Newsmax is reporting Cruz at 28%, Now Leading Trump at 25% in Iowa.
This is getting interesting.
If Cruz wins, he'll definitely gain steam and get more voters in NH, putting Trump in a risky spot.
If Trump wins, anti-Trump voters in NH might become that much more motivated to stop him with the primary turnout. But that doesn't necessarily mean it will make things easier for Cruz.
Consider my breath bated. Because I honestly don't know who I want to win. Cruz is still my go-to, but Trump is not without good qualities in this election.
Hillary is holding a slim lead over Sander at 51% to his 49%.
Again, I'm not sure who I want to win since Hillary is a sinking ship whether she gets the nomination or not. Her PR will take a wild down turn and demotivate younger anti-establishment voters.
On the other Sanders is an idiot. He's not a gaffing Biden mind you, but he's going to lose some appeal as people realize his so-called anti-establishment positions are no different Obama's.
.....Are you trying to use Jeb's pathetic level of support as a point of Republican embarrassment?
The only ones being humiliated by Jeb's plummet in the poles are his campaign workers and the same establishment fucks that tried to kill off Trump's and Cruz's chances at a nomination.
It was fun watching Hillary declare victory for herself in Iowa, while the votes were still being counted, before she was declared victor by the media. And as she, chameleon-like, tried to swipe Bernie Sanders' schtick and declared herself a "progressive" the audience booed her, and began chanting "She's a liar!"
Nomiki Konst (the best looking liberal pundit out there) summed it up well: "She [Hillary]'s been in Iowa for 2 years, and she won by a coin-toss!"
And a highly questionable set of 6 coin tosses that Hillary oddly won all of, at that.
I was glad to see Jeb Bush not make any traction. One pundit (I think Frank Luntz) said Jeb spent over $2,000 for every one of the few votes he got. He can't drop out soon enough. The sooner Jeb drops out of the race and stops bombarding with negative ads attacking other Republicans, the better.
I don't share Pariah's disdain for Rubio. While Rubio is not as much an insurgent as Cruz or Trump, he is eloquent and has cross-party appeal, particularly for Hispanic voters. And he's the most eloquent Republican since Newt Gingrich, with an inspiring optimistic vision for the country. I resist Rubio most on his leniency toward illegal immigrants ("First we need to secure the border, then we can talk about amnesty...") in most ways he is arguably the [borrowing the phrase from William F. Buckley] most conservative Republican who can get elected.
But Cruz is the most conservative, and after his Iowa victory, has a good chance of expanding that victory into southern states. It's getting interesting.
I don't share Pariah's disdain for Rubio....I resist Rubio most on his leniency toward illegal immigrants ("First we need to secure the border, then we can talk about amnesty...") in most ways he is arguably the [borrowing the phrase from William F. Buckley] most conservative Republican who can get elected.
He is an open boarders cunt and an establishment agent. Whatever eloquence he exhibits is bluster and subterfuge.
He's another Ryan in the making: He's going to get into office and proceed to break every promise after talking a big game about defending conservatism. Like a good republican foil for the democrats, he's going to play the mean and nasty villain that the DEMs eventually smite so that they tell their shills that they're looking out for the common man while the republicans can say to their base, "Hey, at least we tried amirite?"
Rubio's surprise close third makes me think back to Jeb's attacks on Rubio seemingly out of nowhere in one of the previous debates. People speculated that he was simply vying for more support from establishment voters in the face of a surging Trump with whom it was obviously fruitless to quarrel. But the popularity of Trump, Cruz, and Carson made it seem like he was fighting for an irrelevant seventh place more than anything else. Rather odd.
Then, suddenly, Rubio skyrockets into third place, bare inches from Trump with what Rubio's team admits was an unexpected insurgency.
The obvious explanation to the casual observer would be that it was punishment for Trump skipping out on the Iowa debate and, therefore, shedding voters to Rubio and Cruz. But if that many people were voting for Trump, odds are a more sizable number would go to Cruz himself who, despite being neck and neck with Trump throughout the entire Caucus, didn't see more than a three point uptick over Trump.
With Rubio and Jeb doing so poorly up to this point, I figured that they were both simply banking on a brokered convention due to Trump being unlikable/risky. But after tonight, I'm beginning to think that maybe, perhaps Jeb knew that whichever candidate secured the distant third establishment candidacy was going to get into--at least--a close third regardless of how pitiable said candidates numbers would. Perhaps he knew that his place would be assured not by any establishment voters, but by establishment powers......
It was fun watching Hillary declare victory for herself in Iowa, while the votes were still being counted, before she was declared victor by the media. And as she, chameleon-like, tried to swipe Bernie Sanders' schtick and declared herself a "progressive" the audience booed her, and began chanting "She's a liar!"
Nomiki Konst (the best looking liberal pundit out there) summed it up well: "She [Hillary]'s been in Iowa for 2 years, and she won by a coin-toss!"
And a highly questionable set of 6 coin tosses that Hillary oddly won all of, at that.
.....
The coin toss's were county delegates and not the state delegates so Clinton didn't win because of coin toss's. She was the first woman to ever win Iowa and should be able to give a victory speech like anyone else would have.
Before the experts have even declared her the victor?!? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders is struggling to not challenge it. Everyone can plainly see that it's a 0.3% victory, in a contest of roughly 100,000 votes among the top 3 candidates, where even a few coin-tosses to determine the outcome of several counties make a huge difference. Again, it is not a Republican, but a liberal who made this observation. One of many.
Also funny was the beautiful, eloquent victory speech by Marco Rubio for his miraculous performance rising 8 points above what was projected in polls for him to gain.
Except... he didn't win, he came in third! The media celebration of Rubio's "victory" was discussed with annoyance by both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, both of whom got thousands more votes than Rubio, and yet the media acted as if they lost!
Originally Posted By: Pariah
He is an open boarders cunt and an establishment agent. Whatever eloquence he exhibits is bluster and subterfuge.
He's another Ryan in the making: He's going to get into office and proceed to break every promise after talking a big game about defending conservatism. Like a good republican foil for the democrats, he's going to play the mean and nasty villain that the DEMs eventually smite so that they tell their shills that they're looking out for the common man while the republicans can say to their base, "Hey, at least we tried amirite?"
It's a one party system. And it's left.
That would explain why the [80%-plus liberal] media is celebrating victory for his 3rd-place showing.
My worst fear is that another RINO is elected president, who betrays [like W. Bush] Reagan-conservative principles, and further diminishes the brand of what Republicans stand for. And if amnesty is given to millions of illegals (the estimates are about 20 million illegals, but that number has been touted since 2002, and I think the real number is about 35 or 40 million who would receive amnesty) that would tip the scales and give the DNC a permanent majority, and make the DNC like the Pri in Mexico, where they ruled the country for 100 years and just corruptly rubber-stamped whatever they wanted unopposed, because the other party ceased to have the numbers to ever win another election. While I have a suspicion and concern that Rubio would be such a Republican, you seem convinced of it, Pariah.
From last night, Ted Cruz voiced well the concerns of disaffected voters who have voted for him, Trump, and Ben Carson (over 60% of the votes). His comment about Bob Dole's remarks is chilling. That Republicans would rather see Hillary Clinton win, because that would advance their agenda better than Ted Cruz! This underscores why the Republican establishment has to be overthrown.
Donald Trump, with more humor, had similar remarks about the media hyping Rubio's third-place "victory".
Before the experts have even declared her the victor?!? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders is struggling to not challenge it. Everyone can plainly see that it's a 0.3% victory, in a contest of roughly 100,000 votes among the top 3 candidates, where even a few coin-tosses to determine the outcome of several counties make a huge difference. Again, it is not a Republican, but a liberal who made this observation. One of many.
...
Her campaign did the math and she also didn't use the word victory in that speech. You would have no problem with it if it had been a republican with a narrow win. And no, the coin flips didn't make the difference. There have been many fact checks on this that you can check out. Nor does it matter if it's a conservative or a liberal saying it, it's still incorrect. County delegates are not the State delegates that formed the .3 gap.
Btw it's not just about winning obviously. Meeting expectations and surpassing them plays a role. Rubio's 3rd place was better for him than Clinton's first place was for her.
While I have a suspicion and concern that Rubio would be such a Republican, you seem convinced of it, Pariah.
Yup. Rubio showed his true colors when he hopped into bed with people like McCain, Schumer, and Boehner immediately after the Tea Party put him into office. Then he tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming to be against amnesty all the while trying to concern-troll republicans on "deporting grandmothers"--just like a good McCain lackey.
Conservative icon and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly has released a new report extensively detailing Sen. Marco Rubio’s efforts to deceive the American people in his determined pursuit to open the nation’s borders.
Schlafly’s 15-page report on Rubio’s “betrayal” provides hyperlinked sources to document Rubio’s “big con.”
Schlafly’s memo warns the American people that Rubio’s push to deliver globalist immigration policies for his donors is not finished. “There is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration,” the memo states. “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as a centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.”
The report is broken up into more than a dozen subsections, including “LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA,” in which Schlafly details how Rubio made countless false promises to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, National Review, and others. “Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him,” the memo states. “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”
Although in recent months, many of National Review’s writers have sought to boost Rubio’s candidacy, the memo later notes that “National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.” The memo reports, “To this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.”
Another subsection of the memo entitled “AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT” states:
In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss. They explained:
‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.’
Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.
The memo also documents the back-room deals involved in the bill. A subsection entitled, “IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT” reports that “Rubio’s lawyer, who wrote the bill, also enriched his clients through it.”
The “FIANCÉ VISAS” subsection points out that “Rubio’s bill opened the floodgates for fiancé visas — and fiancé children — an unprecedented security risk and another handout to the foreign immigration lobby.”
In a subsection titled, “DECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT,” the memo states:
Revealing Rubio’s character, it is also worth recalling that during his introduction press conference, Rubio stood frozen like a statue as ICE officer, council President, and former Marine Chris Crane was removed from the room for trying to ask a question. Shameful. Crane would later testify: ‘Never have I seen such contempt for law enforcement as I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight.’
In a section entitled, “BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS,” the memo notes that “Rubio is also the only candidate in the race still advocating citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and all that necessarily entails in terms of fiscal costs and chain migration. (Jeb’s book did not call for universal citizenship, as Rubio does.) To this day, Rubio has not backed off a single policy in the Gang of Eight bill (see more here).”
The conclusion of Schlafly’s memo is posted here in full:
There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain or Sen. Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.
The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.
The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill. Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan. Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).
All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration. Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.
Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.
Newsmax is currently reporting Trump in first place with 24% with Kasich and Cruz constantly edging each other out at a micro-thin close second. So it's 24s across the board......With Rubio and Bush at 5% or lower. Ah, schadenfreude.
Clinton is getting her ass beat by Sanders. Reap what you sow, I guess. One step back from the WH, two steps closer to an indictment.
Doubt she'll get to that point though considering all the dirt she probably has on Obama and friends.
In any event, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised about Kasich considering NH is establishment central. It's pretty irritating to see his name so high on the board, but at least this means Rubio won't get second place again and that Jeb won't get second place at all. I'm also fairly comfortable in the belief that Kasich won't achieve such high numbers in Carolina. Although, with Cruz and Trump splitting the anti-establishment vote, there is a danger that kasich, or someone similar, could edge them out.
After doing some more research, I'm less depressed about Kasich's turnout being that much better than Cruz's. Apparently, Kasich has been on the ground in NH for months and attended at least a hundred town hall meetings. Like Bush and Rubio, he's spent a lot of time and money on exposure in the state, essentially betting the farm on it. By comparison, Cruz has spent less than a million with minimal face time--with Trump being a similar case.
Despite the wildly disproportionate level of spending between the two camps, the more economic anti-establishment insurgents are the ones who cleaned house.
