President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just how is the FBI going to revolt?

FBI will leak to the press and/or quit. Andrew Napolitano said so. So did Krauthammer. These guys did too.

Tom Delay: "They're ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public."

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney “I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

[Monker]

I've never seen anyone like this guy (Trump) and I've seen a lot of elections in my lifetime. As polarizing as he is, I can't see how he doesn't get elected, if not just for the novelty. What do we have to lose? We've been having all these establishment politicians all these years. He might just be a breath of fresh air.

I would vote for Trump, but if he picks a Republican hack as VP, I can't. Why is he even meeting with Paul Ryan? Ryan represents the exact type of phony establishment politics that voters rejected. If voters cared about Paul Ryan's views on Conservatism, they would have voted for Jeb! or Rubio.

There is a large push by conservatives to have a third party candidate. Trump has to calm things down or he is going to lose half of his own party's vote...even worse than Romney. So, really, Ryan has more power in this than most people believe. If Trump goes back to the "we don't need unity" idea and tosses Ryan aside, I believe you will see a large number of Republican's not just supporting a third party but making it happen...even if it means guaranteeing Clinton is elected.

It's like I tried to say months ago. Either Trump loses the nomination and his supporters are alienated. Or, Trump wins and the non-Tea Party'ers are alienated. Either way, Republicans lose. Also, if Trump starts putting forth his liberal agenda too early, you may start hearing about Cruz trying to steal more delegates.

The conservative Republicans talk about RINO's. But, the KING of the RINO's is Trump. He is incredibly LIberal. So liberal that Democrats have the more conservative candidate. Wonder when the last time was that the Democrats were the more conservative party in an election?

[Monker]

Just how is the FBI going to revolt?

FBI will leak to the press and/or quit. Andrew Napolitano said so. So did Krauthammer. These guys did too.

Tom Delay: "They're ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public."

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney “I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

All of those guys are Republican FOX contributors and very biased...especially Napolitano and Krauthammer. If that's your only source on this, then you are believing propaganda.

[Boomchild]

FBI will leak to the press and/or quit. Andrew Napolitano said so. So did Krauthammer. These guys did too.

Tom Delay: "They're ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public."

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney “I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

If for some reason this thing should drag out past the Nov. election and Hillary wins, will they still go forward with this?

[Boomchild]

A couple of months ago it was on the news that up to 50% of the FBI will walk off the job if Clinton isn't indited.

Even if FBI employees would do something like this, I am skeptical that it would be that high of a percentage. Guess we just have to wait and see.

[The_Noble_Cause]

All of those guys are Republican FOX contributors and very biased...especially Napolitano and Krauthammer. If that's your only source on this, then you are believing propaganda.

Napolitano is extremely against The Patriot Act and has been a defender of civil liberties no matter the party. Like Jonathan Turley or Bruce Fein, Napolitano has been rock solid when it comes to the Constitution. You're the partisan hack. Still waiting for you to back up your claim that Hillary "had permission" to use a private server. You're a shameless fucking liar spreading propaganda on behalf of the Clinton misinformation machine. Go mention Snowden or Trump again, idiot. You obviously haven't a clue about what's going on.

[Monker]

All of those guys are Republican FOX contributors and very biased...especially Napolitano and Krauthammer. If that's your only source on this, then you are believing propaganda.

Napolitano is extremely against The Patriot Act and has been a defender of civil liberties no matter the party. Like Jonathan Turley or Bruce Fein, Napolitano has been rock solid when it comes to the Constitution. You're the partisan hack. Still waiting for you to back up your claim that Hillary "had permission" to use a private server. You're a shameless fucking liar spreading propaganda on behalf of the Clinton misinformation machine. Go mention Snowden or Trump again, idiot. You obviously haven't a clue about what's going on.

Napolitano has been with Fox for 17yrs. That is enough to discredit him when he starts citing 'unnamed sources' in reference to anything regarding Clinton or Democrats in general.

I don't go cutting and pasting propaganda to this page. What I read was an Email chain taken from the server that said Clinton wanted to use her own server for whatever reason, I think for convenience, and asked if they could order one and have it installed. It went up through a few people at the State Department. It came back that there was no reason why she couldn't do it. So, it was then installed.

What you all seem to forget is that there were no rules on this until AFTER Clinton left office. She did not break any rules or laws...that is simply the bottom line. You can keep believing she has if you want to, but it's just not true.

What Snowden "revealed" was made public decades earlier. If you think ANY Email, phone, fax, or ANY electronic communication you have made has not been intercepted and scrutinized by MULTIPLE nations, then you are very, very naïve. And, when I say "ANY", I mean "any" since the day you were born. The NSA was doing this since before Snowden was born.

