2016 Presidential Race

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:14 pm

Me too. Burr is a wonderful counterpoint to all the Hamilton slurping this year (I love Hamilton the dude, but I'm pretty biased against the musical, despite the fact that I haven't seen it.)

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:19 pm

Charles Pierce (buy, hey, Trump is just like Hillary, right DC?):

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... cialflowTW

Speaker Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin and first runner-up in the last vice-presidential pageant, has some plans. They are not all that different from his previous plans, which generally called for making permanent the consistent upward transfer of the nation's wealth to which he has dedicated his entire political life. That is, the portion of his life that was not financed by you, me, and our uncle Fud through the Social Security survivor's benefits that Ryan now believes to be destructive to the work ethic of millions of people who are not him.

You're welcome, dickhead.

Anyway, Tiger Beat On The Potomac informs us that Ryan's new plans call for impoverishing the poor, the sick, and the old on an accelerated schedule. This ambitious charlatan, who literally was laughed off the national stage by Joe Biden in 2012, has decided to go all Uncle Joe Cannon on the federal budget and all Genghis Khan on the social safety net.

"""Ryan peeled back the curtain on his strategy at a news conference last week after a reporter suggested he would struggle to implement his ambitious agenda next year. After all, it was noted, Republicans are certain to lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to break Democratic filibusters on legislation. So Ryan gave a minitutorial on congressional rules and the bazooka in his pocket for the assembled reporters. "This is our plan for 2017," Ryan said, waving a copy of his "Better Way" policy agenda. "Much of this you can do through budget reconciliation." He explained that key pieces are "fiscal in nature," meaning they can be moved quickly through a budget maneuver that requires a simple majority in the Senate and House. "This is our game plan for 2017," Ryan said again to the seemingly unconvinced press."""

Surely, you can see where this is headed. For all the talk about "disruption" and the "populist moment" and how economic anxiety is pushing Republican voters to share memes about how the president is a gorilla, the basic fight over the national economy is the same one that Ronald Reagan launched with his first budget in 1981. It combines an assault on the concept of a political commonwealth with fanciful mathematics, magic asterisks, and other mechanisms of camouflage for the reality, which is that Ryan and people like him want to establish for the foreseeable future the dynamic of a New Gilded Age.

At New York, Ed Kilgore is not fooled:

"""It's unclear why the press is "seemingly unconvinced" that the budget reconciliation process is indeed a "bazooka in his pocket." It's been around as a device to package and speed through Congress vast policy changes since Ronald Reagan and his allies used it in 1981 to rewrite the tax code and enact far-reaching budget cuts and program changes. Republicans had the same revolutionary plans for its use four years ago if Mitt Romney had won and the GOP held on to the Senate. And they conducted a dry run at the very beginning of this year by enacting a sweeping reconciliation bill that nobody paid much attention to because they knew Obama would veto it. President Trump would not.

One major reason congressional Republicans conducted this dry run was to set a precedent that reconciliation could be used for seemingly non-budget items like repealing key elements of the Affordable Care Act (notably the individual mandate and purchasing subsidies). The GOP-appointed Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly the traffic cop whose job it is to stop non-germane riders, waved it on through. Democrats can whine about it, but if the GOP wins the trifecta in November, they will not be able to do a thing. So a future reconciliation bill would not only cripple Obamacare and strip millions of Americans of health coverage obtained via the exchanges, but also kill the Medicaid expansion and throw millions more out of coverage. Indeed, there is zero reason to think it would not include turning the original Medicaid program into a block grant to the states (probably along with the food-stamp program), as both Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed, while implementing Ryan's own controversial plan to voucherize Medicare.""""

Back in 1980, when I was covering my first presidential campaign as a baby alternative journo, there was a feeling in the land, stoked in part by clueless progressive who had as little use for President Jimmy Carter as Jill Stein has for Hillary Rodham Clinton, that what the Reagan people were proposing was mere campaign bloviation and that, if and when he was elected, Reagan would have to moderate his dependence on, say, supply-side economics, which even Republicans thought was a lunatic's excuse for an economic policy.

