Thank you for the kudos for my list. I worked extra hard on it. Just for you Liberals.

I guess because you guys are making fun of my list you are actually making fun of women, therefore, you are sexist or maybe even misogynists.

See how I did that? You sexist liberals, making fun of women. Shame, oh shame.

From the John Oliver segment I saw, I don't think Jr understands anything about the blind trust thing.

When one finds oneself in a deep hole the first appropriate course of action is to stop digging.

You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

Depends on the situation ... but at no point would I think it was a gender-related criticism. Not in my wildest imagination would such foolishness cross my mind.

Nope. just highlighting the stupidity of you liberals. "Oh, you dont think like I do, you must be racist, sexist, etc, etc."

See the stupidity? No, you probably don't. And 8 years of HRC sinks the country. But it will be all roses and puppies. I know. I know.

Jon we get what you are saying, but the use here was clearly sex/gender related.

If anybody here compares Sarah Palin to a woman they pass around their friends to bang, I would wonder about their attitudes towards women generally.

And I think Palin did get a little of that. There's obviously plenty to criticize there, but I thought a lot of it also crossed a sexism line. Casual sexism is a lot more tolerated in our country than casual racism is.

I know, right? I just saw a commercial where a dude yelled "Bring in the Winches!"
Boycott that product.

I get not agreeing with her policies, but I feel like you're speaking to a bigger fear here. What do you think will happen? Not that she'll support moderately liberal policies and shit like that, I mean what terrible things is the worst politician ever like her capable of? Why are you so vague about this? (Edit: Didn't you say earlier that Clinton as president would be more of the "status quo"....I think that's probably true, but you also seem to be arguing that something dramatically new and devastating will come from a Clinton presidency.)

Palin definitely got sexist attacks. There is no doubt about that. Lots of comments about being a "bimbo" that were beyond the pale.

Palin is probably one of my least favorite politicians ever, but she definitely got sexist attacks. The most irritating were the questions about whether a mother of 5 should be running for VP.

Funny (ironic?) thing about this thread is now tarcone's responses are reminding me of how Trump always reacted when he was pushed back on in the primaries.

I thought this was a general, not specific, compliant about the use of the word.
Or at least, that was what I was responding to.

specifically

That's probably the nicest single word description of her that's justifiable afaic. And way more concise than demonic spawn from the basement of hell.

I Think she gives us more trade deals that force allow companies to move out of country thus forcing more people on the government dime.

I think she will be viewed as a weak leader, militarily, in the world. And she will continue the weak foreign policy our current President has produced. I believe when this happens there will be more terrorism in the country. And US forces in places that are no-win.

I think she will make this country even more divided than it already is. I think she will tear it apart. And wont give a shit about doing it.

These are a few of the things I think will happen. maybe Im wrong. Maybe she will be the greatest President in history. And there will be monuments built to her. And mountains will bear her face.

But I think she makes this country even worse off than it is. And I know, you think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread and he did a miracle in his 8 years. But I disagree.

Plus, I cannot stand her as a person. Never have liked her. Never will. Even if she came to my house and said "Here is a lifetime of free money and you dont have to pay taxes ever again." I would take it, but still not like her.

Palin definitely got sexist attacks. There are elements of the left that are sexist and racist. I mean this is a side of the political spectrum that goes out of their way to prop up Islam, the most oppressive religions in the world when it comes to the treatment of women.

I started the sexist talk and I wasn't calling tarcone a sexist. I was just saying that the right has a large contingent that dislikes women having power or freewill. The Pro-Life movement is an example of this.

You do realize we've had like 6 straight years of job growth in the country? The unemployment rate has gone from 10 down to 5? That under Bill the unemployment rate also dropped dramatically and fell to one of the lowest levels the country has ever seen?

Like I understand if you want to argue that H1B visas are driving down salaries. But I don't understand the talk of losing jobs when the opposite has been happening for some time. And you can't force companies to stay here, we aren't the old USSR.

I do think H1B's are prone to abuse and that we need to revise the standards there.

The irony with offshoring is that part of the appeal is that the countries these companies move to, they do so because they can pay literally pennies on the dollar compared with American workers.

And many (most?) of those who object to global trade "taking American jobs" are probably ALSO folks who think that we shouldn't be sending aid to other countries, but rather focusing all of our efforts domestically.

Which...if you can help raise the standard of living in other countries, it's going to be less attractive for Widget Company, Inc. to move their business overseas when they're just going to have to ship the products they'd be producing at essentially the same cost right back across the Pacific (or Atlantic) Ocean.

But trade nationalists don't connect those dots much of the time.

