Clinton will lose to Trump

Well, the fact that Donald Trump is going
to be the Rep nominee,
and Hillary Clinton is going to be the
Dem nominee….makes me too ill
to read anymore on the subject.

I might very well vote for Trump.
Just because, i think its possible
that a “amerika jumps the shark” moment
like that, just might, possibly,
wake people the fuck up 🙂

Ya know.

President Trump. Just….imagine it.
Really, pause, and think about
it. What it sez.
…what ‘does’ it say??

…maybe people will want to rethink
their answers on my “would you eliminate 6.6 Billion
humans if u could…”

w
v

I’m just going to bury my head in my pillow and sleep for four years.

Trump.
Clinton 3.0

You’re right. We need to wake the fuck up. Or take a civics class.

Personally? I think Clinton holds her own against a bully like Trump. She proved that to me in those congressional hearings when she faced off against a bunch of bullies. In a word she’s got balls and is tough if not tougher than Trump. While my personal values are much closer to Sanders I don’t see him standing a chance against the bully.

And, in the general election, I would never vote for Trump to make a “statement”. We tried that with Nader and ended up with Bush which led to Al Qaeda which led to ISIS which led to…

The email fiasco was the very subject of the hearings and not only did she hold her own but she made the republicans look like asses. $225,000 dough from Wall street for a speech? I ain’t refusing that either. Flaws? We all got em.

What it all comes down to for me is Trump v Clinton. To me the choice is clear. To many others there is no difference in the choices. So be it.

wv wrote:

Well, the fact that Donald Trump is going
to be the Rep nominee,
and Hillary Clinton is going to be the
Dem nominee….makes me too ill
to read anymore on the subject.

I might very well vote for Trump.
Just because, i think its possible
that a “amerika jumps the shark” moment
like that, just might, possibly,
wake people the fuck up

Ya know.

President Trump. Just….imagine it.
Really, pause, and think about
it. What it sez.
…what ‘does’ it say??

…maybe people will want to rethink
their answers on my “would you eliminate 6.6 Billion
humans if u could…”

w
v

Well, there seems to be a substantial segment of college age kids who support Sanders now. Maybe 4 years of Trump would cause that segment to grow into a giant roiling mass of Green Party lovin’, social justice warriors.

waterfield wrote:

The email fiasco was the very subject of the hearings and not only did she hold her own but she made the republicans look like asses.

Fiasco? Was that before the thousands of emails containing classified information were discovered after having been wiped from HER server in HER bathroom? The FBI is still trying to recover the other thousands of emails wiped from the server. Immunity from prosecution was given to the underling who installed the server. Following the smoke to the fire it appears. No wiggle room on this.

The classified stuff on the emails? ugh. Now they want to make Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell collateral damage in this witch hunt.

At issue is the practice of retroactive classification, which is an asinine practice. AT THE TIME an email was sent, the material wasn’t classified. There was no reason to believe it would ever BE classified. Much of the material is classified for trivial reasons that would NOT withstand a full review and the Republicans on the Committee know this as do BOTH former Republican Secretaries of State.

Had Secretary Clinton broken the law, I’d be first in line to insist she answer for it. I’m no fan. But these knuckleheads like Trey Goudy and Darrell Issa are constantly moving the goal posts in an effort to try to politically ensare Secretary Clinton.

As I saw on twitter recently, not releasing the transcripts is also asinine. The notion that those transcripts aren’t already out there is absurd, so if there’s something that can be used against her…. it’s waiting and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.

No, Zooey, I don’t.

That said, I really appreciated your post in the other thread. Hillary is the biggest sell-out.

Trump v. Hillary won’t spend a moment on POLICY because Trump will turn it into a personality contest and Hillary doesn’t have any.

Hillary supporters will go full Vegan and act like Gore supporters when people vote against their self-interest. At least with Gore, it’s just that he was boring.

Hillary comes across as “lawyerly” in the worst possible way… guarded, slick, slimy, overly clever, somewhat smart, but not wise in the slightest with the morals of a hungry and rabid wolf.

Trump is a liar and so is Clinton. Thing is that Clinton takes herself seriously.

Trump v. Clinton will suck hairy cab driver swamp ass…

I must say I am surprised Bernie has done so well.
I just assumed he would get the usual ‘green party 3 percent’.
Ya know. The Nader three percent. That sort of thing.
But to see him actually winning in places like Colorado and Minnesota —
that is just unreal to me. Yes, Clinton is going to win,
and it will be the Billionaire-right-winger vs the Corporate-Puppet,
but ‘something’ has changed in this country and not just on the Right.

