The ‘R****d Democrat Political System’ and the F.B.I.- Clinton - Primary Run-Off . . . .
Jun 19, 2016 00:30:39 #
June 10, 2016 The ‘R****d Political System’ and the F.B.I.-Clinton Primary Run-Off . . . .
Jon N. Hall
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/the_r****d_system_and_the_fbi_primary.html
May 7 on The Greg Gutfeld Show, Greg asked Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov, “What do you think about Hillary?”
“I think she’s perfect,” Tarlov purred.
One might hazard from this that Miss Jessica is a “true believer,” but she was probably just attempting a little humor.
(The May 7th show, by the way, is one of Greg’s funniest.
Brad Thor was also a guest. Watch the whole show at the YouTube link above or Greg’s opening monologue at FoxNews.com.)
If you are depressed about what is lining up to be your choices for president this November, then know this: you’re responsible.
It is the People that have given us these presumptive nominees.
But, the People would not have been able to choose these nominees were it not for “the system”: the primary system.
This year, the People and “the system” have given America the two nominees with highest negatives of any major party candidates in modern history.
We can’t very well swap out the People, but maybe we could find a better system.
One of the big reasons for resisting change in the system we use for selecting p**********l nominees is that the primaries are a business.
There are huge sums of money involved for pollsters, political strategists, advertisers, the media, makers of campaign buttons and hats.
Jeb Bush’s four delegates reportedly put his supporters back some $100 million. All that Bush money went somewhere, and the people who received it don’t want their gravy train stopped.
If America’s political parties didn’t conduct primaries, all those enterprises feeding off of the primaries would be out of business; a lot of “rice bowls” would be broken.
And just think: we’d miss out on all the fun and games, as cable TV’s Showtime has attempted to capture in their series “The Circus.”
By the time of the conventions next month, the primary campaigns will have gone on for more than a year, while the general e******n campaign will be less than four months.
If we scrapped the primary system, Democrats who bemoan the decision in Citizens United v. FEC would have a lot less money they’d need to raise.
More importantly, the American people wouldn’t have to endure perpetual politics.
In 2014 at the Wall Street Journal, William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution addressed the “permanent campaign.”
The blurb for his article ended with “junk the primary system”:
Our current p**********l nominating system tends to reward candidates who are talented campaigners.
Only if we get lucky do effective campaigners turn out to have a capacity for governing.
Can anyone seriously contend that the ability to win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary is a good leading indicator of the capacity to serve as chief executive?
The worst system of all is an unrepresentative plebiscite, but that is what the past four decades have yielded.
The very candidates who squawk that the system is “r****d” against them are the candidates who have benefited from that system.
Democrats wouldn’t have given Bernie Sanders the time of day if it weren’t for the primary system. After all, he’s always been an Independent.
Without the “r****d” system of primaries and caucuses, Sanders would have had to run in a minor party, maybe the Green Party or the Socialist Party, or under no party.
So outsiders, like Sanders, wouldn’t want to scrap the “r****d” system that gave them a shot at a major-party nomination.
The primary systems of the two major parties are rather different, and it is the Democrat system, with its super-delegates of party “insiders,” that is the more r****d and the less democratic. Perhaps Sanders thinks that he can woo Hillary’s super-delegates over to him.
More likely he’s waiting on “the FBI primary”;
Waiting to see if the FBI will make a criminal referral on Clinton’s emails, private server, and Clinton Foundation issues.
But even if Hillary is indicted, Democrat delegates are unlikely to nominate an “outsider” like Bernie.
Democrat delegates should think long and hard about what it would mean for the republic to nominate someone under FBI investigation.
Even if the Obama Justice Department declines to pursue a criminal referral, Democrat delegates should conduct their own “trial” to decide on Hillary’s guilt and fitness, and v**e accordingly.
Every delegate to a nominating convention should be required to read Andrew McCarthy’s “The Torricelli Solution to the Coming Clinton Implosion,” which ran May 31 at National Review.
