A Good Idea?

[BluesLegend]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

 

[Mac1958]

A sitting President has to endorse the nominee of their party.

A sitting majority leader has to endorse theirs, too.

That's politics.
.

 

[xband]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama made it clear the President can override the Constitution at will.
(some people argued this about Bush as well)

And just ask any conservative or Constitutionalist what they think
about Justice Roberts and the ruling on ACA. As opposed to why Cruz led a shutdown of govt in protest.

This administration has gone the farthest I have seen
in putting political beliefs in contested agenda above
Constitutional principles of due process,
consent of the governed and "no representation without representation"
and protection of beliefs of all citizens equally.

 

[S.J.]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

So you think Hillary's nomination would drive the NO voters among Trump supporters
more than Trump's nomination would motivate the Hillary voters?

Many people believe this S.J.

But if even Romney being too moderate kept rightwing voters at home or running to other parties,
I don't think Trump can unite enough following.

Trump has incited a visible and vocal opposition to support a different candidate,
which Romney did not do.

Trump had better work with all conservative leaders to spell out a unified plan and policy.
If he can then work with other party leaders as well
to iron out solid business and economic plans to create jobs
that WORKING PEOPLE support including immigrants,
he might pull off the unity and diversity needed.

Whoever is too confident, Trump or Clinton, thinking they can rule the world on their own,
and doesn't feel they need to include working people and other leaders directly in implementing solutions,
will miss this opportunity to unite people across parties who want to see unified leadership and business plans.

The flaw in your thinking is that this election is about liberalism vs conservatism, like previous elections. It isn't. This one is about people being fed up with the status quo. Tired of being screwed by both parties who make promises and once they're elected continue with the fleecing of the citizens and hard working people who have sacrificed and obeyed the laws, only to be forced to give up everything to support unproductive shitheads because politicians want their votes. That includes both legal and illegal shitheads. The message is "NO MORE".

 

[JoeMoma]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama has a Harvard Law degree and has taught constitutional law. That being said, it would be difficult to get the Senate republicans to vote for him.

 

[DarkFury]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

So you think Hillary's nomination would drive the NO voters among Trump supporters
more than Trump's nomination would motivate the Hillary voters?

Many people believe this S.J.

But if even Romney being too moderate kept rightwing voters at home or running to other parties,
I don't think Trump can unite enough following.

Trump has incited a visible and vocal opposition to support a different candidate,
which Romney did not do.

Trump had better work with all conservative leaders to spell out a unified plan and policy.
If he can then work with other party leaders as well
to iron out solid business and economic plans to create jobs
that WORKING PEOPLE support including immigrants,
he might pull off the unity and diversity needed.

Whoever is too confident, Trump or Clinton, thinking they can rule the world on their own,
and doesn't feel they need to include working people and other leaders directly in implementing solutions,
will miss this opportunity to unite people across parties who want to see unified leadership and business plans.

The flaw in your thinking is that this election is about liberalism vs conservatism, like previous elections. It isn't. This one is about people being fed up with the status quo. Tired of being screwed by both parties who make promises and once they're elected continue with the fleecing of the citizens and hard working people who have sacrificed and obeyed the laws, only to be forced to give up everything to support unproductive shitheads because politicians want their votes. That includes both legal and illegal shitheads. The message is "NO MORE".

You have got to read this SJ.
Reeking Stupid

 

[xband]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama made it clear the President can override the Constitution at will.
(some people argued this about Bush as well)

And just ask any conservative or Constitutionalist what they think
about Justice Roberts and the ruling on ACA. As opposed to why Cruz led a shutdown of govt in protest.

This administration has gone the farthest I have seen
in putting political beliefs in contested agenda above
Constitutional principles of due process,
consent of the governed and "no representation without representation"
and protection of beliefs of all citizens equally.

Thanks and Constitutionalist is a ten dollar word that I did not fully understand until I read your post. I swore an oath to defend and protect the United States Constitution 46 years ago and still hold to that oath. I did not swear an oath to protect and defend President, Congress or Supreme Court.

 

[xband]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama has a Harvard Law degree and has taught constitutional law. That being said, it would be difficult to get the Senate republicans to vote for him.

I did not know that. Did Obama pass the bar? Has Obama ever argued a civil or criminal case? Ivy League schools make me retch.

 

[JoeMoma]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama has a Harvard Law degree and has taught constitutional law. That being said, it would be difficult to get the Senate republicans to vote for him.

I did not know that. Did Obama pass the bar? Has Obama ever argued a civil or criminal case? Ivy League schools make me retch.

Yes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

So you think Hillary's nomination would drive the NO voters among Trump supporters
more than Trump's nomination would motivate the Hillary voters?

Many people believe this S.J.

But if even Romney being too moderate kept rightwing voters at home or running to other parties,
I don't think Trump can unite enough following.

Trump has incited a visible and vocal opposition to support a different candidate,
which Romney did not do.

