[QUOTE=only_human;420616]George Pataki dropped out of the race yesterday.[/QUOTE]

Who is George Pataki, and out of which race did he drop? (The human race? If so, consider cc'ing to the Lounge RIP thread.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;420737]Who is George Pataki, and out of which race did he drop? (The human race? If so, consider cc'ing to the Lounge RIP thread.)[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/george-pataki-drops-out-republican-presidential-race/"]George Pataki’s Hopeless Campaign, In One Chart[/URL]
[QUOTE]In the 221 polls that asked about Pataki, he registered 0 percent (support) 149 times. He earned more than 1 percent just 10 times and more than 2 percent only once.[/QUOTE]

[url=www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_great_forgetting_20160110]Truthdig - The Great Forgetting[/url]: Note discussion of Trump and Hillary

The English And Spanish Versions Of The GOP SOTU Response Were The Same, Except On Immigration
 

[URL="http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2016/01/13/3738927/nikki-haley-mario-diaz-balart-sotu-response/"]The GOP offered two different responses[/URL] to President Obama’s final State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening — and the small differences between them reveal an internal conflict over a policy issue that’s especially important to Latino voters.

[QUOTE]South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) offered separate messages in English and Spanish, respectively. In her speech, Haley supported stopping undocumented immigration and even refugee resettlement, while Diaz-Balart’s speech was tailored to a Spanish-speaking audience in favor of immigration reform. [/QUOTE]

I think the opening blurb is far too kind. They lied. They presented radically different positions on immigration to English and Spanish speaking audiences.

First he came for our outdated and bloated healthcare system, then our favorite boogieman Bin Laden, now our Cancer? What Freedom with he trample next?

The only parody of this is actual dialogue about real problems.

[YOUTUBE]vPRfP_TEQ-g[/YOUTUBE]

After the 2012 Election the Republicans stated that they would not have as many Presidential debates in the next cycle. They realized that the more people saw of Romney and Paul the less they liked them and the more they heard the Romney/Paul agenda the less they agreed with it.

They should have done the same thing with their own primary cycle.

[url]http://www.makepythongreatagain.org/[/url]

For you programmers out there.

A parody... of an almost parody...
[youtube]18pnjSu9-Bk[/youtube]

[url=www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_blames_bernie_for_an_old_clintonite_hustle_rotten_shame_20160119]Hillary Blames Bernie for an Old Clintonite Hustle, and That's a Rotten Shame[/url] | Robert Scheer, Truthdig
[quote]The Clintons have no shame, that much you can count on. That stupefying arrogance was on full display in the most recent presidential campaign debate when Hillary Clinton countered Bernie Sanders’ charge that she was compromised by her close ties to Goldman Sachs and other rapacious Wall Street interests with the retort: “Sen. Sanders, you’re the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial markets in 2000, ... to make the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main causes of the collapse in ’08.”

Hillary knows that the disastrous legislation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), had nothing to do with Sanders and everything to do with then-President Bill Clinton, who devoted his presidency to sucking up to Wall Street. Clinton signed this bill into law as a lame-duck president, ensuring his wife would have massive Wall Street contributions for her Senate run.
...
In an awkward power-couple footnote, [Alan "Mr. Bubble"] Greenspan, chief prophet of radical banking deregulation, is married to NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell, one of the two debate moderators Sunday night, who pointedly challenged Sanders with questions about his integrity in his call for reform of the economy. But not as awkward as Hillary having been prepped by her debate adviser [Gary] Gensler to attack Sanders for his vote for legislation that Gensler wrote when working for her husband.[/quote]

[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sarah-palin-original-anti-establishment-candidate-crowns-donald-trump-iowa-n500186[/url]

[QUOTE]The only two leading Republicans who have both run for the White House and starred in their own reality television shows stood side by side in Iowa Tuesday night, vowing to steer the 2016 Republican primary nomination away from the establishment.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34737-focus-why-we-must-now-adopt-the-qohio-planq-to-prevent-the-qstrip-a-flipq-of-american-elections"]A Modest Proposal[/URL]

[QUOTE]As the 2016 election approaches, we must remember that our electronic voting system as it currently stands is thoroughly rigged. The entire outcome can be flipped with a few late night keystrokes, as was done in Ohio 2004.

This year, at least 80% of the nation’s votes will be cast on electronic machines whose outcome can be altered by a governor and secretary of state with just a few keystrokes, and without detection.

There is a way – we call it “The Ohio Plan” – by which we can attain a fair and reliable vote count.[/QUOTE][B]
[SIZE=2]Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.
-Joseph Stalin

[/SIZE][/B][SIZE=2]There are some very interesting comments, too.
[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=kladner;423486][URL="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34737-focus-why-we-must-now-adopt-the-qohio-planq-to-prevent-the-qstrip-a-flipq-of-american-elections"]A Modest Proposal[/URL]

[B]
[SIZE=2]Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.
-Joseph Stalin

[/SIZE][/B][SIZE=2]There are some very interesting comments, too.
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Yes, I too think this is very important. Here in NL we had electronic voting for just a few years, but we returned to voting on paper with a red pencil in I think around 2010 because of the potential for undetectable fraud. This was purely precautionary and I don't think any pre- or post-election fraud with the voting machines was actually uncovered here, whereas it has demonstrably occurred in the USA, including putting George W. Bush instead of Al Gore in the White House in 2000 as the article mentions.

At least in my precinct in Chicago, pencil-marked paper ballots were still in use at the last election. However, they are machine tabulated, which still leaves room for skullduggery.

David Brooks Proposes a Kinder, Gentler Republican Party
 

[URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/david-brooks-proposes-a-kinder-gentler-republican-party-20160121#ixzz3xtebu2rw"]A flip-flop for a saddened pundit[/URL]
-Matt Taibi

[QUOTE]Back in the old days, when the Republican Party could count on the support of "less-educated voters" without having to actually give them anything, what we got all the time from people like Brooks were fatuous bromides about how anyone who was struggling [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/opinion/david-brooks-the-nature-of-poverty.html"]lacked a work ethic[/URL] and an appreciation of family structure. Government aid of any kind to help people out of economic hard times he always ripped as counterproductive and morally corrupting.

But now that he's being crapped on by a new movement of independent-minded, rebellious nativists who have no use for a moralizing, polysyllabic New Yorker like himself – now that he can hear the sharpening of the guillotines – suddenly Brooks is all in favor of government policies to help the "working class," a group of people he's presumably never met.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;423537][URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/david-brooks-proposes-a-kinder-gentler-republican-party-20160121#ixzz3xtebu2rw"]A flip-flop for a saddened pundit[/URL]
-Matt Taibi[/QUOTE]

Good zinger about the 'economy-boosting' effects of the 2004 corporate tax repatriation giveaway.

-----------------------

[url=http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html]Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment[/url] | The Archdruid Report
[quote]In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street, and a vast number of people who would happily work full time even under those conditions can find only part-time or temporary work when they can find any jobs at all. The catastrophic impoverishment and immiseration of the American wage class is one of the most massive political facts of our time—and it’s also one of the most unmentionable. Next to nobody is willing to talk about it, or even admit that it happened.[/quote]

[url]https://twitter.com/KatrinaPierson/status/160181303680040960[/url]

I think Obama has been great but not perfect like Ms. Pierson apparently does.


(third edit) and the tweet is 4 years old--so not entirely relevant.

[url=https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-himself-arbiter-of-seriousness-only-clinton-supporters-eligible/]Paul Krugman Unironically Anoints Himself Arbiter of “Seriousness”: Only Clinton Supporters Eligible[/url] | Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

Donald Trump claims Ted Cruz 'stole' Iowa caucuses and calls for new election
 

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election"]Donald Trump has claimed Ted Cruz[/URL] committed “fraud” in his successful campaign to win the Republican Iowa caucuses on Monday, and has called for a new election.
:glare::razz::cry::cmd::hankie::missingteeth:

[QUOTE=kladner;425095][URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election"]Donald Trump has claimed Ted Cruz[/URL] committed “fraud” in his successful campaign to win the Republican Iowa caucuses on Monday, and has called for a new election.
:glare::razz::cry::cmd::hankie::missingteeth:[/QUOTE]

I don't know if I would go so far as to call it fraud but Cruz's Voter Violation mailings were about as scummy as you get from the national campaign staffs.