Cruz called both his and Trump's NH performances a resounding success for grassroots conservatism. Seems right on the money.
Sanders' and Hillary's campaigns, on the other hand, seem substantially more money-driven. According to [url=www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-218906]Politico[/url], Sanders outspent Clinton in the state 3-1.
That was a fun political commercial. The humor in it makes it much more palatable than any of the latest round of Jeb Bush super-PAC ads attacking Rubio, Cruz and Trump. I wish Jeb would do the nation a favor and just drop out already, or focus on how his policy as president would be better, and stop committing fratricide on fellow Republicans. He should withdraw, and give his eventual endorsement support to whoever the final Republican nominee is.
The Cruz ad that unwittingly hired a porn star probably will get much attention only for that faux pas by the values-issue-centered Cruz campaign.
The pornstar girl in question is Amy Lindsay, although her stuff is only Cinemax-variety "softcore". I'm still not fully aware of where the line is drawn between hardcore and softcore.
Unfortunately, while we look at the issues, most vote with such warped priorities that these are the kind of ads they feel are necessary to draw the public's attention.
I've often thought that it was better in the days where citizens had to be property owners to vote in elections. Because that at least tested whether people had a basic understanding of economics, business and current events. Vs. now, where 50% of the public (at least) is collecting state assistance, and votes only for the party that continues to give them free stuff.
Rubio and Cruz effectively tied. And that means potential Cruz voters are hemorrhaging into Trump's base.
Even if it is possible, however unlikely, for Cruz to get a handle on the nomination, the perception of Trump's populist rise being totally unstoppable is only going to be reinforced, and thus strengthen his turnout in the states to come.
Furthermore, despite Beck's best efforts, Cruz is still going to have less voters than he would have had sans Trump, predictably putting him in third place from here on out behind Rubio, who will be in second thanks to the establishment. Cruz is attempting to strong arm the establishment vote by saying that he's the only one that can beat Trump, but I get the feeling that establishment politicians would rather deal with Trump than with him anyway, so that probably won't work.
[youtube]Jeb! is out.
Rubio and Cruz effectively tied. And that means potential Cruz voters are hemorrhaging into Trump's base.
Even if it is possible, however unlikely, for Cruz to get a handle on the nomination, the perception of Trump's populist rise being totally unstoppable is only going to be reinforced, and thus strengthen his turnout in the states to come.
Furthermore, despite Beck's best efforts, Cruz is still going to have less voters than he would have had sans Trump, predictably putting him in third place from here on out behind Rubio, who will be in second thanks to the establishment. Cruz is attempting to strong arm the establishment vote by saying that he's the only one that can beat Trump, but I get the feeling that establishment politicians would rather deal with Trump than with him anyway, so that probably won't work.
This contest is over. I don't see Rubio folding his tent after this and the delegate math doesn't work for Cruz whether he wins in his backyard or not. Further, it is a pipe dream to believe that the people behind Rubio would really get behind Cruz in droves. Say hello to your candidate, Donald Trump!
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Sooooooooo....Trump wins the three states that were most likely to go to either Kasich or Rubio (Mass., Vt., and Va.) and Rubio wins the same state that elected Pat "The Body" Ventura as Governor.....This is absolutely delicious.
Of course, I would much rather Cruz be cleaning up and making a fool of Rubio, but it's not too hard for me to enjoy the Trump wins thus far.
Originally Posted By: iggy
Further, it is a pipe dream to believe that the people behind Rubio would really get behind Cruz in droves.
When we say "droves", how big are we talking? Clearly, Cruz isn't going to absorb the open-boarder cunts from Rubio's camp whether he closes up shop or not, but a significant portion of hangers-on for Rubio are probably sticking with him purely because they are traditionally establishment. As such, if Rubio does throw in the towel, Cruz would probably snatch up--at least--50% of Rubio's portion.
Even supposing Rubio does as he says he will and campaigns in all fifty states (like a pathetic idiot), and provided that the establishment crowd isn't voting out of shear bitterness, people are going to see that he's a lost cause, inevitably shedding voters onto Cruz.
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Do you honestly believe that millennials are going to shill for Clinton at this point? Are you really that delusional?
Rather than a rally behind Ted campaign, many of those establishment guys are saying they'd vote Hillary. Those who don't say they would hold their nose and vote Trump in the general. Nary a word about Cruz is ever spoken by those guys because...Newsflash: everyone but his fanboys hate Ted Cruz! The states that he could carry will go red anyway and I don't see any real proof that he could flip Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia come people really tuning in during the general. He can't even win his foolproof base despite his best efforts to dog whistle them at every turn. He just can't win...
Also, say what you will about Rubio's possible win but it is coming from outside of the usual red states. You can massage that into a message of electability a lot easier than you can saying I win states that go red anyway.
Rather than a rally behind Ted campaign, many of those establishment guys are saying they'd vote Hillary. Those who don't say they would hold their nose and vote Trump in the general. Nary a word about Cruz is ever spoken by those guys because...Newsflash: everyone but his fanboys hate Ted Cruz! The states that he could carry will go red anyway and I don't see any real proof that he could flip Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia come people really tuning in during the general. He can't even win his foolproof base despite his best efforts to dog whistle them at every turn. He just can't win...
The politicians hate Cruz. And everyone hates the politicians. While I have no doubt that there's a large chunk of people who simply do whatever McConnell and Ryan say, your average republican--establishment or otherwise--is only going to inherit second-hand hatred characteristic of an unaccountable politic rather than a prevalent culture of dislike.
And I don't know what dog whistles you're referring to, but the people flocking to Trump don't necessarily do so out of any dislike for Cruz. Of the apparent populist tendencies between the two of them, Trump draws upon them much more flagrantly than Cruz, and therefore he attracts a larger populist vote. Were Trump not present, there's no doubt that Cruz would have snatched them up.
The only reason that Romney didn't win in 2012 is because three million republicans stayed home. This is a different ball game: Trump is winning an unprecedented combination of states in the primaries right now, and with jobs being shipped out to Mexico while H-1B workers are shipped in, he is taking advantage of a cross-party outrage with far more efficacy than any other candidate. Cruz could do the same assuming he competes with Trump more appropriately.
The primaries themselves are getting record turnouts out the ass for republicans. The Dems, by comparison, couldn't even get fifty percent of the turnout that they received three years ago in South Carolina. One of the reasons that Cruz and Trump went for it this time around is because Democrats are in a state of super low energy. I'm not saying they're going to be easy to beat, but there has been a clear seven year long disillusionment process, the effects of which can be felt without even a single pollster. Even in California, millennials are just not giving a shit about Democrats--they're all registering Independent.
Also, say what you will about Rubio's possible win but it is coming from outside of the usual red states. You can massage that into a message of electability a lot easier than you can saying I win states that go red anyway.
GOP turnout and GOP vs Dem turnout numbers are trending parallel to 2000...the year the Supreme Court decided the election. You put Cruz at the top of the ticket and you really think those folks are going to sit at home? They'll get out and hold their noses just like so many Republicans will when their guy doesn't get the nod.
Cruz is trending to what could be below threshold in Florida. Rubio dropping out could put Trump above 50% (needing about a third of his votes at most) there and effectively neutering Cruz's claim that he has a high floor and a low ceiling. This claim that a one-on-one will go against Trump has no legs...
GOP turnout and GOP vs Dem turnout numbers are trending parallel to 2000...the year the Supreme Court decided the election. You put Cruz at the top of the ticket and you really think those folks are going to sit at home? They'll get out and hold their noses just like so many Republicans will when their guy doesn't get the nod.
Yes I do. Because Hillary is totally detached from millennials.
From what I've seen in California, the thirty-and-below liberal crowd only got excited and really determined when Sanders offered an alternative to Hillary. I wouldn't necessarily say they're as zealous as the Ron Paul-tards, but every one of them I have spoken to has made it apparent that they're going to write his name in if he does not get the nomination. Otherwise, they're just not going to participate.
If Sanders won the nomination--which I don't think is going to happen--then I would be worried about democrats not staying home. If an when he leaves the race, whatever energy the Dems have now will die down. And if he tries to endorse Hillary after being drummed out, it will simply be a kiss of death for both of them in the eyes of college lefties.
By comparison, lefty millennial knowledge of Ted Cruz is nil, and ultimately overshadowed by Trump.
Quote:
Cruz is trending to what could be below threshold in Florida. Rubio dropping out could put Trump above 50% (needing about a third of his votes at most) there and effectively neutering Cruz's claim that he has a high floor and a low ceiling. This claim that a one-on-one will go against Trump has no legs...
I didn't say Rubio was going to drop out prior to Florida. I was pointing out that his inability to keep Florida--a key state, as well as his home turf--will render moot any arguments of political relevance derived from his Minnesota win. in which case, he's being outdone in Florida.
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Trump is far from my dream candidate and he certainly doesn't have the general sewed up However: 1. I think the past six months have proven nobody should get over confident going against him. 2. The ' GOP candidate is supported by rassists' card gets played in every election. 3. If a half black community organizer with a Muslm middle name can get elected, anyone can.
In fact, if Trump's tactics had been used in 2008, we might have had a completely different result.
Trump wouldn't have stopped hammering Obama on his past like McCain did. And his candidness is proving to be effective at not only getting record turnouts, but also sending the media into a permanent meltdown mode.
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Trump is far from my dream candidate and he certainly doesn't have the general sewed up However: 1. I think the past six months have proven nobody should get over confident going against him. 2. The ' GOP candidate is supported by rassists' card gets played in every election. ...
Sorry I forget that in the GOP game it doesn't actually matter what a republican says or does as long as somebody pronounces that a nonrepublican has played a card, lol. I am however all for Hillary to keep the smack down going till long after Trump or whatever thing you guys end up nominating stops twitching.
Looks like Trump in Kentucky with La polls still open for another--roughly--twenty minutes. Is anyone really surprised that Cruz won in a place that sent Brownback back to the Gov's mansion despite plunging his state into the abyss and another place that elected the guy talking about these guys that come from other places to sell drugs and impregnate white girls? No, we're not surprised. What is surprising is the most recent ARG Michigan poll that has Kasich jump up about twenty points to beating Trump by 2. Stands as an outlier at the moment but...damn.
And, WB, seriously? "A spot on the screen"? It is some sort of something his body produced and which he reabsorbed. It is gross and just ewwww.... The debate the other night was the epitome of immaturity and vapidness. Don't blame me for the GOP letting it descend to that level. Don't blame me for Hillary. If/When it happens, then it will totally be on you guys and your kind.
Only if your from another country that hates us WB. Flush the toilet and get better candidates for your party.
None of the Republican candidates are being investigated by 100 agents of the FBI, with a pending indictment on treasonous charges hanging over them, regarding her illegal private e-mail server, where she revealed hundreds of top secret documents, many of them redacted by the FBI, that have put CIA field agents and foreign informants at risk of being killed. That has left her e-mails and those individuals and whole government departments that corresponded with Hillary on her server at risk of being hacked by the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, Al Qaida and ISIS.
None of the Republicans lied to the surviving families of those who died in Benghazi, where Hillary Clinton blamed the attacks on a Youtube video EVEN AS SHE CORRESPONDED BY E-MAIL WITH CHELSEA CLINTON AND THE LIBYAN GOVERMENT THAT SHE KNEW THOSE TALKING POINTS WERE FALSE!
Those alone, among many other corrupt acts, lies and crimes, make Hillary Clinton unworthy of being president. And hopefully unelectable. Apparently even PROVEN treason doesn't eliminate the most corrupt Democrat on the stage from eligibility to you.
They've called Louisiana for Trump. He still leads by 10% in KY. Looks like it might be an even split for the night between the pro-booger and pro-my-penis-is-"yuge" crowds...
