turn out the lights, the parties are over

[wesw]

everyone sees the fracturing of the GOP....

...but does no one see that the assault on the 1st and 2nd amendment, and the usurpation of legislative powers, by the party of the Ass, is doing the same thing?

does everyone believe that the Dem electorate supports, safe speech, dis arming the people, and imperial presidencies?

sanders looms large.

when jeb goes back on his word and runs third party, it will be the coup de gras for the GOP .....

when the millenials stay home, because hillary is nothing to them, the Dems will finally see....

the only thing that will save the dems is hillary s withdrawal....

[Lord Jim]

when jeb goes back on his word and runs third party

The prospect of a qualified, responsible Republican running third party if the toxic waste dump manages to wrest the nomination is an intriguing one...It would likely be the most successful third party run since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, who actually finished well ahead of the GOP nominee, William Howard Taft...

The 1912 race is an interesting comparison; there was also a socialist independent candidate who got 6% of the vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_1912

I think it's a long shot but I'd be inclined to favor it...With the early convention, there would be time to organize a challenge like this, and get on all the ballots, and there would certainly be the money available to finance a credible campaign for a serious Republican independent candidate...(Trumpty's self-financing, remember? That leaves an awful lot of GOP establishment money on the table...)

Yes, it would pretty much guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton, (just as Wilson's election was guaranteed by the GOP split at that time) but that's guaranteed just by nominating Trump without a third party challenge...

It would probably help save some seats down-ballot in the Senate and the House that would otherwise be lost when a substantial percentage of the GOP vote that absolutely positively won't vote for Trump and will just stay home if the choices are Trump and Hillary...

And personally, it would spare me the excruciating pain of voting for Her Royal Clintoness...

I read an interesting in-depth and thoughtful article about this a few days ago at politico.com :

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... bid-213449

It's a long piece but if you're interested in this, it's worth the read. Here are some excerpts:

If you want to see the most sulfurous assaults on Trump, don’t look to the editorial pages of the New York Times or the comments of MSNBC personalities; look instead to the most prominent media voices in the conservative world: National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary and the columns of George Will and others.

In part, they deplore his deviations from the conservative canon; deviations that former Reagan aide and onetime FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick summarizes this way: “Many of my colleagues from the Reagan administration would have a hard time pulling the lever for Trump. We weren’t just Republicans, we were conservatives. It is very difficult to square any principled theory of conservative governance with much of what Trump says."...


But it’s more, much more than policy that has stirred the ire on the right: It’s the vulgarity, the fusion of ignorance and arrogance, the narcissism, the dissembling on matters great and small. The composite portrait of Trump painted by these outlets—leavened only by a grudging acknowledgment that he’s touched on legitimate concerns about immigration and terror—makes the idea of handing over the nuclear codes to Trump unsettling. And it makes the idea of embracing him as the alternative to Hillary Clinton somewhere between a reach and a lunge.

What a Trump nomination represents, then, is a victory that leaves significant slices of the party unwilling or unable to accept the outcome. Whether he’s seen as an ideological heretic for his views on trade, taxes and government power or as a demagogue whose clownish bluster and casual bigotry make him temperamentally unfit for office, the odds on massive defections are very high....

...Dan Schnur spent a lifetime in the vineyards of the Republican Party, working in the Reagan and Bush presidential campaigns and serving as communications director for the California Republican Party. He’s now an independent and heads the Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. He argues “a Trump nomination would virtually guarantee a third-party campaign from a more traditional Republican candidate.”

Why a Republican? The short answer is to save the party over the long term. “It's impossible to conceive that Republican leaders would simply forfeit their party to him,” he says. “Even without the formal party apparatus, they'd need to fly their flag behind an alternative, if only to keep the GOP brand somewhat viable for the future. Otherwise, it would be toxic for a long, long time.”...

...“I think a third candidate would be very likely on many state ballots,” he says. “First of all, I think most GOP voters would want an alternative to vote for out of conscience. But Trump would also be devastating to the party and other GOP candidates. A solid conservative third candidate would give options to senators like Ayotte, Johnson and [Mark] Kirk to run with someone else and still be opposed to Hillary. In fact, I think it’s plausible such a candidate could beat Trump in many states.”

[wesw]

I can see a third party emerging, but a centrist one, not a conservative one.....

....then trump will take over that party, and leave all the wingnuts spinning on their own bolts....

[Lord Jim]

leave all the wingnuts spinning on their own bolts....

How can trump leave the wingnuts? They're his base...

ETA:

In fact his campaign slogan could be : "No Wingnut Left Behind"...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh LJ - surely you're not suggesting that ALL anti-American fascists are wingnuts are you?


[I've decided 'anti-American' is OK because Trump is equally anti Canadians, Central Americans, Latin Americans, and United States of Americans (?)]

[Sue U]

...but does no one see that the assault on the 1st and 2nd amendment, and the usurpation of legislative powers, by the party of the Ass, is doing the same thing?

does everyone believe that the Dem electorate supports, safe speech, dis arming the people, and imperial presidencies?

Do you ever get tired of being stupid in public?

What "assault on the 1st and 2nd amendment?" What "usurpation of legislative powers" by the Democratic Party?

sanders looms large.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

the only thing that will save the dems is hillary s withdrawal....

Only in the fetid fever-swamp filling the space between your ears.

[Lord Jim]

Come on Sue...

Don't sugar coat it...

