Palin and Trump together.... oh, the idiocy of it is just too, too, too .... [sorry, I can't think of an appropriate term! LOL]

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Mr. Trump, Mrs Palin, what you've just said are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent interview were either of you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has watched this is now dumber for having watched it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your souls.
*  Keep reminding yourself that the Republican Party pushed hard for this deeply ignorant, deeply unserious person to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
    *  And conservatives still haven't learned anything.  They now want another deeply ignorant, deeply unserious person to be their nominee in 2016. 
*  Trump is the croutons and dressing to Palin's word-salad.
*  When two minds collide--one null, the other, void--you get a sputter.
*   Let's all remember folks, it's NO ONE'S BUSINESS how religious the candidate is or what bible verses he reads! Why? Because it has nothing to do with his ability to lead. Remember that, Republican jesus freaks, because you heard your ex-candidate say it herself! that religion has no place in politics...she said it herself!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin and Donald Trump whine about “gotcha” journalism in inane interview straight out of “Idiocracy”

"He's avant garde," Palin said in a desperate attempt to convince America she knows what that phrase means

By Scott Eric Kaufman, August 29, 2015

On Friday’s episode of a program whose title isn’t the least bit ironic, “On Point with Sarah Palin,” the former Alaskan governor and failed vice presidential candidate conducted an interview with Donald Trump in which the pair of strong American patriots did little more than whine about the unfairness of it all.

“This is a movement,” Palin said introducing her guest, “of Trumpeters or Trumpservatives or whatever these folks are called. He’s avant garde, and crushing it in the polls. One America viewers, he wants to connect with you, to those who are going to show up at the polls and elect the next leader of the free world.”

Palin said that she spoke to Democratic strategist James Carville, who to her mind is famous for having said, “it’s the economy, silly,” and asked Trump how he felt about the current volatility in the world market.

“It’s really pretty sad,” he replied, “they’ve just destroyed our job base, and we have to make a lot of improvement.” That sort of banal generality characterized much of the interview, whether the subject was the venal nature of the IRS or the unquestionable awesomeness of the United States military.

For example, she asked Trump what it’s like to be respected by the military for being “a truth-talker, instead of being punched in the nose for seven years by Obama.” To say that it played out like a scene from “Idiocracy” is an insult to the denizens of Mike Judge’s fictionalized future, especially when the issue of “gotcha” journalism was raised. Palin lamented a journalist’s attempt to “get” Trump by asking him to name his favorite biblical verse, which was totally “off the table” despite the fact that Trump’s repeatedly declared the Bible to be his favorite book in interviews.

“I listened to that going, ‘Do they ask Hillary that? What does it have to do with running for the office of the presidency? Is it anybody’s business?'” she asked, unaware that Clinton had been asked that selfsame question earlier this year and recited Corinthians 13 by way of answering.

“These personal ‘gotcha’ questions, really trying to get you, us, anybody running for office off game,” she continued. “How are you finding that, and finding a technique to put them in their place so that the American public isn’t wasting their time and actually get to hear what’s important via candidates’ message?”

“You saw that. I love the Bible, and I’m Protestant, I’m Presbyterian. And they were hitting me with different questions, one right after the other,” Trump replied. “I don’t know if it’s ‘gotcha questions,’ it probably is. And then they said, ‘What’s your favorite verse?’ You know, that’s a very personal thing. I don’t like giving that out to people that you hardly know. Frankly, I don’t know if they’re fair questions, or not fair questions, but there are certain things that you, myself and a lot of other people think too personal.”

Palin did not press Trump on why it’s not too personal to declare the Bible your favorite book, then decline to provide any evidence you’ve read it or regularly attend church services, because of course she didn’t.

Watch the entire interview below via One America News Network.


...................................................................................................................................................................

Another Trump lie?

...................................................................................................................................................................
NY ethics board drops Trump's complaint about attorney general during university investigation
By Michael Vertanen, August 31, 2015

New York's ethics commission has dropped Donald Trump's complaint that the state attorney general engaged in misconduct during an investigation of the former Trump University.

Trump's December 2013 complaint accused Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of soliciting campaign donations from Trump's daughter even as his office was investigating the mogul's business school.

Schneiderman had sued Trump four months earlier, seeking $40 million. He alleged that the school violated consumer protection law, engaged in fraud and that most students never got their promised apprenticeships. The lawsuit is still pending.

Trump, currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination, said most student surveys rated the program as excellent.

His attorney, Alan Garten, on Monday called the decision by the Joint Commission on Public Ethics "a joke" and said they're considering an appeal.

"The decision by the commission not to proceed demonstrates that it's just a facade," he said.

Commission Chairman Daniel Horwitz, in a letter to Schneiderman's attorney this month, wrote that based on its review of material presented and available information, it wasn't taking any further action on the complaint.

In a letter sent a few days later to Trump's daughter Ivanka, Schneiderman campaign compliance director Lauren Schleyer-Hinchey wrote that the campaign was not keeping her $500 donation check written in late 2012, which became the basis of the complaint. She noted that Ivanka Trump had then indicated that neither she nor any entity she owned or controlled had any matters pending with the attorney general's office, contradicted by the affidavit she filed later in connection with her father's complaint.

Garten wrote back to Schleyer-Hinchey, saying Ivanka Trump's disclosure statement was true, that neither she nor any entity she owned or controlled has ever had matters before the attorney general's office, and Schneiderman's campaign had actively solicited her donation.

Garten said Monday that Trump University, which was renamed the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, hasn't been taking new students.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Basically, there is no "atheist agenda" (just like there is no "gay agenda")!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The best people with the most honorable intentions I know are atheists. And it could not be more true that we do not want to take the belief in god away from anyone - believe in anything you like.
*  Actually, I think studies show that atheists tend to be very ethical people. So yeah, sometimes they ARE better than their religious peers.
*  I find most atheists to be incredibly angry, irritable, and unpleasant.
    *  Doubt that, unless you make a habit of asking every person you've ever met what they believe then I'd be willing to bet most of the atheists you've come across you didn't even realize were atheists.
*  ... what's wrong with Blue Laws? ...
    *  Blue laws are pushing beliefs of one religion on everyone...that is what is wrong with them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Atheist Agenda
By Lisa R. Petty, August 31, 2015

Recently, I watched CNN Special Report: Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers. I figured it was going to be a serious, in-depth look at atheism. After all, the show has TWO colons in its title. That is serious. While the show was a pretty fair look at atheism, there are some things that just weren't fully discussed. So, I would like to give you my take on being an atheist.