But, out in Youngstown one day, in a bar on Steel Street, an old union guy told me that this was a mistake. He remembered literally fighting the oligarchs of his day and he told me that, when they say what they want to do, they mean it. He was right.

Make no mistake when you vote this year. If they get the chance, Paul Ryan and the Republicans will do what they say they want to do. They are true believers, cult-like in their allegiance to the money power, and religious in their devotion to the alleged character-building benefits of poverty. They are not committed to building a viable political commonwealth. They are committed to something very much darker.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:19 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Because at this point, everyone has made their point…

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:25 pm

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:33 pm

howard wrote:

Listen, I can take a lot of shit, but that doing that shit wearing a Firefly shirt, that guy can rot in hell. Fuck that dude.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:34 pm

Didn't mean to slur Firefly fans by association. I'm sure he is a rare exception.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:58 pm

howard wrote:Didn't mean to slur Firefly fans by association. I'm sure he is a rare exception.

Adam Baldwin would disagree, but OK.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:00 pm

Does he think his brother is Trump?

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:00 pm

rass wrote:
howard wrote:Didn't mean to slur Firefly fans by association. I'm sure he is a rare exception.
Adam Baldwin would disagree, but OK.

Fuck that dude too.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:24 pm

I wonder if any Hillary supporters are doing stuff like this: http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417

Given the general leftwing slant of the sources I follow, I probably wouldn't hear about it if they did. But still, there are a lot of fucked up people supporting Trump. There are a lot of fucked up people supporting Hillary, too. But whatever Trump is doing it is making his fucked-up supporters feel that it is okay to do a lot of hateful shit.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:26 pm

Maybe someone can explain to me why we're drawing a hard line at HRC when there's a couple centuries-worth of US interventionist and imperialistic policies and actions behind her.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:32 pm

P.D.X. wrote:Maybe someone can explain to me why we're drawing a hard line at HRC when there's a couple centuries-worth of US interventionist and imperialistic policies and actions behind her.

She's a woman, duh.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:35 pm

P.D.X. wrote:Maybe someone can explain to me why we're drawing a hard line at HRC when there's a couple centuries-worth of US interventionist and imperialistic policies and actions behind her.

Got me. I assume some devotion to Ayn Rand from DC, at this point.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:41 pm

Oh, so we're gonna keep this going?

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:45 pm

It would be nice if this was an election where we were only debating the finer points of each of their foreign policies.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:48 pm

Tens of thousands of dead people, unstable nations, confrontation with Russia, war crimes. Not exactly what I reduce to 'fine points'.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 pm

Horrible shit. Not an intellectually honest argument to say it will end with Trump.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:56 pm

Didn't make one.

But it surely will not stop unless and until the people stop voting for it. I won't vote for it, regardless blue or red. Haven't for decades.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:02 pm

And I am not taking a chance on turning this country's social policy and fiscal policy over to Paul Ryan and his burn it down Ayn Rand devotees. I would rather it be someone other than HRC on that wall, but I for fuckssake want someone on that fucking wall against that bullshit.

Firmly pro-HRC.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:04 pm

howard wrote:Oh, so we're gonna keep this going?

Against the bullshit head-in-sand pretending that the Republicans don't own both houses and would wreak unbelievable havoc on this country with someone to rubber stamp their cruel agenda? Yeah, still going. To act like this is a both parties are the same moment is too facile to really engage at this point.

And, frankly, to see anyone tacitly acting like the rise of a legitimized white nationalist party in 2016 in this country is anything other than uniquely terrifying is beyond me. And Trump has enabled and actively cheers that on.

Have at it, fellas. "It is totally the same" - what. the. fuck.ever. Intellectually dishonest, or you actually approve of it. No other options.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:06 pm

howard wrote:Didn't make one.

