2016 Presidential election campaign 3

584 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NorthReport

The Polarization Hypothesis Passes The “Access Hollywood” Test

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/17/the-polarization-hypothesis-pas...

NorthReport

Excellent article about democracy in Canada and the US

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/10/lessons-canada-us...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Finally Trump the Chump and I agree on something, at least in principle!

But the Chump did not specify how long the limits should be therefore it is basically another one of his useless pledges. 

 

Trump calls for congressional term limits

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-congressional-term-li...

2257

NorthReport

Sounds a lot like losers' swan song to moi.

RNC members agree with Trump: It's rigged

Many top GOP officials believe the fix is in.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/republican-national-committee-elec...

NDPP

Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible

https://t.co/m07KQdWC4h

"Is rigging the US election possible?"

.

Cody87

Obama's "quit whining, vote rigging is impossible" speech was made less than an hour before the second project veritas video showing democratic operatives talking about vote rigging.

This really is the strangest election.

Geoff

NorthReport wrote:

The Nazi echoes in Trump's tweets

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-trump-reaction-to-orange...

Trump's scorched earth approach reminds me of when Hitler flooded the underground in Berlin. He knew innocent civilians were in those tunnels but couldn't care less. Are we witnessing America's descent into Civil War 2.0, I wonder?

NorthReport

Bye, bye, Trump the Chump!

Women Are Wavering in Trump County, USA

In America's presidential bellwether, Trump still has a lead—but women are peeling off.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/vigo-county-indiana-trump...

bekayne

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-deep-drumpf-twitter-bot-pres...

Crude, nonsensical, and nonhuman, his name is DeepDrumpf. He's a Twitter bot programmed to mimic the real Trump.

MIT researcher Bradley Hayes created DeepDrumpf in March as both a coding experiment and joke, though it has taken on a life of its own.  DeepDrumpf uses an artificial intelligence algorithm based on hours of the candidate's debate speech transcripts, Hayes previously toldBusiness Insider.

Every few hours, the bot tweets gems like "I'm what ISIS doesn't need" and "I was screaming jobs and extremists, not policy." The more it tweets, the smarter it gets, because Hayes also incorporated deep learning into its algorithm, meaning it continually learns from itself.

https://twitter.com/DeepDrumpf/status/788455151950520321?ref_src=twsrc%5...

bekayne

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

This really is the strangest election.

Yeah, Trump would be the least qualified person to be elected president In America's 240 year history.

quizzical

bekayne wrote:

NDPP

CrossTalk on US Election: Media Lynching?

https://youtu.be/BtwFiKUMNT8

"A public lynching or a corporate media coup d'etat?"

NorthReport
bekayne

bekayne

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/20/republicans-call-trumps-re...

WASHINGTON—Jim Moseley is buying extra ammunition and stocking up on canned goods.

He is a Donald Trump supporter in South Carolina, and he is preparing for “war.” The civil war he thinks will start if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

“Once the trucks stop rolling, the grocery shelves will go empty and gasoline rationing will go into effect,” Moseley, who calls himself a “Christian soldier,” wrote in a Facebook message early this week.

“Liberals will have targets on their backs, as their behaviors are pretty much evident ... race wars will begin as well, as your skin color will be your uniform!”

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

NDPP wrote:

Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible

https://t.co/m07KQdWC4h

"Is rigging the US election possible?"

.

Yeah. I'm afraid it's been going on for decades but it isn't 'voters' rigging the election but a Republican policy called cross checking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pUmcvOB0M

Cody87

alan smithee wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible

https://t.co/m07KQdWC4h

"Is rigging the US election possible?"

.

Yeah. I'm afraid it's been going on for decades but it isn't 'voters' rigging the election but a Republican policy called cross checking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pUmcvOB0M

Thanks for the link that is good info.

NorthReport

Cody you had better rest up as my hunch is on the evening of November 8th you may well develop a serious migraine that could last for years before you recover. Wink

NDPP

Rigged   - by David Swanson

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/rigged/

"...The 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged..."

NorthReport

Trump is getting all the publicity he has always craved. Unfortunately for the Chump it's mostly negative.