Trump, well, he's a liberal who keeps looking more like a Democrat the closer he gets to the nomination. He is the very definition of a RINO...and when he loses, I'm sure that will be the excuse FF and KC use...just as they now use it against Romney. Wow, FF was all in for Romney when he was running...funny how that changes after he loses.

You all just assume so much. Nothing is going to come out of this...it's all for show and manipulation so Republicans can get people to vote the way they want to. If there was any chance of this coming to an indictment and especially to trial, well, let's just say the establishment would not allow her to win the nomination, or probably try to even run...and she would have went down over a year ago.

[Monker]

The numbers say your are full of shit. Trump continues to gain and the Republican Party is falling in line, except the Bush family.

Except the Bush family, and Paul Ryan, and people like Priebus warning that a third party candidate is "suicide", and you can go search the many articles in your favorite mags, like National Review and Daily Caller which report a conservative desire for a third party candidate. It is a real threat....the nomination of Trump means there is no conservative in this election.

Trump is a leftist Liberal running in a party that prides itself on its conservative roots. It impossible to imagine that not being a conflict of interest of MOST Republicans...including you and FF. This is why Paul Ryan is insisting that TRUMP start trying to unify the party.

So now what? You have this leftist Liberal trying to appease the conservative establishment of the party he is running. What a train wreck this is going to be.

Sanders voters will go to Trump or not vote once the DNC and Clinton get done screwing them over.

Sure, some will feel that way. However, once Bernie starts his campaign against Trump I doubt very many at all will do this. you may see some not vote at all...but I doubt many will switch to Trump.

Now, on the flip side...Since Trump is a leftist liberal I can see a LOT of Republicans refusing to vote for this election. And, I do mean A LOT.

You may be happy a proven lying skank, self motivated to do nothing but stuff money in her own pocket gets control of the Country, but millions are not

But, millions more are plenty happy to see Clinton in office over the complete disaster a Trump presidency will represent.

I was not a Trump person, but I will be now. I know several liberals who will never vote for Hillary. Hollywood doesn't like her. Just because you believe anything the liberal Media wants to tell you does not make it reality

Sorry, but I said Clinton would win well before any of this even started. I don't think she even announced when I said she would win. It has NOTHING to do with "liberal media". It's common sense. You have a socialist that put up a fight, and now you have a neo-fascist on the Republican side. Easy win.

Trumps numbers have done only one thing from the start, go up. CNN, and all those other Obama shills said Trump didn't stand a chance and would drop out.

I didn't say it. I felt the entire Republican field was a circus of "losers" and Trump just escalated the grandstanding.

I ended up believing Cruz would stay in it and the "establishment" would find a way to give it to him, or someone else because they hate Cruz as well. IMO, that's why Paul Ryan reacted the way he did...he wanted a convention fight and Cruz, or someone else, to come out the winner...maybe even try to take it for himself.

It was going to be Clinton and Bush. Trump would quit.

No, Republicans are too stupid to nominate someone sane like Bush. Back before the 'fun' started Bill Maher was asked who he thought would win and he said Ted Cruz....because the Republicans seem to always pick the craziest person in the field. He's right...and he said it before Trump announce or he may have given a different answer.

So much is coming out on the Clintons now, only an idiot would want her for President.

LOL...unless you are black, Latino, a woman, gay, a Muslim, or any other minority other than an old white male. For Trump to win with the current dynamics, he'll have to win something like 70% of the white vote....impossible.

My bet is Ryan was told, "I'm going to win. Play nice or it's all going to crash for you. Not one of your party pulled more then 1% of the vote, other then Bush. The people spoke, and your done. Maybe you guys should have done what you said you were going to do instead of kiss Obama's ass".

[/quote][/quote]

If he said that, Ryan may have said, "OK, I'll step down as chairman of the convention and support a third party candidate. Say these things publicly, and that's what I'll do....and I have a lot of other prominent Republicans in congress who have pledged to do the same thing. OH, and BTW, if by some chance you do win the Presidency, we'll treat you like a Democrat, which is what you really are."

What you don't understand is this has become a battle for what the Republican party represents. Ryan wants to hold on to the "Reagan" conservative ideal...and does not want Trump to turn the party into a liberal entity just for the sake of winning the Presidency. IMO, he would rather lose this election than have that happen.

[Boomchild]

Truck full of illegal immigrants crashes into Naval Air Station

Three people were recovering in a hospital Monday and 12 were in custody after a truck carrying 15 illegal immigrants crashed into a barrier at a Texas Naval Air Station on Saturday night, The Corpus Christi Caller Times reported.

