mersenneforum.org - U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)

- Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13988)

[url]http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/[/url]

[QUOTE]A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;436374][URL]http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Ignorant [STRIKE]Debbie Wasserman Schultz[/STRIKE] fubar would rather blame the Ruskies than face the facts.

There's no way to put a pretty face on concerns about candidate ages but this issue remains one that concerns me.

I grabbed some ages from the web: [url]http://www.p2016.org/candidates/ages.html[/url]

[QUOTE]Ages of recent presidents when they were sworn in:
Obama - 2013
50 years 5.6 mos.

Obama - 2009
46 years 5.6 mos.

Bush - 2005
58 years 6.5 mos.

Bush - 2001
54 years 6.5 mos.

Clinton - 1997
50 years 5.1 mos.

Clinton - 1993
46 years 5.1 mos.

Bush - 1989
64 years 7.3 mos.

Reagan -1985
73 years 11.5 mos.

Reagan - 1981
69 years 11.5 mos.

Carter - 1977
52 years 3.7 mos.

Ford - 1974
61 years 0.9 mos.
[/QUOTE]
Current candidate ages would be at swear-in (from the same linked article)
H.Clinton
69 years 2.9 mos.

D.Trump
70 years, 7.3 mos

B.Sanders
75 years 4.4 mos.

I remember a reporter asking Ronald Reagan a question and he hesitated and then Nancy Reagan whispered in his ear whereupon he then replied "We're doing all that we can." So at some point a person begins to worry.

[URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/clinton-campaign-hopes-progressive-platform-will-finally-end-primary"]Clinton Campaign Hopes Progressive Party Platform Will Finally End the Primary[/URL]
Bernie is delusional if he thinks the platform will move further left than this:
[QUOTE]
The draft platform embraces many progressive goals, including long-shot proposals that liberals have pushed for years. The platform supports a $15 minimum wage and an end to the death penalty. (Clinton supports the death penalty in rare cases.) It calls for a modern-day version of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which erected a wall between commercial and investment banks until President Bill Clinton signed its repeal in 1999. It aims to impose a surtax on millionaires, expand Social Security, and repeal the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment.

Sanders had a significant say in the drafting process. He appointed five members of the 15-member Platform Drafting Committee. The Clinton campaign appointed six, and the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chose four. The draft was approved in St. Louis by 14 of the 15 members. One Sanders appointee, Cornel West, abstained.

The Clinton campaign, eager to win over Sanders supporters, quickly praised the platform. Clinton senior policy adviser Maya Harris called it "the most ambitious and progressive platform our party has ever seen" in a statement issued Saturday, and one that "reflects the issues Hillary Clinton has championed throughout this campaign."

Sanders, on the other hand, was more tepid in his evaluation. In a statement released Sunday, he called it "a very good start," but added that "there is no question that much more work remains to be done by the full Platform Committee when it meets in Orlando on July 8 and 9"—the next step in the process before the delegates vote on the platform at the Democratic National Convention that begins July 25 in Philadelphia. Sanders points to several priorities that were left out of the platform, including a ban on fracking, a carbon tax, and a provision opposing a congressional vote later this year on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. On these issues, Sanders says, the fight is not over yet. "We intend to do everything we can to rally support for our amendments in Orlando and if we fail there to take the fight to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia," he said.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;437085][URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/clinton-campaign-hopes-progressive-platform-will-finally-end-primary"]Clinton Campaign Hopes Progressive Party Platform Will Finally End the Primary[/URL]
Bernie is delusional if he thinks the platform will move further left than this:[/QUOTE]

Not to mention that platforms are meaningless to begin with - how much of his progressive platform did Obama ditch within months of taking office? But unlike with "tabula rasa" Obama, with Hillary and Bernie we have plenty of history to go by.

[URL="https://mic.com/articles/150640/donald-trump-donations-how-to-stop-recurring-payments-credit-cards"]Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations[/URL]

TL;DR:

1) Make sure you register your account and set a password
2) Click on the small gray circled question mark in the top right corner of the donations page. Don't shy away from the unlikely thought that a question mark could be the path to changing control options.
3) Click on the word "MANAGE" near the bottom of the screen on the same line as "LOG-OUT"
... Then you are redirected to the Trump Campaign's payment processing vendor
4) Click on recurring payments.
5) You may now cancel the monthly payments
6) At this point you may also replace your credit card information with another valid credit card's information but you have no apparent option to delete your valid credit card information entirely from this payment processing vendor.

Simple, no? Why would money processing vendors be motivated to make it easy to stop recurring transactions?

----
2012 campaign debt
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/newt-gingrich-campaign-debt_us_57a4d293e4b03ba6801241c7"]Newt Gingrich Will Never Pay His 2012 Campaign Debt[/URL][QUOTE]Instead, the campaign agreed to file a debt settlement plan and terminate in 2016. The plan was originally due on May 23, but Gingrich was granted an extension until August 1.

