American Politics Reloaded

CJB wrote:

Clinton may have raped Libya into failed statehood

Did Hillary tell Qadaffi he 'better put some ice on that', or am I misremembering?

x

There is some analysis out there which suggests Trump's treatment at the debate was a strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the company.

Quote :

According to sources, Murdoch has tried — and failed — to rein in Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, who, insiders say, is pushing Fox to defend Trump’s most outlandish comments. This week, Ailes told his senior executives during a meeting that Murdoch recently called him and asked if Fox could "back off the Trump coverage," a source told me. Ailes is said to have boasted to his executives that he told Murdoch he was covering Trump "the way he wanted to."

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly

One interpretation of how they went after Trump might be that Murdoch pushed through his will.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

CJB wrote:

Clinton may have raped Libya into failed statehood

Did Hillary tell Qadaffi he 'better put some ice on that', or am I misremembering?

Right line, right orifice, wrong Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/30/reviews/000730.30hitchet.html

Quote :

''Finished, he got off the bed and put his pants back on. She was in shock, sobbing. He went to the door. He put his sunglasses on. He turned back and he looked at her. 'You better put some ice on that,' he said, and was gone.''

Salomé wrote:

There is some analysis out there which suggests Trump's treatment at the debate was a strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the company.

Of course it was. Megyn Kelly in particular is a total puppet. Compare 'Mr Trump, why do you hate women?' to 'Senator Cruz, do you support this law we already know you support?' or 'Mr Trump, why do you keep going bankrupt?' to 'Senator Paul, why do you love religious liberty so much?'

HJackson wrote:

Salomé wrote:

There is some analysis out there which suggests Trump's treatment at the debate was a strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the company.

Of course it was. Megyn Kelly in particular is a total puppet. Compare 'Mr Trump, why do you hate women?' to 'Senator Cruz, do you support this law we already know you support?' or 'Mr Trump, why do you keep going bankrupt?' to 'Senator Paul, why do you love religious liberty so much?'

So Trump was built up by Fox so they can now bring him tumbling down.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'm hoping for Bernie Sanders myself.

Same here.

Feel the Bern.

Camille Paglia on the GOP and Hillary Clinton:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/ted_cruz_gives_me_the_willies_camille_paglia_analyzes_the_gop_field_and_takes_on_hillary_clinton/

Quote :

"I have constantly said that Senator Dianne Feinstein should have been the leading woman presidential candidate for the Democratic party long ago. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is a very deft and clever behind-the-scenes legislator and dealmaker, a skill she acquired from her political family–her father and brother were mayors of Baltimore. Both of these women, to me, are far better politicians than Hillary Clinton. Hillary has accomplished nothing substantial in her life. She’s been pushed along, coasting on her husband’s coattails, and every job she’s been given fizzled out into time-serving or overt disaster. Hillary constantly strikes attitudes and claims she’s “passionate” about this or that, but there’s never any sustained follow-through. She’s just a classic, corporate exec or bureaucrat type who would prefer to be at her desk behind closed doors, imposing her power schemes on the proletariat. She has no discernible political skills of any kind, which is why she needs a big, shifting army of consultants, advisors, and toadies to whisper in her ear and write her policy statements. There’s this ridiculous new theme in the media about people needing to learn who the “real” Hillary Clinton is. What? Everything they’re saying about what a wonderful person Hillary is in private tells us that she’s not competent or credible as a public figure! A politician, particularly a president, must have a distinct skill or expertise in communicating with the masses. It’s the absolutely basic requirement for any career in politics.

If you don’t have an effective public persona, if you’re not a good speaker, if you don’t like to press the flesh, if you’re not nimble enough to deal with anything that comes along, then you are not a natural politician! And you sure aren’t going to learn it in your late 60s! Get off the stage, and let someone else truly electable on! All this silly talk about how wonderful Hillary is in private. Oh, sure, she’s nice to the important people and the people she wants or needs something from! Then she’s Pollyanna herself! There are just too many reports stretching all the way back to Arkansas about Hillary’s nasty outbursts toward underlings when things aren’t going well. The main point is that the ability to communicate with millions of people is a special talent, and Hillary pretty obviously lacks it."

x

I assume she means that she championed Feinstein in previous election cycles? Because an 82-year is surely unelectable for POTUS, whatever her qualities might be.

It is interesting that part of the Dem base is now so turned off Hillary that they are trying to convince Biden to run. From everyone's favorite crazy uncle to President.

x

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Daniel Craig 'duped' into political donation

Quote :

Daniel Craig has been left shaken and just a little bit stirred. The actor, who plays James Bond, has apparently been ‘duped’ into donating almost $50,000 to a ‘shadowy’ organisation that claims to be backing the left-wing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Craig gave $47,300 (£31,000) to a group called Americans Socially United, which runs a campaign website Bet on Bernie in support of Mr Sanders.
Like many liberal-leaning celebrities, Craig has been attracted to Mr Sanders’ calls for free university education, an NHS-style health system and other left-wing policies.
The only problem is Americans Socially United, a controversial political organisation known in the US as a “super PAC”, has been accused by Mr Sanders’ lawyers of running an ‘illegal’ campaign that does not have the candidate’s backing.

http://bit.ly/1Q9qc3q

Why is Craig contributing to an American election?

Because he's been living in America for awhile.

It's not really worth donating to any of these campaigns, on either side.

Does anyone actually believe that Sanders' policies would come to fruition? And, most importantly, how the fuck are we going to pay for them?

Makeshift Python wrote:

Because he's been living in America for awhile.

Does he have dual citizenship?

I guess you can donate to Super Pacs, just not the official campaign, if you're not a citizen.

Didn't Brozzer become a US citizen solely to vote for John Kerry?

More from Dore unloaded.

Of course he does.

High standards...

AMLO calls it

Poor psycho Blinken.

Poor Psycho Joe.