2016 Presidential Election

[Deepvoid]

My money is still on Rubio at this point. I think the Establishment will find a way to have the candidate of their choice.
Kasich is an issue however. He needs to drop for Rubio to progress. He still thinks the establishment should rally behind him.


Rubio is doing fairly well against Clinton in their match-up on Real Clear Politics (+4.7%). In fact, Clinton is a terrible match-up against all Republicans, except for Trump.

[Mantra]

I think the democrats and liberals need to start participating because if the republicans block the supreme court nominee it could really change the direction of the country and in my opinion in a very negative way if we get a republican president. Scalia needs to be replaced and chances are Ginsberg may retire so there are potential two spots open on the Supreme court.

Yeah, I saw someone recently arguing that, ultimately, the president barely even matters (I think others have voiced similar thoughts in this thread). There's obviously a certain amount of truth to that, but it's not really the whole story. The president has a cabinet, makes appointees, like the supreme court justices, and that has a huge impact on the direction our country goes in. So this isn't just a figurehead.

[implanted_microchip]

I'm hoping the low Dem turn-out has more to do with people liking both options and feeling it to be less necessary to pick one or the other, rather than pure apathy, but I am sure i'm just being too optimistic here. The amount that the Bernie crowd talks about the youth vote changing everything is really becoming sad and hilarious depending on how you view it when you look and see that youth turnout is lower now than it was for Obama in 08. There seems to be a lot of young people not understanding that you can rant online and share whatever photo on facebook or tumblr you like, but none of it will matter if you don't do the very basic thing that is vote.

I know an upsetting number of younger people who all express some of the strongest opinions you'll hear when it comes to politics, and yet none of them are registered to vote or have any interest in doing so. I've offered to print registration forms and even mail them out for people, and it becomes immediately clear that they really have no interest, and yet they're the first to get loud and impassioned when someone makes the mistake of mentioning Trump around them, and are the first to rail on about Hillary being worse than Reagan and W. Bush combined the moment anyone mentions her instead of Sanders. It's nuts. That said, hearing the way they talk makes me glad they're not voting, overall, but regardless, everyone's vote should count the same and just because I disagree with them doesn't disqualify the value of their voice.

The right is great at getting their base fired up and since so much of it are the older generations, more of them understand the importance of voting, and are more likely to do it. Also I think they've done a lot to try and drive into people's heads that this election will be the chance to dismantle many of Obama's accomplishments and to potentially control the Supreme Court, whether much of what they describe is achievable or not. Meanwhile Clinton and Sanders both are avoiding speaking of the Supreme Court much at all, and aside from a handful of Clinton's remarks, I rarely see either discuss securing Obama's legacy. I hope that come the general, whoever is nominated steps it up and emphasizes the importance of this November, but I'm having my doubts.

[Mantra]

I think Republican turnout is high because they got that perfect twin combo going: A) explosive excitement for Trump, B) explosive hatred for Trump. There's like a civil war raging in that party right now that's driving everyone to vote. I just don't think the Clinton/Sanders thing is inspiring quite the same level of passion within the democratic party.

[DigitalChaos]

There seems to be a lot of young people not understanding that you can rant online and share whatever photo on facebook or tumblr you like, but none of it will matter if you don't do the very basic thing that is vote.
low value comment, but you just reminded me of my Bernie supporting neighbor (who i believe is not part of the youth vote). Every couple days he adds another Sanders yard sign or another sticker to one of his cars. I keep wondering wtf he thinks he is accomplishing. .... and last week he *painted* his whole roof with a gigantic Sanders campaign logo. In the time it took him to paint that, the guy could have been going door to door and talked to 200% more people than will ever see that shit.

[DigitalChaos]

I think Republican turnout is high because they got that perfect twin combo going: A) explosive excitement for Trump, B) explosive hatred for Trump. There's like a civil war raging in that party right now that's driving everyone to vote. I just don't think the Clinton/Sanders thing is inspiring quite the same level of passion within the democratic party.
GOP usually has higher turnout than Dems. The Obama surge was based around all the hype of hope. It was a huge letdown for many... so now turnout is going to be less than average until apathy fades. But yes, GOP is actually experiencing *record* turnout.

So, the chances of getting a GOP president are pretty damn high. If the Dem primary voters were smart, they'd register as republican and try and sway the primary for a GOP candidate that sucks the least.

[Mantra]

a GOP candidate that sucks the least.

lol, there's no such thing

btw, your neighbor's house is gonna be the saddest looking thing in the neighborhood if hillary wins.

[Deepvoid]

Been a while since I did this quote of the day thing. It was a bit redundant with Trump.
But Kasich takes the crown this week. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/anti-abortion-gop-candidate-john-kasich-women-left-their-kitchens-to-campaign-for-me/)

"“How did I get elected?” he [Kasich] asked. “Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, who, and many women, who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me.”

[aggroculture]

I really hope all this online sympathy for Jeb is ironic. The guy played a role in stealing the election for Bush in 2000: yes we don't know what Gore would have done, but maybe he would not have invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Jeb is not a "nice guy." W was not a "nice guy" either.

Kasich also is a right wing asshole, bankster stooge. For one, he rejected $400 million federal money for a high speed train in Ohio, for no good reason beyond pleasing his pro-car and oil backers: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/784/kill-the-400-million-passenger-rail-plan/
And, as being discussed in the Feminist thread, now defunding Planned Parenthood: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/politics/john-kasich-planned-parenthood-bill/

[cynicmuse]

It looks like Trump has won (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/nevada-caucus-gop.html) the NV Republican caucus. Rubio and Cruz are fighting for second place. Unless Trump gets creamed on Super Tuesday, he'll probably be the nominee.

[thevoid99]

http://www.thewrap.com/trump-supporters-wear-ku-klux-klan-robes-at-nevada-caucus/

Why am I not surprised?

[implanted_microchip]

Trump taking Nevada is no big shock -- their GOP is more aggressive, more establishment-suspicious, his anti-immigrant and border stances resonate a lot with Republicans in those regions, etc. The margin by which he's leading -- maybe it surprises some people. I've not been a Trump denier though. I will honestly be more surprised if Rubio is the nominee than if Trump is, and I could easily see a brokered convention happening. If you took all of Kasich and Carson's support and pooled it into Rubio's, he'd have still lost. I think the GOP laughed too soon and is fighting the guy too late. This is what their system allows for, and this is who their voters resonate with, and this is what they've fostered in a lot of their base.

Just like how Hillary taking Nevada seemed a given to me, Trump taking Nevada seemed like one, too. The guy, nuts as he is, as far from him as I am, is a force to be reckoned with in this primary and everyone made the yuuge mistake early on of writing him off as just another fad candidate who'd drop soon. I really doubt they have what it takes to keep him from bare minimum sweeping in Super Tuesday -- we'd have to see Carson and Kasich both drop (and Carson already said he's not going anywhere), we'd likely even need Cruz to drop and for them to endorse Rubio, and I don't see that happening at all. Cruz is a stubborn fuck who will not quit soon. I'll be really, really surprised if he does.

This is such a mess for the GOP, goddamn.

[Frozen Beach]

http://www.thewrap.com/trump-supporters-wear-ku-klux-klan-robes-at-nevada-caucus/

Why am I not surprised?
http://i65.tinypic.com/jr2vc9.jpg
Someone was playing a "joke" apparently. Not unless the KKK started taking in black people?

[onthewall2983]

Trump taking Nevada is no big shock -- their GOP is more aggressive, more establishment-suspicious, his anti-immigrant and border stances resonate a lot with Republicans in those regions, etc. The margin by which he's leading -- maybe it surprises some people. I've not been a Trump denier though. I will honestly be more surprised if Rubio is the nominee than if Trump is, and I could easily see a brokered convention happening. If you took all of Kasich and Carson's support and pooled it into Rubio's, he'd have still lost. I think the GOP laughed too soon and is fighting the guy too late. This is what their system allows for, and this is who their voters resonate with, and this is what they've fostered in a lot of their base.

Just like how Hillary taking Nevada seemed a given to me, Trump taking Nevada seemed like one, too. The guy, nuts as he is, as far from him as I am, is a force to be reckoned with in this primary and everyone made the yuuge mistake early on of writing him off as just another fad candidate who'd drop soon. I really doubt they have what it takes to keep him from bare minimum sweeping in Super Tuesday -- we'd have to see Carson and Kasich both drop (and Carson already said he's not going anywhere), we'd likely even need Cruz to drop and for them to endorse Rubio, and I don't see that happening at all. Cruz is a stubborn fuck who will not quit soon. I'll be really, really surprised if he does.

This is such a mess for the GOP, goddamn.

This sounds pedantic but wouldn't Trump be popular in Nevada anyway because of his casino there?

[GulDukat]

This video on the popularity of Trump is worth watching.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=drWh6vBa45k

I never would have believed it a few months ago, but he will be the Rebublican nominee, it's almost certain.

[allegro]

This sounds pedantic but wouldn't Trump be popular in Nevada anyway because of his casino there?
Not necessarily (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/donald-trump-and-nevada-its-complicated).

Many of the caucuses in Reno overwhelmingly chose Cruz. The choice, according to CNN polls last night, came down to "disgust with government" and wanting an "outsider in government."

[GulDukat]

Good article on the state of the race.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-funeral-may-be-premature-and-hillary-supporters-should-be-careful

[Timinator]

The choice, according to CNN polls last night, came down to "disgust with government" and wanting an "outsider in government."This matches with other polls that says support for Trump correlates most strongly with an affinity for authoritarianism (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533). Trump gets supporters of all genders, races, and incomes, but they're people who are fed up with what they see as ineffective, bureaucratic government, and instead want a single, strong leader. They want a dictator (note the exclusion of the word "benevolent").

Trump supporters are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though.

[allegro]

Trump supporters are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though.
We'll see. Trump is P.T. Barnum with showmanship, but he's also a dealmaker and a businessman who puts on a different face when necessary. The flip-flopping is totally normal in business, but totally frowned-upon in politics. But, he ain't normal politics. And he's gonna flip-flop. A LOT. Just wait and see. He's gonna go from Mr. Right to Mr. Centrist, right before their very eyes, like magic.

[Deepvoid]

We'll see. Trump is P.T. Barnum with showmanship, but he's also a dealmaker and a businessman who puts on a different face when necessary. The flip-flopping is totally normal in business, but totally frowned-upon in politics. But, he ain't normal politics. And he's gonna flip-flop. A LOT. Just wait and see. He's gonna go from Mr. Right to Mr. Centrist, right before their very eyes, like magic.

That x1000.
If Trump gets the nomination, he'll make a yuuuugge move to the center in order to battle Hilary. Conservative heads will explode in the process.
I believe this will be especially true on themes like abortion and health care, which are mortal sins to conservatives.

With that being said, isn't there a danger that he'll snoop the Reagan Democrats in the process?
Man, the odds of President Trump are increasing every day!

[R-Dot-Yung]

This presidential cycle is unfortunately the most entertaining shit in the world right now.

Watching the GOP lost control over their creation is just...too good.

[GulDukat]

That x1000.
If Trump gets the nomination, he'll make a yuuuugge move to the center in order to battle Hilary. Conservative heads will explode in the process.
I believe this will be especially true on themes like abortion and health care, which are mortal sins to conservatives.

With that being said, isn't there a danger that he'll snoop the Reagan Democrats in the process?
Man, the odds of President Trump are increasing every day!
Ugh, I hope you're wrong.

[allegro]

Ugh, I hope you're wrong.

Again, it CAN'T be any worse than two fucking terms of Reagan. ugh, the worst. THE WORST, ugh.

Nancy was calling in a PSYCHIC to the White House, dudes. AND AN ASTROLOGER. War on Drugs? Yeah, thanks Gipper.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HXGi%2BbWnL._SX344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[GulDukat]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/24/my-dream-ticket-hillary-kasich-2016.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

A Clinton-Kasich ticket?

[allegro]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/24/my-dream-ticket-hillary-kasich-2016.html?source=tdb&via=fb_page

a clinton-kasich ticket?

oh STAB ME NOW. That idiot just said that women left their kitchens to put yard signs up, he just defunded Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and when asked why he did that when 80% of PPs business is devoted to preventing STDs like HIV and HPV, he ignored the question (because STDs don't exist in his conservative world of women-in-the-kitchens) ... yeah, Hillary would TOTALLY choose him.

[GulDukat]

oh STAB ME NOW. That idiot just said that women left their kitchens to put yard signs up, he just defunded Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and when asked why he did that when 80% of PPs business is devoted to preventing STDs like HIV and HPV, he ignored the question (because STDs don't exist in his conservative world of women-in-the-kitchens) ... yeah, Hillary would TOTALLY choose him.
I don't think she really will pick him, interesting thought.

One in five Trump voters disagrees with Lincoln freeing the slaves.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11105552/trump-supporters-slavery

[Timinator]

We'll see. Trump is P.T. Barnum with showmanship, but he's also a dealmaker and a businessman who puts on a different face when necessary. The flip-flopping is totally normal in business, but totally frowned-upon in politics. But, he ain't normal politics. And he's gonna flip-flop. A LOT. Just wait and see. He's gonna go from Mr. Right to Mr. Centrist, right before their very eyes, like magic.I agree that that's the most likely scenario. Almost every politician ever does this (move to the center), and you're right that Trump has moved whenever it suits him (in business and in politics so far).

But none of us really know for sure. And he's played this campaign unlike any other politician in some other ways so far. If he doesn't moderate, things will just go stupid.

I'm just nervous because I'm next door again.

[screwdriver]

I don't think she really will pick him, interesting thought.

One in five Trump voters disagrees with Lincoln freeing the slaves.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11105552/trump-supporters-slavery

no, it says they disagree with the emancipation proclamation. as the article acknowledges, "Framing the question this way is a reminder that one of Lincoln's greatest acts (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2012/11/lincoln_and_slavery_does_steven_spielberg_s_movie_ tell_the_whole_story.html), and a turning point in American history (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/the-emancipation-of-abe-lincoln.html), was also a controversial exercise of presidential power."

by imperfect comparison: I thought Saddam Hussein was a terrible evil on the world; that doesn't mean I must approve of the war to remove him from power.

[GulDukat]

no, it says they disagree with the emancipation proclamation. as the article acknowledges, "Framing the question this way is a reminder that one of Lincoln's greatest acts (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2012/11/lincoln_and_slavery_does_steven_spielberg_s_movie_ tell_the_whole_story.html), and a turning point in American history (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/the-emancipation-of-abe-lincoln.html), was also a controversial exercise of presidential power."

by imperfect comparison: I thought Saddam Hussein was a terrible evil on the world; that doesn't mean I must approve of the war to remove him from power.
If you disagree with the emancipation proclamation, it means you disagree with the freeing of the slaves.

[screwdriver]

If you disagree with the emancipation proclamation, it means you disagree with the freeing of the slaves.

it definitely could.

[onthewall2983]

This exactly. Reagan Democrats. That's his goal, right there. And he's never made huge pro-life proclamations, or anti-gay marriage proclamations, and he's pandering to a certain group of people IN ORDER TO WIN. He's basically socially liberal. Always has been. And he wants to protect Social Security, and he wants to beef up the healthcare system (he was once FOR a single-payer system but now says our government is too screwed up to handle that kind of system) to make the corrupt insurance companies become competitive by forcing them to give competitive bids to the government, which is KINDA THE SAME THING????

The thing is, I know a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice and who don't love Obamacare but want to overhaul the healthcare system in some way because they admit it is fucked up. (My brother, for instance, is this kind of Republican. So is my Boss. Who is also Jewish. He jokes that he is one of the few Jew Republicans.) This idea that all or most Republicans are 100% pro-life is a misconception. Roe v. Wade with the 1st trimester being totally up to the mother and doctor, and the remainder being regulated by the states is okay by them.

You give me some hope that maybe, sort of, possibly, *sighs* a Trump presidency won't be as bad as it sounds. If given the choice, knowing what you just wrote, I'll take that kind of Republican in charge over the Cruz's and Rubio's of the world anyday.

[allegro]

no, it says they disagree with the emancipation proclamation. as the article acknowledges, "Framing the question this way is a reminder that one of Lincoln's greatest acts (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2012/11/lincoln_and_slavery_does_steven_spielberg_s_movie_ tell_the_whole_story.html), and a turning point in American history (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/the-emancipation-of-abe-lincoln.html), was also a controversial exercise of presidential power."
Exactly. Many Southerners still hate Lincoln because they thought he abused his power by not sticking to Federalism and State's Rights, and they completely separate the idea of the freedom of slaves from the Civil War, it's like slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and it was all about State's Rights (which is revisionist history).

[screwdriver]

Exactly. Many Southerners still hate Lincoln because they thought he abused his power by not sticking to Federalism and State's Rights, and they completely separate the idea of the freedom of slaves from the Civil War, it's like slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and it was all about State's Rights (which is revisionist history).

it's 100% revisionist history and it annoys me to no end. any excuse to post this: https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/was-civil-war-about-slavery

[allegro]

I'm just nervous because I'm next door again.
Dude, EVERYBODY is "next door" do America. Whether they like it or not. We're up everybody's ass.

And the last time we had a war here on the mainland was the Civil War so I really don't think you have anything to worry about ...


