[rtpoe]

One other thing to worry about.

Once Donald Trump actually wins the nomination, he will be allowed (by a custom started by Truman in 1952) to receive classified US intelligence briefings.....

Does this tradition also extend to vice-presidential candidates, by the way?

Not sure. The reason Truman did it was because FDR left him so out of the loop in his few months as VP, he had no idea what the Manhattan Project was when he took over.

Anyway, a good number of intelligence people and experts are, with reason, concerned about The Donald's tendency to speak before thinking, and are worried he might blab confidential material.... Fortunately, it's up to President Obama to decide how much and what information the candidates get in their briefings....

[StrikezOne]

Journalist who exposed/advanced story of Ted Cruz's fathers connection to LHO and Rubios foam party found dead in an apparent suicide.

http://www.ibj.com/articles/58378-blogger-gary-welsh-dies-in-apparent-suicide

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20160502_2

 

[TheZookie007]

Journalist who exposed/advanced story of Ted Cruz's fathers connection to LHO and Rubios foam party found dead in an apparent suicide.

http://www.ibj.com/articles/58378-blogger-gary-welsh-dies-in-apparent-suicide

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20160502_2

It's a conspiracy ERMAGHERD benghazi

[rtpoe]

Just when you'd thought they'd got the violence at Trump rallies under control:

"But the job of covering Trump is getting darker, as the journalist Julia Ioffe discovered recently, after writing a profile of Melania Trump, the candidate’s wife, for GQ.

"Ioffe interviewed Melania Trump, a Slovenian immigrant, and found, in Slovenia, a family story that did not please her subject, including a half-brother whom Melania at first denied knowledge of. Melania attacked Ioffe and the piece as “dishonest” and full of mistakes without disputing a single fact, and Donald Trump attacked Ioffe and the piece without, he said, reading it at all. He had heard from his wife that the article was no good. That was enough for his followers. Ioffe was bombarded with death threats and hate mail, much of it anti-Semitic. Photoshopped images of Ioffe wearing a yellow star emblazoned “Jude” or dressed in a striped concentration camp uniform “at Camp Trump” landed in her inbox. Phone calls about coffins ordered or homicide cleanup services. Recordings of Hitler speeches. A gory caricature of a “Jew” being shot in the back of the head, with subject line, “They know about you!” Ioffe’s family fled anti-Semitism in Russia, as it happens, when she was a **09**. This is the response, remember, to a relatively gentle article. What will happen if Trump achieves power and is confronted, as he should be now, with serious investigative work? Ioffe filed a police report this week. The candidate, offered a chance by CNN to ask his supporters to stop the attacks, declined. “I don’t have a message for my fans,” he said. “I’d like to see my family treated fairly and nicely.”

(empahsis for the TL:DR crowd mine)

"America in a Time of Campaign Violence" by William Finnegan
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/america-in-a-time-of-campaign-violence

Oh, and he's declining to release his tax returns. Gee, what could he be hiding? Perhaps he writes off much of his personal expenses as business ones, considering how his person and his "brand" are so intertwined. Perhaps we'll find out how little he actually gives to charities. Or maybe we'll see how much he's got in offshore tax havens. Maybe we'll be able to figure out that he's not as rich as he claims to be....

For those who claim that Clinton is hiding all manner of secrets, it's worth noting that she's released ALL of her tax returns going all the way back to 2000. How else would we know how much she's made off of Wall Street bribes speaking fees?

And "they're being audited" is no excuse. The IRS says there's no reason you can't. And there's a precedent, too. In 1973, Nixon released his returns while in the middle of an audit:

In the summer and fall of that year, "Nixon was engulfed by a controversy over his personal taxes. An outsize charitable donation was the proximate cause, but the scandal expanded to include numerous issues with the returns Nixon had filed between 1968 and 1972," Thorndike noted in a soon-to-be-published paper.

Interestingly it was that very tax controversy -- not Watergate -- that gave rise to one of Nixon's most famous quotes, Thorndike found. "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook," Nixon told reporters in November 1973. "Well, I am not a crook."

