software had a "Like" function along the lines of Facebook's.

There is: Check out the list of posting icons (in reply window); choose thumb up (such as I did with this reply) or thumb down.

That's only a poor, almost invisible workaround that's rarely used, and I wonder how many people even notice it when it is used.

What joemike's talking about is prominent and far more meaningful.

It's hardly "almost invisible" when it leads the entire response. When I want to make my original post or response more than just a bare comment, I always select an appropriate posting icon.

But, as usual ... whatever lights your wick.

Every once in a while a posting icon catches the corner of my eye, but it never registers as anything more than "something's different there".

I never look at those icons; they lead a response in the sense that they precede the thread's title, but they're totally removed from its text, which is what I'd guess most folks address immediately...possibly exclusively.

I think a well placed smiley or emoji in a response is far more meaningful than those posting icons.

And then again...

Edit: And don't forget both that nobody keeps count of posting icons and that you've got to post to use one, whereas in joemike's scenario all you've got to do is click "Like" or "Don't Like" and your vote is tallied and prominently displayed.

I agree completely. All I was pointing out in response to joemikeb's comment ("It is comment like that where I wish this forum software had a "Like" function along the lines of Facebook's. ") was that something already existed here that could be put into service (albeit in jury-rigged fashion).

Thanks.

In case anyone still thinks that Trump is less than an unmitigated disaster, read Trump repeats unsubstantiated claim that Cruz’s father had ties to JFK assassin Oswald. Of particular "interest" is that he bases many of his claims on material printed by the National Enquirer.

Is this the way a president should get his information? Maybe he'll try to rescue Elvis and Marilyn from Mars after they were kidnapped by space aliens and imprisoned there.

To use the words of CBS, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz ended his campaign for the Republican nomination Tuesday night, effectively ensuring Donald Trump will become the GOP's standard-bearer in 2016. .

Wow.

Unlike intelligent people, Trump supporters don't read about his "inaccuracies ( )" after the fact; they just swallow whatever spews from his mouth.

He's well on his way to getting Hillary elected; let's just hope he goes with Christie as his running mate.

I've been wondering why Kaisich stayed in after Cruz dropped out. How about this….

Kaisich figures most people have so far been thinking: "Trump's an entertaining distraction but he'll never make it". However, now that Trump could get enough delegates, their tune has changed to "Holy crap…he might do it".

So, Kaisich says to himself: "Maybe there are enough people in the balance of the primaries who are now so scared they'll vote for anyone but Trump and, guess what, that's me. I can't get enough delegates to win the nomination but, if I keep Trump from getting the number, it's a contested convention. Then, I could do it on a second ballot."

I don't know about Kasich getting the nomination on any ballot, but under any circumstances, an attempt to stop Trump is an honorable endeavor. (The money he'll be spending is that of like-minded people, so he won't be called to task by anybody who matters to him.)

Whether it's honorable or not, it's too late. He will easily win California, and as they say, "There goes the ball game".

Also, if the Republican "establishment" stops the nomination of Trump, the party will definitely be fractured this election cycle.

And, of course, Trump gave his predictably "intellectual" response to the Kaisich decision: "He's just staying in for the free food."

I'm not so certain about California being a shoo-in. The last polls I saw had Cruz and Trump running neck and neck so it will be interesting to see what happens to the Cruz votes (most of whom, I assume, are in the Stop Trump movement).


They may not need to stop him through process. They can choose to stop him farther down the line (during the election) just by closing their wallets, which is already happening.

Trump could be a presidential candidate going into an election without enough dough, unless he is prepared to take that extraordinary amount of money from his own bank account. If he elects to underspend, that could be the real "There goes the ball game".

This morning there's a clue that the money is already on the Donald's mind. He has said he is "considering" accepting small donations.

With Cruz out of the race, and Kaisich having so little support, Trump will triumph in California, plain and simple.



Thus, the Republican party will just lie down and die, ie, concede the election. That would be real smart!

At this point, all moot, as Kaisich reportedly will be making an announcement today that he is dropping out.


But not an impossibility. News reports this morning say that some Republicans are stating they will vote for Hillary before they vote for Trump. And, if the usual big-money Republican donors are not going to pony up for a campaign (effectively "lying down") he's got a money problem.

I'm guessing Trump will require far more than any candidate has ever needed. He needs a massive (and expensive) PR campaign to reverse the opinions of those large voter blocs he has alienated so far. (e.g. None-white voters 81% for Hillary, 14% for the Donald). Other groups, like women, are not likely to be much different.

Or maybe he is just saying out loud what many people are thinking?

Note that this does not mean what he is saying and people are thinking is intelligent. In fact, we have seen repeatedly in this country that people will vote against their own self-interests in the big picture if the candidate supports their beliefs on guns, gays and abortions.

I have this parallel universe fantasy where Trump wins the presidency and we can all watch what happens without actually being affected by it from the security of our sane universe.

Or maybe it's just the reverse: and Trump's universe is the real world and my universe is actually the insane asylum?

I haven't lost any sleep over this yet.

Remember what I said in Post #38887 (mid-February) vis-à-vis King of Hearts?

In some instances that's certainly true, but he's spouting garbage, some of which is made up, and some of which is extracted from the National Enquirer and other equally if not more disreputable sources, that people don't even know about until it spews from his mouth, and, in addition, he's close to a congenital liar, and there's almost no likelihood that his supporters ever avail themselves of the facts, i.e. the truth.

A link would be more meaningful.

So, that negates your earlier contention about California. Not to say I told you so, but .....



Again, no matter how it's spun, the Republican party would then be giving up.



So far, Trump has spent his own money on the campaign. And, percentages can change, as has been evident ever since Trump entered the race, and was a HUGE underdog. Now, he is the TOP dog!

Correction... Now he is the top DOG!

(Hopefully there aren't enough canines registered to vote to get him elected.)

True, but I can't figure out how to specify such (ie, URL) for a specific post. (My page set-up may not be yours.)

