They tend not to be. Politics tends to create people who stretch the truth as part of the game. If that's your line in the sand, you aren't going to get very far. Even the so-called good guys are somewhat morally corrupt. And you know what, sometimes they kind of have to be to do the job.

I strongly believe in participation in the two party system. I don't necessarily like it, but it isn't going to change by voting for third party candidates that get less than 5% of the vote.

Hillary isn't my ideal candidate, but unless I want to run, I likely won't get to vote for my ideal candidate. I try to push some in the primaries when the option is there, and I push some with my congressional rep. But by the time the general roles around I vote for my best choice within the two major parties. Some years it's mostly about winning, some years it's mostly about making sure the other person loses.

There's a lot I like about Obama, and a fair portion I dislike. The things I like I want to see continue. For that reason alone I'll vote Hillary.

"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," So, to deal with Terrorism, Trump wants to turn the USA into Iraq. Ok. glad we know where we stand.

Given that list, it's pretty questionable whether relatively "morally upright" (pick a phrase if that one doesn't suit, I'm phrasing broadly) people even make good presidents.

It might very well be that it's a job that requires a fair bit of bastard in you to actually do reasonably well.

I'm not voting for either of them. I don't care if my vote "doesn't count." It counts to me.

Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for blowing up Israeli citizens.

I think that's probably part of it. Not necessarily the "only two options" thing so much as that politics writ large is kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everybody votes for a third party candidate instead of a Republican or a Democrat, maybe things change (though "change" doesn't necessarily imply that it's a beneficial change). If, on the other hand, some people vote their self-interest - vote the "laundry," if you will - then their "team" wins while everybody else is left wondering wtf just happened.

Without a third party viable as a going concern without that sort of electioneering, people maybe feel trapped. If we had proportional representation in Congress instead of the system we have, maybe a third party could establish itself well enough to change the dynamic at the Presidential level.

On the matter of "choosing a lesser evil," that probably depends on how you want to parse it.

Even as I'm adamant that Trump needs to lose, I can't really say I'm excited about Hillary Clinton, either. But you know what? Neither Trump qua Trump nor Hillary are what's ultimately making my November decision for me.

That would be the behavior of Congressional Republicans for the last six years, and I refuse to reward that. Any of it. I'm not going to be happy about voting for Hillary Clinton, but I'm not going to lose one second's sleep should she be elected President.

The reaction from contemporary Republicans over watching their bogeywoman of the last 20 years enter the White House just as there's a Supreme Court vacancy waiting to be filled will sustain me just fine over the next four years.

Hopefully by 2020 the insanity which has gripped the GOP since 2001 will have abated, and maybe I'll have an actual choice again instead of having to metaphorically slap the hands of impertinent children.

This is the money paragraph of the Comey presser that is in direct contribution to Clinton's statements that she never sent or received an e-mail that was classified at the time of transmission.

I've worked on investigations (on the wrong side, unfortunately) where there are massive amounts of e-mails reviewed by teams of lawyers over a period of years. Quite frankly, they're a mess. But the thing I found is that the problem e-mails bubble up. They show up again and again because they're forwarded or replied to or whatever else. So, even when you see a small number 110/30,000 seems really small, it seems really unlikely to me that no one in the Clinton camp knew about this small group of e-mails.

I have very little doubt that prior to her interview last week, HRC's lawyers showed her every single one of those 110 e-mails in order to prep her for the questions.

The question then becomes whether it is incompetence in handling that knowledge (who told whom? who ok'd the party line statement that no e-mails were marked classified at the time of transmission? was HRC told and when?) or whether it was more brazen untruthfulness. I'm not sure which is the worse answer.

There is a benign explanation, but it has to do with timing of HRC internal review and when the e-mails were turned over. Given the consistency of statements from the Clinton camp and that they haven't changed over the time period, I don't think this is the case, but could certainly be proven wrong. I don't think there's been a public statement by the Clinton camp to address this, has there?

I'm not sure where it leaves us. Trump is content to rant about fairness and how corrupt the investigation was.