Atheist Agenda - Some religious folks think that atheists have some sort of agenda to take away religion. This is simply not true. Most atheists do not care if people worship God, or Tinkerbell, or cheese, they just want God to stay out of their lives and government. In other words, atheists don't want religion forced on them, and it is in many ways, like:

Blue laws
"In God we trust" on currency
"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Swearing on a Bible in court
Jehovah's Witnesses and other pushy religious folks
RFRA laws

Worshipping Satan - The CNN reporter kept mentioning that a lot of people think atheists worship Satan. This is beyond illogical. Atheists do not believe in any supernatural being. So, the devil does not exist to them. If Satan does not exist, he can't be worshipped. Atheists aren't dark and scary. They would just rather have brunch than go to church. Think of them as your non-praying Belgian waffle-eating friends.

No Morals - I have had religious people ask me how I can have morals without God. This is scary because it tells me that the only thing keeping some people from raping and killing is a belief that there is an invisible man in the sky watching them. It's kind of like Santa Claus for grownups. I tend to think more like Katherine Hepburn, who said, "I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other." People without morals are called psychopaths, not atheists.

Angry at God - Now that we have established that atheists do not believe in any supernatural beings, we can probably do away with that whole, "You're just angry at God" argument. Just like you can't worship something you don't believe in, you also can't be angry at something that doesn't exist.

Religious Knowledge - The CNN reporter said that she was shocked to see an atheist pursuing a graduate degree in religion because she couldn't imagine an atheist being comfortable learning about religion. A lot of atheists enjoy reading about all sorts of things, including religion, but they don't do it because they want to be persuaded to believe in God. Some religious folks think that an atheist just needs to go to church and read the Bible to be convinced. The parents of an atheist college student in the documentary referred to their son as a dead man, and regretted not forcing him to go to church more. They believe that would have made a difference. More religious education is not going to make God real for atheists. God is just something that feels fake right from the beginning.

Some Splainin - Most atheists are confused and a little bit angered because the burden of proof seems to fall on them, especially in the USA. Why do people WITHOUT an imaginary friend owe an explanation as to why they don't believe in an invisible supernatural being? This is especially evident by the fact that CNN felt it necessary to create a documentary to look inside the world of non-believers, like they are mystical creatures who must be studied behind glass. It's really simple. Atheists do not believe in God, any god at all. They don't believe in Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, or any of the thousands of gods and goddesses. They don't believe because there is no real evidence that gods exist.

I am an atheist. I have been an atheist my whole life, even when I was being forced to attend Baptist church by a family friend. I was still an atheist when I opted to get baptized in college because it's what normal people did. I volunteer at the zoo. I work and take care of my family. I appreciate a good martini. I love Christmas trees and Easter baskets. I am a nice person unless you ring my doorbell and try to sell me something, including religion, or make laws to discriminate against my friends. Then, I'm a bit irritable.

Here is the official Atheist Agenda. :)

...................................................................................................................................................................

"The model successfully predicts every election back to 1980 ..." That's good enough for me.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  lol..300 bills that were full of teaparty CRAP that they KNEW had no chance of being taken seriously..it was all nothing but political grandstanding on their part. these clowns tried to hold the country hostage to get their way..shutting down the goverment and causing americans 28 BILLION IN LOSES  screw those backwoods clowns.
*  GOP didn't "say no", all they did was sit in their GOP seats and watch the GOP self-destruct. Say hello to your new President, Bernie Sanders.
*  I guess you already know that the TEA in TEA PARTY stands for "taxed enough already." I don't know if you've thought about the fact that the highest tax bracket now is only 39%, that it was 93% under Reagan, and that nobody in the 1% pays the maximum. Mitt Romney got by with 16%. The point is that our taxes haven't been this low in a generation and for corporations it's practically nonexistent. Your rant against paying taxes to "king Obama" wouldn't really be justified even if the taxes were paid to the president instead of to the Armed Forces, disaster relief, infrastructure maintenance, oil industry subsidies, and the like.
*  Conservatism has accomplished nothing in history, has held humanity back, and is merely a pathetic justification for selfishness and ignorance.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model
By Ryan Sweet, August 31, 2015

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212. 

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.

It takes 270 electoral votes to win a U.S. presidential election. Our July forecast predicted a Democratic win with 270 electoral votes, to 268 for the Republican, regardless of who wins either party's nomination. Read More: Deep Dive Into Moody's Model.

The primary factor driving the results further to the incumbent party in August is lower gasoline prices. Plummeting prices and changing dynamics in global energy markets from Chinese weakness and the Iranian nuclear deal have caused us to significantly lower our gasoline price forecast for the next several years. This variable is very significant to voter sentiment in the model, with lower prices favoring incumbents.

It is important to note that the model does not reflect results if an election were held today, but relies on Moody's Analytics economic forecasts to determine what the world will look like in November 2016. Should gasoline prices rebound above the current baseline forecast by election time, the results of the model will move more in favor of the challenging Republicans. The forecast for house prices also accelerated moderately.

The election model's other main drivers saw little to no change from the previous month. No new historical data were available for real personal income per household, though September's quarterly update from the Bureau of Economic Analysis has potential to swing the model back toward the challengers if data come in weaker than forecast. The president's approval rating was unchanged from the previous forecast update; however, given the recent volatility in equity markets and what is expected to prove an extremely contentious debate surrounding the Iranian nuclear deal, this factor also has the potential to swing the forecast by next month.

The Moody's Analytics Presidential Election model forecasts whether or not the incumbent party will maintain control over the White House using a mixture of economic, demographic and political data. The model successfully predicts every election back to 1980, including a perfect electoral vote prediction in the 2012 election. Read More: Moody's on Volatility.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling. Good lawyers don’t usually tell their clients to defy lawful court orders ..." Ergo, these are "BAD" lawyers, and she deserves what she gets (maybe jail time?).

