Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11894321)

I am very concerned. On the one hand Sanders is calling for a political revolution. "Revolution" is a dog whistle word in certain quarters. Then you point out the number of white guys with neck tattoos at the Trump rallies. It wouldn't take much for Trumps' tattooed tough white guys to organize into their own informal SA and engage in major street battles with the "Black Lives Matter" and "Occupy Wall Street" toughs. Of course Trump will deny any link. Wouldn't anyone? Cleveland is where it could happen.

Most of Hitler's speeches were a joke. I know because I don't need a translation of them. Just as empty of any substance as Trump's. The difference was in the delivery, at which Hitler is acknowledged as a genius. The gestures, the look on his face, the rise and fall of the pitch of his delivery, the sudden and dramatic pauses (all practiced before a mirror, by the way). He was a political rock star. Trump is no match.

We talk about qualifications for the Presidency, by the way.

1. Hitler was a failed artist and a message runner in the Bavarian Army who suffered blinding in a gas attack and other injuries. Got the Iron Cross. Brave, but not a stand out. President Hindenburg named him Chancellor in January 1933 and when Hindenburg died, Hitler assumed the powers of the Presidency. He rejuvenated the moribund German economy and then threw it all away on his ill-advised war.

2. Obama joined a law firm after graduation from Harvard and handled a few civil rights cases, did some community organizing, was a nondescript state senator and an ad hoc lecturer in Constitutional Law (where it is said he mostly talked about how the Constitution was a barrier to social justice) - also not a stand out.

3. Trump spent his adult life building an international powerhouse of hotels and office buildings, during the course of which he learned to bribe high US and foreign officials to get things done. Sky-high negatives will doom him in the general, but canny enough to keep splitting the anti-Trump vote so he'll win pluralities and take the delegates in the winner-take-all primaries. He's getting a lot of help in that effort from two candidates too blind to see they can't make it.

4. Clinton? One of dozens of First Ladies, a nondescript Senator from NY, a failed SecState, and undoubtedly fully bought and paid for through bribes paid into the Foundation by Saudi Arabia and others and through Bill's speeches abroad. Governed by an insatiable lust for money and power - not qualified.

No one is qualified in my less than humble opinion. I expect that my guy will get crushed in the Florida primary and then I'll have no favourite.

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11894339)

Sanders, Clinton, and Kasich, all have extensive experience and qualifications, IMO. Even Cruz's resume is pretty impressive. Other than Trump, Rubio is probably the least "qualified" and his experience isn't dissimilar to what Obama's was in 2008. I don't think that experience is everything though. There is, literally, no job that prepares one for the presidency. In my less than humble opinion, temperament, seriousness, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and personal convictions, are much more important than experience or some notion of qualifications.

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11894421)

Clinton/Sanders town hall about to kick off on CNN.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11894424)

I can only take so many debates and town halls. And still more than 6 months to.

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11894425)

There's really no need to announce it every time.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11894424)

I can only take so many debates and town halls. And still more than 6 months to go.

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11894433)

Kind of reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Long March in the 1930s, except we have this slog that begins in its earliest stages about 18 months after the general - and for the losers even before Inauguration Day.

Watching Harris Faulkner interview two Democratic pollsters and one Republican establishment guy. The pollsters were quite rightly warning about the R Party cracking up if the Party doesn't nominate the guy with the most voters behind him. The establishment guy declared, essentially, that he (and presumably other party bosses) won't allow Trump to be nominated. They would rather throw away the chance to win the election by ramming Romney or someone like him down their throats. [Think Harold Wilson, 1964 - gets Party leadership following "an intricate series of cuts, thrusts and parries, carried out in complete darkness."] If that happens, the Republican Party will go the way of its predecessor, the Whigs.

The pollsters pointed out that both Trump's and Sanders' followers are united in being furious with the establishment - and that Sanders' people know that the nomination is rigged for Hillary.

It would not surprise me to see Trump go third party and unify both his people and the disaffected Sanders people as the rage against the machine. Probably not enough to deny Hillary the electoral votes of California, New York, Mass. and Maryland, so she probably wins, but a large majority of the voters may well have rejected her in the general if Trump's people and the voters for the rump party of Republicans are considered. How effectively could she govern? It's not looking good, people, and is starting to look like the 1912 election.

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 11894464)

Hillary got skewed by the lady who had her Insurance premium go through the roof after Ocare.

Went on about getting non profits involved on the Exchange, duh you closed the one in Colorado down.

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 11894464)

Hillary got skewed by the lady who had her Insurance premium go through the roof after Ocare.

Went on about getting non profits involved on the Exchange, duh you closed the one in Colorado down.