Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[visionary]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265138-exclusive-house-republicans-recruited-carson-for-speaker

Exclusive: House Republicans recruited Carson for Speaker

 

House Republicans reached out to GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson in 2014 about replacing John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Carson told The Hill on Thursday.

 

“They were looking for an alternative, they were looking for someone strong and courageous who might really be able to add some spine and some backbone,” Carson said. “I was very flattered that there were several members that thought I’d fit the bill very well, but I think it played out correctly the way that it did.”

 

There is no rule stipulating that the Speaker be a member of the House.

 

A second source with knowledge of the situation said that in 2014 “several” House conservatives summoned Carson to Capitol Hill to pitch him on the idea of becoming the next Speaker in the event that they were successful in voting the Ohio Republican out of the position in 2015.

Carson met with the Republicans, but said he turned down their offer because he was gearing up for a presidential run.

[Larry]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265138-exclusive-house-republicans-recruited-carson-for-speaker

Exclusive: House Republicans recruited Carson for Speaker

You know, I hear that, in 2000, the Chief Justice offered to appoint him President.

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker

Trump trashing Time Mag for calling it "Person of the Year" instead of "Man of the Year." He bemoans political correctness.
8:17 PM

 

https://twitter.com/wpjenna

Trump supporters are now pointing out people they think are imposters and shouting: Out! Out!

8:03 PM

Kind of scary....

 

https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny

Trump staffers and crowd pointing out people they think are protestors. Like wearing a Scarlet Letter. “I didn’t do anything!” woman says.

8:03 PM

 

“Oh, would I love to run against @BernieSanders. That would be a dream come true,” @realDonaldTrump says.
8:04 PM

 

Trump: "Confiscate his coat. It’s about 10 degrees below zero outside. Keep his coat. Tell him we’ll send it to him in a couple of weeks."
8:07 PM

 

Trump: “We need security. Come on security, move faster! Come on, we have to get the security moving faster. Come on, fellas.”
8:13 PM

 

Protestors seem to be losing patience, just screaming loudly at Trump and walking out on their own. I’ve lost track of how many...
8:21 PM

 

Another group of protesters shed their jackets: Bernie shirts! They scream and walk out on their own. Police can’t keep up….
8:23 PM

[chipwhich]

You know, I hear that, in 2000, the Chief Justice offered to appoint him President.

If it could happen for Weiner anything is possible.

[88Comrade2000]

Woo Hoo, my candidate:Gary Johnson formally entered the race on Wednesday.

 

He has no chance in hell, but I will vote for him again.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/328148-gary-johnson-2016-presidential-bid/

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

Yeah, in side-by-side video, Chris Hayes was showing the Trump rally, while speaking with people who were asked upon entering the event if they were Trump supporters...when they said "no", they were told to leave or face arrest for trespassing on a "private event". 

Twenty thousand tickets for a 1,400 person venue is just stupid, then call it private.

What a jackass.

[Kilmer17]

I wish all candidates would face people who oppose them in the trail.

[Larry]

I wish all candidates would face people who oppose them in the trail.

 

Yeah, I recall making the claim, years ago, that I figured that being a politician was like doing stand up comedy. 

 

If you can't handle a heckler, you're in the wrong job. 

 

---

 

Although I also get the impression that a lot of these anti- people are a lot more organized, and are there with the intention, not of presenting an opposing view, or making a reasoned argument, but simply with the intent of preventing the rally from happening, at all.  (Or of trying to grab the attention for themselves, a la Westborough Baptist Church.) 

[JMS]

Didn't he follow that up with something to the effect of "but I know it's the right decision"?  I doubt there is anything there to stay tuned for.

 

I didn't hear that follow up.   But it would have been nearly impossible for him to have been successful getting into the race back when he announced he wasn't running.   It would be even harder if he decided to get in now.   There just isn't enough time to get an organization together in each state, and then have that organization execute to gather all the signatures and get one on the ballot in each state.

 

I think Jim Web is seriously thinking about getting in the race.  But he's trying to calculate now is can he get on enough ballots to win.   I don't think anybody thinks he would be an all the ballots.

[JMS]

You know, I hear that, in 2000, the Chief Justice offered to appoint him President.

 

No No I've heard that rumor about Carson and the house before..  That offer of making Carson speaker went out to a bunch of different accomplished surgeons.   Evidently after much contemplation the GOP majority in the house felt they needed a surgeon as speaker to assist in removing their heads from where they had become impacted.

[pjfootballer]

I live close to Rock Hill, SC. I'm on my way to the chiropractor and what do I see, but a sign at Winthrop University and a long ass line of cars to see..

Donald Trump.

He's here speaking.

