2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BobbyMac]

.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'd start with clean energy. American workers could be the leader in the development and production of solar panels, wind turbines, etc. They could be put to work replacing aging infrastructure like our century old power grid and manufacturing and installing new water systems to replace those that are failing all over the country. The electrical wiring that could connect wind farms in the deserts or on our shores have to be connected to the grid to be useful -- those are jobs that Americans could fill. Repair our crumbling highways and bridges -- make the investments that will put people to work FDR style and offer poor people the dignity of work to take care of their families. Around these investments would inevitably pop up new industries to support them -- much like the states that saw the rise of auto parts manufacturers thrive as Detroit was at its height. The jobs that went away since the 80s are not coming back. Any presidential candidate who says that they are going to bring jobs back are blowing smoke. Replacing those jobs with new industries is how we get jobs back on our shores.

What I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to do is to point out that all of the blame does not fall on the poor. While they certainly played a role in shaping the outcome, we -- all of us, them, us, our parents, grandparents, and so forth, share in the blame for this situation -- by not doing what was right 100 years ago, 20 years ago, and last year. We allowed poverty to take hold and fester in our society, and here we are. Of course poor people have to do the hard work of climbing out of poverty -- nobody is arguing that they do not. But when there are structural obstacles keeping that from happening, they should be removed. These are the things that Eddy and I and a few others have been talking about for the past couple of days in this thread.

I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong about this, but it seems the argument from your side is to reject the responsibility that made the negative circumstances not only possible, but inevitable in the first place -- to focus only on the negative circumstances. This includes refusing to consider that structural changes would enable the change we all say that we want. And, frankly, I don't get that.

There are deep problems in impoverished neighborhoods -- cultural problems, no doubt. Understanding how those problems came about is the beginning of finding solutions, in my estimation. Scolding folks who have lost hope and telling them to suck it up and get with the program has never worked. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think continuing down that road would somehow change the dynamic. And yes, they too have lots of work to do if there is going to be change on the poverty front. But so do we all.

I'm not poor but I try to see the world from their point of view. Their lives are needlessly complicated by political decisions beyond their control. They have no hope of changing their circumstances without help of fair minded people. Incidentally, as this is the Presidential race thread, that is why many of them look to the Democrats -- because they, like me, believe the rhetoric of the Republicans seems to clearly indicate that the GOP is not on their side. A little empathy for their history, their circumstances, and their perspective, goes a long way. Democrats have made it their business to demand political change that will level the playing field for the poor. Republicans have not.

It isn't and has never been at easy as insisting poor people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and change their wicked ways. If it was that simple, so many more would have done that already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are a lot of forces that make that sort of change very difficult -- some in their communities, some from outside forces. We would all do better to understand that both sides have made mistakes. And it is unfair to heap all the blame on a group of people who have had every roadblock put in front of them -- often for generations.

I appreciate that you think I'm absolving them of any responsibility. I'm not. They share in the blame for this, too, and have lots to do to correct the problems in their communities. Do you appreciate that by placing all of the blame on them, that we are absolving ourselves of any responsibility for what we have done, as a country, to these people? I've been to the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore, to the coal regions of West Virginia, to horrible neighborhoods in Oakland and Washington, D.C. Poverty isn't some regional blip where some great disaster caused people to be confronted with terrible circumstances, its a nationwide problem that needs to be solved by the nation.

That's because one party wants to legislate people into the middle class through wealth redistribution, and the other party believes in free market principles and economic growth to elevate people. We are 40 years into the "war on poverty" and have what to show for it?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I enjoyed Matthew Walther's report of witnessing Bernie endorse Hillary:

Portsmouth, N.H.—I should probably begin by apologizing to the thousands of people I cut in front of today at Portsmouth High School. The door with the sign that said “Media Entrance” was locked and I spent 10 minutes with a photographer from another publication pounding on it as hard as we could to no avail. When it became clear to me that this was a non-starter, I casually walked to the general entrance and slipped in front of a pair of senior citizens wearing Hillary t-shirts whose names I’ll never know. Nice old people: I preempted you so that I could write this piece, and I’m very sorry.

