John PoetJohn Poet's Journal
Democrats Surging As Hillary Clinton Takes The Lead Over Trump In Red State Missouri (Mason-Dixon) !Looking like good news! ~ JP
By Jason Easley on Fri, Jul 29th, 2016 at 3:22 pm
A new poll of Missouri shows real trouble brewing for Republicans as Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by a single point in a state that Mitt Romney won by ten points in 2012
A new poll of Missouri shows real trouble brewing for Republicans as Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by a single point in a state that Mitt Romney won by ten points in 2012.
Mason-Dixon Polling found that Trump is losing in a state that President Obama lost in 2008 and 2012. Technically, the results are a statistical tie, but Trump is underperforming Romney by eleven points in a state that Republicans thought they could count on in November. The two main issues for Trump in Missouri are that he is less popular than Clinton in the state and that he is getting less Republican support than Clinton is getting Democratic support.
While Clinton is a net (-3) favorable/unfavorable split (42%/45%), Donald Trump is a net (-18) favorable/unfavorable split (33%-51%). Democrats are more unified around Clinton (87%) than Republicans are around Trump (79%). Hillary Clinton is getting 97% of the African-American vote to Trumps 1%, and Trump is only leading Clinton by 8 points with Independents.
I'm seeing Hillary, but I'm hearing Bernie!
Especially the parts about "corporations taking tax breaks with one hand, and handing out pink slips with the other" and making sure Wall Street never brings us so low again, and a bunch of other things...
(Not that it makes any difference, but) she does look good tonight, doesn't she?
I appreciate very much that Hillary has incorporated so many of these issues, in the words she has chosen, into her acceptance speech tonight, and said to Bernie voters, "I've heard you!"
I can't say that this isn't the best speech of her life. I think maybe it is.
Of course, talk is one thing, and actions another, but I'm willing to give her the chance...
And I am glad women are finally getting their shot at the White House.
Never thought I'd be here saying this, but---
I'm With Her!
Everyone assumes Senator Tim Kaine is Hillary Clintons safe pick for vice president. Hes geographically safe: hailing from the swing state of Virginia, where a Democratic governor can name his replacement. Hes demographically safe: a white male Catholic who speaks fluent Spanish. His résumé is safe, checking the senator, governor and mayor boxes. Even his personality is safe. I am boring, Kaine assured America on NBCs Meet the Press last Sunday.
But ask anyone from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party about TKaine, and suddenly he doesnt feel very safe at all. An establishment Wall Street Democrat like Tim Kaine will do nothing but confirm to progressives she's learned nothing from this primary, Jordan Chariton told Politico Magazine, who reports for the Bernie-friendly online talk show The Young Turks.
As many as 22 million potential voters in November are thought to be Sanders-leaning Democrats, and theyre looking for evidence that Clinton is paying some heed to the surprisingly strong insurgency of the socialist from Vermont. Bernies success was a clear anti-establishment uprising, strong enough that his supporters expect their agenda will now help shape the future of the party. But choosing Kaine may send them the opposite message: This is her party now, and you arent the ones calling the shots.
Tim Kaine would be a perfect addition to the ticket, said People for Bernie co-founder Charles Lenchner when asked by Politico Magazine how he would interpret such a pick in that he would add no progressive backbone that might inconvenience Team Hillary when it's time to govern.
I just heard Mike Pence saying (while on my way to the shower),
"I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."
MY guess is, he's not an American !!!
If he was an American, wouldn't he have mentioned that there?
And Donald, well, for starters--
American citizenship is restricted to human beings, and he doesn't qualify!
But I don't think Trump was born here anyway, I think he was born in Russia!
He's got a RUSSIAN WIFE, don't he ?!
(Hey, what's good for the Goose-stepper....
I'm really surprised no one seems to be asking this question, considering...)
Welcome to my "far-left tea party"!
Just make up anything you like, and let them bother with defending it--
like they did to President Obama!
Feel free to join in with your own rumor (as I like to call it, TRUTH!)