"Nixon released his tax returns under audit. Why can't Trump?" by Jeanne Sahadi
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/11/pf/taxes/nixon-trump-tax-returns/

[StrikezOne]

It's a conspiracy ERMAGHERD benghazi

??

Just when you'd thought they'd got the violence at Trump rallies under control:

"But the job of covering Trump is getting darker, as the journalist Julia Ioffe discovered recently, after writing a profile of Melania Trump, the candidate’s wife, for GQ.

Yeah Trump sucks but Hillary sucks too.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hillary will Destroy America

1) Hillary Clinton has collected over $100 million in bribes from foreign countries and ruthless dictators. She will pay them back by betraying America's interests.

2) Hillary Clinton is a Monsanto puppet who wants to shove toxic GMOs down the throats of all Americans.

3) She's also a vaccine holocaust denialist who thinks vaccines never harm any children.

4) Hillary Clinton would continue the disastrous economic policies of the Obama regime that have devastated low-income Americans and caused massive unemployment.

5) All her talk about supporting poor people is just political posturing. In reality, she just wants more power as a member of the political elite, while keeping the poor trapped in a cycle of government dependence.

6) Hillary Clinton would expand America's surveillance police state while targeting conservatives with punitive IRS audits or even criminal prosecution.

7) Hillary Clinton is beholden to the financial interests of the criminal banksters like Goldman Sachs.

8 ) Hillary Clinton viciously attacked all the women who accused her husband Bill of sexually abusing them. She was an "enabler" of a serial rapist, yet she somehow claims to stand up for women's rights.

9) Hillary Clinton is part of the same class of criminal political elitists that the Bush family belongs to: A cabal of arrogant, dictatorial power freaks who only see voters as pawns to be manipulated and abused.

10) She's a friend of Big Pharma and the mass psychiatric drugging of the population. This form of "chemical dumbing down" is what causes some people to vote Democrat on election day.


The End Of Hillary

[Ninjaturtle]

One, vaccines help and you're blind if you don't see that. Ignoring vaccination is being deliberately ignorant. THAT'S harmful.

Two, everything you've "pointed out" are uncorroborated BS talking points spewed forth by the Right and 'Liability'tarians. Try backing up your statements with facts (from UNBIASED sources).

Hillary Clinton is a fantastic leader and I, along with most of the people I know, will proudly vote for her if she wins the democratic nomination. Not purely to stop the Don from winning but also because she's a damn fine American.

[mastert]

Yeah Trump sucks but Hillary sucks too.


2) Hillary Clinton is a Monsanto puppet who wants to shove toxic GMOs down the throats of all Americans.

3) She's also a vaccine holocaust denialist who thinks vaccines never harm any children.

4) Hillary Clinton would continue the disastrous economic policies of the Obama regime that have devastated low-income Americans and caused massive unemployment.

5) All her talk about supporting poor people is just political posturing. In reality, she just wants more power as a member of the political elite, while keeping the poor trapped in a cycle of government dependence.

6) Hillary Clinton would expand America's surveillance police state while targeting conservatives with punitive IRS audits or even criminal prosecution.

7) Hillary Clinton is beholden to the financial interests of the criminal banksters like Goldman Sachs.

8 ) Hillary Clinton viciously attacked all the women who accused her husband Bill of sexually abusing them. She was an "enabler" of a serial rapist, yet she somehow claims to stand up for women's rights.

9) Hillary Clinton is part of the same class of criminal political elitists that the Bush family belongs to: A cabal of arrogant, dictatorial power freaks who only see voters as pawns to be manipulated and abused.

10) She's a friend of Big Pharma and the mass psychiatric drugging of the population. This form of "chemical dumbing down" is what causes some people to vote Democrat on election day.


The End Of Hillary

I won't deny that number 7 and yes, she is a member of the politically elite mentioned in 9, though to call her a criminal is a but of a stretch. But the rest are comical.