Anyway, this was the comment referenced:
I'm reminded of "King of Hearts" (1966 movie, starring Alan Bates) — only getting back into the asylum won't help.
Think irreparably nutsy cuckoo.

The URL of your most recent post is http://www.finetunedmac.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=40268#Post40268,
but if you substitute the number of the post to which you want to link for the two 40268s the URL will lead to it.

Thanks. I should have thought of that.

If you click the post icon in the upper left corner of a post—like so—you will load a page whose URL is the one you're looking for. Or you can right-click or control-click the icon and then select Copy Link from the contextual menu (that's in Safari; the phrase may differ slightly in Firefox but the same functionality is there).

Clicking on the post icon brings up a whole page not just the post specified. Not exactly what I was looking for.

By the bye, your link to the dropbox is flagged by Firefox as "untrusted":
dl.dropboxusercontent.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. The server might not be sending the appropriate intermediate certificates. An additional root certificate may need to be imported.

Contention? I suggested that California wasn't necessarily a shoo-in for Trump, given the unknown factor of where the Cruz votes would go. And, I still stand by that speculation.

The fact that there will now not be a competition doesn't provide a single iota of support for your contention that Trump would easily win California, so you can hang onto your "Not to say I told you so" for another time.


You have missed the point entirely.

I fully understand that Trump has paid his way to date. However, the amount he will need for an election campaign (and the PR side of things) far exceeds anything he has spent so far. He may be reluctant to reach that far into his own pocket and, absent any additional funding, that will place him in a tough spot.



Yes, and I think it's entirely possible in a party that is already split by factors like the Tea Party. Add to that the fact that Trump has only averaged 40% of the Republican vote in the primaries, so a majority of the party already opposes him.

Your expectation of bringing up a single post is not exactly what’s provided in any view in UBBThreads software. In Dave’s example, you get the page containing the post with that post at the top of the browser window, UNLESS there aren’t enough following posts to make that possible with the window height you’re using. That display ‘failure’ would apply to the bottom-most post(s), unless they’re taller than your browser window is high*. If you try Dave's suggestion with the last post and one at least one window height up, you’ll see what I mean.

That said, it is possible to display a single post within its thread hierarchy (select threaded mode under Topic Options at the left above the topmost post on the page), but then you won’t see the literal context without switching back to flat mode.

* What with ryck’s and my post now following yours, the issue is pretty much moot.

RE Earls in Canada opting out of Canadian beef:
It took less than a week for them to recant and reverse their stance.

Still, your observations are worthwhile. Glad you made them.

And I stand by my original contention, that Trump will win California. That was just as valid before Cruz and Kasich bowed out. Similar stuff was spewed out about Indiana (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/primary-results-takeaways/), and look how Trump trounched BOTH of them there.



No, I understood perfectly what you said. Such a scenario you are stating just goes back to the other point, about the Republican party just giving up.



Once again though, things can change, and I just point again to the fact about how Trump rose from such an underdog last June to winning the nomination. And, if Hillary suffers any more damage from the EMail "issue", that will surely help Trump.

Correction, and even better: TOP DOG!

And, there are plenty of "canines" out there who are really just voters, and could help to put him in office.

TOP DOG as you like it, but only in the mad-dog wing of the kennel!

Those "folks" in the mad-dog wing will come after, and devour, sneaky cat folks, as you like it.

IMHO that horse has long since left the barn. There's no fixing that this cycle.

Yup….and some prominent Republicans figure the party will be fractured if he isn't stopped.

And from our perspective resolution of issues/disputes such as softwood lumber and COOL goes down straight down the toilet.
The American insanity will definitively and negatively impact both Canadian and American workers. Keep an eye or an ear on CBC News.

Such folks need to wake up and smell the roses, as it's too late. He has the nomination clinched.

...and in further news, this recent interview.

Jeff Dunham's "Walter" is Politically Unbalanced.

The point was not about whether or not Trump has the nomination clinched (That's been in all the papers), it was about the effect on the Republican party. It's very clear that a lot of senior Republicans are very, very worried. To quote Peter Wehner, former speech writer for George W. Bush and a lifelong Republican:

"They've nominated a person who is a pernicious force in American politics. Someone who is not conservative, who's misogynist, who's xenophobic, who's nativist, who's incredibly shallow, who's vindictive, who is, I think, emotionally unstable. I think he's obsessive, I think he's a threat to the Republican Party and the republic."

What's your point?
Given that he's all of those things, what does that say about the electorate that put him in that position? Clearly he's not along in being all those things. And that is the truly scary, Freddy Krueger thing.

Again, the point is that senior Republicans (and probably a lot of everyday Republicans) view Trump as a threat to their party.


Probably similar to the things it says about other electorates:

e.g. The one that gave George W. Bush a second term.

e.g. The Canadian electorate that kept a dictatorial Prime Minister in office for ten years.

Et cetera.

However, in this case (getting back to the point), there is a very real chance that the nominee can bring down the party itself.

That's precisely what I had in mind when I suggested the horrifying possibility of his building an organization.

Edit: Trump has given the stupidest, most ignorant, indeed, the ugliest part of America a banner to rally around!

Well, it says that those who've voted for Trump in the Republican primaries to date—a bit less than 11 million people, or roughly 7% of the registered electorate—preferred Trump to whomever else was running in their state at the time. Roughly 15 million voters (10%) preferred other Republican candidates, and 23 million or so (16%) voted in Democratic primaries.

About the other two-thirds of the electorate, not much can be claimed.

Obviously, a number of folks do not read the papers. But, it was also loudly stated by the voters through the primaries.



Don't think he is all that, but he definitely is stating things that the folks are so pissed off about: the political and underhanded BS that goes on in DC, along with so little, if anything, getting accomplished. Plus, he is definitely right on about the trade in balance, and the wall that MUST be built.

That they are sick and tired of all the political BS that goes on, and that nothing gets accomplished.

That's the fault of the party, not Trump. The smart thing for them to do would be to rally around him, and support him (as they should). If not, then as I have stated before, they would be giving up the election to Hillary, and creating an opening for her to get in.

