Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Monday, February 17, 2020


Mike Bloomberg-Hillary Clinton: Could they beat Trump?

Bloomberg - Clinton

This pair may be proven research, but it looks to me like a train wreck going somewhere to happen. When you Google "Hillary Haters," you get 7.4 million hits. But, when you do the same with supporters, you get 22.6 million, so maybe I am wrong. My initial reaction comes from blogging during the 2016 election, seeing the ire from so many commenters and across the board when it comes to profiles. But Bloomberg's research team does appear to have credibility.

On the other hand, RealClearPolitics says, "Bloomberg May Be What Democrats Need." RCP continues that the 77-year-old, former Republican, billionaire is probably not what the Dems want, at least Progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The Bern does say that Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the election, which, if you look at the mechanics of Bloomberg using his money only to fund his campaign, might vaguely qualify for the accusation.

RCP considers Buttigieg and Klobuchar, but lacking the experience and a strong following, rules them out. Democrats need Bloomberg for four reasons...
"First, the former New York mayor has done real things. Building a multibillion-dollar business from scratch and ably managing New York City for 12 years are concrete accomplishments. Making speeches and sitting in committee hearings – the core tasks of being in Congress – are no match for what Bloomberg has done."
"Second, Bloomberg is not a left-wing ideologue."
"Third, competence. Bloomberg knows how to make things run."
"Fourth, Bloomberg guarantees a first-class campaign. He can fund the entire general election out of petty cash. Two billion? Three billion? Four billion?"
 With the favored candidate, Joe Biden, in a downward spiral, recoiling from being originally "available, acceptable and electable," here's the latest scenario...
"a recent Quinnipiac poll shows his once-powerful support among black and moderate Democrats nationally has taken a tumble since Iowa."
Warren is fairing no better, and all this considering Bloomberg skipped campaigning in the first four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The experts thought he was crazy, but turns out he made a smart strategic move with the demise of Biden. The Buttigieg/Klobuchar profiles are fairly similar and I can see their followers going to Bloomberg, should they drop out of the race. But here's a possible obstacle that could throw everything into chaos.

Based on a recent release, Michael Bloomberg may be considering the selection of Hillary Clinton as a running mate. Now that may show strength to his strategists, but I can see it as pissing off Klobuchar and Buttigieg, if, in fact, as I have surmised earlier, each is now not running for president, rather, for vice president. Depending on how the two react, they could stay in the race, which, of course would siphon votes from Bloomberg.

As far as electability goes...
"On November electability, which was Biden’s calling card, Bloomberg is now doing better than other Democrats. The most recent Quinnipiac poll places Bloomberg ahead of Trump by a sizable nine percentage points. The latest Fox News poll has Bloomberg beating the White House occupant by eight points. Even polls that show narrower Democratic margins place Bloomberg in a relatively strong position for November."
On the Progressive side, haven't seen any recent polls for the Bern against T-rump, but in the past Sanders has been in the lead. For what it's worth the BBC says, "US election 2020: Could it be Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump?" This should be a very interesting fall.   READ MORE...

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Who says nobody likes Bernie Sanders?

Hillary Clinton statement "Nobody likes Bernie Sanders" backfires


Here is Newsweek's headline: "#ILIKEBERNIE TRENDS AFTER HILLARY CLINTON SAYS 'NOBODY LIKES' BERNIE SANDERS." This sent Bernie's supporters to the Internet in the thousands to show just how much they do like Bernie Sanders. And you would think someone as disliked as Clinton was in 2016, when she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluded to secretly give the Democratic nomination to Hillary, would keep her mouth shut. But she didn't, and now it is clear who the most liked of the two is.

Clinton even indicated the possibility that she might not support Sanders if he receives the nomination for this November's election. This at a time when Bernie is surging in the polls...
"Overall, 27% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents back Sanders, while 24% favor Biden."
It is clear moderate Democrats are hell-bound to knock Bernie Sanders out of the race simply because he is both Progressive and an Independent. It isn't working because there are 57.7 million Progressives out there and of the 137.4 million Independents, 52% are Progressive, Get used to it old line Democrats.   READ MORE...

Monday, April 29, 2019

Wake up Democrats...Bernie Sanders can win


Bernie has the ball(s)
I cannot believe that major donors, party operatives, senior lawmakers and rival candidate Pete Buttigieg would conspire against another liberal who has shown that he can not only raise big funds but also spark a huge lineup of contributors and loyal volunteers. But they did. Is there jealousy on the part of these lawmakers and fellow candidates, the fact that they may have dismal track records? Or do they simply wish they had the balls to do what Bernie is doing?

I am not completely sold on the Bern yet, and won't be until he gets much more aggressive on gun control. One of his volunteers called me recently since my wife and I had supported him in 2016, and I told him my concern over the gun control issue. So, I have to look at Joe Biden, who, although middle of the road, seems more inclined to get solidly behind the gun violence issue. But let's just assume Bernie does come out solid in this area.

Some say the Vermont Senator isn't electable, but then he didn't get the chance to challenge Trump in 2016 thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee. Few can claim the favorability ratings that Sanders has maintained since coming on the presidential scene. Right now he is outperforming Trump in the polling. The Guardian says there's infighting and bad blood left from his run against Hillary Clinton. Here's a point of view...
"social psychology research tells us that people who have different ideas about politics than us are not generally bad people – they’re mostly good people with different convictions."
Bernie Sanders' convictions are definitely different than establishment Democrats, but in my eyes they are also definitely better. That's why I am an Independent.