$100M in bribes are called campaign contributions or donations to the Clinton Foundation. If you remember, the middle east and the rest of the world was quite stable when Bill left office. Some profit off war, but more profit from peace. I'm sure many remember that.

Vaccines are the greatest public health victory ever. To say there is no risk to getting a vaccine is wrong but the risk is infinitesimally small. I guess nobody remember what polio looks like or the 15,000 babies a year that live now that vaccines have wiped out diphtheria alone?

If Hillary is a friend of the drug companies, why aren't the stocks of drug companies soaring? The sector has been getting pounded even before the Shkreli and Valeant mess came out. GWB was the one that didn't allow the government to negotiate Medicare Part D allowing the drug companies charge whatever they wanted. But we don't want that fact to get in the way of a narrative.

The surveillance state will continue because the public will demand safety and security over freedom. That has nothing to do with Hillary.

If someone came out and accused your spouse of cheating on you when there was no evidence at the time, wouldn't you be just a bit mad?

GMOs are not toxic, but the glyphosate sprayed as a companion to GMOs is. Monsanto is not doing well as a company at the moment.

An IRS audit is nothing compared to the emotion Republicans whip up whenever they bring up planned parenthood. How many more people are going to get assaulted/killed inside/outside abortion clinics?

And I'm sure food stamps are what is wrong with the incredible indebtedness this country finds itself. By the way, do you know more white people are on food stamps than black people? And most of them are single moms whose family values voting fathers that don't pay **09** support are no longer in the picture. God forbid they got an abortion. How many wars went unfunded? How much in uncollected taxes has slipped through government's hands because of a contracted country that seemed to shun Keynesian economics?

Unemployment is at its lowest since the house of cards built by the Bush administration's failure to keep an eye on the Fed who weren't doing their job. But isn't that what conservatives do best? Not enforcing regulations they don't like. I'm sure you'll tell me family values and voter IDs are important to them as well.

Now you're probably going to say I'm a libtard or wave the 1st amendment (which doesn't protect you from being told to sit down) around that because that's what happens in arguments when most conservatives lose an argument when supported by facts.

[StrikezOne]

Now you're probably going to say I'm a libtard or wave the 1st amendment (which doesn't protect you from being told to sit down) around that because that's what happens in arguments when most conservatives lose an argument when supported by facts.

I will refrain from calling you a libtard since I appreciate the response you gave me. I will also address the things you refuted as well.

But I want to let it be known that I am in no way trying to "troll" here. I actually read your last sentence before you edited it and I appreciate that edit as well.

Having a different opinion should not get someone shunned. If someone has different views from what looks like the majority here, it does not make that person a troll.

Trolling is not my job. Quite ironically, it is more likely that people who show loving support for Hillary that have a better possibility of being a troll.

A Hillary Super PAC spent $1million on an "Internet Army"

Another Link

And this isnt even including all the anti-Hillary censorship on **24** and Twitter.

One, vaccines help and you're blind if you don't see that. Ignoring vaccination is being deliberately ignorant. THAT'S harmful.

Two, everything you've "pointed out" are uncorroborated BS talking points spewed forth by the Right and 'Liability'tarians. Try backing up your statements with facts (from UNBIASED sources).

Hillary Clinton is a fantastic leader and I, along with most of the people I know, will proudly vote for her if she wins the democratic nomination. Not purely to stop the Don from winning but also because she's a damn fine American.

And I'm curious, if presented with facts and thought provoking articles, would you consider your loyalty to Hillary? Or are you the type to denounce everything that is a questionable act on her part, or justify said act no matter what? You surely can't be that narrow minded and a blind follower correct?

Because I don't want to waste my time showing you countless links/things when you're just going to call BS without any considered thought to looking at this from the opposite side.

[Ninjaturtle]

Oh christ, no. If I read evidence that she's what you say she is, I'd look into it with an open mind.

The problem is I've seen nothing of the sort that isn't tied to major media, funded by a non-biased group, or a website that has "freedom" or "liberty" in its address.

[rtpoe]

As an example of where Clinton is having difficulties....