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I'm not particularly concerned about whether or not she's getting taken for a ride. She's not doing her job. She should either resign or be removed from office.
*  Lawyers taking advantage of people? What next, dishonest used car dealers and politicians?
*  I think part of the point is that they're less about the lawyering and more about the fundraising/rabble-rousing.
*  All moral outrage conservatives know how to do is use people for their religious ideology. Everything is justified when you're doing God's work, just ask any religious extremist. They've been using this broad from the start, but I have no sympathy for her bigoted selfish as s, the hell with her and them.
*  is she getting taken for a ride?  no. she and her lawyers all got on the crazy train together, intentionallly
*  The more money these bigots and simpletons throw at these shysters instead of something they actually may have an affect on, the better.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is Kentucky’s Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers?
By Mark Joseph Stern, August 31, 2015

On Friday, anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court, begging the justices to stay a lower court decision instructing her to grant marriage licenses. (Davis filed the application to Justice Elena Kagan, who will likely refer it to the full court.) As you may recall, Davis refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples following the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Several couples sued, and Davis—a taxpayer-funded county clerk—chose to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. A federal judge ordered her to continue doing her job, but Davis refused, citing her First Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit declined to stay the judge’s order, explaining that “it cannot be defensibly argued” that Davis’ rights were violated.

Davis’ application to the Supreme Court is less an application for a preliminary injunction than a sententious protest against Obergefell. It accuses the Obergefell majority of “redefining” marriage—a staple of right-wing argot—three times. It sneers that the ruling was decided by a bare “5-4 majority.” It quotes, extensively and approvingly, the Obergefell dissenters’ ominous warnings about the apocalyptic clash between marriage equality and religious freedom. And, in case you didn’t get the point, it actually refers to “same-sex ‘marriage’ ”—complete with contemptuous scare quotes around “marriage.”

It would be easy to write a story mocking the application’s histrionics and thinly veiled animus. But quite frankly, I’m growing a bit concerned about Davis’ lawyers. Davis is being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a far-right fringe group that specializes in anti-gay litigation. (Naturally, it is also a Christian ministry and a tax-exempt nonprofit.) Founder and Chairman Mathew D. Staver has used Davis’ case to raise money and boost publicity for his group, going so far as to hold a rally for Davis. In his spare time, Staver has continued to participate in the Faith and Freedom radio show; in recent weeks, he has described the newly gay-tolerant Boy Scouts as “a playground for pedophiles” and compared acceptance of Obergefell to turning over a Jew to the Nazis.

Law firms regularly use sexy cases to increase their own profiles, and it’s perfectly fine to bandy about your client to further a constitutional cause. (Gay rights litigators do it all the time.) But Staver is taking things too far. The first sign of trouble arose early in the case: When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue licenses or be held in contempt of court, the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling. Good lawyers don’t usually tell their clients to defy lawful court orders, especially when jail time is a real possibility. Yet the Liberty Counsel didn’t mind putting their client at risk—perhaps because the idea of a middle-aged woman being hauled off to jail for purportedly following her conscience would send thousands of anti-gay Americans reaching for their pitchforks (and checkbooks).

Now the Liberty Counsel has filed an angry, rambling application to the Supreme Court that is little more than an anti-Obergefell rant dressed up as a legal document. The fact that Davis’ lawyers couldn’t tone down the animus for long enough to pen the application is distressing but not surprising. More and more, it’s beginning to look like the Liberty Counsel is taking Davis for a ride, using her doomed case to promote itself and its extremist principles. Davis has certainly humiliated and degraded the gay couples whom she turned away. But I wonder if, on some level, she isn’t a victim, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The American dilemma

..................................................................................

In other words, Davis, either close your eyes or don't look at the applicants-- what you don't see shouldn't bother you. [LOL]

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  This has nothing to do with her "deeply held beliefs" or "religious freedom". This is about so-called christians demanding to be exempt from following secular law and secular court rulings. By his silence the governor of Kentucky has condoned Davis declaring that christianity is the official relgion of the county and that denying all citizens the services Davis is supposed to provide is okay with him.
    *  The governor ordered her to issued marriage license to all, which she refused to do. Since her position is and elected one, it will take impeachment (or a jail term) to remove her from office.
*  well well well lets see her explain that
*  Whatever it takes to remove this bigoted woman should be taken immediately. Letting her continue to work in that position is making a mockery of the law that all law abiding citizens obey.
*  If you work for a government office be it city, county, state or federal your religion means nothing!!!  There is the separation of church and state. Now do your government job free from religious influence or leave. One or the other those are your only two choices.
*  Hilarious! Clearly, she does not see deeply nor well. Prejudice is her religion.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clerk Who Refuses To Marry LGBT Couples Performed Trans Man's Marriage

"She saw just a straight couple in love, and she should see everybody like that."

By Simon McCormack, August 30, 2015

A county clerk in Kentucky who petitioned the Supreme Court to allow her to refuse to wed LGBT couples unknowingly married a trans man and a pansexual woman, the couple says.

Camryn Colen and his wife, Lexie, said they were wed in February by Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. Davis has made headlines for refusing to issue any marriage licenses after the Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal nationwide in June. 

Davis issued the marriage certificate without asking for Colen's birth certificate, which identifies him as a female, he told the Courier-Journal.

"She saw just a straight couple in love, and she should see everybody like that," he told the newspaper. "She shouldn’t just see straight couples like that."

The couple joined about 100 people who protested outside Davis' office on Saturday, The Daily Independent in Ashland reported.

Since going public with his story, Colen has been flooded with support from local LGBT couples who were denied licenses by the clerk, he told BuzzFeed.

"It was one thing to have the government say no to your marriage, but to have one person do it is something else,” he told the website.

On Friday, Davis filed an emergency request with the court to put a temporary hold on a lower court ruling that effectively forces her to begin marrying gay couples. Doing so would violate her religious beliefs, the petition says.

"She holds an undisputed sincerely-held religious belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, only," the petition says. "Thus, in her belief, [same-sex marriage] is not, in fact, marriage."