 

Donald Trump’s Year of Living Dangerously

When he hits Peak Trump, that’s when the trouble starts. What does this mean for a person angling for the most powerful job in the world

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2005-year-of...

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

Cody you had better rest up as my hunch is on the evening of November 8th you may well develop a serious migraine that could last for years before you recover. Wink

I don't believe I've made a prediction yet. 

I also don't care who wins, I don't believe Trump is Hitler and I suspect Hillary and the democrats will stop antagonizing for war with Russia if she wins the election. Compared to those two massive dangers, everything else is pretty trivial by comparison.

Consider that the next president is going to have to deal with a global financial meltdown, increasing instability in europe and the middle east, Obamacare's collapse (many people's premiums are now well over $1000/month with 2k to 5k deductibles) and neither are going to deliver a fraction of what they promise. Even if both Trump and Clinton had the best of intentions, neither will be able to deliver. Whichever candidiate wins the presidency, the country is going to go to shit likely by 2018 and certainly by 2020. 

So be as smug as you want, but you'll either see Orange Mussolini become president or you'll see the first woman POTUS be blamed (rightly or wrongly) for some of the worst years in American history. Either way, it won't be me with the perpetual migraine.

NorthReport

Michelle Obama makes play for Arizona

Democrats deploy their best surrogate and millions in cash to try and take this state from the GOP.

 

Democrats “are not winning," said longtime Arizona GOP operative Chuck Coughlin, a veteran of McCain and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s campaigns, adding that he’s considering voting for Clinton. 

“The Republicans are losing."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/michelle-obama-campaign-arizona-23...

NorthReport

Sorry Sean but......

The boring truth about the out-of-control 2016 election? It’s the least volatile in years

Despite the reported “tawdriness” of last night’s presidential debate, the presence of a sex tape-obsessed TV star and a war within the Republican party, don’t believe what you hear: The 2016 presidential race is actually the least volatile in the past sixteen years, and Republican candidate Donald Trump has never come close to holding a lead in the general election.

 

Since public opinion polls offer a noisy snapshot of where individuals stand at a given time, the only way to responsibly analyze them is to look at an average over time. Though occasional polls have found a lead for Trump, the vast majority do not. From that point of view, the trend is a stable five or six point lead for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, as measured by major poll aggregators. That’s a larger lead than Barack Obama carried over Mitt Romney at any point in the last month of the 2012 election.

 

This year’s race has also seen less volatility in terms of expected electoral vote outcome, compared to elections in 2004, 2008 and 2012. Sam Wang, a statistician and professor of neuroscience at Princeton University, has been tracking election data since 2004. He gathers state-level polls in an effort to forecast the outcome of their votes in the Electoral College, which awards the presidency. Wang’s current forecast is that Clinton will 326 electoral votes to Trump’s 212.


http://qz.com/805609/poll-averages-and-electoral-vote-forecasts-show-hil...

Cody87

I wonder why the media has thrown every shred of objectivity out the window and completely torched their claim to impartiality by burying every story that hurts Clinton and taking every opportunity to smear Trump, if Clinton has this so firmly in the bag?

Ah, I'm sure you're right though. Trump never stood a chance.

Nevermind that he has more small donations than any candidate in history. Nevermind that his rallies have literally tens of thousands in attendance and Clinton's have a couple hundred. Nevermind that republican primary turnout was up more than 60% from 2012 while democratic turnout was down 20%. Nevermind the fact that Trump supporters have been so demonized that they are afraid to publicly express their support and might be reluctant to tell pollsters the truth. Nevermind the fact that Trump has always been at least 10 points ahead of Clinton with independants. Nevermind that Trump will have lots of support from voters who haven't voted in decades and thus are excluded from likely voter models. Nevermind that many of the polls that "prove" Clinton is winning have unrealistic samples, recently as extreme as 38% men and 62% women. And nevermind the fact that the polls consistently underestimated Trump in the primaries, and overestimated Clinton in many cases. 

You're right. There's no reason to suspect that this might be a close race.