The article deals with Mrs. Clinton finally having to face the music for her (alleged) criminality:
Of course, relief at Clinton’s departure would have to be discounted by the hit Democrats took when Obama issued the pardon Hillary would demand as the price of stepping aside.
I deeply doubt that the Clintons would accept an Obama promise of a post-e******n pardon.
They’d demand up front any pardons necessary to cover the e-mail scandal, the destruction of government files, and any corruption, fraud, or other offenses arising out of the Clinton Foundation.
With Hillary’s nomination, the Clintons will have leverage, and they would surely use it to
(a) pressure Obama to spin any pardons as an exoneration (“I see no criminal activity here, but for the good of the country . . . ”);
(b) spare themselves the humiliation (and potentially worse) of criminal prosecution; and
(c) protect the fortune they’ve amassed by monetizing their “public service.”
If such a “deal” between Obama and Hillary were actually struck, it would be an outrageous use of the pardon.
But it shouldn’t surprise; Bill Clinton himself pardoned terrorists, and it seems likely that he “sold” the Marc Rich pardon.
Perhaps if Obama pardons Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11 now at Gitmo, folks will get exercised about these abuses of power.
McCarthy also delves into the logistics of a last-minute substitute nominee’s campaign, and he ends his article with a sobering irony.
His article leads one to conclude that Mrs. Clinton has no mens rea defense for her various shenanigans … she knew that what she was doing was illegal.
(And if she didn’t know, then she’s not smart enough to be president.)
The Clintons have always seemed like money-grubbing grifters.
If Mrs. Clinton does get to go through the judicial system and is found guilty of the felonies she appears to have committed, there is no penalty adequate to compensate for the damage she has done to our political system.
If prison is ruled out by a p**********l pardon, at least she should be fined enough to make her truly “dead broke,” as she claimed to have been when she left the White House.
It matters not that “she’s perfect.”
Jon N. Hall
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/the_r****d_system_and_the_fbi_primary.html
May 7 on The Greg Gutfeld Show, Greg asked Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov, “What do you think about Hillary?”
“I think she’s perfect,” Tarlov purred.
One might hazard from this that Miss Jessica is a “true believer,” but she was probably just attempting a little humor.
(The May 7th show, by the way, is one of Greg’s funniest.
Brad Thor was also a guest. Watch the whole show at the YouTube link above or Greg’s opening monologue at FoxNews.com.)
If you are depressed about what is lining up to be your choices for president this November, then know this: you’re responsible.
It is the People that have given us these presumptive nominees.
But, the People would not have been able to choose these nominees were it not for “the system”: the primary system.
This year, the People and “the system” have given America the two nominees with highest negatives of any major party candidates in modern history.
We can’t very well swap out the People, but maybe we could find a better system.
One of the big reasons for resisting change in the system we use for selecting p**********l nominees is that the primaries are a business.
There are huge sums of money involved for pollsters, political strategists, advertisers, the media, makers of campaign buttons and hats.
Jeb Bush’s four delegates reportedly put his supporters back some $100 million. All that Bush money went somewhere, and the people who received it don’t want their gravy train stopped.
If America’s political parties didn’t conduct primaries, all those enterprises feeding off of the primaries would be out of business; a lot of “rice bowls” would be broken.
And just think: we’d miss out on all the fun and games, as cable TV’s Showtime has attempted to capture in their series “The Circus.”
By the time of the conventions next month, the primary campaigns will have gone on for more than a year, while the general e******n campaign will be less than four months.
If we scrapped the primary system, Democrats who bemoan the decision in Citizens United v. FEC would have a lot less money they’d need to raise.
More importantly, the American people wouldn’t have to endure perpetual politics.
In 2014 at the Wall Street Journal, William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution addressed the “permanent campaign.”
The blurb for his article ended with “junk the primary system”:
Our current p**********l nominating system tends to reward candidates who are talented campaigners.
