DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Hopefuls

j/c

The REALLY sad part about Trump entering the race is that given no other choice I would vote for him over most of the actual contenders on the Republican ticket. Trump trumps Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker in my book. How sad is that?

That still leaves a couple of known serious candidates and a gazillion who the hell is that candidates... lol

The GOP should do a small favor for the country and just concede the White House to Hillary or whoever gets the Democratic nod... That's what it will amount to in the end anyway.

Just got around to watching Trump's announcement. It was definitely one of the funniest things I've seen in quite some time. My favorites:

"The other candidates — they went in, they didn’t know the air conditioning didn’t work. They sweated like dogs. They didn’t know the room was too big because they didn’t have anybody there. How are they gonna beat ISIS? I don’t think it’s gonna happen."

“Remember, Obamacare really kicks in in ‘16. 2016. Obama’s gonna be out playing golf. He might even be on one of my courses. I would invite him, I actually would say it. I have the best courses in the world so I’d say, you know what if he wants to. I have one right next to the White House. Right on the Potomac. If he’d like to play, that’s fine. In fact, I’d love him to leave early and play.”

Trump really seems like he relates to most of us. We all just sold a condo for 8 figures recently, right?

he does have something in common with middle to lower class.

he filed bankruptcy,

i never mind, he did it 4 different times.

May not mean much - but Trump has not personally filed bankruptcy that I am aware of. His corporations have.

It means quite a bit. Most people equate bankruptcy with failure, but it can be a shrewd business move for those with the assets and know-how to make it work for them. Say what you will about Trump as a sideshow, but he is shrewd in regards to his businesses. He always comes out on top.

Well, I was going to post a link or 3 that said basically what you said, but decided against it.

Trump personally has never filed bankruptcy. Some people can't seperate personal b.r. from corp. b.r. (or don't want to.)

huh...that does make a difference.

To me it does. My original post (to you) was "may not make much of a difference to you, but....." and I changed it so you didn't think I was calling you out, AND because some people would say "well, he's the top dog, his company filed b.r., so HE'S to blame anyway".

yea...i just agreed with you...

Bankruptcy is not failure, this stigma was created to make REAL Working Class People ashamed to use bankruptcy because it is a tool for the rich. I have never seen an a big corporation, or a wealthy elite be ashamed to file bankruptcy. They understand it is like the reset or pause button on financial crisis. And they push it quick.

I would also goes one step farther on Trump always coming out on top and say that he is just bat shit crazy enough to scare the hell out of our enemies. He'd counter balance Putin in that regard.

Can anyone name a time in U.S. history post-WW2 where a sector of the populace stopped just short of idealizing a Soviet/Russian leader? Putin is an unstable totalitarian nut whose bark is worse than his bite. What causes some to act as if he's some shrewd brass-balled general? Is it a byproduct of an intense dislike of Obama? Has the antipathy towards the East dissipated over time?

I know you did. I was simply explaining why I didn't post what I originally typed.

Remember that conversation we had? About "words on a message board" and how they can be taken in a manner that perhaps the original poster didn't mean?

sure. btw hit me up. i'm back on FB. text me too.

Owning corporate entities is a wonderful thing. They protect you and all other corporate entities you own no matter how badly you screw one corporate entity up. Nobody can come after you or your personal assets no matter what you've done.

I'm not sure where you are going with this being directed at me? I think he's a nut and I also think he outwitted Obama. He won't be attacking us anytime soon, but he did what he wanted and got away with it unscathed... dangerous precedent.

I'm excited about his running. I would vote for him or Rand Paul in a heart beat.

No he didn't. We just took Ukraine from him. There is no argument thinking that Russia has beaten us at realpolitik. Yes, he got Crimea, but not even Eisenhower could have kept that from happening.

Hillary's campaign stumbles on trade


Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosts a small business forum in Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Hillary Clinton remains the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for president. But right now her campaign is something of a hot mess, especially on the issue of trade, where pressure from the left is leading her into nonsensical and inconsistent statements.

Clinton was a strong advocate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as secretary of state. And she wrote about the giant Asia trade pact in glowing terms in her pre-campaign book "Hard Choices."

But as the activist left of the party mobilizes against the deal, Clinton now says on the campaign trail that there is stuff in it she doesn't like. And Clinton backed House Minority Leader Nancy's Pelosi's approach, which was to torpedo Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), a cherished Democratic program, in order to stop Obama's push for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). But without TPA there is no TPP, which Clinton once strongly supported. Figure that out, if you can.

And many of the former first lady's comments on the topic lately have made no logical sense whatsoever.

This is perhaps the most bizarre: "The TPA is a process issue. The issue for me is what's in the deal," Clinton said this week in New Hampshire. "I think this is a chance to use this leverage so that the deal does become one that more Americans and members of Congress can vote for."

Where to start trying to deconstruct this statement? TPA is not just a process issue. Without it Obama cannot complete TPP because no country is going to offer up major concessions if they fear Congress will just amend the deal. So what kind of leverage was she talking about? TPA is designed to give the administration leverage to get the best trade terms possible. Blocking it would take that leverage away.