There is simply no way, i would have predicted a socialist like Bernie
(i dont wanna quibble about what he is) would actually outright WIN
a number of states in Amerika.

A little hope in the Dark. Not a lot, but
still…a little. Perhaps, possibly, maybe…there
is hope for the Human species. Maybe, if they
dont completely destroy themselves in a thousand years….

I smile, and sigh,
and salute the Bern.

…now back to the destruction of the biosphere,
and all that is good and holy by the Usual suspects…

Oh, and fuck the South.

w
v

zn wrote:

I think if humans don’t hurt themselves trying, they can go 10-6. Easy.

———————-
Wildcard planet, definitely. Not elite, though.
Goes without saying.
Barring corporate personhood. Or a meltdown.

w
v

I doubt it. However, she will need to out bully him which she can do if she gets away from the “I have a plan” standard political speech. Note the absence of these words from Trump. And as these elections have shown so far we know how America loves rough, tough, beat em up bullies which should not surprise us football fans. And when it comes to orally beating the crap out of someone she is as good if not better than Trump. Now will she make a good President. Who the hell knows ?

As far as the emails goes I doubt if charges are ever brought there can be any conviction. There is a component in any criminal proceeding that requires an intent to knowingly break the law. And in the federal statutes at law this intent require goes further and requires an intent to injure or damage another. Simply put, acting negligently-which clearly she did-is not enough. Even gross negligence is insufficient. But is that enough to disqualify her for the office? IMO if you weigh the email stuff against her performance as New York senator and her performance as Secretary of State the former should not even be a consideration.

Now , looking at her performance in those offices, she clearly is a pragmatist and is part of the “establishment” which to many is anathema and should disqualify her from any political office. To those-I offer you Trump.

“It’s a bad establishment, and getting worse.There are people who are situated so they never have to suffer from it, and I suppose they are either blind to it, or bland about it.”

But this is exactly a perfect description as to what is happening to the GOP as we speak. Personally, I think that Trump or Cruz is far worse that a mainstream democrat. The word “evil” comes to mind thinking of them as President. Hillary is a politician and tough as nails in the LBJ mode but I never think of her as being evil. If she becomes President she may well champion ideas -not necessarily legislation-that will piss off both the left and the right but if one of those other yahoos becomes President there will be actual injury to the disenfranchised and poor people in this country and other countries. And those on the right will all jump with joy.

zn wrote:

read up on LePage some day, which is just one example but one that hits home

In case anyone thinks I am exaggerating.

—

—

House Democrats put LePage’s immigration bill on ice

A parliamentary move by House Majority Leader Jeff McCabe tables the governor’s proposal to withhold money from cities and towns that won’t let police ask about a person’s immigration status.

BY KEVIN MILLER

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/15/lawmakers-put-lepage-immigration-bill-into-limbo/

AUGUSTA — House Democrats moved Tuesday to quickly squash a proposal from Gov. Paul LePage to withhold state funding from municipalities that prohibit police from asking about a person’s immigration status or that do not share immigration information with federal authorities.

Democrats’ decision to send LePage’s immigration proposal to legislative limbo without debate also underscores the increasingly tense relations between the Republican governor’s office and Democratic leaders as the session enters its final weeks.

“In one fell swoop, he would both set up police to pull over people based on the color of their skin and punish communities by withholding their funding if they don’t go along,” said House Assistant Majority Leader Sara Gideon, D-Freeport, in a prepared statement. “We have no place for these blatantly racist Trump-like maneuvers in Maine.”

LePage’s short but sweeping bill appeared targeted at so-called “sanctuary cities” that have policies or practices prohibiting inquiries – whether from police or municipal employees – about an individual’s immigration status.

The late-session bill would have denied municipalities state funding for education and General Assistance as well as any portion of the state’s “revenue sharing” pie for such policies, whether they were formal written ordinances or informal policies. Towns also would have been deemed ineligible for that state funding if they did not share information with federal immigration officials.

“I put in the bill because we have a problem – not just in Maine but all over the country – of municipal and state governments refusing to cooperate with federal immigration law and of basically harboring illegal immigrants,” said Rep. Larry Lockman, R-Amherst, who sponsored the bill, L.D. 1652, on LePage’s behalf.