[Sue U]

I'm not even a Hillary supporter, but the hysteria and anti-Clinton monomania of the GOP is not doing your party any favors. The only candidate of either major party whose articulated views are actually contrary to constitutional guarantees is Donald Trump.

[dgs49]

Do you find, "Free College for Everyone," constitutional?

Do tell.

Where, exactly, does Congress (or the President) get that particular power? I must have missed it. The "Emanations and Penumbras" clause, perhaps?

[wesw]

yeah, banning one from owning or buying a gun because they were arbitrarily put on some wildly in accurate no-fly list seems to be a bit unconstitutional too....

...it s like being a bit pregnant.

[Fafhrd]

Do you find, "Free College for Everyone," constitutional?

Do tell.

Where, exactly, does Congress (or the President) get that particular power? I must have missed it. The "Emanations and Penumbras" clause, perhaps?

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, neither are you, I believe. Anyway, lots and lots of laws are arrived at by a circuitous route. I have no idea which power that Congress does have is involved. Maybe money--"We'll help you out if you do this, if you don't, we won't give you any of the money we normally give you" is a pretty powerful argument in itself.

We give every child a free elementary education (through eighth grade). We then give every one of them a free secondary education (through high school). What's to keep us from giving every one of them two or four more years of free education? Congress didn't say that every child had to go to Kindergarten and learn the alphabet there, either, but that' becoming more and more widespread.

[wesw]

geez, I am so tired of people playing the "you have to be a lawyer to discuss the constitution" card.

it ain t rocket science....

[Sue U]

Do you find, "Free College for Everyone," constitutional?

Do tell.

Where, exactly, does Congress (or the President) get that particular power? I must have missed it. The "Emanations and Penumbras" clause, perhaps?

Do you have difficulty in reading or is it just comprehension? What constitutionally guaranteed right does "free college for everyone" violate?

And where, exactly, does Congress (or the President) get the power to create a federal reserve banking system, or national parks, or independent regulatory agencies that make their own law? Where does the federal government get the power to hold and administer public lands? What part of the Constitution authorizes Medicare and Social Security? What constitutional clause authorizes NASA or the National Weather Service? Where does the government get the power to hold prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely and without due process?

geez, I am so tired of people playing the "you have to be a lawyer to discuss the constitution" card.

I have never seen anyone here do anything of the sort. Maybe you can point out the instances where this has occurred.

Or maybe you can't.

[wesw]

at least you knew who I was talking about....

[Sue U]

So "can't" it is, then.

[oldr_n_wsr]

We give every child a free elementary education

Nothing is free. Their parents and businesses and people without children all pay for the education. The word "free" is thrown around way too often.

And the feds are already involved too much in higher education and in the wrong way. Instead of making it easier for students to get loans for thier education, they should be looking at why college education costs have sky-rocketed to the point that these ids must take out loans to finance their education. If the gov makes higher education "free", those costs will go up even more.

[Fafhrd]

geez, I am so tired of people playing the "you have to be a lawyer to discuss the constitution" card.

it ain t rocket science....

I didn't say that, in fir first place.

Where in the Constitution does it say that anything in the Constitution applies to the individual States? It applies to the Federal government, only. That includes the establishment of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. The Supreme Court, at some point along the way, decided that anything in the Constitution also applies to the States; I don't know when. Some of the powers of Congress are used to support things that you really have to reach to find justification for them. For instance--restaurants are now integrated everywhere, because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Even a Mom and Pop diner on a back street in your city.

[dgs49]

At issue is the word, "we." The Congress of the United States lacks the power to PAY FOR COLLEGE for anyone. The expression, "Free College," when spoken by a candidate for President, implies that the Federal Government will fund it.

The states are empowered by the U.S. Constitution - and presumably their own state constitutions - to pay for college for anyone they like, but that has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders' proposal.

And to "Sue U," congratulations: you have apparently finally seen the Light. The Federal Government and the Congress have bent, folded, and mutilated the Constitution (not to mention expanded it) beyond all recognition. They have NO RIGHT OR POWER to do at least half of what they do on a regular basis. And the fact that you (and a lot of other people) LIKE what they are doing really doesn't change that fact. Indeed, I am now a personal beneficiary of the unconstitutional compulsory retirement plan foisted on us by FDR. Nor is the fact changed by a compliant Supreme Court that uses preposterous sophistry to justify unconstitutional initiatives that they like, as well.

You're a constitutionalist. I never would have thought it.

[Big RR]

Where in the Constitution does it say that anything in the Constitution applies to the individual States?

You might check the 14th amendment.

[Bicycle Bill]

We give every child a free elementary education

Nothing is free. Their parents and businesses and people without children all pay for the education. The word "free" is thrown around way too often.

And the feds are already involved too much in higher education and in the wrong way. Instead of making it easier for students to get loans for thier education, they should be looking at why college education costs have sky-rocketed to the point that these ids must take out loans to finance their education. If the gov makes higher education "free", those costs will go up even more.

Actually, they need to find out why everybody feels they have to get a bachelor's degree when in reality most people get jobs like clerking at a WalMart, factory work, working at a call center, or flipping burgers at Mickey D's.  Even skilled labor like mechanics, tradesmen, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. don't need a BA to know how to frame a house, wire the house, or install the toilet and hot water heater correctly.

I feel too many people are in college because they've either bought into the bullshit about how that magical sheepskin is going to make Corporate America beat a path to their door and throw vast sums of money at them, or they're there for the same reason John "Bluto" Blutarsky and the rest of the 'Animal House' frat were — hiding out from the responsibilities of adult life for as long as possible.



-"BB"-