The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

[Simple Minded]

What is worrying me is that we have no peace candidate on either side. Mme. Clinton is a known bloodthirsty warmonger, and her election would be a catastrophe. I only hope the Republicans can manage to get her impeached and removed from office before she starts WWIII, which we cannot possibly win.

I doubt the Repubs would even attempt it. The MSM strategy will be to label those criticize the first female POTUS as "sexist." Hilary is part of the good ole boys club. Look at what the republicans did to the Tea Partiers.

[Parodite]

Since WW2 the U.S. has been clueless, I don't know of any better word, in their foreign politics; all military conflicts they started or interfered with, especially in the Meddle East et environs, have been abject failures. It is systemic, structural. Why would that change any time soon.

The only candidate that gets my benefit of the doubt is Trump, even though his ideas on foreign policy are murky and contradictory at times. Basically he wants the US army to stay home and be so strong that no-one would ever try to f*ck with the born-great-again US-of-A. He also wants to conquer and take over oil fields of ISIS, which is rather unthoughful because that would spark very strong anti-US sentiments - not only in the Arab world and destroy alliances the US would need in that scenario - but he might change his mind on that as a POTUS if he would calculate that he would loose that battle.

Trump hates loosing, being a looser. That really is good news for the USA! As a POTUS he will not want to start or be part of battles he can't win. This is really something new and good. The egos of other candidates are perhaps equally oversized but he is not smart enough to fully delude himself in any sophisticated way like H Clinton can for instance.

This Rubio is dangerous IMO; he is young, inexperienced and clearly hungry to be fully deluded as all POTUSes before him.

Sanders, it seems to me and as others noticed, doesn't seem to want to be POTUS at all. Once in power, most of his shiny quasi-socialist armour would wear off within weeks and he would not recognize himself anymore in the mirror in the morning.

Ted Cruz seems to come from another galaxy, he didn't make touch downs on planet earth yet. I think he hasn't even been born to date.

[YMix]

Trump hates loosing, being a looser. That really is good news for the USA! As a POTUS he will not want to start or be part of battles he can't win. This is really something new and good. The egos of other candidates are perhaps equally oversized but he is not smart enough to fully delude himself in any sophisticated way like H Clinton can for instance.

He is not a particularly good businessman; had he invested his inheritance in a stock-market index fund, his net worth would be double what it is today. But the psychic rewards of unrestricted narcissism more than compensated for the unperformance of his portfolio. He has had the opportunity to retain the infantile instincts of a child of wealth into his dotage. He cannot bear to lose; he cannot even bear to accept part of the responsibility for a loss.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

He is not a particularly good businessman; had he invested his inheritance in a stock-market index fund, his net worth would be double what it is today.

.

Typical "money shuffler" mindset

Trump built so many "world class" buildings .. he created something "one of a kind"

David's mindset what is wrong with America .. FED pushes money to Wall Street crook "money shufflers" instead backing "wealth creators", builders of America.

The result we see .. Wall Street becoming richer and richer and mainstream going broke.

Enterprises are built by "entrepreneurs", money shufflers (hedge fund crooks) take it over, load lots of "debt" on it by flipping and flipping to each other, that (once) profitable enterprise goes broke under the mountains of debt, employee lose their job .. that the modus operandi

.

[Parodite]

Trump hates loosing, being a looser. That really is good news for the USA! As a POTUS he will not want to start or be part of battles he can't win. This is really something new and good. The egos of other candidates are perhaps equally oversized but he is not smart enough to fully delude himself in any sophisticated way like H Clinton can for instance.

He is not a particularly good businessman; had he invested his inheritance in a stock-market index fund, his net worth would be double what it is today. But the psychic rewards of unrestricted narcissism more than compensated for the unperformance of his portfolio. He has had the opportunity to retain the infantile instincts of a child of wealth into his dotage. He cannot bear to lose; he cannot even bear to accept part of the responsibility for a loss.

Spengman fears Trump for the reasons I mention; Trump will not likely side with a war-mongering Israeli gvt that wants to attack Iran. That Trump is a spoiled rich-born kid and not the succesful businessman he likes to portray himself, is just a deviation by Spengli. What matters is that Trump does not want to be perceived as a looser. The inability to take responsibility for a loss is also an advantage: as a businessman you can operate much easier under the public radar than as a POTUS. If he senses that a million public eyes will always following him wherever he goes as POTUS and given that he can't handle a public humiliation very well.. will make him all the more cautious to engage in battles he can't win.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

"Parodite" .. Israel attacking Iran was never "on the table", US 5th fleet just sitting 30 miles from Iranian coast (Bahrain) in case somebody was needed to attack Iran, in fact, 5th fleet was protecting Iran from any silly attack .. was just a scam to squeeze more money out of poor American Joe.