Please give me your COMMENTS on this issue.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Trump to beat in 2020...if he's still around


And here is the left's voting problem
Now these are opinions based on the statements of political experts that were involved in past and current elections. They take into consideration the election of Barack Obama in 2012, and the fact that in 2016, "Voters were looking for something more "strident" than Obama’s "incrementalist agenda." In other words, they wanted a faster track than Clinton was exhibiting. Something like Bernie Sanders. Not sure, though, they wanted the ignorant bluster of a Donald Trump, but he was elected; they wanted action not promises. Trump was a mover and shaker and he excited people.

That's all proven to be big mouthed bullshit, but those who still support the Oval Office lunatic are solid in their backing. The last I heard they were around 30%, an easily beatable figure. The Democratic candidate was all wrong in 2016; it should have been Bernie Sanders but the fraud of DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, nominated Hillary Clinton. Maybe Sanders will run again, or perhaps the left could convince someone like James Comey, former FBI Director, to run as a Democrat. Think about that...James Comey running against Donald Trump. More on this later.

One of the main items on the Progressives/Democrats agenda is getting out the vote. According to Nate Silver's 538, the Republicans were able to get their voters to the polls much more aggressively than Democrats. Progressives naturally rejected Hillary Clinton because of the DNC fiasco, and the fact that it was this that beat their candidate, Bernie Sanders. If Sanders plans to run in 2020, and his age will be a factor, he must throw his hat in now. We also cannot rule out Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Whoever it is, the youth vote must be considered.

The Progressive/Democratic candidate must enthusiastically go after social media to spread its message to all ages and over all political persuasions. The Russia probe of Donald Trump should be a great handle for the left. If a Progressive candidate is nominated, the Democrats must get behind him or her. Many political pundits talk of the potential success of a Sanders/Warren ticket in 2020 winning big on the Progressive side, combining experience with youth, two people who seem to excite their followers to action, meaning voting.

If Trump does last, the candidates on the left will have the most corrupt administration that this country has ever experienced to run against. There are the Donald Trump daily lies, his Stormy Daniels and similar escapades, firing of FBI Director Jim Comey in obvious obstruction of justice in the Russian investigation, the scandal over Michael Cohen's consulting, more obstruction of justice, again, involving Comey, in defending Michael Flynn, and the list goes on and on. Never in the history of American elections has there been this kind of ammunition for a political party.

But...will the Progressives/Democrats be able to pull it off???

Read more: How Hillary Clinton blew it
                   How Trump won the election: volatility and a common touch
                   How did Trump win? Here are 24 theories

Monday, November 6, 2017

Bernie Sanders would have trampled Trump in 2016


Donna Brazile would have replaced Hillary with Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders has his faults, like weak on gun control, soft on black issues, and light when it comes to women's rights. But his popularity soared in 2016, while Donald Trump struggled to maintain his position. Yet, Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the race for President. The Bern's campaign group says they now have proof that the DNC was favoring Clinton, and Donna Brazile said she seriously considered replacing Clinton with V.P. Joe Biden. Sanders says in Rolling Stone Dems should concentrate on bread and butter issues like healthcare and the economy, not Robert Mueller's investigation, but Bloomberg reports the Russia baggage will follow Republicans into 2018. In my earlier blog today, Half of America thinks Trump guilty of criminal acts, 53% convinced of broad wrongdoing in Trump Russia case, and 58% of public thinks Trump investigation is right on.

Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump in 2016...

Definitely proven the 2016 campaign was rigged against Bernie Sanders...

Donna Brazile almost replaced Hillary Clinton with Joe Biden...

Bernie Sanders not sure Robt. Mueller investigation Dems' focus for 2018...

Bloomberg says Russian baggage will follow Republicans into 2018...

Friday, May 5, 2017

DNC convinced it has right to rig Democratic primary


Not only are they convinced of this but the Democratic National Committee is using this premise as the basis for their defense in a lawsuit against the organization for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's bias toward Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. The DNC said in a court of law that the party is not obligated to run a fair and impartial primary election implying, "We rigged primaries. So what." Wasserman Schultz agreed, apparently, being the ringleader in the rigging and being fired in disgrace as a result. The losers, the American voters and Bernie Sanders.

The charges against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and negligence. According to RT, "The suit has three different classes of plaintiffs - those who donated to the DNC, those who donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign and all members of the Democratic Party." I fit into the second class, those who contributed generously to Bernie Sander's campaign. It would be comforting to see Wasserman Schultz and whoever was in this with her go to jail. I am sure Bernie Sanders will agree.

It doesn't appear the DNC defense has much of a chance based on a comment by Tom Perez, the current chair. WND.com reports while campaigning to become the DNC chairman, he even admitted in February that the Democratic Party primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton. And on top of all this, Democratic influential Donna Brazile admitted she used her position at CNN to pass on debate questions to the Clinton campaign. It's beginning to become apparent why many in the Democratic establishment are trying to distance themselves from the Clintons.