NorthReport

Cody

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest it is close and there never was. You can spend your time reading all the media non-sensical hype if you wish, but Trump never ever lead, and his defeat on Nov 8 could well be record-breaking! 

bekayne

Cody87 wrote:

Nevermind the fact that Trump has always been at least 10 points ahead of Clinton with independants.

A lot of "independants" are Tea Party ex-Republicans. Don't confuse "independant" with "moderate".

Rev Pesky

Cody87 wrote:
... Nevermind that his rallies have literally tens of thousands in attendance and Clinton's have a couple hundred.

Nevermind the fact that Trump supporters have been so demonized that they are afraid to publicly express their support and might be reluctant to tell pollsters the truth.

You do see that both of the above statements can't be true, right?

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

I wonder why the media has thrown every shred of objectivity out the window and completely torched their claim to impartiality by burying every story that hurts Clinton and taking every opportunity to smear Trump, if Clinton has this so firmly in the bag?

Ah, I'm sure you're right though. Trump never stood a chance.

Nevermind that he has more small donations than any candidate in history. Nevermind that his rallies have literally tens of thousands in attendance and Clinton's have a couple hundred. Nevermind that republican primary turnout was up more than 60% from 2012 while democratic turnout was down 20%. Nevermind the fact that Trump supporters have been so demonized that they are afraid to publicly express their support and might be reluctant to tell pollsters the truth. Nevermind the fact that Trump has always been at least 10 points ahead of Clinton with independants. Nevermind that Trump will have lots of support from voters who haven't voted in decades and thus are excluded from likely voter models. Nevermind that many of the polls that "prove" Clinton is winning have unrealistic samples, recently as extreme as 38% men and 62% women. And nevermind the fact that the polls consistently underestimated Trump in the primaries, and overestimated Clinton in many cases. 

You're right. There's no reason to suspect that this might be a close race.

Nevermind that Trump is may be the worst candidate to represent a major American political party in America's 240 year history. He even makes Barry Goldwater seem diplomatic.

It's hard to believe anyone can still be supporting Trump after his shameful behaviour at last night's Catholic charity dinner.

And to make the comparison even greater, Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified persons to run for president since the Second World War.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
... Nevermind that his rallies have literally tens of thousands in attendance and Clinton's have a couple hundred.

Nevermind the fact that Trump supporters have been so demonized that they are afraid to publicly express their support and might be reluctant to tell pollsters the truth.

You do see that both of the above statements can't be true, right?

You do recognize there is safety in numbers?

voice of the damned

Cody87 wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
... Nevermind that his rallies have literally tens of thousands in attendance and Clinton's have a couple hundred.

Nevermind the fact that Trump supporters have been so demonized that they are afraid to publicly express their support and might be reluctant to tell pollsters the truth.

You do see that both of the above statements can't be true, right?

You do recognize there is safety in numbers?

So what do these Trump supporters fear will happen if they tell the pollster on the phone who they are voting for?

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:
He even makes Barry Goldwater seem diplomatic.

A bit of an aside, but this hate-on for Barry Goldwater really just proves the power of media and advertising. Lyndon Johnson sure got his money's worth with that daisy ad. And the "confessions of a Republican" one which was so good that Hillary recreated it for this campaign.

Yes he was a right-wing hawk, but he led the movement within the senate to impeach Richard Nixon. He was pro LGBT and pro abortion choice. He was one of the first and only Republicans to ring the alarm bells about the religious right taking over the party. His main criticism of them was that they had no understanding of the compromise that was necessary for anything to get done in politics. He understood diplomacy far better than most of them who are currently in the business.

 

Cody87

Quote:

So what do these Trump supporters fear will happen if they tell the pollster on the phone who they are voting for?

Great question. I don't exactly know. What I do know is that I have seen many Trump supporters speak (online) about how frustrating it is to have to hide their support from employers, friends, and even family. 

My theory - and it's nothing more than a theory - is that if you're even hiding your support from your family, you're probably not going to tell a pollster - especially if they reached you at home and your family might overhear.

I'm sure everyone here has heard of the "shy Tory" effect. Basically that, but considering Trump is literally Hitler, possibly more pronounced than usual.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Cheeto-face will be FIRED November 8.