And, WB, seriously? "A spot on the screen"? It is some sort of something his body produced and which he reabsorbed. It is gross and just ewwww.... The debate the other night was the epitome of immaturity and vapidness. Don't blame me for the GOP letting it descend to that level.
That's how you're rationalizing your tone? They're immature, so I'm gonna be immature too and talk about snot?
.....Nah, you're fulla shit. If you had just kept insulting Trump for his--to say the least--outspoken inelegance, then that would have been one thing. But putting that on par with Cruz's nasal malfunction is disingenuous to the point of ridiculous--especially in the face of Sanders and Clinton having histories of corruption and eccentricity that eclipse the GOP front runners.
No, you are just trying to cover for your guy. He could've wiped it away, but he made a cold, calculated decision to suck it up. It gives the impression of someone you do not want making that split second decision in the middle of the night. Sorry he had to go and make an impression like that, but add that to the list of things that isn't my fault this election cycle. It is totally on the level with Trump talking about his dick. Them's the breaks!
The Democrat debate from earlier tonight, March 6, 2016:
Bernie Sanders finally went after Clinton more aggressively, but the consensus is, too little too late. He can't possibly get enough delegates at this point to beat Hillary Clinton.
Unless he went after Hillary on Benghazi, and on her private e-mail server and related treason, to me he was never a serious candidate. And for my money, even in this debate he didn't explore these issues enough.
The 11th Republican debate from Detroit, Michigan on Thursday, March 3, 2016. Which is where Rubio was really flailing and getting into an insult-fest with Donald Trump.
This was the worst debate since... well... the (10th) Fort Worth, Texas CNN debate on February 25th:
In both you see Ted Cruz and particularly Marco Rubio stepping up their personal attacks on Trump, in a desperate bid to get more media coverage that Trump is dominating with such remarks, in a final last-ditch ploy to save their candidacies.
Particularly before the Fort Worth debate, I wonder if Rubio and Cruz spoke prior and coordinated their attack on Trump.
The 9th Republican primary debate, on CBS, in Greenville, South Carolina, from Feb 13, 2016:
I think it's helpful to have these debates available to watch online, as this has been a busy time for me, and I often haven't had the time to watch them when they are broadcast.
It seems to me there's a lot more debates this cycle than in previous primary seasons. Definitely not always with more substance.
The 8th Republican debate on ABC News, from Manchester, New Hampshire on February 6th, 2016:
The 7th Republican debate, from Des Moines, Iowa on January 28 2016:
The 6th Republican debate on Fox Business News, from Charleston South Carolina, on Jan 14 2016:
The FBN debate was the most substantive and informative I've watched.
Looks like Trump has rebounded. Already, declared winner in Mississippi. Pulling ahead pretty dominantly in Michigan. Latest poll had him ahead in Idaho (though it wasn't that recent if I remember correctly) and fuck all if anyone has done a poll in Hawaii.
Bottom line is that Trump is hemming in his competitors. Aside from Maine and Alaska, Cruz appears to have no more than a flyover country and home state appeal. Rubio and Kasich are bound for last stands in their home states. Things aren't looking promising for either, but Rubio especially looks to be in pretty bad shape. Trump, I think, can win the nomination with either two of those states. It is assured if he wins both. And, the best anyone else can hope for at this point is to force it to the floor in Cleveland.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Donald Trump leading the race to become the Republican nominee for President of the United States. However, if the field were to consolidate, the billionaire businessman would no longer be favored in a head-to-head situation, according to the survey.
The real estate mogul leads with 34 percent support nationally, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% with 25 percent, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79% at 18 percent, and John Kasich rounding out the field with 13 percent, the poll results say.
“Trump’s support has essentially remained unchanged for months,” the report released with the poll said.
Both Cruz and Rubio defeat Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head scenario.
Cruz easily defeats Trump head-to-head 54-41 percent. non-Cruz or Trump supporters prefer Cruz to Trump 72-17 percent.
Among “very conservative voters,” Cruz takes down Trump 60-34 percent. Among white evangelicals, Cruz handles Trump 64-31 percent.
Rubio also defeats Trump, but by smaller margins, 51-45 percent. Non-Rubio or Trump voters favor Rubio 69-23 percent. He, like Cruz, is favored by approximately 60% of women in a head-to-head with Trump.
Only 51 percent of those surveyed felt that they would be satisfied with Trump’s nomination, and 52 percent said they view him favorably. Cruz has the highest net favorability rating at 65 percent.
The poll also surveyed Democrat voters. It found that Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 16% nationally, 49-42 percent.
By a 69-29 percent divide, American view the current political system as “dysfunctional,” according to the survey. Yet, only 21 percent are angry at the government.
The ABC/WaPo poll sampled 1,000 adults nationwide.
Hardly surprising that Kasich supporters would shift to Rubio, but I find it rather bizarre that any portion of Cruz voters would shift to Rubio (although I have met some) let alone enough to give him an edge over Trump.
Taken at the Zenith of the #nevertrump movement. You are looking more desperate for a way to spin this than Dick Morris and the Unskewed Polls guy were in the 2012 general.
They had a good roster. The biggest problem was the numbskulls in the party leadership who thought it was a good idea to shove another bush down everybody's throat, and suck all the momentum and money away from everyone but Trump.
You are looking more desperate for a way to spin this than Dick Morris and the Unskewed Polls guy were in the 2012 general.
What spin? I'm pointing out that Cruz is the most competitive alternative to Trump.
Perhaps you're operating under a misinterpretation that I'll be significantly annoyed and/or pissed off if Cruz loses the nomination to Trump. I won't be.
I would prefer Cruz, but Trump is a win on its own anti-establishment merits, if not Cruz's own merits.
Donald Trump’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t just give him momentum heading into the Super Tuesday contests on March 1st — his victory shows the emergence of a new coalition that is likely to reshape the Republican Party.
In short, Trump’s victory — and Jeb Bush’s exit — represents a blue-collar take-over of the Republican party. Trump’s victory, according to exit polls, was built on voters earning less than $100k with less than a college eduction.
Trump won voters with a high school education or less by 18 points. He won voters who had attended college or had an associate degree by 16 points. Together, these voters made up just under half (46%) of the Republican electorate.
Trump won college graduates, but by just 3 points. Voters who had post-graduate study, around one-in-five voters, broke strongly for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) [Liberty score voting record: 79%] by 11 points. The second choice among these voters was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) [Liberty score voting record: 97%]. Among all voters who had at least a college degree, Rubio won by 2 points.
Trump won every income group up to voters earning $100k a year. Among voters earning $100,000 to 200,000, Trump and Rubio split their votes.
Trump’s strength with these demographics goes a long way to explain his strong showing with evangelical voters. Trump edged Cruz by 4 points among evangelicals, 31-27. Rubio scored a respectable 22 percent with evangelicals. These voters made up 73 percent of Republican voters on Saturday.
Trump also ran very strong with veterans and voters in the military. These voters made up just 17 percent of the electorate, but Trump won them by 10 points. Trump won voters who hadn’t served in the military by just 6 points.
Trump’s strong finish is also due to the fact that he basically has created his own constiuency. Only 7 percent of Republicans are satisfied with the federal government. A slim majority of Republicans (52 percent) are dissatisfied with the government, but not angry. These voters went slightly for Rubio, followed closely by Trump and Cruz.
Forty percent of Republicans, however, are angry with the federal government. Trump won these voters by almost 20 points. Only 44 percent of Republicans want illegal immigrants deported, but these voters picked Trump again by almost 20 points.
Only 10 percent of Republicans said immigration was their top issue, but half of these voters gave their vote to Trump. He won these voters by 25 points. Votes from those who named all the other top issues — the economy, terrorism or government spending — split between Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
The same phenomenon arose over the question of whether voters want an outsider as President or a candidate with some experience. A slim plurality say they want a candidate with some experience, but these voters split their vote between Rubio and Cruz. Among the 47 percent who want an outsider, Trump won more than two-thirds of their vote, top the next highest candidate by almost 50 points.
When voters were asked their top quality in a candidate, a plurality said “shares my values.” These voters split between Rubio and Cruz. However, among voters who said “bring about change” was their top quality, Trump won their support by 23 points. For the 17 percent of voters who said they most wanted a candidate to “tell it like it is”, Trump took 77 percent of their votes.
There were essentially two different contests in South Carolina.
The traditional one contest was between candidates who share voters’ values, have a certain amount of experience, are upset with present policies, but not angry and who argue over the finer points of policy differences. That contest was a jump-ball between Rubio and Cruz.
The other contest was between Trump and politics in general. Not all the voters are angry, want radical change, want to deport illegals or prefer someone to “tell it like it is,” but a great number do want those things. Moreover, Trump has almost no competition for these votes.
Trump has formed a new winning coalition for Republican primaries. His coalition is a sizable chunk of the Republican electorate and shows no sign of abating at any time. With the economy tettering and world affairs nearing chaos, it is even possible this electorate grows in the coming weeks.
Many pundits expect that as more traditional candidates like Jeb Bush bow out of the contest, the non-Trump candidates will see a lift in their vote. That is certainly possible, but one shouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Trump is rewriting the Republican playbook. The party won’t be the same again.
In some ways similar to 1980, where the public is so dissatisfied that they are demanding a true alternative, on this occasion to the politics-as-usual coming from both parties.
No one commented on the incident with Michelle Fields, where a Trump campaign official, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandoswki, is alleged to have grabbed her arm so hard it bruised her arm, and almost shoved her on the ground. It was witnessed by a Washington Post reporter who has worked closely with Lewandowski and recognized him when it happened, and video of the incident is partially visible from two different angles.
I like Michelle Fields, and am inclined to believe her over the denials from the Trump campaign that go against what is far beyond a he said/she said. The post reporter and video back her up. And that Trump himself denies it and doesn't just apologize and give assurances that he wouldn't allow it again, instead throwing Michelle Fields "under the bus" as she says, despite that to this point she largely has supported Trump, is the first incident about Trump's candidacy that makes me see him as just another liar politician who won't admit the truth, even about a minor incident like this one.
That spokesman for Breitbart just quit his job because integrity still means something to someone. Where there is smoke...I am completely with Fields on this. The campaign guy has lucked up because most angles of video get blocked right as he is grabbing at her.
Michelle Joann Fields is an American political journalist who is a Breitbart News Network reporter and a former Fox News Channel contributor.[1] Upon graduating from Pepperdine University in 2011, she gained national attention after having a confrontation with actor Matt Damon over teacher tenure reform.[2] After the altercation, Fields was hired as a reporter at The Daily Caller. Fields left The Daily Caller in 2012, later becoming a correspondent for PJ Media.[3] Fields is a regular panelist on the Fox News program Cashin' In.