Yes indeed ... along the northern border to keep American riffraff out.

Hmmm... If trade is truly in balance America has got absolutely no problems.

After the wall is built there'll be any number of job opportunities for you and your wife and kids in my neighborhood...sorting fruit, cleaning homes, stocking shelves, and many, many more. (And maybe there should be a second wall to keep out the foreigners Trump imports to work at Lago Del Mar because the American workers who so ardently support him either aren't capable of doing the job or aren't willing to do it cheaply enough.)

Meant trade imbalance.



I can lead you on to such jobs for you, your wife, and kids, and that would be a step up from what all of you are doing now.

Meant imbalance.

And, besides a southern wall, build a northern one also, to keep the Canadian jerks out.

I know we all feel strongly about our political positions, but the hostile and demeaning remarks being passed here are inappropriate and unacceptable.

Everyone just step back, take a deep breath and count to ten.

Well, let's see…

• Canada was partly founded by American loyalists fleeing the revolution.

• During the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of Americans moved to Canada to avoid the draft and I am not aware of any downside.

• If Trump wins, we could see a lot of well-educated, highly-skilled and socially tolerant Americans coming north. That would be just fine.

If there's a wall, I'll be quite happy to help them over.

I can do that, but once someone makes such remarks directed at me, I am obligated to respond in kind.

I assume that refers to my earlier post which was NOT "such [a] remark directed at [you]."

It was meant to obliquely suggest that neither you nor your wife or kids would have the least bit of interest in filling one single job held by a Mexican in my neighborhood, and was NOT so obscure that its meaning should have eluded you.

Unlike your knee-jerk response which was direct, nasty, and downright insulting, my post absolutely did NOT demean either you or your family in any way. (You've been studying Trump's mannerisms, haven't you?)

Yes, it was, and it's not the first time you have exhibited such immature behavior.



Again, a crock! You made those inappropriate, demeaning remarks about my wife and children. As it is, we are WAY more sophisticated and educated than you and your family are, or will ever be, by far. You proved that by making such remarks. I did nothing like that at all prior to your remarks.



Again, more lies. Just don't make such remarks anymore, or else I will respond in kind. If you can't make mature posts in these discussions, than you should not participate.

Agree completely. Note that I said "riffraff", which does not include your examples.

More road apples for the proverbial American apple pie ...

To paraphrase Tromp: I love atavistic nationalism. (Not the notion but the linguistic combination.)

Republican Party Unravels Over Trump’s Takeover

GOP leaders fear their party is on the cusp of an epochal split between familiar conservatism and a rekindled, atavistic nationalism.
The crisis over Donald J. Trump reflects years of fraying ties between party elites and voters.

No you’re not. The only thing you’re obligated to do in these forums is to follow the Board Rules, and requests or hints from the moderators. You may complain about perceived slights at our sufferance, or else. Consider this your final and last warning to behave before being banned.

By now you should know to refrain from comments that can be easily misconstrued or used to start an ad-hominem diatribe. Consider yourself warned as well.

Sorry, alternaut; point well made and well taken.

(By the time it occurred to me to append a it was, unhappily, too late; I hope it would have helped.)

Anuther coupla cents' worth ...

Given the political and social crapola/turmoil/inanity which is going on in the good ol' US of A and which seems bound to get worse, one can envisage another major "brain drain" of those who have more neurons than are necessary for bladder and bowel control.

Chances are that Canada will get a lot of those (for reasons of proximity and cultural compatibility), but many other countries are also bound to profit from the apparent Know-Nothing resurgence. [If you aren't familiar with that, check out mid-19th-century history; the parallels are unnerving.]

Depending on how many flee, the remnants of every nature could resemble a Monty Python sketch (but without the intellectual component). The primary beneficiaries will be the news media around the world reporting on such — ie, there will be much grist for their mills.

Or Trump could actually get the USA back on track again, and then we'd have to deal with either "smart" folks or more riffraff coming here.

I wouldn't be so sanguine about Tromp (or Clinton, for that matter) getting anything "back on track" again — the tracks are well and truly warped, and it'll take a lot of heat and hammering to get them straight again ... and even then, most of the supporting trestles have been burnt.

Yes, I previously stated that Trump could find it difficult (and maybe impossible?) to get anything accomplished in "do nothing" DC. And yes, Hillary could, at best, be very marginally "better" (whatever that means).

Note that I said Trump COULD actually get the US back on track. I of course realize how difficult that could be for him to do.

So basically they created the problem, and he is exposing it and offering a solution. It's not so much what he says and does, but that he's hung out their dirty laundry to dry, and that the population dislikes BOTH the problem that's been created and the bitter pills that are now required to fix it.

The reps would rather just bury it all for another four years, kick the can down the alley a few more feet and make it the next generation's problem to deal with. Like what they've been doing for decades. Time to pay the piper! (and Trump's got a big shiny flute to wave around)

Apple refuses to back GOP convention because of Trump politics

Shocking!


It might be more effective if they threatened to do it if it the candidacy wasn't brought to convention.

"[W]asn't" or "was"?

With all due repect, I think I said what I meant to say. That these companies do not want Trump to be the nominee and would prefer that it be brought to convention.

More Companies Opt to Sit Out Trump’s Coronation in Cleveland

This may be a reaffirmation of my abysmal SAT Verbal (i.e. reading comprehension) score, but aren't your two statements contradictory?

They'd "prefer that [WHAT] be brought to convention"?

No offense intended, but I don't think you've stated your position very clearly.

Oops ...

Headline and blurb from today's New York Times:

Trump Defends Use of Image Seen as Anti-Semitic

Donald J. Trump breathed new life into a controversy that started when an image was posted on his Twitter account of a six-pointed star next to a picture of Hillary Clinton.

Still think the lead-up to Election Day doesn't smack of 1933 Germany?!

Here's the article: In a Defiant, Angry Speech, Donald Trump Defends Image Seen as Anti-Semitic
And, in an article that I can't immediately find, it was stated that he thought that Saddam Hussein wasn't all bad. After all, he was good at killing terrorists (!). That's somewhat akin to saying that Hitler made the trains run on time.