I think this is how they meant it:
The Nukes of October: Richard Nixon's Secret Plan to Bring Peace to Vietnam
On the morning of October 27, 1969, a squadron of 18 B-52s massive bombers with eight turbo engines and 185-foot wingspans began racing from the western US toward the eastern border of the Soviet Union. The pilots flew for 18 hours without rest, hurtling toward their targets at more than 500 miles per hour. Each plane was loaded with nuclear weapons hundreds of times more powerful than the ones that had obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The B-52s, known as Stratofortresses, slowed only once, along the coast of Canada near the polar ice cap. Here, KC-135 planes essentially 707s filled with jet fuel carefully approached the bombers. They inched into place for a delicate in-flight connection, transferring thousands of gallons from aircraft to aircraft through a long, thin tube. One unfortunate shift in the wind, or twitch of the controls, and a plane filled with up to 150 tons of fuel could crash into a plane filled with nuclear ordnance.
The aircraft were pointed toward Moscow, but the real goal was to change the war in Vietnam. During his campaign for the presidency the year before, Richard Nixon had vowed to end that conflict. But more than 4,500 Americans had died there in the first six months of 1969, including 84 soldiers at the debacle of Hamburger Hill. Meanwhile, the peace negotiations in Paris, which many people hoped would end the conflict, had broken down. The Vietnamese had declared that they would just sit there, conceding nothing, "until the chairs rot." Frustrated, Nixon decided to try something new: threaten the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear strike and make its leaders think he was crazy enough to go through with it. His hope was that the Soviets would be so frightened of events spinning out of control that they would strong-arm Hanoi, telling the North Vietnamese to start making concessions at the negotiating table or risk losing Soviet military support.
Codenamed Giant Lance, Nixon's plan was the culmination of a strategy of premeditated madness he had developed with national security adviser Henry Kissinger. The details of this episode remained secret for 35 years and have never been fully told. Now, thanks to documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, it's clear that Giant Lance was the leading example of what historians came to call the "madman theory": Nixon's notion that faked, finger-on-the-button rage could bring the Soviets to heel.
By Robert Parry
The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the partys anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.
Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as soft regarding use of military force.
But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve regime change in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major partys presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.
Note to Jurors:
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s which came close to toppling the Reagan administration. He was an aggressive critic of George W. Bush's neoconservative war policies in Iraq, as well as a critic of President Obama-- where Obama's policies have mimicked the hawkish stance laid down by George W. Bush. Robert Parry is in no way, shape or form a "right-wing source", and anyone who makes such a claim clearly does not know what the hell they are talking about, or they are just flat-out lying because they don't like the content.
By Dennis J Bernstein
An apparent resurgence of death-squad violence in Honduras, including the March 3 murder of prominent Honduran indigenous rights activist Berta Cáceres, is a harsh reminder of Secretary of State Hillary Clintons role in defending a 2009 coup that ousted leftist President Manuel Zelaya and cleared the way for the restoration of right-wing rule in the impoverished Central American nation.
Caceres, the recent winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, was murdered in her hometown of La Esperenza, Intibucá, in the highlands near the Salvadoran border. Her good friend and close associate, Gustavo Castro, was shot twice but survived the assassination and is now being held against his will by the Honduran Government.
When the Honduran military removed Zelaya from power, the international community including the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the European Union condemned the coup and sought Zelayas restoration. But Secretary of State Clinton allied herself with right-wing Republicans in Congress who justified Zelayas removal because of his cordial relations with Venezuelas leftist President Hugo Chavez.
In her memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton took credit for preventing Zelaya from returning to Honduras, as if it were a major victory for democracy instead the beginning of a new era of death-squad violence and repression in Honduras.
We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras, Clinton wrote, and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot. In other words, rather than support the right of the elected president to serve out his term, Clinton allowed his illegal ouster to lead to an interim right-wing regime followed by elections that the Honduran oligarchs could again dominate.