Take a look at the following and then wonder with me just how this man was ever admitted to the bar. Here is DNC attorney Bruce Spiva's argument...
"...where you have a party that’s saying, ‘We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road,’ which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have – and we could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.'”
God forbid. The man sounds like Donald Trump. This brings up once again my suggestion that we dump the Democratic Party and start all over for the liberals. This time we'll get it right because we'll populate Washington with Progressives and get rid of the McConnells and Ryans and the rest of the Republican riff raff. 2018!

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The blatant hypocrisy of white evangelicals


81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump for President of the United States. That is the most powerful position in the world and these poor souls helped put someone in it who represents racism, all kinds of bigotry, is an admitted womanizer, and collects people around him as advisers with close connections to white nationalists organizations. If this is Christianity, I am glad I broke with it years ago. On the other hand, those who don't profess any particular religious (68%) voted for Hillary Clinton. My bet is Trump is 1/10 the religious person that Clinton is.

But in my book, religion doesn't make a damn bit of difference when running this country. There is, of course, the separation of church and state, which has been trampled over in recent years, but the values a President needs don't stem from the Bible, they come from the realization of what is right for this country and its people. Bernie Sanders had what it takes to do what is right for all the people, evening up the injustices bestowed on the poor and needy, even up to the middle class, by the wealthy and the Republican administration. Even some Democrats helped out.

Here's how Paul Djupe, of the Washington Post explains it...
"How did we get here? One answer is sorting. That is, people may reevaluate their religious membership when they sense political (or other) disagreement, leaving their houses of worship more homogeneous organizations. While this happens across the religious spectrum, here we highlight new evidence that disagreement over Trump’s candidacy actually led some evangelicals to leave their church."
In the latter, above, it was around 15% who felt that politics had become too divisive and left their houses of worship in the study done. Agreed, Donald Trump is the most divisive issue to drive politics in many years and the results weren't really that conclusive with Trump's support on a scale of 0-100, coming in at an average of 48. But then Clinton's was only 25, indicating once again that the wrong Democrat was nominated to run. But the big question is, what in the world could have driven that 81% to vote for a man that is so non-Christian in his values?

According to several surveys, Trump attracted the white, uneducated vote, which must have included at least some of those white evangelicals, perhaps like many others who voted Republican and were highly uninformed. The WP report also found that the evangelical clergy had very little to say about Trump in church, perhaps to keep from alienating the believers. And this no doubt is a rebuilding effort for the liberal and moderate church-goers who are fed up with the religious right. They come to church for the God experience, not the Donald John show.

Pew Research says that one-third of those who attend evangelical churches have less than a high school education and although this includes blacks, the latter is still a small amount of this population. I do not remember a hell of a lot about the specifics of my college education, but the one thing that higher learning taught me was how to find what I wished to know. Even before the Internet, I spent time in libraries when I was curious about something, not realizing at the time that I was actually doing research. And there is nothing more important than research in blogging

The downside of all this is that if we continue to have uninformed people going to the polls in each election, we will end up with results like a Donald Trump. A Mitch McConnell. A Paul Ryan. A Trey Gowdy. A Sarah Palin. A Ted Cruz. A John McCain. A John Boehner. A Jan Brewer. A Marco Rubio. A Newt Gingrich. A Darrell Isssa. A Steve King. A Michele Bachmann. A Joni Ernst. A Jeff Flake. I could go on all day but would just end up talking about a Republican Congress that has been a stumbling block to the good of this country since it took office. We need a change in 2018.

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Even the white nationalists are turning on Trump


Iowa has always been the come-to state for Presidents and 2016 was no different for Donald Trump. He took the state 51.1% to win against Hillary Clinton's 41.7, garnering the 6 electoral votes. Des Moines, where I spent several years, went for Clinton as did another major metro area, Cedar Rapids. Iowans are considered good, down to earth, stable people with common sense. That's pretty much true as I can attest to after spending several years in the capital city, but also having experienced a hard-line cliquishness there that forbids outsiders in until proven. I never made it.

I left in the late sixties, never sorry for my decision, and have never looked back. I tell you this to qualify the fact that I am a maverick, always have been, and always will be. Mavericks don't do well in the state, although there is a basketball team there by that name who are apparently winners. But it is people like Tom Godat, a union electrician from Clinton, Iowa, that represents a state that has been a combination of Democrat and Republican in the past, but recently has been attacked by the Tea Party. It elected Joni Ernst to the Senate, something many in the state still can't believe.

But back to Mr. Godat, who has always voted for Democrats, decided to cast his vote for Donald Trump in 2016, not that he particularly thought Trump was best, but because he thought Hillary Clinton was worse. An excellent case in point to shore up the fact that Bernie Sanders should have been the Democrats nominee, not Clinton. Tom now says he is "embarrassed" over his vote. I would suspect that a lot of good people out there are also coming to the same conclusion. What I don't understand is, after viewing Trump's campaign, why wasn't Tom Godat horrified with what he saw?

There were Donald John's comments about Mexican immigrants, about women, about veterans, the disarming of Clinton's bodyguards, saying Obama was the founder of ISIS, sicking the gun nuts on Hillary, encouraging Russia to hack Clinton's campaign, more racism calling for a ban on Muslims in the U.S., saying people in New Jersey were cheering on 9/11, suggesting one of his protesters should be roughed up, referring to his daughter in a sexual way, his bizarre comments about Megyn Kelly's menstrual period, I could go on forever but you get the idea. Why didn't Tom Godat?