Davis could not immediately be reached for comment.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"All the GOP needs is one or more candidates to step it up, look like a party leader and sell a conservative reform vision." Hmmm, "conservative" and "reform" in one sentence? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  "They observe that his incoherent mix of authoritarianism, protectionism and cronyism is antithetical to the modern conservative movement, "  The short answer is that people do not want any part of the "modern conservative movement."
*  Walker actually said on Meet the Press this morning that the Constitution does not guarantee you freedom "from" religion as far as what the government does. Sorry Mr. Walker, but it actually does. The government is not allowed to shove religion in your face, and that means any action that impacts our civil rights in the name of religious beliefs.  As long as the GOP clings to theocratic social policy they will lose out to more mainstream national candidates.  PS, this means no more end-timers in charge of our foreign policy either…
*  Two months ago, conservative pundits were proudly proclaiming how "deep" and "experienced" their field of candidates was. It took The Donald exactly two hours to reduce the entire field to a heap of rubble. Not ONE of these "experienced" candidates has an answer to Trump's excessive bloviating.
*  Something Trump is proving is the GOP base is just not as sold on all the crap the GOP candidates and special interest groups claim they support.
   *  And also, for what they are sold on, they don't believe what the GOP says about it. They've know they've been lied to and betrayed, and they feel it deeply.
*   The GOP is merely reaping what they have been sowing. It seems like the face of the GOP will be Donald Trump...a bloated, bigoted, vulgar, misogynistic egotist. He is the man actually saying everything they really think.  I have to admit, it's a very entertaining show but he will never get the majority of women, minority and LGBT votes he will need to win.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The anti-Trump angst grows
By Jennifer Rubin, August 30, 2015

Republican operatives, insiders affiliated with no campaign and donors with whom Right Turn spoke last week are not pleased about the state of the GOP race. They will say something like: “Yeah, it’s early. Yeah, Rudy Giuliani never became president. But still.” They will tell you public polling is exaggerated, although internal polling shows him leading. They are angst-ridden over Donald Trump’s staying power, but more than that, the inability of the other candidates to respond effectively and present themselves as an effective alternative.

These Republicans, on one hand, despair that an egocentric bully with no discernible political principles should be leading in polls. They observe that his incoherent mix of authoritarianism, protectionism and cronyism is antithetical to the modern conservative movement, and in tone is 180 degrees from Ronald Reagan. But they also note that he is building an organization and displaying “P.T. Barnum showmanship,” as one veteran of GOP presidential campaigns put it. They shake their heads, unable to fully comprehend Trump’s appeal, but more than that they are disturbed by the rest of the field. They do not believe Trump will be the nominee, but high hopes for a deep, quality field have not been met. In particular, they are worried that Trump’s embrace of “nativism” will doom the party if mimicked by others.

Everyone would be advised to take a deep breath. Check the calendar (it’s still August). Remember who Trump supporters are. As Ramesh Ponnuru noted: “Take away the celebrity-besotted, the non-voters, and the single-issue opponents of immigration, and you’re left with a group of conservatives who deeply dislike what they see as a spineless Republican establishment. These voters never determine the nominee, because too many of them waste their passion on hopeless candidates, such as Ben Carson, Michele Bachmann . . . Donald Trump.” Already in the Des Moines Register poll, the most reliable Iowa poll available, Trump lead is down to a mere five points over Carson. Considering how Trump has dominated the airwaves, it’s not an impressive poll for him.

And then re-examine the rest of the field. Now, it is true that many campaigns and candidates have fizzled, or in some cases self-destructed. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has critically damaged himself by trying to ape Trump, some say fatally. In his must-win state of Iowa he is down to 8 percent. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and a handful of others have nearly disappeared entirely. Many Republicans think a number of candidates will fail to make subsequent debates as the polling percentage needed to qualify goes up. As these candidates drop off and the field consolidates, the survivors will get more time in the debates and have access to more donors and supporters.

But there are plenty of quality candidates whom one can envision competing for the nomination next year. While the media delight in taking whacks at Jeb Bush, he has only just begun to sharpen his rhetoric. He has the resources to use paid media to tell his own story and change the race’s dynamic, provided he avoids bobbles, steers clear of further staff bickering and focuses attacks on areas where others are weak. His super PAC has gobs of money to begin telling his story. (And truth be told, he’d rather Trump be taking up the oxygen than see a more viable alternatives gain traction.)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who few saw as a real competitor, looks more impressive than many expected. He’s run a smart race as the compassionate conservative and shown in debates he can be disciplined. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has both the political skill and broad appeal to make a run once the field narrows. So long as no one competitor wins all the early primaries, he will likely have the resources to compete once the race turns to winner-take-all races. And finally, Carly Fiorina gets high marks from most everyone with whom we spoke. Almost sheepishly, some will admit that many of the male, professional pols are floundering while the one woman, a political novice, excels in earned media and interviews and on the debate stage.

Moreover, the shoe has yet to drop: At some point, if he doesn’t blow up on his own, candidates and super PACs will drop negative ads portraying Trump, accurately, they say, as a liberal Democrat on a slew of issues. After all, he is erratic on the issues, a fact that issue-oriented activists will readily concede. Let’s remember, this is only August, when a fraction of primary voters are engaged. A full-blown counterattack against Trump is not likely to get underway for several months.

And there will be plenty of fodder for those attacks. Policy activists sure have figured out Trump is no friend of their causes.

Club for Growth, the fiscal conservative group, put out a White Paper on Trump. They pulled no punches. “Donald Trump is not a pro-growth conservative. He has advocated for universal, government-run health care, for a massive new tax, and for the abuse of eminent domain so the government could forcibly buy up your property for a developer to build a shopping center,” the groups asserts. “While Trump may have claimed new positions since taking those stances, he has yet to renounce them, or explain different plans. . . . In light of Donald Trump’s statements and positions, the Club believes he would not govern as president in accord with the pro-growth principles of limited taxation, free trade, less regulation, and lower taxes.” Soon, one or more candidates will need to make this argument.

On social issues, Christian conservatives are distressed with Trump. In response to his praising his pro-choice sister as a judge and refusal to commit to defunding Planned Parenthood, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America tells Right Turn that “it would and should be difficult for a candidate to earn our votes if he or she doesn’t understand that Planned Parenthood is an anathema to the pro-life community.” She adds, “The issue of abortion is ground zero for us. There is no room for equivocation. We also worry about his ability to choose Supreme Court nominees who are Constitutionalists.” She is also unsettled by Trump’s views on Iran and Israel (a key issue for her 500,000-person group). “I can’t really tell from day to day, which goes to the issue of trust,” she says. At some point, candidates must forcefully make the case against Trump’s erratic foreign policy and social views.

This should not be so hard, many presidential veterans say. You gather the data on Trump’s problematic views and rhetoric, you use earned media to blast away one issue at a time and you dump rounds of ads to remind voters he’s a Democrat at heart and would be a train wreck for the GOP. But most of all, you need to present an alternative, these voices say. All the GOP needs is one or more candidates to step it up, look like a party leader and sell a conservative reform vision.