Only if we get lucky do effective campaigners turn out to have a capacity for governing.
Can anyone seriously contend that the ability to win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary is a good leading indicator of the capacity to serve as chief executive?
The worst system of all is an unrepresentative plebiscite, but that is what the past four decades have yielded.
The very candidates who squawk that the system is “r****d” against them are the candidates who have benefited from that system.
Democrats wouldn’t have given Bernie Sanders the time of day if it weren’t for the primary system. After all, he’s always been an Independent.
Without the “r****d” system of primaries and caucuses, Sanders would have had to run in a minor party, maybe the Green Party or the Socialist Party, or under no party.
So outsiders, like Sanders, wouldn’t want to scrap the “r****d” system that gave them a shot at a major-party nomination.
The primary systems of the two major parties are rather different, and it is the Democrat system, with its super-delegates of party “insiders,” that is the more r****d and the less democratic. Perhaps Sanders thinks that he can woo Hillary’s super-delegates over to him.
More likely he’s waiting on “the FBI primary”;
Waiting to see if the FBI will make a criminal referral on Clinton’s emails, private server, and Clinton Foundation issues.
But even if Hillary is indicted, Democrat delegates are unlikely to nominate an “outsider” like Bernie.
Democrat delegates should think long and hard about what it would mean for the republic to nominate someone under FBI investigation.
Even if the Obama Justice Department declines to pursue a criminal referral, Democrat delegates should conduct their own “trial” to decide on Hillary’s guilt and fitness, and v**e accordingly.
Every delegate to a nominating convention should be required to read Andrew McCarthy’s “The Torricelli Solution to the Coming Clinton Implosion,” which ran May 31 at National Review.
The article deals with Mrs. Clinton finally having to face the music for her (alleged) criminality:
Of course, relief at Clinton’s departure would have to be discounted by the hit Democrats took when Obama issued the pardon Hillary would demand as the price of stepping aside.
I deeply doubt that the Clintons would accept an Obama promise of a post-e******n pardon.
They’d demand up front any pardons necessary to cover the e-mail scandal, the destruction of government files, and any corruption, fraud, or other offenses arising out of the Clinton Foundation.
With Hillary’s nomination, the Clintons will have leverage, and they would surely use it to
(a) pressure Obama to spin any pardons as an exoneration (“I see no criminal activity here, but for the good of the country . . . ”);
(b) spare themselves the humiliation (and potentially worse) of criminal prosecution; and
(c) protect the fortune they’ve amassed by monetizing their “public service.”
If such a “deal” between Obama and Hillary were actually struck, it would be an outrageous use of the pardon.
But it shouldn’t surprise; Bill Clinton himself pardoned terrorists, and it seems likely that he “sold” the Marc Rich pardon.
Perhaps if Obama pardons Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11 now at Gitmo, folks will get exercised about these abuses of power.
McCarthy also delves into the logistics of a last-minute substitute nominee’s campaign, and he ends his article with a sobering irony.
His article leads one to conclude that Mrs. Clinton has no mens rea defense for her various shenanigans … she knew that what she was doing was illegal.
(And if she didn’t know, then she’s not smart enough to be president.)
The Clintons have always seemed like money-grubbing grifters.
If Mrs. Clinton does get to go through the judicial system and is found guilty of the felonies she appears to have committed, there is no penalty adequate to compensate for the damage she has done to our political system.
If prison is ruled out by a p**********l pardon, at least she should be fined enough to make her truly “dead broke,” as she claimed to have been when she left the White House.
It matters not that “she’s perfect.”
Jun 19, 2016 04:34:43 #
Doc110 wrote:
June 10, 2016 The ‘R****d Political System’ and th... (show quote)
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Jun 19, 2016 08:13:55 #
Doc110 wrote:
June 10, 2016 The ‘R****d Political System’ and th... (show quote)
Why do conservatives care about how Democrat nominate their p**********l candidate. You do what you want and we will do what we want. And you guys are completely dreaming if you think you are going to nail Hillary on something. You have been trying since the early 90's and you haven't succeeded yet. If the FBI had anything they would have nailed her already. Dream on but that's all you have are dreams and nothing else.