[chipwhich]

As someone who hates debt, I am always amused at the idea of the discussion of how things are gonna get paid for.  We aren't paying our way now lol.  We borrow it to pay for it.  It's phantom accounting LOL

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/upshot/hillary-clintons-twist-on-paid-leave-she-plans-to-tax-wealthiest.html

 

Hillary Clinton’s Twist on Paid Leave: She Plans to Tax Wealthiest

Hillary Clinton explained her proposal for paid family leave for the first time on Thursday, and it shared a lot with other politicians’ plans: 12 weeks of paid time off to care for a new child or a sick family member or to recover from an illness or injury.

 

The difference was how she plans to pay for it.

 

Mrs. Clinton proposed taxing the wealthiest Americans. Plans by others have called for new payroll taxes for everyone to finance a federal paid leave fund, or federal tax credits to encourage businesses to voluntarily offer leave.

 

The Clinton campaign was vague about the details of the financing. “American families need paid leave, and to get there, Hillary will ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share,” her campaign’s announcement said. “She’ll ensure that the plan is fully paid for by a combination of tax reforms impacting the most fortunate.”

 

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said the plan would guarantee that people who had worked a minimum number of hours would receive at least two-thirds of their pay, up to a ceiling.

[dchogs]

hillary is brutal, and it is a damned shame that:

1. there isn't another viable (as in, the DNC allows them to survive- unlike bernie) democratic option

2. there isn't a republican candidate that is sane. i could hold my nose and vote R against hillary if there were some legitimate centrist candidates.

i saw a clip of debate footage featuring bush sr and reagan talking immigration (on FB). the current republican party isn't reagan's (or bush sr's) party at all. based on that clip and extrapolating forward, i'd easily vote for either of those gentlemen over hillary.

[tshile]

Noah Smith usually writes about economics. He's pretty left, whatever that is worth. I enjoy reading his blog because from what I can tell he's pretty smart (whatever thats worth)

Anyways, he posted this one on how the left talks about race. The only thing I think he got wrong is that I think it's already happening. I already see it. The funny part is relating it to how the left already talks about trump supporters. I think this is being underestimated.

I also think the general points about why talking about race is hard applies to the current political environment quite well.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-left-talks-about-race.html?m=1

[twa]

i saw a clip of debate footage featuring bush sr and reagan talking immigration (on FB). the current republican party isn't reagan's (or bush sr's) party at all. based on that clip and extrapolating forward, i'd easily vote for either of those gentlemen over hillary.

 

 

what was that....10 million illegals immigrants ago???  

 

 

and preceding immigration reform passing that 'promised'   controlling it.

 

even Reagan and Bush would get tired of the BS excuses being shoveled today

[btfoom]

Latest on Clinton and her on-going e-mail fiasco:

 

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/

 

Smoking Gun: Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense

by Keith Koffler

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/print/'>

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

[tshile]

Didn't we mock Fiorina for suggesting we do exactly this during a debate?

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/us-government-tech-company-terrorism-hunting/

[Kilmer17]

If it turns out that Clinton knew there were classified emails and directed someone to scrub them so the classified status didn't show up, she should go to jail.

I'm not sure how anyone could defend that.

[Larry]

Latest on Clinton and her on-going e-mail fiasco:

Is there such a thing as classified talking points? I thought talking points were things that people were supposed to, you know, talk about.

[chipwhich]

Is there such a thing as classified talking points? I thought talking points were things that people were supposed to, you know, talk about.

So a classified meeting can't have talking points? Do they not, you know, talk about stuff?

[sacase]

Is there such a thing as classified talking points? I thought talking points were things that people were supposed to, you know, talk about.

Yes there are classified talking points. They happen and a lot of interagency meetings and working groups. Hell, there are talking points at internal meetings and working groups. 

[visionary]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/01/08/f5d7c5a2-b48d-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

These are the towns that love Donald Trump

 

This old mill town is best known for what it used to be, when textile factories on the Merrimack River provided employment for thousands of immigrants from Ireland, Russia and Greece.

 

That town is long gone, and a new one is fighting to emerge. Despite being home to a University of Massachusetts campus, only about 1 in 5 residents has a bachelor’s degree. The median household income is about $49,500, lagging national and state medians. Nineteen percent of the city’s 110,000 residents live in poverty.

 

“The strength of this community is the strength of our people,” said the city’s just-departed mayor, Rodney M. Elliott, a Democrat. “We’re not wealthy in terms of economic income, but we find strength in our people.”

 

This is the kind of city where billionaire Donald Trump likes to hold his presidential campaign rallies, and where his message seems to resonate most.