I should also say that I was genuinely surprised by the size of the crowd that turned out to watch Bernie Sanders endorse Hillary Clinton at 11:30 a.m. on a Tuesday. When I walked around the building to get a sense of the turnout, I saw elderly people and teenagers, tables and carts selling official and unlicensed Clinton and Sanders merchandise, camo-wearing Trump supporters, mothers and fathers with newborn babies—who should not have been forced to wait in the 86-degree heat, you animals—and plenty of pro-Sanders folks who had obviously taken the day off work. Was it worth it?

No. Especially for those here in support of Hillary Clinton, who were treated to what was essentially her stump speech—unless, of course, they are inclined to schadenfreude. Mencken worried about the effect that television would have on political reporting; he thought that what was by the middle of the century already largely a matter of coaching and stagecraft would become little more than propaganda for parties and candidates. On the whole, he was right. No one watching today on television could have heard the genuinely agonized reactions of the earnest Sanders supporters who, somehow, did not really expect him to endorse Clinton after all. Many of them walked out well before the end of the proceedings.

“Don’t endorse her!”

“No, no, Bernie, don’t betray us!”

“It was fixed!”

“The fix was in, the votes haven’t even been counted yet!”

“I LOVED you!”

Some people’s hearts were broken. One woman in a baby carrier gave the thumbs down and trampled out indignantly a few minutes into Sanders’s speech. An older gentleman wearing a tie-dye shirt gave everyone the finger before heading for the door. I also heard shouts of “Jill Stein for president!” and “You traitor!” from the crowd and loud groans and “Oh bull!” when Sanders credited Clinton with understanding America’s heroin epidemic. When he said that Donald Trump planned to “abolish the Affordable Care Act,” I heard people behind me shout, “Not a bad idea” and “What about single payer?” A good portion of the Sanders contingent left as soon as he finished speaking. Some stayed around long enough to yell “Wall Street Hillary!” or “That hag!” before stomping out.

Meanwhile, Bernie did the best he could to argue implicitly that he would not be making the perfect the enemy of the good, that whatever Clinton’s problems—and there are many that he had never even bothered to make an issue of during the campaign—she was better than Trump, especially in light of the platform concessions that had been wrung from her, not least a $15 minimum wage. But even people watching on television saw that Clinton stood on for most of his speech looking alternately bored and contemptuous and that, when it was Clinton’s turn, Sanders clapped feebly, like a middle-school-aged thespian who knows he ought to have gotten the lead role in the seventh grade play.

To find any of this amusing you’d have to have a heart of stone. It almost brings a tear to my eye to think now of the girl I saw last fall in Nevada wearing a Robin Hood costume to the Sanders watch party at the first Democratic debate or the college student in Iowa who told me he’d maxed out a credit card with donations to the Bernie campaign or the sturdy defiant UAW men in Michigan who remembered NAFTA and took the hint from their union, which had at that point declined to endorse, and voted their conscience, putting the junior senator from Vermont over the edge in the Great Lakes State. I wanted to get up and leave myself when Clinton, dripping with condescension, in her witch-like faux-giggle, said Sanders “has not always been the most popular person in Washington.” I almost threw my phone when she added that—wink-wink, nudge-nudge—her Goldman Sachs-financed oligarchy of a campaign “also” accepts $27 donations.

Yet there were even a few moments when I could have sworn that the scorn and lassitude in Clinton’s face gave way to a kind of wistfulness. I like to imagine that as much as anyone else in the room she recognized what was going on and didn’t enjoy watching the ceremony of innocence being drowned any more than the rest of us. Maybe a part of her couldn’t help but cast her memory back to her days as a Gene McCarthy supporter; maybe something was wrong with her make-up. It is hard to say.

The most insightful conversation I had all day was with Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, a New Hampshire state representative and rape victim. O’Brien was standing near the entrance to Portsmouth High School carrying a sign accusing the presumptive Democratic nominee of being an enabler of sexual assault. She could not believe that Clinton is the nominee of a major political party in 2016. Last summer she asked her about Juanita Broaddrick, the Arkansas nursing home administrator who accused Bill of raping her, after running into Hillary at a rally. “She said she didn’t know who that was and didn’t care to know,” O’Brien told me. “If we really want to be bold and address this problem as a nation, we have to confront it in our personal lives.”

She said that she’s heard similar things from Clinton supporters: “They tell me, ‘I don’t know who this Broaddrick is, but I know she’s lying.’ I hope if anything happens to those women or their daughters or their sisters, people would treat them differently, even if it involved someone who was the president of the United States. That’s what I want for my daughters.”