Despite all the hand-wringing and many candidates’ belly flops, there are several candidates fully capable of doing so. In a few months, if no one has, anguish will be understandable. For now, savvy campaigns will keep to their game plan, refine their message and work on attracting the overwhelming percentage of Republicans who find Trump a non-starter.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Don't let us stop you!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Let them. I would like to see what their tax rate is going to be if they are no longer gettingt get any help from the US government. Also, a lot of companies, especially the defense industry, are going to move away if Texas is no longer part of the US. The GOP would absolutely never win another national election if Texas and its electoral votes are gone.
*  Is there some way for us non-Texans to support this campaign -- maybe make donations or whatever?  Sounds like an opportunity much too good to pass up, if there's any chance at all of it succeeding.
*  I have to wonder how many people making negative comments about Texas and the people have ever lived here or even been here. Having moved to Texas from the North East I have to say for the most part the people are hard working, open and accepting. If you leave the attitude at the state line and have the required two assault rifles for residency you are welcomed with open arms. That and in my part of the state I only have to see snow every 5-7 years. Neither the secessionists nor the ultra conservative image really reflect Texas or the good people here.
*  This is great news for a few reasons: As an independent country Texas would no longer enjoy the support of the US taxpayers; Rick Perry and Ted Cruz would in no way be eligible to run for the U.S. presidency, the US would not have to defend Texas when Mexico decides to invade to reclaim land stolen from them 150 years ago, and finally, Donald Trump could focus his efforts on building a fence around Texas to keep the Texans from entering the United States. Seems to me like a win/win all around for everyone.
*  I lived in the Dallas-Fort Worth area for a little over four and a half years and I never heard one person say they wanted to secede.
*  I'm a native Texan and I love my state, but the politics and the religious overtones to the politics are really driving me up the wall. I keep hoping that sanity will come to Texas but it seems unlikely at this point. Texas won't secede - most Texans love our country, but this idea gives the nut cases something to occupy their time. I hope they get their 75,000 signatures, so primary voters can show them how little support these people really have.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas secessionists launch petition drive for vote to break away
By Jim Forsyth, August 30, 2015

A group called the Texas Nationalist Movement fanned out to 31 cities across Texas this weekend trying to gather the 75,000 signatures they say they need to get the question of the state's secession from the United States on the primary ballot next spring.

Texas is one of only two U.S. states, the other being Hawaii, that were once internationally recognized sovereign nations, with diplomatic ties to other countries. Although legal experts said it would be unconstitutional for Texas to break away via a primary vote, there is still a spirit of Texas independence among many in the Lone Star State.

"What we are seeing, over and over, is this complete disconnect between the people of Texas, what they want, and what is going on in Washington, D.C.," TNM President Daniel Miller told Reuters.

"The people of Texas don't have anything against the United States, they are just tired of being governed by bureaucrats we didn't elect pushing programs we don't want."

He compared Texas to Scotland, which narrowly defeated a proposal to secede from the United Kingdom last year, and Catalonia, which is pushing to hold a vote on independence from Spain this year.

"We are living in the era of the right of political self-determination," Miller said.

But there is one rather big problem, according to T. Gerald Treece, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston and an expert on Constitutional Law.

"That problem is the Civil War," Treece said.  "When Texas and the other Southern states were re-admitted, each of them made a solemn promise that they would never leave the Union again."

Treece said there are some legislative options available to the Texas Nationalist Movement, short of another civil war.

"You have to have the Texas Legislature initiate a request, and then you have to have the U.S. Congress approve it, and then it could happen," he said, adding that with 'two sovereigns involved,' both would have to give their assent.

Many states have discussed leaving the Union over the last century, but the talk has been louder in Texas, with some Republicans, including former Governor Rick Perry, floating the idea of secession.

Texas would certainly have the clout to become influential on the world stage as an independent nation, with a $1.4 trillion-a year-economy, about the same size as South Korea's.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the right to take videos of police encounters in public is clearly protected by the First Amendment. ... the trend is for police to detain people who are shooting video, and subsequently drop the charges."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Conservatives aren't split on this. They support people who uphold the law. Turning away from the incident that needs their attention and interfering with law-abiding citizens who are merely recording public employees in public (who have no expectation of privacy) is breaking the law. Police and public employees who break the law regarding their professional behavior should be fired for cause with loss of benefits.
    *  And/or charged with assault; if the police have no right to interfere with the person filming lawfully, then the actions they take against that person are not legally part of the performance of their duty.
*  "Doing their job?" Their job is to prevent videography?
*  ... I shot two photos of a couple Mo highway patrolmen frisking a black driver and then going through his car trunk on the side of an interstate. This was about a week before the Mo attorney general said a study shows blacks are inordinately searched by lawmen. Two hours later they showed up and my house, one said he was gonna 'write a bunch of tickets', but he wrote one...for careless driving, their catchall because i'd stopped on a side road to squeeze off a couple shots. And a seatbelt ticket. One cop was quick to say it wasn't about the camera, but it was the other cop, the backup cop, who had vengeance. Too bad I can't post pix on this site, I'd have uploaded them here to help make them famous. ...
*  Never met a liberal who was not smart and never met a right wing conservative that was. "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it. " John Stuart Mill.
*  Exactly. Presently there is no penalty to the officer for making a bogus arrest for someone recording them. I would suggest taking it a step further. If you make an arrest and charges are dropped, automatic one week suspension without pay. If you delete or attempt to delete a recording, automatic destruction of evidence charges with mandatory maximum sentence. We should be demanding that officers are held to a higher standard!
*   Unfortunately, many police officers have taken it upon themselves to redefine "interfering". To many it means that if they have to look up and see you then you have interfered in some way whether you actually have or not. "Interfering" has become a catch-all trumped up charge.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Citizens Taking Video of Police See Themselves Facing Arrest
By Frank Eltman, August 29, 2015

Thomas Demint's voice is heard only briefly on the eight-minute video he took of police officers arresting two of his friends, and body-slamming their mother. "I'm videotaping this, sir," he tells an officer. "I'm just videotaping this."

What's not seen is what happened just after he stopped recording: Demint says three officers tackled him, took away his smartphone and then tried, unsuccessfully, to erase the video. They then arrested him on charges of obstruction of governmental administration and resisting arrest.