Her opponents have used her support of fracking as a club to hit her with. Sanders, of course, is categorically opposed to fracking. If you ask the many people opposed to fracking what's wrong with it, they'll likely say three things: they don't want it done in the face of local opposition, they don't want the frackers shoving unknown chemicals into the ground, and they don't want their water contaminated.

Fair enough.

What's Clinton's actual position on fracking?

If you pay attention to what she actually says in her speeches, she says she's against it where the locals are against it, she wants the companies to make public all the chemicals they're using in the process, and only if it can be done in an environmentally safe manner. That's exactly what the anti-frackers want!

But in our 30 second - 140 character world, people only hear "I support fracking", and don't hear anything else.

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/hillary-clinton-debate-fracking

And it's also a modification of her earlier position, where as Secretary of State, she promoted fracking around the world. But people aren't going to listen to any of her reasoned adjustments to her positions. And if they do, they'll complain that she flip-flops on issues.

But don't you want your officials to change their opinions when the opinions of the people they represent change? Or when more and better information becomes available? Why should flexible and nuanced opinions put a candidate at a disadvantage?

[mastert]

Now you're probably going to say I'm a libtard or wave the 1st amendment (which doesn't protect you from being told to sit down) around that because that's what happens in arguments when most conservatives lose an argument when supported by facts.

I will refrain from calling you a libtard since I appreciate the response you gave me. I will also address the things you refuted as well.

But I want to let it be known that I am in no way trying to "troll" here. I actually read your last sentence before you edited it and I appreciate that edit as well.

Having a different opinion should not get someone shunned. If someone has different views from what looks like the majority here, it does not make that person a troll.

Trolling is not my job. Quite ironically, it is more likely that people who show loving support for Hillary that have a better possibility of being a troll.

A Hillary Super PAC spent $1million on an "Internet Army"

Another Link

And this isnt even including all the anti-Hillary censorship on **24** and Twitter.

One, vaccines help and you're blind if you don't see that. Ignoring vaccination is being deliberately ignorant. THAT'S harmful.

Two, everything you've "pointed out" are uncorroborated BS talking points spewed forth by the Right and 'Liability'tarians. Try backing up your statements with facts (from UNBIASED sources).

Hillary Clinton is a fantastic leader and I, along with most of the people I know, will proudly vote for her if she wins the democratic nomination. Not purely to stop the Don from winning but also because she's a damn fine American.

And I'm curious, if presented with facts and thought provoking articles, would you consider your loyalty to Hillary? Or are you the type to denounce everything that is a questionable act on her part, or justify said act no matter what? You surely can't be that narrow minded and a blind follower correct?

Because I don't want to waste my time showing you countless links/things when you're just going to call BS without any considered thought to looking at this from the opposite side.

I think that I'm so hardened by social media and the comments section in most articles that it's just a reflex at this point. I can understand why people just quit them all together. It seems that the internet has a way to pass around complete falsehoods until they become true. It's blatant anti-intellectualism and "telling it like it is" that just makes me angry. It happens on both sides but the right seems to embrace it.

I reread what I wrote in response and I'm a little embarrassed. I apologize for that and the deleted comment (which I hope was ninja edited, but alas, it was not).

I'm not a Hillary supporter. In fact, I'm more of a Bernie Bro. But I'm fed up with both of them. Bernie and his supporters whining about the way the primary system is set up (though Bernie isn't really a democrat) and Hillary being a social imp. She just the complete opposite of Bill. Kind of cold, impersonable, careless, and presumptuous. I will vote, reluctantly, for Hillary because she at least understands how government works and Bill is whispering in her ear (though his legacy has taken quite a beating over the last 15 years).

I'm a scientist. When I see anything regarding the rampant disinformation about GMOs and vaccines, it boils my blood.

I want this electron to be over, the extreme wing nuts become ignored again (when gerrymandering is quelled), and cable news to die. All three will come true someday.