O’Brien doesn’t support Clinton or Sanders, but she felt bad today for those who backed the Vermont senator. “Of course Sanders supporters are disappointed. They would have been Hillary Clinton supporters long ago if after all this time they trusted her.”

I pointed out that Sanders himself didn’t make much of an issue of Clinton’s background.

“I think people need to get a little bit of backbone about this. I had two television reporters tell me they couldn’t put my sign on camera because they can’t put the word ‘rape’ on TV. What, should I go back to the 1880s and use the word ‘savaged’? Should I say ‘ravished’ instead? Is that what I need to do? I think that Sanders probably just didn’t have the guts.” This was not a good day for anybody.

 

[phgreek]

I enjoyed Matthew Walther's report of witnessing Bernie endorse Hillary:

not much else to say ... he managed to cover just about all the facets of pants suit Lucifer...

 

[GATTACA!]

I enjoyed Matthew Walther's report of witnessing Bernie endorse Hillary:

Love it.

 

[kmoose]

I'd start with clean energy. American workers could be the leader in the development and production of solar panels, wind turbines, etc. They could be put to work replacing aging infrastructure like our century old power grid and manufacturing and installing new water systems to replace those that are failing all over the country. The electrical wiring that could connect wind farms in the deserts or on our shores have to be connected to the grid to be useful -- those are jobs that Americans could fill. Repair our crumbling highways and bridges -- make the investments that will put people to work FDR style and offer poor people the dignity of work to take care of their families. Around these investments would inevitably pop up new industries to support them -- much like the states that saw the rise of auto parts manufacturers thrive as Detroit was at its height. The jobs that went away since the 80s are not coming back. Any presidential candidate who says that they are going to bring jobs back are blowing smoke. Replacing those jobs with new industries is how we get jobs back on our shores.

You can forget about solar manufacturing....... the Chinese will kill any American company that tries to seriously compete with them. And their labor cost is whatever they want it to be, so no American company can keep up.

Rebuilding the infrastructure requires a lot of engineers, engineering technicians, and technical specialists. According to you, the schools in these communities are overwhelmingly inadequate. So who is going to pay for the training of these folks? And how are you going to be able to afford to rebuild the infrastructure AND pay for the training of the 10s of thousands of folks to do it?

I like the idea of using public works projects, but we have to be able to pay for it somehow.

What I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to do is to point out that all of the blame does not fall on the poor.

Why do you need to point it out? No one has ever said that it does. In fact, I have pointed out more than once that changing the culture around poverty is not all that needs to be done. But it DOES need to be done, or any other changes will only be temporary.

I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong about this, but it seems the argument from your side is to reject the responsibility that made the negative circumstances not only possible, but inevitable in the first place

Here is a HUGE disconnect between us, and one that I have pointed out a few times in this thread. I reject your assertion that the current situation was inevitable. Chinese slaves faced almost all of the obstacles that Blacks did, and yet they came together, stuck together, and rose above it all to get out of poverty. And THAT is why I suggested that maybe some focus on how they managed to beat the system might be beneficial. That just makes sense to me. Instead of reinventing the wheel, and wasting all of the effort to fail the number of times that it takes to figure it out........ use other people's failures and successes to determine a starting point at square, say................ 15, instead of square 1.

to focus only on the negative circumstances. This includes refusing to consider that structural changes would enable the change we all say that we want. And, frankly, I don't get that.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "structural changes", but I can only assume that you mean bringing jobs back to impoverished neighborhoods and cleaning up those neighborhoods. And, in that light, I stop to remind you:

I would create tax incentives for companies that invest in jobs in poor neighborhoods. But I would also have the police crack down on ANY crime in the neighborhood. If that means that some ethnicity is detained/cited/arrested more often than others............... tough shit! I'd do everything I could to involve the local community in the protection of their jobs at a company facility. No company is going to bring facilities to places where their property, or their employees' property/safety, is at (increased)risk. So you have to clean it up. If you target these jobs at mostly ethnic neighborhoods, then that means that the majority ethnicity is likely to make up the majority of police interactions. Then people will be crying about the institutional racism in the police.

I have already advocated two of the items on your own wish list............. good jobs and safe neighborhoods.

There are deep problems in impoverished neighborhoods -- cultural problems, no doubt. Understanding how those problems came about is the beginning of finding solutions, in my estimation.

Wait............

Perhaps it would be more constructive to separate the "how we got here" from the reality of where we are.