Trump had better work with all conservative leaders to spell out a unified plan and policy.
If he can then work with other party leaders as well
to iron out solid business and economic plans to create jobs
that WORKING PEOPLE support including immigrants,
he might pull off the unity and diversity needed.

Whoever is too confident, Trump or Clinton, thinking they can rule the world on their own,
and doesn't feel they need to include working people and other leaders directly in implementing solutions,
will miss this opportunity to unite people across parties who want to see unified leadership and business plans.

The flaw in your thinking is that this election is about liberalism vs conservatism, like previous elections. It isn't. This one is about people being fed up with the status quo. Tired of being screwed by both parties who make promises and once they're elected continue with the fleecing of the citizens and hard working people who have sacrificed and obeyed the laws, only to be forced to give up everything to support unproductive shitheads because politicians want their votes. That includes both legal and illegal shitheads. The message is "NO MORE".

The problem or challenge is:
Can we unite all the independent Greens Libertarians Democrats and Republicans/conservatives
around real working business plans to shift programs, policies and representation back to the people and states
and out of the hands of federal govt and rigged national elections that rely on media biased bullying and paid propaganda.

I'm all for the independents rising up, uniting and taking back power.

S.J. if people are still relying on the biggest baddest bully in their party to beat up the opposition,
that is STILL divide and conquer politics.

How can we unite all these working people taxpayers,
to organize in conferences and teams, write up solutions
and resolutions, and issue marching orders to govt,
stating what we want and don't want, and then hiring and firing
whoever can or can't follow the plans endorsed by we the people.

Which people or parties do you recommend we start lobbying
to unite around working business plans, issued and signed
by we the people, and handed to govt and party leaders to fulfill.

Ex: a statement that we the people refuse to comply with any
mandates forcing taxpayers to give money to corporate insurance interests
instead of investing directly into sustainable health care.
We demand that the $24 billion cost to us as taxpayers, due to
the federal shutdown in protest of the ACA mandates be reimbursed
by paying back:

* $12 billion owed by President Obama and Democratic Party members
of Congress who voted for the ACA -- to be paid back to the
Democratic Party members who were promised Singlepayer health care,
for the purpose of organizing a collective health care program to cover
members who voluntarily agree to participate, and are both
responsible for the costs and management, and eligible for benefits.
If this program is set up by reforming the prison and mental health system
to operate as medical facilities, education and service outreach, only
participants who have committed crimes, incurred debts, and/or agree
voluntarily may be held to mandates that they agree to in order to receive benefits.

* 12 billion owed by Justice Roberts and Republican Party members
of Congress who have endorsed ACA through govt, instead of rejecting it
on Constitutional grounds because it violates equal protections, discriminates, and
penalizes on the basis of creed. To be paid back to the Republican Party members
who were promised to restore Free Market health care, for the purpose of organizing
resources and management under that model. If this program is set up by reforming
the VA first, and then expanding this to serve the greater public, it is further recommended
that complaints of illicit unauthorized or abused military funding and war contracts
be pursued for reimbursement of collections or credits to taxpayers to be invested in
financing jobs and construction for developing medical schools and programs by free
enterprise, where any money lent or invested is paid back, and donors or investors
choose freely to support further development based on effectiveness and viability
(and any mandatory payment or labor is lawfully agreed upon by due process as restitution for an act of crime, abuse, or ethics violation such as financial or political conflict of interest, and especially RICO cases involving official oppression or conspiracy to violate civil rights)

* trillions in unauthorized payments of taxpayers money to corporate insurance,
war contractors, and other contested recipients to be paid back to cover
emergency and catastrophic medical costs of citizens in immediate need of
assistance that would save lives and/or cost at least 3 times more if delayed.
To identify needs and demands, the Democratic Party team will be responsible
for assessing the populations in need of more medical help than they can afford or access,
in order to document the true cost and demand per region; while the Republican party team will be responsible for organizing a system of credits, tax breaks or other incentives
for business leaders to VOLUNTARILY AGREE to lend resources, mentorship or other assistance in training teams in every region and state to provide medical programs to meet local demands.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

Largely because the composition PRIOR to 2014 in the House was ALREADY fairly balanced.

Most of your examples on WIDE house swings comes when one or the other party started out highly UNDER-Represented in the House. And the SENATE swing in 2014 WAS a historically significant amount..

The numbers are the numbers. They don't spin.

Didn't think you'd get the logic there. But logic is IMPORTANT to understanding HOW those numbers came to be. And the SENATE shift was monumentally historical. Everything I said about the EXPECTED shifts that MIGHT happen is completely correct. You cannot expect large shifts when the representation is more or less balanced. That's how "numbers" come to be.

"Expectations", along with $2.25 if you're lucky, will buy you a basic coffee at Starpukes. Spinning before the event is as meaningless as spinning after it. Again, the numbers are the numbers and they don't say "monumentally historical" --- the Blogobubble says that. And again you can take the Blogobubble and combine it with $2.25.....

And also again, the party in the WH nearly always loses ground in a mid-term. That's the pattern of the pendulum. Some years of course more than others, but the numbers are still the numbers. The Blogobubble is made of balloons with a lot of hot air.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

I think that load done shot itself already, Splooges.

