. — Page 10

Oh, man, this made me tear up.

"What Hillary Imagines" -NY Times

Don the Con's speech next week has been billed as "an expose on the Clintons." Given that one of his advisors is Roger Stone, a member of NIxon's dirty tricks brigade who has made a recent career of defaming the Clintons, expect anything and everything. But, the timing is good--get it all out this early and at a time when his credibility is at its lowest (yet).

WOOOOOOOOOOO! Is that the ghost of Vince Foster?

While we continue to be forced to deal with the party guest who won't leave, Republicans are counting up the Electoral College possibilities and realizing that there is virtually no way for Trump to defeat Hillary.

This column from today's New York Post is by one of the many conservatives who hate Trump more than liberals do. He grimly totes up the states and numbers and finds that Hillary has four easy roads to victory while Trump has only two long-shots--and he throws in Game of Thrones references for fun:



NY POST: Hillary has more paths to victory in general election than Trump

http://nypost.com/2016/06/08/hillary-has-more-paths-to-victory-in-general-election-than-trump/

What a shock! The snoozefest continues.... Zzzzzzzz....

I'm not sure how one loses if they support neither contenders in a battle (referring to Clinton or Trump)...

A master stroke from a master politician. Who is proud to be a Democrat, and owns his historic role in the party's legacy. I saw the first airplay of the video endorsement in real time, and was deeply moved. For all the charges and vicious conspiratorial rhetoric leveled against the Democratic Party of late, it was nothing less than thrilling to see the first African-American President tout the first female candidate. Democrats. I've been a Democrat since 1972. Sidebar, worth noting: the Green Party, wooing Sanders to join Jill Stein, has failed to meet deadlines to get on the ballot in several key states, including Arizona. After you've lit the torches and passed out the lyrics to La Marseillaise, you must remember to do that pesky paperwork.

MSNBC just announced that Warren will appear on Maddow's show tonight to endorse HRC.

madbrian said: "Well, that leaves two options: either you don't vote, or you vote for a third party candidate. Both are losing scenarios."

Well, realistically, it's highly unlikely that any individual's vote is going to be truly meaningful on its own. This is even truer for those of us who live in non-swing states. I think it's perfectly valid to use one's right to vote to send a particular (tiny) message: either that you're unhappy with the major candidates (by voting for a non-establishment party) or that you wish to protest the system in general (by choosing not to exercise your right to vote). Once again, neither of these choices is going to achieve much, but voting for a major party candidate also has little marginal value.

StageManager2 said: "FYI: Technically, there were 42 white male presidents before Obama. Grover Cleveland, who was the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms in office, was both #22 and #24. Benjamin Harrison served one term betwixt him."

Yep - I think it was a mistake to label Cleveland as the 22nd and 24th presidents. It leads to the seemingly paradoxical situation where Obama is the 44th president, but there have only been 43 presidents. Things become even more ludicrous when people write or speak of the 44 people/men/individuals who have served as president - a clear falsehood that I've seen printed in both the Washington Post and New York Times, among other places. But I can see why people are confused.

PalJoey said: "No, you are wrong, EVERY VOTE COUNTS."

I do agree with that, actually. My main point was that it can be a valid choice to use one's vote for a purpose other than electing one or the other of the major party candidates. It's true you're not going to "win" in the sense that madbrian means it, but it's also true that the chances of your vote determining the winner are vanishingly small anyhow.