Washington Post reporter, Jenna Johnson, and her photographer, Michael S. Williamson, ran into "...more than 100 Iowans [who]explained why so many of them are already disappointed in the new president." It only took four days which means they encountered 25 a day. That's an impressive number of people when you consider that Iowans aren't that open and easy to get to talk to by people they don't know. And then there's Lost Nation, Iowa, where the president received 66 percent of the vote. After Trump's election, the Iowa legislature voted to dramatically scale back the collective bargaining rights of the state’s public workers, distressing my Lost Nation residents.

The Huff Post reports that "thousands" of people across the country are unhappy with their vote for Donald John, and they are tweeting it in response to the "head tweeter's" barrage of lies and misinformation. Here's an example...
“I’m starting to feel like the biggest mistake of my young 23 years of life has been voting for [Trump],” Joseph Richardson tweeted on Nov. 21.
And that's less than two weeks after the November 8, election day. Richardson said it was a bitTrump’s Cabinet picks or the 'very childish' behavior he exhibited at a press conference last week. And he does regret his vote. Sort of." Even if he did it over, Richardson says he still couldn't vote for Clinton continuing with, “I still think Trump would be the better candidate. I’d still regret it. I’d vote for him again but I’d still regret it.” Go figure. But it is this exact kind of reasoning that political pundits were clamoring over during the 2016 election.
unsettling and added, "He doesn’t like

Now here's a guy you just have to shake your head over. Not sure if he is misinformed, full of indecision or just not too bright...
"Bill said he would like Trump to act more like President Barack Obama, who he voted against twice but considers 'an extremely honorable man who served the country fantastically.'”
I could understand a statement that said, served the country "well," or "fine," or even "right." But how can you call Obama "extremely honorable" and a man "who served the country fantastically" but still have voted against him twice? Makes no sense unless there is an ulterior motive. And that's what is wrong with our political system, people voting who haven't the slightest idea what they are doing. There were some that lashed out at Donald John for not following up on his promise to investigate Clinton’s handling of sensitive emails, a decision that also puzzles some of the pundits.

Others voiced their reason to vote for Trump was his promise for change, to drain the swamp. Many of this group think the swamp is fuller than ever, but others believe Trump is following through on his promises. Even the alt-right and its white nationalists are down on Donald Trump. Remember Richard Spencer? The guy "who stood at a podium shortly after Donald Trump's election and, in a video that went viral, shouted 'Hail Trump!' while several in the crowd celebrated the victory with a Nazi salute." He's not sure now his President will be racial enough.



From what I have read, a large number of Trump voters have combined to strongly object over the fact that Donald John did not investigate, subsequently prosecute Hillary Clinton over the email issue. This is a major campaign promise that he broke, and the fact that this is one of the primary annoyances of those who voted for the man, it is yet just one more instance that reflects the amount of animosity toward Hillary Clinton. This was clear from the early 2016 campaigning right through the November election. A leading reason Democrats are in the hole they are now in.

Donald Trump's top adviser and chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, described Richard Spencer as one of the leading intellectuals of the alt-right movement. CNN reported that...
"Spencer is a white nationalist who believes that there should be a 'peaceful ethnic cleansing,' where people who are not of European descent voluntarily leave the United States."
Not that it is important since this deranged kind of thinking probably has no chance of ever being initiated in this country, but what if they don't leave voluntarily? But just maybe the thought of ethnic cleansing isn't so far out when you consider Trump has already provided the model in his latest Muslim ban of now six countries just announced in Monday's address to Congress. More from Slate on Bannon/Spencer connection...
"In August, [2016] Bannon proudly described his site as 'the platform for the alt-right,' a movement with Spencer as one of its intellectual leaders, again, according to Bannon’s own site."
It is said the Vice President is only a heartbeat away from the presidency. In the case of Steve Bannon, this is a heart beat that could change the direction of the greatest free nation of all time.


Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Political Satire: What is Trump still hiding about Russia?


He's not heavy, he's my puppet 
Whatever it is, it is bad enough that Donald Trump has enlisted the help of Congress, the intelligence community. And now the FBI has refused to cooperate with the White House by downplaying the news stories about Donald John's close ties with Russia. It involves Trump associates’ ties to Russia and the fact that pressure is being applied to cover this up. Greg Miller of the Washington Post said...
"Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives."
Here's some background on the story. According to Politifact...
"The Washington Post reported Dec. 9 that the CIA concluded Russia meddled in the election with the intent to help Trump, rather than to disrupt the election generally. The New York Times produced a similar report. However, the Washington Post also reported that the FBI isn't as confident in this conclusion. These stories are all based on anonymous sources and cannot be independently verified."
 But just last week, the FBI indicated that it would not downplay these same news reports after a request to do so from the White House. Business Insider Politics said...
"Trump administration officials wanted the FBI to disavow the reports and say there was no contact between people associated with Trump and Russia."
Democrats are still pissed over the fact that FBI Director James B. Comey released critical information about Hillary Clinton's email probe just prior to the 2016 election, yet kept quiet on the fact that Trump's campaign team had been in regular contact with Russia. Hillary Clinton accused Donald John of a direct tie between him and Vladimir Putin in one of the election debates, accusing her opponent of joining with the Russian leader to get rid of NATO. And then early in February, Trump voices his support for NATO admonishing member countries for better support.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said that...
 if the White House “contrived to have intelligence officials contradict unfavorable news reports, this represents a new and even more grave threat to the independence of the intelligence community.”
Former CIA director Michael Hayden expressed his concern that intelligence sources were being strong-armed into providing information that was later being interpreted into political speak and then put into the wording that best fit their message. What's new. But considering the Trump administration's  continued praise of Putin and all the action so far to get it out of the media, does that mean there is a smoking gun? And to cap it all off, Donald John has repeatedly criticized the intelligence organizations recently for leaking misinformation.