[TheZookie007]

What I want is for the best candidate to beat the Republicans to emerge from the Democratic side. Unfortunately, Hillary and her minions are behaving in a very un-democratic way in order to get what they want. That is unconscionable.

I'm all about Bernie Sanders. If the PTB at the DNC had any sense, they wouldn't get in the way of him winning since in the general he'd beat the Republican candidate by 38 points. If Hillary wins the nomination fair and square, fine. But thus far, she's NOT winning it "fair and square". It's when Hillary & co. pull stunts like this that really makes my blood boil...

Medium: "RIP Democratic Party"
Nevada convention marks turning point for democracy, those who previously might have voted for Hillary Clinton

By Yvonne C. Claes



...Such was the case when Hillary Clinton was declared the winner over Sanders, giving the former secretary 20 delegates to the Vermont senator’s 15.

But Clinton didn’t earn those delegates.

I watched with disbelief live streams of the event on various social media outlets. I was appalled yet I couldn’t turn away, even when the feed went dark and I only heard muffled audio.

But what I did see was Roberta Lange, the Nevada State Democratic chair who acted more like a dictator throughout the proceedings, approve last-minute rule changes that favored Clinton and exclude Sanders’ delegates from participating.

The long night ended with Lange striking her gavel and fleeing the podium. Berners were then faced with a line of armed officers.

Cheat, run away, call security, and then threaten people who waited as long as 16 hours to vote with trespassing. It’s the new American way.

What the hell has happened to democracy in America? And worse, why are Clinton supporters so content to settle for it, even going so far as to mock Berners who rightfully point to it as undemocratic?

These are the same people who already are losing their minds over Sanders’ supporters pledging not to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I’ve been called “childish,” a “traitor,” and even “sexist” for not supporting the Queen C (“C” being for Clinton).

I’ve been peremptorily blamed for costing Democrats the election against Donald Trump in November. My usual retort is that since Bernie is the stronger candidate, you are indeed the one costing the Dems the election by supporting such an obviously weak candidate. Besides, I cannot get behind someone who is content to suppress my vote now only to ask for it later.

And what happened in Nevada is another example of how the Democratic Party Establishment is doing everything it can to suppress votes. To add insult to injury, earlier in the evening California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Clinton loyalist whose chief of staff recently joined Hillary’s campaign, taunted disgruntled Berners during the convention.

Boxer told booing Sanders’ supporters, “Let’s hear it for Hillary Clinton! We have the votes, we have the voice, we have victory! …I’m for Hillary Clinton and she’s for all of us. Keep on booing and boo yourselves out of this election.”

Her words reminded me of those uttered last week by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. Rendell, who is hosting the Democratic National Convention this July in Philadelphia, warned Berniecrats to “behave” and “not cause trouble” during the three-day event.

It’s obvious now that Democratic elites don’t give a fig about uniting the party, and they never have. It’s all about doing whatever it takes to put their hand-picked nominee before voters in the general election.

[rtpoe]

Sigh. As each day and primary goes by, and the convention draws near, it's getting harder and harder to picture the Democrat factions putting aside their insignificant differences for the common good.

[StrikezOne]

Oh christ, no. If I read evidence that she's what you say she is, I'd look into it with an open mind.

The problem is I've seen nothing of the sort that isn't tied to major media, funded by a non-biased group, or a website that has "freedom" or "liberty" in its address.

Is it fair to say, however, that mostly everything positive that is said about Hillary is tied to major media?

I think that I'm so hardened by social media and the comments section in most articles that it's just a reflex at this point. I can understand why people just quit them all together. It seems that the internet has a way to pass around complete falsehoods until they become true. It's blatant anti-intellectualism and "telling it like it is" that just makes me angry. It happens on both sides but the right seems to embrace it.

Can't the same be said about mainstream media? They have so much power and influence on the opinions of people and what people think about. And when I say mainstream media, that includes: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Yahoo, etc.

What's Clinton's actual position on fracking?

If you pay attention to what she actually says in her speeches, she says she's against it where the locals are against it, she wants the companies to make public all the chemicals they're using in the process, and only if it can be done in an environmentally safe manner. That's exactly what the anti-frackers want!