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

And now we can await the modern-day version of Kristallnacht orchestrated by the Führer and his Brownshirts.

Nope.

I think it's much simpler - the Clinton team is making use of Trump's fatal flaw, which is that he cannot resist taking the bait (as shown so many times during the primaries). He continues to rave on about the star when he could simply have ended it all with a simple "It was a simple mistake and I did not intend to offend."

But no, he keeps chewing on the bait while the Republican Party pushes him unsuccessfully to get on message about the Clinton emails - an issue they consider much more enduring.

It also underlines a key reason that he is unsuitable for the presidency. In Trump's mind, matters that affect him personally are more important than anything else.

I dunno if it's quite that simple, ryck.

That image would have made it's point with no more than the pic of Hillary (Edit: and the text) superimposed over the money, and the inclusion of the six pointed star looks all the more terrible in view of the fact that Sheldon Adelson has spoken of creating a $100 million Super PAC and wants to take Trump to Israel after the convention to meet Netanyahu (forget altogether about his Jewish daughter and son-in-law); it was a really major and terrible affront to important people...not one that could be brushed aside with a simple "Oops" (after all, he, himself, not an underling, posted it)...hopefully one from which he'll never fully recover.

(Frankly, I can't understand why any Jew would support Trump! He's the front man for hatred and bigotry in America, he's given it a voice and a platform, and where there's hatred and bigotry, there's anti-Semitism...either on the surface or festering beneath it.)

Trump has outdone himself. Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails. It appears that Trump's definition of "making America great again" includes having Russia influence a presidential election, not to mention (if you read further) condoning Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Imagine if this had happened during the Cold War. Trump would have been indicted for treason.

A while back the NY Times interviewed big Republican contributors who weren't contributing to Trump, and in addition to the many expected reasons they reported that one (who said he may even vote for Hillary) wisely said "The Republic will survive Hillary."

A review in Maclean's Magazine of A Child’s First Book of Trump (Simon & Schuster):
How to talk to your kids about Donald Trump.

He opened his big mouth one time too many this time around; maybe he will be (the one to be) indicted. Now, wouldn't that be a hoot?

No, Donald, Nathan Hale did not say "I only regret that I have but one country to [give] for my life!"

I suspect this is too subtle for either Trump or his followers. As Stephen Hawking found, those folks are easily confused.

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic (is that word too long for Trump supporters?). I suppose that any word that is three syllables long or greater, is unable to be understood by these people.

To be fair there are some of these people who do understand at least a few words with three or more syllables. The currently serving governor and attorney general of Texas, both are tea party favorites, understand at least one three syllable word — indictment. Both are currently under indictment for different felony fraud offenses. I am confident the lieutenant governor (formerly a Rush Limbaugh wannabe conservative radio talk show host from Houston) would be under indictment as well but he isn't smart enough to put together a fraud.

Since even the Texas Legislature has balked at paying the Attorney General's defense team, he sees nothing wrong in accepting $50,000 donations to his defense fund from the CEO of a corporation that was under investigation by his office and has assured the voters of Texas his subsequent decision not to seek an indictment had nothing to do with the donation. If you believe that contact me directly, I have a line on a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, New York.

The suspicion is voters elect these clowns to get them out of town and out or their hair. Recently these stellar politicians have been publicly invited either to leave town and/or butt out of their business by multiple major city as well as small town mayors, public school superintendents, college professors and administrators, chiefs of police, etc. Yet they still get re-elected.

I think it's evident that neither Trump nor his people are capable of understanding very much at all. For example:

One of the most powerful speeches during the DNC was delivered by Muslim Khizr Khan. His son Army Capt. Humayun Khan died in Baghdad in 2004, giving his life for his fellow soldiers. Mr. Khan attacked Trump's immigration proposals and pointed out that the billionaire has "sacrificed nothing and no one."

In an interview with with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Donald Trump rejected that assertion and said: "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices."

Wow! Talk about zero understanding..... However, the irony of that claim wasn't missed by the folks who use Twitter.

Very soon, Trump's comparison of his "sacrifices" to Mr. Khan's had become the hashtag #TrumpSacrifices. Satirically, the Twitter folks pointed out that Trump had been subjected to such hardships as:

• flying commercial
• playing golf on a public course
• staying at a hotel that was only three-star

Not to take away from your presentation but to augment it, I would point out how Señor Hitler — note the multiply ambiguous and sarcastic, albeit accurate, characterization — has been dealt with in the media vis-à-vis the Khan "affair":

Trump Dispute With Muslim Family Emerges as Flash Point

Trump Belittles Parents of Slain Soldier, Drawing Ire

Señor Hitler, as if it weren't obvious, gives new meaning/dimension to the term "yutz".

…..and new meaning/dimension to the word stupidity.

In the midst of it all Trump attacked a Gold Star Mother and, rather than apologize for a mean and thoughtless accusation, his people are out today doubling down…..making sure that his asinine statements live beyond a single news cycle.

Talk about hitting the nail right on the head!

In a different vein, I've read any number of articles about Trump's request that Putin find the missing Hillary emails, but none of them has tied that to the fact that in the same interview, the "World's Greatest Dealmaker" suggested that he'd reconsider the US's position on Crimea.

Taken together, aren't the two an overt attempt to negotiate with a foreign power to the detriment of America? (I haven't seen anything in that vein; have I missed it?)

And don't his repeated statements about Crimea perpetuate the crime?

And is Putin stupid enough to believe a word that comes out of his mouth?

It's frightening to think that Trump's supporters would actually respond favorably to Russian intervention in the US Presidential election process...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!

Melania Trump like you’ve never seen her before | New York Post doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful to the campaign of a man who’s courting evangelicals.

The Post has been actively supporting Trump, but within the context of their “journalistic style” this could mean that he’s gone too far for even them and they’re changing direction.

XXXXX XXXXX Fingers crossed.

