Who is going to win this election in November?

I think she was keeping a low profile, letting Trump hang himself and keeping her own mistakes to a minimum. When you're running against a far inferior opponent, its a sound strategy. You don't need to win so much as let the other guy lose. But things were just getting out of hand. Trump is just whipping up the mob at this point. She needed to step in and say "enough." I think its going to be very nasty for the next 75 days.

 

Heh. I've been saying for weeks that the best way for Clinton to win would be to simply keep her mouth shut between now and November. Trump had been doing a great job of willing Clinton's election for her.

 

In this nation of amnesiacs, addicted to a 4-hour news cycle while staring myopically at their mobile device instead of observing their surroundings, who believe and remember only the latest thing they heard that confirms their own biases as they stand in the voting booth, if they aren't already sheep voting the party line regardless of all other considerations, nothing matters until the last week for those who succumb to the big guns instead of the issues that should concern us.

 

I'm always curious as to what people mean when they say Clinton and Trump are equally bad, or somehow interchangeable.

There are some substantive criticisms of Clinton that are totally valid and accurate, it's just that those never seem to come up when people talk about how they "don't trust her" or whatever.

 

^ Right. That's why I don' take much comfort in Clinton winning, which she probably will. She needs to win by a humiliating landslide to convince the Republican side that Trump is not just a bad candidate, but the ideas behind him are bad, they appeal to the worst strains in society, and they have to make it clear once and for all that white supremacists, misogynists, nativists and so on are on their own and have no place in their party.

Even if Trump is blown out, on November 9 we'll still live in a country where some 50 million people cast a ballot that says they're basically OK with what he said he stands for. The Hillary Clinton administration is already set up for deadlock opposition, hearings, special prosecutors and so on. I'm normally fairly optimistic, but not so much this year.

BTW how remarkable is it that Obama didn't have a major second term scandal? The first time in my lifetime.

 

Republicans want to pretend that Trump is some kind of outlier, when he's not. He is exactly what GOP policies have been implying for decades, stripped of the dogwhistles and the veneer of basic decency. And he beat the pants off of all his competitors in the primary. He is the candidate Republicans--as in Republican voters--wanted. The GOP should not be allowed to shake off that stain. It is the truth of who they are, as a party.

 

If trump wins and the economy tanks the rep. will find a way to blame it on Obama, you can be sure of that. Even if it's four years from now.

 

The blue-bloods don't really like the populist wing.

Take the deal on borders. True libertarian conservatives don't like borders any more than they like picket lines or regulations of any kind.

I might make the arguement that we don't respect boundaries as much. Dr. Drew goes on about talking about how we moved past boundaries in the 1970s--and to some detriment.

Reagan gets credit for his mass amnesty--and yet--could he have done this for the same reason he went after air-traffic control unions--that and hoping for more social conservative votes...

"Unions were kicked out of California's residential housing industry and replaced with highly exploitable undocumented immigrant workers from Mexico and other Latin American countries. By the early 1990s, drywall hanging was a job filled with misery and humiliation. Workers were paid $300 for a 60-hour week, with no health care, no overtime, no vacation or sick days, and no prospects to improve their conditions."

https://socialistworker.org/2012/06/27/rebellion-drywallers

Now at that time, libertarian conservatives demonized unions--who did come off rather like Trump.

But, if I were, say, to go to Che's rally as a scab (el esquirol, el rompehuelgas, el carnero) and cross a picket line--which is a type of border after all--the folks aren't going to be kind to me .

Nor should they. Now, the libertarians will report the plight of the scabs--who push wages down---and can say "look at those mean union men"

Don't fall for it. You're being played. The so-called potty-trained Republicans that Bill Maher goes on and on about--they are the worst actually.

Libertarians loved to go after folks like Ann Atwater and C.P. Ellis:
http://andjusticeforall.dconc.gov/g...-p-ellis-school-integration-charette-leaders/

The old joke was that the easiest way to find a Klansman was to go to a union rally--and the easiest way to find a union man was to go to a klan rally.