[QUOTE=chappy;425163]I don't know if I would go so far as to call it fraud but Cruz's Voter Violation mailings were about as scummy as you get from the national campaign staffs.[/QUOTE]
They are both utter scumbags, though I would admit that Cruz is far scummier than even The Donald. Trump's braggadocio, mendacity, and just plain demagoguery provides ample material for satire and derision on my side of things. But unfortunately, many people get really high on braggadocio, mendacity, and demagoguery. It ain't a good high, either.

Still, Cruz would be worse. The other one to watch is Rubio. I can't put a comparative ideological rating on those two, but I see Rubio as "more electable," and hence, more dangerous.

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Progressive’ Persona
 

[URL]https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/04/hillary-clintons-progressive-persona/[/URL]

Desperate to blunt Bernie Sanders’s surge of support especially among young Democrats, Hillary Clinton is pitching herself as a “progressive,” but many of her policies were anything but – from supporting military coups to favoring corporate interests, [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/04/hillary-clintons-progressive-persona/"]writes Jeff Cohen.[/URL]

[QUOTE]In her speech claiming victory after the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself “a progressive who gets things done.” I had to laugh. And it wasn’t just because former President Bill Clinton – the centrist Triangulator-in-Chief – was standing behind her, beaming and clapping.


A quick review of Hillary Clinton’s record shows that much of what she gets done is [I]anti-progressive[/I] (not unlike President Clinton in the 1990s).
[/QUOTE]Headings of the first several sections of this essay:
[QUOTE]PROMOTING FRACKING WORLDWIDE IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

BOOSTING CORPORATIST TRADE DEALS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

ENABLING MILITARY COUPS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

POCKETING MILLIONS FROM CORPORATE LECTURE FEES IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

ESCALATING THE AFGHAN WAR IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

CHAOTIC MILITARY INTERVENTION IN THE MIDEAST IS NOT PROGRESSIVE[/QUOTE]Please excuse the ALL CAPS. I'm just too lazy to go through fixing the way it copied and pasted.

There is much more, heavily laced with links.

[QUOTE=kladner;425293]The other one to watch is Rubio. I can't put a comparative ideological rating on those two, but I see Rubio as "more electable," and hence, more dangerous.[/QUOTE]

Coming from Florida I have a bit more experience with Rubio. IMO, he is very much like Hillary - he stands for absolutely nothing - he will switch positions as necessary to improve his chances of getting elected (or raising more campaign cash). Unlike Hillary, he has no track record or list of accomplishments to predict what he might actually do if elected. I suppose one could look at his donor list to see which special interest groups have racked up the most IOUs.

Thanks for the on-the ground information, George. :smile:

[QUOTE=Prime95;425350]Coming from Florida I have a bit more experience with Rubio. IMO, he is very much like Hillary - he stands for absolutely nothing - he will switch positions as necessary to improve his chances of getting elected (or raising more campaign cash).[/QUOTE]

If I may please ask you a sincere question: if it was between Hillary or Trump, how would you vote?

Please feel free to not answer.

Most of us outside of the US of A are watching this without really understanding what is really going on.... :popcorn:

[QUOTE=chalsall;425359]If I may please ask you a sincere question: if it was between Hillary or Trump, how would you vote?[/QUOTE]

Bloomberg :smile:

[QUOTE=Prime95;425367]Bloomberg :smile:[/QUOTE]

Thank you for that. Truly.

I still find it somewhat ironic that Al Gore would have likely won in 2000 if Ralph Nader hadn't diverted votes.

The world might have been in a very different place....

[QUOTE=chalsall;425359]If I may please ask you a sincere question: if it was between Hillary or Trump, how would you vote?

Please feel free to not answer.

Most of us outside of the US of A are watching this without really understanding what is really going on.... :popcorn:[/QUOTE]
I see either as very likely disastrous. We could certainly count on military adventures with Clinton.

Trump??? It is hard to guess how real power would affect him. It is also hard to imagine him "growing into the job," since he is quite convinced that he is already flawless in everything he is and does. What a huckster!

In the end, with those choices, the Imperial Corporate Status Quo would likely end up continuing , whichever one got in.

Then, maybe the real estimate to make is, "Which one is more likely to use nukes?"

[QUOTE=chalsall;425372]I still find it somewhat ironic that Al Gore would have likely won in 2000 if Ralph Nader hadn't diverted votes.[/QUOTE]
I find it not ironic but downright scandalous that he would likely have won if Kathryn Harris hadn't chosen which votes should be counted and which shouldn't.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;425471]I find it not ironic but downright scandalous that he would likely have won if Kathryn Harris hadn't chosen which votes should be counted and which shouldn't.[/QUOTE]
So he could have won if Kathryn Harris' slathered mascara didn't scare off all males except party operatives.

[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205]The Vampire Squid Tells Us How to Vote[/url] | Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/why-wall-st-doesnt-care-about-hillarys-cold-shoulder.html]Why Wall St. doesn’t care about Hillary’s cold shoulder[/url] | CNBC
[quote]Wall Street gets it. And Wall Street Democrats, in particular get it.

Hillary Clinton has been postponing fundraisers with financial executives ahead of the New Hampshire primary. But don’t expect folks on Wall Street to be offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them. In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular, particularly with the Democratic primary base voters, according to a survey of several prominent Wall Street Democrats by CNBC.

“Everybody knows how the world works,” said one Democrat working at a Wall Street bank. “If you take offense to that, you’re really unsophisticated.”

For Hillary supporters on Wall Street, the focus is very much on keeping Bernie Sanders — who they see as much, much, worse for Wall Street — away from the Democratic nomination for president. “Democrats like me say: ‘Do what you need to do to get in the seat,‘ ” said the Wall Street Democrat.[/quote]
WTH is a "Wall Street Democrat", exactly, and how does that purported subspecies of [i]Oligarchus Corruptus[/i] differ from a "Wall Street Republican"?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;425471]I find it not ironic but downright scandalous that he would likely have won if Kathryn Harris hadn't chosen which votes should be counted and which shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

This is false (i.e. not scandalous).

Democrats (and Republicans) have never been able to accept that the Florida vote was a tie -- the difference was far, far below the threshold to accurately determine the intent of Florida voters (unless you believe their intent was "no preference"). In such cases, and with so much on the line, both parties scrambled hard to shape the recount (if any) process to their perceived advantage.

As is the case with all tie votes the final outcome was rather arbitrary. No matter which candidate was declared the winner, the other side was not going to admit that the result was legitimate.

The Republicans did have a huge edge in the process. Round 1: Republicans had Kathryn Harris to certify the election. Round 2: Advantage Dems with the Florida Supreme court ordering a recount in heavily Democratic counties. Round 3: Advantage Dems again as local Board of Elections ran the recount process (set the rules for infamous "hanging chads"). Round 4: Advantage Republicans -- the Supreme Court. Round 5 never happened -- advantage Republicans. If the Board of Elections couldn't certify a result in time, the republican run state government would have selected the Electors.

Risking World War III in Syria -Consortium News
 

[B][URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/06/risking-world-war-iii-in-syria/"]Exclusive[/URL]:[/B] [QUOTE]After Saudi-backed Syrian rebels balked at peace talks and the Russian-backed Syrian army cut off Turkish supply lines to jihadists and other Syrian rebels, the U.S. and its Mideast Sunni “allies” appear poised to invade Syria and force “regime change” even at the risk of fighting Russia, a gamble with nuclear war, writes [B]Joe Lauria[/B].[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last October said in a little noticed [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131"]comment [/URL]that the United States was ready to take “direct action on the ground” in Syria. Vice President Joe Biden said in Istanbul last month that if peace talks in Geneva failed, the United States was prepared for a “military solution” in that country.

The peace talks collapsed on Wednesday even before they began. A day later Saudi Arabia said it is ready to invade Syria while Turkey is building up forces at its Syrian border.

The U.N. aims to restart the talks on Feb. 25 but there is little hope they can begin in earnest as the Saudi-run opposition has set numerous conditions. The most important is that Russia stop its military operation in support of the Syrian government, which has been making serious gains on the ground.
[/QUOTE]

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/speeches-earned-clinton-millions-remain-mystery-36754881]Speeches That Earned Clinton Millions Remain a Mystery[/url] | ABC

As intriguing as I find the prospect of our thoroughly bought MSM starting to sniff a scent of potential non-inevitability w.r.to President Hillary and thus begin issuing stories about the obvious and pervasive Clinton family corruption business model, this hit piece strikes me as having more than a bit of sour grapes about it. Consider: why would it be an issue for Goldman to simply pay her going rate - note the $225K is for the 30-minute speech, not the even-pricier full-hour version colleges often pay for out of their mandatory student fees - for a series of three talks? Given Hillary's outrageously profitable, albeit brief, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy]venture into commodities trading[/url], is it so hard to understand that even the elite grifters at GS would be envious and wanting to be let in on some of her secrets of successful investing? I mean team Vampire Squid is surely used to fairly regular 10-baggers on their various trades, but a 100-bagger in 10 months is gonna impress even their jaded sensibilities.