Clinton might as well have said, "I can't anger unions and the left and feed Bernie Sanders' momentum by backing my former boss on TPA so an advisor told me to dismiss it as a 'process issue' so that's what I'm doing even though it makes no sense and everyone knows it."

The Bernie Sanders problem is increasingly real for Clinton. It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party nominating an avowed socialist for president. But Sanders is drawing close to Clinton in New Hampshire polling and drawing big enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes.

The reason for this is he thrills the activist left with his outspoken (and consistent) opposition to free trade deals and repeated calls for breaking up big banks and otherwise cracking down hard on Wall Street. He is to the left what Eugene McCarthy and Adlai Stevenson were in the past: The genuine progressive article.

So far Clinton is trying to defuse this with her references to overpaid hedge fund managers and now backing off on previous trade support. But just as soon as Hillary Clinton hedged on trade, her husband former President Bill Clinton went on "The Daily Show" and talked up the benefits to American workers and the economy of signing such deals.

Bill Clinton obviously speaks for himself not his wife but these moments can only remind voters that it's hard to know exactly where the Clintons really stand on some of these issues.

And the heat for Hillary Clinton to clarify her position on trade is only going to rise if the current legislative gambit to get TPA done works, which it probably will. If it does, Obama could finish TPP and send it to Congress. Perhaps Clinton's need to tack so nakedly and embarrassingly to the left will be over by the time that happens and she can return to her previous support for TPP. But she will not have covered herself in glory (or consistency or trustworthiness) by the time that happens.

The whole trade mess points up the central problem with Hillary Clinton's candidacy: Who exactly is she and what does she believe?

Is she the liberal fighter for universal health care? Or the moderate, centrist who backs free trade and sees a pivotal role for Wall Street and the banking industry in the American capitalist system? Is she the foreign policy hawk who backed the second Iraq war and ran to the right of Barack Obama in 2008 or the more dovish 2016 version who admits the Iraq vote was a mistake?

So far the answer has been: Who knows? And attempts by the Clinton campaign to wrap the candidate in gauzy platitudes about grandmotherhood and advocacy for women and girls won't cut it as the primaries and caucuses approach. Hillary Clinton will eventually have to take tough and clear stands on issues like free trade and let voters decide if they like what they hear. Hard choices, indeed.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102773635

I'd take a 4th rounder for her in a heartbeat.

I'd have to have a second rounder. It's not that her talent level would demand it, but I believe as of right now, her value is higher than other hopefuls.

For me to vote for Clinton at this point I would need to use two hands, one with which to vote and the other to hold my nose while voting.

It is still very early and things are sure to develop as election time nears.

2012 was the GOP's best chance, to be honest.

short of a colossal meltdown by Clinton, i don't see the GOP winning, unless somebody like Sanders takes over the democratic ticket.

Haha! From what I have seen from you guys so far is you would vote for Clinton short of her pulling an Uzi and spraying the Press.

If it boils down to another Clinton or Bush, we may as well flip a coin and pray.

I wouldn't be so sure. As I've mentioned to you in the past, from my experience, women are still discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere. I'm not convinced this country is ready for a woman president.

There will be a number of people on this board who will now jump up and say it's because of who she is and what she represents, which is true for some, but I still believe it's going to be pretty difficult for any woman to run for the highest office in this country.

I already see that the press is not giving her the same treatment they gave Obama.

It's going to be an interesting election period.

i get that Jules.

but remember, a lot of people were saying we wasn't ready for a black president, either. at some point in time the walls have got to be broken down.

you're right; there will be a bunch of people that will repel down from the roof and say that, however, at the end of the day guess what? when it comes to actual viable candidates, not only is she the most qualified, she isn't bat-crap crazy like the rest of them.

every one of them have said something stupid, but the GOP candidates seem to have a monopoly on that.

I'd take a ham sandwich .....


But I absolutely insist on mustard.

2008 was their last chance. The only one thinking the Democrats wouldn't win Pres was Karl Rove.

GOP is really in the gutter right now.

ugh......some people on the right are saying this wasn't racially motivated. (church shooting)


you're right, they got no shot. they are completely out of touch.

Wow - paint with a broad brush often?

SOME people - on the right - are saying the church shooting wasn't racially motivated..............so, consequently, everyone on the right is wrong? Or, the "right" is wrong? (for the record, I don't care for the labels of "right" or "left")

But - if you agree with what you posted, then you probably agree that because some muslims are terrorists, ALL muslims are?

Since some "Christians" killed people, all Christians are bad?

Since some black people riot - ALL black people riot?

Since some white people are backwoods rednecks in the worst way - ALL white people are backwoods rednecks?


You agree with all of that?

The biggest right wing propaganda machine/media conglomerate are stating that it had to do with Christianity. One of your Presidential nominees said it was an "accident". Swish might be exaggerating a bit, but to act like the right doesn't deserve a grilling on this is outrageous.