Early life
Fields was raised in the Los Angeles area and attended Calabasas High School in Calabasas, California.[4] Fields is of partial Honduran descent and is the daughter of television and film writer Greg Fields.[4]
She studied political science at Pepperdine University, graduating in 2011.[5] She served as the president of the Pepperdine chapter of Students For Liberty, a libertarian student organization.[5][6]
Journalism career
Fields films and edits her videos in a citizen journalism style. She credits the internet for launching her career and believes that the popularity of her videos is due to her style of reporting. In an interview with C-SPAN in 2011 she said that the use of the internet has empowered people so much that now "one voice can be just as powerful as the New York Times."[4]
In 2011, Fields was interviewed by Brian Lamb on the C-SPAN's Q&A about her reporting style.[4] Fields has appeared on CNBC, Sky News, Fox News, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends First, Your World with Neil Cavuto, America's Newsroom, Fox and Friends, America Live with Megyn Kelly, Stossel, and Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld.[7] Fields was featured in Details magazine as one of "the next wave of political pundits."[8]
In 2012, Fields gave a TEDx talk on her career and the future of internet journalism.[9] In 2015, The Hill newspaper named her one of the 50 most beautiful people in Washington, D.C.[10]
In September 2014, Fields became a contributor at the Fox News Channel.[11] In November 2015, Fields joined the Breitbart News Network as a political reporter.[12]
In March 2016, while on assignment for Breitbart.com, Fields was allegedly assaulted by Corey Lewandowski, the Trump campaign manager, at a news conference at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida.[13] Fields said that as she attempted to ask Trump a question as he was exiting the rally, Lewandowski grabbed and yanked Fields, leaving bruises on her left forearm.[13] Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, who witnessed the incident, identified Lewandowski.[14] Fields filed a criminal complaint with the local police department alleging battery.[15] The Trump campaign denied Fields' account,[16] while Lewandowski "mounted a barrage of abuse against Fields on his Twitter feed."[13] A C-SPAN video released several days after the incident shows Lewandowski reaching in Fields' direction before the camera's view is obstructed.[13][17] The Daily Beast reported that this video "casts serious doubt on Lewandowski's denial he had touched" Fields. [13]
"Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign. I signed my contract to work as a journalist, not as a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network. As recent events have proven, there is no longer a point in trying to reform the company from within, so I must step aside with my dignity intact. I wish everyone at Breitbart the best, and hope the site can redeem the legacy of its founder under much-needed new management,"
I'm unconvinced of the legitimacy of his claims. The majority of the staff is undeniably pro-Trump, but that didn't stop Shapiro from running articles that were anti-Trump or pro-Cruz on the site. Indeed, multiple writers have had the freedom to go against the grain without apparent issue. I'm not prepared to indict Breitbart as a conservative version of ABC/NBC according to this incident.
Would Andrew Breitbart have done differently? Good question. I have no choice but to defer to Shapiro on that one since I never met the man. However, while I would assume that he would have backed up Michelle Fields based on her word--and the video--it's a tad more lofty to say he'd authorize a Twitter war while an investigation was still going on.
That whirring sound you hear is Andrew spinning in his grave.
That being said. You can see where the libertarians are going. They claim to be iconoclasts. But in the end they want to be popular with the cool kids. Their leadership wants to be invited to the right parties in Washington. As a result they will bend over, grab their ankles and Pledge of Allegiance to Hillary . Watch Iggy attack Trump but not Hillary between now and November
...That being said. You can see where the libertarians are going. They claim to be iconoclasts. But in the end they want to be popular with the cool kids. Their leadership wants to be invited to the right parties in Washington. As a result they will bend over, grab their ankles and Pledge of Allegiance to Hillary...
Back to bed with you, you old gasbag!
I'm actually voting for Kasich in today's primary, largely because it's probably our last shot at stopping Le Grand Toupee before the convention. I'd like to be able to traverse the streets in June without being hemmed in on all sides by protesters.
Just curious G-man but do you really see Trump being capable of being President?
Yes. He's a gasbag (and I know gasbags per Sammitch) but he's not stupid. He'll surround himself with advisors and pretty much be a figurehead.
I also suspect (were he to be elected) you'll end up liking him as president more than I will. I say that because I tend to believe he's really a Bloomberg style liberal to moderate who's telling the populists what they want to hear right now.
I'm kinda with Sammitch in supporting Kasich. I differ a little bit in that I think he is the GOP's best shot--short of the economy getting flushed down the crapper this summer--to carry the battleground states. Trump, imo, isn't going to see a ceiling until August (assuming he gets the nod). I just don't see a scenario--once again, short of the economy going into meltdown--that a Ted Cruz can carry states like Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida. While I understand these odds are still against him, I think Kasich could--on the other hand--put places like Michigan and Pennsylvania into play. If the GOP candidate can't put the Democrats on the defensive in these states then this is all a big waste of time and money.
All that said, I've got a few hours to decide whether to vote my conscience or attempt to be a spoiler vote in the primary with the other guys.
Do you really see Obama being capable of being president?
Like it or lump it, he's been doing that job for fucking seven years...dude. Time to get some new material.
Actually pariahs point is well taken in the context of the discussion we were having. If Obama-who arguably had less experience than Trump prior to his (Obama's) election-could serve 8 years as president there's no reason to assume Trump isn't capable of being president.
Do you really see Obama being capable of being president?
Like it or lump it, he's been doing that job for fucking seven years...dude. Time to get some new material.
Actually pariahs point is well taken in the context of the discussion we were having. If Obama-who arguably had less experience than Trump prior to his (Obama's) election-could serve 8 years as president there's no reason to assume Trump isn't capable of being president.
What are you counting as experience? His years as a reality show host? He's not a leader nor does he have the temperament to become one. Probably his biggest political achievement previously was leading the charge that Obama was not a us citizen.
Cruz needs to win Missouri or Kasich's win in Ohio does little to stop Trump getting to a non-contested convention. Trump wins and he can get around a 250+ delegate lead on Cruz. The places left don't play to his base strengths so I don't see him being able to do enough to close the gap. So, even if you hate Cruz, you have to pull for him in Missouri tonight if you hate Donald Trump more.
No, Pariah worded it to sound as if Obama hasn't been doing his job. It isn't that. He has done his job for seven years. He just hasn't done it to Pariah's liking.
According to the line you guys pushed about Obama's inexperience over the past eight years, the only person really qualified to be in the race is Kasich...
Pretty sure Missouri is a mixed with winner take all popular vote and delegates awarded for winning CDs.
The silence from the establishment today is deafening. With Rubio out, many are packing it in on the presidential primary and focusing on holding the Senate and keep projected House losses--while maintaining a majority--to a minimum. Rick Scott backed Trump. All Cruz got was a top Rubio staffer and private prayers from SC's Nikki Haley. It is like they all know that getting on board with Cruz is like hopping on board with the Ferryman. He can't win, period.
But, oh, it isn't for want of trying on the Cruz pundits' parts. The new high point for delusion is that--in actuality--Ted has over seven hundred candidates! No, seriously. It is completely unfounded assertion that any vote against Trump can never actually be a vote for him so really the overwhelming majority of those delegates would go to Cruz. So, really, he is the one with all the momentum despite not winning a single race yesterday.
By the way, did I mention that Trump has an impervious ceiling in the low forties that I had to completely make up for him after he broke his mid-thirties ceiling that I pretended to know that he had a few weeks ago? Did I remember to add that the Cruz campaign is the only campaign to have consistently beaten the Trump campaign on occasion? Also, do not forget that every remaining vote out there is clearly a #NeverTrump vote. I'm super duper cereal.
Do you really see Obama being capable of being president?
Like it or lump it, he's been doing that job for fucking seven years...dude. Time to get some new material.
Actually pariahs point is well taken in the context of the discussion we were having. If Obama-who arguably had less experience than Trump prior to his (Obama's) election-could serve 8 years as president there's no reason to assume Trump isn't capable of being president.
Says the guy who thinks I'm going to let Hillary buttsex me so I feel like one of the cool kids. Obama had a decade of civil service on his record prior to winning the WH in 2008. I know you guys like to just toss around his time as a community organizer, but the guy has a record of service if you fuckers could get your head out of your ass long enough to pay attention to it.
Seriously? This from the guy that has turned into Pariah's elderly bitch? Sorry for trying to help you guys realize that turd ideas are turd ideas and they take on an extra shitty quality when presented by turd candidates. I'll repeat...the next four to eight years of Hillary is totally on you guys. I'm sure she thanks you for all your hard work and support by way of delusional opposition.
Pretty sure Missouri is a mixed with winner take all popular vote and delegates awarded for winning CDs.
The silence from the establishment today is deafening. With Rubio out, many are packing it in on the presidential primary and focusing on holding the Senate and keep projected House losses--while maintaining a majority--to a minimum. Rick Scott backed Trump. All Cruz got was a top Rubio staffer and private prayers from SC's Nikki Haley. It is like they all know that getting on board with Cruz is like hopping on board with the Ferryman. He can't win, period.
But, oh, it isn't for want of trying on the Cruz pundits' parts. The new high point for delusion is that--in actuality--Ted has over seven hundred candidates! No, seriously. It is completely unfounded assertion that any vote against Trump can never actually be a vote for him so really the overwhelming majority of those delegates would go to Cruz. So, really, he is the one with all the momentum despite not winning a single race yesterday.
By the way, did I mention that Trump has an impervious ceiling in the low forties that I had to completely make up for him after he broke his mid-thirties ceiling that I pretended to know that he had a few weeks ago? Did I remember to add that the Cruz campaign is the only campaign to have consistently beaten the Trump campaign on occasion? Also, do not forget that every remaining vote out there is clearly a #NeverTrump vote. I'm super duper cereal.
All hail your new Cheeto-faced Overlord!
This all depends on how people will react to Kasich. Not very well I bet. But we'll see just how much Soros' money can boost his numbers--and if Cruz can take his votes.
Originally Posted By: iggy
Obama had a decade of civil service on his record prior to winning the WH in 2008. I know you guys like to just toss around his time as a community organizer
The desperation...
Equating community organizing/agitating to "civil service" is like calling Saul Alinsky a public official.
I guess you really can't tell the difference between "occupying a position" and "doing a job". So you have to resort to this kinda bullshit.
Quote:
I'll repeat...the next four to eight years of Hillary is totally on you guys. I'm sure she thanks you for all your hard work and support by way of delusional opposition.
G-man accuses you of being willing to take Hillary's thrusting manhood and--as an argumentative response--you (un)subtly shill for her by attacking Trump the same way Rove and friends were doing leading up to the primaries--when he made fools of all of them.
Just curious G-man but do you really see Trump being capable of being President?
Yes. He's a gasbag (and I know gasbags per Sammitch) but he's not stupid. He'll surround himself with advisors and pretty much be a figurehead.
I also suspect (were he to be elected) you'll end up liking him as president more than I will. I say that because I tend to believe he's really a Bloomberg style liberal to moderate who's telling the populists what they want to hear right now.
He's already spent to much time cultivating the politics of fear that there is zero chance of me liking him at all. He's not a good person and I think there's a big enough chunk of your party that feels that way too where he's not going to be President.
I don't know who "you guys" are, nor do I know what wording you're referring to.
I simply asked MEM (and you) what Obama's presidential "capab[ility]" is.
It's there you just refuse to acknowledge it. Trump works with fear and hate. That isn't what our country needs and it wouldn't certainly make us great.
I voted Trump. I considered Cruz, but ultimately, I can't see Cruz (however conservative he is) rallying cooperation from other Republicans, let alone rallying Democrats to join in legislation. Trump I see as a guy with the personality to inspire support, or by his popularity nationwide, leverage their cooperation. I think Trump would be conservative on economic issues, and probably more liberal (or at least more hands-off) on social issues like gay rights and abortion. And I see Trump as a president that nations like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea would think twice about messing with. Where Obama is all too predictable and easy to intimidate, these rogue nations would be uncertain and fearful of what Trump as president would do in response to their provocations.
Rubio lost me a long time ago with his immigration plan. Kasich, while arguably the most competent on many other issues, made clear in the Fox News debate that he also would completely cave as president to illegals. He said "it's impossible to round them all up." But as I've said repeatedly, it's actually quite easy to eliminate ongoing illegal immigration, and get rid of those already here:
1) Use 7,000-10,000 National Guard to secure the southern border. 2) Build a double fence along the entire border, and begin charging $ 1 to each person who crosses the border to pay for its construction and maintenance. 3) Enforce heavy fines on employers of illegals. With this, employers will be afraid to hire illegals. And without work, they will be forced to return to their home countries. 4) Use INS to round up those who do not self-deport. 5) Add an amendment to the Constitution, that only the children of those who are legally in this country are entitled to citizenship at birth. That those born here to illegals are not entitled to that right. That would eliminate the burden of 300,000 "anchor babies" born in this country every year (10% of all U.S. births!) that create a path toward citizenship for their entire extended families.
