Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think that can happen any more. Their are people who will run against here. But they are not what you would call "real" opposition.

What makes a candidate "real" is the fraction of the endorsements and donors who exist in the pre-election period have signed with the candidates team. Uncommitted endorsers and donors are thin on the ground. It is too late for there to be real opposition. I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will be Clinton vs. the Republican nominee in the general election. I also think (but am less sure of this) that conservatives will be unable to coalesce around one of their favorites and so the establish guy is going to run against Clinton. Ridiculous as it seems I think it is probably going to be Bush v Clinton and when the dust settles it will be John VI.

One 'John VI' replaces Ginsburg with a Ginsburg clone, the other replaces her with a Scalia clone.

If one doesn't grasp the extreme difference in the consequences of which 'John VI,' then they must be in a coma.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

WTF?

Rags, say its not so! You're not buying into the latest HC smear?

Sheeple buying into imagery and half-truths is what propagandists have counted on since Goebbels perfected it.

At least give the actual facts a fair shake before propagating the imagery.

Here's some info in response to the latest horse pucky the NYT decided to use to sell newspapers -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/ne...-believe-their[/b]

Their Latest Right Wing Hackery

In a story breathlessly headlined, "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company," the New York Times has doubled down on the clever insinuations of a masterful piece of right wing Truthiness.

Look: I was a reporter. It's not difficult to (intentionally or unintentionally) construct a story that is filled with facts, but does not actually tell the truth. People do it all the time, and here's a textbook example.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (this one) is a multi-agency committee chaired by the US Treasury, not the State Department:

Let's look at all those agencies, shall we?

The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairperson of CFIUS, and notices to CFIUS are received, processed, and coordinated at the staff level by the Staff Chairperson of CFIUS, who is the Director of the Office of Investment Security in the Department of the Treasury.

The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:

Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy

The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:

Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS with roles as defined by statute and regulation.

All righty, then! So we're actually living in a Third World banana republic, and the real power, Hillary Clinton, is cleverly camouflaged by her role as Secretary of State. She used her magical powers to force every single one of these agencies to do her nefarious bidding -- and override the security interests of the United States to allow these evil Rooskies to have access to uranium?

You know, the harmless substance used to make nuclear weapons.

And not one of those people ever made a peep. It's a conspiracy! Because Clinton!

Of course, they cover their ass with this:

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

You're goddamned right, it's "unknown."

What really pisses me off about stories like this is, it's so easy to destroy reputations. I was always wary of whether my stories were fair -- so much so, I'd be throwing up the night before they were published. I took that power seriously, goddammit.

This story (and the ones that will surely follow) has no solid evidence. It is nothing but innuendo. The Times has taken a book written by someone who is quite specifically paid to bring down Democrats, and has a long history of distorting and making up facts, and they're using it as a template -- adding no informed context (like the number of agencies who had to sign off on this deal) and no evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything to get this deal passed.

And this is the problem when the public sees the Wall Street bankers go unpunished. It leads to such mistrust of the government that any wild tale, factual or not, seems plausible.

This is why blogs like this are so important during an election cycle. You will not get context from the corporate media. They're no longer impartial bystanders, and this "story" proves it.

Funny, how just a few minutes time thoroughly refutes the latest horseshit. All it requires is just a tad of-benefit-of-doubt and little googling - probable a whole less time/effort than finding and figuring out how to post images of flags.

Well, at least your not screamng BENGAHZI! BENGAHZI! MUFASA!

You're not, but its on the agenda for later -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/yo...owdys-benghazi

You'll Be Shocked To Hear Gowdy's Benghazi Report Is Delayed To 2016

It's exciting times for Pavlov dog manipulators. Your choice to be just another on-cue salivator.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The legals they're concerned about receive an education and their apprenticeship here and then take their skills back home once their careers are established. What's the long term benefit in those types of legal as far as the future of the United States? Republicans tend to ask Americans the tougher questions that liberal Democrats cannot ask Americans and measure the results.

First, foreign nationals studying in the US are not considered "immigrants"; they are "visitors", just as tourists are. Second, colleges and universities regard foreign students as cash cows. They pay full tuition; no in-state discount or financial aid packages for them. They help the colleges' and universities' bottom line. So it's hard to see how they hurt Americans, except to the extent that there are fewer slots in elite colleges for young Benjamin or Sophia.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

He opposes legal immigration too, LOL. The only people who oppose legal immigration these days are open racists and outright white supremacists.