As it turns out,this blowhard's true intentions weren't to win this race. It was just an 18 month advertisement for his new TV channel.

Just a con artist that was looking to make a buck.

He's solidified a following just stupid enough to subscribe to it.

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

Quote:

So what do these Trump supporters fear will happen if they tell the pollster on the phone who they are voting for?

Great question. I don't exactly know. What I do know is that I have seen many Trump supporters speak (online) about how frustrating it is to have to hide their support from employers, friends, and even family. 

My theory - and it's nothing more than a theory - is that if you're even hiding your support from your family, you're probably not going to tell a pollster - especially if they reached you at home and your family might overhear.

I'm sure everyone here has heard of the "shy Tory" effect. Basically that, but considering Trump is literally Hitler, possibly more pronounced than usual.

Maybe it should come as no surprise that Trump supporters are ashamed of themselves?

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

Waht are they going to do to you if you confess to being a Trump supporter? Your wife going to leave you, your kids going to change their last name, your father going to beat you?

Physical violence is completely unacceptable but divorce might be a reasonable response. Changing your last name seems like an overreaction except if your last name actually was "Trump."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sorry, but your 'shy voter' theory makes no sense when coupled with a story of the giant Trump rallies. It makes even less sense when considering polling because polling information is anonymous. I mean, if you can't even support you candidate anonymously?

It could make a compelling explanation for a Trump loss, though.

Voters, even in the supposed secrecy of the voting booth, could be wondering "what if the ghost of Grand-dad is watching?" and be too embarrased to mark that X for Trump.  Better explanation than "voter impersonation" or whatever.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

JKR wrote:
He even makes Barry Goldwater seem diplomatic.

A bit of an aside, but this hate-on for Barry Goldwater really just proves the power of media and advertising. Lyndon Johnson sure got his money's worth with that daisy ad. And the "confessions of a Republican" one which was so good that Hillary recreated it for this campaign.

Yes he was a right-wing hawk, but he led the movement within the senate to impeach Richard Nixon. He was pro LGBT and pro abortion choice. He was one of the first and only Republicans to ring the alarm bells about the religious right taking over the party. His main criticism of them was that they had no understanding of the compromise that was necessary for anything to get done in politics. He understood diplomacy far better than most of them who are currently in the business.

From Wikipedia on Barry Goldwater:

Quote:
In a May 1964 speech, Goldwater suggested that nuclear weapons should be treated more like conventional weapons and used in Vietnam, specifically that they should have been used at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to defoliate trees. Regarding Vietnam, Goldwater charged that Johnson's policy was devoid of "goal, course, or purpose", leaving "only sudden death in the jungles and the slow strangulation of freedom".

Goldwater's rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." He also advocated that field commanders in Vietnam and Europe should be given the authority to use tactical nuclear weapons (which he called "small conventional nuclear weapons") without presidential confirmation.

A guy who advocates the use of nuclear weapons for defoliation probably has to live with the fact that some people might find that a bit extreme.

As far as Nixon's impeachment, the process of impeachment begins in the House of Representatives. In that Goldwater was a Senator, not a Representative, he would have had nothing to do with leading any movement to impeach Nixon. In that Nixon resigned before the impeachment proceedings got to the Senate, he could hardly have led any proceedings there, either (in fact the impeachment proceedings started in the Houes Judiciary Committee chaired by Democrat Peter Rodino - the Democrats had a majority in the House).

What Goldwater did do is go to Nixon - after the House Judiciary Committee had voted to take the impeachment proceedingts to the full House of Representatives - and told him he didn't have enough support in either the House or the Senate to avoid being impeached.

At that point, Nixon resigned, and the impeachment proceedings were ended. So not only did the impeachment proceedings never get to the Senate, they ended even before the full House had voted.

Goldwater did express some 'libertarian' views later in his life, but that was long after he had run for president of the United States. In fact, in the year he ran for president, he was endorsed by the John Birch Society, one of the most right-wing organizations in the USA. He didn't really want the support (in that it made him appear slightly loony), but nevertheless, the JBS felt he was the best candidate for the job. You do have to ask yourself why.