The vehicle ran the initial entry gate at Naval Air Station Kingsville before crashing into the base’s “final denial barrier,” a news release said. The vehicle was not the subject of a pursuit prior to the crash, air station spokesman Kevin Clarke told The Austin American-Statesman.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/truck- ... li=BBnb7Kz

Those damn "denial barriers". How dare our government put such things in place that end up hurting these poor immigrants. This just proves how racist this country is.

[The_Noble_Cause]

What you don't understand is this has become a battle for what the Republican party represents. Ryan wants to hold on to the "Reagan" conservative ideal...and does not want Trump to turn the party into a liberal entity just for the sake of winning the Presidency. IMO, he would rather lose this election than have that happen.

Ryan represents the Establishment. And the Establishment also hated Reagan. Reagan completely upended the GOP as it existed at the time (Ford, Nixon, etc). The Establishment now invokes Saint Reagan but they don't represent him at all. Monker - you are so uninformed it is painful to read. Get the fuck outta here.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Napolitano has been with Fox for 17yrs. That is enough to discredit him when he starts citing 'unnamed sources' in reference to anything regarding Clinton or Democrats in general.

Napolitano is not Hannity and has certainly not sold his soul to promote the Bush Neocon agenda like many of his Fox colleagues did. But for argument's sake, let's say you are correct and anyone on Fox, including Napolitano, is instantly discredited. Fair enough.

I don't go cutting and pasting propaganda to this page. What I read was an Email chain taken from the server that said Clinton wanted to use her own server for whatever reason, I think for convenience, and asked if they could order one and have it installed. It went up through a few people at the State Department. It came back that there was no reason why she couldn't do it. So, it was then installed.

You're right. You don't "cut and paste propaganda." Instead you regurgitate second-hand hearsay which has all the verisimilitude of a work-at-home spam post. So "you read an email" giving Hillary permission. Ok. Prove it. If I told you I read "Monker gives great head" on a bus station wall, does that make it so?

What you all seem to forget is that there were no rules on this until AFTER Clinton left office. She did not break any rules or laws...that is simply the bottom line. You can keep believing she has if you want to, but it's just not true.

This is just a complete lie.
Are you saying Hillary did not receive a briefing on the handling of classified materials?
Are you saying that the Federal Records Act did not exist before Hillary's SOS term?
You truly have no fucking shame.

You all just assume so much. Nothing is going to come out of this...it's all for show and manipulation so Republicans can get people to vote the way they want to. If there was any chance of this coming to an indictment and especially to trial, well, let's just say the establishment would not allow her to win the nomination, or probably try to even run...and she would have went down over a year ago.

You keep saying that and Comey keeps investigating. This is not a Republican House hearing for the C-span cameras. This is an FBI investigation that is granting immunity to Hillary’s top aides to sing like a canary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8-O7UnqJJU

[tj]

What you don't understand is this has become a battle for what the Republican party represents. Ryan wants to hold on to the "Reagan" conservative ideal...and does not want Trump to turn the party into a liberal entity just for the sake of winning the Presidency. IMO, he would rather lose this election than have that happen.

Ryan represents the Establishment. And the Establishment also hated Reagan. Reagan completely upended the GOP as it existed at the time (Ford, Nixon, etc). The Establishment now invokes Saint Reagan but they don't represent him at all. Monker - you are so uninformed it is painful to read. Get the fuck outta here.

Reagan would be ashamed of many of the positions Ryan, Bush, et. al. have supported over the past 25 years. He chose Bush as his VP to keep the "moderate" wing happy, was gracious to him as VP (they had lunch every week together) and respected him as a person, veteran, and man who had spent years in party politics.

But Reagan had no misunderstanding that the guy who called his policy "voodoo economics" was like minded in what he would do if elected. He knew that they had significant differences. And Bush showed his true colors by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, among other things.

Reagan was an anomaly in Republican presidential winners. Most came from the "Rockefeller/moderate" wing which supports, if not creates, a big government/crony capitalism/deficits don't matter/spend to get reelected perspective. Bush 2, Bush 1, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower were all from a "if the constitution doesn't forbid it, the government can do it" perspective. Reagan saw it the other way around, "if the constitution doesn't speak to it, it is left to the states to decide".

Trump is no Reagan, isn't conservative, and is probably further to the left than most realize. He is capitalizing on the last 25 years of stagnant wages, job loss, and sense of America having lost it's place as the great leader in the free world. He is a very smart man who sees an opportunity and takes it. He will stop much of the foolishness that Obama has implemented, but won't make drastic changes in terms of social policy. His economics will focus on Americans first, which may or may not bring about more jobs, increased wages, etc.

