Trump to win?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC. Trump is the instrument that can accomplish these. Nothing else matters at this point for me and all things follow from it.

Woody, you sound like a revolutionary here but didn't you work for the government during your career? Don't they send you a retirement check every month? I might be totally wrong and I'll apologize if I misunderstood your previous posts but I thought you were a federal government employee who now has all the benefits accorded to those lucky enough to earn the umbrella of Federal largess.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

any predictions on when we will see the confirmation of any new supreme court justice, either irrespective of or dependent on who is the next president? the court is now at 8, it's not hard to picture it at 7 or 6.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Clearly [trump's oratory style], it has been a rip-roaring success to date.

Down 10 pts. is not rip-roaring unless we're talking about the echo chamber. Last time we spoke you said he was not your guy but apparently this has changed.

Consider it the "Caddyshack" election - the snobs against the slobs.

So of course you wouldn't like it, Judge Smails. It ain't for ya.

I think that sums it up fairly well Woody. You want to frame it as the snobs against the slobs. I'd frame it the same way Carl framed his argument with the gopher, "I’m just a harmless squirrel not a plastic explosive or anything".

I see Trump as the plastic explosive disguised as a squirrel.

I can only work within my sphere of influence but I guarantee the Trumpster Fire will not win New Mexico. We only have 5 votes, but your guy is not getting them. This is not the election of 1800 or 1860 but to my mind it's close. No disrespect personally but I hope we crush your side. I don't want to win, I want to destroy your candidate.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey now, I made no claims of any woo woo stuff although woo woo there is. Just seconded your point with a bit more detail. You have more trust in the spooky folks than I, but the fact that these fellows burrow themselves into organizations of influence is hardly news. And everybody is afraid of something, no?

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this as a being tangential or oblique. Me, I think it's fundamental and is easily demonstrated. The Google of the 50s Hewlett-Packard started out in a similar fashion, with one really big client. Without their rich Uncle Sam, the valley would still be producing apples. And oranges too, as one would expect of the finest agricultural zones in California.

What sticks in my craw more is while Silicon Valley owes its very existence to the largess of government and as you say, is damn good at milking the cow, they carry on endlessly about their entrepreneurial excellence and similar prattle when really they're little different than those folks they revile as free riders.

Hope Window Walker turned out okay and I'm pleased to know your experience was as transformative as it seems. Keep sharing.

My understanding of the Valley is that DOD related R&D investment in tech was substantial up through the 70's and accelerated into the 80's under the Reagan Administration's arms race plan to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

We've been in a commercially focused/driven Silicon Valley for an entire generation......DOD who were once the 800 pound gorilla are now just another(and often troublesome) customer....increasingly irrelevant in the macro sense(if not the micro razor thin industry or company specific slice).

It would be very easy to find tangental relationships with DOD and the intelligence community.....until and thru the 90's....EVERYONE had a direct/indirect tie to the defence community/industry.

I've long believed that both defence industry veterans AND military veterans who lost jobs in the Peace Dividend and went into commercial tech aren't given much of a "hat tip" in their role in making the tech boom possible.

Of course take all this with a kilo of salt as both Steve Blank is a Vet from the 60's and I still work part time for "The Man".

Steve Blank himself does a great talk on the history of Silicon Valley going back to WWII:

https://steveblank.com/secret-history/

Start at about 58 minute mark for specifics related to this conversation....the earlier stuff is good too.

DOD R&D spend as a proportion of total R&D spend, would have started to fall, even during the Reagan spendathon......and in the 90's with the "Peace Dividend" and tech boom, would result in DOD leverage(influence/control) on the tech industry as a whole drop substantially....with the seeds of that shift to commercial from defense/intelligence planted in the 1960's growing over decades...and leading to the growth of commercial sequoia(pun absolutely intended) trees by the 90's.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman...this is the first thread in which I agree with absolutely everything you have stated thus far. The GOP old guard is self-imploding; the only interesting question is whether their actions are the result of a confused, desperate reaction to a phenomenon that they don't understand and can't seem to stop, or whether they know exactly what (and who) Trump represents and will do anything to try to stop it. #imwithyou

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Always been fond of "quisling" myself. It suits the bastards - "a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force"

And speaking of enemy occupying force.