You give me some hope that maybe, sort of, possibly, *sighs* a Trump presidency won't be as bad as it sounds. If given the choice, knowing what you just wrote, I'll take that kind of Republican in charge over the Cruz's and Rubio's of the world anyday.
Because, unfortunately, in a two-party system, we are still stuck with the lesser of two evils a lot of the time. And right now there ain't a whole lot of difference between Dems and Repubs (other than the alleged social issues). REMEMBER, Bernie Sanders is an INDEPENDENT in his home state of Vermont but only ran as a Democrat in this Presidential election so he might have a shot at winning. But the word SOCIALIST is currently killing him with a lot of the country. Including the idiots living on oxygen tanks and getting around in wheelchairs in Kentucky on Medicare who are living on SOCIALISM but who voted for Rand Paul who wanted to get rid of their SOCIALIST MEDICARE. But they voted for the BIBLE. And EVERYBODY KNOWS that SOCIALISTS ARE ATHEISTS omg.

[Deepvoid]

At least Trump is keeping it real. He knows who is voting for him.

"“We won the evangelicals,” Trump said. “We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.”"

[Wolfkiller]

If Trump wasn't such a piece of shit with his terrible opinions/policies, I'd vote for him. His style is amazing... if only he used it for good. Could you imagine how top tier a Sanders/bizarro universe Trump campaign would be?

[GulDukat]

My money is still on Clinton winning the general election.

[Timinator]

Dude, EVERYBODY is "next door" do America. Whether they like it or not. We're up everybody's ass.
And the last time we had a war here on the mainland was the Civil War so I really don't think you have anything to worry about ...You're not as important as you think. I realized this when I lived overseas.

Still, I don't want to envision the possibility that I have to storm your house and kill you in hand-to-hand combat. Because you'd probably fuck me up.

[allegro]

Dude, we're up everybody's ass. [hint <-- NSA, spying]


You're not as important as you think. I realized this when I lived overseas.
I didn't mean that in an "important" way. think... think...

But, yeah, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Canada) anyway (http://www.cnbc.com/2009/06/02/Americas-Biggest-Trading-Partners.html?slide=11), yeah (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6).

[Mantra]

Average Trump supporter...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1KlA95TfTE

[allegro]

She finally figured out that politicians are lying to her.

Heh heh.

I think she's one of the "poorly-educated" that Trump loves, heh.

[Jinsai]

yes, Donald Trump, paragon of honesty and sincerity. The crazy eyebrows and lack of any specific details that would even briefly touch upon what she's being lied to about freak me out... who is conducting this poll and how do they have the patience? I wouldn't be able to help myself from interjecting and saying "what specifically are they lying about?"

[Exocet]

i totally get the strongman/woman appeal though. I fucking despise Trump..but i get why he is appealing to people.
People want to feel safe.
i dont think Americans like the idea of a dictator. Like Stalin/ Putin or an autocrat.....that would never happen in a million years.
But they want to feel safe.

When times are tough you want a Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher type...a strong man/woman who will not tolerate bullshit.

I get the appeal

[Deepvoid]

Ethan Cohen tweeted:

"I never expected #idiocracy become a documentary."

[Khrz]

i dont think Americans like the idea of a dictator. Like Stalin/ Putin or an autocrat.....that would never happen in a million years.
But they want to feel safe.

I'm not saying that it's happening, but that's exactly how it happens : People disillusioned with the "regular" politics attracted to someone more edgy and daring, while promising them a return to "the way things were".

[DigitalChaos]

Average Trump supporter...


youtube.com/watch?v=q1KlA95TfTE

Let's do this with Sanders supporters too!

I was laughing way too much at both of these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoAmll3ViQA

[Wolfkiller]

What a heart on that one. She hasn't given up on people and learned to pretend to say fuck it and act like you don't care.

[DigitalChaos]

What a heart on that one. She hasn't given up on people and learned to pretend to say fuck it and act like you don't care.
yup, but that's the kind of naivety that isn't really going to allow for the most informed political decisions. Not that other forms of naivety are better on that topic.
This is one of the reasons Sanders has a lot more of the youth support.

[GulDukat]

I guess Chris Christie can see the writing on the wall and has decided to jump on board. I guess he is hoping for a cabinet position.

Good article on a Trump/Clinton matchup.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/26/pay-close-attention-to-what-chris-christie-just-said-about-trump-democrats/

[aggroculture]

Republicans objecting to Trump: the fuck you talkin bout, you assholes. He is you.
Trump doesn't lie? He lies all the time, there's a story about him lying like on a regular basis on the internet. Start with 1000s of muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ. He "tells it like it is" only when it suits him.

In the meantime I will say: the USA deserves Trump.
Every nation gets the government it deserves: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

Also I firmly believe that Hillary will give the presidency to Trump, she will pull a Gore with W. Just my worthless 2c. Watch it happen.

[Jinsai]

In the meantime I will say: the USA deserves Trump.

The only people who deserve Trump are the people stupid and bigoted enough to support him.
The US does not deserve Trump. I'm a US citizen, and I do not deserve Trump.

I am really OUT of here if Trump wins the election.

[GulDukat]

How the GOP is reacting to Trump:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

[screwdriver]

In the meantime I will say: the USA deserves Trump.
Every nation gets the government it deserves: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre


yes yes a million times yes. Look at who we are as a culture, what we consume- we deserve this.

[thevoid99]

I just saw Marco Rubio on CNN speaking at Kennesaw which is about 20-30 minutes from where I live. I may not agree with his politics or his views on Obama, Sanders, and Clinton. Yet, I do respect him for actually giving a shit and wanting to make the country better. I'm glad he is at least trying to get people to relate to him and talk about his own struggles and what his parents go through. I also respect the fact that he ain't taking shit from that Fascist Fuck and calling out on his bullshit. Now that is someone I can respect.

[sick among the pure]

So, some Trump supporters used a confederate flag to stab people. One of which was last reported to be in critical condition. That's... yep.

[theimage13]

yes yes a million times yes. Look at who we are as a culture, what we consume- we deserve this.

Goddamnit, that's the stupid revenge attitude that's fucking us over to begin with. No country as a whole deserves someone who wants nothing more than to fuck people over. The problem is the more a society gets fucked by the people running it, the worse off they get, and the dumber people become because they start doing things out of sheer desperation. Everyone I know who watches trash TV, for example, does it for one reason: escapism. They partake in idiotic activities because it at least makes it seem that their own life isn't so messed up. Why is it messed up? Often because of crippling debt from school coupled with a market full of jobs that don't pay a living wage even in a city where the cost of living isn't outrageously high.

What America - no, what every country - deserves is someone who is pro-humanity, anti-corruption, and anti-batshit crazy. Rapists deserve Trump. Murderers deserve Trump. People who actually think Truck Nutz are cool deserve Trump. Let Trump be a prison warden or something. But no country, anywhere, deserves Trump.

[GulDukat]

Massive victory for Clinton in SC.

[screwdriver]

Goddamnit, that's the stupid revenge attitude that's fucking us over to begin with. No country as a whole deserves someone who wants nothing more than to fuck people over. The problem is the more a society gets fucked by the people running it, the worse off they get, and the dumber people become because they start doing things out of sheer desperation. Everyone I know who watches trash TV, for example, does it for one reason: escapism. They partake in idiotic activities because it at least makes it seem that their own life isn't so messed up. Why is it messed up? Often because of crippling debt from school coupled with a market full of jobs that don't pay a living wage even in a city where the cost of living isn't outrageously high.

What America - no, what every country - deserves is someone who is pro-humanity, anti-corruption, and anti-batshit crazy. Rapists deserve Trump. Murderers deserve Trump. People who actually think Truck Nutz are cool deserve Trump. Let Trump be a prison warden or something. But no country, anywhere, deserves Trump.

sorry, but no. this whole idea that you are better than what you do is wrong and enabling. If you can't find a better way to escape than reality TV, you deserve reality TV. You're not going to persuade me that crippling debt forces you to watch reality TV.

[DigitalChaos]

sorry, but no. this whole idea that you are better than what you do is wrong and enabling. If you can't find a better way to escape than reality TV, you deserve reality TV. You're not going to persuade me that crippling debt forces you to watch reality TV.

This is 100% true. People are fucking lazy and it proves how dumb democracy is.

However, theimage13's point about schandenfreude being a bad thing is also true.

[screwdriver]

This is 100% true. People are fucking lazy and it proves how dumb democracy is.

However, theimage13's point about schandenfreude being a bad thing is also true.

I'm not saying schandenfreude. There's no pleasure here. It's a call to arms.

[onthewall2983]

Somewhat relative to reality TV, does anyone notice how all the tabloids are basically becoming billboards for Trump?

[DigitalChaos]

I'm not saying schandenfreude. There's no pleasure here. It's a call to arms.

It's a variety of things depending on the situation. Some of it is spite. A lot of it is the antivote. I can't remember the last time this country voted for the best candidate instead of voting to stop another candidate from getting in.

Honestly, we are basically to the point where none of the election bullshit matters. People like to say how this is "the most important election" but they say that every time and it's just a farce. The people have virtually no power through this mechanism. Their power lies elsewhere.

It's a larger system falling toward decay.

[implanted_microchip]

I just saw Marco Rubio on CNN speaking at Kennesaw which is about 20-30 minutes from where I live. I may not agree with his politics or his views on Obama, Sanders, and Clinton. Yet, I do respect him for actually giving a shit and wanting to make the country better. I'm glad he is at least trying to get people to relate to him and talk about his own struggles and what his parents go through. I also respect the fact that he ain't taking shit from that Fascist Fuck and calling out on his bullshit. Now that is someone I can respect.

As someone from FL let me tell you, Rubio does not give a single ever-loving fuck. He did a hell of a lot of "relating" here and talking about "struggles" and made all sorts of long-term promises and bailed out the moment it suited him because there was room to advance his career. This is all that is. He's no better than Trump, whether you want to be sensational as fuck or not and just paint Trump as some effigy to yell at and burn and pretend he's not a symptom of a larger problem. He's willing to get just as childish as Donald if it suits him -- that whole last debate was full of it, and just this past day he made fun of Trump's face in the most "12 year olds insulting each other at lunch" way.

Rubio does what he does for the same reason Trump does what he does -- he knows it resonates with his base and makes the voters he's targeting appeal to him. You're getting a well-packaged product that, when you open it, is mostly full of air.

Also good god I swear if the people who say "I'm moving if ___ wins!" had to follow through on those statements every time they've been made, we'd have a lot lower of a population density in this country. For fuck's sake.

[GulDukat]

http://time.com/4240330/donald-trump-benito-mussolini-quote/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

Trump quotes Mussolini.

[hyprpwr]

sorry, but no. this whole idea that you are better than what you do is wrong and enabling. If you can't find a better way to escape than reality TV, you deserve reality TV. You're not going to persuade me that crippling debt forces you to watch reality TV.

Sometimes you need to hit rock bottom before rebuilding. As an outsider to the election, hopefully this mess serves some purpose in the end.

[cynicmuse]

Even better, Trump refused (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-disavow-david-duke/) to disavow David Duke's support for a while. David Duke is a former high ranking Klansman and a white supremacist. He also did time in club fed for tax evasion.

[onthewall2983]

Sometimes you need to hit rock bottom before rebuilding. As an outsider to the election, hopefully this mess serves some purpose in the end.

I think that's what's happening to the GOP. I'd really like to be able to vote Republican in my lifetime, for someone that resembled so many of the great presidents of that party from history. And that when the dust is settled on this they get their shit together.

We're at a crossroads right now that I don't think will change. Especially in the area of social tolerance it seems. Our (I'm speaking for the people in my age group of early thirty-somethings) parents and grandparents by and large were raised with one thing as the norm, and our children and grandchildren by and large will grow to accept the opposite as the norm. This could be considered pie-in-the-sky thinking but there's irrefutable proof that future generations will likely see things such as racism and general bigotry as the arcane and dated constructs that they are. And it maybe that Trump and what he represents in people of the older generations is truly dying on the vine, and knows it.

[GulDukat]

The last Republican president that had a decent domestic agenda was Richard M. Nixon. I can't ever see myself voting for Rebublican, ever.

[onthewall2983]

Still that was more than just 40 years ago. It's a long time since, but not ancient history.

[hyprpwr]

The last Republican president that had a decent domestic agenda was Richard M. Nixon. I can't ever see myself voting for Rebublican, ever.

Keep your mind open. Too many problems in your system are because of people who refuse to think outside of party lines

[october_midnight]

Probably posted already, but a must watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

[DigitalChaos]

Good Jill Stein interview

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/333839-clinton-trump-stein-oligarchy/#.VtNMG1dgfJY.reddit



You cannot have a revolution inside of a counter-revolutionary party. This is a big, deep and long fight. And it can’t simply be passed on to Hillary Clinton and we think that Bernie Sanders is running a very principled and powerful campaign; he is riding that wave of revolt. But unfortunately he is in a party that has a track record for basically sabotaging its rebels. It has done a good job of doing that in the past from Dennis Kucinich to Jesse Jackson to Howard Dean, whether they use a PR campaign like the 'Dean’s scream' to bring down the Dean candidacy. Also Jesse Jackson was sabotaged by a PR by the DNC. The Democratic Party has its ways of reigning people in if they try to rebel. The bottom line is that we are in political system in the US, which is funded by predatory banks and fossil fueled giants and war profiteers. So, we really need to reject that system, we say to reject the lesser evil so we can stand up and really fight for the greater good.

There are certainly some exceptions to what she is saying (kinda long the lines of Tea Party situations) but Sanders and his supporters are not that kind of exception.

[aggroculture]

I don't understand the email scandal. Hillary uses private unsecured server. Thus risking emails being hacked or leaked. They weren't. But we are now releasing (most of) the emails, and fighting to release them all. So we are doing what we said would have been super-bad if it had happened. I'm confused.
https://news.vice.com/article/why-the-controversy-over-hillary-clinton-emails-is-not-over
Is this some sort of Swift Boat? Vice magazine, which seems to declare itself as taking an active role in this, is partly owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[DigitalChaos]

You realize everything released to the public has been passed through the process for classification check and some are being censored or outright withheld, right?


And where are you getting the idea that her server wasn't hacked? It was maintained so poorly that there is no way you can confidently say that.

[GulDukat]

Jon Oliver on Trump is a must watch.

[Jinsai]

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain

[sick among the pure]

Just learned today that in a bunch of states, you can vote in the primaries as long as you'll be 18 by Nov 8th.

[GulDukat]

Just got back from voting. I often feel that my vote here in Massachusetts is useless, as sometimes, like in 2004, when one canidate (Kerry), had everything locked up. This year, however, with it being close in MA, I am glad I voted. First time I ever voted for a Clinton.

[implanted_microchip]

I'm pretty excited for all the coverage around the results tonight. Expecting Trump to win big with Cruz taking a couple with a lot of "this is a victory!" speeches from Rubio and Cruz about coming in second and third place. Hillary will likely sweep a whole lot of states but Bernie will grab a few and it'll be close enough in many that he'll grab enough delegates to argue that he's holding out fine, and since a lot of states that favor him come later he'll be able to spin it easily.

I'm kind of doubting any GOP candidate will be going anywhere tonight/tomorrow/this week. Kasich's holding out on Ohio, and if Carnival Cruz grabs Texas then he'll stick in for as long as he can because he's a stubborn bastard if nothing else. Rubio will keep powering on. Carson will keep Carson'ing, but if I had to bet on anyone dropping, it'd likely be him, though I extremely doubt it. But the way the GOP's going to react to today will likely be so bonkers and the amount of articles, news segments and speeches destined to spin it positively will be outstanding.

I'm almost certain we're going to see Clinton v. Trump but the road to it's as nuts and fascinating as that in and of itself will be. If they're the respective nominees those debates will need to be made pay-per-view events.

[GulDukat]

MA is super close. http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/massachusetts?cmpid=sf

Clinton has won AL, GA, TN, VA.
Trump has won AL, GA, MA, TN
Sanders has won VA

[orestes]

Clinton also won Arkansas.

[GulDukat]

Trump also won VA.

Watching Rubio now, talking about Trump's numbers going down, his numbers going up, etc. Who's he fooling? He has yet to win a single state.

Cruz wins OK.

[Deepvoid]

I think we can call it.

It will be Clinton vs Trump.

I don't see how Cruz or Rubio can catch up.

[sick among the pure]

I think we can call it.

It will be Clinton vs Trump.

A majority of the states that are expected to vote Sanders have not had their primaries yet. So the fact that it's still as close as it is for him means Sanders is in no way out of the race yet.

[GulDukat]

A majority of the states that are expected to vote Sanders have not had their primaries yet. So the fact that it's still as close as it is for him means Sanders is in no way out of the race yet.
The math doesn't work for him. Remember in 2008 Clinton won big states late in the game, but still lost the nomination as Obama won states and delegates early on. I am a Clinton supporter, but that aside, looking at this objectively, I can't see Sanders finding a path to win the nomination.

[Jinsai]

I really can't believe there's so many idiots out there who actually want to live in a world where there's a president Trump

[thevoid99]

I really can't believe there's so many idiots out there who actually want to live in a world where there's a president Trump

I am ashamed to be part of that world and in a state that is willing to buy into his bullshit.

[implanted_microchip]

I really can't believe there's so many idiots out there who actually want to live in a world where there's a president Trump

And just think how many others also vote for Ted Cruz. Ugh. They walk among us. Statistically we meet them every day. They're out there, and it's frightening.

[onthewall2983]

Sanders won in Oklahoma, Colorado, Vermont and Minnesota.

[Mantra]

So not only did my state choose Sanders over Clinton, but so far we're the only place in the entire country who has rejected both Trump and Cruz. True, Rubio's a fucking idiot too, but still, I'm feeling kinda proud of this frozen shithole of a state tonight.

[Jinsai]

So not only did my state choose Sanders over Clinton, but so far we're the only place in the entire country who has rejected both Trump and Cruz. True, Rubio's a fucking idiot too, but still, I'm feeling kinda proud of this frozen shithole of a state tonight.