I do think this is a big deal. It's a big deal personally for me as a voter. I have no disillusion as to who HRC is. As noted, she's been in the very public eye for all of my adult life. But I've been impressed by her transformation as a candidate in 2016 and she hits a number of issues very important to me right on the mark. I will be watching to see the response.

Trump's a buffoon, serially failed businessman and liar.

Clinton's an accomplished public servant with a penchant for stretching the truth.

If those are the only two options available, the choice is pretty obvious.

If your profile is up to date you are the perfect 3rd party voter. Your vote means nothing in New York why not give it to a 3rd party?

They aren't and the great thing about these two candidates (especially Trump) is maybe, just maybe, people will realize that.

People thought Brexit wasn't going to pass. Why take a risk?

I left that unsaid, but that may indeed a reasonable inference.

There was plenty in Comey's statement that intelligent Republicans could have used as an attack against Clinton... but it looks like they just want to blow their opportunity...

Republicans may be blowing it on Clinton’s emails. They have only themselves to blame. - The Washington Post


The hearings seem like a really dumb political idea. Comey is known to be a Republican appointee and highly respected by the GOP prior to the statement. He said quite a few harsh things about Clinton while saying there wasn't enough there for a criminal indictment. By putting him "on the stand" the Republicans are basically putting Comey in a position where he'll be reiterating his defense of not indicting Clinton. Instead of his words saying she acted careless, the image we'll be left with is Comey saying there wasn't enough proof she intentionally acted to circumvent the law. And with the short attention spans of the American people... what do you think people will remember?

Ken Starr mk.2.

The Republicans are wading through the vast amount of horseshit they spewed, in the belief that there must be a pony somewhere in here..

Well, he is free again ;).

The same thing they "remember" before any dog-and-pony ... whether it happened or not.

(i.e. we're at the point where people on either side will just invent whatever form of "memory" they want/need to suit their narrative)

I will be voting for Clinton.

I don't particularly like her. However, I can cut her slack because she has literally been in the cross hairs of the republican party since 1992. After 24 years of a group doing everything they can to destroy you, you're not going to be looking any better.

On top of that, she is clearly a strong fighter. Her persistence and resolve are impressive. She's gone from a loud mouth first lady, to a Senator, and Sec of State. She's been around big decision and big decision makers. Her handle on international politics is worlds better than either Sanders or Trump.

Even bigger than all of that? The Supreme Court. For me, it's all about this. No matter what, the Dems have to win so that the Court can change after decades as a right based court. There's a good chance that in addition to the one vacant seat, that another may open up. So voting for the Dem option is the only choice here.

But he probably wouldn't do it: Log In - The New York Times

That's OK, there's a million and one GOP politicians who would be happy to embark on an all-expenses-paid 4 or 8-year crusade.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for spending millions on another special investigator. It's a sign of the relative backbone of both parties that the same can't be said for Trump.

+1 (and my lifetime is a long time, with 1972 coming the closest). As I typically do not vote for any presidential candidates, despite not believing in the lesser-of-two-evils, I cannot separate the two evils this year...except for one thing:

There is one thing worse than either winning - Congress being the same party as the Executive. If Congress turns Democrat, than Clinton winning would be worse than Trump. Also, the converse would be equally true. So if Congress remains Republican, than Clinton winning would be better.

HRC's social media team is killing it...

Do you want to build a strawman? https://t.co/AoeNTJOGpo

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 7, 2016

Same. I don't like her. I think she's a liar. But Trump is such a colossal disaster that I couldn't possibly vote for him.

Plus things like net neutrality are important to me and my business.

Am I alone feeling that Parliamentary systems are better than our system? While you still have dominant parties, the systems aren't duopolies, and allow for the rise and fall of new parties and candidates. They also seem to foster for more working together of government instead of two-party, walk-the-party-line/platform crap we got now. Or maybe third parties and non-duopoly candidates should focus more on congressional races instead of the billion-dollar race that, due to the electoral college system set-up, seems to be a waste?

Parliamentary type systems would have guys that like to watch boys shower from their Lay-Z-Boy recliner as our prime minister.