Like, I have issues with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I'm wary of anything that allows corporations to essentially undermine the sovereignty of any nation's laws for their own benefit. But global trade, by itself, is just one piece of the puzzle. Offshoring doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens because the company in question sees an opportunity to pay subsistence wages that are much lower than what the American equivalent would be, and the executives running the company get a bonus for slashing those costs.

So the way you attack that is to address global standards of living. If a company doesn't realize significant savings from going overseas, they're going to keep their business centralized.

Nope.

Exclusive sneak peek at some of the text of @KurtEichenwald's Newsweek bombshell coming tomorrow. #Maddow https://t.co/x0tiYI6E4q

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) September 29, 2016

Trump illegally did business in Cuba during the embargo, which probably makes him smart or something.

Oooooof.

Gary Johnson struggles to name a world leader he respects

Executives for his organization were travelling to Cuba over the last few years scouting golf course locations. Something that is also illegal.

Not sure any of this matters though. Trump can say one thing and do the complete opposite. Doesn't seem to matter what the issue or policy is, the cult of personality is what drives his supporters.

I do think it's funny that Republicans are desperately trying to portray Trump as opposing the Iraq war that they wanted. And now will likely defend his position on doing business on Cuba despite being hardliners for decades.

To support Donald Trump, Republicans have to be Democrats!

tarcone is right!

hillary-sending-hand-signals-moderator-holt/

Post-debate there's been a lot of people coming out of the woodwork with stories about how Trump failed to pay them as suppliers or contractors. Interestingly, this is also the way Trump (a guy who supports bankruptcy as a legitimate & positive business decision) plans to handle the debt.

Well, to be specific, he's noted two ways to handle the debt:

1. Print more money.
2. "Cut a deal" where the government renegs on part of the debt.

On the second, this is usually backed up by talk of how the Chinese own so much of our debt, so it's (ostensibly) OK. But who actually owns most of U.S. debt?

Oh, that's U.S. taxpayers, states & municipalities: Who owns America's debt? - May. 10, 2016

So, applaud him for consistency, Trump's economic plan is the same as the plan he uses for his construction businesses, which failed so consistently that he's basically out of that industry (limited to licensing his name to hotels at this point):

1. Borrow to the point of insane leverage.
2. Don't pay the small guys, litigate with the big guys until they settle.
3. Declare bankruptcy if necessary.
4. Repeat.

Thus, if in office:

1. Borrow to the point of insane leverage.
2. Cut taxes on the rich while also embarking on huge infrastructure projects (and/or The Wall)
3. Print money, thereby devaluing currency and, subsequently, citizens' savings and/or:
4. Default on U.S. debt, thereby erasing savings for many citizens, municipalities, states, etc....

Good times.

He is the hero we need in these desperate times.

I've always wondered this - how does one continually borrow to the point of insane leverage, declare bankruptcy and then do it over and over? Who is lending the money?

Lenders are whores looking for their next trick. It's a dirty secret but true.

Wait. What? Which political party of the past 20 years has used anything but strategy #1? Not saying it's good that Trump will us it as well but wondering where you were during the Obama/Bush years?

Being black, being known to have a conservative interpretation of the Bible, and being unapologetic about voting third party can be, uh, "interesting" in this election cycle. It really seems to come down to people assuming that their party of preference is entitled to my vote. My friends on the left can't seem to stop bitching at me with that tired line that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, while my friends on the right can't seem to stop bitching at me with that tired line that a vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton. Guess what, nimrods? You/your party own neither me nor my vote.

Side note: *I* now live in a state that might actually be a difference-maker, so to some degree I get why someone might be trying to influence me one way or another. But when I observe you Georgia and South Carolina people on social media clutching at your pearls because a fellow GA/SC resident voting third party, I can't help but laugh at you.

That's actually one of the big questions. I've read that he has trouble getting anyone in the US to give him loans, so he's having to depend on Russian and Chinese banks.

People really do this?????

http://www.hannity.com/articles/elec...when-15155458/

That's pretty funny.

Smart enough to lose Florida ;).

The kind of leverage ratios Trump uses in his business dwarf those of government borrowing (if we use GDP to total debt as a base measure). If he plans to import his business practices to running the government, the free spending of Reagan, Bush II and Obama (the latter in response to the Great Recession) will seem like a distant, happy memory.

Thinking about changing my vote to Darrell Castle (or possibly Clinton). The Libertarian Party has their greatest opportunity in their history against two clowns and they send this flub machine out there. I guess back in 2012 I just didn't get enough coverage of Johnson to see how bad of a speaker he is but he's bad. I think if he got into the debates his poll numbers might actually go down. On top of that they have William Weld as the VP candidate. Now I am not one of those Libertarians who would prefer anarchy in a dream scenario but Weld actually answers a lot of questions with bigger government answers. If anything the Libertarian VP candidate should at least be for smaller federal government. Castle seems to ride heavily on the religion stuff which I don't care for but seems devoted to small government issues like the Libertarians used to preach.