Oh man, I would feel so much better if Rubio were the republican candidate, even though I think he has a better chance at winning in the general election.

I seriously considered the fact that President Drumpf is a conceivable possibility today, and it made me feel sick.

[icecream]

When Trump wins the Republican nomination, is that when party jumped the shark? I can't see how the right in the states can get any crazier. Anything past Trump seeks like a parody of being right wing.

[onthewall2983]

I think the more the heightened the fear of a Trump presidency happens, the less he'll win.

[implanted_microchip]

When Trump wins the Republican nomination, is that when party jumped the shark? I can't see how the right in the states can get any crazier. Anything past Trump seeks like a parody of being right wing.

The GOP establishment sees him as toxic as just about anyone else does. It's entirely their fault for how fractured they've become and their increasing catering towards the fringe in this country. They've courted the kinds of people that would see Trump as "their guy." I've thought for a while that we'd see the Republican party split in two if it didn't get it's shit together, between the Tea Party and the old guard, and I think it's absolutely happening. They've got a majority in Congress and yet are constantly fighting. They've got five people all running for their presidential nomination with only two of them respected by the main party, and those two are not going to win it, with one of them being in dead last. They have a voter base that is turning their backs on them and running to candidates like Trump and Cruz with open arms. If this goes to a brokered convention and someone other than Trump is nominated despite the popular vote, we're going to absolutely see some serious shit go down.

I'm liberal as all get out, through and through, but I would love to see a strong and decent Republican party. Things don't function when, in a two party system, one is perpetually dysfunctional, and that's what the GOP is right now. There's no room to compromise, there's no room to progress, there's no room to accomplish anything when things are like this. The GOP is in desperate need of restructuring, of deciding whether it's gonna be the party that caters to extremists or a party that's fiscally conservative and generally level-headed where people act like adults and try to figure out what the best direction for the country is. I really want to see it just splinter into two separate parties, with the extremists taking their own name up and the reasonable conservatives reclaiming their own party. I have family who have been life-long Republicans who changed parties this election out of sheer embarrassment, disgust and disaffection, and who haven't felt represented in years by the party.

They officially are the party whose front-runners for the "highest office in the land" run around making dick jokes about each other at rallies and mocking each other for stage makeup in debates, shouting over one another, shouting down moderators and arguing over who would want to deport kids harder than the rest. It's an embarrassment to them and it's an embarrassment to me as an American when I know we can do so much better than this and I don't want to have to be associated with this kind of political process.

[icecream]

kleiner352
Do you think the party will split though? If it does, there will be no way either could win presidency. Maybe they could govern both houses in some weird coalition government. Or even both agree on a presidintial candidate that meets their needs in the middle to run against a Democrat. Is it a generational divide in the party and across the voting base?

[implanted_microchip]

@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417)
Do you think the party will split though? If it does, there will be no way either could win presidency. Maybe they could govern both houses in some weird coalition government. Or even both agree on a presidintial candidate that meets their needs in the middle to run against a Democrat. Is it a generational divide in the party and across the voting base?

First off I am not the soberest of people right now and this may be a bit of a mess so my apologies in advance, but:


I think that it's highly likely that even though it won't split into a separate party in name or practice, there'll be a ton of dissent -- there's been talk of more moderate Republican senators planning to endorse Clinton, McConnell has made it loud and clear that he will do all he can to torpedo Trump if he is nominated, tons of GOP SuperPACs are currently throwing all they've got at attacking Donald. It's incredible. Then you have the "fall in line" Repubs who are clearly not thrilled but give the tired, diplomatic "I support the Republican nominee" answer when asked if they'll endorse Trump. McCain is even doing this, and there's already an attack ad from his Dem rival running for his seat this November that's nuts:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFa0dNY3QtU

The GOP getting behind Trump would lead to a ton of ads like this that would likely be even more vicious or scathing if it happens. At the same time, if they completely nuke their own nominee, they're all but willfully giving up the presidency. It's a mess that, I don't know, unless they can really get Rubio to become the nominee or pull some shit at a brokered convention, I'm not seeing them avoiding it and there's no easy answer. I wouldn't know what to do.

Generational divide's one way to approach it and yet it's surprising how it seems that it's a lot of the "newer" Republicans that are the more far-right, zealous members. John Boehner leaving was a real end of things for the classical, country club Republican model in Congress being the norm or at least at the center of things. For him to be followed up with Paul Ryan -- a guy who is absolutely sympathetic to the Tea Party movement and pretty far right in almost every way and thinks Ayn Rand is the hottest shit ever taken -- says a lot about the way it's gone. I don't know if it's exactly generational, and you'd expect that it'd be the older crowd being more extreme and the younger trying to shift things to center, but it's simply not the case.

More than anything I think it comes from a massive failing of the GOP establishment over the years in terms of satisfying anyone and because of that it's opened room for dissent. They stopped being about advancing their platform and simply became about halting the Democrats'. W. Bush is universally considered a failure now and every election they lose since, it's been a negative they've had to either face or ignore, since they've not had anyone else as an example since. The last Republican president they speak of confidently was thirty years ago and would get called a RINO now. The GOP can control the House and Senate yet can't win the presidency. The GOP can control the House and Senate yet can't achieve most of their goals whatsoever.

There seems to be Republicans way more focused on the fiscal end of things and then those that are way more about a social agenda they want to advance. The reaction to Obama the GOP's had has been insane. The Fox News machine has only made things worse, constantly polarizing every single event. Christie was blasted in 2012 for hugging Obama when he visited New Jersey after a natural disaster to offer aid. That's how polarized it's gotten. I think there's a contingency fed up with it and another wanting to go full-steam ahead with it. I think there's a bit of people who maybe want Trump just to force their party to confront their flaws and adapt, but then again I may be giving too much credit here. The Supreme Court thing is just a further example of the obstructionist role the GOP's taken on lately and they've all but given up on advancing their agenda and instead seem to exist solely to act as a thorn in the side of Democrats. That doesn't give you much longevity.

Ultimately I really don't know any one clear answer on the subject but it's just crazy lately. I think, in general, if they really want to be sustainable, they need to give up on a lot of the social issues and become far more about fiscal ones. Conservatism when it comes to the economy appeals to a lot of people's ears, but ranting about Mexicans, gay marriage and abortion doesn't do so as much. But who knows? They've essentially groomed their base to be all about this kind of shit, so maybe it does appeal to enough people. But it certainly hasn't appealed to more moderate conservatives and many of them feel they have no candidate. When there are Republicans willing to endorse Clinton of all people, it says a lot. There's no room for center-right leaders in the GOP any longer, and they did it to themselves.

They spent way too long hammering the extremism into people's heads. You had Fox News spending hours upon hours daily rambling on about whether Obama was born in the US. You had Fox News spending hours upon hours daily rambling on about whether the guy was a Muslim, for fuck's sake. The Birther movement would have likely never been more than a goofy Wikipedia article if it wasn't for the conservative media encouraging it. And who spear-headed that whole thing? Donald Trump, of course! They gave that guy such a spotlight around 2012 and pumped him up hard and now the exact same people try to disavow him. It just makes them look bad, if anything, and Trump plays into that hard with his supporters. He's all about getting people and saying "See, they're manipulators, they're liars, they're scheming, they're trying to trick everyone -- but you guys are so special, you guys are smarter than that, of course you are! No one outside of this rally knows it, but you guys are gonna be let in on all the secrets because I'm a winner, so you are, too." It's a cult of personality, and they helped him package it to their own base.

They really have done a whole lot to isolate themselves as this very specific, very fringe-y thing and done all they could to bring their base over with them to avoid their voters ever going across the aisle, and this is what they get for it. Their best chance right now against Trump is a malleable, young guy who really has no solid platform to sell to anyone other than "Obama's bad, remember?" That says a lot, that that's their best hope at the moment. Another part of Trump's brand is how much of a "LEADER" he is, and how he isn't dancing to anyone else's tune. When Rubio starts just adopting Trump's rhetoric and behavior and when the other candidates have done it, it does not appeal to his fans -- it repels them. Because they're just followers, now. What kind of leader is that? That's the way Trump sells it and it works. How the GOP has been so fucking stupid in combating him is beyond me because they're failing at it miserably and playing into his game. Say what you want about Romney but at least he had a platform and seemed to communicate it to people, and seemed like he had some actual agency. Their picks for this election left a vacuum for that; it does not shock me at all that a larger-than-life literal reality TV show figure has been able to fill that void.

[GulDukat]

Six NJ papers issue a joint editorial asking for Christie to resign.
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/new-jersey-newspapers-call-for-gov-chris-christie-to-resign-what-an-utter-disgrace/

[Deepvoid]

A majority of the states that are expected to vote Sanders have not had their primaries yet. So the fact that it's still as close as it is for him means Sanders is in no way out of the race yet.

There's no way he's winning because of the super delegates.
He's technically not out of the race but practically he's got no shot at this. Clinton is almost halfway there when you count the super delegates.

The only way for Trump to lose if this thing becomes a 2-candidate battle
I don't see either Cruz or Rubio dropping out before the convention.

[sick among the pure]

There's no way he's winning because of the super delegates.
He's technically not out of the race but practically he's got no shot at this. Clinton is almost halfway there when you count the super delegates.


And yet, I'm still voting for Sanders on April 19th.
Nobody should be discouraged or talked away from voting for who they want to vote for in the primaries, no matter how much you don't think they will win.

[Deepvoid]

And yet, I'm still voting for Sanders on April 19th.
Nobody should be discouraged or talked away from voting for who they want to vote for in the primaries, no matter how much you don't think they will win.

I completely agree with you on that point. I've never voted strategically or changed my vote because my guy wasn't the favorite or something.

[Deepvoid]

Looks like Ben Carson is finally out of this one. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html)

[frankie teardrop]

a friend of mine just wrote this piece. good food for thought?
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/282845/end-friendships-with-trump-supporters/

[Swykk]

Mitt Romney plans on making a statement on the presidential race on Thursday.

Do you think this'll be the gauntlet throw down that'll divide the GOP even more? Will he officially denounce Trump (I know he already tweeted some anti Trump stuff)? I don't think Trump can be stopped at this point. I think you'll see more Repubs like Christie will accept and leech on while Romney will be the other side that tries to stop Trump but again, he's too late.

I say let the GOP burnout from within. They did this to themselves. I hope most of them get voted out in November.

[implanted_microchip]

Swykk at this rate a brokered convention is the only real hope they have and even that would backfire if they selected someone else against the popular vote. It'd be sure-fire way to anger their voters, and rightfully so, and it could easily cause Trump to run third party and gift-wrap the election to Hillary.

[aggroculture]

What problem exactly does the Republican establishment have with Trump? That he's more openly racist than them? That he's not one of them?
Republicans will fall in line behind Trump, just like Chris Christie: they've already said as much, with Paul Ryan saying they will back the nominee.
Republicans seeking to disavow Trump have a lot of nerve.

[Wretchedest]

I have some conservative family members and the bottom line is, that in spite of the stereotypes, they are, in no way, racially or culturally intolerant. Sometimes unaware, occasionally insensitive, but they do not share those values with Trump, and they do not share most values with Ted Cruz either. My father actually works pretty closely with republican congress, and they find both messages pretty threatening in an existential way. Several of them have said they would rather vote for Hilary than Trump, and they do not say that lightly.

It's not so clear cut, and not so black and white. Being conservative does not make you a racist.

[DigitalChaos]

I really can't believe there's so many idiots out there who actually want to live in a world where there's a president Trump
keep this situation in mind the next time you hear progressives talk about how various protections (guns, etc) are no longer needed to protect people from their own government because we have "evolved" beyond those times. Or that we don't have to worry about giving the government too much power because we have evolved beyond the "bad" kind of power abuses.

[theimage13]

keep this situation in mind the next time you hear progressives talk about how various protections (guns, etc) are no longer needed to protect people from their own government because we have "evolved" beyond those times.

Just to be clear, are you saying we should be pro gun so that we can arm ourselves and launch a violent attack against the government? Or have I completely misunderstood your point?

[theimage13]

If popular vote actually determines the election, Ronald will win by a landslide. Why?

Republican turnout on Super Tuesday is up 81% from their last one.
Democratic turnout? DOWN 29%.

Either one of those would be bad news for the other party - but for one to nearly DOUBLE their voter turnout while the other has actual SHRUNK by over a quarter? Democrats are literally giving up and handing the White House to Republicans.

[DigitalChaos]

Just to be clear, are you saying we should be pro gun so that we can arm ourselves and launch a violent attack against the government? Or have I completely misunderstood your point?
That's mostly missing the point. Guns are just one tool of power. Using them to for an uprising is just a single option of that specific tool. Other things that involve the surrender of power include: letting the government provide more "services" in which they can withheld from you to force your compliance on a separate topic, letting the government consume more taxes in which they can repurpose for any purpose they deem appropriate. Hell, progressives were starting to debate the regulation of certain types of "bad speech" not too long ago. Other uses of guns include keeping more of a power barrier between you and an oppressive force (See: Black Panthers for a more active use-case, not all need a gun physically present). Guns can be used as passive protection from assholes too.

Trump is a guy who admires how Putin runs his country. Trump is a guy who said that a BLM activist at his rally "should have been roughed up." Trump is a guy who wants to police speech and the media outlets. Trump is a guy who said he wants to expand DHS to ban muslims from entering the US, for more surveillance on mosques, and called for a tracking database of Muslims in the US, and censorship of the internet. ... and you have a shitload of people wanting him in office. Why the hell would you give him more power over your life?

[thevoid99]

Having the seen the Jon Oliver thing and having already made my own point of who I don't want to vote for. It is clear that there is so much at stake at this point. I'm someone who is living on disability benefits as I'm unable to take a job nor willing to as I just stay at home and keep to myself while I'm living with my parents who are Hondurans living here as residents. The idea of Drumpf becoming president is scary not only because it's likely that my parents will be deported but also that my benefits will be taken away and I won't have the means to care for myself emotionally and mentally. It sickens me that there are people who are willing to side with this asshole and not willing to hear the truth. For me, this election is life or death and I'm not going to set some shithead tell me how to run my life.

[DigitalChaos]

^^^ this shit right here.

[allegro]

I'm living with my parents who are Hondurans living here as residents.
Then you'd better be very afraid of Ted Cruz (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/22/cruz-id-look-for-and-deport-all-illegal-immigrants-rubio-and-trump-would-allow-citizenship/). Be very afraid (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/25/ted-cruz-blocking-federal-aid-lead-poisoned-residents-flint.html). Here are the departments he wants to eliminate, btw (https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom/).

Rubio isn't much less scary (https://americanbridgepac.org/marco-rubios-policies-put-benefits-for-seniors-and-future-retirees-at-risk/). And he flip-flops (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/259932-rubio-people-will-have-to-be-deported).

All 3 big Republican candidates are batshit nutty conservative.


Democratic turnout? DOWN 29%.
Because it's a primary with only 2 candidates and a lot don't care which one wins, they'd like either one better than the Republican.

[Dryalex12]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/087/019/8c3.jpg_large

[theimage13]

Because it's a primary with only 2 candidates and a lot don't care which one wins, they'd like either one better than the Republican.

Unfortunately, I think the part that I put in bold is actually an issue that carries into the general election. Which is not to downplay the first issue of voter apathy in the primaries. Just because you'd rather vote for one party than the other doesn't mean you shouldn't make an education decision about WHICH one of your party's candidates you like most.

But then the general rolls around, and now some of the democrats have realized that they don't particularly like the candidate that won the nomination. Oops. So what do they do? Instead of at least voting for who they feel might be the lesser of two evils, they just don't vote. It's absurd logic, but you would not believe the number of people who have told me "well I don't like either candidate, so I'm just not going to vote".

Either way - I'm also not buying that that many democrats don't really care who wins. I have seen more people fired up about Sanders than in any election before, and I've also seen a staggering number of Democrats who have absolutely scathing views about Clinton. At least in my little bubble, people seem far more passionate about their choices within the party this year than they have in the past, which is why I'm so surprised to see a massive plummet in turnout.

[allegro]

Either way - I'm also not buying that that many democrats don't really care who wins. I have seen more people fired up about Sanders than in any election before, and I've also seen a staggering number of Democrats who have absolutely scathing views about Clinton. At least in my little bubble, people seem far more passionate about their choices within the party this year than they have in the past, which is why I'm so surprised to see a massive plummet in turnout.
I've been voting since 1980 (I voted for Jimmy Carter, LOL); this ain't the first time this has happened (http://www.american.edu/media/news/20081001_Primary_Record.cfm).

I've seen a lot of exit polls on CNN and MSNBC and radio talk show hosts describing Democrats voting for Republican candidates just to vote for the Republican they feel will be the least likely to win against Clinton; this will come across in the polls as a "strong showing for Republicans" but it's really a bunch more Dems sticking their thumbs on the Republican scale. (Which is something G and I will probably do, since we don't have to declare a party here in Illinois.)

I saw a LOT more people fired up about Obama during his first election; way the fuck more than those who are allegedly fired up about Sanders.

The only thing that scares me right now: TED CRUZ. Mr. Sequester, Mr. "I will restore Religious Freedom in America," Mr. Shut Down the Government, Mr. "Protect Israel from Palestine" (you know, Israel ... where JESUS was born).

The man is like the scary Religious Right leader from Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale."

[DigitalChaos]

but it's really a bunch more Dems sticking their thumbs on the Republican scale.
More people should really be doing this in many elections. I sure do. You can do this as a way to force a weak "opposition candidate." You can do this to get a candidate there that is "least worst" or simply to eliminate a particularly bad one.

I still don't buy the idea that Dem turnout is suddenly going to correct itself after the primaries though. Not in this election.