I like the concept of Parliamentary democracies, and the fact that they allow for a greater range of voices in the government than the two-party system.

But it also means that the functional head of the executive is typically always from the same party as that which runs the legislative, with all the pitfalls inherent to that.

They're also going to be more unstable because of the need for multi-party coalitions and the fact that the party in power can call for new elections at any time.

It's a trade-off.

Maybe a focus for third parties and independent candidates on Congressional seats than the Presidency would provide more pressure on the duopoly that parliamentary systems? Races would be more local (state/district), winner-take-all instead of the electoral system, and less money than the war chest for Presidency needed? Winning seats in the House, and even the Senate, would give you enough of a different voice (not having to to stand on one side or another; maybe you lean socially liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative of spending/taxes, ect.) and "deal-making" coalition. I suppose campaign finance reform would really help in this debate.

It doesn't seem that the Hillary campaign has gone negative on Trump yet other than for what Trump has been voluntarily offering up.

Guess they are waiting for after the convention. My thoughts are that business dealings expose isn't going to do much. Going bankrupt, laying off people, exaggerating selling messages etc. are all part of the business game. Ultimately, he is a successful businessman.

They're going to have attack him on the racial, religious, women (btw - I can't believe there's been no dirt on any Trump affairs yet), foreign policy etc.

Trump has been blunted with Benghazi and the email scandal. He seems to be left with old rehashed stuff promising to dive more into Bill and Vince Foster. Not going to do much there to get new supporters.

It should be entertaining.

Live video of Republicans who have endorsed Trump pic.twitter.com/t41lCsLjuT

— Daniel Lin (@DLin71) July 7, 2016

lol Ben

I think so. Whether they are right or wrong, they would clearly rather run against Trump than another Republican. So they want to save their strongest dirt for after he officially has the nomination so that they don't energize #NeverTrump.

I giggled for a solid 15 seconds when I saw it.

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not exactly excited about voting for Clinton but this is based more on the Supreme Court than anything else.

And conversely the USSC is precisely the reason I'll vote for Trump while I pinch my nose shut.

I would love a system that allowed for strong third parties, but we do not have that system. We have a system where if the results were 34 - 33 - 32, the 34% percent person wins outright. That's an absurd result and I'm still bewildered that many states and localities that won't do a runoff for those situations. Obviously a standard runoff for a Presidential election isn't practical, which is why we'd need a system revamp if we want this dream scenario of the Libertarians, Greens, etc. all having a shot at getting attention during the campaign. Until then, a two party system is all that makes sense in our format.

Irrespective of the politics, this line is the funniest thing I've read all day. Well done.

Agreed. A 3 or more way split opens us up to even more disgruntled-ness. I think the illusion of a majority helps keep things calm.

McCain was +9 over Obama with white college male graduates.

Romney was +5 in the same demographic.

Now, Trump is -12.

Matt McDermott on Twitter: "Pew poll among white college voters:
McCain '08: +9
Romney '12: +5
Trump '16: -12
https://t.co/rGw37FtbuN"

And this Republican hearing was basically the Republicans demanding of Comey "If you're not going to give us a Hillary Clinton perp walk, give us a soundbite that we can play out of context" and him deflecting the attacks for five hours.

NE Senator Sasse really dislikes Trump.

He is killing it this cycle. He is going to have a lot of people talking.

Need to see the details but I'm all for the public option but do not like the college assistance if its Bernie's "free" college.

Clinton Reaffirms Support For Public Option In Bid For Sanders Supporters

Yeah, on the one hand, it sounds like a noble enough idea to offer everybody higher education, but on the other it seems like even with the best intentions pouring a bunch of public money into "free college" could potentially serve to enable some of the crucial current problems with too many unfocused/under-prepared college grads, and industrializing education.

Some really good recent polls for Trump from Quinnipiac in FL, PA, and OH.

If you're planning on protesting at the RNC, remember squirt guns are banned, but real guns are permitted!

Yep, New Black Panther Party got the memo and has upgraded from Super Soakers to rifles, shotguns, and....a favorite of theirs...hand-guns.