But advocates for Maine’s immigrant population as well as a representative from the Maine Municipal Association said they were not aware of any “sanctuary cities” in the state.

“It does appear to be focused on ‘sanctuary cities,’ but it doesn’t have a practical purpose here,” said Sue Roche, executive director of the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project. “And it does seem to be targeting immigrants.”

LePage spokeswoman Adrienne Bennett declined to discuss the bill on Tuesday because she had not been briefed on the issue. But the bill is consistent with LePage’s focus on curtailing state support for so-called undocumented immigrants.

On his very first day in office in January 2011, LePage issued an executive order that he said was aimed at ending Maine’s status as a “sanctuary state.” LePage rescinded a 2004 executive order issued by his predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, that prohibited state officials from asking about a person’s immigration status or disclosing that information except during investigations into illegal activity or in other specific circumstances.

LePage has continued to assert that Portland and some other Maine towns are sanctuary cities, such as during a September campaign stop in New Hampshire with his friend and former presidential contender, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Asked Tuesday about the issue, Portland City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin said Maine’s largest municipality “is not a sanctuary city.”

“While Chapter 2 of our city code does state that city employees are not to ask the immigration status of individuals who are seeking city services, unless ordered to do so by a court or law, the ordinance further states that law enforcement personnel are to cooperate with federal officials, which is contrary to what a sanctuary city would do,” Grondin wrote in an email.

LePage’s bill appears to be a continuation of his push to exert financial pressure on municipalities – most notably Portland – that provide assistance to immigrants who are living in Maine without visas. That population of immigrants, whom LePage often refers to as “illegal immigrants,” often includes individuals who are seeking asylum in the U.S. from persecution in their home countries.

Many asylum seekers arrive in Maine on temporary student, work or visitation visas but then file for asylum, a process that typically takes years. Cities such as Portland, Westbrook and Lewiston have struggled with whether to continue to provide General Assistance to asylum seekers – who cannot legally work for at least six months after they file for asylum – in the face of moves by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit state welfare funds from flowing to the population.

The House’s 77-67 vote to have the bill “tabled unassigned” doesn’t kill the bill but, instead, means the legislation will linger in the House until House Majority Leader Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan, decides to “remove it from the table.” McCabe showed little inclination Tuesday to do that and suggested he could employ a similar tactic against other controversial, late-session bills from the governor that he deemed “political in nature.”

“The committees have plenty of work to do,” McCabe said afterward.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine cheered the House Democratic maneuver.

“Police can do their job better when every member of the community feels safe talking to them,” Oamshri Amarasingham, advocacy director at the ACLU of Maine, said in a statement. “We should be encouraging law enforcement to build trust among immigrant communities – not punishing them for doing so.”

But Lockman, the bill’s sponsor, predicted that the votes to table the bill without a public hearing on Tuesday will still haunt the lawmakers.

“I think it shows the length to which the Democratic leadership will go to protect their members because they are on the wrong side of this issue,” Lockman said. “The public is concerned about public safety.”

Mackeyser wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

If you want a revolution vote for Trump.Yes it will be awful but that is what it will take to cause a revolt.Trump is setting turnout records while every state Clinton wins turnout is way way down . Sanders wins when turnout is high, in MN we set a record for turnout and Sanders won by 20pts. The FBI investigation, the one Clinton calls a security review when of course the FBI doesn’t do “security reviews” is rumored to wrap in May so Sanders has got to stay in it at least until then. He’s got the money and is leading in 16 of 20 states left.

Doesn’t matter. 16 of 20? And?

Even if he wins those 16 of 20… which won’t happen now… thanx to the MSM basically acting as shills for Trump and Clinton because…why not, it’s a ratings fucking bonanza!

And Hillary is going to win CA and she’ll win NY or tie which means Bernie won’t make up any ground.

Even if Bernie won those 16 states, Bernie would have to DOMINATE and after her Super Tuesday sweep, the chances of that, short of being indicted, is NIL.

Which means unless Hillary is indicted and unless Trump gets screwed at the RNC, it’s going to be Clinton V. Trump: the Lesser of Two Evils

That’s why I said at least until May. Bernie’s doing well in CA. but yeah at this point it will take some kind of scandal. I know there are some law guys on this board, how likely is it they would give immunity if they had no case ? Even I know immunity is not given in a “security review”.