Similarly I find the hue and cry over hubby Bill's last-day-in-the-White-House presidential [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy]pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich[/url] (and several hundred other persons) to be more sour grapes on the part of people who just don't understand what it takes to be a Winner™ in the game of life. So what if the former longtime Mrs. Rich made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Hillary's senate campaign around the same time? Like I said, *former* Mrs. Rich -- why anyone would suggest that her post-divorce largesse might have anything to do with her hubby's I'm-sure-well-deserved pardon is simply beyond me. You people are so cynical!

[QUOTE=Prime95;425494]
As is the case with all tie votes the final outcome was rather arbitrary. No matter which candidate was declared the winner, the other side was not going to admit that the result was legitimate.
[/QUOTE]
Even so, spurrious voter roll purging should be included too.
[URL="http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/"]How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement[/URL]
[QUOTE]The NAACP sued Florida after the election for violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA). As a result of the settlement, the company that the Florida legislature entrusted with the purge—the Boca Raton–based Database Technologies (DBT)—ran the names on its 2000 purge list using stricter criteria. The exercise turned up 12,000 voters who shouldn’t have been labeled felons. That was 22 times Bush’s 537-vote margin of victory.

No one could ever determine precisely how many voters who were incorrectly labeled felons were turned away from the polls. But the US Civil Rights Commission launched a major investigation into the 2000 election fiasco, and its acting general counsel, Edward Hailes, did the math the best that he could. If 12,000 voters were wrongly purged from the rolls, and 44 percent of them were African-American, and 90 percent of African-Americans voted for Gore, that meant 4,752 black Gore voters—almost nine times Bush’s margin of victory—could have been prevented from voting. It’s not a stretch to conclude that the purge cost Gore the election. “We did think it was outcome-determinative,” Hailes said.[/QUOTE]

New Hampshire: The Birthplace of Electronic Election Theft
 

I had not realized that [URL="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35069-focusnew-hampshire-the-birthplace-of-electronic-election-theft"]electronic vote-thieves[/URL] went back to 1988.

[QUOTE]As the New Hampshire primary lurches toward the finish line, the reality of electronic election theft looms over the vote count.

The actual computer voting machines were introduced on a grand scale in New Hampshire’s 1988 primary. The godfather was George H.W. Bush, then the vice president. As former boss of the CIA, Bush was thoroughly familiar with the methods of changing election outcomes. The Agency had been doing it for decades in client states throughout the world.

In the Granite State, Bush was up against Bob Dole, long-time senator from Kansas. Dole was much loved in hard-core Republican circles. But Bush had an ace-in-the-hole. For the first time, the votes would be cast and counted on electronic voting machines, in this case from Shoup Electronics.

Governor John Sununu, later Bush’s White House Chief of Staff, brought the highly-suspect computer voting machines into New Hampshire’s most populous city, Manchester.

The results were predictable. Former CIA director George H.W. Bush won a huge upset over Dole and the mainstream for-profit corporate media refused to consider election rigging.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;425667]I had not realized that went back to 1988.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. It has. See [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/"]this article for just one example[/URL] on how messed up electronic voting is.

I don't know how it works in the "Great" US of A, but in Barbados, Canada and the UK we can ask for a simple paper ballot to use instead of the untrustworthy electronic stuff....

[QUOTE=chalsall;425668]Yeah. It has. See [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/"]this article for just one example[/URL] on how messed up electronic voting is.

I don't know how it works in the "Great" US of A, but in Barbados, Canada and the UK we can ask for a simple paper ballot to use instead of the untrustworthy electronic stuff....[/QUOTE]
Paper is still the gold standard. It is difficult to rig things when the actual votes remain available. Things have ways of flipping and flopping in the electronic realm.

[QUOTE=kladner;425672]Paper is still the gold standard. It is difficult to rig things when the actual votes remain available.[/QUOTE]

You forget the "hanging chad" incident....

The Germans have a word for everything:
[URL="http://www.englishdictionaryonline.org/german/German.asp?word=Politikverdrossenheit"]Politikverdrossenheit[/URL]
[QUOTE]disenchantment with politics[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.englishdictionaryonline.org/german/German.asp?word=Politikverdrossenheit"]h/t[/URL]

[QUOTE=chalsall;425674]You forget the "hanging chad" incident....[/QUOTE]
I was thinking in terms of hand-marked ballots. Hanging chads were the byproduct of punch cards which were destined for machine counting.

[QUOTE=kladner;425679]I was thinking in terms of hand-marked ballots. Hanging chads were the byproduct of punch cards which were destined for machine counting.[/QUOTE]

OK. You are correct.

And because the punch machines driven by the humans back then didn't have sharp enough edges (probably because they had been used for too long) they didn't cleanly punch out the holes, and thus couldn't be read by the primitive electronic equipment.

But somehow were interpreted by humans in making a decision...

When we get right down to it, any system can be cheated. Maybe the local count of physical ballots is accurate, but the reports of that tabulation are still going to end up in computers somewhere. Those physical ballots also need an unbroken chain of custody, which is extremely doubtful in many venues.

[QUOTE=kladner;425683]Those physical ballots also need an unbroken chain of custody, which is extremely doubtful in many venues.[/QUOTE]

OK. I absolutely agree with your statement.

Are you arguing that the "Great" United States of America achieves this?

[QUOTE=only_human;425547]Even so, spurrious voter roll purging should be included too.
[URL="http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/"]How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement[/URL][/QUOTE]
Also cheating via demographicly unbalanced voter disenfranchisement is done allegedly to prevent cheating.

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/"]A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast[/URL]
[QUOTE]To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.

In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn’t include voters without ID who didn’t show up, or recordkeeping mistakes by officials.) Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots. But how many legitimate voters have already been turned away?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;425686]OK. I absolutely agree with your statement.

Are you arguing that the "Great" United States of America achieves this?[/QUOTE]
Yes. :mad:

[QUOTE=kladner;425689]Yes. :mad:[/QUOTE]

OK. :smile:

When, exactly, will this be next demonstrated?

[URL="http://rangevoting.org/PresFraud.html"]US Presidents and Election Fraud[/URL]
[URL="http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/08/today-in-texas-history-lbjs-stolen-senate-victory/"]
Today in Texas History: LBJ’s ‘stolen’ Senate victory[/URL]
[QUOTE]On this date in 1948, Box 13 in Duval County provided Lyndon Johnson the victory margin as the gangly congressman from Johnson City won a hotly contested Senate race by 87 votes.

Six days after election, authorities in Alice (now in Jim Wells County) “discovered” 202 additional ballots in precinct #13 that had not been counted.

Johnson received 200 of those votes. His opponent, Coke Stevenson, got two.

Stevenson’s razor-thin lead melted away and “Landslide Lyndon,” who believed that the 1941 Senate race had been stolen from him, was the winner in yet another deeply disputed election.

Later, it was reported that the ballots seemed to be written in the same ink. And the voters allegedly voted in alphabetical order.

Johnson never acknowledged that his allies stole the election. But former Texas Observer editor Ronnie Dugger told a story of visiting LBJ in the White House. The then-president whipped out a photo of five good ol’ boys from Alice with the infamous Box 13 sitting on the hood of their vehicle.

Dugger asked LBJ if he had stolen the election.

Laughter.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;425690]OK. :smile:

When, exactly, will this be next demonstrated?[/QUOTE]

I am afraid that I answered the inverse of your question. An unbroken chain of custody is by no means attained with regard to US voting procedures. (for real POd face.) :mad:

[url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b6d1fc34-ce9f-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html]Bloomberg says he is eyeing 2016 run[/url] | Financial Times
[Note FT content is behind a paywall, to see sans registration ya gotta google the piece and view the cached article]

NC owner Yves Smith's [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-2916.html]take on this[/url] (and see ensuing reader discussion, esp. w.r.to the time-pressing issue of ballot access, in the comments section of the same page):
[i]
Just about no new content beyond his previous statements, save: “I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters.” Since he would take far more votes from the Democratic nominee than any Republican, I translate this as, “Wall Street and Corporate America are not being treated with the respect they deserve by any of the candidates.” His initial trial balloon faded almost immediately from the news, and so far I see this getting prominent play only on the FT (which interviewed him) and CNBC. Readers?[/i]

Re. "the will of the people", an NC reader [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-21016.html#comment-2546542]offers this[/url] on this post-NH-primary day:
[i]
The numbers, as presented by msnbc this morning:

Bernie bested clinton by nearly 50,000 votes which “marks the widest ever gap in a contested NH democratic primary.” Bernie 60%, hillary 38%.

nbc news has allocated 15 NH delegates to Sanders and 8 to hillary.

clinton has the backing of 6 of the 8 NH superdelegates, for a final “allocation” of 15 delegates for Bernie and 14 delegates for hillary.