Cuomo: "We couldn't help her any more than we have."
Newsbabe: "Ha ha ha, I know."
Cuomo: "I mean, she's got just a free ride so far with the media. We're the biggest one's promoting her campaign, so far."

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

file under TRAITOR, TURNCOAT, BACKSTABBER, WEASEL, FLIP'N-FLOPPERS:

THEY’RE WITH HER

08.09.16 5:00 PM ET


All of the Top Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Instead of Donald Trump

Big name Republicans are increasing ditching their party’s candidate and expressing their support of the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Team Clinton has gained some prominent—and unlikely—backers in this wild election. While a growing number of big-name Republicans have refused to support Trump, many have also taken the additional step of pledging to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton instead.

Here’s a list of top Republican politicians, operatives, and prominent supporters who openly back Clinton for president and when they went "with her."

August 2016

Major Republican donor and Hollywood mogul Harry Sloan said in a statement that Trump “does not embody the values that have made me a lifelong Republican.” The former MGM CEO added, "As a businessman, a father, and a conservative it is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is the right choice in this election."

Two former Republican heads of the Environmental Protection Agency say Trump has “a profound ignorance of science.” William D. Ruckelshaus (who served under Nixon) and William K. Reilly (George H.W. Bush administration) publicly endorsed Clinton on August 9.

Reagan’s former White House political director, Frank Lavin, criticized the mogul and declared his vote would go to Clinton in an op-ed for CNN. Lavin hit Trump for his business record as well as temperament: “The bankruptcies reflect a man who either lacks reasonable business judgment or reasonable business ethics.”

Lezlee Westine, former White House aide to George W. Bush, issued a statement of her support for Clinton but did not specify why she opposes Trump. She did, however, praise Clinton for being able to provide “steady and experienced leadership.”

Former Michigan Governor William Milliken said Trump does not reflect the “ideals” of “tolerance, civility and equality,” and added that he would be supporting Clinton for the presidency.

New York Rep. Richard Hanna was the first Republican in Congress to openly support Clinton, as reported by The Washington Post. In an op-ed by Hanna published on August 2, the Congressman rebuked Trump for both his personality and talking points that alienate minority groups. “I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader,” wrote Hanna, who is retiring at the end of his term.

Gary Cameron/Reuters

Meg Whitman, former CEO of HP and former California gubernatorial candidate, said she will vote and try to raise money for Clinton. Whitman called Trump “a dishonest demagogue” in an interview with The New York Times.

Rick Wilking/Reuters

Sally Bradshaw, Jeb Bush’s top adviser not only pledged to vote for Clinton if the race in Florida is close, the longtime Republican has also left the Republican party and now identifies as an independent. Bradshaw told CNN that the GOP is "at a crossroads and have nominated a total narcissist — a misogynist — a bigot.”

Chris O'Meara/AP

Maria Comella, former spokeswoman for Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani, said Trump is “playing on people's anxieties with loose information and salacious rhetoric.” Comella’s support for Clinton is somewhat ironic, since her former bosses — Christie and Giuliani — are two of Trump’s biggest supporters.

via Facebook

July 2016

Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under Reagan, is voting for the Democratic presidential nominee for the third consecutive time. “It is to [Mitt] Romney's credit that this year, like John Paulson and George Will, he is standing up against the brutal, substantively incoherent, and authoritarian tendencies of Donald Trump,” the current Harvard Law professor said.

EPA/Alamy

June 2016

Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and former aide to David Petraeus, thinks that a president Trump could endanger America’s national security. “[Clinton] will be the first Democratic presidential candidate I’ve voted for in my adult life,” Mansoor told The Washington Post.