[allegro]

I still don't buy the idea that Dem turnout is suddenly going to correct itself after the primaries though.
Here is past data (http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data). Generally, less than half the voters turn out for primaries compared to general elections. Which is a shame because there are often a lot of local referendums at stake, as well as congressional primaries. But, admittedly, I have skipped a few primaries in my lifetime. One being John Kerry in 2004. I voted for him in the general but I skipped the primary. For nothing other than sheer laziness. Also the primary in 2000. Gore vs. Bill Bradley? Like that was a contest? Gtfo. Pass. But, I *did* vote for Clinton in the 1992 primary. So sue me. It was that sax on Arsenio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqB7UEdhKug) ...

G has a cousin in Texas who is a big Trump fan and she is friends with G on FB (she's a Repub who wants to "reboot" the GOP). G's cousin says that most of her Texas neighbors are really religious and that religion is the primary reason Cruz is so popular in Texas; the economy isn't NEARLY as important as Jesus and protecting Religious Liberty and Morality, which evidently Ted is going to bring back in the U.S., whether everybody else likes it or not.

Ted's election web site has a National Prayer Team (https://www.tedcruz.org/pray/).


During my first year, I will fight to abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Dept of Education and HUD? Wow. Hmmm ...

Oh, Ted Cruz is going to sign an Executive Order to get rid of all of these, too:


Eliminate the following Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and programs:

Appalachian Regional Commission
Climate Ready Water Utilities Initiative
Climate Research Funding for the Office of Research and Development
Climate Resilience Evaluation Awareness Tool
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (privatize)
Corporation for Travel Promotion
Global Methane Initiative
Green Infrastructure Program
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
Legal Services Corporation
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
New Starts Transit Program
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
Presidential Election Campaign Fund
Regulation of CO2 Emissions from Power Plants and all Sources
Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles
Renewable Fuel Standard Federal Mandates
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Sugar Subsidies
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
UN Population Fund
USDA Catfish Inspection Program

Oh, and Ted's immigration policies are lots of fun, too (https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/secure-the-border/)! NOT.

And here is where Ted really gets scary (https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/life-marriage-and-family/).

[Jinsai]

keep this situation in mind the next time you hear progressives talk about how various protections (guns, etc) are no longer needed to protect people from their own government because we have "evolved" beyond those times. Or that we don't have to worry about giving the government too much power because we have evolved beyond the "bad" kind of power abuses.

I would say "personal gun ownership is a joke in the face of this sort of thing," but that would divert the conversation over to a discussion about guns and stuff that I'm not in the mood to talk about.

[implanted_microchip]

Romney just gave a great, calm, thorough explanation of reasons that Trump would be poison for the Republican party and why he's a terrible candidate for president, but I don't think it will have any effect for Trump's supporters whatsoever.

It was way too late, it was from someone who is as embodying of the establishment as anyone and that's what one of Trump's biggest selling points is that he beats over everyone's heads over and over and over again -- that he's not part of the establishment. Romney coming after him, if anything, validates his spiel to supporters that he's not the same old politician.

The people who saw this speech and will value it are not the majority of the people who are supporting Trump. I honestly don't think the GOP has figured it out yet, why it is that Trump is successful among their base.

It's just like that really unimpressive John Oliver segment to me -- great, haha, they explain why Trump isn't good -- well, fantastic, you know who saw it and will take stock in it? People already against him. Things like that will not be changing minds. It just won't be. This likely won't either.

They're doing a whole lot to rail against Trump yet doing extremely little to offer an alternative option that appeals to anyone or rivals Trump's persona and image. Rubio's entire platform is "I'm not Donald Trump and I'm a conservative!" Cruz has been in second place for that reason -- Cruz has a personality, a selling point, a personal platform that he can sell to people as uniquely his own. But it's not on Trump's level of a larger-than-life reality TV show, cartoon character of an identity. Trump is a big suit this guy climbs into and dances around at birthday parties in. It's a brand name. It's a logo. It's literally on the side of buildings. He had a goddamned board game. He's not a person, he's a persona, and there's a big difference, and the kinds of people that flock to that and support it are not going to be swayed on policy-based topics. They just aren't.

I have to say, it's fucking incredible to see the last nominee of a party giving a massive speech against the current likely nominee of the same party. We're seeing the GOP frantically nuke itself rather than hand it all over to Trump. It's crazy. It's so desperate. It's like a fever dream, Game of Thrones King's Landing plotline of an elective process. Mitt Romney legitimately just told Republicans to make a brokered convention happen on national TV. That's insane. That's what they're hoping for at this point.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) Ted Cruz has been one of the only politicians who I genuinely find scary and loathsome in ages. Watching him read Green Eggs & Ham on the floor of Congress on C-SPAN was a real formative moment for me in my opinion on the man. He and McConnell are likely at the peak top of my political shitlist, and it's a short list.

[Swykk]

Here I was hoping Shitt R Money was going to set a fire big enough to engulf his party but instead he just lit one of his farts. I kind of forgot how disappointingly bland Romney is.

[R-Dot-Yung]

If popular vote actually determines the election, Ronald will win by a landslide. Why?

Republican turnout on Super Tuesday is up 81% from their last one.
Democratic turnout? DOWN 29%.

Either one of those would be bad news for the other party - but for one to nearly DOUBLE their voter turnout while the other has actual SHRUNK by over a quarter? Democrats are literally giving up and handing the White House to Republicans.

Primary voters are not general voters. I think you will see a huge turnout against Trump in a general election.

[implanted_microchip]

Here I was hoping Shitt R Money was going to set a fire big enough to engulf his party but instead he just lit one of his farts. I kind of forgot how disappointingly bland Romney is.

I think he said what's wrong with Trump extremely well -- he just did it like a level-headed, calm, rational adult, and that's not what the base for Trump responds to. Acting like a grown-up won't win you the Republican nomination this time around.

It's funny to me that the first time I've really agreed with Mitt Romney was the time that he said Donald Trump sucks. Trump's really bridging the partisan gap in this country this year by bringing us all together in shared hatred of him.
R-Dot-Yung you're absolutely correct and I think if Trump and Hillary are the respective nominees, we'll see Hillary win by a significant amount. There are Republican senators endorsing her, for fuck's sake. I think a lot of establishment Republicans will likely want to just take the hit and bet on 2020 instead of risking the damage a Trump presidency could do to their party. Trump's behavior works well in the primary -- not in a general election. And if emails and Bill cheating end up being the most he can bring to the table to fight with, Clinton will eat him alive.

[allegro]

They're doing a whole lot to rail against Trump yet doing extremely little to offer an alternative option that appeals to anyone or rivals Trump's persona and image. Rubio's entire platform is "I'm not Donald Trump and I'm a conservative!"
Exactly. Look at his web page! And right now, Rubio is still WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE to win the Presidency. How the Republicans didn't figure that out after Romney lost is beyond me. And Romney almost won! And he's way less conservative than these current 3 remaining eligible Republicans! The Republicans are still thinking that the majority of Americans are ultra conservatives who refuse to compromise and they're just nuts. The Trump-fest is saying "we're sick of this Republican shit" but the Republican establishment just doesn't seem to "get" it. Rubio keeps citing Reagan, but even REAGAN wasn't this fucking conservative. I was there! Rubio wasn't even old enough to vote for Reagan. Reagan was for gun control! (He got shot.) And he totally conned the evangelicals and had totally secular views (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/24/ronald_reagan_stiff_armed_the_religious_right_what _todays_gop_must_learn_before_wingnuts_swallow_it_ whole/). Reagan was a crazy liberal compared to these guys (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/).


Ted Cruz has been one of the only politicians who I genuinely find scary and loathsome in ages. Watching him read Green Eggs & Ham on the floor of Congress on C-SPAN was a real formative moment for me in my opinion on the man. He and McConnell are likely at the peak top of my political shitlist, and it's a short list.
Yup, I totally agree. I will vote for Trump in the primaries if only to keep Cruz as far away from the Presidency as possible, because that man is DANGEROUS. While people are paying attention to The Trump Show, they aren't paying attention to the religious financially-dangerous horror show that is Ted Cruz. But, ultimately, Clinton will win.

[GulDukat]

"I could have said 'Mitt drop to your knees', and he would've dropped to his knees"--Donald Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-would-have-dropped-to-his-knees-for-my-endorsement/

[implanted_microchip]

"I could have said 'Mitt drop to your knees', and he would've dropped to his knees"--Donald Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-would-have-dropped-to-his-knees-for-my-endorsement/

I watched this whole speech and he did exactly what he needed to do which was pander hard to his base and cherry-pick the easiest to refute parts of Mitt's speech while ignoring the rest. Not a word on the killing their families line, not a word on pretty much anything other than "I make money better than him and we're gonna make great deals, Reagan made deals, I'll make deals."

So, in short, another great Trump stump speech as far as his base is concerned. And he kept a lot of his more carny-esque and brasher moves back this time since he knew it'd be getting more national attention than his usual rally due to the Romney situation.

I don't know how people felt this guy wouldn't win the nomination. He's everything that Republican voters have been groomed to love. And, as someone against Citizen's United who has huge issues with campaign finance, he's exactly the kind of candidate people like me have said would happen -- an outsider who, due to their wealth and influence, has been able to market their way into the race for the White House. He fucking ended the Bush dynasty, for Christ's sake. He's a reality TV star. He's been a cultural meme for decades. But we have a system that allows for that and a chunk of the populace that values it over actual legislative experience.

We're in a situation where having experience is now seen as a negative -- suddenly you're the -- gasp -- establishment! Look out, they're qualified! It's been pretty funny to see. I've been a Bernie fan but am quiet about it because most of his supporters are the college liberal edition of Trump's and I loathe it. He's spent his life in politics, yet his followers act like he's somehow this great outsider to DC. And that kind of appeal is what Carson rode on, and what Trump uses to massive success. What other job would the interviewer (which in this case is the American people) favor an application that has N/A under work experience?

[richardp]

I've been a Bernie fan but am quiet about it because most of his supporters are the college liberal edition of Trump's and I loathe it.

I have to interject here. I don't necessarily think you should LOATHE the "college liberal" version of Drumpf for WANTING people to have a fair shot. I get that us hardcore Bernie fans might be viewed as being just as vocal about it as Drumpf fans are, but at least we're actually out there screaming and fighting for equality. Regardless of how annoying it may be to you, I don't really think it's fair to compare us to Drumpf. He is promoting hate, misogyny, racism, all that shit. We are just asking for acceptance, love, decent wages, and a chance to enjoy a comfortable life. FOR EVERYONE. I don't know. That's apple and oranges to me.

[allegro]

And, as someone against Citizen's United
Here's the thing, though; the Citizens United decision basically said that companies have the right to free speech but that may not have any impact at all on the public's support for the ideas expressed in said free speech.


The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 . Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Buckley Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, 18 U. S. C. §608(b), recognizing a governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. 424 U. S., at 25–26. However, the Court invalidated §608(e)’s expenditure ban, which applied to individuals, corporations, and unions, because it “fail[ed] to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process,” id. , at 47–48. While Buckley did not consider a separate ban on corporate and union independent expenditures found in §610, had that provision been challenged in Buckley ’s wake, it could not have been squared with the precedent’s reasoning and analysis. The Buckley Court did not invoke the overbreadth doctrine to suggest that §608(e)’s expenditure ban would have been constitutional had it applied to corporations and unions but not individuals. Notwithstanding this precedent, Congress soon recodified §610’s corporate and union expenditure ban at 2 U. S. C. §441b, the provision at issue. Less than two years after Buckley, Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784–785. Thus the law stood until Austin upheld a corporate independent expenditure restriction, bypassing Buckley and Bellotti by recognizing a new governmental interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of [corporate] wealth … that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at 660. Pp. 25–32.

And that is absolutely true. tl;dr Money can't buy votes. It was certainly true with Romney, it was ESPECIALLY true with Eric Cantor (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-virginia-primary-big-money-eric-cantor-107699), and it is certainly true with Trump. Trump's money isn't the reason why he's here. He's here because the media is giving him FREE attention because he's, well, Trump. He has been "loaning" his campaign his own money, and he has been getting campaign contributions, but he's mostly been getting all this attention and all these votes due to his big mouth, and not money.

And what Citizens United didn't do, and didn't address, and what we really need, is to curb all these lobbyists who are buying these people in Congress once they're in there. It's one thing trying to get elected; it's another thing when you're in there and every decision you make is based on some money being given to you by some lobbyist group like Monsanto's. And that's not free speech, that's influence and, well, bribery.

[Bachy]

I'm not registered to vote, and won't be registering anytime soon because frankly I don't believe it. Some say because of this I'm not allowed to comment on the election, but I'm gonna do it anyway. If you honestly think Donald Trump will lead us to the promise land, you're a fucking lunatic and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[allegro]

I have to interject here. I don't necessarily think you should LOATHE the "college liberal" version of Drumpf for WANTING people to have a fair shot. I get that us hardcore Bernie fans might be viewed as being just as vocal about it as Drumpf fans are, but at least we're actually out there screaming and fighting for equality. Regardless of how annoying it may be to you, I don't really think it's fair to compare us to Drumpf. He is promoting hate, misogyny, racism, all that shit. We are just asking for acceptance, love, decent wages, and a chance to enjoy a comfortable life. FOR EVERYONE. I don't know. That's apple and oranges to me.

I don't think that Trump is promoting misogyny in real life; his daughter runs a huge part of his business; he hired OMAROSA; he has females at the top of his corporations; but I see a lot of these male Bernie fans making comments on Clinton's Instagram page, though, that are really disturbing. Really.Disturbing. I am sure this isn't Bernie's fault, but it's bad.


I'm not registered to vote, and won't be registering anytime soon because frankly I don't believe it. Some say because of this I'm not allowed to comment on the election, but I'm gonna do it anyway. If you honestly think Donald Trump will lead us to the promise land, you're a fucking lunatic and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you believe any Presidential candidate will lead you to the promise land, you are an idiot.

See Plato for further reference.

[Bachy]

I don't think that Trump is promoting misogyny in real life; his daughter runs a huge part of his business; he hired OMAROSA; he has females at the top of his corporations; but I see a lot of these male Bernie fans making comments on Clinton's Instagram page, though, that are really disturbing. Really.Disturbing. I am sure this isn't Bernie's fault, but it's bad.


If you believe any Presidential candidate will lead you to the promise land, you are an idiot.

See Plato for further reference.

One reason I don't vote. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[allegro]

One reason I don't vote. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I vote because women died for my right to vote. And a Democracy is better than a dictatorship.

But there is a balance of power; the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch.

[Bachy]

I vote because women died for my right to vote. And a Democracy is better than a dictatorship.

But there is a balance of power; the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch.

George Carlin convinced me long ago how meaningless our vote is.

[sick among the pure]

I'm not registered to vote, and won't be registering anytime soon because frankly I don't believe it. Some say because of this I'm not allowed to comment on the election, but I'm gonna do it anyway. If you honestly think Donald Trump will lead us to the promise land, you're a fucking lunatic and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Voting isn't just picking the president. Voting deals with everyone down to your local alderman up to the big guys in D.C. Voting deals with local laws, state laws, propositions that will affect your life.
Don't be a dumbass because you don't think your voice matters in the presidential election.
Women and minorities died to make sure every American citizen 18+ can vote.

[allegro]

George Carlin convinced me long ago how meaningless our vote is.
George Carlin was a good comedian. Other than that, he was totally wrong.

I love voting out every single judge up for re-election. NO NO NO NO NO.

Right now, there is a HUGE fight in my city over a $198 MILLION dollar school referendum that is up for a vote on March 15th. People are nearly getting into fist fights over this shit.

Dems could possibly take over the Senate again this year.

Pot is now legal, either medicinally or recreationally, in most states. You think that was by MAGIC. No, that was by voters.

[Mantra]

What problem exactly does the Republican establishment have with Trump?

Haven't been able to wrap my head around this either.

Yeah, certain folks may not be the biggest fans of this or that candidate because they're more moderate, more extreme, etc, but still, why are all these establishment types getting so worked up, like "911!!! We have GOT to stop Trump!!!" Is he really that different from the rest of them on an issue-by-issue basis to warrant this kind of reaction from them? He's extreme on certain issues, but honestly, their whole party is filled with extremists and wackjobs and they've rarely felt the need to speak out like this. I mean, Sarah Palin was once a VP candidate for crying out loud. Is it just Trump's overall style and persona? Even if they don't like the way he handles himself, does that really upset them so much that they feel compelled to sound the alarms and threaten all this brokered convention shit?

I understand why the left hates him, but I just don't get what they find so horrible about Trump that would drive them to respond this way.

[allegro]

I understand why the left hates him, but I just don't get what they find so horrible about Trump that would drive them to respond this way.
Both Cruz and Rubio have accused Trump of being "not conservative enough" or a "liberal in conservative clothing." Rubio proclaims himself to be "the Real Conservative©." They say that Trump is trying to get the primary and then he'll suddenly jump out, TADA! "I'm really a moderate!!" Or, worse yet, a screaming liberal! And he'll corrupt the Grand Ole Party!

Cruz: "RELEASE THOSE NY TIMES TAPES (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/29/cruz-calls-on-ny-times-trump-to-release-off-record-audio-video/)!

He's a fake conservative!

HARRY REID LIKES HIM (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/harry-reid-says-trumps-his-man-gop-race/)!!!! TRUMP LIKES NANCY PELOSI (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/26/trump_i_have_a_great_relationship_with_nancy_pelos i_harry_reid_chuck_schumer.html)!!!

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/article_main_wide_image/public/images/306529.jpg?itok=IgpJJntF

[implanted_microchip]

If voting was meaningless then powerful white men would not have fought so vehemently against woman and minorities having the right to it. It's a proveleged person who has the luxury of not needing to participate in elections. Every advancement this society has ever made in social progress has come from people electing their officials and voting for candidatesbeho pushed those ideals. You have to shut your eyes nice and tight to convince yourself voting is "just smoke and mirrors." It's a lazy way of excusing inaction.

@richardp (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=139) the amount of hatred and misogyny tossed at Hillary by the hardcore Bernie Bros is not activism. The loud-mouthed condescension towards minorities and Hillary supporters is not activism. The social media warriors who do not actually go vote -- something plaguing Bernie in the polls -- is not activism. I donate to his campaign. I'm a supporter. I'm not a fan of the people I get lumped in with because of it.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) you're right on CU and I appreciate the really thorough response. More than anything I mean general campaign structure in this country. You can have zero political experience and use your financial stature and crlebrity to sell yourself to voters and it's an easily-gamed system. Less and less priority seems to be on the policies, experience and accomplishments of candidates and it's a combination of the media and the voting population's fault.

Also @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) @aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) the GOP establishment are so against Trump because he has complete and total agency. He will not kiss their rings. He has unclear motivation, inconsistent stances, and seems wholly self-serving and they would have no influence over his behavior once in officen. He is also an extreme liability to their image -- he is a parody of a person who is mocked and loathed across the map by tons of people and is not seen favorably by the vast majority of people. He would damage their image even further in an extreme way. Rubio's someone who would do what was good for the GOP. Donald would do what's likely good for Donald, all the while defining the image for that party around his whims more or less. He's a guy you don't know suddenly showing up to the party and changing all the music, eating all the food, downing all the drinks and fucking in your bed while telling people he owns the place.

[allegro]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) you're right on CU and I appreciate the really thorough response. More than anything I mean general campaign structure in this country. You can have zero political experience and use your financial stature and crlebrity to sell yourself to voters and it's an easily-gamed system. Less and less priority seems to be on the policies, experience and accomplishments of candidates and it's a combination of the media and the voting population's fault.
Yes, but, again, the Cinderella story was a guy like Eric Cantor, who was backed by big money, had a campaign fund of over $5 million, was the House majority leader, but he LOST to a college professor named Dave Brat who had $200,000 in donations. Because Cantor was lazy, his voters were lazy, and Brat hit the pavement, shook hands with everybody, did old-fashioned campaigning by caring about his district and asking people for votes, and people were just sick of business as usual and they "sent a message" with their vote and they sent Cantor packing. Bye bye. Now, Dave Brat appears to be an asshole so who knows if the voters were smart or not but, hey, it's Virginia. (runs away) I wish that there was true campaign reform so that a max amount was set per candidate that was realistic, say $500,000 per candidate max, and that TV stations were forced to give free TV ads but hardly any and that voters could just get info online for free.

[Khrz]

George Carlin convinced me long ago how meaningless our vote is.

Don't take this too personally, but your lack of engagement is equally meaningless.
I can understand not wanting to vote. But commenting from the sidelines while bemoaning the state of things is even more fruitless. You don't take a stand by sitting things out.

I love Georges Carlin, but don't build your political stances out of comedy skits. It's a bit more complicated than what a witty line can encompass. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but you're playing that game too. It's rigged that way because the people let it be, either by voting in the proper boxes, either by acting like it doesn't concern them. If you want things to be any different, make it so. That's what democracy is, at its core.

Now, if you can't even be bothered to either participate in the state of things or actually change it, I agree : why even voice a political opinion when you fundamentally have none ?

[thevoid99]

Don't take this too personally, but your lack of engagement is equally meaningless.
I can understand not wanting to vote. But commenting from the sidelines while bemoaning the state of things is even more fruitless. You don't take a stand by sitting things out.

I love Georges Carlin, but don't build your political stances out of comedy skits. It's a bit more complicated than what a witty line can encompass. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but you're playing that game too. It's rigged that way because the people let it be, either by voting in the proper boxes, either by acting like it doesn't concern them. If you want things to be any different, make it so. That's what democracy is, at its core.

Now, if you can't even be bothered to either participate in the state of things or actually change it, I agree : why even voice a political opinion when you fundamentally have none ?

Well, explain the 2000 election where I voted for Gore and it didn't make one fucking difference. Explain that and help Bachy wonder why some of us are wary that our votes might be bought?

[allegro]

Well, explain the 2000 election where I voted for Gore and it didn't make one fucking difference. Explain that and help Bachy wonder why some of us are wary that our votes might be bought?
That was the stupid state of Florida's counting problem. Gore could have continued to fight for a recount, but didn't. But, remember, had Gore managed to win his home state, the election would not have been that close (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/the-2000-elections-tennessee-loss-in-home-state-leaves-gore-depending-on-florida.html).

[DigitalChaos]

pro tip: You can do more than vote/not vote.

Take what you are good at and inject it into projects that have an impact. A friend of mine that is an analytics geek worked on a Dem campaign to improve a lot of their voter data handling. Another friend sold a shitload of "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" shirts and the profits went to fund abortions. I throw my time toward various efforts that undermine/counter efforts to control speech, guns, or privacy.

You can spend your time in ways that impact your country and state waaaaaaay more than a single vote will. And with the internet, a lot of that shit can be done from you fucking couch!

[Mantra]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) ...Well, I see what you guys are saying, and I suppose that all makes sense. But still, I just can't help wondering why the establishment hasn't make more of an effort to bring Trump into the fold. Trump may be "independent" in a certain sense, but he's also shown to be pretty responsive to flattery and praise. Hell, he started saying nice things about Putin in response to Putin doing the same. Seems liek they could have found a way to make friends with him. And, on the contrary, he seems really petty and vindictive and takes criticism personally, so if they were concerned about him not being "one of them," then attacking him certainly hasn't helped their situation in the slightest. They've turned this thing into a civil war, and for what? Given his popularity among Republican voters, you'd think they'd be trying harder to make friends with him. Their current approach just seems counter-productive. They know he's basically got the nomination at this point. What are they gaining by antagonizing him like this?

I don't know why I feel this weird compulsion to make sense of the Republicans...*shrug*

[richardp]

@richardp (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=139) the amount of hatred and misogyny tossed at Hillary by the hardcore Bernie Bros is not activism. The loud-mouthed condescension towards minorities and Hillary supporters is not activism. The social media warriors who do not actually go vote -- something plaguing Bernie in the polls -- is not activism. I donate to his campaign. I'm a supporter. I'm not a fan of the people I get lumped in with because of it.

I guess I don't pay enough attention to social media or political memes or something? I haven't seen any like hardcore "FUCK YOU HILARY" posts or anything. Everyone in my social media circles are all pretty fair with both candidates. Maybe I'm missing something?

[allegro]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) ...Well, I see what you guys are saying, and I suppose that all makes sense. But still, I just can't help wondering why the establishment hasn't make more of an effort to bring Trump into the fold. Trump may be "independent" in a certain sense, but he's also shown to be pretty responsive to flattery and praise. Hell, he started saying nice things about Putin in response to Putin doing the same. Seems liek they could have found a way to make friends with him. And, on the contrary, he seems really petty and vindictive and takes criticism personally, so if they were concerned about him not being "one of them," then attacking him certainly hasn't helped their situation in the slightest. They've turned this thing into a civil war, and for what? Given his popularity among Republican voters, you'd think they'd be trying harder to make friends with him. Their current approach just seems counter-productive. They know he's basically got the nomination at this point. What are they gaining by antagonizing him like this?

I don't know why I feel this weird compulsion to make sense of the Republicans...*shrug*
The talking heads on the TV are saying the same thing, why aren't Cruz and Rubio (and Romney for that matter) trying to make friends with Trump? And the answer always comes down to "because they think he's an interloper, not a Real Republican, he gave four checks to Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign in 2008, he's only there to fuck up the Cruz campaign or the Rubio campaign" ... it's like the guy who gets pissed at you because you DIDN'T HIT ON THAT 16 IN BLACKJACK! YOU DIDN'T USE THE FUCKING BLACKJACK MATH, DUDE! Trump is fucking up the math, and TAKING ALL THEIR VOTES! He's not supposed to be there!

The talking heads were saying that Romney tried to get Trump's endorsement back in 2012. Now Romney is shitting all over Trump. And today's Romney speech wasn't directed at Republican voters; it was directed at the Republican establishment, the elite, the people who can decide for a brokered convention.

And if that happens, all fucking hell will break loose. [It won't happen. See below.]

I'll tell ya, watching these conservative talking heads on TV has been hilarious, what a shit show. They're basically saying that Trump could move the party away from the conservative no-negotiation hard line that has had the party by the nuts since 2000 and they're SCARED SHITLESS.

One liberal talking head called Marco Rubio "Dick Cheney with a cooler name" which is really true after tonight's debate where Rubio said he'd send ground troops into Syria AND Libya.

But, remember, none of the Republican establishment likes Cruz. None. They'd take Trump over Cruz (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/).


When people like John McCain and Bob Dole and other members of what Cruz dismisses as the "establishment" look at the party's front-runners, the choice isn't hard. Should we back the guy who wants to be liked and doesn't really care that much about policy specifics, or should we back the guy who doesn't care what we think and is adamant about getting his way to the point of encouraging a politically futile government shutdown in 2013? Not a tough call. Their first choice would be someone who they know agrees with them. Barring that, they'll take someone who at the very least isn't perfectly fine with their hating him.

Bob Dole friggin' hates Ted Cruz (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bob-dole-warns-of-cataclysmic-losses-with-ted-cruz-and-says-donald-trump-would-do-better/).


I guess I don't pay enough attention to social media or political memes or something? I haven't seen any like hardcore "FUCK YOU HILARY" posts or anything. Everyone in my social media circles are all pretty fair with both candidates. Maybe I'm missing something?
Are on you Twitter or Instagram? Go look at the comments on Hillary Clinton's Instagram or Twitter feed from Sander's fans. I can't believe the number of Bernie fans saying stupid shit about Clinton that include comments about how a woman shouldn't run a country #feelthebern

[onthewall2983]

So, in these primaries, is there a good chance a lot of the votes for Trump are actually from Democrats that will vote against him in November?

[GulDukat]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republican-debate-makes-history-not-good-way?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Good write-up on debate.

[allegro]

Donald Trump is Hillary's best hope:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432184/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-republicans-democrats-2016

[aggroculture]

I know it's childish, but the funniest moment of last night's debate: that thing (fragment of mint?) coming in and out of Ted Cruz's mouth: C6538551941317367695997849600_511ddde0a1b.7.0.1277 962504419803396.mp4 (https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/C6538551941317367695997849600_511ddde0a1b.7.0.1277 962504419803396.mp4?versionId=ElPHyCx_RsHW87BBCeqT vyLp8dt.cDY7)

[Jinsai]

So, in these primaries, is there a good chance a lot of the votes for Trump are actually from Democrats that will vote against him in November?

No... not really that plausible, and if it was a concerted effort to nominate the most easily beaten candidate, you still don't want it to be the fascist idiot with a rabid following of mindless fuckheads impervious to reason. At this point, Drumpf is a wild card. I'm honestly a little terrified that he has a good chance at winning.

But this has reached the point where it just cannot get any more ridiculous. WE JUST HAD A "DEBATE" WHERE THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ASSURED VOTERS THAT HE HAS A BIG DICK. Or that it was at least adequately sized and nothing that he should feel ashamed of. That actually just happened.

[implanted_microchip]

WE JUST HAD A "DEBATE" WHERE THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ASSURED VOTERS THAT HE HAS A BIG DICK. Or that it was at least adequately sized and nothing that he should feel ashamed of. That actually just happened.

And then got applauded for saying he'd force the military to commit war crimes and Ted Cruz ate a booger. I can't even imagine how they'll lower the bar next time.

[Dra508]

I'm so glad I voted even though it really felt like spitting in the wind.

[Dryalex12]

And Carson is out

[allegro]

NWE JUST HAD A "DEBATE" WHERE THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ASSURED VOTERS THAT HE HAS A BIG DICK. Or that it was at least adequately sized and nothing that he should feel ashamed of. That actually just happened.
That was in direct response to this (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-has-small-hands-marco-rubio-says-n527791). (@RhettButler posted a Rachel Maddow link about it, above (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=292738#post292738))


For the Republican Party as an institution, that’s a tragedy without modern parallel. Jamie Johnson, a former aide to Rick Perry’s defunct presidential campaign, said last night, “My party is committing suicide on national television.”

Yup, and it sure is fun to watch!

Charlie LeDuff in Detroit is right: The fighting is why we're watching (http://www.fox2detroit.com/the-americans-with-charlie-leduff/100486438-story).

[icecream]

I know it's childish, but the funniest moment of last night's debate: that thing (fragment of mint?) coming in and out of Ted Cruz's mouth: C6538551941317367695997849600_511ddde0a1b.7.0.1277 962504419803396.mp4 (https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/C6538551941317367695997849600_511ddde0a1b.7.0.1277 962504419803396.mp4?versionId=ElPHyCx_RsHW87BBCeqT vyLp8dt.cDY7)
I worked with a guy who had dentures but would never clean them. Every once in a while a build up of goop would come out and fall on his lip like that. It was hard keeping the vomit down. Cruz is such a weird looking guy.

[DigitalChaos]

This hypocritical Trump rage is beyond amusing to watch unfold from both republicans and democrats. If you are an apologist for Bush, Clinton(both), or Obama... then Trump IS YOU. He just doesn't pretend to be someone he's not... unlike you and the politicians you support. Some self-reflection instead of hypocritical outrage would be much more productive if you want to see change.



Donald Trump’s Policies Are Not Anathema to U.S. Mainstream, but an Uncomfortable Reflection of It
- by Glenn Greenwald
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/04/trumps-policies-are-not-anathema-to-the-u-s-mainstream-but-an-uncomfortably-vivid-reflection-of-it/

(This article could be done much better, especially for Greenwald. A lot of the relevant stuff is in the links scattered throughout.)

[Jinsai]

That was in direct response to this (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-has-small-hands-marco-rubio-says-n527791).

I know what it was in response to... and it was Rubio jabbing back at Trump, but at least it was at a rally and not on a debate stage. I just cannot believe that the end result of this childish banter is a presidential candidate, saying on a debate stage, that he basically wants the American people to know, if they're thinking about his penis, that it is perfectly fine.

It's the clearest moment I've seen where we've really arrived at the Idiocracy.

And no @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598), I know you like the libertarian option, but Obama has not been anywhere near as disastrous as Bush jr, and I think Trump will actually ruin this country beyond repair. The "they're all the same, exactly the same, except the third party I support" doesn't make for a compelling argument.

Trump is saying that he will force military commanders to commit war crimes because "that's what being a leader is all about." This is not business as usual.

[DigitalChaos]

And no DigitalChaos, I know you like the libertarian option, but Obama has not been anywhere near as disastrous as Bush jr, and I think Trump will actually ruin this country beyond repair. The "they're all the same, exactly the same, except the third party I support" doesn't make for a compelling argument.

Trump is saying that he will force military commanders to commit war crimes because "that's what being a leader is all about." This is not business as usual.

I absolutely watching those on the left being forced into the awkward position of having to argue against Glenn Greenwald. It shows which are just neocons in drag. Anyone remember who Greenwald is? Hint: not libertarian at all.

You should try reading the article.

[Mantra]

Look, you guys may be completely apathetic about the genitalia issue, but some of us actually care about that a lot.

I, for one, feel much more at ease about the prospect of a Trump presidency knowing that he's adequately endowed.

[implanted_microchip]

Look, you guys may be completely apathetic about the genitalia issue, but some of us actually care about that a lot.

I, for one, feel much more at ease about the prospect of a Trump presidency knowing that he's adequately endowed.

There's a cheap Monica Lewinsky joke waiting to be made out of this whole mess and I'm honestly quite disappointed no one's bothered to make it yet

[Deepvoid]

Trump just asked his supporters to pledge and vote for him by raisin their right hand.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc0F8arUEAAErMZ.jpg:large

HEIL!

He's gotta be trolling at this point. Attack ads anyone?

[Mantra]

This hypocritical Trump rage is beyond amusing to watch unfold from both republicans and democrats. If you are an apologist for Bush, Clinton(both), or Obama... then Trump IS YOU. He just doesn't pretend to be someone he's not... unlike you and the politicians you support. Some self-reflection instead of hypocritical outrage would be much more productive if you want to see change.

Donald Trump’s Policies Are Not Anathema to U.S. Mainstream, but an Uncomfortable Reflection of It
- by Glenn Greenwald
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/04/trumps-policies-are-not-anathema-to-the-u-s-mainstream-but-an-uncomfortably-vivid-reflection-of-it/

Yeah, that was an interesting read. It's kind of what I was asking about yesterday. It's just hard for me to fully understand why "the establishment" views him as some kind of unacceptable monster, when he's not really that different from them all when you really look at it.

The dude kinda summed it up here...


Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it. He’s their id. What establishment mavens most resent is not what Trump is, does, or says, but what he reflects: the unmistakable, undeniable signs of late-stage imperial collapse, along with the resentments and hatreds they have long deliberately and self-servingly stoked but which are now raging out of their control.

[thevoid99]

Louis C.K. calls Trump "Hitler": http://www.thewrap.com/louis-c-k-slams-insane-bigot-donald-trump-the-guy-is-hitler/

Anyone here is thinking or voting for that Fascist Fuck, fuck you all. If there's some bomb about to fall above my head. I hope to kill all of you first before I die.

[DigitalChaos]

Look, you guys may be completely apathetic about the genitalia issue, but some of us actually care about that a lot.

I, for one, feel much more at ease about the prospect of a Trump presidency knowing that he's adequately endowed.
Hillary likes to brag about her genitals as if it's one of her primary benefits and she gets plenty of women rallying around her... just sayin :P

[DigitalChaos]

It's just hard for me to fully understand why "the establishment" views him as some kind of unacceptable monster, when he's not really that different from them all when you really look at it.
That's the thing I'm not really grasping. But here are some off the head ideas:
- Trump is too liberal for the GOP. Hell, Trump is more liberal than Hillary in some ways (as Greenwald pointed out)
- The GOP sees it as an opportunity to normalize their platform against Trump, thus making them seem more palatable than when Trump wasn't in it.
- The Dem & GOP see how dangerous it will be do democracy to sell their own brand without the added false moral superiority. Will it disrupt the ability to say anything to get elected and then never deliver (as is the norm)?

[DigitalChaos]

#Democracy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jka3nb9CGV8

[Jinsai]

I absolutely watching those on the left being forced into the awkward position of having to argue against Glenn Greenwald. It shows which are just neocons in drag. Anyone remember who Greenwald is? Hint: not libertarian at all.

You should try reading the article.

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about the general notion that there's little to no difference between the Bush and Obama presidencies, which preceded your link. It's absurd. I've only read the first couple sentences of the article, but let me take a wild guess here... I bet he goes on to say that Trump's suggestion that we "go after their families" is akin to Obama drone strikes which killed the family members of terrorists? That would be a sort of fair point, but not exactly akin, but I'll read the article later when I have more time to see where he's going with this.

Trump is saying that we need to "go beyond water boarding," and if military commanders try to refuse them he will make them obey. There is a majorly disconcerting thing going on here, and there's nothing at all "hilarious" about it.

[DigitalChaos]

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about the general notion that there's little to no difference between the Bush and Obama presidencies, which preceded your link. It's absurd. I've only read the first couple sentences of the article, but let me take a wild guess here... I bet he goes on to say that Trump's suggestion that we "go after their families" is akin to Obama drone strikes which killed the family members of terrorists? That would be a sort of fair point, but not exactly akin, but I'll read the article later when I have more time to see where he's going with this.

Trump is saying that we need to "go beyond water boarding," and if military commanders try to refuse them he will make them obey. There is a majorly disconcerting thing going on here, and there's nothing at all "hilarious" about it.
My comment reads as a general application to all things, but it's specific about what people are currently complaining about: the torture, imperialism, war crimes. It's what you have been commenting on and it's exactly what the article is about. If you don't think Obama, Bush, and the Clintons have extreme similarities here, you haven't been paying attention. ... or you actually believe the lies being told... which is the entire point here.

Trump didn't say he would make them obey, he said that they would simply obey... because leadership. And that is exactly what has happened over and over throughout the historical torture, imperialism, and war crimes.

Apparently, this shit is just fine with voters as long as the leaders don't blatantly admit to doing it and flaunt it. Voters can feel good about themselves and their leaders if the leaders include a fairytale on top of what is actually happening.

[allegro]

Look, you guys may be completely apathetic about the genitalia issue, but some of us actually care about that a lot.

I, for one, feel much more at ease about the prospect of a Trump presidency knowing that he's adequately endowed.
His ex wife Marla Maples said "best sex ever." We haven't had that since Clinton. Trump's bringing the sex back.

DigitalChaos, weren't the people doing the water boarding the CIA??

The problem with torture is that they start lying just to get you to stop torturing them. The CIA indicated that waterboarding netted them no useful data.

All leaders in this phase talk talk talk. Once they get elected, they assemble a team of military advisors who actually know about these things. W hired a bunch of crazy Dad cronies. Hillary will probably use a bunch of prior advisors. So would Trump. Hence why he has already rescinded his Roman Caesar stance on killing terrorist families.

We commit war crimes all the fucking time. We just lie about it. Trump didn't get that memo.

[Exocet]

Donald Trump is sooo 1987....he is a relic. I just see 1987 whenever i look at him.
Robocop etc.
I dont know why.

[allegro]

Well, he IS that, but we have no true modern candidates. Although, Trump is modern for what he is doing to the Republican Party (blowing it up).


There's a cheap Monica Lewinsky joke waiting to be made out of this whole mess and I'm honestly quite disappointed no one's bothered to make it yet

Have a cigar (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/28/bill-clinton-documents-include-forgotten-pre-lewinsky-scandal-cigar-joke).

[DigitalChaos]

@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598), weren't the people doing the water boarding the CIA??

The problem with torture is that they start lying just to get you to stop torturing them. The CIA indicated that waterboarding netted them no useful data.

All leaders in this phase talk talk talk. Once they get elected, they assemble a team of military advisors who actually know about these things. W hired a bunch of crazy Dad cronies. Hillary will probably use a bunch of prior advisors. So would Trump. Hence why he has already rescinded his Roman Caesar stance on killing terrorist families.

We commit war crimes all the fucking time. We just lie about it. Trump didn't get that memo.

I don't know if waterboarding, specifically, was just CIA. The torture is certainly spread across the CIA and Military. There is tons of evidence and direct admissions that many were horribly tortured and many were just plain murdered as a result of the torture. Obama himself granted immunity all to the torturers of the Bush years (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer)... the primary justification being that people were "just following orders" (exactly what Trump says will happen).

"We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A." - US Army General McCaffrey, 2009




I agree on the ineffectively of torture, on top of the immoral nature of it. I've been on that bandwagon since the Bush years and never stopped. Kinda fucked to look back on the last 7 years and realize that "closing gitmo" was a big campaign promise that the voters really cared about. Obama's voters don't give a shit about any of that now.


The Dec 2014 Senate Torture Report had the most complete info on the entire torture situation. https://theintercept.com/2014/12/09/live-coverage-release-senate-torture-report/ I don't remember it getting much news coverage though. Obama refusing to hold people accountable and outright granting immunity made it so that Bush era torture is the norm going forward.



His ex wife Marla Maples said "best sex ever." We haven't had that since Clinton. Trump's bringing the sex back.

I'm laughing at your posts about this but its killing me.

[Jinsai]

...and apparently a penthouse pet at one point said "oh my gosh, he was great."

This is putting the worst images in my mind.

[allegro]

...and apparently a penthouse pet at one point said "oh my gosh, he was great."

This is putting the worst images in my mind.

That's what I said about all that JFK stuff ugh (http://gawker.com/15-women-jfk-fucked-1468450457).

[Mantra]

I've only read the first couple sentences of the article, but let me take a wild guess here... I bet he goes on to say that Trump's suggestion that we "go after their families" is akin to Obama drone strikes which killed the family members of terrorists? That would be a sort of fair point, but not exactly akin

Yeah, and he also brings up the decision to not prosecute those who were responsible for torture, which is a legitimate critique.

That said, I think what he's talking about in the article applies to the Republicans the most, because their war against Trump is just way more of 180 degree turn around than it is for the Democrats. It's super bizarre to hear Republicans criticizing anyone for "Islamaphobia" when that's been one of the cornerstones of their rhetoric for more than a decade now. Even when they're criticizing his aggressive, immature style, I still find that weird, because their whole voter base has been raised on a diet of Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Drudge, etc, and they've been perfectly happy to build their brand on that and reap the rewards of it, always referencing "the anger of the American people" and shit like that. So who the fuck are they to criticize Trump's tone and demeanor when they haven't exactly been conducting themselves like fucking Eisenhower Republicans for the last few decades. They laid the cultural and emotional groundwork that made Trump possible.

Now when it comes to the Democrats and whether they too are hypocrites for calling out Trump, I think it's a bit more complicated. I really don't like most mainstream Democrats, but, in the interest of fairness, I do think it's important to acknowledge that there are degrees of difference here. Does Obama have blood on his hands? Obviously. Is he "the same" as the Bush administration? Well...I personally don't think so. Way back in 2009, not long after entering office, Obama issued an executive order banning the CIA's torture techniques that started up under the Bush administration. There are various points of distinction like that. He failed to successfully close gitmo, but the fact that he even tried is more than can be said for any Republican, and I think stuff like that counts for something when we're trying to objectively compare the two parties. Still, his administration was responsible for their own atrocities and horrific injustices. Obama and Hillary and every other other warmongering Democrat deserve all the shit they get, and just because they're "not as bad" does not make it remotely acceptable. I'm tired of seeing this fucking shit in the Democratic party. It's bad enough that this country has to contend with the toxic influence of the right. We don't need our so called "progressive" party to back them up by acting like fucking warhawks too. This is one of many reasons that I will never support Hillary.


here are some off the head ideas:
- Trump is too liberal for the GOP. Hell, Trump is more liberal than Hillary in some ways (as Greenwald pointed out)
- The GOP sees it as an opportunity to normalize their platform against Trump, thus making them seem more palatable than when Trump wasn't in it.
- The Dem & GOP see how dangerous it will be do democracy to sell their own brand without the added false moral superiority. Will it disrupt the ability to say anything to get elected and then never deliver (as is the norm)?

I've also started to wonder if they're just thinking really far ahead about how to spin this. They know Trump's odds in the general election aren't the greatest and that sooner or later this carnival is probably gonna come crashing down in a pretty ugly way, so maybe they're just hedging their bets. When the Trump fallout comes, they can act like they were against him all along.

[Jinsai]

Trump is only "more liberal than Hilary!" if we completely bastardize the definition of "liberal" and assume that Trump's just fucking joking.

I think we need to clarify what "liberal" means at this point.

[implanted_microchip]

If looking at Hillary's proposed tax plans and healthcare and then looking at Trump's proposed tax plans and healthcare doesn't make it abundantly clear that these are extremely different people, I don't know what will -- oh, wait, that would be a substantive argument using boring old legislation and actual proposed legislation, and that's just not as exciting as saying "Hillary's a piece of shit corporate warhawk monster who makes Reagan look tame!"

Ugh.

The apathetic slacktivist "Well it's all bullshit anyway" attitude people have is a privileged as hell stance to have. You cherry pick the issues that make it seem that way and ignore all else and then go about your day and neglect that for a lot of people -- lots of minorities, lots of average people -- their day to day lives are drastically affected by our political system and there's some damn fine reasons to vote and recognize the differences between the two ends of the spectrum.

Hillary is relatively center-left, Trump is more or less an authoritarian who wants to cut taxes for the wealthy even more and more, as well as the EPA and education. Really? You can tell me they're the same people? Donald Trump has SAID THAT THE CHINESE INVENTED GLOBAL WARMING. Hillary's more or less supportive of environmentalism and recognizes climate change. Sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative that a ton of fuckheads are currently pushing.

Donald Trump wants to CUT THE EPA. Remove it completely. Bye bye, water standards! Obviously Hillary and Donald are exactly the same. No differences, nope, not one, clearly. Good fuckin' god. There's a wide list of issues and if you want to latch onto just two or three to make such a comparison, you're opening yourself up to making other people bring the others up for you, and guess what -- they prove you wrong. If you don't like Hillary, great, fine -- I just voted for Sanders in my primary even though I know she'll be the nominee anyway, I like her a lot and will gladly support her in November but she isn't my first choice -- but to make the claim that she and Trump are really no different? What a bullshit, over-simplified version of reality that is to be living in.

In general the "Democrats are no different than Republicans!" argument is so tired, and lazy, and pointless, and just empty. There's always going to be overlap. But to act like it's all the same? Bull-fuckin'-shit. Latch on to foreign policy all you want, but you can't just go and neglect to mention every other thing in existence.

[hyprpwr]

Nice try Bernie! Looks like Wall Street....oops, Hillary wins the nomination.

[allegro]

Donald Trump wants to CUT THE EPA. Remove it completely. Bye bye, water standards!
Our Great Lakes water standards are monitored by local laws and organizations (http://www.greatlakes.org/gli) because the EPA has been a Bureaucratic disaster (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/fire-epa-employees-says-geologist-who-predicted-colorado-spill-where-is-donald-trump-when-you-need-him/) for many decades (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/12/epa-stayed-silent-flints-tainted-water/78719620/).

[implanted_microchip]

Our Great Lakes water standards are monitored by local laws and organizations because the EPA has been a Bureaucratic disaster (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/fire-epa-employees-says-geologist-who-predicted-colorado-spill-where-is-donald-trump-when-you-need-him/) for many decades (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/12/epa-stayed-silent-flints-tainted-water/78719620/).
Don't get me wrong, I am all for EPA reform and think we need it desperately. But I do not in any way believe completely removing it is the answer. It's like Cruz's "abolish the IRS" garbage. It's not a solution, as far as I'm concerned. There's room for discussion but people going "Well this doesn't work perfectly so let's just nuke it" is not discussion.

[allegro]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for EPA reform and think we need it desperately. But I do not in any way believe completely removing it is the answer. It's like Cruz's "abolish the IRS" garbage. It's not a solution, as far as I'm concerned. There's room for discussion but people going "Well this doesn't work perfectly so let's just nuke it" is not discussion.

Nixon (a Republican!) created the EPA and for a long time it worked great; it has since been become (as is the case with all Government organizations that have been there too long), a bureaucratic waste of time and money. It's time to replace it with something more effective and fire everybody in the EPA (lifers). If the states need Federal enforcement, they can file Federal suits to enforce Federal laws or can appeal to one Federal magistrate in emergencies. But, we don't need a lazy Federal agency that doesn't react when needed, blames the states when things happen, and actually CAUSES environmental disasters due to incompetence.

We fight with the EPA constantly here in Illinois trying to get them to compel companies to stop dumping shit into Lake Michigan; we end up having to file our own lawsuits and cease and desist orders because the EPA says "the states have to do something themselves" and they don't do shit. If Federal laws is all we need and the EPA doesn't help us, fuck them, fire them, and we can just keep filing our own lawsuits; why am I paying taxes for these assholes' salaries? The laws can stay, they can go find another fucking job. Congress can pass new or extended laws when needed, just like we did here in the Great Lakes states when we pushed through a Federal bill that bans microplastics (http://www.record-eagle.com/news/local_news/federal-law-bans-microplastics/article_1277c561-43c9-5919-b622-6ac35fcf754e.html). (I'm a big Great Lakes clean water activist, if you haven't noticed, LOL.) See this article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastic-pollution-in-the-great-lakes/). A combined initiative, companies actually voluntarily pulling the microbeads, then attention moving to the national and legislative level.

The vast majority of pollution in China is our pollution caused by our American companies moving manufacturing and assembly to China. So we look great by our EPA standards, "Wow, look how much less WE are polluting" here in this country; but the reality is that we just moved our pollution to China and we're killing them instead of us. Except it kills the whole planet. And we love our Chinese-made goods so much, we aren't willing to place environmental conditions on our manufacturing deals that are so strict we are willing to pull our deals if they don't comply with pollution standards. And Republicans like Ted Cruz still think that climate change isn't really a thing and if it is a thing is probably isn't human-caused (even though logic says the advent of the Industrial Revolution can't have done the planet any good).

The whole "Ecology" movement started as a grass roots movement along with that "crying Indian" TV commercial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Suu84khNGY) and the Ecology movement actually led to the creation of the EPA, but recycling, anti-pollution, clean-water, etc. are still mostly local and individual movements; even people bringing in their own bags to grocery stores, and supermarkets recycling plastic bags has been a voluntary national movement. Public pressure still wins out over anything else.

When Cruz was pushed at the Detroit debate about what entity would collect his flat tax if he abolished the IRS, he answered something like oh, yeah, good point, maybe he'd have to keep some of the IRS, LOL.

[Mantra]

Obviously Hillary and Donald are exactly the same. No differences, nope, not one, clearly.

Why are you saying stuff like this? Nobody said that.


The apathetic slacktivist "Well it's all bullshit anyway" attitude people have is a privileged as hell stance to have. You cherry pick the issues that make it seem that way and ignore all else and then go about your day and neglect that for a lot of people -- lots of minorities, lots of average people -- their day to day lives are drastically affected by our political system and there's some damn fine reasons to vote and recognize the differences between the two ends of the spectrum.

See, I would argue that the whole "she's not as bad" argument is the one that can only be made a position of privilege, because only a person who is shielded from the consequences of her actions could feel that way. For example, Hillary has continued to defend welfare reform that has had devastating consequences (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/welfare-limits-left-poor-adrift-as-recession-hit.html?_r=0) for the poor. If you were one of the women in that article, you might not feel it was "cherry picking" to criticize Hillary's involvement in PRWORA. I also feel like you're being kind of dismissive about her foreign policy and the terrible effect she's had in Libya, the Honduras, etc, as if that's not a "substantive issue" with brutal life and death consequences. If this woman (http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/) was someone you loved, you might not feel so forgiving towards Hillary.

I'm not opposed to Hillary because I'm "apathetic," but because I care very strongly about these important issues.

[implanted_microchip]

I do apologize, Mantra, for doing what I think too many of us do too often which is seeing your comments and the discussion at hand and coming at it as part of a larger picture I've seen repeatedly rather than for the portrait that it was/is, in that I see a lot of what I was speaking about and this situation fit it just enough to remind me of them, and then next thing you know I'm responding less to this topic and more to my own baggage that it maybe fits in with kinda sorta, but not exactly, and that's unfair of me to do. So I'm sorry for that.

There's plenty to not like about Hillary. That's agreed. Her foreign policy has been less than stellar, and that's being modest. But at the same time, I don't believe for a minute that Trump's wouldn't be just as bad, if not worse, and his abilities in other spheres would likely do no better than she would. Her involvement in the African American community and push for equality amidst minorities is a far cry from his attitudes. Her willingness to listen to people discussing discrimination is a far cry from his. etc., etc. I just feel like it's wrong to only look at one specific sphere of politics where they're similar and then imply that that discredits all the extreme differences that do exist (but the reverse is also true and I acknowledge that fully).

I also think that the fact that she has proven track records of legislation and a political history both puts her at an advantage and a disadvantage to him -- advantageous because you can prove the great things she's done to reinforce her rhetoric that diverges from his, and disadvantageous because every bad decision she's made can be held under a spotlight while Trump has the luxury of being a word-based candidate at this point. And I've seen a number of Trump supporters use that fact to their biased advantage by saying, "Well, he says that, but doesn't mean it because ..." on just about any extreme statement of his that they may not like. Whereas if Hillary says something, and she did something in the past that doesn't match up, sirens sound off and the Bullshit Police come out in their squad cars in droves ready to make an ideological arrest, whether she's genuinely changed her stance on something or not.

I just feel like over-simplification of every side, of every candidate, and of every group and issue has been at an extreme this election and is doing no one any favors and is only causing people to dig in deeper into their positions while trying to push everyone else out of theirs, but at the same time I think in my frustration at that, I did exactly that, which is funny in a sad way I guess. For instance, I fucking loathe the "Trump is Hitler" attitude and the hate towards him because it will get us nowhere, it will make anyone who likes him ignore all of us who don't because we'll sound like lunatics, just as when people say crazy shit about Hillary, and compare her to extreme figures, people like myself stop listening because they sound nuts and in doing so maybe we lose any valuable info those people may have.

We're so inclined to write people off nowadays and no one is going to get anyone to stop supporting Trump by calling them racists or comparing them to the Third Reich. There's a ton of great criticisms to be made and arguments to be had about why Donald Trump is a terrible candidate, and if we're all going to criticize him for his name calling and lack of civility, then fighting him by doing just that will only make people who like him feel all the more secure and we'll look like hypocrites.

[DigitalChaos]

Trump is only "more liberal than Hilary!" if we completely bastardize the definition of "liberal" and assume that Trump's just fucking joking.

I think we need to clarify what "liberal" means at this point.


example: Is being an interventionist warhawk a liberal stance or not? I'd say it is NOT liberal unless you are redefining liberal around the Obama presidency. Hillary is a huge interventionist warhawk, definitely more so than Trump.

We going to pretend things like this aren't reality?

[Jinsai]

example: Is being an interventionist warhawk a liberal stance or not? I'd say it is NOT liberal unless you are redefining liberal around the Obama presidency. Hillary is a huge interventionist warhawk, definitely more so than Trump.

We going to pretend things like this aren't reality?

I didn't say to clarify what ISN'T liberal. Let's clearly outline what liberal means. I feel like I'm losing my fucking mind here.

[allegro]

For instance, I fucking loathe the "Trump is Hitler" attitude and the hate towards him because it will get us nowhere, it will make anyone who likes him ignore all of us who don't because we'll sound like lunatics, just as when people say crazy shit about Hillary, and compare her to extreme figures, people like myself stop listening because they sound nuts and in doing so maybe we lose any valuable info those people may have.
Amen to that, brother.

[Jinsai]

I mean, I'm just a little confused here.

Donald Trump has said that he wants to:

1. Make our military so big, so huge, so great, so powerful that "we'll never have to use it." He can throw in some vague inference that he will do this in some way that will be efficient and cheap, but if you take what he's saying there, it sounds like massive increases in military funding.

2. Wants to defund planned parenthood if they "still have the abortions going on."

3. Wants to build a wall to keep out all the rapist Mexicans.

4. Suggests that people spy on their neighbors and report their findings to the police.

5. Wants to not only bring back water boarding terror suspects, but go "way beyond."

6. Wants to make it illegal to say bad things about him... I don't know where that falls on the political spectrum, but fucking up the first amendment isn't a value in accordance with my version of liberalism.

7. Wants to make a database of Muslims.

8. Is opposed to gun control, and wants to make concealed carry permits easier to obtain and legal in every state.

9. Thinks we should kill the families of suspected terrorists.

10. Wants to lower income taxes for those making over a million dollars a year by 25%

11. Wants to repeal inheritance tax.

12. Wants to lower corporate income tax by 20%

13. Wants to repeal Obamacare. Will replace it with "something terrific."

14. Wants to bar all Muslims from traveling to the US

15. His brilliant plan to deal with ISIS is to "bomb the shit out of them..."
...well, either that, or just let Putin handle it. Who knows what this fucking guy actually intends to do.

16. He has some decidedly un-liberal views when it comes to women (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/18-real-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women_us_55d356a8e4b07addcb442023)

17. Has promised to elect conservative justices to the supreme court... yeah, it doesn't get much more blatantly liberal than that.

18. Part of the reason he intends to nominate conservatives to the supreme court is to overturn the ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, since he believes in traditional marriage, and thinks the issue should have been settled on a local state level. Again... So. Fucking. Liberal.

19. Has inferred that negotiating deals with our international enemies and then screwing them is a good strategy and a great way to build up our economy.

20. Wants to force Apple to open up the iPhone for the government to peruse. Not sure where this one falls on the political spectrum, but fuck that, and it's against Apple, and we all know Apple users are hippie pinko liberals.

21. Opposes raising the minimum wage, conceivably lowering it. Thinks "having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing." So liberal.

22. Wants to set up government surveillance of mosques. "I want surveillance, and I don't care."

23. Regarding claims of racial profiling, corruption, and abuse of power within law enforcement, Trump has said "the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood."

24. Not only supports the death penalty, but wants the sentence to be applied to anyone who kills a police officer.

25. Believes "global warming is an expensive hoax."

26. Has said that the EPA is "an impediment to both growth and jobs."

27. Opposes clean energy legislation, saying it's "really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves." I'm so tired of hearing liberals say things like that.

28. Is in favor of fracking.

29. Has said "I love the tea party" and appeared to give a speech at a Tea Party rally. Just like all the liberals.

30.


http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/01/22/ap_991616394326_wide-87a95dc62070409aa57f3ee87b529e2b9539ae69-s900-c85.jpg

This is just going off the sparse details he's actually offered regarding where he stands on issues. It's hard to tell if "Oh, it's going to be terrific. I'm going to make America so fucking great again. You'll see. You're going to win so much, you're gonna get fucking sick of winning! You're gonna be begging me to stop winning so much, to be less terrific, but I won't. I'm such a winner, that even the losers are going to start winning." falls in the liberal or conservative camps... but come on.

[implanted_microchip]

^ The slow reveal of scrolling to 30 was the highlight of this forum today, Jinsai

You also left out in that quote "China's screwing us, they're screwing us. And, look -- I love China! Nobody gets along with China better than me. I love Chinese food. I've got several friends who are Chinese and we talk all the time! They're all bright, classy guys -- but we gotta draw the line somewhere, and we gotta start making better deals. Nobody makes deals better than me. We need a president who makes deals again! Reagan made deals, I'll make deals. China built a wall so long ago, we can build one now, and I'm gonna get Mexico to pay for it. Just watch me! Maybe I should call it the Trump Wall. It's gonna need a name!" (He actually said that wall-naming bit at his Romney-response rally and I was losing it)

[allegro]

I mean, I'm just a little confused here.

Donald Trump has said that he wants to [a bunch of stuff]

But that's all rhetoric to get attention and to get him the Republican nomination, which is what Cruz, Romney and Rubio are accusing him of doing. They are saying he does not actual believe ONE SINGLE THING he is saying when he says all this because that's all "conservative" (and they're all for it, evidently) and they're saying he's a really a liberal and is saying fake-over-the-top-conservative shit just to get attention because IT DOES get him attention.

For instance, Planned Parenthood, he has been in support of PP in the past, and then he flopped, and then at one of the recent debates he said this (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-defends-planned-parenthood-republican-debate/):

"Millions of millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. I would defund it because I'm pro-life, but millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood."

So, what does that MEAN, exactly? It's helpful, but he'd defund it? Or not? He'd change his mind? Or he's just trying to fence-sit?

Btw, it's a common misconception among just about everybody that PP provides mammograms: They don't.

But they do provide super cheap birth control pills and other contraception to prevent pregnancies, they do pap smears for free to prevent cervical cancer, they check for and help prevent sexual transmitted diseases, etc.

[Jinsai]

allegro Yes, I know he's flip flopped all over the place, but all we have to go off of is what little he lets slip about his current stances on issues. He's said repeatedly that he wants to defund planned parenthood because of the abortion issue. Anything else he says beyond that is pretty much irrelevant.

It's not like he has a record we can point to. His first attempt at directly involving himself with politics is to run for president! I just don't understand the accusation that he's "a liberal."

[implanted_microchip]

Personally I think Trump in general keeps enough of his views sort of gray and opaque and shifts just enough here and there to allow for the unpredictable allure to remain and to allow people to have that "it's all a ruse!" mentality.

I know something Trump does that is one of his strengths is make his supporters feel like he's letting them in on something no one else knows. He draws them in, acts like they're special, acts like he's in a roomful of peers and equals. He's a leader in a wolfpack convincing the other dogs they're leading, too. And part of that is making them feel intelligent, like they can figure things out in a way others don't. I'm sure he knows that he has a contingency of supporters who say shit like "He's just talking up to appeal to the crazy base, he's doesn't REALLY mean any of it," and I'm sure he knows that it benefits him to keep that perception around for those people. And it gets him a ton of attention and gives him a degree of cross-appeal where those who like what he's saying feel someone's voicing their opinions and those who are "smart enough" to figure out he's playing it up support him and feel like they've got a genius on their hands. So he wins in a couple crowds by just pandering to only one.

The guy knows how to play people, that's a guarantee. He's playing about half of one of America's main political parties right now. He knows how to sell himself. His entire life has been about selling the Trump brand. He is a living logo, a label, a brand name. He is a product and he knows how to push it. He's got a hell of a marketing strategy and we're going to see him get more and more moderate and center-right as the general election nears itself. He's gotten more open about PP, he's now distancing himself already from the war crimes, he's criticizing the GOP on a number of things. He's taken things to new extremes, but it's pretty common for front-runners to pander to their party in the primary before cooling down heavily in time for the general election, because come then, they've already sold themselves to their party, it's everyone else they've got to win over. If he keeps acting like this and gets on the debate stage with Clinton, he's fucked, and I'm sure he knows it.

[DigitalChaos]

just don't understand the accusation that he's "a liberal."
once again, it's your insistence of looking at everything in absolutes and all-or-nothing that is the problem.

fact: trump is more liberal than hillary on some topics. some topics. *some* topics. This is not changed by him being, collectively, less liberal than hillary.


There is a reason there are republicans who are saying they would rather vote for hillary over trump. There is a reason there are democrats saying they would vote for trump over hillary.

[Jinsai]

There is a reason there are democrats saying they would vote for trump over hillary.

I have not heard a single democrat actually say this. I just did a google search, and I'm not finding it. It did pull up comments from republicans who say they'd rather vote for Hillary than Trump, but that's because Trump has no political experience and is saying shit that sounds like he's eager to start world war III.

The only scenario where I could picture a liberal saying they'd vote for Trump over Hillary is if they're bluffing to drum up support for Bernie Sanders. If Sanders loses and the race really does end up being Clinton vs Trump, I'd be astonished to hear that from a liberal.

[Mantra]

I do apologize, @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925), for doing what I think too many of us do too often which is seeing your comments and the discussion at hand and coming at it as part of a larger picture I've seen repeatedly rather than for the portrait that it was/is, in that I see a lot of what I was speaking about and this situation fit it just enough to remind me of them, and then next thing you know I'm responding less to this topic and more to my own baggage that it maybe fits in with kinda sorta, but not exactly, and that's unfair of me to do. So I'm sorry for that.

Hey, no worries dude, it's all good. :)


There's plenty to not like about Hillary. That's agreed. Her foreign policy has been less than stellar, and that's being modest. But at the same time, I don't believe for a minute that Trump's wouldn't be just as bad, if not worse, and his abilities in other spheres would likely do no better than she would. Her involvement in the African American community and push for equality amidst minorities is a far cry from his attitudes. Her willingness to listen to people discussing discrimination is a far cry from his. etc., etc. I just feel like it's wrong to only look at one specific sphere of politics where they're similar and then imply that that discredits all the extreme differences that do exist (but the reverse is also true and I acknowledge that fully).

Yeah, I basically agree. I guess what bothers me about this overall debate (and I mean way beyond this message board) is that we're not even in the general election yet. If the primary were over and, sure enough, it was Hillary vs. Trump, then I could see debating whether it was worth voting for Hillary, in spite of her flaws, in order to stop Trump. But we're still in the primary, where we have the chance to nominate someone who has significantly better politics. So it kinda bugs me when I see certain people (not you, but in general) who invoke Trump's monstrosity in an effort to shutdown criticisms of Hillary, as if that is somehow relevant right now. More than any other moment, THIS is the time to be thoroughly discussing her merit as a democratic candidate and for progressives to be expressing their distaste for her politics. If the Bernie thing doesn't pan out, then I guess we can talk about plan b, but right now we need to be fighting for the best option currently available.


I just feel like over-simplification of every side, of every candidate, and of every group and issue has been at an extreme this election and is doing no one any favors and is only causing people to dig in deeper into their positions while trying to push everyone else out of theirs.

I agree. Part of the reason I eventually got burned out after so many years of leftwing activism is because of this very issue, where people can't seem to disagree without making enemies with people who should be allies. When you see that shit going on long enough, it's hard to escape this crushing sense of futility. So I appreciate and can relate to your desire for more empathy and civilized discussion.

[sick among the pure]

I have not heard a single democrat actually say this. I just did a google search, and I'm not finding it.

There are plenty of people who are Democrats who have said they will not vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the nomination because of superdelegates but doesn't win the popular vote. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who view Hillary as a soft Republican and will not vote for her no matter what. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who will write in anything from Bernie to Mickey Mouse or not vote at all if Hillary gets the nomination.
There are even more independent voters who will not vote for her.

I can't say I've seen any Democrat say they'd rather vote TRUMP. Just that they won't vote for Hillary, which many take to mean they're basically voting for Trump because they're not voting for the direct competition.

[Frozen Beach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ
Bernie fucked up big time

[Conan The Barbarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ
Bernie fucked up big time
I have to agree. I see his point, but I know poor white people that live in the ghetto. Racism is concern, but that's not the way to attack it. Poor wording.

[Jinsai]

There are plenty of people who are Democrats who have said they will not vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the nomination because of superdelegates but doesn't win the popular vote. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who view Hillary as a soft Republican and will not vote for her no matter what. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who will write in anything from Bernie to Mickey Mouse or not vote at all if Hillary gets the nomination.
There are even more independent voters who will not vote for her.

I can't say I've seen any Democrat say they'd rather vote TRUMP. Just that they won't vote for Hillary, which many take to mean they're basically voting for Trump because they're not voting for the direct competition.

There's a big difference between writing in "Mickey Mouse" and clicking the box for Trump, even if you're like me and live in a state where there's no chance a Republican will win (especially not Trump).

[allegro]

allegro Yes, I know he's flip flopped all over the place, but all we have to go off of is what little he lets slip about his current stances on issues. He's said repeatedly that he wants to defund planned parenthood because of the abortion issue. Anything else he says beyond that is pretty much irrelevant.

It's not like he has a record we can point to. His first attempt at directly involving himself with politics is to run for president! I just don't understand the accusation that he's "a liberal."

I don't get it, either, but Romney, Cruz, McConnell and Rubio are all accusing Trump of NOT being a real conservative. That's why this whole thing is hilarious.

Also, there's Jim Webb as one example (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/04/jim-webb-id-vote-for-trump-but-not-clinton/). See also this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/02/could-donald-trump-win-in-november-thanks-to-democrats/).

[GulDukat]

There are plenty of people who are Democrats who have said they will not vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the nomination because of superdelegates but doesn't win the popular vote. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who view Hillary as a soft Republican and will not vote for her no matter what. There are plenty of people who are Democrats who will write in anything from Bernie to Mickey Mouse or not vote at all if Hillary gets the nomination.
There are even more independent voters who will not vote for her.

I can't say I've seen any Democrat say they'd rather vote TRUMP. Just that they won't vote for Hillary, which many take to mean they're basically voting for Trump because they're not voting for the direct competition.
Clinton will win the nomination, regardless of the super delegates.

[elevenism]

if the establishment really hates trump that much, they will pull any and every trick in the book to prevent his nomination and even change the rules if they have to.
this republican race has been one of the most interesting things i've ever seen.
i wouldn't count out the possibility of an open convention.

[allegro]

if the establishment really hates trump that much, they will pull any and every trick in the book to prevent his nomination and even change the rules if they have to.
this republican race has been one of the most interesting things i've ever seen.
i wouldn't count out the possibility of an open convention.
Yup. Look at this Meet the Press with Lindsay Graham (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-interview-lindsey-graham-on-gop-race-working-with-cruz-638152771877). Totally fucking nuts.

[aggroculture]

Wow Cruz is gaining on Trump. Rubio and Kasich need to do the decent thing and drop out the race: maybe with those guys' delegates, and in a one-on-one Cruz could actually win the nomination. Scary.

[allegro]

Wow Cruz is gaining on Trump. Rubio and Kasich need to do the decent thing and drop out the race: maybe with those guys' delegates, and in a one-on-one Cruz could actually win the nomination. Scary.
Yes. Scary. Very scary.

Cruz is the fucker who shut down the Government and my husband and his fellow "essential employees" had to work and wait to get paid until they got "a budget."

Yet Congress and all their aids continued getting paid.

[Jinsai]

the only candidate I hate more than Trump is Cruz. Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK republicans?! I never would have believed that you'd have me saying that I prefer another Bush in the white house to the other two leading options they have on the table. Fuck you GOP.