The leading example of Russian involvement in the 2016 election was the DNC hack where the embarrassing emails from Debbie Wasserman Schultz were uncovered, resulting in her being removed as chair. In this case the federal intelligence community, cybersecurity analysts, the Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying...
"...they believed people at the top levels of Russian government directed the attack in an attempt to interfere in the election."
Donald Trump took the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013, and he is known to have other
It might even look like this
business interests in Russia; specifically a desire to build a luxury Trump hotel in Moscow. But since he won't release his taxes, there is no way to know exactly what is going on. There is one thing we know for sure, Donald Trump is about business. He has been criticized time and again over the lack of complete separation between the presidency and his business-related interests. One son recently cost the federal govt. thousands of protection dollars to protect him in work abroad for the hotels.

Business insider Politics reported...
"Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse this week said he was sure the Russia-related cloud hanging over President Donald Trump's administration would not be clearing up anytime soon."
 The Rhode Island Democrat says Lindsey Graham's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism will look at the issue from three perspectives. 1) Trump's relationship with Russia pertaining to his business enterprises; 2) What did these actually do to affect the 2016 election?; 3) How exactly was the Trump staff involved in, if any, shenanigans in trying to swing the election toward Donald John? It is a fact that more Republicans have evidenced their concern over the possibility that Russia might have some part in getting Trump elected.

It is important to note that three important Donald Trump advisers have left the White House staff due to their Russian ties. First, Paul Manafort, former campaign manager and consultant for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, left early, in August of 2016. Resignation has not been explained. Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser, left in September 2016, with ties to a business consultancy work for state-owned Russian oil giant Gazprom. Page is currently subject to U.S. investigations over his Russian connections. Michael Flynn left recently Feb. 13, for lying to V.P. Pence about speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in December 2016.

Politifact concluded...
"Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton."
Senior research scientist at CNA Analysis & Solutions, Dmitry Gorenburg, lamented over all the ruckus over what might have happened. What the U.S. should be concerned about is the fact that Russia even made the attempt. As an observer to all that has been written, that would indicate to me that the hackers felt they had the means to accomplish their goals and it is accepted knowledge that Putin's minions are known to be excellent cyber thieves. They were able to hack into and steal million from U.S. banks back in 2015.

However, former President George W. Bush said, "...that the American people deserve answers on the alleged connection between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia." This from Donald John's own party plus someone who sat in the Oval Office in the same place where he is sitting now just over eight years ago. And then just this past Friday...
"Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. Issa joins a number of Democrats in calling for an independent prosecutor."
I would expect that kind of rhetoric coming from a career building blowhard like Issa, but GWB is way beyond having to make a name for himself. Apparently the decision of a prosecutor is Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This was Trump's, of course, Tweet response...
“Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!” 
And finally, Wilbur Ross, who probably will be confirmed Secretary of Finance tonight, is the latest with Donald John's conglomeration of Russian connections. Esquire reports that Ross has an ownership stake in a Cyprus bank in consultation with Russian President Vladimir Putin who was the first to prop up the institution. The magazine also notes that, "Cyprus banks have a long and painful history of laundering dirty money from Russians involved with corruption and criminality."

Well, it just doesn't get any better.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Political Satire: The adventures of Debbie Wasserman Schultz



Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sitting in her Sunrise, Florida, office thinking about how she could revive her political career by switching to the Republican Party and becoming Donald Trump's Secretary of Holocaust Education. At least it would be a Cabinet post after she was deprived of her DNC chair. That brought back memories of how she had led her staff through the arduous task of disparaging Bernie Sanders with emails and word of mouth so Hillary Clinton would win the Primary. She did but was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 Election. Then she got caught.

Wasserman Schultz couldn't understand why the Democrats were so pissed. During her tenure as the DNC Chairman, they had lost only 10.2% of the Senate, 19.3% of the House, 20.3% of State Legislatures and 35.7% of Governors' offices. But, it might've been worse. Hell, Joni Ernst could have been elected President. Hey, if I had switched Parties, she might have chosen me for Vice President, she thought. And then looking at a mirror she took from her purse, she said to herself, 'Maybe it's my hair.' Then the phone rang and she had to pick it up since everyone else was gone.

"Hello"

On the other end, "I want my campaign data back."

To which she replied, "C'mon, Bernie, you know I can't do that. Besides, Hillary still has it...whoops!"

Read more...

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

OK 2017 is almost here-What do we do with it?



As a passionate Progressive, I would still welcome a loophole in the Donald Trump presidency, but until that happens, the left must look ahead to what we have to work with. Right now the Democrats are in something of a shambles, with Hillary Clinton no longer able to lead the Party and a new leader not yet even emerging. My choice, of course, is Bernie Sanders, and also the choice of most other Progressives, but the legions of politicians has grown quiet, until we are able to swallow the inauguration of Donald John Trump. That will be hard to do for many.

