Time Mag: Both Former Presidents Bush Won’t Endorse Trump
Trump wins again!!!
Just sayin’…
The coming election is going to be driven largely by massive voter disgust at the results of the last 30 years or so of Permanent Government rule. Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama to…to what? Another Clinton? Clinton II? Obviously not another Bush, that was plain from the get-go. Not another Clinton, either, I’m betting.
Every time a Republican elder disses Trump, Trump wins another many thousands of votes.
Deep.
AG
Suggestions regarding where to move when Trump wins?
I ain’t leaving, myself.
Gonna watch it go down, hoping to witness an eventual Phoenix-like rise of this wonderful experiment of a country..
Could happen…we have the most amazing mixture of cultures to ever exist under one flag.
Could happen…
AG
Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!
Now if they will only endorse HRC.
Refusing to endorse Trump is endorsing HRC, Voice. It is as far as they can go without tarnishing their own brand any more than did Butch II and !!! Jeb ¡¡¡
I mean…there’s gotta be something left for the great-grandkids to fuck up, right?
AG
○ GOP Nominee Donald Trump and His EU Bed Partners
Sounds good to me!
You’re not going to get single payer healthcare out of Trump:
https:/www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
Same old Republican health care policies. Tens of millions would lose their health insurance and Medicare costs would skyrocket again with this plan.
Oh, and his tax policies?
https:
/www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
My favorite part of this summary of massive tax cuts for the wealthy and international corporations is this:
“Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.”
Math intervenes:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan
“His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.”
I dunno, it’s like he’s a outrageous liar or something.
Or Hillary. She already said so. And no tuition-free college “can’t afford it”. Ditto CPI-E
Politico – Hillary forces target Bush donors
Andrew Bard Epstein:
Who predicted a year ago that 2016 wouldn’t be another Clinton and Bush showdown, but a Clinton appropriating Bush donors? THE freaking CLUB.
Billmon:
She only thinks no on can has reading comprehension equal to hers and her husband’s (and daughter’s). Or is accounting skills? The meaning of ‘representative’ has now entered the Clinton alternate lexicon next to the meaning of ‘is’.
Add this to the latest pile of “New Dems” displaying their colors (it was also ignored here when I posted another report on this a few days ago) : Democratic Sen. Mark Warner Urges the Rich to Challenge Populist Anger (Video)
Ah, yes. Milken who should have served out his sentence and his fine should have been 99.99% of everything he had.
“the cutting of public welfare programs such as Social Security.”
Yeah. And this her likely running mate? So far, I’m only voting for Tammy Duckworth in Fall. She stood up for postal workers and (after a couple months of waiting) she sent me a letter saying she will vote against TPP. Besides, I hate Mark Kirk. Her replacement is one of DWS’s pets. The (R) looks like a typical (R) dimwit but screw DWS. Down ticket? They’re telling me that I have to bear the tax burden of years of reckless spending and (D) refusal to raise taxes on the rich. But, vote for me! I’m Latino(Latina). Yes, I think you have to wreck the party to save it.
(R) or (D), the only difference is which businessman’s envelope they take.
One of HER possible running mates. Not sure why anyone would want that job because there’s zero potential for any power, etc. in it. Bill will fill that slot (more so than Cheney ever did) and Chelsea will take on all that traditional First Lady stuff.
Haven’t a clue who would be on her short list, but I’m sensing someone like Quayle but not as obviously stupid.
“someone like Quayle but not as obviously stupid” That’s a long list!
Biden took VP to cap his career, I’m sure. So, anyone that just wants it on his/her headstone like Roland Burris.
I agree with your power analysis. Also, maybe Chelsea will be tagged with keeping Dad out of the intern cookie jar. She’ll have a lot more power to go where she wants and tell off who she wants.
I can’t even come up with a short list of less obviously stupid Quaylish potential VPs from which she could choose from. Youngish, good looking, and too square to even know that men cheat on their wives.
Would be more concerned about keeping Dad away from the payola machines. (Nobody cares if he porks a 45 year old, even if she’s a lowly intern.)