[Monker]

What you don't understand is this has become a battle for what the Republican party represents. Ryan wants to hold on to the "Reagan" conservative ideal...and does not want Trump to turn the party into a liberal entity just for the sake of winning the Presidency. IMO, he would rather lose this election than have that happen.

Ryan represents the Establishment. And the Establishment also hated Reagan. Reagan completely upended the GOP as it existed at the time (Ford, Nixon, etc). The Establishment now invokes Saint Reagan but they don't represent him at all. Monker - you are so uninformed it is painful to read. Get the fuck outta here.

Yes, Paul Ryan does represent the establishment. But, he is also the most powerful Republican in Washington. If Trump understands anything, he understands power. He has a choice, he can either fight that power, or try to work with it. He is choosing to work with it

With all of Trump's grandstanding about the establishment, he has to work with it just as any other politician has ever had to do. Ryan knows this...he's not a fool either. If Trump grandstands him, and the 'establishment' of the Republican party, Paul Ryan has the power to ensure Trump is not elected and to end his political career - simply by supporting a third party for President. Both of them know this, which is why they are trying to work together right now.

Yes, Republicans in general invoke Reagan in unrealistic ways. I have said that for many years here. If Reagan were to run for office today, he would be run out of town as a RINO and a liberal. This is why I put his name in quotes when I said the 'Reagan' conservative ideal. It may be unrealistic, but the FACT is Republicans still point to Reagan as their conservative mentor.

None of this however changes the fact that Paul Ryan wants the Republican Party to represent conservatism and not have liberal ideas promoted by Trump. He has been very upfront about that and explained - repeatedly - that is why he is holding back his endorsement.

[Monker]

Napolitano has been with Fox for 17yrs. That is enough to discredit him when he starts citing 'unnamed sources' in reference to anything regarding Clinton or Democrats in general.

Napolitano is not Hannity and has certainly not sold his soul to promote the Bush Neocon agenda like many of his Fox colleagues did. But for argument's sake, let's say you are correct and anyone on Fox, including Napolitano, is instantly discredited. Fair enough.

I don't go cutting and pasting propaganda to this page. What I read was an Email chain taken from the server that said Clinton wanted to use her own server for whatever reason, I think for convenience, and asked if they could order one and have it installed. It went up through a few people at the State Department. It came back that there was no reason why she couldn't do it. So, it was then installed.

You're right. You don't "cut and paste propaganda." Instead you regurgitate second-hand hearsay which has all the verisimilitude of a work-at-home spam post. So "you read an email" giving Hillary permission. Ok. Prove it. If I told you I read "Monker gives great head" on a bus station wall, does that make it so?

What you all seem to forget is that there were no rules on this until AFTER Clinton left office. She did not break any rules or laws...that is simply the bottom line. You can keep believing she has if you want to, but it's just not true.

This is just a complete lie.
Are you saying Hillary did not receive a briefing on the handling of classified materials?
Are you saying that the Federal Records Act did not exist before Hillary's SOS term?
You truly have no fucking shame.

You all just assume so much. Nothing is going to come out of this...it's all for show and manipulation so Republicans can get people to vote the way they want to. If there was any chance of this coming to an indictment and especially to trial, well, let's just say the establishment would not allow her to win the nomination, or probably try to even run...and she would have went down over a year ago.

You keep saying that and Comey keeps investigating. This is not a Republican House hearing for the C-span cameras. This is an FBI investigation that is granting immunity to Hillary’s top aides to sing like a canary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8-O7UnqJJU

I'm not even going to reply to this one.

You continue believing FOX news, that's fine. We'll see how things end up.

[Monker]

Well, this is actually a good, well thought out post, good job tj.

Reagan would be ashamed of many of the positions Ryan, Bush, et. al. have supported over the past 25 years. He chose Bush as his VP to keep the "moderate" wing happy, was gracious to him as VP (they had lunch every week together) and respected him as a person, veteran, and man who had spent years in party politics.

That is true. He did it to bring the party together after a contentious election.

But Reagan had no misunderstanding that the guy who called his policy "voodoo economics" was like minded in what he would do if elected. He knew that they had significant differences. And Bush showed his true colors by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, among other things.

Well, somewhat true. By the time Bush won the Presidency, he was all in to supply side economics...even though it failed under Reagan. He took a huge gamble with his pledge. Reagan got his huge tax cut but in the following years had to repeatedly raise taxes. Bush had to do the same thing - he had no choice.