1. When we talk about this problem and the history of how it came to be, we begin to take sides. Generally speaking, the discussion devolves to mistakes that one side or the other have made that led to the situation we face today. It doesn't matter how we got here ... we're here. What are we going to do about fixing the problems that exist?

So, if I understand this right; you were AGAINST "how we got here" before you were FOR "how we got here"?

I'm not poor but I try to see the world from their point of view. Their lives are needlessly complicated by political decisions beyond their control. They have no hope of changing their circumstances without help of fair minded people. Incidentally, as this is the Presidential race thread, that is why many of them look to the Democrats -- because they, like me, believe the rhetoric of the Republicans seems to clearly indicate that the GOP is not on their side. A little empathy for their history, their circumstances, and their perspective, goes a long way. Democrats have made it their business to demand political change that will level the playing field for the poor. Republicans have not.

Obviously.............

Addressing a convention of the N.A.A.C.P. a day after President Obama called for a wholesale overhaul of the criminal justice system, Mr. Clinton embraced the idea. He agreed that the law he enacted in 1994 played a significant part in warping sentencing standards and leading to an era of mass incarceration.

“I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Mr. Clinton said. “And I want to admit it.”

It isn't and has never been at easy as insisting poor people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and change their wicked ways. If it was that simple, so many more would have done that already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are a lot of forces that make that sort of change very difficult -- some in their communities, some from outside forces. We would all do better to understand that both sides have made mistakes. And it is unfair to heap all the blame on a group of people who have had every roadblock put in front of them -- often for generations.

No one is blaming them. This all started because I suggested that maybe they study what the Irish and Chinese did to overcome the adversity that they faced. And I went on to detail some other, social and economic changes that society can take on to help them. That's not "heaping all of the blame on a group of people...........".

I appreciate that you think I'm absolving them of any responsibility. I'm not. They share in the blame for this, too, and have lots to do to correct the problems in their communities. Do you appreciate that by placing all of the blame on them, that we are absolving ourselves of any responsibility for what we have done, as a country, to these people? I've been to the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore, to the coal regions of West Virginia, to horrible neighborhoods in Oakland and Washington, D.C. Poverty isn't some regional blip where some great disaster caused people to be confronted with terrible circumstances, its a nationwide problem that needs to be solved by the nation.

Again, no one is placing all of the blame on them. In fact, no one is blaming them at all. Saying that they could change X or Y to help themselves out is NOT the same as saying, "Well, if black man would quit knocking girls up and abandoning them and the baby, then they wouldn't be in this mess".

 

[woolybug25]

 

[connor_in]

Sanders delegates to hold "fart-in" protest at convention | TheHill

 

[phgreek]

our foreign policy is so nuanced, we fund enemies like Iran to send terrorists our way, and we fund opposition movements of our allies like Netanyahu...man we are some smart MFERS...

FUNDING FOREIGN POLITICS: State Dept. sent taxpayer money to group that attempted to oust Netanyahu

I mean we are so good our state department fooled the grieving families from the Benghazi debacle by blaming a video, and sitting on their asses for years before we went after anyone...man we sure fooled everyone there...

And then we exposed classified materials to hackers whose capabilities would need to be somewhere around a high school kid to retrieve the info....shhh, don't tell anyone but the data conained signals and human intelligence.


Competence Matters!

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump wittles down final VP shortlist down to Gingrich, Christie and Pence<a href="https://t.co/wRrIISpCjJ">https://t.co/wRrIISpCjJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/wyrf3mMILf">pic.twitter.com/wyrf3mMILf</a></p>— IBTimes UK (@IBTimesUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/IBTimesUK/status/753222480995627008">July 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump's top VP picks include Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Chris Christie <a href="https://t.co/FpQolxqSYZ">https://t.co/FpQolxqSYZ</a></p>— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/753042024631246848">July 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDJULY 13, 2016 - The New York Times

 

[phgreek]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump wittles down final VP shortlist down to Gingrich, Christie and Pence<a href="https://t.co/wRrIISpCjJ">https://t.co/wRrIISpCjJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/wyrf3mMILf">pic.twitter.com/wyrf3mMILf</a></p>— IBTimes UK (@IBTimesUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/IBTimesUK/status/753222480995627008">July 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump's top VP picks include Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Chris Christie <a href="https://t.co/FpQolxqSYZ">https://t.co/FpQolxqSYZ</a></p>— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/753042024631246848">July 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Pence being in the hunt makes me scratch my head. Newt isn't in politics because he is a serial cheater...don't get that one other than to say he was pretty successful working the system...but Newt is kinda the establishment...anyway neither Pence or Newt resonate with me.

