Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Donald Trump still leads the clown car! The clown is driving the car.


Special Sponsored Message to Newsmax Readers


Urgent Message from Donald J. Trump

Dear Friend,

I won the debate. That’s not my verdict, but yours.

The Drudge Report, Time and Newsmax online polls show overwhelmingly I won the debate hands down.

And a new NBC poll out this week shows I am still leading my closest rival by double digits!

I am winning because this campaign is not about me, but about the issues I am raising – like our open border with Mexico.

There is no question I have had incredible success in business, building a net worth in excess of $10 billion.

I want to make America successful again – I want to Make America Great Again.

As president I will end the one-sided deals that favor Mexico and China.

I will end our open border, where criminals can enter our country with impunity.

I will end the reckless spending in Washington that has ballooned our debt to almost $19 trillion.

I will end the “politics as usual” in Washington once and for all.

Show Your Support Today – Go Here Now

The Republican establishment can’t stand me and my message.

But, I am not afraid — I know Americans like you are with me.

Because my campaign will be funded mostly with my own money, the Washington insiders know that the lobbyists and special interests will have no influence in a Trump administration.

The special interests know you can't "buy" me.

As I have traveled across the country I have met thousands of Americans who want to join our crusade. Actually, some people are calling it a movement.

The media, however, wants to claim that I have no grass-roots support.

I want to prove them wrong. I am asking you to stand with me and join with me today.

I believe so much in this campaign and that we can Make America Great Again, that I will match dollar-for-dollar every dollar donated by people like you.

If you will send a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more I will personally match whatever gift you give.

If you can send $500, $1,000 or more, I will also match that.

Show your support by Going Here Now.

I want to show the liberal media that not since the days of Ronald Reagan has there been such a grass-roots movement of people ready to transform our party and our country.

My #1 goal is to create the greatest economic boom in American history, to unleash the incredible spirit of free enterprise in this country — get America moving again!

I have been tremendously blessed in this country.

I want all American families to share in the great economic opportunities this country offers.

I am very rich and I created something very special.

I want to make you and the American people rich.

I have no doubt the liberal media and the GOP establishment will continue to attack me.

But, make no mistake, I will never back down or apologize in the fight to make America great again.

Stand with me today and send a powerful message to the establishment by supporting my campaign.

Please rush me your answer today — Go Here Now.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Trump

P.S. The latest poll numbers show I am rising. I am rising because of support from people like you! Jeb Bush just raised $120 million from fat cat donors who want to “own” him. I believe so strongly in this campaign I am willing to match every dollar you contribute to my campaign. Show America you want to join me in taking back Washington — Go Here Now.
Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

If The Donald continues to defy the pundits, and stays in the presidential race, I see three possible outcomes. Of course, there could be others.

1) He gets drummed out of the GOP race with an assist from FOX News and other conservatives, the Big Money falls in line behind a more establishment candidate, and Trump carries through with his threat to run as an independent, peeling off enough votes in the general election to hand Clinton the White House.

2) Less probable than that, he slugs his way through the primaries, somehow wins the GOP nomination, again all but guaranteeing Clinton the White House, given his unfavorability ratings with key voting blocs, especially women.

3) Less likely still--and scary, to boot--the financial markets crack up again before 2016, an angry public yearning for a strongman to fix things gives him enough votes as an independent to win the Electoral College with a simple plurality. A book I read several years ago describes how an existential crisis or combination of crises could make this possible. Jordangoodspeed has cited another source laying out a somewhat similar scenario, I think.

Again, the prospect of His Trumpness becoming President is not what sends shivers down my spine. All other things being equal, it's not gonna happen. What gives me the willies is the thought of what he makes possible the next time our economy skids into a ditch.

Originally Posted by Odin

Given how dirty the GOP Establishment can be, I expect him to be hit by some kind of sex scandal coming out of nowhere, soon.

The trouble with using moves out of that playbook on Trump is that runs into the old adage:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it." (The precise verbiage varies).

Teacher,

Rod Dreher on TAC came to much the same conclusion, as well.

Also, small quibble. It's "Jordan", "Jordan Goodspeed", or, shades of the Army/football/"public" school, just "Goodspeed". Proper names, if you please. It's not a pseudonym. Seeing you write it like that made me wince.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Teacher,

Rod Dreher on TAC came to much the same conclusion, as well.

Also, small quibble. It's "Jordan", "Jordan Goodspeed", or, shades of the Army/football/"public" school, just "Goodspeed". Proper names, if you please. It's not a pseudonym. Seeing you write it like that made me wince.