Who or what is "the biggest right wing propaganda machine"???

I would guess you're meaning fox news. If so - let me let you in on a widely known fact: I don't watch news - not fox, not abc, nbc, cbs, etc. So what I'm saying is - I don't care what the media is saying about this - I don't even know what the media is saying.

And then you go on with "one of YOUR presidential nominees...."???? Really?

I don't even know who that person is............but, someone said it was an "accident?" Can you show me that? I'd love to see a presidential candidate (not nominee - for the record) that said that.

Would it make you feel better if I said this shooter guy was a thug?

Personally I don't really care what you say about him. I really don't care that you watch the news either. Yes, Fox, the biggest conservative news outlet, would be considered a propaganda machine. Rick Perry called it an accident. You remember Rick Perry, right? I'm on my phone so it out of laziness I won't go through the hassle of posting a link. Feel free to Google it though and feel free to read the News Site that you're on. You might hear something interesting.

You were replying to me, right? (quit hitting the quick reply box. Damn, it's not that hard to hit "reply" to the person you are replying to - not just calling you out on this - too many do it.)

I'll let you post this Rick Perry's link when you are not on a phone.

I would love to hear how Rick Perry called it an "accident", and hear it in context. If he literally said "the church shooting was an accident", he's off his rocker.

One thing that might benefit you is to realize I don't follow a "party". It's odd - you say you don't care if I watch the news - but you assume I take fox news as the end all be all.

Let me enlighten you: I don't. This may clear up some future discussions. I don't accuse you of watching msnbc, do I?

never mind. Perry said "accident", when he clearly meant "incident". http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...oting-accident/

But, some people jump all over that type of thing.

Honestly, you made this about you. This was never about you. It was about how Swish wasn't wrong with painting with a broad brush. Two of the biggest faces in GOP politics both showed how out of touch they are with America and reality. You're really looking way too much into "your nominee". Sorry that you took such offense to being afflicted (read: affiliated) with the GOP. I understand why one would be offended by that. However, I'll stand by my call to group you with Republicans as I believe you've never really deviated from their campaign platforms in your political opinions... From what I remember.

the base is out of touch. sorry about it. these guys are out here running for president and don't even know the pulse of the american people.

Trump might actually be the GOP's best shot. no, i'm not exaggerating.

I assume you are directing this to Arch because I have tried to keep this thread informative even though everyone knows I am a Republican.

Bernie Sanders Wants To Bring Back Your 40-Hour Workweek

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19...kusaolp00000592

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks Americans may have forgotten about the 40-hour week.

"A hundred years ago workers took to the streets" to fight for 40 hours, Sanders told The Huffington Post. "And a hundred years have come and gone, we’ve seen an explosion in technology, we’ve seen an explosion in productivity, we have a great global economy, and what do you have? The vast majority of people are working longer hours for lower wages."

American workers with full-time jobs work an average of 42.7 hours per week, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Including part-timers in the calculation puts the average American workweek at 39 hours.


Sanders said he wants to appropriate the term "family values" from Republicans, who have historically used it to talk about social issues, and use it to promote legislation mandating paid vacation, paid sick days and paid parental leave for U.S. workers. Just 11 percent of workers had access to paid leave to care for newborns in 2012, according to the BLS.

"What the Republicans talk about when they speak of family values is to deny a woman the right to control her own body, to deny a woman the right to get contraceptives, opposition to gay rights and gay marriage," Sanders said. "I don’t think those are family values."

Last week Sanders introduced a bill that would require employers to give at least 10 paid vacation days annually to any employees who have worked at the company for at least a year.

"What our legislation says -- and we think this is absolutely a family value -- is that a mom and a dad should have the right to at least a couple of weeks off of paid vacation so they can spend quality time with their kids," Sanders said.

Republicans control Congress, and they aren't keen on shortening work hours. They have complained bitterly, for instance, that President Barack Obama's health care law undermines the 40-hour week. The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the Affordable Care Act could result in some Americans choosing to work less because they could get health insurance without being tied to a full-time job.

American workers did indeed fight and die for shorter hours, which for a long time was the foremost demand of the labor movement. The shorter hours movement culminated in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a federal law that established the minimum wage and requires employers to give workers extra pay when they work more than 40 hours per week. The effectiveness of the law has eroded, however, because the law only protects salaried workers earning less than $23,660 per year.

"What that means if you were a quote-unquote supervisor at McDonald’s, making $25,000 a year, $28,000 a year, and you are supervising some other people flipping hamburgers and you’re working 50 or 60 hours a week, you do not get overtime," Sanders said.

Sanders and other Democrats have asked Obama to consider raising the salary threshold so it covers more workers, something the White House is currently considering. Sanders wants to see the threshold set at $57,000.

"That means everybody making under that would get time and a half when they work more than 40 hours a week," he said. "Very important step forward."

Listen to HuffPost's interview with Sanders on this week's "So, That Happened" podcast below: