Hill and Bill made a lot of money in the last 8 years and paid an effective tax rate of 46% to Fed. State and Local taxes. Good job Hill.
rob, because I want honest government and a president who doesn't lie to me every time he opens his mouth, that makes me wrong headed? I think it makes me clear headed.
BTW, have you noticed that you are the only kneepad wearer that I respond to. Don't ask me why. I can't explain it. Normally ideologues disgust me but for some reason you don't. Talking to you is like trying to argue with your cat but I keep trying even though I know it's futile.
You should show a little more respect to the future President.......!!!! Given the daily (Fox faux / manufactured) outrages you work yourself into it is amazing that you haven't been institutionalized yet or dropped dead off a heart attack.
Re: "BTW, did you read my response to you said when you weren't a twit?"
Yeah polecatt, I did read it and came to the conclusion that you are not a total loss since you do have a sense of humor and may have some redeeming qualities even though you are wrong-headed.
The chants of "Death to America" are staged and I don't believe the young adults in Iran really feel that way. These are the people that will have a say down the road. The, eye-atola wont last forever.
Who calls the women molested by the horndog Bill Clinton, bimbos? Instead of calling victims bimbos, why didn't the Socialis Party call Bill a vicious sexual predator and remove him from office? Who called Paula Jones, who was assaulted by Bill, trailer trash? Big time sleaze and Socialist operative James Carville labeled the victim trailer trash. Who was in charge of the #$%$ Altert Team when Bill was running for president and when he was in office? Hillary was the team leader.
So who has a war on women?
If the socialist don't have a war on women, then why is the Party so afraid of the "bimbos"?
Wow, rob, when it comes to bad behavior on the left, you have a feeble answer for everything.
We are suppose to have an open government and as the Liar in Chief said a transparent government. I bet most people would understand the proposed agreement if it were open for them to read. I think I would and this is from someone who has a degree in history and political science and the some post graduate hours in life sciences and then 30 years as a programmer/ analyst. Not all of us are blind idiots who can't think for themselves.
I believe the supreme leader of Iran when he screams "Death to America! Death to Israel!". Why don't you and the Golfer in Chief believe him? Hitler laid out what he was going to do and no one paid attention and that certainly didn't turn out well.
BTW, did you read my response to you when you said you weren't a twit? It'll surprise you, in a good way.
How do you deal with the fact that by far the largest number of abortions have always been spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) the high level of which are for some reason built into the nature of the human reproductive system (as well as those of many other creatures)? We would have to say that abortions were engineered, for some reason, into nature by the hand of God. This means God has been by far the greatest abortionist in the Universe.
Jon Schwarz / Intercept / 7-30-15
In 1961, Reagan, then known just as an actor, now the ultimate iconic Republican, was hired by the American Medical Association to record an LP record called “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.”
Here are some of the highlights; a complete transcript is here.
“Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”
This is the very beginning of Reagan’s recording, and, appropriately enough, is completely made up. Norman Thomas never said this.
“One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.”
Medicine has never anywhere in history been a method of imposing communism (what Reagan means by “statism or socialism”). Communism was established in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba via armed revolution, not national health care.
“From [Medicare] it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living.”
Yes, I well remember when I received my orders to report to the Patrice Lumumba Pod to begin my career as People’s Blogpost Writer 9784B.
“Write those letters now [to Congress] and call your friends and them to write … If you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”
Here Reagan did have a point, given that there are a fair number of old people doing this now. They are generally white, watch Fox News, and are strong supporters of Medicare.
This isn't the 'Magna Carta'. It's not something that is going to affect the everyday life and structure of America. There is not much about the deal that most of us would understand and I say that as a person with an engineering background. It would be open to wild interpretations. There is no upside to not approving the negotiations with Iran. The downside risk increases.
INSIDE THE EFFORT TO KILL THE IRAN DEAL
The rhetoric coming from Iran hawks is increasingly out of touch with public opinion.
By James Carden | The Nation | 7/31/15
In response to the successful conclusion of the P5+1 talks in Vienna, THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, LEADING MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL “WAR PARTY” AND AN INFLUENTIAL CLAQUE OF NEOCONSERVATIVE JOURNALISTS HAVE JOINED FORCES, WORKING OVERTIME TO TORPEDO THE JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION (JCPOA) NUCLEAR DEAL WITH IRAN.