All apologies... By the way, I re-read the blog post on The Archdruid Report. Very compelling, quite plausible, and not the least bit partisan, which I appreciate even though I'm as ideological as the rest. Years ago, I embarked on a deep study of fascism. Too many people throw the word around as an epithet, with very little understanding of how it came about or what it really means. I have read the scholarly works of historians (The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton is one of my favorites) because I generally eschew political screeds that accuse liberals or conservatives of fascism. In Weimar Germany, at least, it was the political center that failed in that fledgling democracy, leaving constituencies of the left and right literally fighting it out in the streets. But you know this history, perhaps, better than I do...

Looking around at the hyper-partisanship in America today (as bad as I can remember in my 60 plus years) and the resulting political dysfunction in Washington, voters are moving to the far left and far right in droves, leaving a power vacuum in the center that some demagogue will be only to happy to fill if events in this country spiral out of control.

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself here. Tomorrow, or the next day, I will attempt to answer my own question in the thread entitled, "If the Center Cannot Hold, Who Wins?" There have been some good answers so far...

Sure thing, it's not a big deal. Did you check out the full series on fascism, or just that post? Great blog, in any case.

As far as the vacuum in the center, it's not quite that far advanced as long as you have Hillary in the race. What ever else you may say about her, she and her husband have staked out the political center and balanced there, however precarious, for decades. The sort of crackup you're seeing on the Republican side will be avoided as long as she remains the inevitable nominee. Longer term, the bench of establishment minority Democratic politicians is fairly weak, and with the ethnic balance (and the importance placed on ethnicity and the like by modern progressive ideology) the way it is, I suspect we'll see many more crackups like the Sanders (non)event in Seattle in the future. I don't think we have to worry about that "Man on Horseback" figure for a little while yet. Give it another recession or so, maybe another war.

Am looking forward to your conclusion. Sorry about the hijacking, I didn't know you were still using it.

First, just a comment on the Trump phenomenon as being something grander (e.g. an indicator of a broad desire for a Big Man) than what it actually is - that belief is surely a symptom of someone hopelessly lost in the false equivalency meme. For a majority of voters, perhaps in the 60-70% range, Trump is the least like candidate in a Party who's brand already scores in the teens. The only thing the GOP has going for it is tribal identification, rear guard action (e.g. voter suppression, gerrymandering) and lots of anger over another "Lost Cause."

Now put that aside, and join the hysterical (both meanings of the term) clown show for the entertainment value of the moronic Right eating itself!

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/do...g-fox-news-and

Donald Trump Supporters Bring Fox News And Roger Ailes To Their Knees

You'd have to be pretty naive not to see how the Fox News hosts tried to take down Donald Trump at the first real GOP debate in Cleveland last Thursday. As the leading candidate for the GOP nomination, it's fine for the hosts to pepper Trump with tough questions, but most of those said questions focused on his previous statements of over-the-top rhetoric, while none of the other candidates were forced to defend their history of extreme beliefs and opinions in the same way. And Donald Trump made it be known that he was not happy about it in an excellent NY Mag piece.

Until Thursday’s GOP debate, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes and Donald Trump had been executing one of the most successful examples of media synergy in recent memory. But the Trump-Ailes alliance — which helped generate a record debate audience of 24 million — has been in tatters ever since Fox's debate moderators peppered Trump with critical questions onstage in Cleveland. From the moment Trump faced reporters in the post-debate “Spin Room," he’s been attacking the network's treatment of him, with special venom reserved for Megyn Kelly.

Normally Roger Ailes wouldn't give a damn about these types of complaints since his network is a big ratings winner and they have a loyal viewership. However, something unexpectedly happened that Ailes wasn't prepared for.

Now, it appears both sides want peace. This morning, Trump tweeted that Ailes called to assure him that Fox will cover him “fairly” going forward. According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump’s favor. “In the beginning, virtually 100 percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly,” one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation, told me. “Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.”

Are you telling me that Fox viewers were turning on the lovely Megyn Kelly just minutes after the Washington Post anointed her the It Girl, who has become too big for her own network? Did we just watch Megyn Kelly get too big for Fox News?


Apparently, Erick Erickson's idiotic ploy has failed to tarnish Trump in any way at all. People weren;t going to his Red State event to see him, but the candidates, most notably Donald Trump. And the threat that Donald was never going on Fox again actually carried some weight.

Things got worse for Ailes over the weekend. In a phone conversation, Trump told Sean Hannity that “he was never doing Fox again,” according to one person with knowledge of the call. The anti-Kelly emails, and threat of a boycott by Trump, seem to have pushed Ailes to defuse the war. One Fox personality told me that Fox producers gave instructions to tell in-house talent not to bring up Trump’s controversial comments that Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever" during the debate. According to one count, Fox only aired Trump’s comment once since Friday, while CNN mentioned it at least 50 times.