"I am 100 percent innocent," the 20-year-old Long Island college student told reporters earlier this month. "I didn't do anything wrong. I was just there to videotape."

Civil liberties experts say Demint is part of a growing trend of citizen videographers getting arrested after trying to record police behavior.

It's a backlash that comes as smartphones have made it easier than ever to make such recordings, which have become key evidence in high-profile cases of alleged excessive force, including the shooting of a fleeing suspect by an officer in South Carolina, the dragging of a Baltimore man into a police van, and the chokehold death of a New York City man on a Staten Island sidewalk.

"By all accounts the situation has gotten worse," said Chris Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "People are more inclined to pull out their phones and record, but that is often met with a very bad response from police."

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, said he hears of "almost four incidents a week" in which police either harass, interfere or arrest citizens — not journalists — for shooting video. He notes this is occurring at the same time many police departments are deploying body cameras on officers.

"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on either side," Osterreicher said. "Citizens can record police and police can record citizens when either is out on the street in a public place."

What makes the situation hard to define, civil libertarians say, is that no one is ever arrested on a charge of recording police because that has widely been upheld as protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are being hauled into court on obstruction, resisting arrest or other charges.

A North Carolina man who says he "kept a safe distance" last spring while recording police taking his friend into custody at a bar was nonetheless booked on resisting and obstructing an arrest, charges that were later dropped.

A month earlier in Missouri, a man claimed he was arrested after recording the police response to a small protest outside the Ferguson Police Department. He says that as soon as he took a step onto a street that was blocked by police, he was booked on a disorderly conduct charge.

In some cases, the arrests are costing taxpayers money.

Earlier this year, the city of Portland, Maine, paid $72,000 to settle a lawsuit by a couple who were arrested after they filmed police questioning a suspected drunk driver.

In New York, a freelance videographer arrested after a Long Island police sergeant ordered him to stop recording the arrest of a suspect settled a federal civil rights lawsuit last year for $200,000.

Demint is also considering a civil case against police, who accused him of being combative and refusing to obey officers' orders to get back when he was arrested last year. His case is still pending.

Chief Kevin Fallon, a Suffolk County police spokesman, declined to comment on Demint's case specifically but said: "Video is certainly here to stay and people have a right to take video. But they don't have a right to interfere."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said the right to take videos of police encounters in public is clearly protected by the First Amendment. He said the trend is for police to detain people who are shooting video, and subsequently drop the charges.

"Exercising this right has consistently and uniformly been upheld by state and federal courts; they have made it abundantly clear that citizens have right to film police in public," he said. "What is alarming is the degree to which police are ignoring this clear precedent and continue to threaten citizens."

The NYCLU has been fighting back with an app that automatically uploads citizen videos to a central server as soon as a video is recorded, preserving the evidence even if the smartphone is seized.

More than 35,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the app since its launch in 2012, leading to tens of thousands of video submissions. And 17 ACLU affiliates around the country have adapted the app for their communities.

Earlier this month, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed "The Right to Record Act," which declares people may not be prevented from recording the police, provided they do not interfere with the officers performing their duties.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara said the legislation "reinforces our First Amendment right and ensures transparency, accountability and justice for all Californians."

"At a time when cell phone and video footage is helping steer important national civil rights conversations, passage of the Right to Record Act sets an example for the rest of the nation to follow."
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... Jeb Bush’s slips tend to be different from those of his kin. His are more Freudian, involving accidental truths." Wow, a Republican who inadvertently tells the truth. [snicker]

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The main takeaway is that he wouldn't have ever been governor or a candidate for the Presidency if he had not grown up in a very well-to-do and connected family. His name and connections opened doors and wallets for him. If he had been the first in his family to run for office, his quirks might have been forgiven. Now, however, they are a fresh reminder of how his brother's language was matched by executive incompetence.
*  In fact, Jeb didn't start making his money (just as George didn't start making his) until Daddy was president. George was able to keep his failing businesses afloat by acting as doorkeeper to people who wanted to meet the president ("Shrub" Molly Ivins) and Jeb was invited to partner with a Miami real estate mogul immediately after his father was sworn into office. Not because he had any experience in real estate, but because it gave the company entree to the rich and powerful to have the president's son.
*  His remarks about anchor babies was misconstrued. He wasn't referring to Latinos. He was referring to Asians. See, that's much better.
*  An inability to express oneself clearly is often a sign of unclear thinking.
   *  his brother was all the proof that idea will ever need...
*  Who knew W. was the smart brother? But seriously, I think this guy doesn't really want the job and is going through the motions to please his old man. There's a reason he's polling at 7 percent, and it's not because of the genius of Donald J. Trump. Even Republican voters - who are, let's be honest, not the brightest bulbs - see through him.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush’s foot-in-mouth problem
By Dana Milbank, August 28, 2015

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.

Jeb Bush has been stumping his way across the country, explaining what he would do as president. But nobody seems to understand what the heck he’s talking about.

In July, he said that “people need to work longer hours” as part of an economic recovery. Then he said his remarks had been misinterpreted.

A couple of weeks later he said “we need to figure out a way to phase out” Medicare. Then he complained that critics were taking his remarks out of context.

A week or so after that, he proclaimed that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” Then he said he misspoke.

That controversy hadn’t died down when he started another by using the term “anchor babies” to describe the children of immigrants — and before long he was complaining that people were misconstruing these remarks, too.

Add to this the four different answers he struggled to give during a single week this spring about whether he would have invaded Iraq, and it’s quite possible that no other person who aspires to occupy the bully pulpit has himself been bullied quite so much by the English language.

Bush comes by this naturally — congenitally, even. His brother, of course, was one of the world’s great malapropism artists during his eight years in office: “Is our children learning? . . . I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family . . . Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream . . . Make the pie higher . . . Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across the country.”

A writer once suggested Bush’s condition was a medical one, to which he replied: “That woman who knew I had dyslexia — I never interviewed her.”

George H.W. Bush, though more in command of his syntax, had an ear for the awkward phrase, as in: “We’re enjoying sluggish times, and not enjoying them very much.” Or: “It’s no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or another.” Or: “For seven and a half years I’ve worked alongside President Reagan. We’ve had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We’ve had some sex — uh, setbacks.”