Edit: And if that wasn't enough for you: http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/melania-trumps-girl-on-girl-photos-from-racy-shoot-revealed/

We've missed the obvious by not seeing the forest for the trees:
Señor Hitler is in fact a Democrat mole, tasked with destroying the Republican Party. And at that he's good at what he does. All of his behavior and comments are eminently explicable in this scenario.
Otherwise one would have to believe he's the stupidest, most inept person on Earth ... and nobody is that stupid or inept.
An ancillary benefit is that the crazies who support him have been uncloaked and can be neutralized (or, better, neutered).
Remember: You read it here first!

I suppose that a scrupulous search might find someone, somewhere, who is stupider. However, I don't think such a search could find anyone more intent on proving that stupidity can be invincible.

Today, key Republicans (e.g. Ryan, McConnell, McCain) as well as prominent organizations (e.g. Veterans of Foreign Wars) expressed how aghast they are that a presidential candidate would attack a Gold Star Family. And what does Trump do? He takes the words of those Republicans and veterans as a cue to escalate his battle against Mr. and Mrs. Khan.

It appears the big question is: "Where's the bottom?"

Every time I hear words spewing from Trump's mouth, I am reminded of the line Henry the Chicken Hawk always aimed at Foghorn Leghorn: "You're nothing but a loud-mouthed schnook."

That's pretty much exactly what Hillary opined, when asked about this.


The inimitable Al Capp would've been more direct and used the epithet "shmuck", playing on both the figurative and literal senses of the word.

To put it another way, he has reached the bottom of the barrel and has started to dig.

....and specifically asked by others since. A good question is worth repeating until there is a good answer, which Jon has now provided.

Well, the Editorial Board of The New York Times has gone on record:
It’s time for Republican leaders to set an example for their party by withdrawing support for Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump and Spineless Republicans

The Dallas Morning News, a long-time Republican supporting publication, has done the same and recommended support for Clinton.

Your linked page is from Feb 12th, i.e. Hillary v Bernie, Ira.

Note they also noted they have never endorsed any candidate this early in the campaign season as they usually preferred to wait for the debates before taking sides but in this case their minds are already made up.

"Every time I think I've hit bottom, somebody hands me a shovel!"

This, hot off the press….."schmuck" would definitely be accurate.

I just watched a news blurb from a Trump rally where, as he is speaking, a baby cries. He pauses, looks in the direction of the mother and child, and says a few words along the line of: "That's okay. I love babies. Who doesn't love babies? What a beautiful baby."

He pauses again and, with a dismissive movement of his hand, demands: "No. Get that baby out of here."

Trump then looks at his audience and, referring to the mother, says: "I think she actually believed I like babies crying when I'm speaking."

'Twould appear that the only thing American he hasn't maligned or otherwise insulted as yet is apple pie. Get prepared ....

Against all odds he found a way to malign Mom, so, as you say, can apple pie be far behind?

It's exactly that which I was referring to + the baby debacle.
His feet are big; fortunately (for them) his mouth is bigger.
BrainDead (summer TV series) come home to roost.

Even more incredible than Trump's offensive comments was the number of toads in the audience who laughed.

Please don't malign "toads", delightful and innocent amphibians, which likely made the pre-adolescent years for many of us a delight. ("Toadies" is a more accurate designation.)

How about his 'delightful' references to the Purple Heart?

The man is so effin' out of it that it is not possible that he is not mentally/chemically imbalanced, as any number of media editorials have opined, to wit (for example):

Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?

STASI: Dictator Donald Trump has gone crazy

Trump's Mental State Is Becoming a Campaign Talking Point

I'm fascinated by the possibilities if he loses to Hillary.

My best guess is that he'll either wind up in jail for inciting rioting or the blow to his ego/inferiority complex will drive him over the edge and he'll descend into complete insanity, maybe both. I think the latter may be the best thing that could happen to America.

If any 'regular' person displayed the bizarre and erratic behavior of Señor Hitler, said individual would almost certainly be consigned to a minimum 30-day psychiatric evaluation to determine his/her fitness to be allowed to remain in 'polite society'. One can only hope that at some point that will be the case ... with the outcome that he would never be released and could be used for experimental purposes (as such inmates were back in the day).

His sickness leaves him reeeally vulnerable; every creative alternative that Hillary and her minions can come up with will drive him closer to the edge.

I've got to wonder what his family is saying privately? (I'd love to be able to tap into his kids' phone conversations.)

Especially Ivanka's opinion of his perverse 'fatherly' comments about (and often to) her and his somewhat-less-than-fatherly touching of her.

Getting back to basics, Meg Whitman just joined the ...ng fast is an enumeration of high profile Republicans who are supporting Hillary.

"fascinated" is not the word I would use. "terrified" maybe?

From everything I've seen recently, a good chunk of the rest of the world is rather freaked out at the possibility, considering how much the US's foreign policies will likely change if he gets in the door. We're already in everybody's business as it is.

Really, what will he do the first month he's in office? Start on his wall with Mexico? Cancel all muslim visas? Cancel foreign trade agreements? Invade North Korea? (ok, that last one may actually have some international support)

You seem to have misread what artie said (loses, not wins). Losing doesn't get him in the door, although it might get him clawing at it.

As Trump's heirs, I'd guess they're worried about his effect on the business. He may appeal to the people who root for him at rallies, but the CEOs and others in boardrooms will be less enamored.

I'd guess they are watching and wondering if it's wise to do business with someone who has so many loose screws.

I can't imagine that his "brand" doesn't suffer and lose credibility and market share every time he opens his mouth.

Edit: But on point, what are their thoughts about his mental health and his antics (for lack of a better word)? If they're not extremely worried, if they think there's nothing "off" or inappropriate about his behavior, then even allowing for childrens' affection for their father there's something seriously wrong with them, too.

There was some interesting speculation from a reputed expert in this mornings paper that Trump's continued complaints about the election process being rigged against him (i.e. debate schedules Hillary's nomination) are all laying the groundwork for...