The Republican 'no new tax' pledge is part of the reason why deficits skyrocket under Republican leadership. Supply side economics does not work. It did not work under Reagan, HW, or W. None of them could stave off recessions by cutting taxes. If you give a billionaire a tax cut, they don't go out and buy a new yacht, which was the claim at the time, THEY COULD ALREADY BUY A YACHT WITHOUT THE TAX CUT.

Reagan was an anomaly in Republican presidential winners. Most came from the "Rockefeller/moderate" wing which supports, if not creates, a big government/crony capitalism/deficits don't matter/spend to get reelected perspective. Bush 2, Bush 1, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower were all from a "if the constitution doesn't forbid it, the government can do it" perspective. Reagan saw it the other way around, "if the constitution doesn't speak to it, it is left to the states to decide".

Reagan came out of the Goldwater branch of the Republican party....not from those you mention above. Goldwater lost the general election but it showed there were possibilities for conservatives. Reagan took Goldwaters politics and applied his own charm, wit, and spin to put together the right groups of people to beat Carter, and then Mondale. He was also greatly helped by the economic times under Carter and the political climate.

Trump is no Reagan, isn't conservative, and is probably further to the left than most realize. He is capitalizing on the last 25 years of stagnant wages, job loss, and sense of America having lost it's place as the great leader in the free world.

I think 25yrs is a great exaggeration. It's more like 15. When W. took office, that is when things started going to shit.

He is a very smart man who sees an opportunity and takes it.

I don't think he is nearly as smart as he thinks he is, nor is he as smart as his fans think he is.

He will stop much of the foolishness that Obama has implemented

The only way he can do that is with more executive orders....which Republicans say they don't like.

but won't make drastic changes in terms of social policy.

Deporting millions of people and banning a religion from entering the country are drastic social changes.

His economics will focus on Americans first, which may or may not bring about more jobs, increased wages, etc.

He wants to get rid of trade deals, and impose import taxes and tariffs, which will cause inflation. Essentially, he wants to be an isolationist. In a global economy, that is just plain stupid and our economy will tank because of it. He wants to force companies to keep manufacturing here in the US by bribing them with the same import taxes and tariffs....again producing more inflation, whether they stay or go. His policies in general seem unstable and subject to constant change, depending on popular opinion of the people and what kind of deals he thinks he can make. That will cause the markets to be uncertain of economic climate and will drive stocks down, which means companies will have less capital to invest in jobs and benefits and wage increases. He says he wants to start manufacturing here, but has absolutely no details on what his plan is. Talk about voodoo this and that....Trump is a witch doctor.

None of this is even discussed because we are too worried about what he said to a bikini babe in 1991. His ideas on economics are horrible. I'd rather elect Sanders and deal with socialism.

But, I will tell you what...I am going to change my 401k and get out of the stock market...and leave it in 'safe' accounts if Trump is elected.

[Monker]

It's on here folks. On the last page, Monker said this," No, Republicans are too stupid to nominate someone sane like Bush. " Other then that, what TNC said.

Damn right I said that. You had all kinds of sane choices....but who was left standing in the end? The two biggest nuts in the circus, Trump and Cruz. Don't know how Kasich made it as long as he did, since he seems sane. He must hide his insanity in a way that only Republicans can see.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm not even going to reply to this one.

You continue believing FOX news, that's fine. We'll see how things end up.

I will take Fox's reporting over some "email" you imagined in-between Frank Booth-style nitrous oxide hits.

Monker's growing litany of lies for her royal majesty, The Queen

1. "Hillary had permission to use a private server. I read it in, uhh, some email. I swear!"
2. "Colin Powell did it too!"
3. "All of Hillary's emails were classified after the fact."
4."You guys DO remember Edward Snowden, right?"

I swear, this shit reads like a Letterman top ten list.

Experts on this matter, like Dan Metcalfe, former director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, do NOT work for FOX News. You lied again saying that Hillary broke no existing rules on the book. Again, total BS. From the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual to the Federal Records Act to the FOIA, Hillary circumvented the law. Get over it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well, this is actually a good, well thought out post, good job tj.

TJ, listen to how this guy patronizes you. Don't put up with that shit. Monker thinks he's the smartest guy in the room (typical liberal) when he is actually dumber than dog shit.

Hey Monker, WHERE is the link to this email proving that Hillary had permission to use a private server?
The Federal Records Act requires that all personal emails be forwarded to the State Department’s official records system. Instead of forwarding emails, Hillary had the server wiped clean.

For that matter, WHERE is your proof that Hillary Clinton did not receive the standard briefing on handling sensitive material?

The people want to know Monker and demand answers!!!!!

YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. LIAR.

[The_Noble_Cause]

On January 22nd, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure agreement, or NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution.

"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence," the NDA reads.

"I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code..." These are provisions of the Espionage Act, and as Fox recently reported, 18 USC 793 subsection (f) is of special interest to the FBI investigation as it includes "gross negligence" in the handling of national defense information.

The NDA was first obtained through a federal lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, which says on its website that it is a "...non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."

The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State is significant because the State Department has never publicly acknowledged that she signed documents, confirming she was "advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling" of top secret material was a punishable offense.

The use of a private server for government business, on its face, is a clear violation of the NDA agreement.

The NDA goes on to say -- "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by foreign nationals."

Hellooo FF? FF, aren't you paying attention? Hillary had special permission NOT to follow this. Monker said so after reading this on a Mens room stall divider at Bob Evans.

[tj]

Well, this is actually a good, well thought out post, good job tj.

TJ, listen to how this guy patronizes you. Don't put up with that shit. Monker thinks he's the smartest guy in the room (typical liberal) when he is actually dumber than dog shit.

Hey Monker, WHERE is the link to this email proving that Hillary had permission to use a private server?
The Federal Records Act requires that all personal emails be forwarded to the State Department’s official records system. Instead of forwarding emails, Hillary had the server wiped clean.

For that matter, WHERE is your proof that Hillary Clinton did not receive the standard briefing on handling sensitive material?

The people want to know Monker and demand answers!!!!!

YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. LIAR.

I don't worry about patronizing. It is easy to see where loyalties lie.

The reality is that we are offered poor choices for candidates to begin with, so it then becomes picking the lesser of the two evils. We are all shaped by our experiences and education, so I am not surprised that many people support Trump, Sanders, Cruz, Hilary, etc. Many truly believe that their candidate will make things better for everyone, and how can the opponents' supporters not see this? They must be stupid, right?

I think that when you pull the emotion away, which is hard to do, especially when you believe that you are poor, disadvantaged, superior in intellect, called to the position of power by God, whatever, people make what they think is the best decision. Facts don't often matter, because even those are disputed (global warming temperatures, unemployment levels, % of homosexuals, take any point and the data can be manipulated to support your position).

Almost none of us have any personal experience with a candidate, so what we know about them is shaped by media reports (traditional and social). We have to make a choice based on what their experience shows that they will do combined with what they say they will do (i.e. Bush1: No new taxes). In the end, we either don't participate by not voting, or choose someone who most closely represents what we believe.

In any case, it is a gamble. The expectation of conservatives in Bush2 was never met. Hope and Change Obama brought change in terms of social policy, but the economy still stinks for millions of Americans. Millions of Americans wish that the focus of change had been in helping them economically, not letting boys in girls bathrooms. Examples go on and on from the Presidential level all the way down to the local dog catcher.

I hope that our two party systems implodes on itself. Trump and Sanders are the best bet to make that happen. It is a lot harder for businesses and individuals to buy off politicians when the people have multiple choices.

[tj]

Well, this is actually a good, well thought out post, good job tj.

Reagan would be ashamed of many of the positions Ryan, Bush, et. al. have supported over the past 25 years. He chose Bush as his VP to keep the "moderate" wing happy, was gracious to him as VP (they had lunch every week together) and respected him as a person, veteran, and man who had spent years in party politics.

That is true. He did it to bring the party together after a contentious election.

But Reagan had no misunderstanding that the guy who called his policy "voodoo economics" was like minded in what he would do if elected. He knew that they had significant differences. And Bush showed his true colors by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, among other things.

Well, somewhat true. By the time Bush won the Presidency, he was all in to supply side economics...even though it failed under Reagan. He took a huge gamble with his pledge. Reagan got his huge tax cut but in the following years had to repeatedly raise taxes. Bush had to do the same thing - he had no choice.

The Republican 'no new tax' pledge is part of the reason why deficits skyrocket under Republican leadership. Supply side economics does not work. It did not work under Reagan, HW, or W. None of them could stave off recessions by cutting taxes. If you give a billionaire a tax cut, they don't go out and buy a new yacht, which was the claim at the time, THEY COULD ALREADY BUY A YACHT WITHOUT THE TAX CUT.

Reagan was an anomaly in Republican presidential winners. Most came from the "Rockefeller/moderate" wing which supports, if not creates, a big government/crony capitalism/deficits don't matter/spend to get reelected perspective. Bush 2, Bush 1, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower were all from a "if the constitution doesn't forbid it, the government can do it" perspective. Reagan saw it the other way around, "if the constitution doesn't speak to it, it is left to the states to decide".

