Run Hillary Run - Still an outside possibility

[Selene]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019

And the money keeps rolling into Evita...

Fundraising Details

	Campaign Committee	Outside Groups	Combined
Total Raised	$159,903,128	$62,676,002	$222,579,130
Total Spent	$129,068,041	$18,654,390	$147,722,431
Cash on Hand	$30,835,088	$44,021,612	$74,856,700
Debts	$928,629	-	-
Date of Report	February 29, 2016	March 21, 2016	-

Source of Funds

 

 

	Individual Contributions  - Small Individual Contributions  - Large Individual Contributions	$145,412,945 $28,585,959 (18%) $116,826,984 (73%)	(91%)
	PAC Contributions	$1,027,553	(1%)
	Candidate self-financing	$560,983	(0%)
	Federal Funds	$0	(0%)
	Other	$12,901,647	(8%)

 

[Roger Bissell]

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/13/a-new-electoral-map-model-finds-hillary-clinton-crushing-donald/21343655/?cps=gravity_4816_-6779503048815341813

I don't know who this Morning Consult bunch is (www.morningconsult.com), but I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros is behind it. He has not only given huge hunks of money to Democratic candidates and groups like MoveOn.org, but also generous amounts to John Kasich. For the GOP to nominate Kasich would be win-win in November for Soros.

If anyone other than Kasich is nominated by the GOP, the party goes down in flames and loses the Senate and perhaps even the House. If Kasich is nominated and wins, there goes the Supreme Court (no difference, essentially, from a victory by Bernie or Hillary).

Time to bug-out soon?

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Sorry, should have checked the authenticity of that supposed Bill-and-Hillary photo.

REB

[KorbenDallas]

43 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Even this photo of Bill and Hillary at a Halloween party won't change the election results this fall. Get used to the idea that Trump, Cruz, Kasich, whoever spells GOP loss of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Probably some other stuff you care about too, like freedoms, income, etc.

REB

This one appears to be debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-blackface-photo/

 

[Roger Bissell]

Of all the things to find myself in agreement about with Herr Drumpf! 

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or over on the Drumpf thread. But since it's about a prediction Drumpf made about Hillary, here ya go, sports fans:

http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/donald-trump-just-made-this-shocking-prediction-about-hillary-clinton/

REB

[Roger Bissell]

A hearty (but facetious) congratulations to Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Her election to be our 47th President has now been assured, with Drumpf's win in Indiana and Cruz's withdrawal from the GOP nomination campaign. To all who shudder at this prospect, start now to cover your asses. It won't be a joyride.

REB

[KorbenDallas]

WV: Hillary loses 2/3 of support from 2008

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wv-hillary-loses-23-support-2008/

Quote

In 2008, she received 240,890 votes. Yesterday, Clinton netted 84,176 votes, according to NBC — a 65% decline.

Other numbers show how the American landscape has shifted under Clinton’s feet.

According to data obtained at the polls yesterday, 33% of Democrats say they will vote for Donald Trump in November. Only 44% of Dems say they’ll vote Clinton. Twenty-one percent say they’ll support neither.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I kinda like this one by dear Ann:

The Clintons laugh off Juanita Broaddrick’s rape as “old news.” That’s what Cosby thought. That’s what Paterno & Hastert thought.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 24, 2016

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is really, really well done:

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder when they'll hit her with an indictment (June, July, August, September) and bring in Biden?

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

I wonder when they'll hit her with an indictment (June, July, August, September) and bring in Biden? end quote

 

Is the Democrat Convention a stop sign for further investigation? It is hard to say. Once the “investigation” was brought up again from an FBI source I thought something was about to happen. It hasn’t. I no longer thing Joe Biden is going to fill in, if she is indicted.

How many years were you in the Air Force Brant and when did you leave?

Peter  

Notes:

Brant wrote: "And what are we going to Iraq once we conquer it? . . . . And it is too bad Americans will no longer be able to travel so much of the world without risking maiming, death and kidnapping for now and the foreseeable future. Etc., . . . . Buy a little gold. Lay in some canned goods."