The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, has staged an aggressive lobbying campaign against the JCPOA. Last Wednesday, Dermer met with 40 House Republicans to lobby against the deal. According to Representative Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, Dermer told them that the deal “changes the destiny of the world.”
And on Monday of this week, Dermer addressed a meeting of the Republican House leadership at the behest of Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Readers may recall that Dermer had previously teamed up with the House leadership to engineer an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March.
In that address, NETANYAHU DEPLOYED HIS TRADEMARK SUBTLETY AND DECLARED THAT IRAN WAS A “THREAT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD.”
Indeed, the Israelis have been sounding the alarm over the dangers of a deal long before the deal was even reached. On March 25, The New York Times reported that at a dinner Dermer hosted for several members of Congress, the ambassador “made it clear that there would be a clash if a nuclear agreement with Iran was reached.”
Yet it should be pointed out that the clash that has ensued is most assuredly not between the American Jewish community (for whom Netanyahu presumptuously assumes the right to speak) and the Obama administration. A poll conducted by the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, an independent, nonprofit media outlet, shows that the American Jewish community supports the JCPOA by a margin of 20 percentage points.
Nevertheless, as The Washington Post reported in the days immediately following the announcement of the deal, AIPAC is funding a new group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which is “expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns in 30 to 40 states to mobilize opponents of the deal.”
AIPAC can, as usual, expect plenty of help from the US Congress. House Speaker John Boehner has vowed that Congress will “do anything possible” to torpedo the JCPOA, and former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman recently appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to say that “this is a bad deal for America, a bad deal for Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East and a bad deal for the world.”
And yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee convened to question Secretaries Kerry, Moniz, Carter, and Lew, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey. It made for neither pleasant nor enlightening viewing. If, as it seemed, war-party heavyweights John McCain, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton were engaged in a fear-mongering contest, then Graham clearly walked away the winner.
“Does the [Iranian] Supreme Leader’s religious views compel him over time to destroy Israel and attack America?” the South Carolina Republican demanded of an incredulous Ashton Carter. Graham, growing increasingly irritated with Carter’s reluctance to play along, then asked Carter, “Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran?” Graham, his voice growing tremulous, shouted the answer to his own question: “We win!”
Embarrassing as that was, none of the senators had the poor judgement to go as far as GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who, in a grotesquely inappropriate allusion to the Holocaust, declared that the deal would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”
MEANWHILE, THE BELTWAY’S HEARTY BAND OF UNRECONSTRUCTED NEOCONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN HARD AT WORK DRUMMING UP OPPOSITION TO THE DEAL. Leon Wieseltier weighed in from his perch at The Atlantic with a typically portentous offering, bemoaning the allegedly pernicious implications of the deal.
To Wieseltier’s eye “there was something grotesque about the chumminess, the jolly camaraderie, of the American negotiators and the Iranian negotiators,” while the negotiations themselves represented a “twisted moment in American foreign policy.” Warming to this theme, Wieseltier insisted that, far from trying to pursue a negotiated settlement with the Iranians, “we need to despise the regime loudly and regularly, and damage its international position as fiercely and imaginatively as we can, for its desire to exterminate Israel.”
Neocon stalwart Eli Lake praised Wieseltier’s essay, recommending it to “every alleged progressive snookered by the Iran deal.” And Lake himself has been doing his level best to make sure his own readers don’t get “snookered” by the likes of Glenn Greenwald, who he accused of “Jew baiting” because Greenwald had the temerity to suggest that congressional opposition to the deal might just have something to do with Israeli’s strenuous lobbying against the deal.
As former career CIA analyst Paul Pillar recently observed, the truculent nature of the opposition to the JCPOA is comprehensible “only if one realizes that the opposition is being driven by other reasons some people have for wanting to kill this agreement and to preclude any agreement with Iran.”