Pence the VP pick for Trump. Are there really that many social conservatives who were planning on sitting out rather than vote Trump?

Indiana governor Pence for Trump's VP candidate?

#PenceWatch: Trump to choose Pence as his running mate, reports say - TheIndyChannel.com

VP picks really don't matter, but it is disappointing that Trump picked possibly the least interesting man in America.

"I'm solid on hating Mexicans and Muslims, but could be better on hating gays and women."
"Mike Pence is available."
"Lock it up."

— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) July 14, 2016

If you count "voting for someone other than HRC or DJT," then absolutely. I was in my home town last week, and I had lunch one day with 6 guys, all social conservatives, all said planning to vote 3rd party "unless Trump picks a true conservative as his VP. If that happened, I'd have to think and pray about it more."

I have to admit, Pence looks pretty good on paper when you see this list
http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htm

The age of some of those positions (a decade old in numerous cases) is a concern, but the only obvious misstep I saw was once voting for giving DC an electoral vote.

He's not gonna rehab Trump for me but I can see, based on this at least, how he could for others.

Pence also has the same number of letters and syllables as Trump. His name won't overshadow Trump's when saying them together. It may have been a consideration ;).

Looks like the kind of person for whom people might say "I like the cut of his jib"

"Not worth a Trumppence"

I'm not sure, however, that most of the states where social conservatives hold a sizable enough voting block were ever going to be seriously threatened to go Hillary.

A bump in social conservative votes aren't going to flip the swing states.

I tend to agree with that. I was just answering his specific question.

Maybe not so much the saying of them, but perhaps the signage?

Well if you want nice signage, CHRISTie looks good on a sign when trying to appeal to religious voters ;).

Funny. A few months ago people were predicting a split in the party and the end of the GOP as we know it.

Now, Trump is picking an establishment guy as his VP, and the race is tight and it looks like it will be some version of the same map we've had since 2000.

anyone willing to put some money on trump to win, please pm me.

Eh, a lot of people really want to get behind Trump's policies if only he wouldn't so explicitly spell out the intention behind them. 3 months of him sounding more 'establishment' is plenty of time for voters like that to forget about the last however many years.

He only has sound bites, not policy.

You know you're probably right - all the better reason to take my money while the offer's good.

Yeah, but you know the debates are right around the corner, and if anyone can get those intentions out in the open it's Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, she'd surely be better at it than one of the 25 Republicans, but the bar is set so low that he could make it through the debates without making some comment about Hillary's appearance or some obvious insinuation that she's a hysterical woman incapable of governing, and it would cause people to say 'hmm, maybe he's turned over a new leaf.' Could be as evasive as he wants in terms of the actual answers he gives. Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

This is a political thread, Ben. I expect much more anger and belittlement in your response. :D

There really isn't ANY situation where Christie looks good.

Not even to his own mother most likely.

If it is a terrorist incident in Nice, Trump will have more ammunition.

I agree that there is time for Trump to be more "presidential". Hoping Hillary has some good stuff on him to trickle out for next several months.

In the past few years I've had to put up with Pence and his outlandishly stupid ideas and comments. He's almost out of touch with reality. He tried to push for state run media till his handlers told him that was a bad idea. He has boasted about having a budget surplus while Indiana roads fall apart and education/health cuts continue. He botched the handling of the RFRA measures here. He turned his back on federal funding for preschools two years ago only to inquire about it this year...an election year. He's a farce. My poor state. Dan Quayle and now him.

yeah I'm certainly not a fan after his thinly veiled "religious liberty" law fiasco in 2015, which would have allowed people/businesses to discriminate against LGBT people for religious purposes. He finally had to walk it back due to nationwide outcry. Here's a take on him that shows in unflattering terms why he's a perfect pick for Trump's VP:

Vacuous anti-gay coward Mike Pence is a perfect VP pick for Trump.

He's also going to get hammered on public health.

He may get the social conservatives to rethink things, but he drives independents further toward Clinton.