That's the downside of running on emotions instead of intellect ---- emotion doesn't hold up that long. It's immediate, in the moment. Doesn't have much of a shelf life. Can't be sustained. If (big if) we come to the point where Rump is the actual candy-date, what the unwashed are gonna feel (and the key word is absolutely "feel", because you don't sell candidates, you sell feelings) an old musty familiar sense of "we did this already". You can't sell the same emotion twice.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

There's no way, his legal experience is jack shit.

Nothing in the Constitution says you need a law degree to be a Justice. There is a remote possibility of future Justice Obama.

Obama has a Harvard Law degree and has taught constitutional law. That being said, it would be difficult to get the Senate republicans to vote for him.

I did not know that. Did Obama pass the bar? Has Obama ever argued a civil or criminal case? Ivy League schools make me retch.

First he was only an 'instructor' he wasn't qualified to be a professor or even an associate professor. He landed the teaching job in Chicago via political contacts. A majority of his students rated his class below average and did not recommend it to other students. The faculty said basically the guy was a lazy do nothing, he arrived just before his lectures and fled immediately after never taking part in faculty initiatives and activities.

Typically the press vets and reports on this type of information before an election, but in Obama's case they intentionally did not vet this guy and did everything they could to clear a path for him. The bias got so bad during the Democratic primary even Saturday Night Live was mocking how they were throwing Hillary under the bus while pitching softballs to Obama.

 

[S.J.]

That's the downside of running on emotions instead of intellect ---- emotion doesn't hold up that long. It's immediate, in the moment. Doesn't have much of a shelf life. Can't be sustained. If (big if) we come to the point where Rump is the actual candy-date, what the unwashed are gonna feel (and the key word is absolutely "feel", because you don't sell candidates, you sell feelings) an old musty familiar sense of "we did this already". You can't sell the same emotion twice.

Running on emotions? You mean like trying to brand your opponent a racist, hoping people will vote against them based on that? I have news for you, voting against being repeatedly cheated, lied to, and then laughed at by the same people you voted for is not an emotional reaction, it's called SMART. The LEFT are the ones who sell emotions. They sell fear and hate.

 

[Pogo]

Running on emotions? You mean like trying to brand your opponent a racist, hoping people will vote against them based on that?

Uh nnnnnnnnnnnno. Judge Curiel is not up for election. You can't vote against him, sorry.


No, I mean when you ooze into town selling the snake oil of "rapists" and "Muslims" and "Chinese" and "women" and "communiists" and "Native Americans" and "the disabled", you'll gather a crowd of gawkers ---- the first time. When you come back months later to sell the same snake oil, you'll get yawns.

 

[S.J.]

Running on emotions? You mean like trying to brand your opponent a racist, hoping people will vote against them based on that?

Uh nnnnnnnnnnnno. Judge Curiel is not up for election. You can't vote against him, sorry.


No, I mean when you ooze into town selling the snake oil of "rapists" and "Muslims" and "Chinese" and "women" and "communiists" and "Native Americans" and "the disabled", you'll gather a crowd of gawkers ---- the first time. When you come back months later to sell the same snake oil, you'll get yawns.

Another pathetic attempt at diversion. I never said Curiel is "up for election", shitwad. Anyone reading this thread can tell I'm talking about how you and the other liberal shitwads are always using the charge of racism against every Republican who has ever opposed any Democrat, hoping to play on people's emotions. But nice try anyway.

 

[Rocko]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

Hidebeast and Obozo think Obozo's 53% approval raiting shows he is popular. They don't understand the only reason his approval raiting is that high is because with all the canidates going at it he has remained distant, and the perception has been he's is above the fray. Once the asshole goes on the campaign trail he will provide gaffe after gaffe and his approval numbers will shit the bed.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

Hidebeast and Obozo think Obozo's 53% approval raiting shows he is popular. They don't understand the only reason his approval raiting is that high is because with all the canidates going at it he has remained distant, and the perception has been he's is above the fray. Once the asshole goes on the campaign trail he will provide gaffe after gaffe and his approval numbers will shit the bed.

In '08, Shrubya remained distant too, and his approval rating was like minus 6. So ....... no, don't think so.

 

[Pogo]

Running on emotions? You mean like trying to brand your opponent a racist, hoping people will vote against them based on that?

Uh nnnnnnnnnnnno. Judge Curiel is not up for election. You can't vote against him, sorry.


No, I mean when you ooze into town selling the snake oil of "rapists" and "Muslims" and "Chinese" and "women" and "communiists" and "Native Americans" and "the disabled", you'll gather a crowd of gawkers ---- the first time. When you come back months later to sell the same snake oil, you'll get yawns.

Another pathetic attempt at diversion. I never said Curiel is "up for election", shitwad. Anyone reading this thread can tell I'm talking about how you and the other liberal shitwads are always using the charge of racism against every Republican who has ever opposed any Democrat, hoping to play on people's emotions. But nice try anyway.

Linkie?