Reuters: Clinton to 'look hard' at Julian Castro as possible VP pick

The best part is they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing this up like the (*)(*)(*)(*)ups they are - if they really wanted to appeal to the typical progressive SJW Luis Gutiérrez would be their man - He's only the antithesis of Trump with a bigger mouth.

Progressives would love him - he hates the United States and chooses to live in Puerto Rico until it's campaign season then he moves back to Chicago where he spews anti-American socialist racist SJW nonsense... The guy is basically Che Guevara...

 

You know, I once thought that myself, and then I realized how ridiculous the thought was. For we once had a disgraced President named Nixon, and then a Govenor of Missouri named Nixon.

In fact, were Julian Castro (who is a really, really smart guy) end up being the VP nominee and the GOP were to try this stupid method of attack of trying to compare him to Fidel Castro merely by virtue of a common last name (like Smith, Jones... lol), the Clinton campaign would have an absolute heyday with it. In fact, I bet that Robby Mook, in looking over options for after the convention, is probably lusting after the possibility that the GOP nominee would be silly enough to try this tactic, for in this case, it would practically guarantee Hillary 80% or more of the Latino vote. Another possible problem for the GOP nominee could be that he or she is smart enough to know not to go this route, but that doesn't guarantee that SuperPACS who support the nominee are that smart.

Remember, in 2012, Obama also won the Latino vote in battleground Florida and for the first time ever, Latinos of Cuban descent swung wildly for the Democratic nominee, and those Cubans hate Fidel Castro with a passion. They also tend to be very Conservative, so it says something that they rejected Mitt Romney so resoundingly. There would be no better way to completely turn off US-American Latinos of Cuban descent than by making such a ridiculous comparison and so ridicule a Latino VP candidate who is a bona fide US-American citizen.

And the people who would not vote for a Clinton/Castro ticket would probably have never voted for it, anyway, so I suspect that that would be a losing game for the 2015 GOP nominee and his campaign, were it to come this far.

So, at the end of the day, the name Castro could be a real plus in many ways for a Clinton ticket.

 

Disgraced Nixon?

lol, No more is he disgraced with the progressive status quo...

I can imagine Bernie Sanders saying it now: "I'm tired of hearing about Watergate" and the progressive useful idiots saying "its a non-scandal" ...

Anyone that isn't partisan would know Hillary alone makes Nixon look like a choir boy which is ironic because Nixon resigned like any decent person would and Hillary is running and wants to be president - so that really goes to show how arrogant and nefarious she is... She doesn't even understand she is wrong despite the fact admitting it and that is pure arrogance.

That's why she's going to lose - if not to a non-progressive but Sanders in the primary...

 

It's inherently the same thing, the Latinos have seized on Liberal shortsightedness so that they can probably reclaim the lost territories of California and Texas at this point. But hey, it's better than that. The idea, once unthinkable is that the US continent itself is attainable. There isn't even a need for a quasi-political movement.

If Hispanic-Americans gain the vast majority of the political voice in America, I wouldn't be surprised then to see Mexico taking 'steps' to inaugurate America into one big Mexican Confederation. Since the Hispanics are extremely patriotic to Mexico, which used to be the Spanish Empire.

That's their ideal scenario. I think it's going to play out like a western version of Iraq. Divided along sectarian lines, the government will effectively be powerless as will the ciitzens. Serfdom the norm and our country, far from the world power it was and never will be again. America then, is not exceptional but just in the long list of countries that fell due to political incompetence.

 

You are entitled to any opinion you wish, and in fact, I cherish your right to your opinion, but there is no doubt that Richard M. Nixon resigned in disgrace in early August, 1974, knowing that impeachment proceedings against him in the HOR were guaranteed and only 16 Republicans in the Senate were willing to vote against a conviction. Seeing the writing on the wall, he resigned. That is a disgrace. He is the only president in our history who resigned from office.

So, you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own facts. His resignation and the reasons for it all are public record, for all to read.

 

I am sorry, but your posting made absolutely no sense at all and in no way adressed the content of my posting, which you quoted.
In other words, you derailed the train of thought.
I am not going to rehash it - for every adult here in PF can see the exchange and read the questions I wrote.
Care to try again?

 

I never claimed what Nixion did was right, I'm saying Hillary and numerous other progressives presently make Nixon look like a choir boy - and I clearly pointed out the guy resigned - something a progressive would NEVER do..

 

Uhm, I'm somewhat of a progressive (well, actually, I'm a Heinz 57, politically speaking), but I just mentioned that Nixon resigned. You were not willing to admit that he resigned in utter disgrace, which he did. I remember it, I was 10 when it happened.

Again, I cherish your right to your own opinion.

 

Disgrace is a subjective term...

He resigned because he was honest as ironic as that is...

The best part is Nixon didn't do anything wrong, yet resigned anyway.

 

Have to disagree with you. He broke the law, and he knew it. Then, he was part of a cover-up, and he knew it. Then, he withheld the famous 17 minutes of taped conversation, and that is what did him in. His own crazy desire to record everything and everyone brought him down.

So, yes, he did many things wrong, not just ethically, not just morally, but legally, as in the eyes of the law.
And we are supposed to be a land of laws.

 

Nixons staff members hired people to break into the Watergate Hotel - Nixon had nothing to do with it...

It was typical political espionage by fanatics..

Nixion had nothing to do with it and that is fact...

It just looked bad at the time - a time when both democrats and republicans trusted government. If the same thing happened today it would be treated like a non-issue...

 

I am more of a numbers guy than and ideological one. Picking Castro in my opinion will do nothing to help the ticket. Castro cannot deliver Texas to the Democrats. I think Hillary would do better picking someone from a swing state. Picking Webb of Virginia would ensure that swing state stays democratic, a surprise pick of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio could deliver that state to the Democrats. Ohio is a must win swing state if the GOP is going to have a realistic chance at the White House. A pick of Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado would again guarantee another swing state stays Democratic. I keep track of the electoral college more than the popular vote as it is the electoral college that determines who will be president.

Hillary is going to get approximately 2/3rds of the Hispanic vote whether Castro is on the ticket or not. Of course how much of the Hispanic vote will be determined by whom the Republicans nominate. Romney only got 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, but the Republican congressional candidates received 36% in 2014. If Rubio is not the Republican nominee, placing Susanna Martinez the Hispanic Republican Governor of New Mexico on the GOP ticket would counter act the choice of Castro by Hillary. That choice would probably deliver New Mexico's 5 electoral votes to the GOP.

But so much depends on whom the Republicans nominate. As far as I am concerned Hillary's nomination is a forgone conclusion and has been for a couple of years now. Calling her the Democratic Party's anointed one is an apt phrase.

 

No. Nixon knew about every bit of it all the way.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
He was DIRECTLY involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

- - - Updated - - -

I too am much more of a numbers man.... so we have something in common!

 

That we do. I watch the state polls much more closely that the national ones especially the swings states in the electoral college. I do not think most people realize how big an advantage the Democrats have in the electoral college. I break it down into what I call trustworthy states for both parties. Basically that means the Democratic nominee is starting off with a 247-191 advantage in the electoral college although a couple of those states at the present are close, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but they will end up in the Democratic column. To have a realistic chance at winning the white house, the Republicans must win Florida, Ohio and North Carolina from the swing/tossup column. Lose one of those states and Hillary is in.

 

Maybe it's just me but I think this guy looks like a creep.

 

When your party for the past several decades has done all they can to let blue skies flood over our border, yes, you guys are obsessed with blue skies.

 

That made no sense at all. Try again.

 

Of course it did. You're a foreigner though, so you wouldn't know.

 

Uhm, no. I am not a foreigner. It appears that you are committing the 3rd-grade error of mistaking geographical location for nationality.
The world is a little more complex than that.

And furthermore, this thread is not about my person.
Pay attention. Focus instead on the OP theme.
Thanks.

 

The National Council of La Raza is a Mexican nationalist organization.

You have to go back to the early 1800's when what is California today was part of "New Spain." Before Mexico won it's independence from Spain California's colonist called themselves "Californios." These were the white European aristrocratic "Dons" from Spain.

In 1781 the establishment or the founding of Los Angeles became into being by European Spaniards, mulatos, blacks and what are known today as Mexicans, mestizos.

After Mexico won it's independence in 1824 on two occasions the new Mexican government emptied it's prisons and jails and sent it's criminals to California. California was being used as a penal colony. (Sound familiar, Mexico sending their losers to El Norte ?) The Californios weren't to happy about this and they called these Mexicans "cholos."

The Californios never looked upon themselves as being Mexicans and under "Natural Law" Mexico never achieved sovereignty over what is California or Arizona today. Vattels explains what needs to be done for sovereignty.
Note: Spain and Mexico had well over 200 years to build a wagon trail from either Mexico or Santa Fe New Mexico to California and the Mormon Brigade did it in a few months.

I'll skip how California, Oregon and Washington almost became part of Canada. But you had the Mexican-American War and the Californios even though they preferred to have being become a British colony found themselves with their second choice, they were now Americans and part of the United States. Pio Pico wanted so bad for California becoming a British colony.

The La Raza movement was founded during the 1850's in Los Angeles. The mestizo Mexican element in California primarily from San Fernando south to San Diego weren't happy campers. The La Raza movement was born, that these new Americans mostly former mestizo Mexicans decided to redefine their loyalty along racial terms.

La Raza connoted racial, spiritual, and blood ties (raza) with Mexico and the National Council of La Raza would also bring Latin Americans in to the La Raza movement during the late 20th Century. .

There were many La Raza organizations before the current National Council of La Raza, (La Raza-Mexicana, La Raza Hispano-Americano, La Raza Esanola and todays National Council of La Raza.) All had one thing in common, they were and are Mexican nationalist and the agenda is keeping alive the sense of Mexican patriotism.

To hold on to the Mexican culture, customs, language, politics (corrupt politics) and reject the Anglo-American language, customs, culture and refuse assimilation in to the American society.

Segregation, keep the Latinos in the barrios. The National Council of La Raza are segregationist and they force the "crab mentality" on it's own people just like how it's done in Mexico.

Have you ever noticed when a neighborhood in America becomes a barrio it always remains a barrio ? Take East L.A. for example, first established by Anglo-SAmericans during the 1870's it would become Los Angeles immigrant neighborhood, first the Irish, Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans, always changing every one or two generations as a new immigrant group moved in. But during the 1920's the Mexican immigrant moved in going on to seven generations it's still the biggest barrio outside of Mexico. Why ???

Because La Raza doesn't want it's people to move on in life living next to those gabachos. La Raza is segregation, racism, Mexican first, America second. VIVA RECONQUISTA

 

Except la raza doesn't use violence, intimidate or seek special privileges that other groups can't have.

 

La Raza wants the return of American land to Mexican people. They are heavily ANTI-American.

 

Many have speculated that Hillary might pick Julian as her VP......that would be great and Hispanics in Texas would certainly rise to the occasion.

The rally was fantastic. Except for a few trolls outside the area shouting their insults, which I'm sure Hillary was unable to even hear, it was great. She gave a fantastic speech....one that will surely move a lot of Hispanics.

 

It's just you.

 

Yep.....Rubout and Fiborina are the dream ticket....that's why they're so low on the polls.....must be a "nightmare" you are referring to.