Christie on the other hand, is the only one that makes sense if this is what we think it is...which is a sensationalist bid for a media empire...I mean at least Christie would make me laugh when he pisses all over pants suit Lucifer and her band of thieves

...wish he were VP-select now so I could hear him savage Ginsberg, who needs some Christie-esque way to remind her not to lay down with dogs...she needs to put on her robe, climb those stairs, read some legal shit, twist it in her ever crazier liberal bias, and shut the fuck up about politics...it is beneath her...or should have been.

 

[phgreek]

Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDJULY 13, 2016 - The New York Times

Wow...great timing...hehehehe.

 

[gkIrish]

Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDJULY 13, 2016 - The New York Times

Yeah her comments are incredibly inappropriate (although I agree with their substance). Really highlights the biggest flaw in our justice system. Judges should not be political. They should interpret and apply the constitution and law. Judges should not be affiliated with political parties.

I actually do think she should consider resigning.

 

[woolybug25]

I think all three of those guys are piss poor options. He wants a guy people know but also won't challenge him.

I have a feeling he is going to go with Pence.

 

[wizards8507]

I think all three of those guys are piss poor options. He wants a guy people know but also won't challenge him.

That's Christie but not Newt. If Newt is VP, he's running the show and Trump is just a figurehead. I think Trump knows that and is actually happy with it. He doesn't seem to have any interest in actually governing and I think he'd be more than happy to outsource all POTUS duties to his number two.

Gingrich makes, by far, the most sense. He's the ultimate insider and his success comes from bipartisan governance with Bill Clinton of all people. He'd be extremely effective both in the campaign and on Capitol Hill.

Newt isn't in politics because he is a serial cheater...

So are Trump and Billary. The "family values" people are going to vote for Trump out of fear of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees. The personal character of the candidates won't matter.

...don't get that one other than to say he was pretty successful working the system...

Which is exactly what Trump lacks.

 

[connor_in]

The Washington Post piles on RBG while showing their distaste of Trump


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed way, way over the line
The Supreme Court is becoming more politicized. The Notorious RBG just made things way worse. /

 

[woolybug25]

That's Christie but not Newt. If Newt is VP, he's running the show and Trump is just a figurehead. I think Trump knows that and is actually happy with it. He doesn't seem to have any interest in actually governing and I think he'd be more than happy to outsource all POTUS duties to his number two.

Gingrich makes, by far, the most sense. He's the ultimate insider and his success comes from bipartisan governance with Bill Clinton of all people. He'd be extremely effective both in the campaign and on Capitol Hill.

It's interesting that you think Trump would let someone else make decisions for him. I don't see that.

Also... How does a political insider like Newt help Trump with his anti-establishment base? It's a slap in the face to his constituents to tie himself to the old guard that they voted against. Furthermore, Newt and Trump have like 79 divorces between them. It doesn't surprise me that Newt worked with Bill, as they probably were both members of the same swingers club.

 

[wizards8507]

It's interesting that you think Trump would let someone else make decisions for him. I don't see that.

Also... How does a political insider like Newt help Trump with his anti-establishment base? It's a slap in the face to his constituents to tie himself to the old guard that they voted against. Furthermore, Newt and Trump have like 79 divorces between them. It doesn't surprise me that Newt worked with Bill, as they probably were both members of the same swingers club.

Trump's anti-establishment base doesn't need to be wooed anymore because the alternative is Hillary Clinton.

 

[woolybug25]

Trump's anti-establishment base doesn't need to be wooed anymore because the alternative is Hillary Clinton.

I disagree. To win, he will need the independent vote. Hilldog picks an outsider to run with, then Trump will just be some weird rich dude running with an old ass Newt. I'm pretty sure the country made it clear how they felt about Newt the last time he ran.

 

[Rack Em]

The Washington Post piles on RBG while showing their distaste of Trump


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed way, way over the line
The Supreme Court is becoming more politicized. The Notorious RBG just made things way worse. /

This really needs to gain more traction. The shining beacon of the left's SCOTUS team has severely crossed the line. It's bad when the Times and WaPo will openly admit it.