But in our 30 second - 140 character world, people only hear "I support fracking", and don't hear anything else.

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/hillary-clinton-debate-fracking

And it's also a modification of her earlier position, where as Secretary of State, she promoted fracking around the world. But people aren't going to listen to any of her reasoned adjustments to her positions. And if they do, they'll complain that she flip-flops on issues.

But don't you want your officials to change their opinions when the opinions of the people they represent change? Or when more and better information becomes available? Why should flexible and nuanced opinions put a candidate at a disadvantage?

Whether you support fracking or not, or support Hillary's current position on fracking, I think the main problem people have, and IMO should have is taking someone like her for her word. If I sit here, for example, and strongly and emotionally disagree with fracking and, for the sake of argument, then hear Hillary say she does not support it or won't fund it or even ban it..... the problem would be taking her word for it. It is these types of things that are said to get votes and if elected, about 2 or 3 years in, when no one is paying attention because all the focus is on some **29** story or on the eve of Super Bowl weekend, they will sign some bill that goes completely against what they said.

So for me, it is not that she flip flops during her campaign, it is more about trusting the same line/type of politicians that are supported by similar groups/banks/PACs/organizations.

[rtpoe]

Oh dear.

Sanders' supporters are becoming as nasty as Trump's.

They had a hissy fit at the Nevada State Democratic Party convention (putting it mildly, to give them the benefit of the doubt) and caused quite a ruckus, claiming that Sanders should have more delegates than the rules said he should have, and that the whole processes was biased, fixed, and unfair...

PolitiFact Nevada was on the scene, and reported:

"However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns."

"... upset Sanders supporters rushed the main stage, hurling obscenities at Lange and other members of the party’s executive board and booing over remarks from California Sen. Barbara Boxer delivered on behalf of the Clinton campaign."

It also bears noting that State Democratic Party Chairman Roberta Lange received death threats against her and her family.....

"Images and videos circulated after the convention was called to a quick close alleging that Lange "illegally" ended the convention despite motions for a recount. Lange — who said she was forced to take a security detail to even go to the bathroom during the convention — said police and Caesars Entertainment hotel officials told her that the convention had to be immediately adjourned due to ongoing security details."

"Casino spokeswoman Jennifer Forkis said the event ran over its allotted time by about four hours, meaning security hired for the event would soon leave their shifts."

"Without adequate security personnel, and in consultation with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and event organizers, a decision was made that it was in the best interest of everyone in attendance to end the event," Forkis said in a statement."

"But the howls of unfairness and corruption by the Sanders campaign during Nevada’s state Democratic Convention can’t change the simple fact that Clinton’s supporters simply turned out in larger numbers and helped her solidify her delegate lead in Nevada."

"There’s no clear evidence the state party "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure.""

"We rate this claim False."

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Afterwards, Sanders released a statement about the fracas. After a few basic restatements of his main campaign positions, there's just one sentence saying that Violence is Bad. Then he goes in to a list of complaints about the process in Nevada, supporting through reiteration all the unfounded (see above) allegations of his supporters.

Bernie, I'm sorry, but this sort of thing is NOT a sign of leadership. Resorting to complaints over rules and procedures that were known from the start is a sign of desperation.

Look, Sanders still technically has a chance at winning the nomination. Just like the Atlanta Braves still have a chance to win the World Series. But if it was a real, legitimate chance, his groupies would be out there trying to rally more support and win people over to their cause, and not whining about how the system is "unfair" to them.

It wasn't too long ago that we were looking at the GOP self-destructing in the campaign and dreaming of a Democratic landslide in November. But now, the GOP seems resigned to Candidate Trump, and is starting to fall in line. And The Donald seems to have learned how to be more moderate in his statements.... Now it's the Democrats who are in danger of a violent, contested convention - which can only benefit Trump and the GOP.

The longer Sanders' supporters keep their fantasy going, the worse it will be for them - and everyone else (in the world and not just America) - in the long run.