“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
BREAKING: much needed head transplants soon to be available. Ben Carson said to head the queue! (“The science don’t lie”) ;-)
Although transplanting the head of a chihuahua onto the Mad Doctor's body might be a more useful feasibility study, come to think of it!
No, Carson needs to wait until they can transplant a head inside a rectum. Cuz let's face it, how far must his head already BE up his rectum to believe that he would make a decent President?
Drop the 'decent', for succinctness.
Spoken like a non-American. We're not big 'Caligula" fans in this country.
The only R-candidate that stand a cat in hell’s chance of defeating Clinton is Bush III. And he’s kind of got an ‘inverted Clinton problem’: a member of political dynasty and one the whole wide world sighed a breath of relief about when Bush II was finally gone.If Clinton can create a bit of (artificial) ‘distance’ beween Big Capital/Wall Street and herself it’ll be plain sailing, I believe…
Au contraire. IMO, he's the only (R) that can't.This is another "change" election. All candidates advocating a return to the past or reminscent of it WILL lose in the General.Time for another bet? Sanders beats Clinton for the nomination IF he doesn't keep up his admirable and yet ultimately self-defeating (ridiculous) non-SUPER-PAC policy.
Since Jebbaroonie is the only Republican candidate that can't possibly defeat HRC, NATURALLY he will be selected by the RINO Establishment who obviously is very heavily invested in sustaining permanent loss for their benighted party.
Naturally. The Establishment confuses "wanting/desiring" something with an increased possbility in "actualizing/ attaining" something. Normally, the instinct is correct... only at a certain point, NO amount of money can purchase the "wanted/desired" outcome. And the shelf-life of the Bush/Clinton "brands" has "long-expired" with the American people. Proof? A completely unknown/untried candidate WHIPPED HRC in 2008. And history is about to repeat itself.
Romney met with Sheldon Adelson the other day in an attempt to prevent a break-away non-Establishment candidate from having the money needed to beat Bush. It might work. But if it does, the Democrat in the race will be a shoe-in again, just as in 2012. Because Conservatives will stay home, in droves.
Talk Yiddish to me!
Jeb sure plays a mean clarinet!
Ok. I thought you didn’t like Bernie? Not that one thing means another.Reps seem hell-bent on self-destruction. This constantly moving to the right cannot do them any good. It’s not where the votes are. If arch-Reps like Frum (talk about Yiddish! LOL) can see it, who can’t? A bet? Sure! Thought you’d never ask it but which one? Bernie vs. HRC for the Dem nomination? Seems to me Dems will put all eggs in HRC basket. Slightly ‘rebranded’ perhaps but ‘name popularity’ and all that… Further demonstration of Dem’s bad faith, IMHO.Other USP for HRC: she has a vagina (allegedly).Adelson: since as money is now free speech, what did you expect? BTW, he funds a free pro-Bibi newspaper in Israel too. Mazel tov! (NOT)
Bernie's half-right. The "System" is broken. My problem with Bernie is that IMO, his "remedy" will 'F it up even more. He moves in the "European" direction (socialism) instead of the "American" one (rugged individualism and laissez-faire economics).And I'm not sure what the bet should be. I don't think that Bernie can "win" unless he "adopts" the very system to get elected that in principle he finds so corrupt and has vowed not to employ. I'm willing to "bet" that either Bernie stays true to his principles and loses OR that he violates them and wins. So it would have to be a "conditional" bet... on what Bernie does vis. "funding" his campaign. So if you are willing to acknowledge the "distinction", I'll bet you a beer (for you) vs. a sarsparilla/root-beer (for me) that if his formal campaign decides to TAKE PAC money, he'll win the Democratic nomination. I'd even be willing to go further and also bet that if Jeb wins the Republican nomination, he'll beat Jeb in the General Election. IMO, people are SICK of both Bush's and Clinton's and the corruption that both candidates represent.And Adelson is currently still under investigation by DOJ for his Macau gambling enterprise (worth $billions). He really needs to "buy" himself a "dropped" investigation.
erratum - "SOLICIT SUPERPAC money" for "TAKE PAC money" above."I'm not going to have a super PAC in this campaign," Sanders said. "I don't go to fundraisers where millionaires sit around the room and say here's a million, here's $5 million for your super PAC. That's not my life. That's not my world. And I think the American people are saying that is not what our politics should be about." He said the money he's raised so far has come from more than 100,000 individual donors, giving an average of $42 each.