And yet, so far anyway, the combined efforts of the Israeli government, the war hawks in the US Congress and their neoconservative allies like Wieseltier and Lake have come to naught. POLLS INDICATE THAT 54 PERCENT OF VOTERS POLLED FAVOR THE DEAL MOVING THROUGH CONGRESS, AS AGAINST 39 PERCENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BLOCKED.
Congressional opponents of the deal should take note.
Have no fear polecat I, doubt if a socialist would want any Teabagger body parts.
If this agreement is such a great deal, you would think The Liar in Chief would want everybody to see it.
The Iran Nuke Documents Obama Doesn’t Want You to See
Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?
Scattered around the U.S. Capitol complex are a series of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities, or SCIFs, which are typically used to hold Top Secret information.
But today in these deeply secure settings are a series of unclassified documents—items dealing with the Iran nuclear deal that are not secret, but that the Obama administration is nevertheless blocking the public from reading.
The Obama administration delivered 18 documents to Congress on July 19, in accordance with legislation requiring a Congressional review of the nuclear deal. Only one of these documents is classified, while the remaining 17 are unclassified.
Yet many of these unclassified documents cannot be shared with the public or discussed openly with the press. The protocol for handling these documents, set by the State Department and carried out by Congress, is that these unreleased documents can only be reviewed ‘in camera’—a Latin term that means only those with special clearance can read them—and must be held in various Congressional SCIFs.
Most staffers were hesitant to discuss—let alone share—a number of these documents, even though they’re not classified, because they require security clearances to view. By mixing a classified document with unclassified documents, critics of this arrangement contend, important facts are being kept from the public just as Congress is deciding whether to support or oppose the Iran deal.
“The unclassified items… should be public. This is going to be the most important foreign policy decision that this Congress will make,” a Republican Senate aide told The Daily Beast. “This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”
“Many in Congress view the administration’s tactic of co-mingling unclassified documents with classified documents and requiring Congressional staffers to have secret clearances just to view certain unclassified documents as an attempt by the administration to limit open debate,” a second senior Republican Congressional staffer said.
Among the 17 unclassified documents are important texts related to the Iran nuclear deal: One document, titled “Elements of Iran’s R&D Plan,” is based on the “safeguards confidential plan [between] Iran and the IAEA,” a State Department official said, and so it can’t be released publicly. The document describes how Iran’s research and development on its nuclear program, including on its centrifuges, could progress over time.
Other unclassified documents may be diplomatically sensitive: One is a letter from the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K. to Secretary of State John Kerry; another is a letter from Kerry to the three foreign ministers and his Chinese counterpart as well.
The set includes a discussion paper written before the final agreement, on how sanctions would be dealt with in the interim. Yet another is a draft statement by the U.S. government, to be issued on a future Iran deal implementation day.
Bloomberg View’s Eli Lake and Josh Rogin previously reported the existence of the 18 documents submitted by the Obama administration to Congress, as well as some descriptions of what the set contained.
The Iran nuclear deal is unlike other arms control agreements “because it’s so complex and has so many moving parts,” said Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “It goes into jaw-dropping detail.” So it’s not a complete surprise that there might be some sensitive ancillary documents to go along with the arrangement. Iran might not want the particulars of its nuclear research program in full public view, for instance.
The unreleased, unclassified documents are informative for Congress but not for public consumption, the State Department contends.
“Some of the documents are the types of documents which, like State Department cables and other internal USG documents, we would not post publicly but would share with Congress in appropriate circumstances. Others are documents that, while not part of the [Iran nuclear agreement] itself, pertain to it and we were clear with the other P5+1 members and Iran that we would be sharing those documents with Congress, and we have,” a State Department official said.
Added the official, “Congress has every document that we have, and every Member of Congress and every staff [member] with the necessary security clearance can review all of the documents.”
Some Democrats were supportive of the administration’s hush-hush approach. The documents are part of a sensitive diplomatic process involving Iran’s nuclear program, they argue, so it’s not surprising that there are some restrictions to the level of transparency the government will allow.
“The essential elements to make the decision on the deal are out there,” a senior Democratic aide said. “I don’t think there’s a lack of transparency or discussion on [the Iran deal], because you’ve had very detailed briefings and every member of Congress has been able to view these documents… The way they are stored is consistent and not unreasonable, and I don’t think there’s anything nefarious.”
