When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

BINGO!
But, you know what? A bunch of Americans want him to be our president.

I think Clint Eastwood is suffering brain damage.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/director-clint-eastwood-just-made-a-huge-announcement-about-donald-trump/

Mrs. Clinton seems to be of my mind on this.

A necessary posture, I think.

On the other hand, I didn't buy in to a Texas franchise selling deep-fried bubble gum so I'm still impoverished.

by the by, I've just read that after David French stated he was interested in running, two hashtags quickly gained popularity:

#FrenchRevolution
#FrenchToast

Both quite witty but the second is better.

Quote cicerone:

Must be, that empty chair speech 4 years ago at the convention speaks for itself.

For a guy who has been an actor and director his whole life, clearly something is missing there, not to be insensitive.

This is the guy that the GOP have as their leader now.

"Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump reversed his position on U.S. intervention in Libya on Sunday, saying in an interview that he would have approved of a "surgical" strike to take out former Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi after telling voters the world would be better with the leader still in power.

“I didn't mind surgical. And I said surgical. You do a surgical shot and you take him out,” Trump said in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation" aired Sunday.
But Trump has said before that U.S. involvement in Libya was a mistake.

“We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now," Trump said at a Texas debate in February.

But in the interview aired Sunday, Trump flipped that stance.

"I was for something, but I wasn't for what we have right now," Trump said. “I wasn't for what happened. Look at the way — I mean look at with Benghazi and all of the problems that we've had. It was handled horribly. … I was never for strong intervention. I could have seen surgical where you take out Gaddafi and his group.” http://bit.ly/1UD7ip8

Are they going to keep pretending this guy is sane? Competent? Capable of actually governing America?

The GOP has become totally fucked up. It took 50 years but now they are there.

And he's not even on a debate stage yet facing Hillary Clinton.

Maybe he's feeling the pressure. Like a poster here used to say often, Republicans are great on offense, lousy on defense.

Could it be that after taking the GOP by unstoppable storm, the Trump general election campaign is going straight to VHS?

Maybe he'll be at the Mexican border supervising that wall construction.

That's a good gag.

Truly, I do no know what is going to happen now within the GOP universe. Ailes has been stymied and that in itself tells a tale. NRO is flailing like a drowning person. Major political figures in the party are incoherent, desperately wishing for consensus but having no idea where to find it or even where to pretend they've found it. Their base is insane, a consequence in which the GOP itself is deeply complicit. They understand (or some do) that the John Birch crowd didn't go away and has managed to build up a complex of institutions which at least match the GOP itself and they have no idea how to deal with this (they whored themselves out and now can't do without the money).

There's more to it than even that. Four years ago, there was an attempt to head off the "too moderate" Romney with another candidate who would be more acceptable. The paper asked David Gergen-certainly an established GOP figure-who that savior might be. Gergen, who would appear to be sane and worked under Clinton as well as Republican presidents, said it should be Jeb Bush.

I thought, "These guys actually think they can put up the brother of the biggest White House disaster in anyone's memory and he'll get elected? They must be out of touch." I tried to picture it-I just couldn't see that as being possible. Now, even four years later, it turned out it wasn't possible, and the GOP brain trust really has been out of touch for quite some time. At least as far as presidential elections-they do fine in House and Senate seats.

Actually, Jeb was the guy who worried me the most. The strikes against him were obvious but he would have had a formidable machine behind him and, I thought, would have had little trouble gaining broad support and consensus of the party faithful. For many in the GOP, the W years weren't the disaster we see and the memory hole on the right is very, very big.

Of course, we don't know what the hell would have happened if Trump had not run. But I was pleased to see Jeb drop out for the reasons mentioned.

I used to admire Gergen when he was alongside Shields on the Friday Newshour. Mind you, that format made everyone look good.

A little ps here... at a conference in New York, I had dinner with the wife of a Washington Post exec. She and hubby were friends with Jim Lehrer (and the Chris Matthews family and the Krauthammer family) and she confided to me that Lehrer swears like a sailor. I told her that made me love him even more.

Well, for all the talk about California, Clinton won by 13 points.

Guess that's about that.

Of course there are still 2.5 mill votes to count in California.
Slowly you have to ask yourself if the U.S. is not a 3rd world country....

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-there-are-more-than-2-5-million-1465520381-htmlstory.html

That's mostly the mail-in ballots. The state gives an extra three days for the ballots to arrive.

Not sure that qualifies us for third world status.

The entire voting system in the U.S. reminds of a 3rd world country.

Politifact fact-checked the claim that Bernie really won California.

This is the gist of it, but read the whole article:

There is evidence that California’s complicated voting rules led to problems. That may have prevented some Sanders supporters from voting for him and, for that matter, some Clinton supporters from voting for her. But there’s no proof to back up the outlandish claim that Sanders won California or that two-thirds of his votes were not counted.

We rate the Gazette’s claim Pants On Fire.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jun/10/blog-posting/pants-fire-viral-rumor-bernie-sanders-won-californ/

Quote Calamity Jane:

You don't believe in mail-in ballots?

I haven't mentioned either Sanders or Clinton - the fact that 2.5 million ballots are still to be counted is completely unacceptable.

Of course, I vote by mail, but if you look at other industrialized countries and their voting system, the U.S. is very antiquated.