Yagil Henkin Pics/Alamy

Larry Pressler, former South Dakota Republican senator, came out in support of Clinton after the mass shooting in Orlando. Pressler accused Trump and the Republican Party of obstructing much-needed gun reform, and said he supported Clinton’s gun safety proposals. “If someone had told me 10 years ago I would do this, I wouldn’t have believed them,” the three-term senator told The Hill.

Dirk Lammers/AP

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen seemed to criticize Trump’s anti-immigration proposals and openly backed Clinton at a technology conference in San Francisco. “[Silicon] Valley wouldn't be here, we wouldn't be doing any of this if we didn't have the amazing flow of immigrants that we've had in the last 80 years. And the idea of choking that off just makes me sick to my stomach," Andreessen said.

Norbert von der Groeben/Reuters

Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state to George W. Bush, is one of the highest-ranking former national security officials to support Clinton. “He doesn't appear to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues,” the retired Navy officer told Politico. “So, I’m going to vote for Mrs. Clinton.”

Ahmad Masood/Reuters

Former Minnesota Republican governor Arne Carlson raised his issues with Trump in an interview with City Pages in June. “Donald Trump has taken campaigning to a new low,” Carlson said, citing incidents when Trump mocked a disabled reporter and insulted John McCain over his war record. Carlson later expanded his support for Clinton in an interview with a local television station, citing her willingness to work with others.

ZUMA Press Inc/Alamy

Brent Scowcroft, a national security adviser who served under four Republican presidents, is one of the most prominent Republicans to ditch Trump. "The presidency requires the judgment and knowledge to make tough calls under pressure,’ Scowcroft said in a statement. Clinton “has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time."

Gary Cameron/Reuters

Hamid Moghadam, CEO of Prologis and an Iranian immigrant, said in a statement, "Our country is about tolerance and inclusion and that's why, as a lifelong Republican supporter, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president in this election."

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg/Getty

Dan Akerson is a former chairman and CEO of General Motors. “Serving as the leader of the free world requires effective leadership, sound judgment, a steady hand and most importantly, the temperament to deal with crises large and small. Donald Trump lacks each of these characteristics. Hillary Clinton has the experience and judgment to serve as an effective Commander in Chief,” the former Navy officer said.

Rebecca Cook/Reuters

Jim Cicconi, former aide to Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned that a Trump presidency “would set our nation on a very dark path.” Cicconi, currently senior executive vice president at AT&T, added, "Hillary Clinton is experienced, qualified and will make a fine president.”

Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Henry Paulson, former treasury secretary for President George W. Bush, wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post that Trump represents “a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism.” Paulson added, “When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote. I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton.”

Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Kori Schake, former George W. Bush national security official, told Politico that Trump’s comments about women and minorities are “unconscionable.” Schake’s sister, Kristina, is deputy communications director for Hillary Clinton. "For the first time ever @KoriSchake and I are casting our vote for the same candidate -- She is voting for @HillaryClinton," Kristina Schake tweeted.

Ed Ritger/Kasparov.com

Former top adviser to John McCain, Mark Salter, wrote in an op-ed for RealClear Politics that Clinton is the lesser of two evils. “He possesses the emotional maturity of a 6-year-old,” Salter wrote of Trump. Salter then went on to describe Clinton as, "an adult," who, "understands the responsibilities of an American president."

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Tony Fratto, a former deputy press secretary to President George W. Bush, told The Hill that Trump “is not fit for office.” The former Republican aide added, “If I was the last vote, if my vote was going to make a difference, I’d prefer to have Hillary Clinton in the White House than Donald Trump.”