With a 22% vote differential.

hilary and Bernie were virtually tied in iowa, and Bernie creamed her in NH, and the current delegate totals according to nbc “news” are hillary in the “lead” with 44 and Bernie with 36, a difference of 8 or 10% of the total delegates.

And that’s how it’s done.
[/i]
[For those of you unfamiliar with the thoroughly corrupt creature known as a 'superdelegate', think party-bestowed papal indulgences for [strike]bought-n-paid-for[/strike] establishment candidates.]

As another reader hopefully notes, of course Team Clinton had a similar 'lock' on the 'will work for bribe' superdelegates in 2008, as well ... to which a 3rd reader replies "Yeah but Obama was also a creature of the Party. Bernie is an interloper."

Another reader notes the MSM is still (mostly) in team HillBillary's pocket:
[i]
This morning’s report by those Nice Polite Republicans at NPR about Bernie’s win was typical. They downplayed the huge margin, then played clips from Clinton’s weird victory speech and nothing from Bernie’s speech. They’ve been doing this free advertising for Clinton all along.
A few months ago I heard Cokie Roberts talking about the Democratic race by [sic] never once mentioning Sanders and instead playing big chunks of Hillary’s latest TV ad.[/i]

W.r.to the GOP, a.k.a. the race [url=https://theintercept.com/2016/02/09/gop-candidates-compete-over-who-will-commit-most-war-crimes-once-elected/]Over Who Will Commit Most War Crimes Once Elected[/url], cf. especially "Jerry Denim's" comment re. Trump. The best laff line I heard on last night's late news was one talking head, when asked who the big winner in the NH Republican primary was, replied 'Jeb!' - who got a massive 11% of the votes, roughly 1/3rd of Trump's count, but 'no longer in the low single digit percentages!!'

I think both parties need a RESET.

:smile:

[url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta]Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal.[/url] | Mother Jones

Shorter version: Hillary lies. Again. [Probably a good idea to keep an airsickness bag handy while reading.]

[url=http://www.salon.com/2016/02/12/sanders_proudly_declaring_kissinger_is_not_my_friend_totally_destroys_notion_that_clintons_better_on_foreign_policy/]Sanders proudly declaring “Kissinger is not my friend” totally destroys notion that Clinton’s better on foreign policy[/url] | Salon

[Admittedly the 'better on FP' was a bizarre notion to begin with - serially and callously f*cking up various other nations in pursuit of neocon 'full spectrum dominance' nirvana may make on 'more experienced' (at f*cking things up, at least), but 'better' is a non sequitur unless one literally means 'better at f*cking things up'.]

I suspect Bernie is having to do a fine balancing act, though - he can't come right out and call Hillary a warmongering imperialist without also painting 0bama with the same brush, which would be deserved, but alienating of too much of the Dem base. Bashing Hillary for being - like her hubby - Wall Street's b*tch and a money-whoring out-of-touch member of the Looter Elite is far a safer strategy, and also mutes much potential GOP criticism, since *that* base is similarly unhappy with their oligarch-sponsored establishment candidates over the same things.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;426263][URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta"]Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal.[/URL] | Mother Jones
Shorter version: Hillary lies. Again. [Probably a good idea to keep an airsickness bag handy while reading.]
[URL="http://www.salon.com/2016/02/12/sanders_proudly_declaring_kissinger_is_not_my_friend_totally_destroys_notion_that_clintons_better_on_foreign_policy/"]Sanders proudly declaring “Kissinger is not my friend” totally destroys notion that Clinton’s better on foreign policy[/URL] | Salon
[Admittedly the 'better on FP' was a bizarre notion to begin with - serially and callously f*cking up various other nations in pursuit of neocon 'full spectrum dominance' nirvana may make on 'more experienced' (at f*cking things up, at least), but 'better' is a non sequitur unless one literally means 'better at f*cking things up'.]
I suspect Bernie is having to do a fine balancing act, though - he can't come right out and call Hillary a warmongering imperialist without also painting 0bama with the same brush, which would be deserved, but alienating of too much of the Dem base. Bashing Hillary for being - like her hubby - Wall Street's b*tch and a money-whoring out-of-touch member of the Looter Elite is far a safer strategy, and also mutes much potential GOP criticism, since *that* base is similarly unhappy with their oligarch-sponsored establishment candidates over the same things.[/QUOTE]

So you don't like the Democratic (socialist) choices either?
If so, we agree.
Who then do you prefer to see as president?

[QUOTE=davar55;426057]I think both parties need a RESET.

:smile:[/QUOTE]
Why. I think someone like Bernie Sanders running for president is one of the better things that have happened in politics in quite some time.

Just let them shake their etch-a-sketches after the primary.

[QUOTE=only_human;426353]Why. I think someone like Bernie Sanders running for president is one of the better things that have happened in politics in quite some time.
Just let them shake their etch-a-sketches after the primary.[/QUOTE]

The two opposite extremists - Trump and Sanders - are dangerous and wrong.

[QUOTE=davar55;426357]The two opposite extremists - Trump and Sanders - are dangerous and wrong.[/QUOTE]
Wish them into the cornfield then.
[YOUTUBE]_C34g5mz1ZQ[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=only_human;426366]Wish them into the cornfield then.
[/QUOTE]
Not in this thread. :smile:

Hilarious random-sound-bites summary of last night's GOP debate [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-21416.html#comment-2548597]from NC reader Fresno Dan[/url] - note that FD provides context for Jeb!'s "I could drop my pants and moon everyone" quote a few replies down. (Yes, for those unfortunate few of you who missed the epiphanic political-seismological event, there really was debate about you-did-so-talk-about-dropping-your-pants-and-mooning-the-american-people at last night's debate of 'presidential' - and we use the term *very* loosely - candidates.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;426424]Hilarious random-sound-bites summary of last night's GOP debate [URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-21416.html#comment-2548597"]from NC reader Fresno Dan[/URL] - note that FD provides context for Jeb!'s "I could drop my pants and moon everyone" quote a few replies down. (Yes, for those unfortunate few of you who missed the epiphanic political-seismological event, there really was debate about you-did-so-talk-about-dropping-your-pants-and-mooning-the-american-people at last night's debate of 'presidential' - and we use the term *very* loosely - candidates.)[/QUOTE]

This washes all the candidates with the same cloth.
Some are better than others, and the dems are not so hot either.
But I do get the significance of the thread's (current) title.

English translation of an opinion article written by Thomas Piketty on recent U.S. history and the rise of Bernie Sanders:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016[/URL]

[QUOTE=Nick;426567]English translation of an opinion article written by Thomas Piketty on recent U.S. history and the rise of Bernie Sanders:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016[/URL][/QUOTE]

Glosses over the fact that those very high tax rates led to rampant tax-dodging (e.g. by way of participation in bogus 'limited partnerships') by the moneyed classes, but nonetheless quite interesting. Even with the aforementioned tax avoidance by the wealthy the average wage disparity between the C-suiters and the mailroom clerks was an order of magnitude less than it is today, and since the US economy was still predominantly based on 'making stuff' there was more real wealth to go around, too boot, as opposed to the huge levels of 'borrowed prosperity' which predominate nowadays among the 'precarious middle'. And the always-parasitical-and-fraud-prone financial sector was [a] much smaller as a fraction of GDP than today and [b] still largely based on in some way, shape or form helping the making-stuff economy do its thing, as opposed to our latter-day almost-purely-parasitical paradigm. The excellent book by heterodox - as in 'does not ignore history and actually cares about real wealth-creation' economist Michael Hudson which covers this tectonic socioeconomic shift is aptly titled [i]Killing the Host[/i].