She's all but conceded that if Trump is elected, she won't vote as she impartially interprets the law.

I heard her speak when she came to Chicago in 2012. Like Scalia, she's remarkably brilliant. She just lacks any ability to temper her political views and hold herself to the standard of a Supreme Court Justice. It's disturbing.

 

[irishfan]

Swing-state polls: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton neck-and-neck - CNNPolitics.com

Finally, some polls out post-FBI.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now running neck-and-neck in Florida, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University survey that took stock of three swing states.

The poll marks an 11-point difference from a month ago in the Sunshine State. Now, Trump leads Clinton 42% to 39%, within the margin of error; a month ago Clinton led 47% to 39%. With third-party candidates included, Trump's edge extends to five points, 41% to 36%.
In the two other states polled, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton and Trump are in as tight a race as other pollsters have documented. They are tied at 41% each in Ohio, and Trump leads by 2 points, 43% to 41%, in Pennsylvania.

Qunnipiac polls are very legit. No bias and an A- rating from 538. Whoever wins 2/3 of these three states is setting them up very well.

 

[EddytoNow]

First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments. She is a US citizen with all the rights the rest of us have. According to the opinion polls over 60% of the population agrees with her.

Second, non-partisanship of the Supreme Court. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has been partisan for a long time. Why do you think it is so hard to get a nominee confirmed? Conservatives have no basis for complaining about partisanship in the Supreme Court, when they refused to even consider a nominee. I'll be waiting for the hypocrites to back track from their position that this election is about who the people want in the Supreme Court. Let the people decide, they say. When Hillary is elected are they going to hold hearings and confirm her nominees. Afterall, as conservatives are so fond of saying, "Elections have consequences." You know as well as I, that conservatives will continue to stonewall any person nominated by a Democratic president. The Supreme Court is all about partisanship.

Third, Trump's running mate options.

Pence - Nobody has ever heard of him. Might be the safe bet for that reason, but he certainly won't help Trump win any states in the general election.

Christie - Christie might not even be able to deliver his own state. Carries a lot of baggage with plenty more to come out on Bridgegate. Short-tempered and vindictive. Had some momentum several years ago, because his appearance with Obama suggested he might not be as partisan as others. Most of that political capital is long gone, and his favorables wouldn't be much higher than Trump's. Another man you don't want near the nuclear button. If Republicans wouldn't even vote for him in the primaries, how do you think he will bring in any Independents or Democrats?

Gingrich - Past history brings ethics concerns to the Trump ticket. His unfaithfulness in his marriages and his own ethics concerns drove him from politics once before. If selected he neutralizes the, "We are more ethical," argument against Hillary. Hurts Trump's credibility as an outsider. Gingrich is the ultimate insider. Brings in no states that Trump shouldn't already win. He does help with those who are concerned with Trump's lack of experience. In short, he is the Republican's "Clinton" baggage and all.

Summary, Trump and any of these three creates a ticket of two old white guys. Not much appeal to young voters or minorities, and they just reinforce the view that Republicans aren't interested in the support of anyone except white males and evangelicals. They also present a moral dilemma for Evangelical voters. Can these voters support a ticket with six or seven marriages and a history of unfaithfulness on the part of both their candidates.

Rubio would have been an ideal running mate. Young, Hispanic, Willing to Compromise to Get Things Done. It's too bad Trump burned that bridge along with lots of other bridges in his scorched earth campaign. Ben Carson would have been a good choice for expanding into some non-traditional Republican voting groups. His selection would have demonstrated an openness that the Republicans haven't shown in the past. However, his selection may have lost as many votes as it added.

Hillary's vice-presidential options are much more intriguing. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders who would both be slam dunks, increasing Democratic turn-out especially among young, first-time voters. Or young ethically clean candidates like Booker or Cruz. Or Kaine who could help lock up Virginia, a state that is crucial for Trump if he wants to win. Hillary has a much wider pool to draw from, since the Democratic Party is not running away from their candidate.

 

[gkIrish]

First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments. She is a US citizen with all the rights the rest of us have. According to the opinion polls over 60% of the population agrees with her.

She explicitly violated the Federal Code of Ethics for Lawyers and Judges. She is not permitted to publicly support or disparage any political candidate.

If Alito came out and makes negative comments about Hillary I'm sure you would been silent on this matter.