Jeb Bush established his inheritance of the family trait this year with his kick-off foreign policy speech. He confused Iraq with Iran, said the Islamic State had 200,000 fighters instead of 20,000 and referred to the Islamic State leader as “the guy that’s the supreme leader, whatever his new title is, head of the caliphate.” He said immigration should be “a catalytic converter for sustained economic growth.”

But Jeb Bush’s slips tend to be different from those of his kin. His are more Freudian, involving accidental truths.

During his first run for Florida governor, in 1994, Bush was asked what he would do for the African American community other than welfare. “Probably nothing,” he said. He recently said that the answer, part of a longer answer about the need for “equality of opportunity,” was “taken out of context.” During that same campaign, he said welfare recipients “should be able to get their life together and find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three.” When his primary opponent pounced, Bush said it was “totally out of context.”

But Bush’s context, alas, is often difficult to contextualize. Consider his attempts in May to say whether he would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know now about Saddam Hussein’s lack of weapons of mass destruction. First it was “I would have,” followed by “I don’t know.” Next, he said the hypothetical question is “a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed.” Finally, he answered the question: “I would not have gone into Iraq.”

Bush had a reasonable claim that his “longer hours” comment was misinterpreted. He was attempting to say that incomes would be higher if more people could find full-time rather than part-time work.

But it’s dubious for him to claim that his remark about phasing out Medicare was misconstrued. He said it at a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire as part of a call for entitlement reform: “We need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others and move to a new system that allows them to have something — because they’re not going to have anything.”

Likewise, it’s difficult to see much to “out of context” claims by Bush and his campaign after his use of the controversial phrase “anchor babies” and his remarks about funding women’s health care.

The context, in general, is plain: When Jeb Bush opens his mouth, danger occurs.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... talking nonsense about economic crises is essentially a job requirement for anyone hoping to get the Republican presidential nomination."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Republican dishonesty about China would be shocking -- if they hadn't been lying about everything for the last 30 years.  The Chinese didn't "steal" or "take" millions of American factory jobs. American capitalists sold them for quick short-term profits, with the American government's lassaiz faire approval.  The capitalists cashed in, the politicians were paid to look the other way, the Chinese economy boomed and American workers got screwed.  Republicans now want to prove to the world what hypocritical idiots we are by punishing the Chinese for buying what we were selling.  
    *  Tremendous point.  All this talk about China distracts from the reality you mentioned......corporations are to blame for offshoring American jobs and the GOP policies have rewarded them.  The GOP are experts at creating diversions and straw men and the media cow tows to them, never hold them accountable.  The GOP and their media machine hit sqads are consistently wrong in their dooms day predictions while the democrats are condemned for acting responsible. 
*  Sigh. I remember when the GOP used to be the "Party of adults." I rarely agreed with them, but a lot of them were reasonable people, at least below the national level.
    *  They don't seem quite so reasonable in retrospect, but it was hard to see where they were going.  They have gotten much worse - see Mann & Ornstein, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," and Kabaservice, "Rule and Ruin."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Paul Krugman: “Talking nonsense” is job requirement for GOP presidential nomination

When it comes to money, Republicans would rather "embrace fantasy" than deal with hard truths

By Scott Eric Kaufman, August 28, 2015

Paul Krugman unloaded on the Republican Party’s “deep bench” in his New York Times column Friday, excoriating the presidential hopefuls for their nonsensical views on all matters economic.

“How would the men and women who would be president respond if crisis struck on their watch?” he asked, answering that on the GOP side, the answer is all “bluster and China-bashing.” He singles out Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who said that he if he were president, he’d “solve” the China-problem by telling its leader, Xi Jinping, to cancel his planned visit to the United States. “That would fix things!” he added.

Donald Trump’s non-solution is no better, Krugman argued. He constantly says that he wouldn’t let China “dictate the agenda,” but no one — not even Trump — knows precisely what that means. It is, however, an almost perfect talking point, playing as it does both to the GOP delusion that Obama’s a weak president and the party’s rampant xenophobia. “Not only can Obama not stop the Chinese, but they’re Chinese!” is the general impression they’re attempting to create.

“Obama is endangering America by borrowing from China” is a perfect political line, playing into deficit fetishism, xenophobia and the perennial claim that Democrats don’t stand up for America! America! America! It’s also complete nonsense, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

In fact, talking nonsense about economic crises is essentially a job requirement for anyone hoping to get the Republican presidential nomination.

To understand why, you need to go back to the politics of 2009, when the new Obama administration was trying to cope with the most terrifying crisis since the 1930s. The outgoing Bush administration had already engineered a bank bailout, but the Obama team reinforced this effort with a temporary program of deficit spending, while the Federal Reserve sought to bolster the economy by buying lots of assets.

And Republicans, across the board, predicted disaster. Deficit spending, they insisted, would cause soaring interest rates and bankruptcy; the Fed’s efforts would “debase the dollar” and produce runaway inflation.

None of it happened. Interest rates stayed very low, as did inflation. But the G.O.P. never acknowledged, after six full years of being wrong about everything, that the bad things it predicted failed to take place, or showed any willingness to rethink the doctrines that led to those bad predictions. Instead, the party’s leading figures kept talking, year after year, as if the disasters they had predicted were actually happening…

...................................................................................................................................................................

"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in ..." Aw, geez, what are you, Christie, the reincarnation of Hitler?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I know we could tatoo bar codes on the immigrant's forearms. Wait a minute that was done in the past wasn't it. Never mind.
    *  Or he can have everyone that is a citizen put a mark on their foreheads.  Oh and you can only buy food, drive a car or get medical treatment with Christie's mark. I am sure all the Christians are ready for that.  I know I have read Christie's plan in some old book. Hmmm.
*  Heck, why don't you shave their heads and tattoo a bar code on the back of their neck while you're at it. Just more distraction from the do-nothing party.  Also, will this policy be applied to all immigrants, or just the ones from south of the border?
*  another "oh oh how can I get more press than Trump" condidate.
*  Unbelievable... Republicans have lost their minds. It is now acceptable to say anything with impunity. Can this bunch go any lower?
*  Not to get all slippery and slopey here, but all of these plans to "halt" illegal immigration are just beginning to sound like the beginning of the holocaust.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chris Christie Wants To Track Immigrants Like FedEx Packages

"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in."

By Sam Levine, August 29, 2015

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Saturday revealed a plan to curb unauthorized immigration: track anyone who enters the country from the time they receive their visa, like a FedEx package.