Roger Ailes is many things, but one of them is not being stupid about the TV business.

In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trump-less Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public-affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flak. Both the Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines.

Whatever Ailes said to Trump in their phone call earlier, it seems to have worked. Trump has agreed to interviews on Fox & Friends and Hannity tomorrow.

Irena Briganti, a Fox spokesperson, did not return a call for comment. The Trump campaign declined to comment.

If not for the vociferous support from Donald Trump's supporters, Ailes would have stuck to his guns and tried to destroy Trump's candidacy, but instead they brought him to his knees and he begged for forgiveness.

This is a further example that Donald Trump is no Herman Cain and anyone who compares the two are fools.

False equivalency between what?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

False equivalency between what?

pssss, today's Left is not insane.

wow, just wow.

Don't really have anything to add -

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...gyn-kelly.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

wow, just wow.

Don't really have anything to add -

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...gyn-kelly.html

I didn't think that piece could be topped -

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristol...-and-fox-news/

Bristol Palin hammered RedState editor Erick Erickson on Monday for criticizing Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's sexism despite engaging in his own sexism when it came to her mother.

Sorry folks, but we're now down to shits and giggles. Today's Right is destroying itself.
It's sort of sad - like how one feels when they cut a tumor out of you.

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, just a comment on the Trump phenomenon as being something grander (e.g. an indicator of a broad desire for a Big Man) than what it actually is - that belief is surely a symptom of someone hopelessly lost in the false equivalency meme. For a majority of voters, perhaps in the 60-70% range, Trump is the least like candidate in a Party who's brand already scores in the teens. The only thing the GOP has going for it is tribal identification, rear guard action (e.g. voter suppression, gerrymandering) and lots of anger over another "Lost Cause."

Now put that aside, and join the hysterical (both meanings of the term) clown show for the entertainment value of the moronic Right eating itself!

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/do...g-fox-news-and

I agree somewhat. But how do we explain the "Trump phenomenon" then? Despite gaffe after gaffe, and withering criticism from fellow Republicans and some conservative media outlets, he still sits atop GOP polls. Is it simply by dint of his celebrity and wealth that he can command center stage and hold our attention: part Reagan, part Perot? Or could it be that in the haze of complex issues, many beyond the ken of the average American, it's the easy answers he offers? Illegal immigration? No problemo: I'll just build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Out of work? No worries, I'll get your job back from China. Sounds so simple, doesn't it? Or is it the slogan "Make America Great Again!" on his ball cap, at once an appeal to national pride and national rebirth. (Stephen King says Trump's campaign slogan should be "If you're white, you're all right!" but, as clever as that sounds, King unwittingly demonstrates the problem with identity politics today.) Or are Americans tired of being lied to, and want someone to tell the unvarnished truth for once? If Trump did us one huge favor in the first debate, it was his bald-faced admission that, yes, he buys access to both parties--and by implication so do the other fat cats. "And, sorry, little man, unless you can cough up some campaign cash, good luck getting your local Congressperson or Senator on the line." (Cue sheepish looks all across the debate stage.)

And that's what really gets my goat about Trump. It's not even his vague politics so much. It's the way he sneers at us from his lofty perch with the same contempt for average Americans that other political elites hide all too well. He stands tall at the podium and brags about his billions as if to say, "I'm rich, you're not; I'm a winner, you're a loser; vote for me, and you'll be winners too."

I know some will call it a gross oversimplification, but I maintain that Trump and Sanders are mining essentially the same vein: the politics of economic despair. The middle class is treading water, and the working class not even that. Some see in Trump the very embodiment of the American Dream, warts and all, and to the extent that they aspire to his kind of success they'll vote for him. Others look at Sanders and see a chance to make wrongs right, not the least of which is income inequality.

What Americans really long for right now is not the Big Man but the Big Fix. But if economic malaise continues, if the growing social unrest on our streets intensifies, if the political process as we have known it can't fix what threatens us at home and abroad...trust me, the yearning for the Big Fix will eventually find its fulfillment in the Big Man. It's just a matter of time..

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I agree somewhat. But how do we explain the "Trump phenomenon" then? Despite gaffe after gaffe, and withering criticism from fellow Republicans and some conservative media outlets, he still sits atop GOP polls. Is it simply by dint of his celebrity and wealth that he can command center stage and hold our attention: part Reagan, part Perot? Or could it be that in the haze of complex issues, many beyond the ken of the average American, it's the easy answers he offers? Illegal immigration? No problemo: I'll just build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Out of work? No worries, I'll get your job back from China. Sounds so simple, doesn't it? Or is it the slogan "Make America Great Again!" on his ball cap, at once an appeal to national pride and national rebirth. (Stephen King says Trump's campaign slogan should be "If you're white, you're all right!" but, as clever as that sounds, King unwittingly demonstrates the problem with identity politics today.) Or are Americans tired of being lied to, and want someone to tell the unvarnished truth for once? If Trump did us one huge favor in the first debate, it was his bald-faced admission that, yes, he buys access to both parties--and by implication so do the other fat cats. "And, sorry, little man, unless you can cough up some campaign cash, good luck getting your local Congressperson or Senator on the line." (Cue sheepish looks all across the debate stage.)

