Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

I'm going by what McCain said. His walk back was weak. This campaign showed there is no political cost to keeping the Supreme Court at 8. In fact there is a bugger cost for the GOP reps to allow Clinton or Obama to get a nominee. Why would they do it?

[hack]

I think if you described politics as it is today to someone 10 or 20 years ago, they'd think it was pretty hilarious. I just don't know that convention is indicative here.

[froot loops]

You have a major party nominee claiming the erecting is rigged and calling for armed observers to go into Philadelphia on voting day. Everything is possible.

[Wild Hoss]

I'm going by what McCain said. His walk back was weak. This campaign showed there is no political cost to keeping the Supreme Court at 8. In fact there is a bugger cost for the GOP reps to allow Clinton or Obama to get a nominee. Why would they do it?

Especially when they're going to horsewhip the Ds 2018, as Talent promises?

[Da Geezer]

... Blocking US foreign-policy goals when/where possible has clearly been a part of Putin's strategy to ensure that Russia is perceived as a global power...

And he has accomplished those goals more fully under Obama than he could have hoped under any Republican. The migrant crisis in Europe undermines NATO, Lybia, Syria, Crimea, Iran as a Russian client, to say nothing about China's move to control the sea lanes in the South China Sea. These are the real results of "leading from behind". Russia would want more of the same

I did google "NATO+Trump". But, I had listened to Trump's AIPAC speech in real time and what he said was that the countries of Europe should pay their already agreed upon contributions to NATO and that the US should reconsider its commitment to go to war over the Baltics. Hillary would no more launch nukes than Trump would. If you think she would or should, say so.

[iam416]

Froot:

Our positions are clear. The event will or won't happen. It's a binary result. One of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. I don't really care much about how you justify position, only what your position is. We'll see who is correct in due course.

They can sell off pieces of it...Hillary has already laid the groundwork for this in fact, for those paying attention.

Some Ds will be more dug-in on it than others of course, but in the end its going to be altered. Might as well benefit from it.

No, I really don't think they can/will. This was their incremental win. This sets the stage for single payer. They can't walk it back, IMO.

It's an interesting idea -- but, man, I really can't see the Ds signing up for that.

[iam416]

Especially when they're going to horsewhip the Ds 2018, as Talent promises?

I'll put a definition to my prediction so that it is clear. The Rs will regain control of the Senate and pick up at least 10 seats in the House. Binary prediction. You can agree or disagree. I assume, for now, you disagree. Again, we'll see.

[Hannibal]

LMAO at anyone who thinks that the Republican party will show a fucking ounce of balls after this election is over. Don't worry, Froot -- Hillary can appoint Bill Ayers to the Supreme Court and John McCain will go on TV to bash the Tea Partiers who don't like it. John McCain has bashed the Republican base nonstop for sixteen years and he has bashed Donald Trump harder than he ever bashed a Democrat opponent.

I'll put a definition to my prediction so that it is clear. The Rs will regain control of the Senate and pick up at least 10 seats in the House. Binary prediction. You can agree or disagree. I assume, for now, you disagree. Again, we'll see.

Not if amnesty passes and the new citizens all get voting rights by then. Even if they don't, I see a massive backlash coming against the Republican party for abandoning the nominee that about 75% of people who identify as Republicans are still voting for. This election has destroyed a lot of illusions, chief among them the illusion that the Republican Party is interested in being anything but the Washington Generals.

[Da Geezer]

Who he's voting for president doesn't concern himself with facts, why should he?

As I've said many times, I'm not voting for Trump. I just try to add some rational balance to the hyper-left discussions here.

Froot: did the FBI say that the Russians did the Wikileaks hack?

[Wild Hoss]

No, I really don't think they can/will. This was their incremental win. This sets the stage for single payer. They can't walk it back, IMO.

It's an interesting idea -- but, man, I really can't see the Ds signing up for that.

They're not going to get to single payer from here, and HRC knows it; that boat sailed in 2009. That's why, IMO, she's already talking in ways that sound like the ACA's organs are for sale even though she is one of SP's champions...trade that thing in while it still has value.

Whether she has the clout inside the party to pull it off...I agree that's an issue. The argument, behind closed doors, that trading parts of an unpopular bill for long-term SC appointments will resonate with moderate Ds.

[Hannibal]

And he has accomplished those goals more fully under Obama than he could have hoped under any Republican. The migrant crisis in Europe undermines NATO, Lybia, Syria, Crimea, Iran as a Russian client, to say nothing about China's move to control the sea lanes in the South China Sea. These are the real results of "leading from behind". Russia would want more of the same

I did google "NATO+Trump". But, I had listened to Trump's AIPAC speech in real time and what he said was that the countries of Europe should pay their already agreed upon contributions to NATO and that the US should reconsider its commitment to go to war over the Baltics. Hillary would no more launch nukes than Trump would. If you think she would or should, say so.

1. Trump is a maniac because he is going to start World War III
2. Trump is Putin's puppet because he is not going to start World War III

Choose one.

[iam416]

Hannibal:

My prediction stands. I feel very good about it.

[iam416]

trading parts of an unpopular bill for long-term SC appointments will resonate with moderate Ds.

It's moot. She'll get her nominee through unless she nominates Stephen Reinhardt or someone comparable. Which she won't.

[Da Geezer]

In hopes of angering/confounding/confusing Geezer:

Nigel Gould-Davies @Nigelgd1
@anders_aslund Russian state controls 70% of economy, up from 35% in 2005, says Federal Antimonopoly Service: http://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/ar...uyut-ekonomiki ?
12:18 PM - 16 Oct 2016

I am angered, confounded and confused. Particularly with the part that says another 10% will be controlled by 2020. Hard to believe 20% is "free".

[Hannibal]

It's moot. She'll get her nominee through unless she nominates Stephen Reinhardt or someone comparable. Which she won't.

She'll get whoever she wants, and it will be an anti free speech, racially-charged regressive leftist who thinks that the Constitution is just a rough guideline that you shouldn't pay attention to anyways since it was written by white slaveowners or something.