Will Hillary Clinton be elected president of the United States in 2016? "Yes", or "No"?
YES (91% v Trump)
YES (67% v Rubio)
Marco Rubio is dumber than Dumbya. Anything beyond chaning Karl Rove's coffee filter exceeds his baud rate.
All the anti-Trump arguments posited by Rubio, Cruz, Romney et al are both disengenuous and meaningless *BECAUSE* they have all stated they will support Trump in the general election.
Trump has effectively destroyed the illusion that the GOP cares one iota about its non-wealthy, bible banging constituency. He has also established that its ok to overtly hate crime against non-whites and attack women. (sentiments the GOP has endorsed indirectly for decades; the difference is that Trump is directly endorsing these sentiments)
Anyone and everyone who votes for Trump in the general election will be expressing nothing so much as a de facto admission that ignorance, bigotry and authoritarianism are preferred qualities for POTUS.
In which Donald T Rump plays on all the worst elements of rignt wingnut populism evident in postwar Germany to lead all contenders vying for Confederate Party nomination by double digits.
Republicans hate blacks, women and Democrats without any rhyme or reason beyond tribal compulsion.
Obama opposes Trump's right to free speech...despite the fact that Obama was editor of Harvard Law Review, graduated with a JD from Harvard Law School, and went on to teach classes in constitutional law at U of Chicago.
Only right wing racist xenophones imagine twice elected US PRESIDENT Barack HUSSEIN Obama as fomenting some kind of anti-Constitutional sentiment vote Republican.
Speaking of chaotic, evil and idiotic...I'm loving how Trump is destroying the GOP and 'conservatism.'
No Republican will ever win a national election again; the party is irretrievably stained -correctly- as a sad attempt at 4th Reich. But wait! All is not lost; the Whigs destroyed themselved after only 50 years but...hahaha oh right. LOO HOO SERRS.
All Trump has done is strip away the lies and pretension that has maintained the GOP's viability lo these past few decades.
The Republican Party has implicitly (and often directly) endorsed authoritarian fascism, racism, and class warfare since the daze of Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley...but admittedly even a cursory reading of US history indicates right wing "intellectuals" have led the charge of every horrible policy the US government has ever done to everyone both domestically and abroad, long before and since the 1960s.
Trump's professed policies are not markedly different than those of "establishment" GOP; the only real difference is his populist appeal to the conservative wingnut base. (Another difference is his free media exposure - and how ironic is it that the richest man in the GOP contest has executed a perfect end-run around the Citizens United decision?)
I've said this before and I'll say it again: the GOP will never ever again win a national election. Indeed, at this point only policies of voter-suppression and gerrymandering maintain their control of the federal legislature. But even so - why vote into governance anyone who believes government is the problem?
Name me one Republican who can be considered Christian by any but the most nominal criterion; its readily apparent to anyone who has ever read the Bible that the Jesus portrayed in its pages was a hippie peacenik socialist.
But of course today's Republicans are not Christians: they're racist, violent, reactionary, incompetent, ignorant, treasonous, resentful, xenophobic thugs. The *only* principle uniting the GOP's various constituencies at this point is the learned vitriolic hatred of liberalism (in which we suppose hatred can be a kind of principle). Indeed, we now live in a world where George W. Bush would be considered too moderate for the Republican Party.
Hatred and resentment is what fuels Holy Ted's campaign. While Ronald T. Dump at least pretends to espouse a vague message of future hope, Ted "The Latest Establishment Pick" Cruz just wants to eradicate everyone who doesn't think exactly like he does.
"Once again, under every moral scold is a leering hypocrite."
Right. Concluding every right wing pol and pundit's various denunciations of Trump for not adhering to or represent party dogma comes the real statement of principle: "...but I will support Trump if he is nominated."
I plan to celebrate this Easter by watching zombie and vampire movies.
And of course the classic Frankenstein: with a jolt of lightning, a resurrection!
43When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth."44The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."
Most everyone forgets the name of Frankenstein's creation: Adam.
"Even the liberal media can't defend President Obama's actions following the horrific Islamic terrorist attack on Brussels."
In which being POTUS mandates responsibilty for Europe. Good to know!
The only POTUS who failed to protect the homeland from significant terrorist threat is George W "9/11/2001" Bush.