In a way, I almost prefer Gingrich to be VP candidate. Otherwise he might end up as Homeland Security director.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politi...iew/index.html

I don't disagree about "is in a war" and monitoring mosques but testing *everyone* of Muslim background doesn't sit well with me. It's not practical and doubtful how effective it will be.

However, it looks as if parents/siblings of people who commit terror get a free pass (e.g. they say very sorry, go into hiding and are not heard from again). In my emotional state right now, I would find that Tunisian guy's family and kick them the hell out of the country.

Exactly. I don't live far from the town that had the massive HIV outbreak. Pence promoted his efforts for the needle exchange program and his reaction to it, but it was the health cuts that put so many in bad shape to begin with.

Gingrich's plan only has a few holes, it's unconstitutional, it could be outsmarted by a first grader, and has no explanation as to where we would deport people.

See the gay marriage thread. Space. Orgies. Two birds. One stone.

Has anyone told Gingrich that deporting US citizens may be a weee bit difficult?

I'm not for deportation of anybody convicted of inciting violence. Our hate crime laws sufficiently cover that for US citizens.

Yeah, whatever happened to being able to banish people, anyway? :D

GOP policy is too often just a collection of hot takes.

So Pence is now official.

The favorites for the Democratic VP slot have become (as far as I can tell) Tim Kaine and Tom Vilsack - safe older white guys.

I'm pretty sure white people stopped that practice centuries ago. :)

I do love the simplicity of the Muslim test

Excuse me sir, I'm from the INS. Are you a good muslim or a bad muslim?
Uhhh... a good one?
Thank you, have a nice day!

:thumbsup:

If he wants to deport Muslims over Sharia law, then what about Mormons, Orthodox Jews and Christian Scientists?

nah, he still needs Ben Carson as his black friend.

He's not saying Islam. Islam can be practiced anywhere. But Sharia Law is completely illegal to human and civil rights. if anybody in our country actually were to adhere to it, they would be convicted of a crime. It's completely incompatible with the liberal progressive social and Western society. It cannot be practiced quietly in a mosque. It's brutality and barbarianism from a time past.

I'm not sure why you would defend its use.

It's the English Inquisition! Eddie Izzard-Cake or Death - YouTube

Nicely done - my absolute favorite comedy sketch of all time bar none :D

Most Muslims believe in, at least, some parts of Sharia. Where do you think the prohibition against eating pork arises from? Sharia is mostly about how to live and keep the purity laws, and partially how to run a county.

I get it (mostly). I think we also get that the IS has upped their game on adherence. And they expand through communication. And followers can be anywhere. If people want to follow something as closely as the IS is, they aren't welcome here and basically anywhere. Sorry. Freedom of religion cannot mean, I can behave illegally towards accepted American and Western and modern Muslim laws.

We fight here over stuff like "The pledge of allegiance" and "In God we trust". I'm not gonna go backwards and fight over the ability to chop off hands or the ability to dehumanize women or burn opponents alive.

Those Americans will simply have to calm down.

LOL, you are talking as if there are places in the US looking to cut off hands and burn women. We already have laws against that, all of which take priority over however you are oddly defining sharia law. Also, the idea that people will be either a) truthful about what they believe and b) can be legally removed without due process as citizens is absurd.

You know there are people who believe that, because of their religion, gays should be put to death. That doesn't mean they are running around killing gay people, though (the most public act they may do is saying it should be the law from the pulpit). That is in no way illegal, while it is backwards.

Holy crap, THIS is the Trump/Pence logo...



Does no one check anything on that campaign?!

The GOP wants TP for their bunghole? :)

Good article on what Sharia actually is: Nice Attack: Sharia Does Not Mean What Newt Gingrich Thinks It Means - The Atlantic

I can just see the new reality show coming from Gingrich's comments: The Muslims Next Door. :)

One of the best points made in that article is that Israel has sharia courts:

http://www.justice.gov.il/En/Units/S...s/default.aspx

Charleston Gazette-Mail | WV delegate calls for Clinton to be executed

I guess we know this isn't our Pilot.

And subject to internet ridicule, the logo is no more, LOL. New one is without the pornographic part.