6079_Smith_W

My comment Rev, was in response to Goldwater's name being used as a quintessential example of a terrible, undiplomatic politician. Not surprising, since many know nothing of him aside from the "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" quote.

Yes he was a right-wing hawk, and a libertarian, but at several key points in his career he showed the kind of politician he was.

No, the vote hadn't reached the senate yet, but they were very occupied with the impending decision. Goldwater was one of those who favoured resignation. He helped tally the names, and added his own to those who would vote for conviction. The fact he was nominated by Senate Republicans to deliver that message to Nixon says something about his diplomatic reputation.

Have you read Woodward and Bernstein's book about that time? The whole purpose of the exercise (both fom within congress and cabinet) was to deliver the message in a way that Nixon would not feel pushed and dig his heels in.

Quote:

Chief of Staff Haig was worried about the appearance of congressional pressure on the president. He thought a march of GOP lawmakers urging Nixon to resign for their own purposes could change the nature of the US government to one in which the chief executive served at legislative whim. His concern was perhaps overblown given the unusual circumstances, but Haig believed things firmly, and he met beforehand with Goldwater to ensure the meeting’s rhetoric would remain restrained.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0807/Richard-Nixon-s-...

And again, he was one of the few politicians to warn about the rise of the religious right:

Quote:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

I don't agree with most of his political values, but to compare Trump to him as a "worst example"? Absurd.

You may disagree, and that is fine.

 

 

 

SeekingAPolitic...

Here is little slice of mana to chew on. Watching on CBC talking about the trump event where the reporter talked the supporters seem to have been convined that the president of Canada is muslum.  Appearently that was not enoungh because other supporters of trump seem have chimed in to support the idea.  The desert to fine meal of BS was that the intital supporter quipped "Google it".  I would have no problem with a canadian president that was muslim but to those supporters would be no fans of the idea.  I dont if this what trump supporters think in general or this a small minority within trump crowd they seemed to badly informed.

I took up the challenge and googled it.  It seems that idea was started in canada then it skipped over the border.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/08/19/fess-up-mr-dressup-shahada-recitin...

Rev Pesky

Cody87 wrote:
... What I do know is that I have seen many Trump supporters speak (online) about how frustrating it is to have to hide their support from employers, friends, and even family. 

My theory - and it's nothing more than a theory - is that if you're even hiding your support from your family, you're probably not going to tell a pollster - especially if they reached you at home and your family might overhear...

Tell me how you would hide the fact you were going to a Trump rally from your family? You lie to them? But why would you lie to your family? What are they going to do to you if you confess to being a Trump supporter? Your wife going to leave you, your kids going to change their last name, your father going to beat you? In fact the only reason I can see for hiding your politics from your family is because you're embarrassed to admit who you're supporting.

Sorry, but your 'shy voter' theory makes no sense when coupled with a story of the giant Trump rallies. It makes even less sense when considering polling because polling information is anonymous. I mean, if you can't even support you candidate anonymously?

However, we will find out in a couple of weeks. I suspect your theory is upside down. That is, Trump supporters are very committed, and much more vocal than other voters. This is especially true if one considers that most of the Trump support would be the Tea Party types who were never shy about their politics. In fact they were so vocal they convinced the Republican Party that they were a lot more powerful than they really were. And that, I suggest, is what's happening now. A very vocal minority that is more sound and fury than actual numbers.

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

My comment Rev, was in response to Goldwater's name being used as a quintessential example of a terrible, undiplomatic politician. Not surprising, since many know nothing of him aside from the "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" quote.

Yes he was a right-wing hawk, and a libertarian, but at several key points in his career he showed the kind of politician he was.

Yes he did. He supported Joe McCarthy, he supported Richard Nixon (up until 4 days before Nixon resigned), he supported the US invasion of Vietnam, althoug he felt they should have gone in a lot stronger, and he was a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan. 

But none of those things are 'Libertarian'. Goldwater took on some of the trappings of the Libertarians in his later career, but he was certainly nothing like a Ron Paul.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...No, the vote hadn't reached the senate yet, but they were very occupied with the impending decision. Goldwater was one of those who favoured resignation. He helped tally the names, and added his own to those who would vote for conviction. The fact he was nominated by Senate Republicans to deliver that message to Nixon says something about his diplomatic reputation.