It's not "impossible". The only thing blocking the possibility is the lack of will to do so.
Do you really see Obama being capable of being president?
Like it or lump it, he's been doing that job for fucking seven years...dude. Time to get some new material.
Actually pariahs point is well taken in the context of the discussion we were having. If Obama-who arguably had less experience than Trump prior to his (Obama's) election-could serve 8 years as president there's no reason to assume Trump isn't capable of being president.
At least Trump is not a cultural Marxist (or a disciple of Saul Alinsky, anti-Colonialism, liberation theology, Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers) dedicated to crippling America, and transferring its wealth to third-world nations.
Just curious G-man but do you really see Trump being capable of being President?
Yes. He's a gasbag (and I know gasbags per Sammitch) but he's not stupid. He'll surround himself with advisors and pretty much be a figurehead.
I also suspect (were he to be elected) you'll end up liking him as president more than I will. I say that because I tend to believe he's really a Bloomberg style liberal to moderate who's telling the populists what they want to hear right now.
He's already spent to much time cultivating the politics of fear that there is zero chance of me liking him at all. He's not a good person and I think there's a big enough chunk of your party that feels that way too where he's not going to be President.
How is "let's make America great again", pushing for sensible economic policy, for bringing jobs back to the U.S., for a strong military, and for sensible foreign policy, the "politics of fear"?
Just curious G-man but do you really see Trump being capable of being President?
Yes. He's a gasbag (and I know gasbags per Sammitch) but he's not stupid. He'll surround himself with advisors and pretty much be a figurehead.
I also suspect (were he to be elected) you'll end up liking him as president more than I will. I say that because I tend to believe he's really a Bloomberg style liberal to moderate who's telling the populists what they want to hear right now.
He's already spent to much time cultivating the politics of fear that there is zero chance of me liking him at all. He's not a good person and I think there's a big enough chunk of your party that feels that way too where he's not going to be President.
Oh bullshit. If he comes out with some sufficiently pro gay policy you'll swoon.
All the while this is going on, Republican establishment seeks to sneak Ryan in through the back door while Hillary loyalist delegates disenfranchise voters.
I think this commentary by O'Reilly from Monday, April 4th, on the rise of Trump...
...does a good job of explaining not only what caused Trump to run, but also what has made his run over the last 6 months so successful. If the GOP at multiple turns had not betrayed its own base, Trump likely would not have run, nor would the public (including the GOP voter-base) be so receptive to him.
Likewise on the Democrat side. The voter-base, beyond being "angry", is also terrified of what lies ahead. We've had interest rates pretty much at zero for 10 years, and "quantitative easing" printing money for banks to lend and keep the economy going, and to buy our own treasury bills that Japan and China are no longer buying. There is great concern that we are heading for another depression, or worse, such as the collapse of the U.S. dollar, or a wider Islamic war that could bring Iran, Russia or China into the mix.
And from that perspective, when we're already headed for the cliff with the status quo candidates, taking a risk on Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders becomes a lot more palatable. A wildcard that at least has a chance of changing course away from the cliff.
Trump crushes the competition in New York and looks to take about 90 of 95 delegates. Cruz is right at or just over the mathematical probability point...probably should be hoping there isn't film of him saying Kasich should get out of the race because he can't mathematically win. Kasich prevents Trump from winning all the delegates...closes gap on Rubio.
Hillary cruises to victory. Sanders's looks more and more like Don Quixote.
Sanders is pretty much out at this point. He outspent Clinton and still lost. He's where she was at for the 08 campaign. My guess is he'll stay in but the fight is done and the tone of his campaign will mellow out. As for the GOP, no surprise that Trump won over Cruz. It's a fight to see who will lose to Clinton, lol
I guess Democrat voters prefer an indictable candidate.
All bets are off if FBI investigators move for indictment.
The FBI can only recommend an indictment. The decision whether to present the case to a grand jury or seek an indictment will have to come from AG Loretta Lynch. Do you really believe the most politicized Justice Department in history would make such a move against their presumptive nominee?
Wasn't the most politicized Justice Department in history Bush's? Sheesh, at one point that administration was even caught trying to make PBS conservative. As for the FBI recommending an indictment, I'm sure that in itself would be enough to sink Clinton's chances of winning the general. If that doesn't happen though she's good. I've read some reporting on the matter and unless there's something yet uncovered I don't see the FBI doing what you guys are hoping for.
Lol, says the guy who draws a paycheck from the government.
Please, by all means, lets have a discussion on the need for a military vs the need for a department that didn't even receive a congressional charter until the late 1800s.
The DOJ is a pet organization filled with cronies that answer to one person. No different than the ATF or the DHS--or even the CIA when it was first chartered under Truman.
Please, by all means, lets have a discussion on the need for a military vs the need for a department that didn't even receive a congressional charter until the late 1800s.
You forget, Pariah, people like MEM (and the Clintons) loathe the military.
That's not true but you go ahead and enjoy creating false attacks G-man. Trump really is the candidate you deserve. And Pariah keep taking that paycheck from the government you hate, lol.
Please, by all means, lets have a discussion on the need for a military vs the need for a department that didn't even receive a congressional charter until the late 1800s.
You forget, Pariah, people like MEM (and the Clintons) loathe the military.
Originally Posted By: M E M
That's not true...
The Secret Service who guarded the Clintons say otherwise:
ewman claimed Hillary Clinton only "allowed some military uniforms" in White House
Research ››› November 28, 2007 6:04 PM EST ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
0 Print Email
After a caller claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) is "not going to allow any [military uniforms] in the White House," Newsradio 850 KOA host "Gunny" Bob Newman repeated the myth that Clinton only "allowed some military uniforms" in the White House when she was first lady. In fact, numerous media reports have debunked the claim about Clinton's supposed ban on military uniforms, as Colorado Media Matters noted when Newman made a similar assertion on a previous broadcast.
Prompted by a caller to his November 26 show, Newsradio 850 KOA's "Gunny" Bob Newman repeated the debunked assertion that as first lady, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) only "allowed some military uniforms" in the White House. Newman cited right-wing author and retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson's book Dereliction of Duty (Regnery, March 2003) to support his contention that military uniforms were "offensive" to the "Clintonista regime."
However, The Washington Post reported on April 1, 1993, that Clinton's supposed ban "didn't happen," as Colorado Media Matters noted when Newman made a similar assertion on his August 25, 2006, broadcast. Moreover, Media Matters for America has documented that Patterson later echoed the dubious uniforms assertion by claiming that when he worked in the White House in 1996 Clinton "wanted to outlaw uniforms, military uniforms in the White House," and that Patterson's account of Clinton's purported plan to ban military uniforms in the White House varies with each telling.
From the November 26 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:
CALLER: I called about [U.S. Sen.] Trent [Lott (R-MS)], but let me say something about Diana DeGette. Diana -- the troops are coming home. Will they be wearing their uniforms? Because we know Hillary's not going to allow any in the White House, and I imagine her "don't ask, don't tell," and the policy of no military in the White House with uniforms, I imagine there's no reason why she can't just do it countrywide, right? I mean, let's just go ahead and strip the -- you know, bottom line is, these two libs -- what a love fest, but Diana DeGette will always have her job there because of the dumb-ass liberals in Denver that are gonna vote in that district that are gonna vote her in. And there's a lot of stupid women out there, Gunny Bob, that are going to vote for Hillary lock, stock --
NEWMAN: Oh, there are a lot of stupid men too, [caller]. And at the same time --
CALLER: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
NEWMAN: Now, you do know that Hillary did allow some -- only a few -- she allowed some military uniforms like, you know, the Marines who were standing outside opening the doors and stuff like that. But if you read Colonel "Buzz" Patterson's book Dereliction of Duty, he was there, and he got the memo, and, you know, who was allowed to wear because, you know -- and how offensive military uniforms were to the Clintonista regime, you know. But they knew they had to allow a handful of them in there, you know, so that they could have --
CALLER: Right.
The allegation that Clinton imposed a ban on the wearing of military uniforms in the White House was reported as early as April 1, 1993, in a Post article [by subscription or purchase only] that referred to "[a] whole series of apocryphal anecdotes [that] have made the rounds and fed military disaffection." With regard to "the one about Hillary Rodham Clinton's ban on uniforms in the White House," the Post reported that it "didn't happen." Similarly, Newsweek reported in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she banned uniforms at the White House." In its March 15, 1993, edition, U.S. News & World Report reported, "Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House." U.S. News noted that the White House denied the story.
Moreover, as Media Matters noted, Patterson's story of Clinton's purported "edict" -- which he says occurred in 1996 "when he first arrived" at the White House -- echoes the claim about Clinton that the Post debunked in 1993. And Patterson's version of how he learned of Clinton's purported plan to ban military uniforms in the White House when he worked there in 1996 varies with each telling. In Dereliction of Duty, Patterson claimed that he had learned of Clinton's supposed desire to ban military uniforms from his predecessor. When Slate.com's Timothy Noah wrote about stories surrounding Clinton's purported aversion to military uniforms in the White House, Patterson responded by asserting that he "had firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict." In yet another retelling, Patterson told author Edward Klein, "The directive came down from Hillary through the President's chief of staff, Leon Panetta."
Now how about that Trump btw? We know how he respects the military from his comments about McCain being captured. Do you think our servicemen that were captured by enemy forces are really losers WB?
Trump at a speaking event had criticized political leaders who send soldiers to fight wars, but didn't serve in the military. One of the panelists said "Well, John McCain served." Trump responded "I like soldiers who don't get captured." To which everyone present laughed.
I saw that as a shot at John McCain, not at veterans in general. It was a comment aimed very specifically at those who send soldiers to fight combined with being a veteran. And arguably only to McCain's specific questionable judgement, combining those two categories.
Secret Service agents over the years say being on Hillary Clinton's detail is the "worst duty assignment" they could receive, and "agents consider being assigned to her detail a form of punishment,” author Ronald Kessler writes in his book "First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents."
The book reveals exchanges that retired and active Secret Service agents shared with Kessler, writes Deroy Murdock in an opinion piece for The New York Post. Kessler writes both flattering and critical items about people in both parties.
And when it comes to the Clinton family, Chelsea was a "model protectee," Bill was difficult while president but easygoing after he left office, and Hillary was exposed as an "especially abusive Arctic monster," said Murdock.
Kessler, a former investigative reporter with The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post who went on to write 19 other books revealed several shocking exchanges, including her reply to the greeting "good morning, ma'am" from a member of the uniformed Secret Service: "F— off."
“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler wrote in his book. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident...Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”
In the words of several people who served on her detail:
Former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman: “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”
Unnamed Secret Service agent: “Hillary didn’t like the military aides wearing their uniforms around the White House. She asked if they would wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was actually really offended by it.”
Former Secret Service agent Jeff Crane: Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.”
Unnamed former Secret Service agent: "Hillary never talked to us . . . Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that.”
Former FBI agent Coy Copeland: Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another. In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”
Unnamed former Secret Service agent: “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”
Secret Service agents over the years say being on Hillary Clinton's detail is the "worst duty assignment" they could receive, and "agents consider being assigned to her detail a form of punishment,” author Ronald Kessler writes in his book "First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents."
The book reveals exchanges that retired and active Secret Service agents shared with Kessler, writes Deroy Murdock in an opinion piece for The New York Post. Kessler writes both flattering and critical items about people in both parties.
And when it comes to the Clinton family, Chelsea was a "model protectee," Bill was difficult while president but easygoing after he left office, and Hillary was exposed as an "especially abusive Arctic monster," said Murdock.
Kessler, a former investigative reporter with The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post who went on to write 19 other books revealed several shocking exchanges, including her reply to the greeting "good morning, ma'am" from a member of the uniformed Secret Service: "F— off."