For the new DC chairman, the early choice, Keith Ellison, Minnesota congressman and ally of Bernie Sanders, has run into trouble. Politico reports...
"On the heels of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s troubled tenure as DNC chief, the issue of whether Ellison will commit full-time to the job poses a threat to his candidacy..."
My guess is that Wasserman-Schultz had the time but she just wasn't competent enough for the job. CNN says that, "...2017 will be a year for the history books." We knew that the day the Electoral College met and made its grim decision. That quiet you hear out there across the country are those voters of sound mind who didn't vote for Trump, and who are holding their breath in fear of the future. Most individuals are capable of handling most challenges sent their way, but the worst thing to confront is the unknown. Donald Trump is the epitome of the unknown.

Celebrities shun Donald Trump like the plague video...



With GOP control of both Houses of Congress, and a Republican in the White House, the outlook is fairly dim for the left, particularly for Progressives. Democrats have steadily moved to the center, which is one goo reason the Party is losing so many elections. Republicans have staunchly maintained their conservative positions on issues, establishing an identity that supporters can follow. The Dems are fractured with no single ideology to look up to, nor any individual to carry the torch. Until they find that, there could be even more Donald Trumps. God forbid.



Thursday, December 22, 2016

Clinton popular vote surges again




No losing presidential candidate in history has received as many popular votes as did Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, the president-elect. 2.9 million, up 400,000 since the last count. The election is history but the story is slowly changing from surprise Trump victory to why he won and what is wrong with the system. What's wrong with the system is the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House and how it transcends the power of the people. I railed on this in an earlier post, "Dump the Electoral Party...NOW" that shows the inadequacy of the College.

What bothers me from a CNN article is a statement by Trump, "...that he would have won the popular vote, too, if that had been his focus. Here's his actual comment...
"I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote -- but would campaign differently."
Is the implication here that Hillary Clinton campaigned strictly for the popular vote and let Donald Trump beat her in strategy?  If so, her years spent in politics were wasted. But I don't think that's all, nor is it the primary reason she lost. Clinton claims the Comey letter beat her but many think that was only minor to other faults. High on the list is message, or a real lack of, to reach the white working class, African Americans, young people and Hispanics. They needed more assurance from her and they didn't get it. Too much dependence on political data and not what the grassroots think.

Kellyanne Conway is a sharp political strategist and it is obvious that things started to turn Trump's way when she came on board. I remember her saying early on that her plan was just to let Trump be Trump. You can't argue with this now, and his continued diarrhea of the mouth collected enough uneducated rednecks to elect him. If I didn't know better, I would swear that the Trump campaign found that particular demographic in census data. I talk uneducated rednecks but to the other extreme, doctors respond to his promise to clean up insurance company paperwork.

We could look back some day and call this a "niche" election, and Donald Trump by running off at the mouth with his meandering, chaotic messages, was able to hit just enough people with slots they cared about to win the election. God help us!

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Dump the Electoral Party...NOW



It's happened twice now, during the last three elections, the popular vote winner loses the election. It was made official yesterday by an antiquated system called the Electoral College. Donald Trump with 306 votes, Hillary Clinton with 232--hardly a landslide--Clinton ending up with more than 2.5 million popular votes than Trump. The nation did not elect Donald Trump, the college did. And that is what is wrong. NBC reports on efforts, post-election...
"A handful of Democrats and even a few Republican electors have embarked on an unusual effort to deny Trump the victory — or at the very least, raise the specter of changing the election."
And more...
"Electors in three states have gone to court seeking the chance to vote their mind; another resigned to avoid the vote altogether. One Republican elector in Texas has publicly said he will not vote for Trump, although his state voted overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate."
Here's a quote from The Nation, a leading Progressive publication...
"The Electoral College is an abomination: an antidemocratic relic of the unconscionable compromises made during America’s founding that should never have been allowed to linger into the 21st century." 
As an example of the inadequacy of the Electoral College, Donald Trump took Michigan with less than 11,000 votes out of a total of 4.8 million cast, .0023%. Supporters of the College claim it protects the smaller states from being overrun by the larger ones. When, in fact, five of the 10 smallest states, Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as the District of Columbia had Clinton leading Trump. As I understand it, this is one of the major reasons the Founding Fathers concocted this nuisance. 

And here is something that is almost as frightening as Donald Trump being elected President. The Nation surmises "that GOP strategists will again try to implement schemes that would distribute electoral votes based on the popular vote in congressional districts, which would allow partisans to gerrymander both the US House and the Electoral College." Because of the incompetency of the Democratic Nat'l Committee, led by disgraced Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the GOP already leads in state legislatures and governor's offices.

The bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative is making some headway with a compact that says the state electors must cast their votes with the popular vote. Ten states have signed up totaling 165 votes, but the compact can only take effect when more than 270 is reached. Barbara Boxer introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, but with a Republican Congress, and the GOP already having won the election, its likelihood of getting anywhere is doubtful. In a final note, The Nation commented...
"...something must be done to address the structural absurdity of elections that allow losers to become presidents."
And that could not be more appropriate. 

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

What do Republicans have that Democrats don't?