“This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”
Open government advocates, on the other hand, were appalled that unclassified documents this important were being kept both from public view—and, in a real way, from serious Congressional scrutiny.
“Keeping unclassified documents in a SCIF is overkill, even if the documents are sensitive or confidential. They simply don’t need the kind of sophisticated protection against clandestine surveillance that SCIFs are intended to provide,” said Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, working to reduce government secrecy.
“The primary obstacle to congressional review that is created by this arrangement is the requirement to physically be present in the SCIF. Members of Congress cannot review the material in their offices, or share it with trusted colleagues or with subject matter experts. It is a significant hindrance to review,” he added.
Congress passed a law called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, also known as Corker-Cardin, requiring the administration to formally submit the Iran nuclear deal, an unclassified verification assessment with any secret annexes, and other relevant materials to Congress.
The intention of that provision was for unclassified materials to be freely available so that an open debate on the public interest could occur. Members of Congress are pointing out that this is not what is happening—and are urging the Obama administration to allow their release.
“A lot of both documents and discussion that have been held in a classified setting doesn’t have classified characteristics to it… to the extent that many [documents aren’t classified,] they should be made totally public, as far as I’m concerned, so that the public can evaluate for themselves,” Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez told The Daily Beast.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. His spokesperson told The Daily Beast that he “believes that the administration should make these unclassified documents available to the public so the American people can see the details of the Iran nuclear deal.”
—with additional reporting by Alexa Corse and Noah Shachtman
WHY DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T RUN AS A DEMOCRAT
By Carl Cannon / Real Clear Politics / July 21, 2015
Maria Konnikova is not someone Donald Trump would typically describe as “a loser.” Fluent in Russian and English, she writes authoritatively on psychology and culture. Her work has appeared in prestigious publications ranging from The Atlantic to Scientific American. After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, she received her Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia University.
Four years ago, Konnikova wrote a piece for a publication called Big Think, postulating that Trump’s perpetual boorishness is attributable to mental illness, specifically a condition called narcissistic personality disorder.
HISTORY PROFESSOR JELANI COBB, WRITING IN THE NEW YORKER, FOCUSED ON ANOTHER FACET OF THE DONALD’S PERSONA. “[I]N ALL THE WAYS THAT MATTER, SAVE ACTUAL PERFORMING, DONALD TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN—HE’S A RAPPER,” COBB POSTULATED. “IF ELECTED, HE’S LESS LIKELY TO REPRESENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S THIRD TERM THAN KANYE WEST’S FIRST ONE.”
Assessing these explanations, Texas political writer Jonathan Tilove added one of his own this week: “Actually, listening to Trump’s comments over the weekend about John McCain at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa,” Tilove wrote, “I also heard the rhythms and sensibility of a New York insult comedian, say Andrew Dice Clay.”
Those are all plausible explanations for the unsocialized behavior of a presidential candidate who calls successful men “losers,” routinely describes those more knowledgeable than himself as “stupid,” and whose latest display of tact was to disparage the military record of a genuine American war hero, despite having sought and received five deferments from the Vietnam draft himself.
The latest Trumpeting was aimed at John McCain, and it seems to have come just in time: Trump had surged to a nice lead in the polls, topping the 16-person GOP presidential field with 24 percent among likely Republican voters. This number nearly equaled the combined total of the next two candidates, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush.
Despite the hysteria this engendered in newsrooms coast to coast, name identification is really the name of the game. Trump’s real success, if you want to call it that, has been in lowering the quality of conversation to his level. He’s been dismissed as a “jackass” (Sen. Lindsey Graham); a “complete moron” (Karl Rove); an “imbecile” (Mexican journalist Joaquin Lopez-Doriga); and a “blowhard idiot” (Reason magazine). Rick Perry, whom Trump said should be required to take an IQ test before running, may have provided the most insightful criticism. “What Mr. Trump is offering,” said the former Texas governor, “is not conservatism, it is Trumpism—a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense.”