And that's what really gets my goat about Trump. It's not even his vague politics so much. It's the way he sneers at us from his lofty perch with the same contempt for average Americans that other political elites hide all too well. He stands tall at the podium and brags about his billions as if to say, "I'm rich, you're not; I'm a winner, you're a loser; vote for me, and you'll be winners too."

I know some will call it a gross oversimplification, but I maintain that Trump and Sanders are mining essentially the same vein: the politics of economic despair. The middle class is treading water, and the working class not even that. Some see in Trump the very embodiment of the American Dream, warts and all, and to the extent that they aspire to his kind of success they'll vote for him. Others look at Sanders and see a chance to make wrongs right, not the least of which is income inequality.

What Americans really long for right now is not the Big Man but the Big Fix. But if economic malaise continues, if the growing social unrest on our streets intensifies, if the political process as we have known it can't fix what threatens us at home and abroad...trust me, the yearning for the Big Fix will eventually find its fulfillment in the Big Man. It's just a matter of time..

When the surprise counterforce first strike smashes into CONUS, they will be yearning for The Arch General.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I agree somewhat. But how do we explain the "Trump phenomenon" then?

t-baggers

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Despite gaffe after gaffe, and withering criticism from fellow Republicans and some conservative media outlets, he still sits atop GOP polls. Is it simply by dint of his celebrity and wealth that he can command center stage and hold our attention: part Reagan, part Perot? Or could it be that in the haze of complex issues, many beyond the ken of the average American, it's the easy answers he offers? Illegal immigration? No problemo: I'll just build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Out of work? No worries, I'll get your job back from China. Sounds so simple, doesn't it? Or is it the slogan "Make America Great Again!" on his ball cap, at once an appeal to national pride and national rebirth. (Stephen King says Trump's campaign slogan should be "If you're white, you're all right!" but, as clever as that sounds, King unwittingly demonstrates the problem with identity politics today.) Or are Americans tired of being lied to, and want someone to tell the unvarnished truth for once? If Trump did us one huge favor in the first debate, it was his bald-faced admission that, yes, he buys access to both parties--and by implication so do the other fat cats. "And, sorry, little man, unless you can cough up some campaign cash, good luck getting your local Congressperson or Senator on the line." (Cue sheepish looks all across the debate stage.)

And that's what really gets my goat about Trump. It's not even his vague politics so much. It's the way he sneers at us from his lofty perch with the same contempt for average Americans that other political elites hide all too well. He stands tall at the podium and brags about his billions as if to say, "I'm rich, you're not; I'm a winner, you're a loser; vote for me, and you'll be winners too."

I know some will call it a gross oversimplification, but I maintain that Trump and Sanders are mining essentially the same vein: the politics of economic despair. The middle class is treading water, and the working class not even that. Some see in Trump the very embodiment of the American Dream, warts and all, and to the extent that they aspire to his kind of success they'll vote for him. Others look at Sanders and see a chance to make wrongs right, not the least of which is income inequality.

What Americans really long for right now is not the Big Man but the Big Fix. But if economic malaise continues, if the growing social unrest on our streets intensifies, if the political process as we have known it can't fix what threatens us at home and abroad...trust me, the yearning for the Big Fix will eventually find its fulfillment in the Big Man. It's just a matter of time..

Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump and neither are their supporters. That's just another version of the false equivalency meme.

This horse pucky is sold by the Right to reduce turnout so they can get 2000 and 2010 again. It's asserted by various nihilists to appear as some sort of deep worldly insight by people still influence by some book they read as teenagers and still can't buy a clue how inoperable in the real world.

Those who mutter this on the Left use it to justify their laziness - they have a special place in hell, whoops, I meant to say my heart. .

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump and neither are their supporters. That's just another version of the false equivalency meme.

This horse pucky is sold by the Right to reduce turnout so they can get 2000 and 2010 again. It's asserted by various nihilists to appear as some sort of deep worldly insight by people still influence by some book they read as teenagers and still can't buy a clue how inoperable in the real world.

Those who mutter this on the Left use it to justify their laziness - they have a special place in hell, whoops, I meant to say my heart. .

No, Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump, but I do think they strike the same emotional chords in people ... just not the same people. At that point, the comparison stops. Bernie tends to argue cause, effect and response: here's a problem, this is why it exists and this is what we can do about it. Trump just goes straight for the gut. For a true showman, going for the gut is extremely effective. Look at Saint Ronald. Bernie can't pull that off, so he has to make rational arguments. That thoughtful arguments are starting to get traction is the first sign that we may finally be turning the corner.

I still feel that Bernie is not Presidential material, which is sad. Perhaps he's our Diogenes ... except for the defecating and masturbating in public, of course.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump, but I do think they strike the same emotional chords in people ... just not the same people. At that point, the comparison stops. Bernie tends to argue cause, effect and response: here's a problem, this is why it exists and this is what we can do about it. Trump just goes straight for the gut. For a true showman, going for the gut is extremely effective. Look at Saint Ronald. Bernie can't pull that off, so he has to make rational arguments. That thoughtful arguments are starting to get traction is the first sign that we may finally be turning the corner.

I still feel that Bernie is not Presidential material, which is sad. Perhaps he's our Diogenes ... except for the defecating and masturbating in public, of course.

Right, but Bernie IS presidential material; just beyond the mainstream in his views. He may be too far beyond the mainstream to get elected; which means he may be un-electable; but he's a great candidate, and a potentially good president. So he has a chance, and if he does get nominated, we'll have to make sure he gets elected. And the cosmic indicators will favor him.

The problem is, of course, is that he still won't have a congress to work with. So he won't be able to enact much of his program. And that means the people will turn on him just the way they did on Obama, and will blame him for their own mistake of having elected a bunch of fools in 2010 and 2014 and stood still for gerrymandering.

Poll: Sanders Now Leads Hillary in New Hampshire
By Melissa Clyne | Wednesday, 12 Aug 2015 07:31 AM

The long-presumed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is trailing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by 7 percentage points in the latest survey of New Hampshire, a Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University poll shows.

Sanders leads Clinton 44 percent to 37 percent, and Joe Biden follows with 9 percent support, even though he has yet to announce his candidacy.

All other candidates — former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb — received 1 percent or less in the poll.

The poll surveyed 44 Democratic primary voters Aug. 7 in the Granite State and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percent.

The results indicate the former secretary of state "faces an unexpectedly difficult fight to prevent an embarrassing opening loss in the first-in-the-nation primary," according to the Herald, which notes that the poll "shows that most New Hampshire Democrats are lukewarm to Clinton, despite her campaign’s concerted effort to soften her image and connect with voters."

Additionally, only 35 percent of likely primary voters reported being "excited" about Clinton’s campaign, according to the Herald, and while "51 percent of voters say that while they could support her, they aren’t enthusiastic about her White House bid."

In the same poll in March, Sanders, a self-described socialist who is a registered independent and caucuses with the Democrats, trailed Clinton by a 44-8 margin.

A recent Public Policy Polling survey found that Sanders' popularity is also on the rise in Iowa, where since April support for Clinton has dropped from 62 percent to 52 percent while Sanders' support has risen to 25 percent from 14 percent, something that the poll characterizes as "a decent amount of tightening."

Clinton’s diminishing poll numbers coincide with revelations that the nation's former top diplomat exclusively used a private server and email account, housed in her New York home, for official government business. The FBI is conducting a criminal inquiry, according to reports.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/san...#ixzz3ic81Lo4B

Hillary Clinton still leads national polls according to Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3824.html
Averages for July 31:
Clinton 55
Sanders 19.4
Biden 12.3
Webb 1.8
O'Malley 1.6
Chafee 0.6

Clinton Campaign Hands Over Private Email Server to FBI
Tuesday, 11 Aug 2015 07:46 PM

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's lawyer has given the Federal Bureau of Investigation Clinton's private email server and a thumb drive of work-related emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, quoting a campaign spokesman.

Clinton's use of her private email for her work as America's top diplomat came to light in March and drew fire from political opponents who accused her of sidestepping transparency and record-keeping laws. The private account was linked to a server in her New York home.

David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, and Nick Merrill, the Clinton spokesman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman said she did not have any information at this time to share with reporters. Michael Kortan, an FBI spokesman, wrote in an email that he had "nothing to say."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently began looking into the security of the federal records and classified information contained among Clinton's emails. The U.S. government considers federal records to be government property.

The Justice Department has said the FBI began investigating after the inspector general who oversees the U.S. intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III, formally notified them of his concern that there was classified information not in the government's control.

Throughout her four years as secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton eschewed an official state.gov email address in favor of a private clintonemail.com email account run from a home computer server. At least one senior aide, Huma Abedin, also used the server for some work email. Clinton said the unusual arrangement broke no rules that were in force at the time.