No, this is starting to gain steam. Just look at Europe, with the nationalist parties there. It's starting to be a case of, "We built this great country, and now everyone wants to come and take all we've built. Let them build their own great country!" I suspect this is more common here than it appears, often caused by job loss or inadequacy. People aren't so generous if they have unmet needs of their own.

Check out this amazing display of the increasing partisanship in the US House over the last 6 decades -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ided-congress/



It's relationship chart that draws a line between who voted with whom on bills.

As the article states - stunning

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

People need food and water to survive. The drought will eventually end. It would be wise to have a alternative water source available for use during droughts.

To paraphrase a famous economist you don't like, eventually we're all dead. In this case, eventually may be a very long time or next year. Playing with the climate is highly unpredictable.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think that can happen any more. Their are people who will run against here. But they are not what you would call "real" opposition.

What makes a candidate "real" is the fraction of the endorsements and donors who exist in the pre-election period have signed with the candidates team. Uncommitted endorsers and donors are thin on the ground. It is too late for there to be real opposition. I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will be Clinton vs. the Republican nominee in the general election. I also think (but am less sure of this) that conservatives will be unable to coalesce around one of their favorites and so the establish guy is going to run against Clinton. Ridiculous as it seems I think it is probably going to be Bush v Clinton and when the dust settles it will be John VI.

If so, and your scenario is very possible, then the "real" opposition comes from the opposing party. That may be unfortunate or not. We seem to have this need to try everything that makes us feel good before we try what makes us well. I guess that's human nature.

Hillary is only slightly less the corporatist than Bill, with much less political skill to hide it. I can't see her in the office, and four years of JEB may be the price we pay to avoid it. If it's eight years of JEB, we'll have reset the paradigm again, and the 4T is toast. Not nominating HC is the best option.

OK, this is bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...icks=true&_r=0

OMG - maybe we really are destined to have only milquetoast Bushes and their distant "colored" cousins in the WH. Forever. A nightmare you can't ever wake up from ...

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

OK, this is bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...icks=true&_r=0

OMG - maybe we really are destined to have only milquetoast Bushes and their distant "colored" cousins in the WH. Forever. A nightmare you can't ever wake up from ...

Ironically given Russia's communist history; the absolute last thing that Russia would want is a general communist/Anti-establishment or other type revolution to occur in the US. Only a subverted "revolution" in which huge categories of the US populace are branded as enemies would suit the objectives of Russia. A genuine revolt specifically in order to root out corrupt elements in the top echelons of the governing classes, followed by fundamental reforms, such an event is probably regarded by the putinists as something to be avoided at all costs. Genuine reform of the US government would set the putinists plans back decades or even more.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

OK, this is bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...icks=true&_r=0

OMG - maybe we really are destined to have only milquetoast Bushes and their distant "colored" cousins in the WH. Forever. A nightmare you can't ever wake up from ...

speaking of not paying attention, did you see the post above -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...872#post523872

BENGHAZI! URANIUM! RUSKIES! BENGHAZI! MUFASA!

continue salivating -





pssss, HC had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

To paraphrase a famous economist you don't like, eventually we're all dead. In this case, eventually may be a very long time or next year. Playing with the climate is highly unpredictable.

Really? I thought if we lost a trillion, spent another trillion more, we could control the climate and reverse climate change.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Yes Electoral Votes advantage is to Dems. Folks wanting to rid us of the Electoral College are out to lunch. It would only make sense if we completely scrapped our system in favor of a more unitary European style Parliamentary system.

That would be a good idea. Our system is out of date. It could happen this 4T, is it really gets going.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Blame the old dudes who taught us not the mothers who gave birth to us. You know, the younger male GI's and 1st wave Silents. The old dudes stressed self discipline and emotional control back in the day. It's the result of male character building and social values that were instilled in young men during the 70's. I've got the mind of a modern city-slicker and the heart of a country boy.

I'm not sure what country you were living in, but these folks were the ones who indulged the boomers and gave early Xers free rein and neglect. Character building instilled in young men in the 70s??