David a "money shuffler", boasting he can predict what Gold price would be tomorrow, as if that would make America more prosperous .. never built anything in his life .. a parasite

.

[Parodite]

"Parodite" .. Israel attacking Iran was never "on the table", US 5th fleet just sitting 30 miles from Iranian coast (Bahrain) in case somebody was needed to attack Iran, in fact, 5th fleet was protecting Iran from any silly attack .. was just a scam to squeeze more money out of poor American Joe.

Don't think it was a scam as you see it. To float around and show off naval muscle in tense areas is what all superpowers do since they believe this is what the Gods tell them is their duty.

David a "money shuffler", boasting he can predict what Gold price would be tomorrow, as if that would make America more prosperous .. never built anything in his life .. a parasite.

I think of Spengman as a good guy who is also a bit wimpy. Remember he once wrote he was too afraid to watch The Lord of the Rings. His nerve endings that regulate fear, anxiety are open wounds that often force him to see the world more paranoid than strictly necessary. And like all seriously religious folksies, his reality is infused with the imaginary which doesn't help either.

[Nastarana]

I think Sanders was encouraged to run and make H look more moderate, and was genuinely surprised by his success. The party thought Sanders had no chance but needed somebody else to run or there would be no debates for H to pose in. H thought she was going to be shadow boxing, and both were flabbergasted to find themselves in a genuine race.

He is surely getting some outside of the party support from somewhere, IMHO, or he would not be able to keep on going. The party establishment have been quite hostile to him, and that can't all be a pose. As to where that support might be coming from, my theory, as stated above, is that it is a segment of the Israel lobby, the non-insane part, who don't want to bring on Gotterdamerung in the ME. Notice the absence of a foreign policy from the Sanders campaign; that is almost unheard of in a presidential campaign. I might also note that Clinton has no farm policy, for a very good reason; her ongoing hot affair-the phrase 'in bed with' hardly describes the sordid reality here--with the biotech companies is strictly not to be mentioned, and I have no doubt that reporters have been instructed not to ask embarrassing questions like "Why did you give a major policy speech to a convention of biotech companies two weeks before you announced your candidacy? and "Why is one of Monsanto's top lobbyists bundling money for you?"

I doubt that stumbling down Pennsylvania Ave. in a snow or rainstorm in January, followed by some guy giving him the red pill or the blue pill speech in the privacy of the WH is quite the dignified retirement Sanders had in mind.

[Nastarana]

What is worrying me is that we have no peace candidate on either side. Mme. Clinton is a known bloodthirsty warmonger, and her election would be a catastrophe. I only hope the Republicans can manage to get her impeached and removed from office before she starts WWIII, which we cannot possibly win.

I doubt the Repubs would even attempt it. The MSM strategy will be to label those criticize the first female POTUS as "sexist." Hilary is part of the good ole boys club. Look at what the republicans did to the Tea Partiers.

What ever do you mean, they won't attempt it? They are no doubt researching for the attempt right now. Look for lots of grunge to come out about the Clintons' post WH life, from Epstein's underaged sex parties to speaking fees, to the squandering of literally billions of generously donated funds in Haiti.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

. . like all seriously religious folksies, his reality is infused with the imaginary which doesn't help either.

.

David (Spengler) as religious as this David

Come on, Parodite, come on

Being religious does not mean not putting Chicken and egg in same fridge .. being religious means being a good human being


.

[Typhoon]

Say a headline that claimed that Bloomberg is [yet again?] thinking for running for POTUS as a independent 3rd party candidate.

[Doc]

Say a headline that claimed that Bloomberg is [yet again?] thinking for running for POTUS as a independent 3rd party candidate.

Big ego you can believe is big. Nothing more.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Never ceases to amaze how well conditioned the US electorate is to act against their own interests.

Now we can all look forward the gig economy.

All for the cost of 14 F-35 development programs? Quite the bargain deal.

In a vacuum, perhaps. The policy of supporting arms development moves forward. It is not a either/or choice and considering the popularity (and usual inertia) it is a matter of paying for both.

And the flip side is that the size, scope and scale of what it means to finance either one of them (you may as well have compared the cost to making five years of Hollywood blockbusters or 80 Empire State Buildings or the cost of rope to get to the moon from here...) is nothing but numbers to most of us; and it should give one pause the that same corporate body which thinks the F-35 is a brilliant idea, now wants to apply that sort of brainpower to health, schooling...everything on that list.*

Does that sound like a bargain?