The debt settlement plan document indicates the “total amount to be paid to creditors” is zero dollars.

Gingrich did not respond to a request for comment made through two spokespeople.

It’s common for political campaigns to wind up in debt that takes years to pay off ― President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign still owes $725,583, down from nearly $2 million two years ago ― but Gingrich owes an unusually large amount from his battle with Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican primary.

The debts are owed to small firms that helped the Gingrich campaign knock on doors, call voters, produce TV ads and distribute yard signs. In 2012, The Huffington Post interviewed several vendors who were pretty mad about getting stiffed. The sums involved ― tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars ― weren’t chump change for a small business.

“We got burned,” a Las Vegas graphics company owner said then.

But by last year, several vendors seemed to accept the fact that Newt would never pay, so they had given up contacting the campaign in an effort to collect.

One vendor told HuffPost in July 2015 that Gingrich is “not the first politician to disappoint his supporters, and he won’t be the last.”[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]oHmXja12Vy4[/YOUTUBE]
[URL="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137615746/presidential-campaign-debt-can-linger-for-decades"]Presidential Campaign Debt Can Linger For Decades[/URL]
[QUOTE]Back in 1984, Sen. John Glenn ran for president, but he didn't finish paying off his presidential campaign debt until 2007. Glenn spent 23 years trying to do the right thing, but the rules often worked against him.

When Glenn ran, individual donors could only give $1,000 to a candidate. By the end, he owed $3 million. That's a lot of small donors to hunt down for a campaign that folded the year Apple introduced the Mac.

"One of the things about American politics," Corrado adds, "is that losers are quickly forgotten; it's very hard to find donors who are willing to give to pay off past debt."

What's more, campaign debt owed to banks, credit cards or companies can't be forgiven because that would be considered an illegal contribution.

So whether you're a small company or a big bank, you're helping to pay for elections by carrying some of the expenses.

Many creditors and vendors realize they'll probably never get their money back. Those debts will stay on the books at the Federal Election Commission like ghosts from elections past, haunting former candidates for years to come.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;439564]*deleted see below[QUOTE]Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2016-08-07 at 11:29 Reason: deleted op-ed stating trump dropped out samn opinion pieces.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
It's an easy mistake to make; op-eds and editorials have been heating up on Trump drop out rumors in recent days.

I just now did a Google search on [I][URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+"drop+out""]trump + "drop out"[/URL][/I]. Their ranking algorithm currently gives the top spot to a Snopes website article debunking this latest speculation as a helpful bit of emphasis. [URL="http://www.snopes.com/trump-polls-drop-out/"]Snopes[/URL].

Earlier in my general news skimming I read in the [I]Charlotte Observer[/I] a viewpoint/opinion article that amused me: [URL="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html"]Trump: You people really believed me?[/URL]

Apparently the [I]Charlotte Observer[/I] gets pretty heated. In their [I]Letters to the Editor[/I], one reader throws down a gauntlet to the newspaper over a previous editorial:
[URL="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article93768867.html"]If Donald should drop out, so should Hillary[/URL]
[QUOTE]Observer must call for Hillary to quit too

In response to Our View “For America’s sake, Donald, drop out now” (Aug. 4 Observer Editorial):

I suppose it’s reasonable for the Observer to call for Donald Trump to drop out. He has made some huge mistakes this campaign.

But if tomorrow’s editorial does not call for lying, corrupt Hillary Clinton to drop out, then you will have lost all credibility.

It is a watershed moment for your paper. If the things Clinton has done in the past few years do not disqualify her in your minds, then you are clearly putting the success of the Democratic party ahead of the overall good of the country.

KENT ASHTON, CONCORD[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;439575]Earlier in my general news skimming I read in the [I]Charlotte Observer[/I] a viewpoint/opinion article that amused me: [URL="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html"]Trump: You people really believed me?[/URL][/QUOTE]

Personally, I'm modelling something like a 50% probability that Trump actually wanted to help the Republicans lose (but not necessarily to help Clinton win).

Regardless of the motivation, it's clear that it could take many, many years for the Republican party to regroup after this.

[QUOTE=chalsall;439672]Personally, I'm modelling something like a 50% probability that Trump actually wanted to help the Republicans lose (but not necessarily to help Clinton win).

Regardless of the motivation, it's clear that it could take many, many years for the Republican party to regroup after this.[/QUOTE]Readers may, or may not, wish to pay attention to what's happening to the Labour Party in the UK.

Less than five minutes ago I learned that Tom Watson, the deputy leader, has claimed that the party is suffering from a nasty attack of the Trots. He himself is well towards the infra-red end of the political spectrum

Those who were paying attention to UK politics ~30 years ago will understand (if not agree with) my claim that the Labour party is attempting the longest suicide attempt in history.