[implanted_microchip]

If we're talking shit about Ted Carnival Cruz Ship, I need to get in on this because he's on my shortlist of politicians I truly loathe:

Today he cancelled a Mississippi campaign stop but at it he was going to be going about with good old Bryan Fischer, a guy who's endorsed him who Ted is proud to call a supporter, who also thinks being gay should be treated criminally like drug addiction and that Russia's anti-homosexuality laws are where it's at, and that the Holocaust was probably gay people's fault (I can't dream this shit up). Meanwhile Trump gets shit on for being supported by a guy who he was on record shit-talking sixteen years ago.

I really hate that the media's so caught up in their anti-Trump frenzy that they're ignoring how horrible his main competitor also is. I doubt Donald could actually get elected, but Ted could probably do it. He's a special kind of fervorous crazy that's dangerous and capable. I'm never going to forget watching him read bedtime stories from the floor of Congress.

[allegro]

If we're talking shit about Ted Carnival Cruz Ship

Um, yup, talk about "disavow? (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/trump-supporters-demand-ted-cruz-disavow-firebrand-kill-the-gays-pastor/news-story/7ef3873a38600f733b0d5e4e9b1bc904)"


SUPPORTERS of presidential hopeful Donald Trump have demanded rival Ted Cruz “disavow” a controversial preacher who called for the death penalty for gay people moments before sharing a stage with the Texas Senator.

Kevin Swanson, a Christian pastor known for his far-right anti-homosexual views, made the shocking comments at the National Religious Liberties Conference in November.

“Yes, Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death penalty for homosexuals,” Swanson said.

“Yes, Romans chapter one verse 32, the Apostle Paul does say that homosexuals are worthy of death. His words not mine. And I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I am not ashamed of the word of god. And I am willing to go to jail for standing on the truth of the word of god.”

Later in the conference, Swanson called Senator Cruz to the stage. “My friends, let me introduce to you the next candidate for the office of President of the United States. Folks, please make welcome Senator Ted Cruz,” he said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Pr9GRWAbI&feature=youtu.be

[implanted_microchip]

allegro I love how he never really said "no" to that question, haha

[onthewall2983]

Cruz voting against aid for Flint and shutting down the gov't (which affected me personally) is something I hold deeply against the man, beyond his pandering to bible-thumpers which is loathsome enough believe me.

[DigitalChaos]

I have to agree. I see his point, but I know poor white people that live in the ghetto. Racism is concern, but that's not the way to attack it. Poor wording.

It actually points to a complete ignorance on the topic. It ventures into "white guilt", it conflates poverty and racism, it's misses the foundation of the issues, and it shows complete ignorance on what "the black vote" wants to see in a candidate. Poor people and black people are not the same thing and it pisses off a lot of black people and a lot of poor people when people do this.


"any view of Black America that focuses exclusively on crime, poverty or other challenges is missing so much." - Hillary Clinton (who is kicking Sanders' ass on the black vote)

[sick among the pure]

Clinton will win the nomination, regardless of the super delegates.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't change who I'm voting for in April.

[allegro]

Cruz voting against aid for Flint and shutting down the gov't (which affected me personally) is something I hold deeply against the man, beyond his pandering to bible-thumpers which is loathsome enough believe me.
Exactly. He has affected me personally, too, and my former home state of Michigan. How can somebody withhold aid to little suffering kids but claim to be "Christian?" He's a greedy selfish evil bastard. And he needs to be kept FAR AWAY from the White House.



allegro I love how he never really said "no" to that question, haha
Yup! And he thinks homosexuality is ONLY about SEX?

[DigitalChaos]

In the talk about "what liberalism is" we probably forgot to mention that progressivism has completely taken over and killed most liberalism.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160308/5c9b9f171b8a98f9dd9d84e0e094e6a7.jpg

[Jinsai]

what the hell is up with the title for that video of Cruz refusing to say "no, I don't hate the gays." How exactly did he "own" the reporter? What kind of fucking madness is this?!?!

[perceptionnexus]

I'm pretty terrified that Cruz is destined to win, only because nearly everything he says sounds like it could be sampled and put on a Ministry album.

[aggroculture]

This is too funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCfXDChqu9w

[DigitalChaos]

what the hell is up with the title for that video of Cruz refusing to say "no, I don't hate the gays." How exactly did he "own" the reporter? What kind of fucking madness is this?!?!
It was posted by the Joe Walsh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Walsh_(Illinois_politician)) Program, a conservative talk show.
The video was submitted with the following: "He was asked repeatedly by Kevin Steele from KMBT-TV about the issue of gay marriage, to which Cruz responds by turning the tables."

[Mantra]

Is Cruz really "destined" to win yet? From what I can tell, it looks like Trump is the one most likely to win.

People say Trump's lead is an illusion, because sooner or later the other candidates are going to drop out and consolidate everything into a single anti-Trump vote, most likely Cruz, and that'll put a stop to Trump. At first, that seems legit, cause if Rubio and Kasich were to drop out today and all their delegates went to Cruz, Cruz would have 488 delegates vs Trump's 384. But that theory seems to be ignoring the winner-takes-all states, and Trump is projected to win most of the upcoming ones. Like next Tuesday, Florida will vote and their polling averages show Trump getting 42% verses Rubio at 21%. If that holds true and Trump wins, then he gets an extra 99 delegates, and since it's a winner-takes-all state, it won't even matter if the other Republican candidates drop out because 100% of that state's votes will belong to Trump, so there will be nothing for them to divvy up among each other at a later point. If Trump wins Florida, Illinois and Ohio (and he's currently leading the polls in all three) he'll earn an extra 235 delegates, plus whatever else he manages to win between then and now (i.e: he's currently way ahead in the polls for Michigan, Mississippi, etc)

In order for the whole "consolidation" plan to work, Rubio and Kasich would have to drop out TODAY so that everyone could spend the next week focusing all their efforts in winning Florida, Illinois and Ohio for Cruz. THAT could maybe hold off Trump for a while. But like, that doesn't seem likely to happen right now, because all three of them are determined to stay in, which essentially splits the anti-Trump Republican vote. Kasich thinks he can win Ohio, so he's not dropping out, and Rubio wants Florida of course, so they're refusing to budge before next Tuesday. Maybe if they lose big next week they'll finally drop out (maybe), but by then Trump will already have snatched up a shitload of winner takes all delegates, which means that even with all the anti-Trump delegates consolidate afterword he'll still have the lead.

[allegro]

I'm pretty terrified that Cruz is destined to win, only because nearly everything he says sounds like it could be sampled and put on a Ministry album.

See also this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/ted-cruz-scares-the-me-th_b_9138720.html).


Ted Cruz has made no secret of his desire to win on a surge of Evangelical Christian voting. Indeed, his father (Rafael Cruz) is an ardent Dominionist. Dominionism is an ideology that seeks to implement a nation governed by conservative Christians with a legal system based on biblical law. There is every indication that Ted Cruz is also a dominionist, including his recent statement that, "I'm a Christian first, American second."

His brand of Christianity is one which looks at God as damning 99 percent of all humans to eternal torture, and sees this as completely fair and merciful. There is no room for interpretation or nuance; only obey or burn. Those are the rules of God, and all of them must be taken literally and en toto.

Similarly, Cruz's approach to politics has followed the same philosophy: I'm right, if you don't do exactly as I say you're wrong and l will burn you and everything you hold dear to the ground if you do not comply. It is how he approached the 2013 government shut down, and it is how he has alienated almost every one of his House and Senate colleagues. Even his family looks put off by him.

But this isn't the really terrifying part.

Like Marco Rubio, Cruz would work to set back LGBT rights. Unlike Rubio however, Cruz would be much more likely to blow off people telling him not to go too far. Take "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for instance. Ted Cruz hinted he would bring it back, even though inside the Pentagon the idea of bringing it back elicits groans. Cruz claims he would listen to his leaders, but neglects to mention that all 4 star generals and admirals are all appointed by the President.

Imagine a military run by dominionist officers who believe American exceptionalism is ordained by God, and that Christianity can (and should) be spread through superior firepower. That's scary as hell.

But this still isn't the scariest thing.

The Supreme Court only needs to add two more Antonin Scalias to allow laws favoring Christianity as a state religion to get through on a 5-4 vote. No more marriage equality. No more right to privacy for LGBT people, either. But say hello to laws banning consensual relations between same sex adults returning, as long as he finds a couple willing to ignore stare decisis. Which shouldn't be too hard, given he has surrounded himself with people who believe God's law trumps everything.

Here's where this turns to a nightmare straight from the darkest days of humanity. Because we already have one Supreme Court justice who has hinted that he agrees with the decision (Korematsu) which allowed the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.

So let's step back for a moment and consider what a Christian Nation with Christian Laws based on a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible would mean for LGBT people. According to Phil Robertson while introducing Ted Cruz at a rally, "We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there." At the National Religious Liberties Conference pastor Kevin Swanson Swanson, reiterated his view that homosexuality should be punished by death in the US just before Cruz joined him on stage. Swanson has endorsed Cruz, along with several other Evangelical leaders calling for the systematic execution of gays.

One might argue that surely Ted Cruz doesn't really believe that gays should be put to death in America, despite his desire for a system of law based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and belief in a God who shows no leniency. Actually yes, Cruz dropped a big hint several months ago that this is exactly what he believes.

When a reporter questioned Cruz about his stances on LGBT issues, Cruz shot back, "I recognize you want to ask another question about gay rights. Well, you know. ISIS is executing homosexuals. You want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS..."

The implication here is that until Christians in America are throwing gay people off of buildings and crushing the heads of those who survive with rocks, LGBT people need to quit whining. Embedded in this is the notion that LGBT people should be grateful that Christians aren't doing this to us, because it's what we would deserve under a just, "Christian" legal system.

It also fits Cruz's personality to be able define himself as a good, more merciful than we deserve, loving man of God by allowing LGBT people to exist.

For now.

Setting the bar for what is good and merciful this low is terrifying. Sort of like defining being a good parent as "not murdering your children in cold blood before they turn 18." What's even more terrifying is that if Donald Trump loses his lead, polling suggests Cruz picks up almost most of the Trump votes, and win the primaries. It would then be in a dead heat in the general against Hillary.

Hope all my queer friends out there have their passports updated.

[aggroculture]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--aIrToOXD--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/afmz9dc89404e0idbl9y.gif

[thevoid99]

I saw this on Evan Rachel Wood's Twitter link as it is fucking smacked on:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnp5NShWyO8

[allegro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zperiSf_QEA

[allegro]

Romney could become the Republican nominee (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/07/3756777/could-mitt-romney-actually-be-the-2016-republican-presidential-nominee/).

[Jinsai]

Romney could become the Republican nominee (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/07/3756777/could-mitt-romney-actually-be-the-2016-republican-presidential-nominee/).

At this point, it would be insanely relieving if Romney was the GOP offering... and not because I think he'd lose (I think he has a much better chance against both Hillary and Bernie, both of whom I'd prefer), but because I could maintain my sanity if he were president. Seriously considering the possibility of either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as president makes me want to kill myself.

[KarenLeslie]

At this point, it would be insanely relieving if Romney was the GOP offering... and not because I think he'd lose (I think he has a much better chance against both Hillary and Bernie, both of whom I'd prefer), but because I could maintain my sanity if he were president. Seriously considering the possibility of either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as president makes me want to kill myself.

What a difference four years makes. If you'd told me in 2012 that I'd be rooting for Romney to be the GOP candidate, I'd have laughed at you. Now he seems like a knight in shining armor by virtue of not being completely fucking insane.

Not that I'm voting GOP anyway, but dear God, these candidates.....

[implanted_microchip]

The Democrat in me wants Trump or Cruz to be the nominee because they'd almost certainly be beaten and we'd get another Dem. in office. The person in me wants Romney or Kasich just so the potential next president isn't a nightmare-inducing, dangerous maniac with no clear agenda aside from being entirely self-serving.

I really think for a two-party system to function, both need to be strong and decent and reasonable and able to compromise. Romney, as much as I disagree with him, is altogether reasonable and acts like an actual adult who wants what he thinks is best for the country. I could put up with that. Trump wants whatever's best for Trump. Cruz wants whatever's best for Nuclear Jesus.

[onthewall2983]

At this point, it would be insanely relieving if Romney was the GOP offering... and not because I think he'd lose (I think he has a much better chance against both Hillary and Bernie, both of whom I'd prefer), but because I could maintain my sanity if he were president. Seriously considering the possibility of either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as president makes me want to kill myself.

If this happens, Trump will run third party which would screw Romney anyway.

[marodi]

Seriously considering the possibility of either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as president makes me want to kill myself.

Don't do that, move to Canada! We have a panda hugging Prime Minister!

http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2016/03/0307-trudeau-panda.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=625&h=420&crop=1

About Trump:

People around me: "The Americans are not crazy enough to elect Trump, are they?"
Me: "..."

[theimage13]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why Kasich is so far behind, despite seeming to be the calmest person with the most detailed explanations during the debates?

[onthewall2983]

The base has no time for calm and detail.

[theimage13]

The base has no time for calm and detail.

What on earth does that mean?

[Jinsai]

What on earth does that mean?

They dislike him because he's not completely batshit insane and a bigot. It seems that the majority of the republican party is into that sort of thing these days.

[allegro]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why Kasich is so far behind, despite seeming to be the calmest person with the most detailed explanations during the debates?
He wasn't always calm; that's his new and improved public persona. Look at older footage of him when he was throwing shit fits.

[implanted_microchip]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why Kasich is so far behind, despite seeming to be the calmest person with the most detailed explanations during the debates?

Because in being that way, while surrounded by three shouting and raving middle school children, he leaves zero lasting impression. He offers no juicy soundbite, no easily quoted meme of a line, says nothing controversial and kicks up no dust so few articles get written about him. I've gotten the vibe that his whole strategy is a "wait for them to get sick of this kind of petty shit and come to me" attitude.

People who watch the debates, whether they like him or not, come away with a ton of fired up feelings about whatever Trump said, and remember the loud spats Rubio got into with the guy, and remember Ted Cruz weaving his hellscape fever dream doomsday promises about America and then condescending to Trump, etc., but Kasich just acts like an adult, answers questions and talks policy, which, while substantive and actually presidential, isn't as memorable as the brand-name billionaire we've all known for over thirty years reassuring us that his cock size is nothing we need to be worried about.

[Mantra]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why Kasich is so far behind, despite seeming to be the calmest person with the most detailed explanations during the debates?

Trump = bad ass
Cruz = righteous
Rubio = young
Kasich = who?

[allegro]

They dislike him because he's not completely batshit insane and a bigot. It seems that the majority of the republican party is into that sort of thing these days.

Kasich was endorsed by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?_r=0).

It's too bad he doesn't get more attention (http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4280157103001/what-john-kasich-really-thinks-about-hillary-clinton/).

[Deepvoid]

Clinton: Mississippi
Trump: Mississippi, Michigan

[Mantra]

Kasich was endorsed by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?_r=0).

Damn, a New York Times endorsement has gotta be a huge liability for a Republican to deal with. No wonder he's not doing so well. Poor guy.

If NYT were good strategists, they would have tried to undermine Trump by endorsing him to help fuel all the "Trump's a secret liberal" conspiracies.

[onthewall2983]

Michigan's turning into a real nail-biter now.

[DigitalChaos]

Damn, a New York Times endorsement has gotta be a huge liability for a Republican to deal with.


The NRA just voiced praise for Sanders.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nra-calls-bernie-sanders-comments-gunmaker-liability-spot-n533616

The Hillary stance on that topic is pretty ridiculous though. So it's more of "good job on not being ridiculous like Hillary" praise than anything.

[hyprpwr]

Kasich was endorsed by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?_r=0).

It's too bad he doesn't get more attention (http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4280157103001/what-john-kasich-really-thinks-about-hillary-clinton/).

I think it's related to his long political track record. He represents the old establishment and all most want is change....even if that means Trump

[Bachy]

Donald Trump makes me want to register to vote. His supporters make me want to consider murder.

[DigitalChaos]

The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Bernie
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/07/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-bernie.html


This was actually a solid article. It's everything the "Berine Bro" strawman wished it could be. A lot of his supporters tried defending him with a "he was quoting someone" pertaining to his statement equating poverty and being black... but the supporters ignored the fact that he kept doubling down on his statement.


And then this... “I don't want to be lectured about talking about poverty, whether it’s white, black, Latino,” he said Monday. Jesus christ Sanders, you sure do know how to kill your campaign. This guy wants to leverage identity politics but is failing pretty well. Hopefully this will be the end of identity politics as an anchor point for presidential candidacy.

[Deepvoid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJPkVIaxwP0

[thevoid99]

Donald Trump makes me want to register to vote. His supporters make me want to consider murder.

That's why I'm trying to re-register right now as I've found my old voter registration cards dating back to 2004. I'm not sure if they work now.

[allegro]

That's why I'm trying to re-register right now as I've found my old voter registration cards dating back to 2004. I'm not sure if they work now.

You have until November.

[GulDukat]

Anyone see Trump's speech past night? He was talking about Trump steaks and had wine set up. A real wtf moment.

[allegro]

Anyone see Trump's speech past night? He was talking about Trump steaks and had wine set up. A real wtf moment.

Yeah, he was doing a point-by-point response to Romney's criticisms of him (Romney claimed that all of these businesses are defunct but Trump says they aren't). I understood why he was doing it, but it went a little long. A lot long, actually, LOL. And those weren't Trump steaks (http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/08/those-trump-steaks-the-donald-served-tonight-they-werent-trump-steaks-video/).

And we still haven't forgotten Romney's story (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829).

[Your Name Here]

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