*why would you pay someone to get your family to leave is beyond me when it's easy enough to drive'em away with bickering.

*

[Simple Minded]

it should give one pause the that same corporate body (or big brother - SM) which thinks the F-35 is a brilliant idea, now wants to apply that sort of brainpower to health, schooling...everything on that list.*

Does that sound like a bargain?

*why would you pay someone to get your family to leave is beyond me when it's easy enough to drive'em away with bickering.

*

Well said.

The faith of the proles does seem close to eternal. You can shove sub-prime, public schools, ethanol, and AGW down their throats, and they never tire of asking "Well that didn't work so well. What else can you not do well? Thank you sir! May I have another?"

The mentality of celebrating diversity by institutionalizing one size fits all, enforced at the point of a gun has always mystified me.

Regarding family bickering, you WOPs, er I mean fine Italian types, are all gold medal holders. Luckily, quick to anger is usually quick to forgive and forget.

Us Northern European types hold grudges for decades.... whne we get pissed off, we mean it!

[Typhoon]

Never ceases to amaze how well conditioned the US electorate is to act against their own interests.

Now we can all look forward the gig economy.

All for the cost of 14 F-35 development programs? Quite the bargain deal.

In a vacuum, perhaps. The policy of supporting arms development moves forward. It is not a either/or choice and considering the popularity (and usual inertia) it is a matter of paying for both.

And the flip side is that the size, scope and scale of what it means to finance either one of them (you may as well have compared the cost to making five years of Hollywood blockbusters or 80 Empire State Buildings or the cost of rope to get to the moon from here...) is nothing but numbers to most of us; and it should give one pause the that same corporate body which thinks the F-35 is a brilliant idea, now wants to apply that sort of brainpower to health, schooling...everything on that list.*

Does that sound like a bargain?

*why would you pay someone to get your family to leave is beyond me when it's easy enough to drive'em away with bickering.

*

I had no idea that Sanders is part of the corporate body and a supporter of the F-35 boondoggle to boot.

So it ain't so, Joe.

[Typhoon]

FT | Michael Bloomberg says he is eyeing 2016 run for the White House

Given the mood of the electorate, I don't think he would be spending his money wisely.

[Alexis]

Since WW2 the U.S. has been clueless, I don't know of any better word, in their foreign politics; all military conflicts they started or interfered with, especially in the Meddle East et environs, have been abject failures. It is systemic, structural. Why would that change any time soon.

Err, no.

Since WW2, and excluding small forays and adventures the likes of Granada or Somalia, the US has waged several successful wars:
- Korea 1950-53 - NK invasion repelled
- Gulf War I 1991 - Kuwait liberated, Iraqi army broken
- Kosovo War 1999 - Serbia compelled to abandon this province

Failures include:
- Vietnam 1963-73 - South Vietnam forcibly unified with North
- Afghanistan 2001-20xx - Taliban not destroyed, government not under control, little to show as positive
- Iraq 2003-2011 - Iraqi government not under control, Iran benefiting instead of the US

This is a mixed record, not a record of constant failure.

Note that looking the period between WW2 and 2001, US record of wars won vs lost is strongly positive, with only one (admittedly big) error. On the other hand, major wars since 2001 have been failures. So I reckon that there is indeed a structural & systemic problem here, however this problem lies specifically in the reaction to 2001 attacks, not in the whole of post-WW2 US war policy.

In other words: Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda gang have really deeply wounded America on that fateful day of September. The damage extended far wider than the 3,000 lives lost and the economic cost.

On a positive note, Americans seem very intend on correcting that structural issue. Trump and Sanders, more generally the non-Neocon candidates which would include Cruz, are testimony also to that. And looking for a correction is the first step in finding it.

If a Neocon is elected again I mean Clinton or Rubio, he/she will probably be the very last of the kind.
Now I could understand those Americans who would prefer to abstain from that very last... and the probable cost in lives and treasure

Trump hates loosing, being a looser. That really is good news for the USA! As a POTUS he will not want to start or be part of battles he can't win. This is really something new and good. The egos of other candidates are perhaps equally oversized but he is not smart enough to fully delude himself in any sophisticated way like H Clinton can for instance.

Sometimes common sense is more important than lofty theories.

Nay, correct that: most of the time, it's more important.

Sanders, it seems to me and as others noticed, doesn't seem to want to be POTUS at all. Once in power, most of his shiny quasi-socialist armour would wear off within weeks and he would not recognize himself anymore in the mirror in the morning.

I understand that POTUS are not all-powerful, and the November election will not be for the post of "God". That being said, US presidents are not totally powerless either

As for what Sanders want, well who could know except himself and, maybe, his wife?