Last December, she provided what she said were copies of all the work emails she had in her possession, nearly two years after she stepped down as secretary of state.

Clinton handed over about 30,000 emails she sent and received, although her staff have since acknowledged without explanation that some work emails are missing. She did not hand over another 30,000 emails from this period that she deemed personal and said she chose "not to keep."

The State Department has been steadily releasing the emails to the public in keeping with Clinton's request after redacting parts of them to remove sensitive or classified information.

A number of polls in recent months have found that more than half of voters find Clinton untrustworthy, although she remains the favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidential election in November, 2016.

The development was quickly seized by Clinton's Republican opponents as a chance to portray her not worthy of the White House.

"If Hillary Clinton believed in honesty and transparency, she would have turned over her secret server months ago to an independent arbiter, not as a last resort and to the Obama Justice Department," Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hil...#ixzz3icAPQbJM

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump, but I do think they strike the same emotional chords in people ... just not the same people. At that point, the comparison stops. Bernie tends to argue cause, effect and response: here's a problem, this is why it exists and this is what we can do about it. Trump just goes straight for the gut. For a true showman, going for the gut is extremely effective. Look at Saint Ronald. Bernie can't pull that off, so he has to make rational arguments. That thoughtful arguments are starting to get traction is the first sign that we may finally be turning the corner.

I still feel that Bernie is not Presidential material, which is sad. Perhaps he's our Diogenes ... except for the defecating and masturbating in public, of course.

Agree.

The common emotional chord is disappointment in govt (if not also their own lives). Below that generality, it breaks immediately into different camps.

The big problem is with the very first sorting - those on the Right are inspired to vote; those on the Left, demoralized and stay home.

The results -

2000 - Bush, ignoring 9/11 warnings because that was a Clinton thingee, Iraq invasion, out-of-control Wall Street, biggest economic contraction and financial meltdown since the Great Depression, Roberts' Court and Citizen United, etc.

2010 and 2014 - t-baggers, austerity, anemic economic recovery, failed immigration fix, Medicaid coverage denied to millions, no reasonable gun control measures, no student debt relief, possible no Iranian deal, etc.

I find it truly amazing how much time people on the Left spend ad nauseam dancing on surface of the general common chord when the only way to actually rectify the disappointment is to delve down just below the surface and fight for those incredible differences they have with today's insane Right. Instead, they tend to either stay home or get behind the latest version of the 2008 Obama Messiah - I guess people like their ruts regardless of the disappointments it leads to eventually.

Originally Posted by playwrite

t-baggers





Sanders is not the mirror image of Trump and neither are their supporters. That's just another version of the false equivalency meme.

This horse pucky is sold by the Right to reduce turnout so they can get 2000 and 2010 again. It's asserted by various nihilists to appear as some sort of deep worldly insight by people still influence by some book they read as teenagers and still can't buy a clue how inoperable in the real world.

Those who mutter this on the Left use it to justify their laziness - they have a special place in hell, whoops, I meant to say my heart. .

In asserting that I committed the logical fallacy of "false equivalency," you yourself have committed one: the straw man argument. If you go back and re-read my post, you'll see that I never argued that Trump and Sanders were the "mirror image" of each other. Far from it. What I did say was that they're tapping into much the same vein, which I would generally characterize as a frustration with politics as usual. Pundits on the Left and Right say as much over and over again. To give just one example, both men have either implied (Trump) or explicitly stated (Sanders) that the system is rigged: Trump baldly admitted to a cable TV audience of 24 million viewers that he buys access to--and influence from--political elites. In his own speeches, Sanders regularly rails against the oligarchy and their PACs that target legislators willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. There is very definitely a difference in how each man would handle that problem. Sanders supports public funding of elections, as do I. Trump's only answer to the problem seems to be: "Don't worry about me being bought. I'm rich; I'm already bought--by me."

Nor did I claim that the two men appeal to the same audience. That's a ridiculous notion on its face. What I would say, however, is that it's dangerous to characterize Trump's supporters as strictly "t-baggers." Have you watched some of the talk shows where members of the audience explain their support for him? I have, and they don't all sound like "t-baggers" to me. They're drawn to his aura of success, his brash confidence that he can get the job done, especially creating jobs. Now I happen to believe his approach is largely bogus, but a lot of people are buying into it, including a good number of young people that I can see, some of whom probably voted for Obama in 2008.

As for your reference to nihilism, please explain. Who is nihilist? Trump? Republicans? the Tea Party? Me? In reviewing your responses to some of my posts, your counterarguments seem to be ideologically-based, too much so. Personally, I run from labels like liberal, progressive, Democrat. I'm a radical. My politics is the politics of reality. So when I argue that the Fed is making the same mistake as before, I could care less if the Chair was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, and I don't care if his/her tough-minded and ostensibly independent actions cause some short-term pain as long as the medicine cures the patient. I want effective monetary management, not short-sighted policies that guarantee "My Man/Woman" gets into the White House in 2016. That's a partisan approach that Greenspan, quite frankly, veered dangerously close to during his term.