It was a nice stint for Biden, and I think the regard he has for Obama and vice versa is genuine. He didn’t get his own portfolio, but the compensation for that is that he has been an active partner with Obama. And anyone that has had a strong desire to be POTUS recognizes that she/he could be called to step in.
Biden still wants it and I sense that Obama would prefer to have Biden succeed him. Perhaps appoint Obama SOS. But that’s out of their control.
I’ve got one:
Ex-Newark mayor and current NJ Senator Corey Booker.
Perfect.
He runs into burning houses to save people. As long as it makes the news.
He lives on food stamps in a Newark ghetto for a week. As long as it makes the news and he has his security detail close by.
He is even less committed to anything whatsoever that does not help his political career than is Barack Obama. I often work among New Jersey resident black people. I rarely hear them say anything good about him other than the obvious fact that he is a talented political climber.
Perfect as VP for HRC. She’d give the orders; he’d say “Yes, MA’AM!!!
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. Plus…
He has very slyly never challenged…and some people say encouraged…rumors that he is not married because he’s gay.
Slick.
Like Slick Willie only younger.
Okay. She already has the AA vote, NJ, and Wall St, but guess it doesn’t hurt to reinforce that. But I was thinking of someone a bit higher in attractiveness and I’m not sure that back-to-back AAs on the ticket is a great idea.
Heresy! White Privilege!
Not about color — merely a generic rating on the scale of attractiveness. In case it has escaped your attention, not so many white men are all that attractive.
I was responding (tongue in cheek) to “I’m not sure that back-to-back AAs on the ticket is a great idea”.
I don’t find ANY white men attractive, nor non-white men. However, most, white women are attractive and quite a few non-white women. YMMV
Oh. Merely a recognition that we’re not a color blind nations and apportioning this one job (two with the VP sidecar) among all identity groups well enough that everybody feels included has to be sequential. Male WASPS have hogged the top job for all but eleven years. And isn’t Joe the only non-Protestant VP?
One complaint I have about Obama’s nomination of Garland to the SC is that it perpetuates religious non-diversity on the court, as if only Catholics or Jews need to apply.
Imagine the screech if he were to nominate a Muslim!
Would be deafening. But seriously, it’s not up to the single non-white POTUS to use all opportunities to make up for all the failings of his predecessors. Particularly in light of how slowly Americans accept change.
The first Catholic SC Justice came early — 1836. (And his legacy is dreadful.)
Fist Jew — 1916
First AA – 1967
First woman – 1981
First Italian – 1986
First Latina – 2009
Overall a dismally slow record considering the number and diversity of people that have been and are well qualified to serve. What’s gotten worse over the decades is educational diversity. All of the current Justices and including Scalia and Garland, went to private colleges for their undergrad degree and all of them except Ginsburg, received their law degrees from Harvard or Yale. That’s elitism (a protection of the 1% racket). And a way of saying the public colleges and law schools are second rate which is BS.
I know Obama is too smart to do it, but you could hear that screech in Antarctica!
First Italian – 1986 (And his legacy is dreadful)
Would like to see an atheist, but ain’t gonna happen.
Neither is a Justice from John Marshall Law School, no matter how capable.
Re Harvard and Yale, W proved how they work. Rich influential Daddy donates a million dollar building and your application is “re-considered” and passing grades guaranteed. Joe Sixpack’s kid or Juan Lopez’s kid or Roosevelt Washington’s kid, “sorry full up, try trade school”.
It’s more insidious and pervasive than your comment suggests. There’s nothing special about the gene pool of the elites, and therefore, they know that even with all the privileges their kids enjoy, few of them will excel to the statue of SC material. So, they have to inculcate the best minds among those not in their class.
With the exception of Roberts, none of the current justices are prep school kids; they attended public high schools. Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, and Kagan (and possibly Garland) were born/raised in more privileged homes. Alito more middle-class. The early lives of Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor were difficult which is an understatement.
Ginsburg, IMO, is the sharpest mind on the court. She’s also the one that has had the fullest and most varied life and the only one that doesn’t hail from Harvard or Yale law school (although she briefly attended Harvard Law). (Doesn’t get any luckier in love than she had with Martin Ginsburg.)