At a New Hampshire town hall, the presidential hopeful lamented that 40 percent of the undocumented immigrants in the United States entered on legal visas that they had overstayed.

"So here's what I'm gonna do if I'm president. I'm gonna ask Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx, come work for the governor for three months. Just come for three months to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and show these people," Christie said, drawing laughter from the crowd.

"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in," he continued. "And then when your time is up...then we go get you. Tap you on the shoulder and say excuse me, thanks for coming, time to go."

Christie's campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

FedEx uses barcode technology and unique tracking numbers to keep track of shipments, with each package scanned an average of 13 times between dropoff and delivery, said FedEx spokeswoman Jennifer Caccavo. She declined to comment on Christie's plan.

Earlier this month, Christie called for a re-examination of birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born on United States soil.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"In the end, it looks like the Senator from Vermont is outdoing the woman candidate on pro-woman policy."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Way to go, Bernie. If we women rally around this decent man he WILL win.
*  Sanders isn't just for women, he's for the middle class. He's the ONLY one. He refuses super PAC's and donations over 2000 dollars on principle. He's done this, and won political office for 30 years. He's the underdog hero in movies. Vote Sanders for president, vote for you.
*  I donated! http://BernieSanders.com #Feelthebern
*  It would be great if he could enact all those measures.  Senate and House majorities are a stumbling block. As they are for every president that is not of the same party as the Senate and House majority.  
Encourage people of like-mind to vote on the local level.  Unfortunately, it seems independent and democrat voters are less likely to vote than republicans. I think it is because republicans are usually madder and angrier.  I cannot see a republican voting for Bernie.  So, get the independent and democrat voters MAD and ANGRY!  At least, get them out to vote!   *  I've seen and heard a lot of self described republicans say positive things about Bernie Sanders.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Bernie Sanders Is Best on Women's Issues
By Heather Gautney, August 29, 2015

Women's issues are taking center stage in the lead-up to 2016. As they should: The conservative war on women's health and reproductive rights has raged on for far too long. And in all measures of social and political inequality, we remain what number-crunchers coolly term "disproportionately affected."

Many people believe that electing a woman president will help. I'm not so sure. Does breaking glass ceilings constitute a real political strategy -- that's capable of improving women's lives? And does voting one's gender really translate to voting one's interest?

Let's consider the issues:

On women's right to choose, Republican state legislators from Florida to Oklahoma have concocted a series of procedural roadblocks to undermine Roe v. Wade--like mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, and ideologically-informed, "counseling," some of which is medically unsound. In 2015 alone, they proposed more than 300 regulations restricting abortion in 45 states, and over the last four years, passed over 200 laws.

Far from protecting women's health, as advocates claim, anti-choice laws drive up costs and reduce access, especially for women in vulnerable situations. They also drive up risks: Experts warn that drastic reductions in the number of abortion clinics in states like Texas and Alabama are likely to increase the numbers of dangerous, self-induced abortions.

The Right's war on women has also targeted basic gynecological services that save millions of women's lives each year, like STD and breast-cancer screening. Fervent efforts by anti-abortion groups to delegitimize and defund Planned Parenthood -- alongside political battles over the Affordable Care Act to refuse birth control and emergency contraception -- are restricting access to much-needed health services, especially for low-income women.

Bernie Sanders has consistently fought against Republican attacks on reproductive rights. If elected president, he would increase funding for Planned Parenthood. He's vowed to only nominate Supreme Court justices who uphold Roe v. Wade, and plans to expand women's health programs, and access to safe and legal abortions. Clinton has also been out front on reproductive rights, but her historic refrain that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare" has only served to stigmatize it and justify conservative efforts to impose legal restrictions.

On the issue of families, Sanders has often pointed out that of 178 countries worldwide, the U.S. is one of three that does not provide new mothers with paid leave. He argues for a Scandinavia-like model, where family leave is part of a robust system of social safety nets. As president, he would provide workers with up 12 weeks of family and medical leave, funded with a small payroll contribution -- so that parents can bond with their newborns, and family members care for sick relatives. He would also free millions of women from the struggle to secure childcare by making high-quality services and pre-K available to all Americans, regardless of income.

The Clinton campaign has made family leave a centerpiece of its platform, but the candidate's level of enthusiasm is not encouraging. Just last year she openly admitted to CNN, "I don't think, politically, we could get it now."

In terms of income, most people know that women make only a fraction of what men earn (78 cents per dollar), and the numbers are much worse for blacks and Hispanics. Even women in labor unions, who enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining and workplace regulation, get only 88 cents to a man's dollar.

Sanders has said that if elected he would sign the Paycheck Fairness Act to end wage discrimination based on gender. He would also increase the minimum wage to $15. Women account for more than half of those who would benefit from just a $10 increase, and they make up 72 percent of all tipped workers, who would also get a substantial raise. Clinton supports a $15 minimum, but only in her home state of New York. She's offering just $12 for everyone else.

Even with decent wages, however, many Americans have spiraled into financial ruin from excessive medical costs. Women are especially afflicted, as we are less likely than men to be insured, and our healthcare expenses tend to be higher. While Clinton says she'll go with "what works" in Obamacare, Sanders' Medicare for All will help reduce out of pocket costs for lower income Americans. Along with expanded retirement benefits, universal healthcare can help eradicate these ruinous trends -- which are especially pronounced for elderly women, half of whom would sink into poverty without their Social Security checks.

Finally, there's the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which promises to bring jobs, but mostly the kind that exploit poor women in the developing world. American women also stand to lose, as the TPP will enable corporations to outsource low-wage majority-female jobs (and some high-wage ones too). Clinton has been woolly on the TPP, most likely because her husband is among the world's premier trade liberalizers.

Sanders, on the other hand, has spearheaded the opposition -- not just now, but back in the '90s against Bill Clinton's NAFTA, which cost American workers over one million jobs and put enormous downward pressure on their wages.

In the end, it looks like the Senator from Vermont is outdoing the woman candidate on pro-woman policy. That shouldn't come as a surprise. A recent survey by the Ms. Foundation for Women found that "Women do not lead single-issue lives... birth control and abortion is impacted by income level, racial and cultural bias, gender discrimination and immigrant status."

Bernie has long-understood that women's struggles can't be compartmentalized into issue-silos. That's why he's long-eschewed counterfeit gestures of "gender diversity" -- in favor of genuine social equality.
...................................................................................................................................................................