 

[Emcee77]

This really needs to gain more traction. The shining beacon of the left's SCOTUS team has severely crossed the line. It's bad when the Times and WaPo will openly admit it.

She's all but conceded that if Trump is elected, she won't vote as she impartially interprets the law.

I heard her speak when she came to Chicago in 2012. Like Scalia, she's remarkably brilliant. She just lacks any ability to temper her political views and hold herself to the standard of a Supreme Court Justice. It's disturbing.

What am I missing? I have only read quotes that are basically insubstantial. "Donald Trump as president is unthinkable" etc. I don't see anything in that to indicate that she has pre-judged legal issues, or even that her opposition is really political, as opposed to personal.

That's not to defend her comments . . . they are clearly inappropriate. But from what I've read she has basically just called Trump a buffoon. I'm struggling to see how that will translate into bias as to any legal issue his presidency might present. Judges make decisions in favor of contemptible people all the time.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What am I missing? I have only read quotes that are basically insubstantial. "Donald Trump as president is unthinkable" etc. I don't see anything in that to indicate that she has pre-judged legal issues, or even that her opposition is really political, as opposed to personal.

That's not to defend her comments . . . they are clearly inappropriate. But from what I've read she has basically just called Trump a buffoon. I'm struggling to see how that will translate into bias as to any legal issue his presidency might present. Judges make decisions in favor of contemptible people all the time.

Here's a brief article on why her comments were "appallingly inappropriate". Note that Millman is a Progressive.

 

[Emcee77]

Here's a brief article on why her comments were "appallingly inappropriate". Note that Millman is a Progressive.

That's mostly the same article we were discussing. Like everyone who has weighed in, I agree that Ginsburg's comments were inappropriate.

But Rack 'Em said, "She's all but conceded that if Trump is elected, she won't vote as she impartially interprets the law." I don't agree with that statement, if I understand it correctly. She said nothing that makes me think she won't vote impartially, particularly because her comments weren't issue-based.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's mostly the same article we were discussing. Like everyone who has weighed in, I agree that Ginsburg's comments were inappropriate.

But Rack 'Em said, "She's all but conceded that if Trump is elected, she won't vote as she impartially interprets the law." I don't agree with that statement, if I understand it correctly. She said nothing that makes me think she won't vote impartially.

I shared it mostly for Millman's comment at the end:

I concur completely. The best defense of Ginsburg’s behavior is that she is getting old and forgot herself, which is not exactly a good defense of the capacities of a sitting Justice. More likely, since she still seems pretty sharp to me, Ginsburg has been drawn into the orbit of those who think Trump’s success so far is already adequate evidence of the failure of democracy, and calls for an extraordinary response. But it’s still bizarre that she could think that her comments would be in any way helpful in that endeavor.

I think that's a fair read of Ginsburg's comments, which is a pretty extreme place for a Supreme Court Justice to be.

 

[Emcee77]

I shared it mostly for Millman's comment at the end:



I think that's a fair read of Ginsburg's comments, which is a pretty extreme place for a Supreme Court Justice to be.

Oh, I see. Yeah, that is a really interesting point by Millman and definitely a fair reading of her comments.

Personally, I don't agree with his reading though, and I don't think she made her comments about Trump for any sort of strategic purpose. The "she is getting old and forgot herself" explanation is probably closer to the truth, but there's something else going on there.

Jeffrey Toobin has written and spoken about how RBG is a naturally shy and retiring person whose husband Marty Ginsburg (a great tax lawyer in his own right) was the funny, outgoing one in their relationship. When he died in 2010, she dealt with his death, in part, by becoming more like him. She started to speak out more and be more outgoing. That more outspoken attitude is what has earned her this "Notorious RBG" persona people are hanging on her in recent years. These Trump comments are growing out of that. She even mentioned her husband in her comments to the papers about Trump.

Again, her comments are TOTALLY inappropriate and out of keeping with judicial ethics. I just think the reaction is a little overblown at this point because she hasn't objected to Trump's policies; she has just objected to him personally. That seems less likely, as a practical matter, to affect her judicial decision-making.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I get a kick out of leftists telling their opposition candidates what they're doing wrong and what all their problems are. Trump could choose a one legged Hispanic lesbian as his VP and it wouldn't make a difference.

Trump is a mean racist who wants to build a wall, and Hillary is going to give everyone everything they need.