As for books...well, my friend, I've read hundreds in my 60 plus years. Some I've kept; others I've discarded as the chaff that they are. But I can assure you that none of them is my sacred text. So let up on the ad hominen attacks, why don't you.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In asserting that I committed the logical fallacy of "false equivalency," you yourself have committed one: the straw man argument. If you go back and re-read my post, you'll see that I never argued that Trump and Sanders were the "mirror image" of each other. Far from it. What I did say was that they're tapping into much the same vein, which I would generally characterize as a frustration with politics as usual. Pundits on the Left and Right say as much over and over again. To give just one example, both men have either implied (Trump) or explicitly stated (Sanders) that the system is rigged: Trump baldly admitted to a cable TV audience of 24 million viewers that he buys access to--and influence from--political elites. In his own speeches, Sanders regularly rails against the oligarchy and their PACs that target legislators willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. There is very definitely a difference in how each man would handle that problem. Sanders supports public funding of elections, as do I. Trump's only answer to the problem seems to be: "Don't worry about me being bought. I'm rich; I'm already bought--by me."

Nor did I claim that the two men appeal to the same audience. That's a ridiculous notion on its face. What I would say, however, is that it's dangerous to characterize Trump's supporters as strictly "t-baggers." Have you watched some of the talk shows where members of the audience explain their support for him? I have, and they don't all sound like "t-baggers" to me. They're drawn to his aura of success, his brash confidence that he can get the job done, especially creating jobs. Now I happen to believe his approach is largely bogus, but a lot of people are buying into it, including a good number of young people that I can see, some of whom probably voted for Obama in 2008.

As for your reference to nihilism, please explain. Who is nihilist? Trump? Republicans? the Tea Party? Me? In reviewing your responses to some of my posts, your counterarguments seem to be ideologically-based, too much so. Personally, I run from labels like liberal, progressive, Democrat. I'm a radical. My politics is the politics of reality. So when I argue that the Fed is making the same mistake as before, I could care less if the Chair was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, and I don't care if his/her tough-minded and ostensibly independent actions cause some short-term pain as long as the medicine cures the patient. I want effective monetary management, not short-sighted policies that guarantee "My Man/Woman" gets into the White House in 2016. That's a partisan approach that Greenspan, quite frankly, veered dangerously close to during his term.

As for books...well, my friend, I've read hundreds in my 60 plus years. Some I've kept; others I've discarded as the chaff that they are. But I can assure you that none of them is my sacred text. So let up on the ad hominen attacks, why don't you.

Playwrite is the type example for ad hominem behavior. Almost up there at the Copperfield level.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I find it truly amazing how much time people on the Left spend ad nauseam dancing on surface of the general common chord when the only way to actually rectify the disappointment is to delve down just below the surface and fight for those incredible differences they have with today's insane Right. Instead, they tend to either stay home or get behind the latest version of the 2008 Obama Messiah - I guess people like their ruts regardless of the disappointments it leads to eventually.

Exactly! The Right has mobilized. The Left, not so much. Being a majority is unimportant if those numbers can't be leveraged ... and, so far, they can't. It's easy to win against a demoralized opponent, and the Right has learned how to do that while keeping their allies in whit-hot anger mode. I don't see Bernie being able to be the change agent that transcends that paradigm. I just don't. To be brutally frank, I don't see who can. Hillary is out; she's far to divisive. No one else is gaining sufficient traction

Originally Posted by Odin

Given how dirty the GOP Establishment can be, I expect him to be hit by some kind of sex scandal coming out of nowhere, soon.

I thought he married all his sex scandals after divorcing the old ones?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As for your reference to nihilism, please explain. Who is nihilist? Trump? Republicans? the Tea Party? Me?

Me!
And I think he means you also.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In asserting that I committed the logical fallacy of "false equivalency," you yourself have committed one: the straw man argument. If you go back and re-read my post, you'll see that I never argued that Trump and Sanders were the "mirror image" of each other. Far from it. What I did say was that they're tapping into much the same vein, which I would generally characterize as a frustration with politics as usual. Pundits on the Left and Right say as much over and over again. To give just one example, both men have either implied (Trump) or explicitly stated (Sanders) that the system is rigged: Trump baldly admitted to a cable TV audience of 24 million viewers that he buys access to--and influence from--political elites. In his own speeches, Sanders regularly rails against the oligarchy and their PACs that target legislators willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. There is very definitely a difference in how each man would handle that problem. Sanders supports public funding of elections, as do I. Trump's only answer to the problem seems to be: "Don't worry about me being bought. I'm rich; I'm already bought--by me."