As I'm not a Christian, I couldn't possibly comment.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35607597[/url]

[url=www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/18/the-clinton-monster-that-wont-die/]The Clinton Monster That Won't Die[/url] | Counterpunch
[quote]In the end, this Janus-faced Machiavelli had it both ways. On one hand, he maintained a rhetoric of empathy for the poor, the blue-collar worker, the paycheck-to-paycheck laborer, and never hesitated to express his sympathies on his whistle-stop tours. Tears crept into the crow-footed corners of faces in the crowd. [i]He felt our pain[/i]. On the other hand—or with the other hand—he palmed check after check from large corporate interests, assuring them, in deed if not word, that his rhetoric was little more than a ruse to retain the progressive vote.

In office, Clinton pursued Republican objectives. He launched a prison-building empire, gutted welfare, deregulated the financial markets, produced astonishing [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/02/the-10-trillion-us-tax-giveaway-10-trillion-more-proposed/]tax breaks[/url] for the rich, passed a trade bill that [url=http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/]destroyed[/url] American jobs and wrecked Mexican agribusiness, and decided there was no good reason to maintain a wall between the unscrupulous capitalist investor and unwitting depositor. After all, as the Nineties refrain went, banks can police themselves. All the while, of course, he continued to peddle his sincerest sympathies to Main Street.[/quote]

[url=www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224]How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable[/url] | Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

The combination of the pro wrasslin imagery - including a reference to famous late-80s WWE heel Ravishing Rick Rude! - and referring to Jeb! as "[Trump's] favorite wrestling foil, Prince Dinkley McBirthright" and to Ted Cruz's [i]backpfeifengesicht[/i] (a lovely German compound-word colloquialism combining the word for cheek, whistling-noise and face ... that word also came up recently in regard to pharma grifter-extortionist poster boy Martin Shkreli) ... precious.

But aside from the opening-section funsies, Taibbi does us the service of pointing out that Trump is the only one of the GOP candidates - and the only one, period, but for Bernie "ultra-lefty pie-in-the-sky socialist" [to hear the MSM tell it] Sanders - who is speaking hard truths on the singular Washington War Party, government ownership by Big Finance/Pharma/Insurance, and how both major parties have conspired to eviscerate the American middle class for over 30 years. And even a master characterizer such as Taibbi is clearly struggles with the conundrum which is The Donald, a guy who loudly spouts inane ideas like building a Great Wall of Anti-Mexican one moment, then speaks coherently about the terrible anticompetitive market-rigging ushered in by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, the basis for the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurance companies, the next.

Former Clinton Labor Secretary also seems to get what's afoot:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/robert-reich-are-we-witnessing-the-death-of-americas-political-establishment.html]Robert Reich: Are We Witnessing the Death of America's Political Establishment?[/url] | naked capitalism

[Tiny quibble: It's "shoo-in" - same root as shoo-fly pie]

Regarding the article headline, to quote great English playwright Bill Wigglestick, 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;427430]Former Clinton Labor Secretary also seems to get what's afoot:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/robert-reich-are-we-witnessing-the-death-of-americas-political-establishment.html]Robert Reich: Are We Witnessing the Death of America's Political Establishment?[/url] | naked capitalism

[Tiny quibble: It's "shoo-in" - same root as shoo-fly pie]

Regarding the article headline, to quote great English playwright Bill Wigglestick, 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.[/QUOTE]
Liberté, égalité, fraternité

[SIZE=3][URL="http://inthesetimes.com/article/18912/bravo-email-shows-anne-marie-slaughter-congratulating-clinton-on-libya"]No Warmongers here![/URL] Just us Progressives[SUP]®[/SUP]![/SIZE] :yucky:
[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton has spent [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/"]much[/URL] of her [URL="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/19/dem-debate-hillary-clinton-dodges-responsibility-for-libya/"]presidential campaign[/URL] [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/live-coverage-of-the-democratic-debate/462540/"]running away[/URL] from [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html"]her responsibility[/URL] for the United States’ disastrous 2011 intervention in Libya. The February 19 release of more emails from her private server may make it harder for her to do so.

In [URL="https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb13thWeb/08634-FEB13/DOC_0C05787434/C05787434.pdf"]an email[/URL] with the subject “bravo!” sent on March 19, 2011—the day the United States and its allies began bombing Libya—Clinton confidant and former employee Anne-Marie Slaughter appears to praise then-Secretary of State Clinton for convincing a reluctant President Obama to take military action in Libya.

“I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you,” writes Slaughter, who worked as an advisor to Clinton in the State Department from 2009 to February 3, 2011, and then remained a consultant to the policy planning bureau.[B] “[U]Turning POTUS around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for.[/U]”[/B] An earlier email release, which I reported on previously, showed that [B]Slaughter had spent February 2011 [URL="http://inthesetimes.com/article/18485/hillary-clinton-emails-anne-marie-slaughter-sidney-blumenthal"]imploring Clinton[/URL] to involve the United States militarily in Libya, insisting that it would [U]“change the image of the United States overnight.”[/U]
[/B]
“Keep your fingers crossed and pray for a soft landing for everyone’s sake,” Clinton replies.
[/QUOTE](emphasis mine)

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html[/url]

[QUOTE]Despite all the forces arrayed against Mr. Trump, the interviews show, the party has been gripped by a nearly incapacitating leadership vacuum and a paralytic sense of indecision and despair, as he has won smashing victories in South Carolina and Nevada.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Two of Mr. Trump’s opponents have openly acknowledged that they may have to wrest the Republican nomination from him in a deadlocked convention.[/QUOTE]:confused2:

Bernie Sanders got walloped in the Dem SC primary today ... lotsa discussion about that on the [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-22816.html]NC Links page[/url]; I especially liked user Carolinian's "all politics is local" comments. Mish - who thinks Bernie's economic ideas are nuts (I would ask: Which is more nuts - shoveling taxpayer money at the mega-corrupt banking cartels or redistributing sizable but still rather rather smaller sums to people who will actually spend it back into the domestic economy?) but who is no fan of Hillary, [url=http://mishtalk.com/2016/02/27/prepare-for-clinton-coronation-alleged-dead-heat-dies-sudden-death/]also weighs in[/url]. As I e-mailed to my sister, a big Bernie supporter:
[quote]
My one consolation in the event that the Dems steal the nomination for HillBillary is that in that case Trump will tear her a new one. None of the too-polite-to-bring-this-up crap the Dems (including Sanders) have pulled on Hillary 'track record of experience.' Yes, let's look closely at that experience, shall we? Huge warmonger ... owned by Wall Street ... massively corrupt, like her husband ... and completely self-isolated from the effects her neoliberal domestic policies and neocon foreign policies have had on the bottom 90%. A Trump presidency sure as hell could not possibly be worse for non-elite-douchebag Americans than the last 35 years have been, and think of the sheer entertainment value: "Hillary, you're fired." (And indicted, hopefully - Trump has actually promised that as one of his first actions as president. After all there are several non-elite whistleblowers rotting in prison for crimes far less than Hillary committed by privatizing her State Dept email server, using personal e-mail account to transmit top secret stuff, and using the crooked Clinton Foundation as a global pay-to-play money-laundering front while she was SoS .)

Trump and Sanders are the only 2 candidates-with-a-chance who are not a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, Kochsucker Industries Inc, etc. Despite the huge difference in styles they actually agree on what should be the 2 major issues everyone is focused on:
[b]
1. Domestic policy:[/b] What have all these crooked-bank bailouts and 'free trade' deals done for the real economy, exactly? Why have real wages actually dropped for the bottom 80-90% of Americans over the last 35 years?
[b]
2. Foreign policy:[/b] How exactly does blowing up one foreign country after another and thereby creating millions of potential terrorist recruits make us more safe? Despite Trump's blustery anti-ISIS rhetoric, he has actually said some very cogent things on the issue, see [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/us-usa-election-trump-mideast-idUSKCN0RT1GB20150929]here[/url] and [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263086-trump-hillary-has-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-people]here[/url].[/quote]
Only corrigendum post-SC is that the Dem establishment may in fact not have to steal the nomination for Hillary after all. But rest assured that a vote for her is neither "progressive" nor "for the lesser evil".

Cornel West Says Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of US Politics
 

[URL="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Cornel-West-Says-Clinton-is-the-Milli-Vanilli-of-US-Politics---20160222-0027.html"]You tell it, Brother West![/URL]

[QUOTE]The U.S. philosopher Cornel West accused Hillary Clinton of only giving “lip service” to social justice policies, comparing her to German duo Milli Vanilli, whose Grammy award was revoked after it was revealed that the pair had not actually sung their songs, but lipsynched to other singers.

“Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics … She lip-syncs, she gives lip service. But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported, not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?” West said in an interview on CNN.
[/QUOTE]

Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?
 

[URL="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen?"]I consider this an "Is the Pope Catholic" kind of question.[/URL]
(Transcript or video available.)