Democrats have gotten into the act, too, although with different motivations. Hillary Clinton called Trump “shameful” over the weekend. This morning Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid called Trump’s comments on immigration “disgusting.” When emanating from that side of the aisle, however, this criticism has a partisan purpose. Reid and Clinton were regurgitating a Democratic Party talking point: namely, that Trump reflects the intolerant views of the conservative grassroots and hasn’t been repudiated by mainstream Republicans.
“Frankly I’m terribly disappointed that my Republican colleagues here in leadership positions in the Senate and those running for president have basically kept their mouth shut,” Reid told reporters on Wednesday.
Harry Reid wasn’t being “frank” so much as he was being disingenuous. In addition to Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, the man who has raised the most money in the Republican field has definitely spoken out. The former Florida governor called Trump’s views on immigration “extraordinarily ugly” and “way out of the mainstream of what Republicans think.”
LET’S GO FURTHER, HOWEVER, AND POINT OUT THAT THIS GUY HAS NEVER REALLY BEEN ON THE GOP TEAM.
Certainly, there are thrice-married Republicans in this country. There are also Republicans who consider Bill Clinton a successful president, just as there are Republicans who believe George W. Bush was “the worst president in history.” Some Republicans care so little about abortion that they can’t explain if they are pro-life or pro-choice. There are also Republicans who have said that all 11 million illegal immigrants in this county deserve “a path” to citizenship—and there are other Republicans who have called for an impenetrable wall between the United States and Mexico. There are even a few Republicans who have donated money to Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.
BUT THERE ARE NO REPUBLICANS ABOUT WHOM YOU CAN ACCURATELY SAY ALL THOSE THINGS—UNLESS YOU COUNT DONALD TRUMP. IN A RECENT INTERVIEW, ARI FLEISCHER, WHO WAS WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH, SAID IT WAS CLEAR THAT TRUMP WAS “NO CONSERVATIVE.” THE REAL ISSUE IS MORE BASIC: THERE’S NOT MUCH EVIDENCE HE’S EVEN A REPUBLICAN.
AMERICANS CAN CHANGE THEIR POLITICAL ORIENTATION OVER TIME—RONALD REAGAN DID IT—BUT YOU’D BE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND A REPUBLICAN WHO DURING THE LAST 28 YEARS HAS VARIOUSLY LISTED HIS VOTER REGISTRATION AS REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENCE PARTY, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN AGAIN, AND (AS RECENTLY AS 2012) REGISTERED HIMSELF IN NEW YORK AS “DECLINE TO STATE.” IN THE MIDST OF THAT ORGY OF FICKLENESS, TRUMP RAN BRIEFLY FOR PRESIDENT—AS A REFORM PARTY CANDIDATE.
THE MONEY IS THE TIPOFF, AS IT OFTEN IS WITH THE MAN WHO NEVER TIRES OF BOASTING ABOUT HIS WEALTH. HE HAS GIVEN MONEY TO BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES OVER THE YEARS, BUT UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN HE TOYED WITH RUNNING IN THE REPUBLICAN CONTEST EVENTUALLY WON BY MITT ROMNEY, TRUMP HAD GIVEN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS.
THESE WEREN’T CENTRIST OR CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS, EITHER. THE RECIPIENTS OF TRUMP’S LARGESSE, AS THE WASHINGTON POST NOTED IN 2011, MADE A VERITABLE “REPUBLICAN ENEMIES LIST.” BESIDES REID AND SCHUMER, IT INCLUDED JOHN KERRY, CHARLES RANGEL, EDWARD M. KENNEDY, AND HILLARY CLINTON.
TRUMP GAVE OVER $100,000 TO THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, AND TO ITS DEMOCRATIC COUNTERPART OVER IN THE HOUSE. ALL DURING THIS TIME, HE GAVE TO REPUBLICANS, TOO—JUST NOT AS MUCH. ACCORDING TO F.E.C. RECORDS, TRUMP DONATED $1.3 MILLION BETWEEN 1989 AND 2011, 54 PERCENT OF IT GOING TO DEMOCRATS. SINCE 2012, HOWEVER, FEDERAL RECORDS SHOW THAT TRUMP HAS GIVEN $463,450 TO REPUBLICANS AND ONLY $3,500 TO DEMOCRATS. WHY THE CHANGE IN ORIENTATION? TRUMP HIMSELF IS INCOHERENT ON THIS QUESTION, BUT A FEW THEORIES SPRING TO MIND.