Not pointing at you.

howard wrote:But it surely will not stop unless and until the people stop voting for it. I won't vote for it, regardless blue or red. Haven't for decades.

I tend to take the Dan Carlin side (I think it was him)... At least with a HRC presidency, we know we'll get to vote again in 4 years.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:09 pm

Yeah, my head is in the sand.

Steve asked for a time out. So, his head is in the sand?

Whole lot of name calling, other ad hom, and various intellectual honesty. Gorgeous.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:12 pm

It is what it is. You can act like Trump is like Hillary, but he isn't. You can act like the parties are the same, but that isn't true either. There are real stakes for people in this country, in this election, and the Republicans holding both houses with Ryan setting the agenda and Trump rubber-stamping that legislation is something that is pure head in the sand to ignore. To act like that isn't a factor is to admit you don't give a flying fuck about the people who will be cruelly run over by that agenda. Period.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:13 pm

And if the Ayn Rand fits, so be it.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:16 pm

I did not say they were the same, much less 'act' as such. But keep shoving words into my mouth, if that makes you more comfortable. About that, I do not give a flying fuck.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:22 pm

howard wrote:I did not say they were the same, much less 'act' as such. But keep shoving words into my mouth, if that makes you more comfortable. About that, I do not give a flying fuck.

What the fuck ever. Both parties and what not.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:41 pm

howard wrote:I did not say t...ame much...a... as...s... But keep shoving ...ds into my mouth, if that makes you ...f... ...able. About that, I do ... fuck.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:45 pm

Finally. The voice of fucking reason.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:55 pm

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:39 pm

tennbengal wrote:And if the Ayn Rand fits, so be it.

Or not.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:52 pm

Grab it by the pussy, and CHECK OUT SEX TAPE!

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:59 pm

I have a lot of reasons to oppose a Trump presidency, but one thing I am not worried about is Trump carrying out the GOP agenda as we have known it.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:06 pm

Rex wrote:I have a lot of reasons to oppose a Trump presidency, but one thing I am not worried about is Trump carrying out the GOP agenda as we have known it.

What is that GOP agenda?

David Frum looks ahead to how the GOP will be rebuilt

Incorporate the best of Trump’s insights, while discarding his volatile personality and noxious attitudes.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:12 pm

Rex wrote:I have a lot of reasons to oppose a Trump presidency, but one thing I am not worried about is Trump carrying out the GOP agenda as we have known it.

Why not? What would prompt him to either veto a bill passed by the Republican congress or to appoint a complete right wing whack job to the bench?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:37 pm

Oh, here's Trump and Giuliani trying to be funny back in the 90s.
https://www.facebook.com/electoralcoll ... 546167231/

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:53 pm

howard wrote:

Oh my. This tweet is outstanding.

And what it references is kinda funny, but this is how dudes talk in private. And haven't women fallen in line behind the Sex and the City type of empowerment? This is nothing. It's only something to the easily offended types.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:16 pm

Don't forget Bill C was much worse.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:21 pm

Johnnie wrote:but this is how dudes talk in private.

Yeah, agreeing with you there, but there is an age where talking like that puts you less in the "regular guy" column and more in the "dirtbag" column. And that's probably somewhere before 60.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:24 pm

I dunno. To me the talking about how he just starts kissing them and if you're a star they let you do it is probably the worst part of that.

Moreta · Post by **Moreta** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:25 pm

Johnnie wrote:This is nothing. It's only something to the easily offended types.

I don't think most of the women Trump had any hope of wooing in this election subscribe to any part of the Sex in the City ethos. Try and tell evangelicals (particularly women) that this is just "guy talk" and it simply will not fly. For example, this is a post from a fairly well known evangelical author:

Trump's only hope with these voters would be to go full on penitent and plead a 'changed heart,' but his ego won't let him publicly acknowledge there was anything about him that wasn't always perfect, so that won't happen.