So he didn't 'lead the impeachment', as you said he did. In fact, as you now say, he pressed for the resignation (after it was clear that Nixon would be impeached).

Quote:
Have you read Woodward and Bernstein's book about that time?...

I didn't have to. I lived through it, and was very cognizant of the events as they happened.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...I don't agree with most of his political values, but to compare Trump to him as a "worst example"? Absurd.

You may disagree, and that is fine.

And in fact if I had made that comparison, perhaps you'd have a case. But I didn't.

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

JKR wrote:
He even makes Barry Goldwater seem diplomatic.

A bit of an aside, but this hate-on for Barry Goldwater really just proves the power of media and advertising. Lyndon Johnson sure got his money's worth with that daisy ad. And the "confessions of a Republican" one which was so good that Hillary recreated it for this campaign.

Yes he was a right-wing hawk, but he led the movement within the senate to impeach Richard Nixon. He was pro LGBT and pro abortion choice. He was one of the first and only Republicans to ring the alarm bells about the religious right taking over the party. His main criticism of them was that they had no understanding of the compromise that was necessary for anything to get done in politics. He understood diplomacy far better than most of them who are currently in the business.

 

I agree that Goldwater was enlightened during the 70's, 80,s and 90's but I also think that his ideas concerning the use of nuclear weapons during the 60's when he was running for president were very undiplomatic. So I think as a presidential candidate Goldwater was less diplomatic than most other presidential candidates like FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton. As I said, I can't think of any majour presidential candidate who has ever been less diplomatic than Trump. I think Goldwater was considerably more diplomatic than Trump is now. I think comparable politicians to Trump might be Pinochet, Franco, and Mussolini.

Doug Woodard

Trump a puppet of Putin? Wikileaks target isn't who you may think, Russia experts say (it's American democracy):

http://www.cbc.ca/1.3814055

I conclude that the best defence against authoritarian government (Russia, China, etc.) is a better democracy. Are you listening, Justin?

6079_Smith_W

@ Rev

Not sure why you are going on about his political record, which I have already said I largely disagree with, and which has nothing to do with my point that he was actually a skilled politician who opposed the dogmatic approach of the religious right. And now you're taking issue with his libertarianism too?

He was a vocal opponent of Nixon. He coordinated what was going on in the senate - communicating with the RNC, and tallying the names and pointing out he would vote to convict, and when the time came the senate chose him to deliver their message that they would impeach. It was a message he had to deliver very delicately so as to not give Nixon the impression that it was the legislature trying to take over the executive branch, which Nixon would have seen as a subversion of the political order.

He did not say "You're Fired".

Not trying to keep JKR in the spotlight here, as I know it was just an offhand reference, but again, Goldwater is far from the least diplomatic politician in the world. 

And JKR, That is pretty much how I see it too, though it is worth remembering that for all his war talk, he wasn't the one who allowed Pinochet to do what he did. That was Nixon.

And for all his smears against Goldwater with the daisy ad and the kkk ad Johnson did exactly what he was accusing Goldwater of, and escalated the situation in Vietnam.

NDPP

What is Behind the Anti Russia Campaign in the US?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/22/pers-o22.html

"No evidence has been presented to the public by the US government or any other source to substantiate the claims of Russian hacking. Ultimately, whether or not Russia is involved in the leaking of emails exposing the corruption and dishonesty of Clinton is a secondary question.

Clinton, the Democratic Party and the media have seized on this story and made it central to the 2016 election campaign because it serves definite political ends..."

 

American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up To A Terrifying Election Season

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/87735/

"Almost 20 years after Bill Clinton became the first and only sitting president to be sued for sexual harassment and impeached for lying under oath about his sexual escapades while in office, the Left and the Right are still playing politics with women's rights..."

NorthReport

No wonder Trump the Chump and his motley GOP crew want to suppress the vote, eh! 

Florida spirals away from Trump

With the GOP nominee trailing in poll after poll and lacking a ground game, a low turnout may be Trump's only hope of carrying the state.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-florida-230275

 

2,705

Pages