Sotomayor is still a work in progress, but doing well. Thomas is just sad. Otherwise, with the exception of Ginsburg, they’re all informed by Harvard and Yale Law schools and the standard doors that opened to graduates. Very narrow in life experiences and exposures. Explains the huge differences in the rulings of the Warren Court compared to that of the subsequent courts (the Burger court was the bridge between the two).
What about the first left-handed anarcho-lesbian Jewish Latina of color? Isn’t Hillary trying to pander to that bloc, too?
Just sayin’…I don’t think the AA vote is as solid as the pundits imagine.
Although it is fairly obvious that not many minority voters of any race or creed are going to vote for Trump after his primary act, there is no telling whether there will be an anti-Trump vote, a pro-HRC vote or lots of minority people simply not voting at all because they…quite accurately…think that both candidates are full of shit as far as they are concerned.
“They” being the lower-caste, permanently-markered-by-their physicality low-wage and out of work citizens who are in that position because the people who own Hillary Clinton are only about profit.
We shall see.
AG
P.S. Plus, of course, my whole Corey Booker thing was snark out front.
You said:
Booker is certainly less obviously stupid, right? And he is “youngish and good looking” in a daytime TV host kind of way.
Not a square, though.
Too good a hustler.
AG
I’m supporting Tammy Duckworth too!
I’m supporting Tammy Duckworth too!
This is not news to me, Marie…I have been flogging the Permanent Government and electoral fix ideas since Dean was AAAARGHED out of contention and Kerry acceded to the Florida/Ohio fix. What I cannot understand is why it is not plain to everyone with even half a brain.
But…it’s not.
Media hypnosis is the only possible answer.
AG
Arthur, I was considering posting a comment when i decided to leave it at that. Yes, we all know you know. Great. What now?
I don’t know about you, but I didn’t see all the ins and outs of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the Democratic party elite as soon as some people. I blame it on being raised as a fierce yellow dog Democrat, who fondly remembered the Democratic party as the party of FDR. One questioning their own political beliefs is similar to questioning one’s religious beliefs. It’s difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, but I’m living proof and I have woke up. I spread the word to all who will listen and support progressive Democrats.
What now?
Read the comment above this one.
One mind at a time. That’s what!!!
AG
What’s interesting is that once you start talking “politics”, you discover there are more “like you.” My trip yesterday to the dentist proved that point. What he did to me didn’t hurt as much either. LOL
That is a good précis of what is happening across this entire country right now, karl. People are realizing that they are not alone in their disgust for the way this government has been run for the last 50+ years. Until recently most of them thought…due to media pressure, basically…that they were pretty much alone. After all, no matter where in the mass media you turn you find someone essentially saying that “One party is right and the other party is wrong.” Considering the obvious fact…once unshackled from the media-provided glasses that filter out the obvious…that both parties are totally owned by the .01% and that the entire last 50+ years of U.S. politics has been a totally fixed shell game? Thinking that way becomes easier. And then we find out that other people have been thinking the same thing!!!??? Shame and confusion disappears.
I am not a Trump “supporter” by any means, but it quite literally took my breath away when he stated in the first debate that Hillary Clinton attended his daughter’s wedding because he basically told her that she had to do so, with the unstated threat of withholding money from the Clinton money machine as the hammer held behind his back.
It worked, too.
Bet on it.
That statement…publicly presented by a big-time player in the big-time game…was totally revolutionary in terms of politics. It took the wraps off of millions of eyes that had not yet truly seen and understood the “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” principle upon which the U.S. Permanent Government is based.
The phrase “The Trump Revolution” will soon become as commonly used as “The Reagan Revolution,” I believe. Google both. 40,00 or so hits for “The Trump Revolution,” 200,000 for “The Reagan Revolution.” In a month or so, try that same comparison. Betcha the ratio will be much closer.
Watch.
AG
And the general public does not view Trump (or Sanders) with the disdain that Democratic groupies do.
Yes, they are naive, but at least they know that the current crop of pols are their enemies.