Actually this is escalating into a huge concern for Team Clinton.
Via Current Affairs:
NOMINATING A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE UNDER ACTIVE FBI INVESTIGATION IS AN INCREDIBLY RISKY GAMBLE
Unless, of course, there is some kind of separate system of justice for the powerful…
The 2016 election has many bizarre aspects, but surely one of the most bizarre is the fact that one of the main presidential candidates is under active investigation by the FBI, and that this is somehow being treated as unimportant or inconsequential.
Of course, everyone knows that Hillary Clinton has a pending FBI investigation, and everyone has a vague sense that it is continuing to grow rather than disappear, and that theoretically the possible consequences include indictment and prosecution. But for some reason a major investigation concerning a presidential candidate isn’t being widely treated as the potentially catastrophic scandal and electability risk that it is. Nominating a presidential candidate who could potentially be subject to prosecution under the Espionage Act should seem like an insane gamble for a party to take. Why, then, isn’t it being taken more seriously?
There’s no mystery as to the basic facts, which by now are wearingly familiar to all. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she stored much of her email on a private server, free of ordinary oversight and without the government’s security protocols in place. While Clinton insisted none of these unsecured emails contained classified information, according to a Washington Post investigation “more than 100 of the emails that contained classified information were sent by Mrs Clinton herself using her private server.”
Read the whole article...but it won't tell you is that the former director of the FOIA has basically called out Clinton's complete privatization of her email server (physically located on her property) as utter abuse.
So yeah, corruption is the word. But not without precedent.
-Rubio is and will always give morons a bad name.
-Trump is no idiot, but he has no business being ever being within spitting distance of 1600 Penn Avenue except as tourist or a donor. His detailed policy solution to every problem? "I'll fix that!"
-Cruz is far and away the creepiest and most dangerous of the bunch; outside of Paul Ryan there probably isn't a more overhyped braniac sociopath in DC.
-Sanders is no communist; indeed, despite his self-labeling he's not even a socialist. He's basically running as FDR-lite and emphasizing social and economic programs that work for Denmark (cited recently as the happiest country on the planet) and I give him huge points for running against the hideously corrupt DNC establishment.
-Clinton with her warmongering foreign policy and with her neoliberal economic views could easily have run on the GOP ticket 30 years ago.
--NPR Interview with Clinton Emerges: ‘My Roots Are Conservative, I’m Proud I Was a Goldwater Girl’
---A 1996 NPR interview with Hillary Clinton has recently resurfaced, in which the current Democratic front-runner shockingly embraced conservatism and reiterated how proud she was to support a segregationist presidential candidate.
So really, what you are saying is that because Harry Reid (D-NV) advised Jesse Sbiah that because Sbiah is Muslim, he wouldn't win against a Republican candidate for US House seat to represent NV-3 because NV Republicans are religious bigots and the opposing candidate would use his religion against him... which somehow means Harry Reid is a racist.
Are you really this stupid, or are you lying, or both?
"-Rubio is and will always give morons a bad name."
What a coincidence ... so do you.
Possibly true...but at least I was never a Rubio fan.
"1) The national security of the United States depends on the destruction of radical Islam's ideological and terrorist threat to the United States."
Hardly. The US survived WW1, WW2, and 9/11. ISIS/Daesh is no threat; US citizens are statistically about 300x more likely to die moving a piano than from ISIS. Indeed, the greatest threat to those living in the US is the NRA's unswerving devotion to arm violent crackpots.
"2) Hillary Clinton is totally incapable of defending America from ISIS, Iran, or any other enemy who threatens our country."
Hardly; Clinton is a tremendous warmonger. I can virtually guarantee that she will ramp up current US war efforts (both covert and direct) and will likely instigate some new ones: she thinks Obama is too soft on Syria and she truly wants war with Iran.
Indeed, Clinton is a war hawk who didn't learn thing one from giving Bush her vote to go into Iraq: that she thought the Libya attack should have involved ground troops is proof enough, not to mention her stated position on Syria (more airstrikes and again, US boots on the ground).
Your opinions aren't supported by anything resembling known facts. But then again, that is often the case with wingnuts: you cannot differentiate between opinion and fact.