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

CC: BrantUSASF@aol.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Random thoughts

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:29:46 EST

There isn't going to be much problem going into Iraq and kicking

Saddam's butt.  The problem is whether he has a nasty surprise.  I suspect not, but don't know.  Since his primary motivation is to stay in power I think he would have told us about it one way or another. Isn't it interesting that George II is attempting to do what his father didn't do?  Isn't it interesting that Iraq was actually our ally prior to the last war we had with him but George I sent him the wrong signals to the effect that we weren't going to interfere if he took over Kuwait?  Isn't it interesting that he is as secular a ruler as can be for a Muslin nation, apart from being a first class SOB and brutal dictator, and thus should be a natural ally of ours against Muslim jihads?  The folks who attacked us 9-11 cannot want this man to stay in power.  The more we do the more we are going to have to do to counter all the seen and unforeseen consequences of our unnecessary interventionist foreign policy.  Israel can take care of itself better than it can with the US as its friend and sugar daddy.  Scratch the latter to be the former. Of course, it could no longer afford socialism, which we subsidize.  Of course, it might have to attack Iraq as it did over 20 years ago when it destroyed that nuclear reactor.  Israel's business, not ours. Isn't it interesting how George II is more interested in expanding state power at our expense with 9-11 as the excuse instead of using his brain to pay back the terrorists in unexpected and truly damaging ways--instead of helping them win control of the Muslim world generally? Buy a little gold. Lay in some canned goods.

--Brant Gaede

 

Brant wrote: "I just had a horrible thought. When I was growing up I had this idea of Frenchmen at sidewalk cafes sitting around talking endlessly and accomplishing nothing. Is this Atlantis?"

 

Brant Gaede writes, "I can't agree with Barbara Branden about how torture under certain circumstances might be appropriate.  However, I imagine most countries have used it, including the USA. Morally repugnant it is a poor excuse for competent interrogation."

 

Brant Gaede wrote: I don't think man is the rational animal.  I think man is the would be, could be, should be rational animal and that if rational his rationality exists along a continuum of less to more rational.  And thinking rationally is only one step. He (she, pardon me) then must act rationally (morally) to actually be rational.

 

"This is a generalized, collectivistic slander. I reject it completely. --Brant Gaede"

 

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: rights and emergencies

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:56:25 EST

If in an emergency you violate someone else's property rights to get you through that emergency then having to make restitution and exposure to judicial redress is part of the price paid to meet that emergency. Such a context creates extenuating circumstances that might help you and the property owner might forgive you in whole or part--perhaps by not pressing charges. But if the law is not fair then it itself can constitute a gross violation of rights, yours and others. Rights violations, theoretical and real, exist along a continuum and all have contexts. I think it is insane to state that any violation of property rights is absolutely wrong and you should not do it ever. You won't believe it when I refuse to break into a truck to retrieve a fire extinguisher to put out your car fire with your babies trapped inside the car. Would that maintain my moral purity and integrity and make me feel good the next morning, shaving, looking at myself in the mirror?

--Brant Gaede

 

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Moral Rights and Individual Rights

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:00:16 EST

 

In a message dated 1/31/01 12:46:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, wdwyer@california.net writes: > I asked how one would define "a right" that imposes no obligations on others.  >

 > Victor Levis replied,  > "You can't.  Your error comes from defining the right incorrectly.   The  obligation is to compensate for any damages."

 >

I and you have rights. My obligation to you is not to violate your rights and vice versa. Compensation for violations is purely derivative. I don't have the right to violate your rights because of my intent to compensate. If I violate your rights to deal with an emergency that's what I did. I may be applauded and sanctioned for my actions in spite of the violation, but that could not gainsay the fact of the violation as such.

--Brant Gaede

 

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Evolution & Crit Think

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:42:54 EST

 

In a message dated 2/23/00 6:33:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time, jwales@aristotle.bomis.com writes:

<< Well, let's think together on this.  What we want to think about is:  can we conceptually distinguish between the physical concept "space" versus the philosophical concept "nonexistence" or "nothingness"?

 

I think we can.  I think we must. Let's imagine that in a top quality lab, you create a perfect vacuum. Or, near perfect, anyway.  You've got a big glass jar and you've sucked out all the atoms of air, etc., from inside the jar. Now, you shine a light through it.  Does it take time to pass through it?  Yes.  Can we use this to measure different size vacuums?  Yes. Therefore, we can have _more_ or _less_ space. Space has attributes (size, for one!)  You can't have an attribute without an existent of some kind.

-------

Another way to think about it.  Would you say that, once you have a perfect vacuum, the "inside of the jar" has ceased to exist.  No!  What exists there is space. Heat the jar, slowly, carefully, until the glass loses rigidity and begins to ooooooze.  Due to the vacuum, it is going to scrunch in, no problem.  Has anything changed inside the jar?  Yes!  There is less space inside.  Nonexistence, in the philosophical concept, does not change.  Nonexistence has no attributes.  Nonexistence can't be measured in any way, because it doesn't exist!