Conservatives have no more character than liberals; probably less. What conservatives have in abundance is ignorance and prejudice.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The only real question is when do those Progressives navel gazing over HC finally start paying attention to real action - the Senate?

AND even more the House, and gerrymandering???

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If so, and your scenario is very possible, then the "real" opposition comes from the opposing party. That may be unfortunate or not. We seem to have this need to try everything that makes us feel good before we try what makes us well. I guess that's human nature.

Hillary is only slightly less the corporatist than Bill, with much less political skill to hide it. I can't see her in the office, and four years of JEB may be the price we pay to avoid it. If it's eight years of JEB, we'll have reset the paradigm again, and the 4T is toast. Not nominating HC is the best option.

Those who nominate may not agree with you. She is very far ahead in all the polls among Democratic voters now, and she has no credible challengers at all. She is well known, and is known to be a good campaigner who can go the distance. Most people can see her in office; why not? Corporatism is not a disqualifier for most Americans, sad though that may be.

And remember the dates of the 4T, and the climax. DON'T FORGET the real dates of the 4T. Even if Bush is in for 8 years, we may STILL have a progressive 4T. It may be hard to conceive now, but it will happen. There will certainly be a lot to overcome, no doubt, once the progressive era comes with an anti-Bush congressional landslide in 2022 (2006 on steroids, assuming elections are still fair or even permitted).

I still think HC will win though in 2016. In THAT case, what exactly happens in the White House race in Nov. 2024 may be strange, since the indications are of a challenger victory. A Republican win at the height of the 4T and millennial power seems a stretch to conceive. This could mean a third party/independent takeover, or national break-up or systemic change. Or it could be that the Democratic candidate is so good, and so advantaged, compared to the Republican, that the indicator won't matter.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

To paraphrase a famous economist you don't like, eventually we're all dead. In this case, eventually may be a very long time or next year. Playing with the climate is highly unpredictable.

Indeed, playing with climate is making reckless bets on what matters most --- food supply. All the delightful information, sophisticated gadgets, and cheap entertainment mean nothing if one starves.

I look at global warming and I see two gigantic risks even without the consequences of dislocations of millions of people: first, that some of the world's richest agricultural areas will be inundated, and second, that much of what remains will be desertified. Man can adapt to a changing world, but fertile land must appear where it is not now. Even if the polar and high-latitude regions get suitable climates for crop production, the nutrient quality of soils of boreal forests (taiga) will be inadequate for crops.

Man may not live by bread alone -- but he certainly needs bread!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Yes Electoral Votes advantage is to Dems. Folks wanting to rid us of the Electoral College are out to lunch. It would only make sense if we completely scrapped our system in favor of a more unitary European style Parliamentary system.

I'd be okay with scrapping it IF it went to just a straight-up national majority vote - that would hasten the demise of the GOP as a national political power.

The problem is the GOP will use the motivating sense of a more representative approach for a perverted outcome of individual states breaking up their electoral college votes into gerrymandered districts - matching the perversion that we currently have in the US House.

PA and MI GOP have been some of the latest attempts. Probable too late for the 2016 election, but the outcome of 2016 will likely result in it (along with further voter suppression) being brought to front of increasingly desperate backed-into-the-corner tactics.

NB splits its e-vote (along with Maine) and there the GOP wants to go back to winner-takes-all because Obama took that 1 urban vote in the last two elections. Funny.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

AND even more the House, and gerrymandering???

Absolutely correct. There, the action is about state governors and legislations and resetting that stage in time for the 2020 census and the following re-redistricting battles (re-gerrymandering).

A Clinton run/win is very important in that regard in two huge ways -

First, buried under the stink pile of the Right's horsepucky on "Clinton Cash," was the little noticed announcement of the Clinton folks adopting Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" combining with the Obama GOTV approach and laying that out over three election cycles. Everyone talks about the disadvantage of HC not being "seasoned" by a real primary challenge; very few have yet to grasp the advantage of over a year of building the infrastructure at the local level while the GOP clown car waste time/money trying to outdo each other in pleasing the extreme ends of their base.

Second, with an HC win, the SCOTUS will become a substantial impediment to the GOP's rear guard actions like voter suppression and hopefully campaign funding, and that leading to less crazy-Right gerrymandering for the 2020s Congressional districts. p It won't be until that decade that the diminishing GOP as a national political power begins to permanently unravel their hold on House.