PASSION. It's very simple, you can see it in all factions of the conservatives; when the vote is critical, they turn out. The Democrats, or at least most of them, put their tails between their legs and just stay home when the heat is on. it's pathetic and God knows how many elections we've lost in the last few years. On the bright side, Bernie Sanders brought out the Progressives, and think they did their part in the primaries but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee had the whole thing rigged from the start. Bernie should have won.

On the other hand, President Obama said on Monday that the reason for Democratic voters not showing up was the fault of the Clinton campaign for not hitting the Dems' strongholds. He cited an instance where, in his support of Clinton, he wanted to go to Iowa where he had won handily but the Clinton people felt he was better needed elsewhere. He also added, "...candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well." Further...
"...some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012."
The blame game is, of course, easy to play with hindsight, but the real question here is what brought out more Republican voters than Democrats? We know there was a huge wave of demand for change, to get rid of the Washington that has only performed for the politicians and given us the same crap year after year. Donald Trump seemed to fill that bill and was elected, but we still have a Congress that has an approval rating of 13% and can't seem to get rid of them. Much of this can be attributed to the GOP gerrymandering that Wasserman and the DNC saw fit to do nothing about over the years.

Reports are that the Republican turnout surged this year while Democrats were just dormant. With Obama the Dems' stronghold was the college educated, young and non-white. Bernie Sanders had two of these categories, could have possibly gotten the other, and one must wonder, if he had won the primary, would the election outcome have been different. There is one bit of difference in Democrats that is recently becoming obvious; the Progressive faction of the party...Bernie's people. I am a Progressive, passionate about those beliefs and a firm supporter of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't even consider not voting and frankly don't understand those who stayed home from the polls on November 8, and let what happened come about. Donald Trump. Here's the kicker, Gallup reports that as of October 2014, polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. There are 4% more of us than them and we still can't win an election. It's a disgrace and something that should make those slackers sit up and take notice. The big question is, can we expect them to turn out in 2018.


Friday, December 16, 2016

Bernie's full-steam lost on Clinton


"Will Democrats and their friends and allies question their belief that the political professionals are best suited to decide who runs?" Not my question, it comes from Progressive Magazine and wonders what the future for our movement is. Bernie Sanders had the momentum and the message many voters were looking for, in a parallel with Donald Trump's appeal, although Bernie did it with class. But thanks to an underhanded Democratic National Committee, Clinton was favored.

Of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former disgraced head of the DNC, was the culprit that pulled the strings that prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. She's gone, thanks to Bernie, but the damage was done and we ended up with...Donald Trump. The latter's differences with Bernie was the fact that Trump added immigrant -bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy and a future for white male supremacy, along with racist and white nationalists' views.

Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination and Hillary Clinton was not able to capitalize on his support, particularly the millennials, so we lost the White House and a chance to reclaim the Senate. But there is still hope with Bernie Sanders Revolution in motion and Chuck Schumer as new minority leader in the Senate. And there are rumbles everywhere about progressive grass-roots movements being pursued. Even if Donald Trump lasts a term, it won't be easy for him or Republicans.



Thursday, December 15, 2016

40 Electoral College members now unsure of Donald Trump


Donald Trump talking to Electors/How true
40  electors from the Electoral College are demanding an intel briefing on Russia and its roll in the 2016 election from National Intelligence Director James Clapper, 10 this last Monday, Dec. 12, twenty more on Tuesday. This is a bi-partisan effort and according to Politico, the "...first show of public support for efforts questioning the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory..." They are asking for the information before Dec. 19, when their decisions are due. John Podesta, Clinton's former campaign chairman, talks about the security factors involved in the ruse.

Podesta comments on the Clinton campaign's earlier requests for an investigation on the issue, which apparently fell on deaf ears and adds, the fact that the CIA confirms this Russian interference was for the purpose of getting Donald Trump elected President. Now, of course, this raises the question of just what kind of ties does the President-elect have with Russia. I plan to do a full post on this in the future but for the sake of this one, Jeff Nesbit of Time says he has many, many, many, many ties to Russia. Nesbit reports this all happened in late May.

Here's what the original 10 electors wrote...
“The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”
The first 10 electors include nine democrats and one Republican. The additional electors joining the original 10 were all Democrats. Today is Thursday and with one more business day available what's the likelihood of getting the intel? Law Newz says...
"Legal experts tell LawNewz.com it will be tough for the electors to get what they are seeking. However, there is a way that it could possibly happen, but it involves an often arduous process of receiving an interim security clearance. A process that President Obama could even help expedite, if he wanted to."
The next question is can you delay the electors' decisions? The Huff Post has a solution you can read here.