Reagan came out of the Goldwater branch of the Republican party....not from those you mention above. Goldwater lost the general election but it showed there were possibilities for conservatives. Reagan took Goldwaters politics and applied his own charm, wit, and spin to put together the right groups of people to beat Carter, and then Mondale. He was also greatly helped by the economic times under Carter and the political climate.

Trump is no Reagan, isn't conservative, and is probably further to the left than most realize. He is capitalizing on the last 25 years of stagnant wages, job loss, and sense of America having lost it's place as the great leader in the free world.

I think 25yrs is a great exaggeration. It's more like 15. When W. took office, that is when things started going to shit.

He is a very smart man who sees an opportunity and takes it.

I don't think he is nearly as smart as he thinks he is, nor is he as smart as his fans think he is.

He will stop much of the foolishness that Obama has implemented

The only way he can do that is with more executive orders....which Republicans say they don't like.

but won't make drastic changes in terms of social policy.

Deporting millions of people and banning a religion from entering the country are drastic social changes.

His economics will focus on Americans first, which may or may not bring about more jobs, increased wages, etc.

He wants to get rid of trade deals, and impose import taxes and tariffs, which will cause inflation. Essentially, he wants to be an isolationist. In a global economy, that is just plain stupid and our economy will tank because of it. He wants to force companies to keep manufacturing here in the US by bribing them with the same import taxes and tariffs....again producing more inflation, whether they stay or go. His policies in general seem unstable and subject to constant change, depending on popular opinion of the people and what kind of deals he thinks he can make. That will cause the markets to be uncertain of economic climate and will drive stocks down, which means companies will have less capital to invest in jobs and benefits and wage increases. He says he wants to start manufacturing here, but has absolutely no details on what his plan is. Talk about voodoo this and that....Trump is a witch doctor.

None of this is even discussed because we are too worried about what he said to a bikini babe in 1991. His ideas on economics are horrible. I'd rather elect Sanders and deal with socialism.

But, I will tell you what...I am going to change my 401k and get out of the stock market...and leave it in 'safe' accounts if Trump is elected.

Thanks for your kind words. I have thoughts on several of your comments, some agree and others not, but don't know how to respond to the individual quotes. Suffice it to say that none of the remaining candidates are attractive to me. All have significant drawbacks either in integrity and/or policy. I don't see myself voting for Hilary or Bernie, and don't see myself voting for Trump either. Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

[ohsherrie]

I've never seen anyone like this guy (Trump) and I've seen a lot of elections in my lifetime. As polarizing as he is, I can't see how he doesn't get elected, if not just for the novelty. What do we have to lose? We've been having all these establishment politicians all these years. He might just be a breath of fresh air.

I would vote for Trump, but if he picks a Republican hack as VP, I can't. Why is he even meeting with Paul Ryan? Ryan represents the exact type of phony establishment politics that voters rejected. If voters cared about Paul Ryan's views on Conservatism, they would have voted for Jeb! or Rubio.

Precisely. What neither party seems to have recognized yet is that the support for Trump and for Bernie are a rejection of everything the parties have come to represent. They don't want Trump to capitulate. They want the establishment on their knees.
If Trump chooses somebody within the republican party as a running mate, and I think he'll have to, (though I think it would be a hoot if he didn't) I hope it's Chris Christy.

[ohsherrie]

By the time Bush won the Presidency, he was all in to supply side economics...even though it failed under Reagan. He took a huge gamble with his pledge. Reagan got his huge tax cut but in the following years had to repeatedly raise taxes. Bush had to do the same thing - he had no choice.

The Republican 'no new tax' pledge is part of the reason why deficits skyrocket under Republican leadership. Supply side economics does not work. It did not work under Reagan, HW, or W. None of them could stave off recessions by cutting taxes. If you give a billionaire a tax cut, they don't go out and buy a new yacht, which was the claim at the time, THEY COULD ALREADY BUY A YACHT WITHOUT THE TAX CUT............................................................................................................I think 25yrs is a great exaggeration. It's more like 15. When W. took office, that is when things started going to shit.

Yes, exactly, but I don't think Hillary is the person to turn it around. Maybe Trump can and maybe not, but his ideas are a lot closer to right about the way to do it than Hillary's. Nothing is going to really change if she is elected. It'll just be DC business as usual.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

He's probably busy phone banking for Trump. What was Perot's signature issue? The "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing our country after Clinton passed NAFTA. What does Trump talk about? Tearing up NAFTA. Meanwhile his opponent, loves the TPP until she found out Bernie was against it. The Clintons love every "free trade" deal that has destroyed America.

