You may have seen this
, by now, but it's worth bookmarking.
The full title is USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
Two choice excerpts:
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
Ya know, if I didn't love my kids and grand-kids, I'd find this funny.
Trump taps McCain's VP lawyer to vet his vice president
"Nevertheless, I advised Sen. McCain that because her duties had never encompassed foreign policy or defense issues Gov. Palin would not be ready to be vice president on Jan. 20, 2009 -- but that I believed she had the presence and wherewithal to grow into the position," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal as the 2012 vice presidential process was underway. "I summed up her selection as 'high risk, high reward.' I stand by that advice."
I still don't know how I'll vote, but Hillary will absolutely crush it in DE, so "my vote doesn't matter(tm)" applies, here. At the beginning of the primaries she was the 17th or 18th worst candidate running. I'm going to look into whether we can write in our vote, or not (we use electronic voting, so possibly can't).
At the every least, if Hillary is elected, she's "free game" to you guys. Don't expect me to defend her. Or her husband. I'm not some "disaffected youth/Bernie supporter". I've voted in 11 POTUS elections, and Hillary vs. Trump is, by a large margin, the worst choice I've been presented.
I can understand younger voters viewing Hillary as the "here, break off a piece of ribbon candy from this dish" candidate, and tRump as the "old man yells at clouds" candidate. I just can't understand why they're our (likely) nominees. Maybe they think Bernis is yelling at clouds, too? I dunno.
The floor is yours (in more ways than one, think "can we get any lower?", pardon the pun). Help me make sense of this madness...
Feel free to use the words "dismay" or "dismayed". As in "i understand why you're"...
But DON'T use the word "disappointed", as in "I can understand why you're disappointed." !'ll rip you a new asshole for that.
I KNOW why I'm disappointed. We blew a hyooge opportunity, this year.
Don't misunderstand me. If she's the Democratic party's nominee, I'm voting for her. But I'm voting Bernie in the primary...
Link: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right
I don't want "Obama-light". I want "change I can believe in".
But I'm voting for Hillary if her opponent is _______________ (any candidate from the Republican clown car).
It just makes me feel so icky...
IOW, it sickens me to know that my choice will be Hillary, or some far-right leaning loon who will bring about global economic destruction.
"NEOLIBERALISM (TM)" has no home if not in the Republican party.
Why don't we have a choice, any more? Is it the media? The RW noise machine? The stupid, reality-hating evangelicals? Wall Street? Citizens United and/or rampant money in politics? Bad court decisions?
It's gotten so bad I can't nail it down, any more. All of the above?
I guess I can advocate for Bernie until the cows come home, but I can't make America any smarter, or make voters care more about what a train-nwreck, for example, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul would be.
I'm hoping for massive voter turnout in the general election because Republicans only win when "no one" shows up. Because they REALLY suck that bad.
Rand Paul Challenges Bernie Sanders To Hour-Long Debate On Socialism vs. Capitalism
It has been theorized that Democratic National Committee rules may prevent Sanders from debating Paul in an officially-sanctioned event, but on the other hand, the fact that Paul and Sanders are both U.S. senators who would ordinarily debate each other under the course of their typical duties may limit the DNC’s ability to block the two from participating in a joint town hall.
I remain a Bernie supporter, and will support his decision either way, but it WOULD be an interesting debate...
Personally, I think Bernie would crush the little turd hanging off Ron Paul's asshole (if that's too crass or obscure, I mean Rand), and do serious damage to the whole "socialism is bad" meme hanging over us since the end of WWII. I certainly wouldn't buy an argument that Bernie is "afraid" to debate the "doctor". (He's not a doctor.) But, I'd accept a conclusion by his campaign that he CAN'T debate him because of DNC rules. I"d also accept a conclusion by his campaign that not only does he have a right to debate him, he'd mop the floor with this sorry-assed excuse for a Senator.
So we will see.
I will vote for the Democratic POTUS candidate in the general election. Period.
Hillary may, or may not, be a "sure thing" if SHE runs, but Bernie would better represent me.
Make no mistake, I can't understand why ANYONE would vote for a GOP POTUS.
But, I'm as tired as any of you of "third way" Clinton/Bush politics.
It's time for a REAL change, and I think Bernie could win it all. I mean, just for example, who's happy with making 30% less than we made a few decades ago, or NOT taxing the rich to pay for social security? THESE ARE WINNING ISSUES
. Let's advance them.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-identified socialist from Vermont, has met plenty of angry people in recent years.
"Some of them are in the Occupy Wall Street movement and consider themselves progressives," Sanders said Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. "Some are in the Tea Party movement and consider themselves conservatives."
Whatever their political bent, he said, "They have every right in the world to be angry."
I'm only posting this because it might piss of Alvy, and possibly Jo and Uni. IOW, I'm trolling. I admit it. :=)
Krugman: In Defense of Obama
(snark on)Published in that RW bastion "The Rolling Stone" (/snark off). The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success
High office shouldn't be about putting points on the electoral scoreboard, it should be about changing the country for the better. Has Obama done that? Do his achievements look likely to endure? The answer to both questions is yes.
The current front-runners for POTUS in 2016 are Clinton and Bush.
...would end bulk collection of Americans’ phone data
The Obama administration is preparing legislation that would end the National Security Agency’s widespread collection of Americans’ phone data while, officials say, preserving the government’s ability to gain information about terrorists.
The legislation, senior officials say, would allow data about phone calls made to and from Americans to be kept at the phone companies. The companies would not be required to hold the data longer than they normally would.
The effort comes as the administration is up against a deadline set by President Obama in January, when he directed his subordinates to find a way to end the government’s mass collection of phone data, a program that has stirred controversy since it was revealed through a leak to the news media last June. He gave them until Friday to come up with options.
Read the rest at the link to the right wing WaPo. Seriously. Read it.
Bush/Cheney started it. Obama's ending it. Sorta like the war in Iraq, and hopefully soon, the war in Afghanistan.
I seriously don't understand why you guys think GOP Presidents are "no different" from Democratic Presidents. Bush the lesser was WAY worse than Reagan, who was WAY worse than Nixon, who was WAY worse than Eisenhower. (Yes, I left H.W. and Ford out on purpose. H.W. was a CIA spook and creepy as fuck, but at least he had the decency to raise taxes on rich fuckers, and Ford wasn't elected.)
Our next GOP POTUS will make Reagan and Bush the lesser look like rational, saintly men. Our next GOP POTUS will end the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. Our next GOP POTUS will reduce corporate tax rates to zero, capital gains taxes, and end food stamps, extended UI, WIC, Obamacare (if the House and Senate are also GOP), and end if not seriously cripple SS and Medicare.
Who would have been celebrating the inauguration of Willard "Mitt" Romney, today, is an unmitigated, intractable dick.
Alan West has lost
Teabagger not in congress
This is a good thing