1. ...blaming his loss of the election on an "I was robbed 😢" sob story and/or
2. …getting his people so worked up they will not accept his defeat creating a constitutionlal crisis and even a possible armed uprising to put The Donald into power unelected and therefore answerable to no one. 💀

The first proposition I find believable, however I am not convinced The Donald is smart enough to carry out so Machiavellian a plot as the second.

I have heard physicians who have said after watching The Donald on television if her were their patient they would order him to bed rest before he has a heart attack or stroke, and some have indicated they are seeing signs of early memory loss or even Alzheimer's. (However both may be wishful thinking.)

1 is apparently laying the groundwork for some level of 2, but your worst case scenario 2 would take major support from the military that I doubt he could muster. Considering his recent denigration of their sacrifices and their parents' resultant grief I wonder if the normally Republican voting military will even go his way in the election. I'd also guess that the military might not be too pleased with a President who wants to cut back on its presence, i.e. the numbers and authority of its high brass.

He'll be treading on very dangerous ground if he incites rioting, which I suspect is where he's going, but I'm really hoping that he just disintegrates into blithering, justifiable, lock-him-up insanity.

Edit: I guess he could attempt to cause a Constitutional crisis by claiming the election was rigged, but I doubt that he could make it stick, although an Obama appointed 7th Supreme Court Justice would really look good to me right about now.

If his kids had any guts, common sense, and common decency they'd have him committed forthwith!

For all you know he’s always been ‘like that’, gradually rendering his family inured to his antics with little reason to do something about it now, as they haven’t seen (?) the necessity of intervening previously. The main difference may be that he now is strutting (t)his stuff in public, causing all kinds of comments that might make them think again. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

I'm most assuredly NOT holding my breath.

Along with the negative comments they're hearing positive stuff, so the bad could just roll off their backs, but it's difficult to imagine them not recognizing that he's getting worse...that his rhetoric is getting ever more dangerous to both himself and America, even if his behavior has remained consistent.

And his continued acceptance of support from David Duke has got to make Ivanka scratch her head even if nothing else fazes her.

In 3 months we'll know the answer, but recent poll data among active duty military (also about 3 months old), suggest support for Trump over Clinton (or Sanders) by better than a 2-to-1 margin*. Despite Trump’s more recent antics there isn’t (yet) much indication that those numbers have changed significantly. Even so, there are many who say they won’t vote for Trump, if they’ll vote at all. In trying to explain this this pro-Trump sentiment, veterans (largely NOT included in the above mentioned poll) have been most vocal:

- Trump or Clinton: For the military, it’s hardly a vote of confidence
- Why Do Veterans Support Donald Trump?
- The military supports Trump for the same reasons civilians support him

*) Somehow, I suspect that this doesn’t quite apply to command levels.

The Marine Corps Times poll was conducted before the Khan and Purple Heart episodes, so I wonder if the upset over Hillary's handling of Benghazi has been lessened by those blunders?

Edit: Donald Trump Risks Alienating Military Communities in Swing States is right on point.

Distaste for Hilary has nothing to do with distaste for Trump among the military portion of the Republican electorate, other than that neither has changed much if at all, yet; the Anti-Trump camp is continuously being strengthened by his antics, while his fans keep on excusing anything negative away. This notion of ‘balance’ between the two camps is clearly expressed in both the title and the body of the article you quote: Trump runs a risk, but hasn’t yet lost support among his fan base.

He's lost some support...so far, the amount is somewhere between negligible and minimal, and the article reports that his military fan base is pretty much intact, but it also indicates that all is not as he'd prefer it to be, that his shiny facade is, even if only ever so slightly, beginning to tarnish.

The ayes will never bring the nays back into their camp, but the nays will undoubtedly win converts.

That probably stems from the nays being Democratic, draft-dodging moles who are masquerading as vets.

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton. This says it all. Trump is totally unqualified to occupy the office of president.

As if that weren't a given already!

I read that, and I'll repost Meg Whitman just joined the list of Republicans for Hillary, because the former is right in line with the latter.

I'm amazed (but shouldn't be) that the reasons these people are giving for supporting Hillary aren't causing massive desertions from Trump's camp.

I certainly hope there'll be an eventual snowball effect.

Perhaps the best that we can hope is that people who dislike both Trump and Clinton (but otherwise would have voted for Trump) will not vote. That leaves fewer votes for Trump and, proportionally, more for Clinton.

I've been thinking along those lines with respect to the military.

It doesn't particularly matter if they don't vote for Hillary (although the help would be nice) as long as they don't vote for Trump.

They can talk him up to maintain face but just not pull the lever when they're in the booth and feel good about themselves.

Sometimes, it's good to see how the news media from other countries view us. Here's one from the BBC: Trump campaign teeters on the brink Let's hope that this is not a fluke! Still, it's a long way until November.

Nice article, but nothing eye-opening; it and the others I've read all talk about the possibility of Trump's changing course (Quote BBC: If Mr Trump can get back on message with a few carefully modulated speeches....), and all ignore the fact that HE CAN'T; he's a prisoner of his own psyche.

All the Democrats have to do is be creative and trot out someone new to insult Trump in a new and different way once every week and he'll forget that there's anything else of importance going on in his life; he's like a bluefish that'll strike at anything shiny.

Spot on!

I agree with your sentiment, but I have to vociferously disagree with your methodology. Too many men and women have served and too many have died to guarantee our right to vote. I am of the opinion someone who doesn't vote has in effect renounced their citizenship and needs to move elsewhere to make room for new immigrants who will take pride in their duties as citizens of this, their new country.

Oops I nearly fell off my soap box.

You can stay on your soap box. IMHO, voting should be mandatory for all citizens. Is that too radical?

I don't know how Texas works, but until not all that long ago NY drew jurors from voting rolls, so many people never registered to vote in order to avoid jury duty.

Talk about it!

In Texas the jury rolls are pulled from the driver's license database.

I imagine that a person is far more likely to have a driver's license in Texas than in NY.

Since maybe the '80s, NY has used every piece of paper it's got to find prospective jurors...voting rolls, driver's licenses, tax returns, and, as far as I know, all other public records.