From Democracy Now!
[QUOTE]Harvey Wasserman of Columbus, Ohio, has been a vocal critic of electronic voting machines. He co-wrote the book, "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election." His upcoming book is titled "The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft." We talk to him about his concerns for the upcoming presidential race.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?[/QUOTE]
Should be pretty safe. Donald Trump is quite obviously too honest to even think of using his wealth to arrange such a thing.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;427998]Should be pretty safe. Donald Trump is quite obviously too honest to even think of using his wealth to arrange such a thing.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that an individual, and an outsider could make such a play. It is party apparatchiks in positions of authority, such as Secretary of State, who have the easiest access.

That is not to say that they are the only ones, but they have all the machines at their disposal, where an outsider might, at best, be able to diddle the machines of a particular precinct. If they were higher up the chain, they might be able to affect the tabulation, rather than individual locations.

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-is-the-human-embodiment-of-the-republican-partys-trump-terrors/[/url]

[QUOTE]What Trump has done is revealed how little power is left in the Republican Party.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;427804][URL="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen?"]I consider this an "Is the Pope Catholic" kind of question.[/URL]
(Transcript or video available.)

From Democracy Now![/QUOTE]

I have a lot of issues with that article. For example, this statement:

[quote]They are stripping the voter rolls—and Greg Palast, the great investigative reporter, is doing great on this—removing African Americans, Hispanics, people who might incline to vote progressive, and they—so that—in 2004, they stripped 300,000 people from the voter rolls here in the urban areas. Bush only won by less than 120 [thousand].[/quote]

assumes many things including:

1) That the 300,000 people that were removed should not have been removed in the first place.
2) That 150,000 of them would have voted.
3) That 80% of them would have voted for a Democrat.

Although #3 is likely true, #1 and #2 are likely not true.

This statement:

[quote]When you compare exit polls, which are generally accurate to within 1 percent, with the electronic outcome, there are huge variations.[/quote]

also makes a number of assumptions.

1) "generally" does not mean always
2) exit polls are voluntary
3) "huge variations" is poorly defined

Finally, since I'm a cheesehead (but not "cheesehead"), this statement is just an assertion without facts:

[quote]We have no doubt that Scott Walker stole his re-election in Wisconsin.[/quote]

All polls at the time clearly showed that Walker was going to win that election. The Democrats did not put forth a good enough candidate.

In case you think I'm some right-leaning whack-job, I'll let you know that I am one of those coveted "in the middle" voters who is neither a Democrat or Republican. Personally I would love see Trump vs. Sanders in November because of the problems both cause for their respective parties. I don't see how Trump could win, whether he faces Clinton or Sanders.

[QUOTE=tha;410778]...... Trump will not win the Republican nomination, not be elected president, but otherwise he certainly would be the first president to be impeached and in the first year in office to be precise. No need for a militairy coup.[/QUOTE]

I am still of the opinion Trump will not be the Republican nominee, will not be elected US president, and would be impeached by the US congress with bipartisan support in his first year in office if he somehow ended up there anyway. But I am amused and relieved by US generals openly discussing a running up to a coup scenario in the media already.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;428023][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-is-the-human-embodiment-of-the-republican-partys-trump-terrors/[/url][/QUOTE]

Flip-flop much, Mittens?

Romney, 2016: “[ROMNEY:] Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat” [CNN].

Romney, 2012: “[ROMNEY:] Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works to create jobs for the American people. He’s done it here in Nevada, he’s done it across the country… He’s one of the few people who stood up and said, you know what, China’s been cheating. They’ve taken jobs from Americans” [Political Wire].

[QUOTE=kladner;428022]I am not sure that an individual, and an outsider could make such a play. It is party apparatchiks in positions of authority, such as Secretary of State, who have the easiest access.

That is not to say that they are the only ones, but they have all the machines at their disposal, where an outsider might, at best, be able to diddle the machines of a particular precinct. If they were higher up the chain, they might be able to affect the tabulation, rather than individual locations.[/QUOTE]
Note that the establishment insiders have many other ways to commit caucus/primary/general-election fraud, as well -- such as [url=http://theantimedia.org/60000-people-want-bill-clinton-arrested-for-violating-election-laws/]this example from Super Tuesday's MA primary[/url]. And of course the whole Dem 'House of Lords'-style superdelegate system is perhaps the clearest example of vote-rigging, and the Dem establishment is not even trying to disguise that one.

[QUOTE=tha;428041]I am still of the opinion Trump will not be the Republican nominee, will not be elected US president, and would be impeached by the US congress with bipartisan support in his first year in office if he somehow ended up there anyway. But I am amused and relieved by US generals openly discussing a running up to a coup scenario in the media already.[/QUOTE]

IMO President Hillary would be at least as likely to be impeached, over her actual breaking of laws (privatizing her e-mails as SoS and gross mishandling of state secrets, lying to Congress over the Benghazi consulate weapons-smuggling operation to the Syrian rebels, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay-to-play bribe-laundering front during her tenure in Congress and at State, the list is seemingly endless). What illegal acts might Congress impeach The Donald over, pray tell?

The UK neocons were also issuing such blustery, borderline-treasonous verbiage in the runup to the recent UK elections. But nice of you to go on record as preferring a US military dictatorship over someone who has actually dared question the imperial warmongering status quo in Washington, whatever his other personal flaws may be.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;428043]...... But nice of you to go on record as preferring a US military dictatorship over someone who has actually dared question the imperial warmongering status quo in Washington, whatever his other personal flaws may be.[/QUOTE]

You are stretching it quite bit. A coup does not need to be followed by militairy rule.

Rule 40 is an interesting quibble to watch. Each of the conventions seems to be working under hindsight rules set by the last mess incurred.

A very biased source but so what at this point.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/03/what-if-trump-is-the-only-candidate-at-a-brokered-convention-whos-satisfied-rule-40/[/url]

o Re. yesterday's latest failed GOP establishment hit-squad attempt:

[url=davidstockmanscontracorner.com/mitt-romney-is-the-real-super-fraud-heres-the-proof-chapter-and-verse/]Mitt Romney Is The Real Super-Fraud: Here's The Proof, Chapter And Verse[/url] | David Stockman's Contra Corner

And invoking the wayback machine, Matt Taibbi did an epic takedown of the parasitical Romney [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/on-mitt-romney-bain-capital-and-private-equity-20120829]back in the day[/url].

o [url=http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/]The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders[/url] | The Nation
[quote]Cáceres was a vocal and brave indigenous leader, an opponent of the 2009 Honduran coup that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, made possible. In The Nation, Dana Frank and I covered that coup as it unfolded. Later, as Clinton’s emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot, and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society.[/quote]
Ah yes, another example of the much-touted Clinton "foreign policy experience".

Thanks for posting the piece from The Nation. I had read it, but didn't have the energy afterward to post.

Clinton:
Exceptionalist. Interventionist. Corporatist. The veneer of more populist platitudes is a late addition to her repertoire. They ring hollow when Goldman Sachs, and others of their ilk, have major investments in her.

American Power Under Challenge
 

Here are two parts of an excerpt from a new Noam Chomsky book, "Who Rules the World?"

[URL="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176137/"]Part 1[/URL]
[QUOTE]When we ask “Who rules the world?” we commonly adopt the standard convention that the actors in world affairs are states, primarily the great powers, and we consider their decisions and the relations among them. That is not wrong. But we would do well to keep in mind that this level of abstraction can also be highly misleading.

States of course have complex internal structures, and the choices and decisions of the political leadership are heavily influenced by internal concentrations of power, while the general population is often marginalized. That is true even for the more democratic societies, and obviously for others. We cannot gain a realistic understanding of who rules the world while ignoring the “masters of mankind,” as Adam Smith called them: in his day, the merchants and manufacturers of England; in ours, multinational conglomerates, huge financial institutions, retail empires, and the like. Still following Smith, it is also wise to attend to the “vile maxim” to which the “masters of mankind” are dedicated: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people” -- a doctrine known otherwise as bitter and incessant class war, often one-sided, much to the detriment of the people of the home country and the world.