The key is getting disappointed Lefties away from naval gazing on HC's progressive credentials and more on what is actually at stake. For many of them, it will be more of the extreme consequences should the GOP gain the WH, but it still is good to have them see the positives of her win even if she doesn't morph into EW or BS. We got over a year to make that happen.

Here's the big take down on the latest attempt by the Rightees to smear HC -

https://medium.com/@brianefallon/cli...s-797a71cb40b0

[b]‘Clinton Cash’ & NYT Fail to Prove Any Connection Between Hillary Clinton & Russian Purchase of Uranium Assets[/Relyib]

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.

The Times’ own public editor has taken issue with the paper’s arrangement with the author of Clinton Cash, saying, “The Times should have been much more clear with readers about the nature of this arrangement” and “I still don’t like the way it looked.” It certainly doesn’t look any better that the lead Times reporter appeared in a taped interview for a Fox News documentary attacking the Clintons on this matter prior to receiving our responses to her questions.

The facts drawn from the Times’ own reporting undermine the innuendo in the Times story about Hillary Clinton’s role in this matter.

1. The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians. While it is true that the State Department sits on the multi-agency, inter-governmental panel that reviews deals like this one, Hillary Clinton herself did not participate in the review or direct the Department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. This is consistent with past practice; historically, matters pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.) do not rise to the Secretary’s level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Department’s principal representative to C.F.I.U.S. The individual who held that post in 2010 was Jose Fernandez, and he has personally attested that then-Secretary Clinton never interfered with him, saying “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

2. The main Clinton Foundation donor that the Times suggests stood to gain from the sale of Uranium One to the Russians had actually sold his stake in the company three years earlier. In its article, the Times focuses on Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman and known philanthropist whose donations to the Clinton Foundation date back to 2005. It is true that Mr. Giustra was the owner of a predecessor firm to Uranium One, the company whose sale was being reviewed by C.F.I.U.S. But by the time of Uranium One’s proposed sale in 2010, Mr. Giustra no longer held a position with the company. In fact, as he told the Times, he had liquidated his stake in Uranium One entirely back in 2007 and thus had no reason to have sought any favor from Clinton’s State Department.

3. A second Clinton Foundation donor referenced in the Times has specifically said he never spoke to her about the deal. In addition to Mr. Giustra himself, the Times points to a second Clinton Foundation donor and longtime business associate of Mr. Giustra by the name of Ian Telfer. It is true that, unlike Mr. Giustra, Telfer — as the acting head of Uranium One in 2010 — had a financial interest in the company’s sale to the Russians. It is also true that he had previously donated to the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. But in a statement to the Times, Telfer told the paper he made the donations based on his wish to personally support Mr. Giustra in his charitable work, not based on any relationship to the Clintons. And most importantly, he told the Times that he never spoke to either President Clinton or then-Secretary Clinton about his company, Uranium One.

4. The Times fails to accurately describe the process, ignoring the fact that the State Department was just one of nine agencies involved in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One. In addition to the fact that Hillary Clinton herself did not have a role in the State Department’s review of the deal, the Department itself was just one player — and not even a major one — in the C.F.I.U.S. process. It is the Treasury Department that serves as the lead agency in all C.F.I.U.S. matters, and seven other U.S. agencies besides State — including the Departments of Justice, Energy and Commerce — sit on the panel. To the extent a deal like the sale of Uranium One could be said to raise any national security concerns, both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security also sit on the panel, and would have been party to the overall approval. Moreover, the 2010 sale of Uranium One was approved by more than just C.F.I.U.S. It was also green-lighted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Utah Department of Radiation and the Canadian government. In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists affirmed that the deal did not raise national security concerns.

5. The Times ignores that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department. The 2010 sale at issue in the Times story involved the Russians purchasing a 51 percent stake in Uranium One. But nearly three years later, the company announced that the Russians would be increasing their ownership to 100 percent. The company notified U.S. regulators of this in late January 2013, giving those bodies the opportunity to subject the new transaction to a review. Both the NRC and C.F.I.U.S. declined to do so, which was tantamount to green-lighting the deal. Notably this acceptance of the Russians’ complete takeover of Uranium One came after Secretary Clinton exited the State Department.