Michael Flynn shows the lowlife he is



Most of Donald Trump's incoming cabinet picks have some modicum of respect, but his choice for the incoming National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, must have left this trait at the Army officer's club. Now the President-elect has put out some pretty salty tweets, but this guy drags the bottom of the barrel in his treatment of Hillary Clinton. It's a fake news story about her involvement in sex crimes with minors, deleted sometime since Nov. 2...
"...Flynn linked to a story on TruePundit.com that falsely claimed the FBI investigation into Anthony Weiner had turned up evidence 'to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life.'"
Here's the tweet...
"U decide - NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc...MUST READ!" Flynn's tweet read.
CNN reports...
"The tweet received renewed scrutiny in recent weeks after a different fake news story about Clinton's connection to a underage sex ring at a DC pizzeria led a man to show up at the restaurant with a gun. Flynn's son, also named Michael Flynn, was dismissed from Donald Trump's transition team after peddling the pizzeria conspiracy on his Twitter account."
So we've got Flynn's son on the Trump transition team--couldn't get a job on his own?--who was fired because his taste is in the sewer like his father's. There is something that could be considered a plus, at least to Twitter, that the social media should pay Donald Trump for all the free promotion it is getting. The crux of the whole thing is really that a man with this kind of judgment should not be in the position of having access to top secret information, even though that was the case when he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

You would hope that a man who has achieved the rank of Lieutenant General in the army would have more brains than to post a tweet like the above, especially when he knows it was fake news. Since it was live some time around Nov. 2, it is obvious Flynn designed the tweet to damage Hillary's presidential campaign. There is no sign that Trump is doing anything about this heinous behavior, but, then, maybe he either thinks it is okay or just doesn't give a damn. Either way, it is classic Donald Trump.          

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Trump goes haywire over Clinton's popular vote


Donald Trump harried
And here is another prime example of Donald Trump's instability; he continues to be riled over the fact that Hillary Clinton is more than 2.3 million ahead of him in the popular vote. Instead of enjoying the fact that the Electoral College deemed him President--although that is currently in contention--and going on with the job of planning his presidency, he broods like some second grader who lost his crayons on the way to school. Here's his tweet:
"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."
To begin with, he didn't win the Electoral College in a landslide (306 to 232). Barack Obama won in a landslide in 2008, 365 to McCain's 173. And there is absolutely no evidence the 2016 popular vote was "illegal," although Jill Stein has embarked on a crusade if there were mistakes made or anything intentional favoring Trump in her state recounts. In 2012 Trump made this statement:
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
Then, a week after the election:
"The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!"
Unstable on the one hand and indecisive on the other. Excellent qualities for a president.

Trump's tantrums could start World War III


Daisy Girl
It was the "Peace Little Girl" political ad that gave the election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide against Barry Goldwater, indicating that Goldwater could not be trusted with his finger on the switch that would unleash "the bomb." The idea was that the Arizona Senator's temperament was not stable enough for the presidency. Did you people who voted for Donald Trump even give this a thought? God knows, he's shown several signs of instability during the election.

Even after winning the Electoral College vote, Trump is steaming excessively over the fact that Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by over 2.3 million. He even says he would win the popular vote if they deducted the millions of illegal votes; which no one in his campaign can confirm. But that still didn't keep him from going...
"...a little berserk, publishing a series of bizarre tweets pushing back against accurate reporting the president-elect found inconvenient.
This. Is. Not. Normal."
The above, an observation from Steve Benen on MSNBC, who continues with his concern that Donald Trump has yet to mature for the presidency, with his inauguration fast approaching. Benen adds:
"If the pressures of the transition are causing Trump to flip out in response to accurate reporting, I shudder to think how unhinged he’ll be once he bears the burdens of an actual president."
Barry Goldwater would be aghast at the thought of Donald Trump as the next President of the U.S., wondering if his beloved Republican Party had gone mad. In 2016 Hillary used Monique Luiz, who did the original "Daisy Girl" ad and now living in Arizona at age 52, in a version of the original. It pointed out the same possibilities but apparently with no results. I can hardly wait until No. Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, pisses off Trump.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Which side of the nation are you on?


A nation divided
The results of the 2016 election have spawned a huge game of 'Who do you like?' In the cases of the high-profile politicians, nobody's winning, except Barack Obama. In a recent CNN/ORC poll the results were dismal for at least three:
For all Americans 
  • Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, 47% favorable, 35% Unfavorable
  • Hillary Clinton, 40% Favorable, 57% Unfavorable
  • Mitch McConnell, Sen.Majority Leader, 25% Favorable, 39% Unfavorable
Real Clear Politics rates Donald Trump currently, 39.5% Favorable, 56% Unfavorable. All of this is out in left field compared to Barack Obama's rating following his 2008 election, 70% Favorable, 25% Unfavorable. His current, Favorable 56%, Unfavorable 40%. In another Republican comparison, when George W. Bush left office, his Favorable was 27%, Unfavorable 66%. The key is the Dems needed someone like Obama in 2016...think Bernie Sanders.

We just experienced the most obnoxious election in recent history, perhaps ever.
"...more than 8-in-10 Americans say the country is more deeply divided on major issues this year than in the past several years."
"And more than half say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the US."
But here's hope for Progressives, "...nearly 8-in-10 overall hope to see the GOP-controlled government incorporate some Democratic policies into its agenda." CNN interprets the poll saying
"...'most' say they would like to see President-elect Donald Trump, who won with an Electoral College majority despite trailing in the popular vote nationwide, pursue policies that could draw in new supporters rather than appeal solely to those who backed him during the campaign."
Not sure who CNN's "most" is, but I do not see Progressives wanting new supporters in any Republican form, certainly not the Donald Trump ilk. But the feelings are unanimous that we are a split nation, "...with 85% saying so overall, including 86% of independents, 85% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats." And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the general public still feels ill about her following the election.

As Progressives, we can only hope that Trump will do the right thing. If not, there is 2008. Unfortunately, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats/Progressives have been saying that too much in the last few years.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...