  

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 BrantUSASF@aol.com wrote:

> Space does not exist.   > Brant

 Ha! A scientist named Gaede invented many decades ago a great vacuum system! However, space is not a physical concept, it is a negative concept in positive concept's clothing. In the example above you do not have more or less space but more or less of something else.  The inside of the jar is merely a measurement of distance between its walls.  What size does space have? You are talking about distance, not space.  Read my original post again.  I tried to word it very carefully. SPACE DOES NOT EXIST !  The jar with the perfect vacuum is filled with nothing--i.e., space.  Why are we arguing?

Brant Gaede

[Roger Bissell]

On 5/30/2016 at 8:55 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I wonder when they'll hit her with an indictment

It will be in November or December after she's elected, and BHO will issue a pardon, and we'll move on into the 5th term of George W. Bush (or the 3rd of BHO, if you see it that way).

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Ha. All those Atlantis posts by me. I haven't improved too much since. (Note the post by Jimmy Wales.) I've improved a lot, however, since I did all my postings on Petr Beckmann's Ft. Freedom. (Google Brant Gaede Ft. Freedom.) If you call that the Internet--it was pre-Internet commonly used, a dial-up, so that makes me about 28 years of continuous postings here and there. Atlantis was the best of all. The lost [Internet] city. (I just found what was likely my first FF post on 3/28/88--my 44th birthday.)

--Brant

thanks for putting them up

[Guyau]

Roger,

Winding along with that scenario---the part about the Democrats winning the White House again---might as well add that they retake the Senate. Pres. Obama gets his Supreme Court nominee confirmed in the Lame Duck. The new Democratic President gets his or her Supreme Court nominee(s) confirmed during first term as the vacancies appear. The consolation for Mr. Trump should be that he does not have to deliver on the infinitely equivocal "I will give you everything. I will give you what you've been looking for 50 years." But that would be a merely rational consolation.

[Roger Bissell]

[Brant Gaede]

If Biden, not Hillary, gets the nomination the Reps get creamed in Congress. If Hillary runs, regardless of the her negatives, Congress is safe for the Reps. Trump can only win if he runs against Hillary. Hence, Hillary will be denied the Democratic nomination for President.

Now, but, if Hillary is elected she'll be thoroughly hated and spiked and prevented. Even Bill won't be able to save her ass. The effective power will shift from the executive to the legislative and she won't get a second term--assuming she's nor impeached and convicted. Hillary Clinton is 100% incompetent. Let me repeat: Hillary Clinton is 100% incompetent. She's so incompetent she couldn't start a nuclear war by pushing the red button. This is why she might be an okay President.

--Brant

Trump: might be a farce

Clinton: would be a farce

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

 

It's the set up for the knockdown. Hillary is going, going and soon gone.

--Brant

there is no lock down for the Democratic nomination--the delegates are "pledged," not "bound" as they are for Donald

boy oh boy!--have I never wished more to be wrong!--I hope everybody is laughing at me come November, the day after the election

[BaalChatzaf]

On 5/31/2016 at 2:11 PM, Roger Bissell said:

It will be in November or December after she's elected, and BHO will issue a pardon, and we'll move on into the 5th term of George W. Bush (or the 3rd of BHO, if you see it that way).

REB

How about the third term of Bill?

[Roger Bissell]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On 5/31/2016 at 1:11 PM, Roger Bissell said:

It will be in November or December after she's elected, and BHO will issue a pardon, and we'll move on into the 5th term of George W. Bush (or the 3rd of BHO, if you see it that way).

REB

 

 

How about the third term of Bill?

 

 

We could only hope (against hope) that it would be that non-bad. 

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

Woman-power!

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 5/31/2016 at 0:29 PM, Guyau said:

Winding along with that scenario---the part about the Democrats winning the White House again---might as well add that they retake the Senate.

Run, Hillary, run. There is still a possibility.  One hundred fifty days of fantasy.

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If Hillary runs, regardless of the her negatives, Congress is safe for the Reps.

And yet ... there is real fear down-ticket of a rout or a splash-back effect.  Something explains the Bad Week eeks and oohs and distancing and Mexican hoopla. And the Romney conclave is part of that explanation.  To put it passively, there is fear of non-election among those encouraged to grab Trump tails. The in-your-face aggression of Romney is different from the turn-your-back passivity of notable GOP candidates at risk of losing. There are more GOP-held senate seats up for refilling than Democrat.  

So, let us disagree: Congress is not 'safe' in the year of Trump, except in political fantasy. The GOP has deepening wounds. 

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Now, but, if Hillary is elected she'll be thoroughly hated and spiked and prevented.