Yet both Ann and C.P. worked together--because they both knew that the smiling libertarian types would make sure that neither one of them would have public schools. Libertarians are anti-border for the same reason they are anti-gov't and anti-union. Anything to drive wages down--they'll do. Multi-national corporations want to float over all restrictions as if they aren't there.

One could argue that borders, picket lines, regulations, etc....all are needed. They aren't pleasant--but needed.

Now I would suggest that Mexico build not a wall--but solar plants. Farther to the south the incidence of the Sun's rays hit more directly. Remember Paricutin? Geothermal power may be an export--if we get superconductivity at higher temps. Mexico could then be independant--and not have to coddle bloody tourists, or kids from Simi Valley wanting a donkey show... More even terms--less exploitation. The US doesn't look to go solar--so Carlos Slim needs to be the new Musk.

No one should have to do the field work currently done at low wages. I want robots for that. My state, true, made it hard for undocumented folks--as seen on a recent episode of Vice: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04/hbos_vice_to_examine_sweet_hom.html

The positive side? Farm owners are having to pick their own bloody produce.

Had folks done their own work--instead of forcing others to do it for little or no wages--this country would have no problems.

 

Just like the Republicans blame Obama for ISIS because the Republicans were not able to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden to use to bolster their campaign with.

You know for certain that if the Republicans had been the party to capture or kill Bin Laden they would have used it in every political campaign message for twenty years.

But you notice that the Democrats have not used the same message style.

 

The reps are still boasting about things Reagan did, allegedly, when in fact he had very little to do with them,
even though that was more than thirty years ago!!!

 

Wil Wheaton calls attention to how the mainstream media largely ignores a huge scandal on Trump's part.

 

Sadly, this kind of thing is made possible nowadays.

 

Our media are so obsessed with having a "competitive election" narrative, they're willing to imply wrongdoing on Clinton's part while giving Trump's comparatively obvious misdeeds a free pass. They grade him on a curve, as the saying goes.

The perception that Clinton is untrustworthy and corrupt stems primarily from a glut of news stories over the past 20 years suggesting (always without evidence) that she's up to no good.

It's amazing that in Donald Trump we have a candidate who is brazenly racist, sexist, and corrupt, and the media basically shrug and act like we have two equivalent candidates, rather than one candidate who is eminently experienced, qualified, and a dedicated public servant, going up against a wannabe fascist who has no relevant experience and has never done an honest day's work in his life, much less done anything to serve the public--and, indeed, has a long history of racist and abusive behavior in his business dealings, too.

 

Au contraire. The media continually expects apologies from Trump for his poor behavior, and never gets one. Ever frustrated, the apoplectic press continues to be flummoxed by their inability to replace Trump's narrative with their own. It's fun to watch them beat their head against the wall. It's like watching the Gumby Twit Of The Year Race.

 

But they also love reporting on everything he does, and act as if there's an equivalence between Trump's long (and recent) history of terrible behavior and Clinton's vague but unsubstantiated appearances of impropriety.

It's obvious they treat Trump with kid gloves. You can see this in how the narrative becomes "is Trump turning Presidential?" every time he manages not to say something absurd or hateful for a couple days.

 

The thing is that it's difficult to know if in the end, this will help or impair him.

 

Waiting to see how Trump will pounce after Hillary's pneumonia diagnosis.

The conservatives are already going apeshit. How many ailments have they said she has at this point?

 

She could be patient zero for the zombie plague and I'd still think she'd be more qualified for the office than Trump, because she'd at least show an affinity for brains.

 

And now the mental image of a zombie Clinton ripping Trumps skull cap off and being all sad there's nothing in there.

Picked the wrong night to get wasted.

 

You mean, how many ailments have the conservatives said that Hillary has at this point? You tell us.