“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler wrote in his book. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident...Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”
In the words of several people who served on her detail:
Former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman: “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.” Unnamed Secret Service agent: “Hillary didn’t like the military aides wearing their uniforms around the White House. She asked if they would wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was actually really offended by it.” Former Secret Service agent Jeff Crane: Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.” Unnamed former Secret Service agent: "Hillary never talked to us . . . Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that.” Former FBI agent Coy Copeland: Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another. In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.” Unnamed former Secret Service agent: “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”
It wasn't just agents who had stories about the then-first lady. Franette McCulloch, a former assistant White House pastry chef, told of how Clinton "screamed" at a White House electrician who was changing a light bulb in the family quarters, because she had ordered all repairs to be done while the first family was away.
Kessler also recounts how Clinton fired White House usher Christopher Emery after he returned a call from former First Lady Barbara Bush about computer troubleshooting. Emery stayed unemployed for four years, said Kessler.
Kessler told Murdock that Clinton's treatment of her staff should be a warning to Americans as she runs for the presidency.
"No one would hire such a person to work at a McDonald’s, and yet she is being considered for president of the United States," Kessler told him.
Some of the allegations in this eRumor are accurate, according to Kessler’s book and some are not. Let’s take a look at each one:
Codenamed Lancer, John Kennedy was a philanderer of the highest order. Jacqueline Kennedy ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over food and wine for the next White House occasion: -Truth! & Fiction! An agent interviewed in Kessler’s book said that while assigned to guard President Kennedy agents realized that he led a double life. The charismatic leader was “a cheating, reckless husband whose aides snuck women into the White House to appease his sexual appetite.” There was no mention of Jackie Kennedy saving leftovers for the next occasion.
Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was another philanderer of the highest order. He was also crude as the day is long. Ladybird Johnson was either naive or pretended to “not know” of her husband’s many liaisons: -Truth! & Fiction! One agent assigned to protect him who was interviewed in Kessler’s book said that Johnson, codenamed Volunteer, was “uncouth, nasty and often drunk.” The agent said that after being caught by his wife having sex with a secretary in the Oval Office Johnson ordered the Secret Service to install a buzzer to warn him. The agent said that Mrs. Johnson was well aware of what was going on.
Richard Nixon was a moral man but very paranoid, odd and weird.. He had a horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, he was almost a recluse. Pat Nixon was quiet most of the time: –Truth! An agent assigned to protect the Nixon’s said that the President, codenamed Searchlight, “seemed to have no relationship with his wife, Pat,” and she “was an alcoholic who tippled martinis.” When the Nixon’s were in San Clemente, Ca the family went out to play a nine hole golf game and an agent said that during the entire hour and a half game the President did not say one word to his wife and daughters.
Spiro Agnew was a nice, decent man and everyone in the Secret Service was surprised about his downfall: -Fiction! Agents assigned to protect Agnew were interviewed and said that although he came across as a champion of family values the Vice President “was having affairs while in office.” A detail of Secret Service agents once clandestinely took Agnew to a room on the fourth floor of Washington’s Regis Hotel and left him there unguarded for three hours, at the request of the Vice President. A former agent said, “Leaving him in an unsecured location was a breach of security. As agents, it was embarrassing because we were facilitating his adultery. We felt like pimps.”
Gerald Ford was a true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor. Betty Ford drank a lot: - Truth! Agents found President Ford, Codenamed Passkey, to be a “decent man who valued their service.” Although he was portrayed by Saturday Night Live comedian Chevy Chase to be a stumbling, bumbling buffoon, agents say Gerald Ford was quite athletic and enjoyed skiing. Ford often taunted agents to keep up with him on the slopes. After failing to keep up with the President the Secret Service recruited a world class skier who would ski backwards in front of the President and “wave as the President tried to catch up with him.”
Betty Ford did suffer from alcoholism but eventually found sobriety and in 1982 founded the Betty Ford Center, which has aided over 90,000 people with a network of treatment centers for alcohol and chemical dependency.
Jimmy Carter was a complete phony who had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the “football” nuclear codes - Truth! Kessler interviewed agents assigned to Jimmy Carter, codenamed Deacon, who described Carter as a “moody and mistrustful” person who distanced himself from the agents who were sworn to protect him and his family. Agents were instructed not to speak to President Carter unless he spoke to them first. A former agent said that President Carter “tried to project the image of himself as a man of the people by carrying his own luggage when travelling. When he was running for President, Carter would carry his own bags while the press was in sight but once in private he would ask the Secret Service to carry his luggage. An agent said that when the Carters were staying at the President’s home in Plains, Georgia, the “nuclear football,” the device that the President uses to launch antiballistic missiles to protect the U.S. from a foreign launched nuclear attack was not permitted on the grounds of the Carter home. The “football” allows the President to launch counter measures within five minutes of a notification of a nuclear strike. It was kept with an agent in a military trailer in the neighboring town, Americus, which was fifteen minutes away.
Rosalyn Carter mostly did her own thing- Unproven! Although not much is written in Kessler’s book about Rosalyn Carter, other than she enjoyed a screwdriver before church on Sunday in a White House where the Carters had requested the removal of alcoholic beverages, there is no indication that she did her own thing.
Ronald Reagan was moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. The Reagan’s treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Nancy Reagan was very nice but very protective of the President- Truth! Ronald Reagan’s codename was Rawhide and according to Kessler’s book he treated the Secret Service agents, the Air Force One Crew and the staff of maids and butlers at the White House with respect. President Reagan was known to carry a fire arm and told a former agent that it was “just in case you guys can’t do your job, I can help out.” A former agent told Kessler that when Reagan travelled on his first presidential trip to the Soviet Union he had packed a gun in his briefcase. A former staff member told Kessler that “Reagan was famous for firing up Air Force jets on behalf of children who needed transport for kidney operations.”
Kessler wrote that Nancy Reagan was very protective of her husband, oversaw his diet and all visits from the children of the President had to be cleared by her first.
George H. Bush was extremely kind, considerate and always respectful towards Secret Service agents. They took great care in making sure the agents’ comforts were taken care of and even brought them meals. Barbara Bush once gave a warm hat to a Secret Service agent while he was protecting the Bush’s at their Kennebunkport home in Maine – Truth! A former agent told Kessler that the Bush’s were very considerate of the agents sworn to protect them. The hat incident occurred while Mr. Bush was Vice President.
Bill Clinton’s term in office was one giant party, he was not trustworthy, adulterous and was only nice because he wanted everyone to like him. Hillary Clinton was another phony whose personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. – Truth! A former agent told Kessler that William Jefferson Clinton, codename Eagle, was habitually one to two hours late for so many events that the agents assigned to protect him dubbed his tardiness “Clinton Standard Time.” Clinton was caught in an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky and the Clintons, as well as many of the staff that they brought with them to the White House considered the military as “people who couldn’t get jobs.” A former assistant pastry chef told Kessler that Hillary Clinton did not approve of maintenance work being done in the White House while they were present. An agent assigned to protect her said that when she was in front of the press she “turns it on, and when the lights are off and she’s away from the lights, she’s a totally different person.” The agent also said that she was sarcastic and angry at her staff and yelled at them.
Albert Gore was an egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he “would end up like these guys”- Truth! Kessler wrote that every agent assigned to protect the Vice President heard the famous reprimand to Al Gore III. Gore, codenamed Sundance, told his son, “If you don’t straighten up, you won’t get into the right schools, and if you don’t get into the right schools, you could end up like these guys.” As Gore said this he motioned to the agents.
George and Laura Bush were loved by the Secret Service. The President was also the most physically “in shape” and had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service. Laura Bush was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone- Truth! Agents told Kessler that they “were always amazed at the difference between Bush in person and the way he came across at press conferences.” An agent assigned to George W. Bush, codenamed Trailblazer , said that although he seemed awkward in front of the microphone that he was “funny as hell,” and had an incredible sense of humor. The agents loved to run with Bush and the Secret Service assigned its best runners to keep up with him. Bad knees eventually caused President Bush to switch to a bicycle. An agent told Kessler that Laura Bush had “the undying admiration of almost every agent,” and that he had not heard anything negative about her.
Barack and Michelle Obama look down on the Secret Service and hate the military. He is egotistical, cunning and untrustworthy and has temper tantrums. Michelle is a complete bitch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants- Fiction! & Unproven! According to Kessler’s book, agents said that are treated with respect by both Barack Obama, codename Renegade, and First Lady Michelle, whose codename is Renaissance. They also said that agents were twice invited “to dinner, including a party for a relative, both at his home.” The agent also said that Michelle insisted that agents call her by her first name.
There was no mention in the book of how the Obama’s felt about the military.
Labeling the Secret Service agents interviewed as "tattletales" shoots the Secret Service messengers, painting them in a negative light.
One not listed is where Chelsea Clinton was overheard calling the Secret Service agents "pigs" [the pejorative for police in the 1970's] when a Secret Service agent chided Chelsea and told her that The president and first lady wouldn't approve of her saying that, Chelsea said she learned the term from listening to her parents say it.
Pennsylvania, Cincinnati, and Maryland all go to Trump. As was expected.
Indiana win or not, I don't think Cruz is going to win this. If it comes down to a contested convention, I'm convinced that the RNC is going fuck with the rules enough to keep either one from winning ouright, thus forcing a brokered convention in which they get their pet candidate, thus sparking the revolution.
Steadily ever moreso, I'm leaning towards a Trump vote despite my dislike for him as a person. As I mentioned previously, regardless of his questionable position(s), his victory is the establishment's utter defeat--a possibility which I favor immensely since it spells out an inevitable resurgence of nationalism and populism in the states. Of course, he could betray the people that put him into office, but I am convinced that his backstab will be the death sentence of both he and American Federalism, which will be usefully symbolic in its own right.
Trump gets elected and does as he says he will. = Win.
Trump gets elected and goes back on his word, sparking a civil war. = Mega Win.
This is opposed to Cruz:
Cruz gets elected and does as he says he will (and I believe he would). = Win, but with the caveat that the sham known as American Federalism is reinvigorated--at least in the eyes of conservatives who will lose their anger and be lulled back to sleep by the devil of politics.
Cruz gets elected and goes back on his word = Mega Loss, since he's just another politician doing what politicians do, proving conservatives to be total boobs, and the political spin cycle begins again.
Well but you guys also think Trump would be a good President, lol. I do like Sanders but his positives exist because republicans just were not attacking him. If he had beaten Hillary that would have changed.
I think that kinda seals the deal at this point. Especially considering how much further ahead Trump is polling in CA, et al.
Although, truth be told, I'm more interested to see whether or not Bernie can take Indiana from Hillary. Currently, she's at 52% and he's at 48%.
I definitely don't want the Colonel to win the nomination because I feel he's a bigger threat than Hillary, but I want the Democratic primaries to be prolonged as much as possible. So hopefully, he wins Indiana.
Cruz has hit a steep point of decline with voters--conservatives in general. While I believe this drop is partially due to pro-Trump outlets and Red-Pill dispensaries working over time to cast a shadow of doubt upon his political character, I think it has more to do with people simply deciding that Trump is more appropriate as an insurgent candidate at this point in time. At least, that's what I hope.
I drift ever closer toward voting Trump by the day, but that doesn't mean I'll hold Cruz in low esteem for it. At this point, I simply believe that the message of Nationalism is indispensable to our country's successful resurgence from the abyss. For all the love I have for Ted Cruz, he either doesn't have the capacity for--or merely hasn't bothered with--making Nationalism a vehicle for superior conservative ideology. Marketing those ideals during his campaign is perfectly well and fine, but it's low energy if it's not riding a significantly potent, powerfully narrated wave of patriotism. Trump's message is eclipsing Cruz's own for that very reason.
