When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

One last, then I have to go.

How depressing we're already observing and talking about an election four months AND FOUR YEARS distant. One of my greatest anxieties about the US remaining a vibrant semi-democracy is the money flowing in and around the electoral process. The Kochs alone stated openly that they would be investing just shy of a billion into this cycle. And there's so much more than that moving around. Elections are now, in and of themselves, a huge industry.

Who might be able to curtail this? Hard to imagine that media - the watchdog of democracy - will be motivated to change things because they themselves reap a fortune from things as they are. Politicians? Anyone who makes a move in this direction will be immediately subject to defunding of their own campaigns and massive funding to their opponents. Consultants and strategists and legal teams engaged? Ha ha ha.

Not going to explain how the data got from the secured to the unsecured network?

Good explanation of why things are so sluggish in the US. It's a hard country to move around - more like a supertanker than a canoe.

Other countries can manage to get elections started and completed, started and completed, started and completed while the US is still considering what happens next.

I think the Ailes matter is only important to people who have their TV permanently set at FoxNews, people, like yourself, who hate and fear Fox and Ailes, and people who have invested money in Fox.

Ailes leaving won't change the focus of FoxNews, unless the Murdochs are idiots and want to lose money.

A fair number of the prime talent like O'Reilly and Hannity have opt out clauses in their contracts if Ailes leaves so if he does and starts up a new operation, you can count on them to join him.

Fox serves a demographic that has been under-served for decades. It the Murdochs are smart they won't change much. If they're not, a new company will fill the void. But hey, you liberals should celebrate since either way Fox or a Fox alternative may take a while to stabilize. During that period of time your propaganda will rule the air waves.

It is the height of progressive myopia, and arrogance to suggest that if Fox were to disappear tomorrow and not be replaced, that the conservative moment in America would disappear.

Or Bill & Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, LBJ, JFK, Wendy Davis, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, etc etc etc

Typical of you though to reserve its usage for Republicans.

Certainly not Hillary Clinton

.

How you would know, privy to his personal professional strategies'? Why can't Cruz just simply hate the man and stand by his hatred? I think Cruz is nuts, his policy stance sucks, but I admired him when he told Trump off on the last day of primaries and I admire for standing by his stance now of not endorsing Trump. In my opinion, he had more to loose by endorsing him than he does for not endorsing him. If had come on the stage praising Trump to high heaven, the comments would have been way negative. This way, he seems above the circus of the Trumpism. However, even if it served his purpose, I am not so sure he would have.

Of course I can't know, anymore than you can know what is in the heart and mind of Donald Trump or any other Republican, but has that ever stopped you from offering an opinion on what you believe they think or might do? Of course not, so spare me this pose of objectivity.

You hated and feared Cruz before this speech, but now you admire him.

Ha!

I never hated or feared Cruz, I can't stand his policies and think they are crazy and out of step with most other than the thirty percent republicans who vote or support just like him. Still, I think it shows guts to stand by your convictions.

Moreover, I wasn't guaranteeing Cruz would endorse Trump if it served his purpose. There is a difference in saying "I believe" or " I think" and stating definitive statements.

I for one do not have any more love for either man than I did before. I never had any personal animus for Kasich, I just don't care for his positions. Cruz lost me forever with the government shutdowns and talk of a debt default. No serious Congressman should be talking such IMO.

Perhaps I'm old school and still cling to the belief that there should be a shred of truth in the attack and non-political family members are off limits. "Lying Ted", ok I guess. I'd even be ok questioning Cruz's wife's ties to Wall Street. What Trump did? Out of bounds for me.

Good food, wine and great music. Smoking's not good for you. A very relaxing weekend with some very good friends. I'm headed back tomorrow morning.

I don't see a long term future in politics for Cruz. He's got a reptilian quality that I think makes him repellant ro most people.

I don't know about you, but I certainly fear anyone who might be president whose policies and stands are crazy.

It does show guts to stand by your convictions if that is what you are doing. "I don't think" that's what he was doing.

I was greatly disappointed that the Dump Trump movement never got off the ground at the convention, but the fact that it didn't is testimony to the capabilities of the Trump campaign, and so contrary to popular belief among Trump-Haters, his organization has skill and muscle.

Whatever you or I might think about Trump, he's not stupid. In fact he's canny as hell. The notion that he was some amateur rube allowing Cruz to speak is baloney. If he was the martinet so many people consider him to be, he could have easily closed the door on a Cruz speech...of course then the same members of the media who are criticizing him for allowing the speech would be criticizing him for shutting it down. You, of all people, will never be convinced of this but as far as 80% of the media goes, conservatives and Republicans can't win. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Why did he let Cruz speak? We'll have to wait for him to answer the question but it could very easily have been that on the night devoted to party unity, he though it was the right thing to do to let the guy who came in 2nd to have his say. Apparently he read the speech at least a couple of hours before Cruz gave it and so he knew what was coming. That he still let Cruz speak is, frankly, a tick in the vote box for me.