[tj]

Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

He's probably busy phone banking for Trump. What was Perot's signature issue? The "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing our country after Clinton passed NAFTA. What does Trump talk about? Tearing up NAFTA. Meanwhile his opponent, loves the TPP until she found out Bernie was against it. The Clintons love every "free trade" deal that has destroyed America.

Ross was right on the sucking sound. Bush1 spoke of a "New World Order", which is partly what drove Perot into the race. He foresaw the devastation that NAFTA and other trade agreements would bring if we gave away the store for nothing in return. Had he not entered the race, Clinton wouldn't have beaten Bush1. Had he not dropped out and then re-entered in the summer of '92, I think he would have won and we would be looking at a far different country today.

[Boomchild]

Ross was right on the sucking sound. Bush1 spoke of a "New World Order", which is partly what drove Perot into the race. He foresaw the devastation that NAFTA and other trade agreements would bring if we gave away the store for nothing in return. Had he not entered the race, Clinton wouldn't have beaten Bush1. Had he not dropped out and then re-entered in the summer of '92, I think he would have won and we would be looking at a far different country today.

The one thing that has stuck in my memory about Perot's run for office was his choice for a running mate. That guy was older then dirt and didn't seem to have a clue.

[tj]

Ross was right on the sucking sound. Bush1 spoke of a "New World Order", which is partly what drove Perot into the race. He foresaw the devastation that NAFTA and other trade agreements would bring if we gave away the store for nothing in return. Had he not entered the race, Clinton wouldn't have beaten Bush1. Had he not dropped out and then re-entered in the summer of '92, I think he would have won and we would be looking at a far different country today.

The one thing that has stuck in my memory about Perot's run for office was his choice for a running mate. That guy was older then dirt and didn't seem to have a clue.

Admiral James Stockdale. He was a POW in Vietnam for 7 years. Perot had a very strong support system for Vietnam POWs during and after the war. In the VP debate, Stockdale started out by asking rhetorically: "Who am I and what am I doing here?" People took it literally as if he had no idea why anyone would consider him for VP. He never recovered.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Ouch...

Ralph Nader: Trump’s Done Some Good, Clinton’s Winning By ‘Dictatorship’

He heaps praise on Bernie Sanders, but won’t reveal how he'll vote in November.

By David Catanese | Senior Politics Writer May 13, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.

Ralph Nader, the former Green Party presidential candidate and lifelong consumer activist, says Donald Trump's dizzying presidential candidacy hasn't been all bad, while Hillary Clinton is winning the Democratic nomination by "dictatorship."

And though he has heaps of praise for Bernie Sanders, Nader still won't say whom he voted for in the 2016 primary or which candidate he plans to cast a ballot for come November. He'd actually prefer there was an option for "none of the above."

But in an interview with U.S. News, Nader expressed more positive thoughts about Trump's candidacy than Clinton's.

"He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important," Nader says.

When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote," he says.

As usual, Ralph is right on...

[tj]

Ouch...

Ralph Nader: Trump’s Done Some Good, Clinton’s Winning By ‘Dictatorship’

He heaps praise on Bernie Sanders, but won’t reveal how he'll vote in November.

By David Catanese | Senior Politics Writer May 13, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.

Ralph Nader, the former Green Party presidential candidate and lifelong consumer activist, says Donald Trump's dizzying presidential candidacy hasn't been all bad, while Hillary Clinton is winning the Democratic nomination by "dictatorship."

And though he has heaps of praise for Bernie Sanders, Nader still won't say whom he voted for in the 2016 primary or which candidate he plans to cast a ballot for come November. He'd actually prefer there was an option for "none of the above."

But in an interview with U.S. News, Nader expressed more positive thoughts about Trump's candidacy than Clinton's.

"He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important," Nader says.

When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote," he says.

As usual, Ralph is right on...

Because primaries and caucuses are staggered over many months, it is hard to say for certain how well Bernie would have done. He's 3 million or more votes behind Hil in primaries, but I think he is only now hitting his stride. If all of those primaries and caucuses were held today, I think he would wipe the floor with her.

It's a bit like saying that the team who had the most regular season wins is the champion (Hilary), vs. who has the momentum and wins the playoffs (Bernie). Only Hil gets extra credit for the regular season wins, gets all of the playoff games at home, gets to play with extra players on the field (Superdelegates), etc.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Kentucky results...

Hillary 46.7%
Bernie 46.3 %

What a squeaker!

Very weak showing from the presumptive nominee.
With all her corporate money, name recognition, and DNC backers, she should have this all wrapped up.

Up next, Oregon!