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

May 2016

Mike Treiser, who worked on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, backed Clinton with a statement on Facebook: “In the face of bigotry, hatred, violence, and small-mindedness, this time, I’m with her.”

via Linkedin

Alan Steinberg, regional EPA administrator during the George W. Bush administration, worked with Clinton when she was New York senator. Steinberg backed hardline conservative Ted Cruz in the primaries but now says he will vote for Clinton. "She can work with people on the opposite side of the political aisle," he said.

via Facebook

Lobbyist Craig Snyder is parting ways with his former colleagues, ex-Trump adviser Roger Stone and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Snyder, former chief of staff to then-senator Arlen Specter, said Trump is unfit to be president. He has founded the group Republicans for Hillary 2016.

Steve Deslich/KRT/Newscom

William Oberndorf, a California-based investor and major Republican donor, told The New York Timesthat he supports Clinton because he thinks Trump is an unacceptable candidate. Oberndorf has given over $3 million to Republicans since 2012.

via Youtube

Doug Elmets, former spokesman for Reagan told CNN in May, "I'll vote for my first Democrat when the ballots come out in November. I could live with four years of Hillary Clinton before I could ever live with one day of Donald Trump as president." Elmets later spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

March 2016

More than one hundred foreign policy operatives signed an open letter declaring that Trump’s national security proposals would “make America less safe.” Some of the letter’s signatories have taken the additional step of openly supporting Clinton:

Dr. Patrick Cronin, a senior official at USAID during the Bush administration told The Daily Beast in June, “Only one candidate has thought through America’s challenges, understands policy, has a positive and inclusive vision, is smart about the world in which we live, and is ready to be president, and I intend to vote for her—Hillary Clinton."

via Linkedin

Ken Adelman, U.S. arms control director under Reagan told The Daily Beast, "Yes, I will vote for Clinton, simply because to not vote, or to vote Libertarian, would be a half-vote for Trump."

Courtesy Harper Collins

And Max Boot, an adviser to GOP presidential candidates and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "I'm a registered Republican and I'm voting for Hillary primarily on foreign policy grounds because that's the most important area for any president, the one where the commander-in-chief has the greatest discretion," Boot told The Daily Beast. He added that while he disagrees with Clinton "on a number of issues," he could "sleep at night if she takes command of the nuclear arsenal."

via Twitter

Robert Kagan, a former State Department official under the Reagan administration, has criticized Trump repeatedly in op-eds for The Washington Post. “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton,” Kagan wrote.

Geraint Lewis/Alamy

December 2015

Billionaire Mike Fernandez, who has given $4 million to Republican candidates in recent elections, backed Clinton after his preferred candidate Jeb Bush dropped out of the race. “I’m choosing Hillary. She’s the lesser of two evils," he said.

with a VERY SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL (maybe chapaqua or detroit) for that rat-bastard hank...

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

File under slander.

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.

Official: No formal Secret Service discussions with Trump camp on remark

http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.h...ts-sot-ctn.cnn

[BK]

Re: Trump to win?

Was Romney the last Presidential candidate to show his tax forms and how did that work out for him. ;-)

You have a seasoned politician vs a brilliant business/ promotion guy and they both know that giving the voters too much to chew on results in unintended results.

A similar effect happens when selling a product, the more information you provide to a customer = higher chance the customer will not buy the product. Generally the customer or voter looking for more information is really seeking reasons to eliminate a product or candidate. I suspect if you polled Clinton supports or Trump supporters you would find zero interest in more information.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

A majority of Americans want to see Clinton's and Trump's tax and health records:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...edical_records

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...But I still think Clinton, as money and power hungry as she possibly may be, is a better shot to fill that empty seat left by Scalia with someone who does not think spending unlimited money to bribe politicians is constitutionally protected speech. Because Trump's List of potential picks is filled with Fifth Circuit cowboys and kids that clerked for 5 guys who decided to make bribery and corruption Constitutional in the first place.

That's reasonable as always D.C. But makes no difference to me.