Hang it up guys. You were't able to nail Bill and you won't be able to nail Hillary. It just ain't going to happen. Find something else to entertain you as this as this just ain't going to fly...
Jun 19, 2016 09:11:11 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Good grounds for Nationalizing P**********l primaries and public funding of the same. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose - the party's choose - which means that they will NOT decide to relinquish the control they now enjoy and the enrichment of their friends and relatives.
We would have better luck banning all firearms.
We would have better luck banning all firearms.
Jun 19, 2016 09:15:07 #
PeterS wrote:
Why do conservatives care about how Democrat nomin... (show quote)
Don't count your chickens before they hatch in the nest. The reason why Bill did not get nailed because there were not enough v**es in the Senate to get his ass. Sen. Byrd got up in front of the American and gave a long tirade on how awful Bill was for what he did to little Monica. When it came time for the v**e, he v**ed to exhonerate him. This is a great example of what is wrong woth our leaders and our nation. To further make my point, the Republican Leadership should have known they could not nail Bill because they did not have enough v**es to get his ass. Again, poor lesdership and self-serving interest. They should have reprimanded him and used Bill's mistake as a whip to keep beating the Liebtards until e******n time. Bill survived and went on to fight another day. The Democrats faired pretty well in the fall e******ns. The Republicans lost on both accounts. The Republicans could not wipe their asses if you gave them top quality toilet paper.
Hillary and Bill do the s**t they do because they know they can get away with it. It is the same old game they have played since Bill was President. I will do something that is illegal with idea of not getting caught. If I get caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I will deny it left and right and call my accusers liars and every name in the book. I will holler what they are doing to me is mean and self-serving. I will play the role of victimology. The game that Liebtards are great at playing before the American People. T***h is T***h and it is what it is!
The way she has used her 501C3 might be just enough to make the American people angry and they will demand that she be held accountable for her actions. If she gets away with it and wins the White House, this great nation is in for some hard times. I think it will be the end of our country as we know it. We will slip into depravity, loss of liberties and mediocrity. IT IS THAT SERIOUS!
Jun 20, 2016 12:02:51 #
The Clintons have bought, threatened or k**led anyone with evidence against them.
If the "Justice System" actually worked, they would already be in jail.
Obama has already pardoned them when he endorsed Hillary.
Trump is their common Enemy not ISIS. He would undo (repeal) nearly all of Oboma's accomplishments.
Supporters of Radical Islam (muslem law) have sent tons of money to Hillary.
If the "Justice System" actually worked, they would already be in jail.
Obama has already pardoned them when he endorsed Hillary.
Trump is their common Enemy not ISIS. He would undo (repeal) nearly all of Oboma's accomplishments.
Supporters of Radical Islam (muslem law) have sent tons of money to Hillary.
Jun 20, 2016 16:31:48 #
RRRoger wrote:
The Clintons have bought, threatened or k**led anyone with evidence against them.
If the "Justice System" actually worked, they would already be in jail.
Obama has already pardoned them when he endorsed Hillary.
Trump is their common Enemy not ISIS. He would undo (repeal) nearly all of Oboma's accomplishments.
Supporters of Radical Islam (muslem law) have sent tons of money to Hillary.
If the "Justice System" actually worked, they would already be in jail.
Obama has already pardoned them when he endorsed Hillary.
Trump is their common Enemy not ISIS. He would undo (repeal) nearly all of Oboma's accomplishments.
Supporters of Radical Islam (muslem law) have sent tons of money to Hillary.
If they have sent all this money, Trump should make it known and make it a campaign issue. Hillary is vunerable and if the knife is put in the right place, she can bleed and die a nice political death. She needs to spend a little time in the POKEY!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.