For all the shit being thrown his way by the Trump camp, the man is NOT a Rubio. Politician though he may be, his track record of challenging and pissing off the establishment is not up for debate. I still want him to explain his endorsement of TTP, but he's made too many decisions in the past that conflict with its premise for me to believe that he's in favor of such globalist initiatives--and if /pol/ says otherwise, they're blowing smoke. I do not want Cruz's career to go the way of Rubio's over his showdown with Trump, and no other conservative should either.
Lol, I admit it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy since Cruz was the victim but you got to admit Trump can tell some big whoppers. Or do you think Trump was being honest?
I think he latched onto something semi-topical and ran with it to harm his opponent.
His strategic exaggerations and oral inelegance is a known phenomenon. They're largely the reason he's so formidable in a war of words. When he starts pressing her on Clinton Cash and Benghazi, she's gonna be shitting bricks throughout the election.
I think he latched onto something semi-topical and ran with it to harm his opponent.
His strategic exaggerations and oral inelegance is a known phenomenon. They're largely the reason he's so formidable in a war of words. When he starts pressing her on Clinton Cash and Benghazi, she's gonna be shitting bricks throughout the election.
Cruz is out. Hopefully not forever.
Don't get dizzy from all that spinning Pariah. "strategic exagerations", lol.
I'm not about to assume he would have cast a charge at Cruz outside of an election. And so I call it "strategic". The claim is from the National Enquirer for fucks sake.
I drift ever closer toward voting Trump by the day, but that doesn't mean I'll hold Cruz in low esteem for it. At this point, I simply believe that the message of Nationalism is indispensable to our country's successful resurgence from the abyss. For all the love I have for Ted Cruz, he either doesn't have the capacity for--or merely hasn't bothered with--making Nationalism a vehicle for superior conservative ideology.
His strategic exaggerations and oral inelegance is a known phenomenon. They're largely the reason he's so formidable in a war of words. When he starts pressing her on Clinton Cash and Benghazi, she's gonna be shitting bricks throughout the election.
But will that work outside the far right voters who are pushing Trump's campaign to the lead right now? His weird popularity among the primary voters doesn't necessarily translate in the general. I know many who would rather vote Hillary over Trump, and they fucking hate Hillary. Many of those Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich crowd just may stay home this November.
Indeed it did. Quite the broken clock that man was, no?
Hopefully, Germany rediscovers the nationalism that they lost before they're completely consumed by Islam. As it is, their pathologically guilt-driven preoccupation with the 'what would Hitler do' meme is making them too over-scrupulous to defend themselves against cultural incursions (see also: Cologne, et al.).
In any event, it also worked very well for the US prior to the onset of Critical Theory and Postmodernism (not to mention KGB activity) in the mid-50s..
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
But will that work outside the far right voters who are pushing Trump's campaign to the lead right now? His weird popularity among the primary voters doesn't necessarily translate in the general. I know many who would rather vote Hillary over Trump, and they fucking hate Hillary. Many of those Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich crowd just may stay home this November.
I don't believe the Cruz voters will stay home. Possibly a portion of the Rubios--and an even larger portion of the Kasichs. And I'm skeptical of the idea that Hillary could flip Republican voters. She is damaged goods, and it's about to get a lot worse with Trump putting her scandals on blast for the next six months. Thus far, Trump's adversarial virtue is that he can't be ignored and, in fact, intensifies the response of his opponents who are ultimately affected by his critique whether they try to ignore him or not. Costa Mesa is the prime example of this, what with his rhetoric motivating people to march/riot on his rally with Mexican flags and posters that say, "Make America Mexico Again". LAT was compelled to gently tell them to shut up for fear of being too revealing. Like it or not, Trump's bombastic approach triggered the lefties into exposing their particular brand of extremism, which will scare away more moderate democrats as time goes on. I can easily see the Trump campaign using the Costa Mesa footage for ads that attack Big business for selling out American citizens for cheap immigrant labor. And it will work.
These days, the key to destroying a candidate's viability--or at least potential viability--has more to do with shaming his voter-base than it does with pointing out his idiocy or corruption; if you vote for Trump, you're a racist Islamophobe. But with him, the Bradley Effect sets in. This is opposed to the once fashionable candidate Hillary whose corruption is well known and is also on the verge of an indictment. By the time Trump's campaign is through, I suspect that Hillary will have developed so much ill repute, that people will be too embarrassed to vote for her. And quite frankly, it does not take much to stymie Clinton in a one-on-one. All it took was one coal miner to beat her the fuck out on television.
To digress somewhat, one of the reasons that Romney and McCain failed so hard with people who weren't diehard 'Republican at all cost' types is because they were milquetoasty, demoralizing fuckwits who didn't capitalize on their advantages (admittedly, Romney tried to do that once during the debates, but he flubbed). They had footage of Bell, Wright, and the Weathermen to use against Obama, but refused to implement any of it. Ultimately, their apparent fealty to Political Correctness proved to be a crucial aspect of their undoing. I just don't see that happening with Trump--especially since he's attracted more black and Latino voters than either of the last two GOP candidates. Compared to those two, Trump apologizes for nothing (for better or worse), thus deflecting any onus of apology placed on his camp.
I agree with virtually all your points in the last few posts, Pariah. I would only clarify this comment...
Quote:
Hopefully, Germany rediscovers the nationalism that they lost before they're completely consumed by Islam. As it is, their pathologically guilt-driven preoccupation with the 'what would Hitler do' meme is making them too over-scrupulous to defend themselves against cultural incursions (see also: Cologne, et al.).
... saying that there is a difference between healthy nationalism (as in Trump's case the U.S. rejecting open borders and loss of sovereignty, and illegal immigrants who have contempt for our country and protest under Mexican flags, showing where their national loyalties truly are, and the clear undesireability and danger of ever giving these illegal immigrants the slightest legal status in the U.S.). As opposed to the un-healthy nationalism of Hitler's Germany, so-called National Socialism, that under the veil of preserving Germany, was truly about radically transforming Germany under the guise of preserving the very institutions it was destroying.
But I get your point about the "white guilt" that has endangered Germany, the shame Germans (and the rest of Europe, and white liberals worldwide) feel in the decades after Hitler, that not only makes Europeans resistant to racist nationalism, but far beyond that, paralyzes Europeans from acting in common-sense self-preservation against the clear threat posed by massive (and non-assimilating) muslim immigration. Even when those muslim immigrants manifest their violent anti-European mindset in repeated murderous attacks and in repeated public statements of further intent.
The same white guilt that elected Barack Obama.
The same white guilt in the U.S. (over past racist treatment in the U.S. of blacks, Hispanics, native Americans, and other minorities) that misguidedly makes liberals in the U.S. resist common-sense self-preservation of national sovereignty and identity here, and ignore the clear threat of massive non-assimilating Hispanic immigration, particularly Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) who march under Mexican flags, and want to "take back" the U.S. Southwest.
Hispanics who in 5 decades have gone from less than 1% of U.S. population, to 3% by 1980, to 9% by 1990, to about 19% now, and over 25% by 2040. And on a faster track than statistics 20 years ago already made clear.
The path to national suicide by continuing the current immigration policy is clear. And Trump, for one, offers common-sense resistance to that threat, that is resonating along cross-party lines to millions of Americans.
But will that work outside the far right voters who are pushing Trump's campaign to the lead right now?
If it were just "far-right" voters pushing Trump's campaign, I don't think he'd have done as well as he did in the Northeastern "blue" states like NY and NJ where Republicans tend to be relatively moderate.
Trump is getting off to a bumpy start. Lots of prominent republicans are not planning on endorsing him from the looks of it. His comments about registering Muslims and all the groups he alienated makes him to toxic. I do see Paul Ryan saying "he's not there yet" indicating to me at least that he'll eventually endorse him. I suppose once Trump declares that he never said the things he said Paul Ryan will "get there", lol
It was actually the same for Democrats in 2008. Neither Obama or Hillary had enough primary votes to secure the nomination, so superdelegates in the DNC selected Obama over Hillary in a frenzy of phone calls and backroom deals.
That's when Ted Kennedy (a superdelegate) was called by Bill Clinton appealing for Ted to vote for Hillary, and Bill Clinton famously said to him of Obama's inexperience: "A few years ago, he would have been bringing us coffee!"
And Harry Reid in the same period said they chose Obama because he was black, but that he didn't speak in "ethnic black dialect" that would be "offputting" to white voters.
But hey, y'know, the DNC selects their candidates in the most representative and transparent way possible, they'd never usurp the will of Democrat state primary voters, and select a candidate based on cynical, backroom elitist or racist reasons... would they? Oh, no, never! They've just done it before.
It's not disenfranchisement, Clinton having more votes and pledged delegates is what will give her the nomination. Keep in mind she was able to do that while battling on two fronts.
It's not disenfranchisement, Clinton having more votes and pledged delegates is what will give her the nomination. Keep in mind she was able to do that while battling on two fronts.
We both know you know exactly how superdelgates work and it has nothing to do with who got more votes.
The DNC specifically allotted that many super-delegates for the express purpose of overriding any possible candidates that the DEM elite dislikes. Again, this is the legacy of George McGovern's campaign, and the DEMs still run with it because it gives them ultimate power.
What is this feeling? What is this.....pleasurable sensation....
....Why, I believe it's Schaudenfreude!
What the fuck do you think is gonna happen when you associate with the Democratic party you stupid fucks? Your opinion matters even less to the DNC than my opinion does to the slightly less corrupt GOP--and that's saying a lot.
Colonel fans either consist of aging, doddering hipster ideologues or clueless college campus millennials, and so it's no surprise that they're surprised about something so unsurprising.
The DNC specifically allotted that many super-delegates for the express purpose of overriding any possible candidates that the DEM elite dislikes. Again, this is the legacy of George McGovern's campaign, and the DEMs still run with it because it gives them ultimate power.
I'm fine with it. Nobody is forced to vote for a party or run with a particular party. Republicans I might add don't pick there candidate purely by who has the most votes either btw. In fact there was an attempt this year to get Trump into a contested convention.
I'm fine with it. Nobody is forced to vote for a party or run with a particular party. Republicans I might add don't pick there candidate purely by who has the most votes either btw. In fact there was an attempt this year to get Trump into a contested convention.
When the GOP's super delegate count numbers in the fucking hundreds--close to a quarter of the delegates needed for a nomination--then I'll compare the severity of their suppression to the DNC's.
As it is however, I've hardly been cheer leading for the GOP this election cycle.
If the super delegates end up with whoever has the most votes I think it probably isn't going to be an issue. Sanders came close but basically he can't win unless he flips super delegates. That's not likely because he has way less votes/pledged delegates.
That doesn't seem very objective wb. I understand the other side enjoying any fighting going on but Sanders just has less votes than Hillary. More people have voted for her than when Obama ran in 2008.
Hillary Clinton may run into some opposition from her own party if she decides to poach a Democratic senator as her running mate.
In an interview on Monday, MSNBC host Joy Reid asked outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid whether he supported either Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Sen. Sherrod Brown as potential Clinton running mates.
Harry Reid shot down the idea, pointing out that if Clinton chose a nominee from a Republican-controlled state, then the governor would fill the vacancy, essentially allowing the seat to switch hands.
"If we have a Republican governor in any of those states, the answer is not only no, but hell no," Harry Reid said. "And I would do whatever I can and I think most of my Democratic colleagues here would say the same thing."
He added: "I would yell and scream to stop that."
Ohio state law requires the governor to appoint a senator to finish out the term. With former Republican presidential candidate John Kasich running the Buckeye State, it's a good bet that a Republican senator would serve for Brown's remaining two years. In Massachusetts, the nominee would serve for up to 160 days before state law requires the governor to hold a special election.