In the contemporary global order, the institutions of the masters hold enormous power, not only in the international arena but also within their home states, on which they rely to protect their power and to provide economic support by a wide variety of means. When we consider the role of the masters of mankind, we turn to such state policy priorities of the moment as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the investor-rights agreements mislabeled “free-trade agreements” in propaganda and commentary. They are negotiated in secret, apart from the hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists writing the crucial details. The intention is to have them adopted in good Stalinist style with “fast track” procedures designed to block discussion and allow only the choice of yes or no (hence yes). The designers regularly do quite well, not surprisingly. People are incidental, with the consequences one might anticipate.
[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176138/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_what_principles_rule_the_world/"]The Costs of Violence
Masters of Mankind (Part 2)[/URL]
[QUOTE]In brief, the Global War on Terror sledgehammer strategy has spread jihadi terror from a tiny corner of Afghanistan to much of the world, from Africa through the Levant and South Asia to Southeast Asia. It has also incited attacks in Europe and the United States. The invasion of Iraq made a substantial contribution to this process, much as intelligence agencies had predicted. Terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank estimate that the Iraq War “generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.” Other exercises have been similarly productive.

A group of major human rights organizations -- Physicians for Social Responsibility (U.S.), Physicians for Global Survival (Canada), and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Germany) -- conducted a study that sought "to provide as realistic an estimate as possible of the total body count in the three main war zones [Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan] during 12 years of ‘war on terrorism,'" including an extensive review “of the major studies and data published on the numbers of victims in these countries,” along with additional information on military actions. Their "conservative estimate" is that these wars killed about 1.3 million people, a toll that "could also be in excess of 2 million." A database search by independent researcher David Peterson in the days following the publication of the report found virtually no mention of it. Who cares?

More generally, studies carried out by the Oslo Peace Research Institute show that two-thirds of the region’s conflict fatalities were produced in originally internal disputes where outsiders imposed their solutions. In such conflicts, 98% of fatalities were produced only after outsiders had entered the domestic dispute with their military might. In Syria, the number of direct conflict fatalities more than tripled after the West initiated air strikes against the self-declared Islamic State and the CIA started its indirect military interference in the war -- interference which appears to have drawn the Russians in as advanced US antitank missiles were decimating the forces of their ally Bashar al-Assad. Early indications are that Russian bombing is having the usual consequences.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/[/url]

[QUOTE]While a few members of Congress push to get big money out of politics—most notably Bernie Sanders—the Democratic leadership has only strengthened its ties to wealthy and corporate donors who have hijacked the party for their own interests over the progressive agenda held by voters identifying as Democrats.[/QUOTE]

• On the "corrupt and complicit media" front, NC reader 'hreik' linked this today:
[i]
Day of CA primary, MSNBC planning to declare HRC nominee at 8:00 p/m EST, 3 hours b/f CA polls close.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGG3DJAALkw[/url]
[/i]
Reader 'Anne' comments:
[i]
If my math is correct, there are 694 pledged delegates to be had in the June 7th contests – she needs 633 of them to clinch the nomination with pledged delegates. She’s not going to get that many, given the proportional way in which the delegates are allocated.

But, the superdelegates! The superdelegates! No matter how many times the media are reminded that superdelegates don’t count until their votes are cast at the convention, they insist on including them in the total count now.

Man, they really, really want Sanders out – to the point where they are willing to be public about their efforts to corrupt the process and crowning her the nominee even before the polls close in California; nothing is going to get in the way of them having their dream contest of two of the most disliked, mistrusted candidates ever.
[/i]
File under "The MSM are completely in the tank for HRH Queen Hillary the Inevitable, episode 7641."

• [url=www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/]Donald Trump is going to win: This is why Hillary Clinton can't defeat what Trump represents[/url] - Salon.com
[quote]The neofascist reaction, the force behind Trump, has come about because of the extreme disembeddedness of the economy from social relations. The neoliberal economy has become pure abstraction; as has the market, as has the state, there is no reality to any of these things the way we have classically understood them. Americans, like people everywhere rising up against neoliberal globalization (in Britain, for example, this takes the form of Brexit, or exit from the European Union), want a return of social relations, or embeddedness, to the economy.

The Trump alliance desires to remake the world in their own image, just as the class representing neoliberal globalization has insisted on doing so. The difference couldn’t be starker. Capitalism today is placeless, locationless, nameless, faceless, while Trump is talking about hauling corporations back to where they belong, in their home countries, fix them in place by means of rewards and retribution, like one handles a recalcitrant child.

Trump is a businessman, while Mitt Romney was a businessman too, yet I predict victory for the former while the latter obviously lost miserably. What is the difference? While Trump “builds” things (literal buildings), in places like Manhattan and Atlantic City, places one can recognize and identify with, and while Trump’s entire life has been orchestrated around building luxury and ostentatiousness, again things one can tangibly grasp and hold on to (the Trump steaks!), Romney is the personification of a placeless corporation, making his quarter billion dollars from consulting, i.e., representing economic abstraction at its purest, serving as a high priest of the transnational capitalist class.[/quote]
IMO the 'neofascist' opening label is inappropriate - cf. [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/links-52216.html#comment-2601148]this NC reader discussion[/url] on a similarly-asserting article - but remainder of above snip is spot-on. Rest of article is a cognitively dissonant mix of writer trying to sound really, really smart about neoliberalism, globalization and the (non)role of the nation/state in that agenda, and in some place laughably bad, e.g. the blather about "the successful two-thirds of American society."

Getting back to the Romneyesque aspect of things - Tellingly, a recent [url=https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/23/grim-election-map-for-trump-fox-analyst-vs-rcp-vs-mish/]'analysis'[/url] by Fox News pet in-house faux-progressive Juan Williams examines the electoral map by viewing Trump as Romney-with-louder-PR, but the above [i]Salon[/i] piece notes that this may well be 180 degrees wrong - in this election, it is Hillary who represents the water carrier for the transnational capitalist rentier class.

• Since becoming Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos' pet paper a few years back The Washington Post op-ed pages have devolved into a DC-side-of-the-Acela-corridor neoliberal establishment propaganda festival (the NY side of the same corridor having long been held by the Grey Lady, the NYTimes), but for now they still have at least a few reporters doing quality old-fashioned investigative reporting. Here the latest such piece by 2014 Pulitzer Prize winner Eli Saslow. The snip I select highlights a dinner-table-in-flyover-country discussion of the same themes in the above Salon snip:

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/from-belief-to-resentment-in-indiana/2016/05/14/d1642222-16fa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html]From belief to outrage: The decline of the middle class reaches the next American town[/url] - WaPo
[quote]He had made the drive enough times to already suspect what he might find. Stride Rite had left Huntington for Mexico at the tail end of the recession; Breyers Ice Cream had closed its doors after 100 years. In the weeks after each factory closing in his part of Indiana, Lewandowski had listened to politicians make promises about jobs — high-tech jobs, right-to-work jobs, clean-energy jobs — but instead Indiana had lost 60,000 middle-class jobs in the past decade and replaced them with a surge of low-paying work in health care, hospitality and fast food. Wages of male high school graduates had dropped 19 percent in the past two decades, and the wealth divide between the middle class and the upper class had quadrupled.

“These jobs aren’t the solution so much as they’re part of the problem,” Lewandowski said, and now the result of so much churn was becoming evident all across Indiana and lately in Huntington, too. Fast-food consumption was beginning to tick up. Poverty was up. Foreclosures were up. Meth usage up. Heroin up. Death rate up. In Dan Quayle’s Middle America, one of the biggest news stories of the year had been the case of a mother who had let her three-week-old child suck heroin off her finger.

“Despair is our business, and business is booming,” Lewandowski said. “Workers have lost all agency in their lives. They’ve based their lives on believing in something that turned out to be a lie. They work when they can, for what they can, for as long as they can until it ends.”

As second shift finished in Huntington, several of those UTEC workers gathered at an Applebee’s that displayed construction hats on the wall. Earlier in the day, an employee had been suspended for taping a “Run for the Border” bumper sticker to one of the company’s roving robots — the biggest act of rebellion yet. A few employees had been trying to popularize a boycott of United Technologies products, and others had started using their regular ­10-minute breaks to campaign for Trump in a traditionally Democratic factory. But for the most part their work was continuing unchanged, with attendance steady and factory production on the rise. They couldn’t risk losing their jobs or their UTEC severance packages, so the only way to vent was to come here, where the discussion on this night was of a country in decline.

“This is how it feels to be sold out by your country.”

“It’s pure greed.”

“They wanted to add another 6 feet to their yachts.”

“You’re telling me those people down there are going to be able to crank out 12 million units a year — no drop in quality, no incidents, no safety issues? Yeah. Okay. Good luck with that. There’s a reason they’re going to make $3 an hour.”

“We’re becoming like a third-world country. We’re going to have nothing left but fast food.”