 

The rowdy, boisterous events that have come to define and propel Trump’s presidential campaign are usually not the ones he holds in early voting states such as Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

Instead, he is increasingly defined by the rallies held in cities that rarely see presidential candidates this early in the process, if ever. They are also often places that are struggling: Mobile, Ala., where the unemployment rate is still higher than the national and state rates; Springfield, Ill., where the manufacturing industry has yet to recover from the recession; and Beaumont, Tex., which is worrying over the effects of low gas prices.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marco-rubio-boots-rivals-masculinity-217519

Bootgate: Rivals dig at Marco Rubio’s masculinity

 

Only during an election cycle in which a billionaire who lives in a gold-plated Fifth Avenue apartment serves as the blue-collar candidate could it make any sense that a first-generation American who’s been in debt much of his adult life can be so easily depicted as an effete elitist for wearing a pair of $130 boots — shiny and fashion-forward as those boots may be.

 

Yet here we are. Roughly 48 hours after a photo of the high-heeled boots Marco Rubio wore in New Hampshire went viral, several Republican competitors are exploiting the opportunity to tease the young senator.

 

And with a barrage of subtle ripostes, Donald Trump and Chris Christie among others are doing something potentially more damaging: They’re questioning Marco’s Man Card.

 

“They’re clearly trying to effeminize Marco Rubio,” said Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who guided John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “Wearing black, high-heeled booties is not exactly a statement of masculinity. And this is not groundbreaking. The sartorial choices of candidates have long been used by their opponents to say something negative about a larger personality trait, sometimes to devastating effect.”

 

You don’t have to go back too far to find examples of politicians whose opponents successfully seized on their unfortunate grooming habits, fashion choices and personal pastimes to define them in a negative and lasting way. Style, in politics, sometimes can become something akin to substance.

[Larry]

Yes there are classified talking points. They happen and a lot of interagency meetings and working groups. Hell, there are talking points at internal meetings and working groups. 

 

Well, being completely ignorant of such things, I have to take your word for it.  Thanks for the response. 

[skinsmarydu]

Is there such a thing as classified talking points? I thought talking points were things that people were supposed to, you know, talk about.

 

Well, being completely ignorant of such things, I have to take your word for it.  Thanks for the response. 

Like you, Larry, I'm suspect. 

Why classify what you're going to talk about to the public?  After all, they beat someone else all up around the head & ears for THEIR talking points on another issue, and those were apparently as public as the sun...and haven't found anything nefarious yet, after some 600 hours of testimony.

[chipwhich]

anything nefarious yet.....

 

Just talk to anyone that knows her.....

 

In other news, Hillary has the weight of the world on her shoulders....I just want to know what "progressive" movement Hillary has been a part of other than progressing her net worth, and that of her cronies...

 

I wonder what a Trump Supreme Court is gonna look like...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-supreme-court_568fbb2fe4b0a2b6fb6f9ec5

 

Hillary Clinton Says A Republican President Would 'Break' The Supreme Court Clinton said that the court's composition "could undermine virtually every pillar of the progressive movement."

The future of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and Hillary Clinton wants you to know she's the one who can save it.

 

In an op-ed for The Boston Globe published Friday, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential hopeful explained how the 2016 election marks a "make-or-break moment" for the balance of power on the high court -- and what could happen if a Republican is elected president.

 

"The stakes are clear," Clinton wrote of the slate of cases now pending before the court. "In a single term, conservative justices could undermine virtually every pillar of the progressive movement."

 

It appears that Clinton did her homework, as she delves into the particulars of some of the biggest cases the court has heard in recent months, as well as those it's about to hear -- including cases on affirmative action, immigration, voting rights and the livelihood of public unions. 

 

"Those who care about the fairness of elections, the future of unions, racial disparities in universities, the rights of women, or the future of our planet, should care about who appoints the next justices," Clinton wrote.

The current demographics of the Supreme Court are what make the coming election such a relevant issue. Clinton noted that three justices on the court -- Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia -- will all be in their 80s by the time November rolls around, "which is past the court's average retirement age."

 

Clinton appears to be playing catch-up with the field of Republican canididates, many of whom have devoted significant airtime to the issue of who sits on the court. In debates and on the trail, various GOP candidates have spent time discussing the merits and demerits of specific justices. 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whom Clinton singled out by name, is perhaps the most vocal of them all. In November, Cruz told Bloomberg Politics that Republicans have an "abysmal record" picking Supreme Court justices. He has vowed to pick "rock-ribbed conservatives" to the court, and has also said that Chief Justice John Roberts -- whom Cruz himself once supported -- is actually a bad choice to lead the court because he lacks a "true conservative record."

Democrats, by contrast, have not once brought up the composition of the Supreme Court during debates, and have only glancingly referred to "litmus tests" for whom they would eventually pick -- as both Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have done in reference to the court's Citizens United decision.

 

Clinton's op-ed is also notable in that she argues how Republicans see this election as their chance to "pack the courts with jurists who will turn back the clock" on progress -- apparently an acknowledgement that some of the more controversial cases to go before the justices got their start in lower courts that were willing to hear them.