If Bernie at any time during his campaign endorses the activities of a specific SUPERPAC or seems to be colluding with a specific well-funded SUPERPAC or billionaire, I'll acknowledge that he's broken with his principles and admit that he's going against Hillary head-to-head and that the "conditional bet has become "unconditional". But until that day arrives, and he's raising only "millions" instead of "hundreds of millions", he's going to lose.
fyi - Bernie Sanders, the independent Democratic senator from Vermont, is within striking distance of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in a new poll of likely New Hampshire presidential primary voters. A new survey from the Morning Consult finds 44 percent of New Hampshire voters who say they will vote in the Democratic primary support Clinton with 32 percent supporting Sanders.Bernie SandersEight percent say they would vote for Vice President Joe Biden, who is not currently a candidate, with two percent supporting former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley and one percent supporting former Virginia governor Jim Webb. Eleven percent say they are undecided.
Ok. Let's just hang in there for a bit. I'd feel a little weird betting someone will lose when I'd really like them to win. If he really does creep up on her it'll be more interesting anyway.
Fair enough. I'll let you know if/when Bernie crosses over to the "dark side" of campaign finance. ;)
Yes, let's do that.O/T: I see our mutual acquaintance ('That Blogger' I shouldn't really talk about) seems to have lost his marbles more or less completely over the last few months. Incoherent, near illiterate ramblings (described by one lone fly-by commenter as 'possibly performance art'), with 'communists/Marxists' everywhere and badly told tales of repeated misfortunes in the workplace are now the main content of his blog. Talk of employment, I find it hard to believe an imbecile like him can hold down a job in Law Enforcement. I always thought the latter had some semblance of internal standards (seriously). I feel fairly confident (but without glee) that things will ultimately not end well in that department.
Well, it's not really "law enforcement"... it's more "government". And I think that he makes the "perfect" bureaucrat. Much like Hitler's father, a hefty Supergo is required.
Hmmm, perhaps the sort of bureaucrat that could provide an alternative beginning to Brazil, this one due to repetitive 'typos', never to admit he was wrong, of course? He certainly needs some kind of a 'protected work environment', borderline special needs.I can't believe he once had a bit of a coterie of bloggers that seemed to gravitate to him, for some bizarre reason.
That "bizarre" reason isn't all that difficult to explain. Many of us on the right used to gather at FPM. Then they started "moderating" their blog, and many of the more "extreme" commenters among us were kicked off. At that time, I blogged as "Homer" a blend of the ancient bard and the Simpson's character. There was also a very intellectually strong progressive blogger their named 'Socrates', who blogged under numerous pseudonyms and who teased and tormented a certain to be nameless blogger relentlessly. When we got kicked off FPM, I (and ducky) gravitated towards Big Bubba's blog, while others gathered elsewhere. When Bubba stopped blogging, I kind of followed ducky.As much as I may disagree with him, mr. ducky has taught me quite a bit. The net wouldn't be the same for me, without him. And there you have it. If it weren't for "moderation" at FPM, he never would have had a blog. And neither would most of us who once gathered there.I love an unmoderated forum, but it tends to get "trashed". Many who comment would like to believe that their arguments deserve "preservation". I tend to think of them as "work in progress", best destroyed after a certain time.Many in the old FPM group now have their own blogs. Geeez seems to get the most attention, although most of the old posters have moved on.
Yep. That explains it. I kind of stumbled on that cluster via 'Hear O'Israel' (remember that one?) w/o knowing its 'FPM prehistory'. Shortly after the feud with That Blogger started (then ended). Several of these blogs ('Long Range', 'Beamish', e.g.) now don't exist any more (or have gone dormant).FPM would have deleted my comments, I'm sure of it. Their abject ultra-Zionism for one wouldn't have allowed dissent, not even politely phrased. HP, a 'liberal Zionist' blog IP blocks me.
Hey! And then then there was LGF! And how it 'flipped'! Halcyon days...
You would have loved FPM before 'moderation'. You could have, and people did, say ANYTHING. Nothing was taboo.
Post a Comment