The effort has apparently been wildly successful, because when I was first called in the mid-60s it was for two weeks every two years, and it's now every eight years and only one day unless you're selected for a jury or on an ongoing voir dire.

I'll leave it to the media to speak for themselves, but I can attest to the fact that he has the citizens of other countries wondering. For example:

Donald Trump brought out his economic "plan" which includes a plan to re-negotiate the NAFTA. And he says: "If we can't get a new deal we will walk away."

Good going Mr. Trump. You're going to walk away from your country's single biggest customer (by a wide margin), a customer who purchases more than $330 billion of your goods and services every year.

Canada buys more from the U.S. than from any other nation. But, let's get a bit more focussed. How about the impact on your home state of New York. Well....

• Canada is New York’s #1 customer

• Total Canada–New York goods trade exceeds $30 billion per year


And, saving the best for last......

• nearly 700,000 jobs in New York depend on Canada–U.S. trade and investment.

This Canadian has only one question: How can anyone be so stupid?

It seems to me that a mandatory voting requirement is the very antithesis of a free and democratic society. Maybe not.
But if I were forced to vote (especially upon pain of penalty) I would — on principle — spoil my ballot, no matter what the issue being voted upon or my attitude towards it.

As for the comment that "Too many men and women have served and too many have died to guarantee our right to vote": The flip side of that is that they died to guarantee our right not to vote. That's the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society.

You make some good points, Grelber. On the other hand, although we (theoretically) have a free and democratic society, we are still compelled to do certain things as citizens. Included in this is the obligation to pay taxes and to serve in the military if and when the draft is reinstated. Although I would not be serious about compelling everyone to vote, those who don't, IMHO, have lost credibility because they don't participate in this fundamental right.

I fully agree. I just don't think that "coercion" is the right and proper means of achieving an end.
(And contrary to Señor Hitler, waterboarding doesn't work either.)

I think "Maybe not".

In order to work, a free and democratic society requires that all the participants do some things and don't do others. When a person does something they should not do, there's a consequence…fines, incarceration, whatever.

It seems to me that, when a person does not do something they should do, there should also be a consequence. Getting to "consequence" begins with formalizing the requirement. e.g. Mandatory voting.

Australia seems to have found a good compromise( introduced in 1924). In their compulsory voting system, failure to vote results in a fine. They have experienced a decent rise in participation but it's not 100% because about 5% of their citizens choose to pay the fine rather than vote.

What do you expect from a country which was founded by criminals (ie, started out as a penal colony)?!

There are a couple dozen countries which have instituted compulsory voting, but about half of them don't bother to enforce it.

As noted earlier, if forced to vote (by some sort of Orwellian overlords), I would prefer to subvert the system (by spoiling my ballot).

In case it isn't obvious, I count myself as a "conservative anarchist" and was mentored by the best in that regard.

There have been a number of proposals to increase participation in the electoral process in the United States, such as making voting day a national holiday, changing the day of the week to Saturday and/or Sunday, but congress has steadfastly refused any such measures hiding from their own cupidity behind a curtain of tradition.. Arguably the fewer voters there are the easier it is to swing an election one way or the other. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of papers, books, blogs, editorials, studies, etc. on this very topic.

In my home state of Texas, the far right wing extremists in the legislature, have led the state to spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to reduce access to the ballot box, and defending their patently racist laws through the federal courts only to get slapped down again and again until we are one again teetering on the brink of a federally managed electoral system. You might well ask where the money for all the law suits comes from and sadly ther answer is much of it comes from reduced state support of schools, and programs for economically disadvantaged children. There may be light at the end of the tunnel, a credible movement in the GOP to put forth a more moderate candidate in opposition to the darling of the extreme right, the freshman senator from Texas Ted Cruz. (Unverified rumor has it the Senate Republican caucus is helping fund the movement.)

Oops, I still haven't climbed down from my soapbox — I would apologize, but I am not a proponent of lying either.

Just when you thought that Trump could not stoop lower: Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton The reactions of the audience are even more appalling. If this is the American electorate, I'm profoundly ashamed. And Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave.

"Guy behind Trump immediately realized what he said was a problem." shows the part that was cut from the Times video.

Note the shocked reaction of the man in red and that the woman next to him apparently thought it was funny; he doesn't look very pleased with her reaction (as can be seen in the Times video).

Edit: Hmmm... I wonder why the Times edited the video in Trump's favor?

Here's a statistic from Americans More Positive About Democratic Than GOP Convention that has been overlooked so far:

Likelihood to Vote for Party's Presidential Candidate Based on What You Saw/Read About Party's Convention...

The 2016 Republican convention is the first after which a greater percentage of Americans have said they are "less likely" rather than "more likely" to vote for the party's presidential nominee.

The man has obliquely encouraged rioting and the assassination of a political rival, and blatantly committed treason...all with impunity, and his followers love it.

This election has changed America very much for the worse, and it isn't even close to over.

I think that the wrong people are being targeted for deportation!

It appears to me that the NY Times is trying to report as objectively as possible in order to avoid the appearance of bias. That paper certainly is not sparing Clinton: Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap, probably because the Times is widely regarded as having a liberal bias (which is certainly true when you read the editorials). The Times needs to maintain an air of neutrality in reporting the news.

However, the BBC has no reason to pull its punches. See US election: Anger over Donald Trump gun rights remarks

Sorry, Jon, but I think that objectivity and neutrality demand that events be reported as they happen...by definition.

Agreed, Artie. I felt that the Times article about Trump soft-pedaled the implications of his remarks, unlike the coverage of the BBC. The Times tried to report what happened, without too much interpretation. That should be left to the editorial page.

Here's the Times editorial: Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump

Much as I might agree with BBC's analysis of the U. S. presidential race, To the best of my knowledge they have never claimed to be unbiased in their reporting.

What happened is that one of Trump's supporters showed shock over the comment and the Times did NOT report it.