Nor did I claim that the two men appeal to the same audience. That's a ridiculous notion on its face. What I would say, however, is that it's dangerous to characterize Trump's supporters as strictly "t-baggers." Have you watched some of the talk shows where members of the audience explain their support for him? I have, and they don't all sound like "t-baggers" to me. They're drawn to his aura of success, his brash confidence that he can get the job done, especially creating jobs. Now I happen to believe his approach is largely bogus, but a lot of people are buying into it, including a good number of young people that I can see, some of whom probably voted for Obama in 2008.

While both in the original post and here as well, you give nods to the differences, from beginning to end your thesis is -

'People, Right and Left, are upset = Big Man cometh < unless people, Right and Left, are no longer upset.'

As you noted, this is what spews from the pundits so is it providing any insights? Worse, does it bury the possibility that one path of resolutions of the differences might prevent the Big Man cometh while the other promotes it - and regardless of which outcome, one side is still going to be upset? Shouldn't that be the discussion? Do 4T's end when everyone is no longer upset, or do they end when one side has thoroughly beat the shit out of the other side - history tells you what? How is that discussion getting buried? It's being buried by, well, 'all sides are upset and candidates are tapping into that same vein.' Like I said, just another version of the false equivalency.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As for your reference to nihilism, please explain. Who is nihilist? Trump? Republicans? the Tea Party? Me?

Nihilist, is that the one you picked for yourself? It's not necessarily the one I would pick for you, I don't know you that well to discern motivations. You could be a Rightee whose programmed to dissuade people from turning out to vote - psss, that's when they win. You could also be a confused lazy Leftee who believes pontificating on Internet chat rooms about the lack of differences between the Parties is all that's needed to not invade Iraq or bomb Iran or actually get health coverage for 10s of millions of uninsured. Again, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In reviewing your responses to some of my posts, your counterarguments seem to be ideologically-based, too much so.

Well, of course, they are. The only way for anyone to be otherwise is to fool themselves about the false equivalency.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Personally, I run from labels like liberal, progressive, Democrat. I'm a radical. My politics is the politics of reality.

Really? I haven't seen much about the reality of the choices to be made in 2016. If you don't think those choices will have tangentable impacts on the concerns you've raised, well, there's this thing call false.... Oh, nevermind.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

So when I argue that the Fed is making the same mistake as before, I could care less if the Chair was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat,

But that is a false equivalency as well. Just like the SCOTUS, a FED member generally has a philosophy toward monetary policy that reflects the view of the President who nominated him/her. Greenspan certainly reflected a hands-off regulatory posture toward the financial sector that you have noted; Yellen is not going to do that (yes, Bernanke may have been the exception that proves the rule... or, maybe Bush just didn't understand that monetary policy thingee).

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

...and I don't care if his/her tough-minded and ostensibly independent actions cause some short-term pain as long as the medicine cures the patient.

- but that is currently a partisan position; you'd be hard press to find someone on the Left wanting to take that risk with other people's employment; the Right does that by reflex.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I want effective monetary management, not short-sighted policies that guarantee "My Man/Woman" gets into the White House in 2016. That's a partisan approach that Greenspan, quite frankly, veered dangerously close to during his term.

It's amazing how incompetent the FED can be in steering the entire economy but so powerful to do it in a way that assures the election of their guy. Again, Greenspan's laissez faire was pre-conditioned long before he ever knew someone named Bush - you do know that he lived in Ayn Rand's groupie home with her? Imagine the love child - oooo, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As for books...well, my friend, I've read hundreds in my 60 plus years. Some I've kept; others I've discarded as the chaff that they are. But I can assure you that none of them is my sacred text.

Good for you!

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

So let up on the ad hominen attacks, why don't you.

Given that I didn't put you into any particular category, I'm not sure what the personal attack was. You might just be a brilliant GOP tactician practicing his art of war here.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Playwrite is the type example for ad hominem behavior. Almost up there at the Copperfield level.

Another drive-by persona. You and PrinceKitty should hang out at the sandbox.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Exactly! The Right has mobilized. The Left, not so much. Being a majority is unimportant if those numbers can't be leveraged ... and, so far, they can't. It's easy to win against a demoralized opponent, and the Right has learned how to do that while keeping their allies in whit-hot anger mode. I don't see Bernie being able to be the change agent that transcends that paradigm. I just don't. To be brutally frank, I don't see who can. Hillary is out; she's far to divisive. No one else is gaining sufficient traction

Whether HC, BS, or JBiden, they'll get the SCOTUS... and that sets the stage for a long long time.