Though Warren's work as an aggressive watchdog and consumer advocate has helped her garner a major national profile, many political observers have noted that Brown could also help burnish Clinton's progressive credentials. The senator has strong ties to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and hails from Ohio, the Rust Belt swing state that's critical to securing the electoral-college votes needed to clinch the White House.
As she comes closer to clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton is publicly keeping the door open to different options, recently even floating the idea of nominating someone from the business community.
Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez are all reportedly on the short list of potential running mates.
Loving the Democrat-on-Democrat fratricide.
Looking forward to a long primary run by Bernie Sanders.
Hillary's evil gloating supervillain laugh concludes this ad, just as it did the last ad. Manifesting her contempt for her victims, for the American people, and for the laws she breaks in pursuit of her own selfish ambition.
Trump led Clinton 46%-44% in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll
Quote:
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Clinton beating her GOP rival 46%-43% among likely voters, barely outside the poll’s 3.1-percentage-point margin of error.
Clinton towered over Trump by 11 percentage points in the same poll just last month, and held a double-digit lead over him since December.
Actually, I see Trump as having the momentum, and Hillary on a downward slide. Presidential elections tend to ultimately go to whoever the new candidate is, who offers a real change. In this case, Hillary is the status quo, who basically offers a 3rd term of Obama policy. Whereas Trump offers a real alternative to both parties, vowing to bring common-sense policy to secure our borders, to protect the U.S. from Islamic terrorism, to reign in the national debt, to rebuild our military, and grow our economy and jobs.
Hillary offers to not even label ISIS and Al Qaida as "Islamic terrorism", let alone fight it, Hillary campaigns to continue an anti-jobs policy that has brought less than 3% growth every year of Obama's presidency. Hillary campaigns to shit on U.S. citizens while favoring illegal immigrants (i.e., undocumented Democrats), campaigns to further slash and weaken our military, campaigns to not enforce our borders against illegals and call anyone who disagrees a xenophobe and racist, and campaigns to further demagogue "the rich" who create jobs in this country, even as she reaps huge campaign and Clinton Foundation contributions for selling out to them.
Voters are terrified of what's been happening for the last 7 years, they ultimately will reject 8 more years of it.
Minimally reported, Donald Trump a few days ago finally secured the nomination with the needed minimum delegates. You know, the minimum number that everyone said it was impossible for him to get!
And there's still a number of state primaries still left to go.
The opposition all say that Donald Trump is crazy. But I've increasingly seen he's crazy like a fox. He makes controversial remarks that suck all the oxygen away from his opposition, and that allowed him to be the last man standing among an unprecedentedly large field of 17 Republican primary candidates. And it's a delight to see the same juggernaut unleashed now on Frau Hitlery.
Clinton beats the Colonel in California by sixteen points.
Sucks.
It's still possible for Sanders and his zombies to drags this out through DC and going after the super-delegate system. They won't necessarily be successful, but they'll continue to make her look toxic--and if they riot in the process, they'll make themselves look bad too. Double win.
As with the Islamic attacks and what Trump said about common-sense vetting, or even suspension of Islamic immigration, Trump is again on the right side of the issue regarding Britain's "Brexit" vote to leave the European Union. That he as a candidate is sensitive to the will of the people on immigration and globalism, as other leaders in the E.U. and in the U.S. are not.
Trump's popularity, as is the popular majority that voted in Britain to exit the E.U., is a manifestation of resurgent nationalism, in the U.S., the U.K., and in nations throughout Europe.
Some of the allegations in this eRumor are accurate, according to Kessler’s book and some are not. Let’s take a look at each one:
Codenamed Lancer, John Kennedy was a philanderer of the highest order. Jacqueline Kennedy ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over food and wine for the next White House occasion: -Truth! & Fiction! An agent interviewed in Kessler’s book said that while assigned to guard President Kennedy agents realized that he led a double life. The charismatic leader was “a cheating, reckless husband whose aides snuck women into the White House to appease his sexual appetite.” There was no mention of Jackie Kennedy saving leftovers for the next occasion.
Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was another philanderer of the highest order. He was also crude as the day is long. Ladybird Johnson was either naive or pretended to “not know” of her husband’s many liaisons: -Truth! & Fiction! One agent assigned to protect him who was interviewed in Kessler’s book said that Johnson, codenamed Volunteer, was “uncouth, nasty and often drunk.” The agent said that after being caught by his wife having sex with a secretary in the Oval Office Johnson ordered the Secret Service to install a buzzer to warn him. The agent said that Mrs. Johnson was well aware of what was going on.
Richard Nixon was a moral man but very paranoid, odd and weird.. He had a horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, he was almost a recluse. Pat Nixon was quiet most of the time: –Truth! An agent assigned to protect the Nixon’s said that the President, codenamed Searchlight, “seemed to have no relationship with his wife, Pat,” and she “was an alcoholic who tippled martinis.” When the Nixon’s were in San Clemente, Ca the family went out to play a nine hole golf game and an agent said that during the entire hour and a half game the President did not say one word to his wife and daughters.
Spiro Agnew was a nice, decent man and everyone in the Secret Service was surprised about his downfall: -Fiction! Agents assigned to protect Agnew were interviewed and said that although he came across as a champion of family values the Vice President “was having affairs while in office.” A detail of Secret Service agents once clandestinely took Agnew to a room on the fourth floor of Washington’s Regis Hotel and left him there unguarded for three hours, at the request of the Vice President. A former agent said, “Leaving him in an unsecured location was a breach of security. As agents, it was embarrassing because we were facilitating his adultery. We felt like pimps.”
Gerald Ford was a true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor. Betty Ford drank a lot: - Truth! Agents found President Ford, Codenamed Passkey, to be a “decent man who valued their service.” Although he was portrayed by Saturday Night Live comedian Chevy Chase to be a stumbling, bumbling buffoon, agents say Gerald Ford was quite athletic and enjoyed skiing. Ford often taunted agents to keep up with him on the slopes. After failing to keep up with the President the Secret Service recruited a world class skier who would ski backwards in front of the President and “wave as the President tried to catch up with him.”
Betty Ford did suffer from alcoholism but eventually found sobriety and in 1982 founded the Betty Ford Center, which has aided over 90,000 people with a network of treatment centers for alcohol and chemical dependency.
Jimmy Carter was a complete phony who had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the “football” nuclear codes - Truth! Kessler interviewed agents assigned to Jimmy Carter, codenamed Deacon, who described Carter as a “moody and mistrustful” person who distanced himself from the agents who were sworn to protect him and his family. Agents were instructed not to speak to President Carter unless he spoke to them first. A former agent said that President Carter “tried to project the image of himself as a man of the people by carrying his own luggage when travelling. When he was running for President, Carter would carry his own bags while the press was in sight but once in private he would ask the Secret Service to carry his luggage. An agent said that when the Carters were staying at the President’s home in Plains, Georgia, the “nuclear football,” the device that the President uses to launch antiballistic missiles to protect the U.S. from a foreign launched nuclear attack was not permitted on the grounds of the Carter home. The “football” allows the President to launch counter measures within five minutes of a notification of a nuclear strike. It was kept with an agent in a military trailer in the neighboring town, Americus, which was fifteen minutes away.
Rosalyn Carter mostly did her own thing- Unproven! Although not much is written in Kessler’s book about Rosalyn Carter, other than she enjoyed a screwdriver before church on Sunday in a White House where the Carters had requested the removal of alcoholic beverages, there is no indication that she did her own thing.
Ronald Reagan was moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. The Reagan’s treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Nancy Reagan was very nice but very protective of the President- Truth! Ronald Reagan’s codename was Rawhide and according to Kessler’s book he treated the Secret Service agents, the Air Force One Crew and the staff of maids and butlers at the White House with respect. President Reagan was known to carry a fire arm and told a former agent that it was “just in case you guys can’t do your job, I can help out.” A former agent told Kessler that when Reagan travelled on his first presidential trip to the Soviet Union he had packed a gun in his briefcase. A former staff member told Kessler that “Reagan was famous for firing up Air Force jets on behalf of children who needed transport for kidney operations.”
Kessler wrote that Nancy Reagan was very protective of her husband, oversaw his diet and all visits from the children of the President had to be cleared by her first.
George H. Bush was extremely kind, considerate and always respectful towards Secret Service agents. They took great care in making sure the agents’ comforts were taken care of and even brought them meals. Barbara Bush once gave a warm hat to a Secret Service agent while he was protecting the Bush’s at their Kennebunkport home in Maine – Truth! A former agent told Kessler that the Bush’s were very considerate of the agents sworn to protect them. The hat incident occurred while Mr. Bush was Vice President.
Bill Clinton’s term in office was one giant party, he was not trustworthy, adulterous and was only nice because he wanted everyone to like him. Hillary Clinton was another phony whose personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. – Truth! A former agent told Kessler that William Jefferson Clinton, codename Eagle, was habitually one to two hours late for so many events that the agents assigned to protect him dubbed his tardiness “Clinton Standard Time.” Clinton was caught in an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky and the Clintons, as well as many of the staff that they brought with them to the White House considered the military as “people who couldn’t get jobs.” A former assistant pastry chef told Kessler that Hillary Clinton did not approve of maintenance work being done in the White House while they were present. An agent assigned to protect her said that when she was in front of the press she “turns it on, and when the lights are off and she’s away from the lights, she’s a totally different person.” The agent also said that she was sarcastic and angry at her staff and yelled at them.
Albert Gore was an egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he “would end up like these guys”- Truth! Kessler wrote that every agent assigned to protect the Vice President heard the famous reprimand to Al Gore III. Gore, codenamed Sundance, told his son, “If you don’t straighten up, you won’t get into the right schools, and if you don’t get into the right schools, you could end up like these guys.” As Gore said this he motioned to the agents.
George and Laura Bush were loved by the Secret Service. The President was also the most physically “in shape” and had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service. Laura Bush was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone- Truth! Agents told Kessler that they “were always amazed at the difference between Bush in person and the way he came across at press conferences.” An agent assigned to George W. Bush, codenamed Trailblazer , said that although he seemed awkward in front of the microphone that he was “funny as hell,” and had an incredible sense of humor. The agents loved to run with Bush and the Secret Service assigned its best runners to keep up with him. Bad knees eventually caused President Bush to switch to a bicycle. An agent told Kessler that Laura Bush had “the undying admiration of almost every agent,” and that he had not heard anything negative about her.
Barack and Michelle Obama look down on the Secret Service and hate the military. He is egotistical, cunning and untrustworthy and has temper tantrums. Michelle is a complete bitch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants- Fiction! & Unproven! According to Kessler’s book, agents said that are treated with respect by both Barack Obama, codename Renegade, and First Lady Michelle, whose codename is Renaissance. They also said that agents were twice invited “to dinner, including a party for a relative, both at his home.” The agent also said that Michelle insisted that agents call her by her first name.
There was no mention in the book of how the Obama’s felt about the military.
I just watched the 1-hour Ron Kessler documentary, Tales From The Secret Service on Newsmax, that covers the history of the Secret Service, as well as Secret Service agents' perceptions of presidents and first ladies, from JFK up through Donald and Melania Trump. It also tells you the codenames of each. I was amazed that despite multiple presidential assassinations up through 1902, presidential security was just an afterthought up til then. When Abraham Lincoln was shot at the theater, there was only one city police officer assigned to protect him, and on the night of the shooting, he had left his post to get a beer ! Even after a second president (James Garfield) was assassinated in 1881, still no protection was created. And the Secret Service began protecting presidents only after McKinley was shot in 1901, and Teddy Roosevelt became president. There were no restrictions on people entering the White House grounds until the beginning of World War II.
In addition, here is a list of all the first family codenames (presidents, first ladies, and their children) used by Secret Service :