After looking at the video again it now appears to me that they edited out the man's shock and left his rolling his eyes at his neighbor's reaction as his reaction, i.e. they rewrote history.

Shame on the Times!

Interesting how the editorial mentions that the man's jaw dropped, but it, embarrassingly, has been edited out of the video.

All reporting is biased. Otherwise all news sources would just be stylistic variations on a theme. Just look at Fox News vs any other outlet. You just have to choose your "poison".

Ain't it grand?!

In the same spirit (of tit for tat) I would suggest a drone strike using a Hellfire missile (or two) on the next Tromp [sic] gathering.

Or perhaps old school: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
Does the Republican candidate and scene remind anyone else of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now (1979) or Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, now the definitive version)? Col Kurtz looks peculiarly ~ positively sane when compared to DJT.

There's a "bad drivers" joke there somewhere I'm having trouble teasing out at the moment...

And just when you thought Señor Hitler couldn't get any crazier:

Donald Trump Calls Obama ‘Founder of ISIS’ and Says It Honors Him

His continuing to pander to the crazies who are already in his pocket rather than attempting to win converts or recoup losses is either mystifying or an affirmation of his narcissistic need to hear people cheer at whatever crackpot idea has popped into his head in the last 5 seconds.

Speaking of Hitler, Mike Pence Hints at Trump’s Muslim Ban Extending to Other Religions Looks like Trump's running mate may be as bad as he. And, there is a rather strong implication that Trump's purported buddy, Vladimir Putin, may be trying to rig the election. Hack of Democrats’ Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say.

Obama now? Didn't he once say that Hilary was the one that founded ISIS? Seems like he'll point that stick at anyone...

Donald Trump, Insisting He Won’t Change His Style, Repeats Claim Obama Founded ISIS. You aren't stupid if you make a mistake. You ARE stupid if you continue making the same mistake and expect a different result. Unfortunately, The Donald also appears to be insane (literally).

Yup…nuttier than a fruitcake.

The only thing I find as nutty as Trump is the continuing support he gets from senior Republicans with their comments like "Well, he won the nomination fair and square", and blah, blah, blah. I'm beginning to think they all need to go into the shop for a mental rebuild.

They're more concerned about their own fates if they don't support him than they are about America's possible fate if they do.

Their own and everybody else's fates are to turn into ash in a nuclear holocaust if the Wonder Chimpâ„¢ gets anywhere near the nuclear codes. The only survivors will be ants and cockroaches.

Oh, come now, that's hyperbole.

There are many species of bacteria and archaea that would survive, as would the weird life forms around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. It's entirely possible a number of plants might survive as well.

Granted. But grant me the poetic license. Just because it's "hypobole" (neologism for understatement) doesn't vitiate the central "theme".

My guess is that there's facetious intent in tacit's response that you've missed.

As long as that weird life form from New York expires with the rest of us.

Didn't miss it. Added to it.

Trump Risks Hitting Ceiling as Swing Voters Say, ‘Enough’

• Instead of widening his appeal, Donald J. Trump continues to alienate certain groups, leaving him stagnant in the polls.
• Loyal Republicans, anti-establishment independents, Clinton-averse Democrats and other potential voters are turning away from him.

Rah!

Let's count ourselves lucky that Trump is not as Macchiavellian as Hitler or Stalin. He wears his numerous character flaws on his sleeve and isn't sneaky enough to become a good manipulator. Of course, his die-hard followers don't care.

I can't believe that he is actually stupid (despite evidence to the contrary) but I do believe that his ego and insecurity make it impossible for him to slough off criticism. That's to the advantage of the US in this election. Donald Trump’s Other Campaign Foe: The ‘Lowest Form of Life’ News Media

Despite the fact that he is a complete political novice, Trump won't believe that anyone could possibly know more than him about politics. Real experts in the Republican party try to save him, and their party, by urging him to stay on message….but he ignores them and shoots off his mouth. I think that's stupid, really stupid.

That struck a chord with me, because Trump's extraordinary concession that he may actually lose the election, its language in particular, had already gotten me wondering if he's scared of the Presidency and is (perhaps subconsciously) not actively trying to win the election...using "just continuing to be myself" as an excuse for (perhaps also subconsciously) actively trying to lose it.

This may be a rerun of "The Producers": he may have gotten into the campaign to promote his brand with the expectation of losing, and having won is hoist. (Has "Springtime for Señor Hitler" turned to winter?)

Maybe he's not all that stupid?

Surely you mean Señor Hitler.

Winter is coming. And this could be a real-life rendition of Game of Thrones.

Most assuredly!

Edit: Corrected.

I just listened to a portion of a discussion — part of CBC Radio One's overnight international programming — dealing with Lionel Shriver's “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047”, a financial dystopia novel.
One of the participants opined that DJT would never work (be credible) as a character on the fictional page because he is too "broad".

That thought certainly crossed my mind. In fact, I recall thinking (when the whole thing started) that he would only stay in the race long enough to enhance his image a bit, and then he'd drop out.

However it would seem his ego got the best of him and, instead of dropping out, he thought "Hey, maybe I could do this". So he stayed in and now that everything is blowing up in his face, he wants out again.

And too, someone probably reminded him that a big part of the President's job is caring about and for others. At that point his anathema alarm started ringing and he got panicky.

Rove picked up on Trump's fear early on, which suggests that he may never have thought that he could do the job, so I'll suggest that he's stayed in the race to get the most bang out of the $50 million of his own dollars he invested promoting his brand in the primaries.

He loves publicity...even if it's bad, and in that respect, he's certainly promoting(?) himself and his brand big time now, and with other people's money now, to boot, and in doing so, he's extricating himself from the sticky position of possibly having to be President of the United States.

I gotta admit he sure is getting plenty of the bad stuff. Today's polls suggest he likely can't even carry New York State. Har har har.



My question would be: "What's the benefit of the promotion?". It doesn't matter that he has thousands of lunatics cheering him on. Let's face it - What can they do for him once it's over?

And the people who could be of benefit to him (the people who own or run businesses) must be wondering if they want to make deals with someone so close to lunacy.