However, imagine you're an elderly politician with quite original ideas - relative to your country, that is - and a history of struggling just for those ideas to be represented in the public sphere, without almost any influence on actual policy. Then you start a presidential election, again only for your ideas to be discussed, without genuine hope of success, like you've always done for the last quarter of century. Probably for the last time, given your age. You were born too soon it would seem, others will have to continue the struggle, for results only in a distant future that you won't see.

Then... it appears that you do have a chance after all. It looks like that "distant future" could be... well, the present year! It looks like instead of being the elder advising young socio-democrats, you could be in charge yourself, and implement your ideas for good.

===> Whaddya do?

- Cower in fear? Oh no, poor me, I'm so not able, I so couldn't do better than those greatest among great luminaries named Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton, whose magnificent successes I can't dream of equaling.

- Or you go all for it, in what is the last political endeavour of your life, an unexpected opportunity to change your country and implement your ideas and win for a change?

Hey, Sanders may be a Leftist, but he's an American. If he agrees with Trump on one thing, it's this: winning, winning, winning!

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Folks , Hillary as good as done, well done

Sanders goin to fight Trump .. the rest should let go, don't waste other people's money.

Notion, Bloomberg entering the race, same as Goldman Blankfein would run, naive.

America had it, all corruption in Wall Street .. elections, congress, Senate, President, all bought by crooks.

Trump would fast track America into toilet

Doc, Monster, MP, hold your nose and vote for Sanders

Only chance for our beloved America is SANDERS


.

[Typhoon]

Reason | Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Win in New Hampshire. That’s a Rebuke to the Political Status Quo.

[Zack Morris]

Not just a rebuke to the status quo. The real story is how European America has become. Republican voters don't really care about Jeffersonian democracy, Constitutional originalism, limited government, or laissez faire capitalism. They're insular, bitter clingers suspicious of change, who want to be #1 again. They're like the ultra-nationalist European parties. Nothing intellectual about this movement. No grand Enlightened vision here. And Sanders? Well, he's a European democratic socialist if I ever saw one!

[YMix]

Bernie Sanders Wins Every Demographic Group

Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Even so, there were a few silver linings for Mrs. Clinton. While Mr. Sanders bested her among all age groups younger than 45, the two candidates polled evenly among voters aged 45 to 64. And Mrs. Clinton won the support of voters 65 and older. And, though Mrs. Clinton lost nearly every income group, she did carry voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

Well, Mr. Perfect was right. Older people vote conservative.

[Doc]

Not just a rebuke to the status quo. The real story is how European America has become. Republican voters don't really care about Jeffersonian democracy, Constitutional originalism, limited government, or laissez faire capitalism. They're insular, bitter clingers suspicious of change, who want to be #1 again. They're like the ultra-nationalist European parties. Nothing intellectual about this movement. No grand Enlightened vision here. And Sanders? Well, he's a European democratic socialist if I ever saw one!

Bitter Clingers -- Perfect description of Hillary Supporters. Bitter so they cling to their Cats and Hillary

[Doc]

Reason | Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Win in New Hampshire. That’s a Rebuke to the Political Status Quo.

Yes it is. Sanders and Trump are opposites in many ways, but they are both strait talkers. So far this election that is the only thing that counts

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

They both are (relatively) to the left on many issues in the context of standard American national politics.

As much as I love to mix it up and argue with Zack Morris, he does have a point that this election can be seen as the country moving leftwards.

[Typhoon]

They both are (relatively) to the left on many issues in the context of standard American national politics.

As much as I love to mix it up and argue with Zack Morris, he does have a point that this election can be seen as the country moving leftwards.

Relative to whom?

Obama? The Great Progressive Socialist [a.k.a. Muslim Commie Pinko and Polluter of our Precious Body Fluids] according to many.

Reagan? Raised taxes 11 times over the course of his admin. Increased the US national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.
[$2.60 trillion to $5.45 trillion in 2015 dollars].

Nixon? Created the US EPA. Implemented Wage and Price controls. Declared a ""War on Cancer" and ramped up funding for the US NIH. Reestablished diplomatic relations with mainland Maoist China and the CCP.

Eisenhower? Expanded Social Security. Started the US Interstate Highway System, one of the largest government programs in history. Enforced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas using the Arkansas National Guard and the US military. Created Operation Wetback to try and deal with illegal immigration.

Perhaps the US electorate has finally figured out that those who benefit from the FIRE economy and the military-industrial complex are advocating policies that are not in the electorate's best interest and want to return to historically more mainstream US policies.