Of course there is a difference between "I believe" or "In my opinion" versus definitive statements. You don't appreciate the latter. Duly noted. I will look forward to you chastising all A2K members who violate your rule, and I'm sure you will be grateful if and when I find that you have and I point it out to you.

"The Left" is made up of millions of individuals and, obviously, something that can be said to represent most of them doesn't represent all of them.

I'm quite happy with members of either party risking their careers to stand on principle, but it almost never happens when it really counts.

Kasich is just a big baby. I think he's been a great governor for Ohio, but he signed the pledge like everyone else. At the time the Pledge was all about keeping Trump from going 3rd Party and all the political pros were thinking this assh*le can't win but he can scuttle my chances. The idea that the pledge was nullified by the fact that Trump has revealed himself to be a fascist is ridiculous, as is the notion that he got down and dirty in the primary campaign. I can't remember any barb he sent Kasich's way because the guy was never a serious contender. These clowns are making spurious excuses for breaking their word.

As you may know, Kasich was a Fox contributor for several years in between his political forays. He filled in for O'Reilly on numerous occasions. No one fills in for O'Reilly unless he approves of them so it's safe to say that O'Reilly likes Kasich. The other night on his show, O'Reilly gave us a little insight into Kasich by saying (almost as an aside) "We all know John takes everything personally."

As far as politics goes in this country my position is that almost all professional politicians are sociopaths, liars, insanely ambitious and not to be trusted. The exceptions to this rule don't make it into the national spotlight and so only their local supporters know them.

Every now and again there is a principled politician who is thrust into the national limelight but isn't a miscreant. Off the top of my head I can think of Trey Gowdy of SC, but if they seek the limelight and the power they are, as humans, flawed.

I truly have contempt for anyone who tries to tell me than HRC, Sanders, Obama, Cruz, Kasich, Christie, or Trump only wants what is best for Americans. Anyone who believes such nonsense should be voted off the continent.

Every once in a while a neophyte like George W Bush, who is basically a good guy, is thrust into the national spotlight by special interests who think they can control him. Ultimately, no matter how principled the neophyte may be upon entering the national stage, he or she is corrupted or overwhelmed.

These people are competing for the most powerful position on earth. You and I would likely be swept aside as dust before them and their organizations.

Gore Vidal wrote a play (the name of which escapes me) wherein a former president tells one of the two remaining Democrat contenders for the nomination something to the effect that "power is not a toy we give to children it is a weapon we fight for. If you are not prepared to do absolutely anything to obtain that power, get out of the race."

We get lucky when a president is faced with such daunting challenges that it forces him to rise above his ambitions and self-interest, but it takes truly monumental challenges to coax out the heroic in our leaders.

The chances that the Murdoch/Ailes' agreement and severance package will be without the stipulation that Ailes will refrain from any move to set up a competing entity are zero.

"Smoking is not good for you". That is true and yet I've always been compelled by the tobacco industry's motto, "Oh, go ahead, one's not going to kill you". But I take it from your "answer" that cigars have never made an appearance there without an immediate community intervention. But as regards weed, I acknowledge the necessity of maintaining the community agreements on secrecy.

Your take (and finn's) on Cruz is similar to mine (and many others, as we all know). But again let me point to the Nixon analogy. It's not exact, but the similarities are there. Time will reveal all.

I think it's a huge problem with no clear solution, not even a foggy one. And yes, your analogy is a good one. It would be so even without this particular problem, but that makes it so much worse.

And of course another consequence here is the incredible amount of time/energy that a sitting politico and his/her staffs have to put into fundraising - time/energy that should be put into the job of governance. And then their is the aspect of a situation so ripe for corruption.
.

Where would he go?

No idea, gb. But it won't be into a competition with Murdoch. If Ailes is out, then the complaints are significant and he'll want them hidden deep and that's the leverage Murdoch has (not to mention millions in good US dollars). Murdoch doesn't screw up situations like this one.

Yeah, such an impeccable track record.....

I fear the consequences of either Cruz or Trump being given the most powerful job in the World. Everything that's going on in the ME, chaos in Syria, rise of IS, terrorist attacks in Europe, can be directly linked to Bush's disastrous presidency. It will take at least a generation to sort that mess out. God knows how much damage an idiot like Trump can inflict on the outside World.