“Fast food and hedge funds. That’s where we’re going.”[/quote]

Cleveland, Ohio has arranged to free up jail space in a nearby county for 200 people to be potentially arrested at the Republican National Convention and agreed to pay more than a thousand dollars per person held.
[URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281580-ohio-county-to-keep-open-200-jail-beds-for-gop-convention"]Ohio county to keep 200 jail beds open for GOP convention[/URL]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;434845]
IMO the 'neofascist' opening label is inappropriate - cf. [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/links-52216.html#comment-2601148]this NC reader discussion[/url] on a similarly-asserting article - but remainder of above snip is spot-on.[/QUOTE]This isn't really the thread to discuss Brexit but I'm not sure that "spot-on" describes the article's analysis of that phenomenon.

No time now to elaborate now, sadly, but perhaps I'll return to the theme later.

[Ed. note: I should probably merge this thread with the "Your Next Novice Supreme Commander" one - any objections?]

----------------------------------

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/fear-and-loathing-at-saint-anselm-the-donald-gives-a-presidential-speech-on-national-security.html]Fear and Loathing at Saint Anselm: The Donald Gives a "Presidential" Speech on National Security[/url] | naked capitalism
[quote]I have a severe and painful case of cognitive dissonance from coping with the idea that anything Donald Trump says can possibly make sense. Then again, maybe there’s a reason Trump went through seventeen of his competitors for the Republican Presidential nomination like a hot knife through butter.
...
That said, it’s quite remarkable to hear the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party say that he “stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT Community.” I’d even go so far as to say it’s newsworthy. [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/in-speech-trump-appears-to-embrace-lgbt-rights-but-gay-leaders-remain-skeptical/]WaPo[/url] did; [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-13/trump-urges-immigration-ban-in-wake-of-orlando-attacks]Bloomberg[/url] did; the conservative hive mind managed to emit a [url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/13/anonymous-gay-activist-pledges-support-for-trump-in-open-letter-heres-why/]“viral” pro-Trump letter by an anonymous gay person[/url]; but Times stenographers Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, in an Op-Ed somehow misfiled as reporting, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html?_r=0]omit to mention this portion of the speech altogether[/url].[/quote]

While both Hillary and Trump emitted post-Orlando-gay-nightclub-massacre noises about "fighting ISIS", there are some key differences in their takes on that. First, Hillary (full transcript linked in the above NC piece; and see also [url=http://samadlerbell.com/the-spirit-of-912/]the perspective here[/url]):
[quote]The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain this threat – we must defeat it.

The good news is that the coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.

So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.[/quote]
Talk about cognitive dissonance:

[1] It has sure as hell not been the U.S. air campaign(s) which pushed ISIS back;
[2] By "our friends fighting to take and hold ground" she cannot possibly mean the Russian/Syrian coalition which is doing just that, so she must mean the same "moderate jihadists" the U.S. helped fund and arm in its criminal campaign to destabilize Syria. Presumably said Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are roughly as "moderate" as they are "accepting of LGBT rights";
[3] Our partners in the region? You mean like Saudi Arabia, a major backer of your presidential campaign, donor to the corrupt Clinton Foundation, and the world's biggest promoter of Islamist radicalism? (At least 'promoter' in the direct sense, by way of the contrast with the U.S. 'they hate us for our freedoms'-side-effect sense.)

Further, she completely ignores - for good reason in her case - the "blowback from U.S. imperial adventures in the ME and elsewhere in the Muslim world" angle. Whereas Trump is explicit about that:
[quote]America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

It also means we must change our foreign policy.

The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.[/quote]
Like Lambert ("I think the Iran deal is one of the few good things that Obama has done."), I disagree with Trump re. Iran. But there Trump and Hillary differ hardly a whit, so not a differentiator.

o More on Hillary's vast store of foreign-policy "hands-on experience":

[url=www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/10/all-hail-the-queen-of-exceptionalistan/]All Hail the Queen of Exceptionalistan[/url] | Counterpunch

o And lastly, in a similar vein as the [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=436225#post436225]post by kladner[/url] in The Right To Be Alarmed thread, from Glenn Greenwald at [i]The Intercept[/i]:

[url=https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/]Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies[/url]

I didn't wade into the reader comments, both due to time constraints and because the friend who forwarded this warned me that there was some really toxic vileness there. Anyone here care to put their waders on and let us know what the swamp looks like?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;436245][Ed. note: I should probably merge this thread with the "Your Next Novice Supreme Commander" one - any objections?]
[/QUOTE]
I have no objection. My view has been that "guess the candidate" was too noisy to merge with this thread but the candidates are likely settled now. I defer to your judgement.

_________

Regarding an elected leader assuming control of the nuclear button, this article goes into some high level detail of what that means.

[URL="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955"]What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?[/URL]
[QUOTE]On a day-to-day basis, the U.S. nuclear forces can deliver nearly 900 warheads to targets around the globe. Given a couple more days to get ready, the number of deliverable warheads would grow to nearly 2,000. In either case, these arsenals would allow for extensive strikes against opposing nuclear forces, war-supporting industries and key command posts of the opponent’s top political and military leadership.

Russia and China dominate the target list today. The following estimates the number of aim points in these and other nations, by target category:

Russia: Weapons of mass destruction (510 targets, or “aim points”), 190 leadership aim points and 250 war-supporting-industry aim points. Moscow alone would encompass 100 aim points.

China: WMD (130 aim points), 60 leadership aim points and 250 war-supporting-industry aim points.

North Korea, Iran, Syria: Each country would be covered by many dozens of warheads targeted at North Korea (50 WMD, 10 leadership and 12 war-supporting-industry aim points); Iran (40 WMD, 14 leadership and six war-supporting-industry aim points); and Syria (20 WMD, 13 leadership and 10 war-supporting-industry aim points).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, received back-to-back calls in the middle of the night informing him of the imminent nuclear destruction of the United States. The second call reported an all-out attack. Brzezinski was seconds away from waking Carter to pass on the dreadful news and convince him of the need to order retaliation without delay (within a six-minute deadline). Brzezinski was sure the end was near.

Just before he picked up the phone to call Carter, Brzezinski received a third call, this time canceling the alarm. It was a mistake caused by human and technical error. A training tape simulating an all-out Soviet attack had inadvertently slipped into the actual real-time attack early warning network. The impending nuclear holocaust was a mirage that confused the duty crew. (They were fired for taking eight minutes instead of the required three minutes to declare their degree of confidence that an attack against North America was underway.)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The deadlines are tight for everyone involved in nuclear operations. The duty crew inside the early warning hub in Colorado processes attack indications sent from infrared satellites that can detect the hot plumes of missiles during their fiery boost phase of flight (first several minutes) and from ground-based radars that detect the metallic body of missiles and warheads in flight throughout their trajectory from launch to impact.

This crew is expected to assess whether North America is under nuclear attack within three minutes of receiving the initial sensor input, and to promptly report their preliminary assessment up the chain of command in order to start the clock on a presidential response. The president and his or her top nuclear advisers then convene an emergency telecommunications conference to receive a briefing about the size and character of an incoming raid and the time to impact, and a briefing from the Strategic Command about the president’s response options (war plan menu) and their consequences. The press of circumstances if submarine warheads are en route may force the latter briefing to be shortened to as little as 30 seconds. Then the president has just a few minutes to decide and convey his decision to the military war rooms.

This process leaves precious little latitude for rational deliberation on the response that best serves the national security interest of the nation. Instead, the process at all levels is reduced to an enacting of a pre-prepared script. A president would have to muster enormous will and confidence to step out of his or her prescribed role and really take command of the situation, exercise independent judgment and brake a runaway train. Who in the world could be so presidential in such circumstances? Obama? Clinton? Trump? In reality, only an exceptional person would pass this test.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;436245]
[1] It has sure as hell not been the U.S. air campaign(s) which pushed ISIS back;
[2] By "our friends fighting to take and hold ground" she cannot possibly mean the Russian/Syrian coalition which is doing just that, so she must mean the same "moderate jihadists" the U.S. helped fund and arm in its criminal campaign to destabilize Syria. Presumably said Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are roughly as "moderate" as they are "accepting of LGBT rights"[/QUOTE]
Kurds?

[QUOTE=xilman;436265]Kurds?[/QUOTE]

AFAICT the Obama administration has been fence-straddling w.r.to support for the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds because of their wariness at upsetting NATO ally Turkey - cf. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-kurds-turkey_us_56bcaeffe4b0b40245c57fcf]this HuffPo piece[/url] for a description of the various contradictory aspects in this ongoing balancing act.

[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.

Candidate Ages
 

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]