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC. Trump is the instrument that can accomplish these. Nothing else matters at this point for me and all things follow from it. This year I am a political nihilist (as it seems is everyone else) and an anarchist in the mold of Gramsci.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

And don't believe that if either candidate is elected they will have their picks confirmed. We are through the looking glass. We haven't had a real budget in so many years I've lost count. So much for Article I, section 9, clause 7. The Senate has refused to fulfill its duty to advise the President and provide their consent under Article 2, section 2, clause 2, so there goes that one. And that's just off the top of my head.

We have no constitutional government and are operating under color of law but not under its rule. Anything goes. Until you folks recognize this, you will remain behind the curve and subject to manipulation and redirection. As for myself, I am keeping my eyes set firmly on the prize.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

It’s all true. Donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment at State.

The irony of liberals accepting the doctrine of Citizens United to save their corrupt candidate is corrosive. Or not ironic at all. At this point, I’m not sure.

All I'll say is that it's absolutely neither shocking nor surprising that big donors get special treatment. That's why they donate big. It shouldn't be the case, and it shouldn't be excused, but our lovely Supreme Court decided that money was speech, so we live in an era where corruption is constitutional...actually, it seems to me that Citizens United actually says that not being corrupt is unconstitutional...

What is shocking is when a candidate doesn't give big favors to donors. Otherwise, it's standard operating procedure now.

I'd love to change it. I've spent time and money working on changing it.

But I simply cannot bring myself to be outraged or shocked that Citizens United and McCutcheon and the rest of the terrible Supreme Court decisions are doing exactly what they were intended to do! Roberts and Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Kennedy decided, the five of them, that the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment of the constitution guarantees the "right" to unlimited corruption and political bribery.

There was maybe one candidate that actually cared about doing something about Citizens United this election, but that candidate is long gone. As for the four that are left? 2 don't have a snowball's chance in hell and the other 2 don't give a damn.

But I still think Clinton, as money and power hungry as she possibly may be, is a better shot to fill that empty seat left by Scalia with someone who does not think spending unlimited money to bribe politicians is constitutionally protected speech. Because Trump's List of potential picks is filled with Fifth Circuit cowboys and kids that clerked for 5 guys who decided to make bribery and corruption Constitutional in the first place.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

It’s all true. Donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment at State.

Emails released by State, showing this, were not released by Clinton, even though they weren’t about yoga lessons and Chelsea’s wedding. Shocked, shocked, I know, but the Clinton Dynasty’s effrontery continues to amaze. Even though Judicial Watch isn’t on my side of the ideological prism, kudos to them for their patience and persistence in getting this material released. (The headlines, incidentally, show far too much deference.) Cue the “no quid pro quo” therefore no corruption crowd. (The irony of liberals accepting the doctrine of Citizens United to save their corrupt candidate is corrosive. Or not ironic at all. At this point, I’m not sure.)

“The new emails, released by the group Judicial Watch, offer fresh examples of how top Clinton Foundation officials [on behalf of big donors] sought [and gained] access to the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure.” [Wall Street Journal, “Newly Released Emails Highlight Clinton Foundation’s Ties to State Department “]. Huma’s three hats are interesting, too.

“The State Department has turned over 44 previously-unreleased Hillary Clinton email exchanges that the Democratic presidential nominee failed to include [attempted to conceal] among the 30,000 private messages she turned over to the government last year. They show her interacting with [pedding influence] lobbyists, political and Clinton Foundation donors and business interests as secretary of state.” [AP].

“New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept” [LawNewz]. “Newly released State Department records, including previously unreleased emails from Huma Abedin, appear to show Clinton Foundation donors calling in favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MKb35NK0F0

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

I value iTulip as a forum for discussion of the economy and finance, and see social and political issues as appropriate topics only insofar as these affect the former.

Funny how all of that went out the window. Haven't bothered to change allocations in years (gold 8 %...stocks 25...bonds 25...cash 25...house is the rest), mainly because everything seems phony and completely unpredictable. Obviously, we all should have been in stocks for the last 8 years, but how could you know? You couldn't. I fell asleep at the wheel in 2000. I feel like paying attention now is like trying to pull an all-nighter.