Neo

Awesome. He's not my candidate, but I'd listen to his answer to your question. I'm no political scientist, but a Democratic Socialist Party seems to me to be an organizing opportunity in light of the size, passion and demographics of the support. Fantasy -- 12 years from now the GOP is squaring off against the DSP. The DSP is comprised of 2/3 of today's DNC. The DNC is gone, and the remaining 1/3 of today's Democrats are part of the revised, centrist GOP. America's political center is shifted left of where it is today. DSP is further left. The new GOP, infused with 1/3 of today's Democrats, is less right. Of course, you don't need the birth of a new, and the death of an existing, party to accomplish the same thing.

Great thread. Three or four different topics. You can agree with all without contradicting others. Dudacek ... Great idea, homework and conclusion. To those who've acknowledged the progress but still reserve the right to judge based on success at the next step. Yes. To the ZFG attitude. I like it. Sports is outsized personality and entertainment, I like GMTM's ZFG moniker. It's like a WWF slogan. PA and Darcy. Right on. You can respect what Darcy did without saying he's better or worse than GMTM. I always thought Darcy did a great job given his economic constraints. He HAD to win every trade. GMTM goes shopping with more money in his pockets. He can afford to take risks and miss. If he buys a lousy lunch, he'll not miss dinner. All that said, it was time for Darcy/Ruff to go. I remember your posts at the time.

The last thing abandoned when when partisanship is adopted is moral equivalency. I know, I put the partisan coat on from time to time. All I ask is that one recognizes as much when donning the coat. PS: I am claiming this is not debate in order to feel good about my pledge, above, to stop. Allow me my comfortable rationalizations. ********* Tangential to this thread where we've referenced Fox News repeatedly. Is anyone following the horrific Roger Ailes story?

You're going to bring expiration dates into this?!?! I jest, I jest.

I will end my debate with the esteemed Mr Pasta. I'll allow that I'd sound silly defending Trump (if I were). My over arching point is that holding each party and candidate to the same standards, in light of the two candidates, is sad. Holding either one, and not the other, creates and endless volley.

The people who misinformed Smith was HRC, "personally".

Birther originated in 2008, during the Democratic primary. Whacky Trump championed it. "Birther" represents all that is wrong with politics. It's not the only example. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, et al. represent significant GOP leadership doing just what you ask. Are you a smoothy, too?

I give the grown up nod to HRC.

I'll need your full name for write in purposes. First, though, I'll need to know more about your energy policies. I recall that's your biggest issue? Do I remember correctly? Energy and the judiciary are HUGE under discussed policy items.

To PA: "How was it racist?" IS my point. It wasn't racist. Applying that standard to criticism on both sides of the aisle would be wonderful. Regarding the time, I was thinking Central Standard Time, obviously! The mother of Sean Smith has another view. Is that good enough for you, too? I'll note her view, if unkindly. I've left the emotions of mothers out of it. The performance is enough for me.

Your reply memorialized my self edited snark removal. You are too fast in replying. Sometimes, I am too fast in snarking. Ok, same zip code? I'm sliding! I hope I'm fair and balanced. I think team Clinton made Foster miserable. I don't blame her for his death.

1). The Supreme Court appointments are my largest (sole?) reason for considering Trump. 2). The Senate absolutely should consider President Obama's nomination.

Solely from my point of view --- The challenge with #1 lies in a public / government employee critiquing private sector success and failures. Clinton ran State. The final chapter in that is "and, in a decision curious to legal analysts on the left and right, the FBI did not recommend an indictment." If she came after me about a bankruptcy, I'd respond with dead ambassadors, the Ukraine, a map of ISIS's territory comparing the day she arrived and the day she left, and on and on. Trump could say "it wasn't marked bankrupt at the time". Edit to self police bias and snark before being called out! #1 gets to competancy for both. That will be one for the ages. They both have ammo. Ok, a DRAW in this case?

To Pastajoe ... Explain that to the Republicans who've put up with the "racist" smear for eight years for questioning qualifications. What you say is 100% correct. I just wanted to hear you say it. I await your edit of your prior post where the "racist" charge was originally made.

I think he'd go if Trump won. After all, he named the original "birther" Secretary of State. He ignored a veiled racist "2 a.m. phone call" ad and endorsed the same person eight years later. He doesn't carry a grudge! The challenge supporting HRC - it's unwise to point out any other candidate's sleaze and corruption.

Just another way ol' Bill resonates with me.

AWESOME ....wish I could meet up ... have a beer for me. Labatt Blue would hit the spot.

This is pretty good. I like your style!

To Claude: Twenty years from now I'll be watching George Prescott Bush and Chelsea Clinton debate. I'll be in ill humor after learning our OneAmerica National Care program won't pay for a knee replacement in light of the actuarial ROI for a 75 year old. I'd get drunk, but the $11.23 SocialJusticeSecurity check won't buy a shot. Maybe I'll call Deluca and go target shooting.

^. I agree with Bob that she nailed the distinction aspect at the close. I yawned up until that point, but she finished strongly. Neo's after-the-event speech advice: Keep the distinctions, keep the finish, attack Trump by name, but lose the condescending sneer. You might have gathered some Trump supporters with distinctions born in empathy for what his supporters feel. She missed the opportunity for "she gets what I feel and offers the alternative of more reasonable temperament". Instead, she earned "she has no idea what I feel and considers me a dumb bigot". She definitely explained to reluctant Trump supporters that she's not him. She definitely did not make herself an attractive alternative to those same supporters.

If HRC was centrist on the judiciary and social justice issues, and if she didn't have monumental ethical issues, I'd gladly consider her. Those are two huge "ifs". They give rise not only to opposition, but to animus, in me. Shocker, I know. Read any of my posts. We all prioritize differently. No one's policy stances are exactly mine. Thank heavens.

I would say no to "hawkish". I looked it up. The word belligerent appears in several definitions. I know some posters consider her a hawk. Everyone's view of someone else depends, of course, on where their own feet are. I guess she's be a hawk to someone who's more dovish. That's an incomplete thought. On matters of war, I think "decisive" is a word I look for. Hawk, dove ... mean less to me. I think HRC is decisive.

I noticed that! I did! The beard, the bald and the broad!

I am watching a shop worn speech, comprised of yesterday's promises of manna from Washington, and concluding it'll be more effective than last week's discombobulated rambling that picked scabs and opened wounds without offering salve or dressing. The debates will be a treat. She'll slaughter him and he'll lash out. I see a whirring top spinning uncontrolled and a bobble head doll, each behind a podium. My money's on the bobble head. Disclosure: nearly all of my political predictions are wrong. I just KNEW Romney had 'im with three days to go. Human interest story: I'm not a fan of Chelsea's politics, but it's cool to see her grown up, charming and poised. I remember cringing at "awkward" commentary when she was so young.

The facts, of course, are wholly different. My objection would therefore be to different things. I do object to the extent that official business, conducted by staff or appointees, was conducted out of the public view and/or without regard to security. Grateful ... So, to Deluca ... You can add that event to my list of objectionable activity.