* So vote L to try and get 5% and not have to mess with ballot access.
* Vote D because Trump is an awful candidate
* Or vote C because he actually shares my views more than the others
* Stay home

Something that we are clearly seeing in this election -- it's really, really hard to run for President in any serious way. We set expectations at an absurdly high level - and invest very little in positive feelings about accomplishments, relative to perceived mistakes and missteps.

I don't think Gary Johnson is a dope. But as a guy who didn't have to go through the sort of deep vetting that a primary/caucus process offers, he's suddenly getting even this small degree of legitimate attention, and he's basically showing his ass. Not that he's actually terrible -- but that he's unpolished, unrestrained, and untrained. And in the bright lights of a serious campaign, all that will surely come to the fore, and (I guess) correctly so.

Lots of voters are wringing their hands with cries of "why don't any good people run?" this cycle. I wonder if the answer is that we hold candidates up to such rigor with deep scrutiny of every statement and position even offered, we prod at them throughout a 24 hour news cycle, and we pick apart every business dealing or unconventional experience... to the point where almost nobody could come through it without looking bad in some ways. And bad really sticks. Much more than good.

Makes me think that Obama, as a generally inexperienced candidate 8 years ago, might have fit the profile. He managed to leverage a Senate vote against the war, and just a thin resume, along with a gift as a speaker/presenter into a comfortable win. All that while people attacked him vaguely for being underqualified. Maybe if he had been in the Senate for 12 more years and had a much longer list of votes and public statements, he would have looked like another deeply flawed candidate to many of the people who liked him in 2008. Despite being far more "qualified" by a traditional measure.

I hear you, but not being able to name a single foreign leader is BAD... like, I'd be a bit like WTF if one of my friends couldn't do that.

There was quite a bit of discussion back in 2008 about the track record for Senators being a millstone for running for POTUS. Prior to 2008, the last time a sitting Senator ran and won was Kennedy in 1960, and prior to that it was Warren G. Harding. Nixon had been a Senator, but he had his two terms as VP before running for President.

Not to mention...the job kind of sucks if "most powerful person in the world" isn't an enormous selling point to you.

This isn't a bad observation. Not even by half.

Hell, I may even quote it elsewhere I like it so much.

Partially, yes. But also partially, you should know ONE and the fact you don't means that for Palin, you don't read any newspapers, and for Johnson, you don't pay attention to foreign news at all. If you did, you'd be able to sputter out someone. Weld was able to name Merkel after thinking for a second. As long as you don't say Putin, you are basically golden on that question.

For tarcone:

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

I'll be sticking with the L route despite Johnson's huge flaws. I look at it like I'm not voting for him, I'm voting for the possibility of a 3rd party along it's stated goals in 4 or 20 years when Johnson will be a distant memory (or more likely, forcing the Republican party to tack that way a little bit).

A third party won't (and shouldn't) happen until we revamp our electoral system to force someone to win with at least 50% of the vote.

I'm not getting the logic behind that at all. Wouldn't a 50% requirement cause even more consolidation with the established parties due to their infrastructure advantages?

I'd love to see more (or any) legitimate third party candidates, but when I look at the list of those who made my state ballot, and in some cases, researched who these people were - nobody is as close to as qualified as Hillary Clinton. My own voting philosophy is that I always want to vote who I think will be best at the job. I don't want to vote strategically, or in protest, or to support some cause. In the same way, I'd never avoid voting for a qualified third-party or independent candidate because I didn't want to "throw away my vote". For me personally, I'm throwing away my vote if I do anything other than voting for the person who I feel is best for the job.

Upon further review, I think I'm with you.

It's hard to predict how people would react, but one hand, I would *think* that in a run-off situation, Johnson and Stein would get more attention/votes this year, because at least *some* of the "a vote for third party is a vote for {insert candidate you hate}" types might pick the candidate that they like the best in round 1, knowing that they'd have the run-off (or auto run-off) option to pick the "safe" candidate.

On the other hand, given how many people from all places on the political spectrum I've seen claim that Trump won "a majority"of Republican primary votes--even when pressed with, "no, he won around 40%"--it's quite possible that much of the populous is just too stupid to react correctly to such a change.

More people would be willing to vote third party if they weren't worried about the spoiler effect. For example:

Under our system if it's (R) 45, (D) 40, (G) 15, then the (R) wins.
In the alternate setup, they would have to go to a runoff. (Or that could be an instant runoff like some places do).

I'm much more willing to vote third party if it's not going to help the Republican win.