But, if she is elected and carries along a Senate majority, she is going to install insane commie gays on the Supreme Court, taking advantage of the weakened GOP caucus.   At least in one fantasy.  And she has got the veto pen and the Executive Orders guidebook for tyrants.  Right?

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Hillary Clinton is 100% incompetent. She's so incompetent she couldn't start a nuclear war by pushing the red button. This is why she might be an okay President.

Okay. She can't figure out how stupid and risky it was to host her own server, and self-serving bullshit is all we have heard from her on that subject. But did you watch her during eleven hours of testimony before Funny Hair's House committee? She bullshits  more competently than Trump, by my lights. She isn't facing Mexicans  fraud charges in a real live courtroom in November.  

As for nuclear (war), Trump has not a clue about the the nuclear dangers facing the world and the USA.  If Clinton is at zero on a Gaede Nuclear Competency Scale, where is Trump?  Trump in the situation room? Trump on the blower to NATO?  Trump facing the actual national security workload that begins a president's day? Trump  shutting his face for a half-hour to listen to necessary briefings?

6 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How about the third term of Bill?

We could only hope (against hope) that it would be that non-bad. 

It is the creepiest thing about this election for me. Consider the 'Trudeau Dynasty' and compare to Clinton Inc.  Daddy T is dead up here. The kid is on his own, if you know what I mean. It isn't like he moved into the PM's residence with T Daddy.

But the awful thing about next January is Tag Team, two for one, exchange pantsuits and resume Bill's Narcissist challenge -- the whole scenario of a double-headed eagle or vulture or whatever.   The first gentleman -- what will be his 'courtesy title' after the inauguration? Mr President. Hers? Madame President.  Freaky.

Look back in American political history. Wives became governors after their husbands had (until the modern age of Dixie Lee Ray) expired in office. Nine times out of ten the husband's career was ended by death, sometimes by constitution (remember Governor Lurleen Wallace?), sometimes by debility. But nobody until Hillary Clinton has tried to reinstall a husband (or his policies) in the White House. I mean, he will be back in the Power Bed. I exaggerate for effect, as he will not be required to sign six hundred things a day or ingest ten pound policy books, and can take lots of naps.  But still.

The Clinton tandem is creepy. It was creepy with two-headed Wallace and it will be nine times as creepy with Two Heads on a Clinton body.  You poor people.  

(from another angle, Eek!-its-Trump! folk might soothe themselves with an It Won't Be That Bad with two heads on the pillow. They can say "we know just what we are getting with Bill" and whisper that last part ... "propping up his ambitious wife."

Get Johnson up to fifteen percent over a three-week period before the Presidential Debates, get some relief from Two-Heads and Secret Weave as your sole strategic options.  And try to have happy fantasies while we go through this Meaningless Pollery period. I mean, even the 'best' polls this Mexican week do not give us enough information to be soothsayers. And me, understand weaknesses in argument. Seek wisdom not in the polls today, William. Discard the hysteria and hoopla and partisan chicanery. Think about the ponderable Public Opinion as a swarm. Open the shutters and freshen the air. Don't get hemmed in by convention or candy mountains.)

I will now do a forty-day fast. Fasting from  nattering on about the day to day, week-to-week Mexico convolutions of hoopla. I will be very interested in the two coming conventions, as spectacle, as propaganda, as raw display of power and conviction, of unwholesome appeals to fear and anxiety, of show biz above all.  This is where the game-show host and largest narcissist in the race should impose his will and chart the course of the real campaign, and where the Two-Headed Beast will do the same with their ambitions, her will, serve her husband's Trump-like need for acclaim, give Obama a hummer, do it doggy-style with Bernie, and tongue-kiss Pocahontas and anybody else who wants it, the whore.  Love-Party in Philly, Blood in the Water in Cleveland? Hand me that bag of popcorn.  Mexico.

I will probably drop back in to the threads on the porch once the Blood/Love parties are wrapped up.  Back to the submarine and the blog world of pure, unalloyed Hate.

Edited June 11, 2016 by william.scherk
Not Cornelia Wallace, Lurleen. Clueless clueless. Grrrammar

[Guyau]

.

It's starting to look like the winner of this election will receive not even 40% of the vote. June is looking better for Clinton in the polls due to decline of Trump:

 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5949.html

 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 6/11/2016 at 8:49 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ha!

Woman-power!

Michael

 

That is a hoot!

[KorbenDallas]

Author says Hillary Clinton is 'two different people'
 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korben,

I just got that book (Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate by Gary J. Byrne).

I never have time to read political books, but I will read that one.

I've also got Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer. I intend to read that one, too.

Michael