THE FIRST ONE CAN BE CALLED THE RACHEL DOLEZAL SCHOOL OF POLITICAL IDENTITY: TRUMP IS A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE, WELL, HE JUST FEELS LIKE BEING ONE FOR A WHILE. THIS EXPLANATION IS BELIED BY HOW MUCH AFFINITY HE EXPRESSES FOR DEMOCRATS. TRUMP DONATED $50,000 TO RAHM EMANUEL’S MAYORAL CAMPAIGN, AND AS RECENTLY AS THREE WEEKS AGO HE FAWNED OVER THE MAYOR AND ONE OF HIS BROTHERS, FILM ACTOR—AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY FUNDRAISER—ARI EMANUEL.
“I gave him a contribution because his brother is a great friend of mine,” Trump said. “Ari, king of Hollywood. I love Ari. And Ari asked me to give him a contribution. I like Rahm very much.”
A SECOND POSSIBILITY IS THAT SWITCHING POLITICAL PARTIES FOR CONVENIENCE IS JUST SOMETHING NEW YORK BILLIONAIRES FEEL ENTITLED TO DO. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG COULD NOT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AS A DEMOCRAT WHEN HE RAN FOR MAYOR IN 2001—EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A DEMOCRAT—SO BLOOMBERG JUST RAN IN THE PRIMARIES OF THE MORIBUND NEW YORK CITY REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, OVERWHELMING THE OPPOSITION WITH MONEY. Trump can’t do that in a presidential race, but the 24 percent he’s getting in early polling in a 16-person GOP primary wouldn’t put him within sight of Hillary Clinton if he were running as a Democrat.
Speaking of the Democratic Party’s 2016 front-runner, SOME REPUBLICANS ARE STARTING TO WONDER WHETHER TRUMP IS REALLY A STALKING HORSE FOR CLINTON—THAT HE’S RUNNING TO SABOTAGE THE GOP’S CHANCES OF BEATING HER. That seems less likely, but it is a fact that besides donating money to Hillary Clinton, she was a guest at Trump’s most recent wedding.
JUDGING BY HIS PETULANCE ON THE 2016 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, THE EASIEST EXPLANATION IS THAT TRUMP BROKE WITH THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE HE WAS PEEVED AT THE TITULAR HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HIS PATTERN OF DONATIONS CHANGED MARKEDLY DURING BARACK OBAMA’S SECOND TERM AS PRESIDENT. THIS CHANGE ACTUALLY BEGAN A YEAR EARLIER AND IT COINCIDES WITH THE 2011 WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ ASSOCIATION DINNER. TRUMP WAS A GUEST, AND LISTENED AS THE PRESIDENT MADE FUN OF TRUMP’S HAIR, HIS SUPPOSEDLY GARISH ARCHITECTURAL TASTE, AND HIS FIXATION WITH OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
THE DONALD KEPT UP A TIGHT SMILE AS THIS ROASTING WENT ON, BUT HIS EXPRESSION FROZE IN PIQUE WHEN THE ENTERTAINER WHO FOLLOWED OBAMA KEPT PILING ON.
“DONALD TRUMP OFTEN TALKS ABOUT RUNNING AS A REPUBLICAN, WHICH IS SURPRISING," SAID COMEDIAN SETH MEYERS. “I JUST ASSUMED HE WAS RUNNING AS A JOKE.”
FOUR YEARS LATER A LOT OF REPUBLICANS APPEAR TO BE THINKING THE SAME THING.
Richard when the Chinese execute a prisoner they harvest his body parts and sell them. I'd bet the socialists would be all for that here in the US.
Rob, I believe you but if a Democrat or Republican goes along just
to get along they don't belong in Congress. If you don't believe in abortion yet are willing to support those that do, it would make you and accomplice, so indeed, their hands are not clean. Even if they think they are. That's the way I see it. Now we find this horrendous issue of selling baby parts for profit. How could any decent human being agree with that, and what is the next escalation after that. We like to think of ourselves as civilized. Maybe we should give it some more thought.