After reading that, if one believes that there is still a there there, then one needs to look into amygdala extraction surgery.

Except for the Trey Gowdy's upcoming planned BENGHAZI/MUFASA!!! rehashed circle jerkoff, it looks like the Rightess have shot their wade and its going down the sink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQ

The real sad news here is that to find journalism today, one needs to go to blogs. It sure seems to be a diminishing quality at the once proud Grey Lady.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Absolutely correct. There, the action is about state governors and legislations and resetting that stage in time for the 2020 census and the following re-redistricting battles (re-gerrymandering).

It is past time to get rid of gerrymandering. It can be done at any time in many states, by initiative. If people understood how the system works, they would have gotten busy and repealed it by now. They had a chance in Ohio and failed. In CA we did it. Just by having a fair system, Democrats gained 4 seats even in already-Democratic CA.

The key is getting disappointed Lefties away from naval gazing on HC's progressive credentials and more on what is actually at stake. For many of them, it will be more of the extreme consequences should the GOP gain the WH, but it still is good to have them see the positives of her win even if she doesn't morph into EW or BS. We got over a year to make that happen.

True.

Such lefties and other skeptics are a smaller group than it might appear in the circles we move in.

Originally Posted by playwrite

One 'John VI' replaces Ginsburg with a Ginsburg clone, the other replaces her with a Scalia clone.

If one doesn't grasp the extreme difference in the consequences of which 'John VI,' then they must be in a coma.

There aren't two John VI. Jeb Bush's name is John. If he becomes president he will be John VI. If its Clinton she would be Hillary I. I use regnal numbers to illustrate that the US president is essentially an elected version of the British King who serves a fixed term (hence I continue the succession). In the 18th century the British monarch was a limited monarch but he still had real power. Later the Brits stripped the monarch of all power and today they have a parliamentary government. But in our country we endowed our "king" with constitutionally-authorized power. Note how Canada did it. When they became essentially independent, the British king had long before become powerless, so they kept her as head of state and installed a pure parliamentary government. We could hardly keep George III as head of state (we blamed him for the whole mess in the DOI) and parliamentary government had not yet been invented. So we have the barely functional government that he have.

Today we have the prospect of George V being followed by two of his sons, one as George VI and the other as John VI. At the same time the American aristocracy had been able to achieve a facsimile of entailment. And just last year we saw the publication of Capital in the 21st Century. Going abroad we see the return of military religious orders ala the Teutonic knights after a five century absence. sic transit

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's the big take down on the latest attempt by the Rightees to smear HC -

https://medium.com/@brianefallon/cli...s-797a71cb40b0



After reading that, if one believes that there is still a there there, then one needs to look into amygdala extraction surgery.

Except for the Trey Gowdy's upcoming planned BENGHAZI/MUFASA!!! rehashed circle jerkoff, it looks like the Rightess have shot their wade and its going down the sink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQ

The real sad news here is that to find journalism today, one needs to go to blogs. It sure seems to be a diminishing quality at the once proud Grey Lady.

Dude, we're talking the NYT here. Not "Righties." The NYT apparently are out to get Clinton. This is Lefty infighting here.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Really? I thought if we lost a trillion, spent another trillion more, we could control the climate and reverse climate change.

We're past preventing it and may not have any capability to reverse it, so the only game left is limiting the damage. Of course, you can let things run, and die before the brown stuff gets distributed by the ventilator, but your children won't be able to dodge it.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Dude, we're talking the NYT here. Not "Righties." The NYT apparently are out to get Clinton. This is Lefty infighting here.

Sigh. This is Rightie infighting. Right vs Left are stances wrt to the Establishment, not ideologies. There are conservative Lefties as well as liberal Righties. The NYT in this case represents the liberal Right.

Populists are conservative Left. Right now they are allied with the GOP so they spout the plutocratic line. A hundred years ago, they were Democrats and they despised the plutocrats. They haven't changed, Kansas is still the same as it ever was.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure what country you were living in, but these folks were the ones who indulged the boomers and gave early Xers free rein and neglect. Character building instilled in young men in the 70s??

Conservatives have no more character than liberals; probably less. What conservatives have in abundance is ignorance and prejudice.

I lived in Minnesota and attended public schools during the 70's and early 80's. Character building was still very common during that time..