The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Purple]

I don't know.

But the Republican Party of today... well, considering who their front runner is, if the label fits...

They're increasingly moving towards being the Fascist Party of America in all but name.

That's another thing. Everyone always calls their opponents fascists, racists, sexists etc. Like I live in a country with more than two political parties. And let me tell you I have seen people calling the other side racist fascist homophobes all the while gleefully defending the exact same policies when they come from their side of the fence. It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

And I see the same thing here in regard to this presidential race. Like for example you will have americans online defending clintons expansionist policies whilst at the same time insisting that Donald is going to start WW3.

It wasn't always that way, of course. Back in the mid-20th. Century, for example, while both parties had serious failings, they both had people I could respect. Hell, any time in American history between the 1850s and the FDR's Presidential bid, I'd have probably been a Republican (mostly because back then, the Democrats were the foremost white supremacist stronghold).

But the Republican Party today is nothing but the rotten corpse of what it once was.

It is my understanding that for all intents and purposes the Democrats and Republicans have simply swapped platforms during the second half of the 20th century. Is this assessment about right?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, when I see someone spouting bigoted/terroristic/extremist shit on my side, I do try to call it out. See my comments on Bernie or Bust (which I regard as the beginnings of a Left wing Tea Party equivalent).

And on racial issues, at any rate, the parties seem to have basically swapped during the mid-20th. Century, yes.

Edit: Not that I'm saying Bernie or Bust is bigoted or terroristic. Just that its an extremist viewpoint which is basically saying "we get everything we want now or fuck everything." The no compromise, ideological purity aspect of it is very Tea Party-esque to me.

[Purple]

Well, when I see someone spouting bigoted/terroristic/extremist shit on my side, I do try to call it out. See my comments on Bernie or Bust (which I regard as the beginnings of a Left wing Tea Party equivalent).

You are terribly rare on that. And you do fall into the other trap which is being afraid of the opposite side as if they were the devil.

Edit: Not that I'm saying Bernie or Bust is bigoted or terroristic. Just that its an extremist viewpoint which is basically saying "we get everything we want now or fuck everything." The no compromise, ideological purity aspect of it is very Tea Party-esque to me.

That's another thing I see, particularly among young people. This obsessive need to tie them self to a cause and than get crushed when that cause fails or worse yet go all fanatical.

It's basically like young people only have two modes:
- My side or bust!
- Everyone else frightens me. They are going to end the world!

Maybe I am crazy. And you all know that is a distinct option. But my reaction to all this is and always will be to tell them to chill.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now now, let's not be agist.

After all, I don't think its mostly youth fuelling the Tea Party. More bitter middle aged/elderly white conservatives who are scarred of the brown people taking over.

And frankly, while it would obviously be foolish to treat every opponent as an existential threat, I do I think that there is reason to be scarred of Drumpf and Cruz, and the modern Republican Party in general. Rampant xenophobes/austerity nuts seizing control of the most powerful nation on Earth can do unimaginable damage, both directly and indirectly.

Basically, think every bad thing, politically, economically, and militarily, that happened under George W. Bush, and then multiply it enormously. It might not end the world, but it could sure as hell hurt and kill a lot of people.

[Purple]

Now now, let's not be agist.

Thing is, it does seem to be age related. As people grow older they seem to grow out of fanaticism in either direction in favor of disillusionment. Well aside from the minority that were and remain properly crazy. You can also observe these trends in other groups such as neo nazi organizations, football hooligans etc. Membership always tends to spike around that age group.

After all, I don't think its mostly youth fuelling the Tea Party. More bitter middle aged/elderly white conservatives who are scarred of the brown people taking over.

That's the thing. While these people exist they are always a (if vocal) minority. But to me at least it would seem that young people often get caught up in some sort of temporary crazy.

And frankly, while it would obviously be foolish to treat every opponent as an existential threat, I do I think that there is reason to be scarred of Drumpf and Cruz, and the modern Republican Party in general. Rampant xenophobes/austerity nuts seizing control of the most powerful nation on Earth can do unimaginable damage, both directly and indirectly.

Yes and no. They can theoretically do damage. But when you look at what actually tends to happen and what is actually happening for the most part that theory does not pan out into practice. I mean, just look at the last, well almost a decade. The same party you feared held and still holds control of your congress. And they did not drive your country or the world into the ground. Why would one extra man change that?

Bottom line is that for better or worse politicians are always going to be pragmatic in seeking out their one and only interest. That being personal enrichment. Everything else is just opium for the masses to make you pick them in the worlds greatest popularity pageant. And yes, I am aware of how cynical that sounds.

Basically, think every bad thing, politically, economically, and militarily, that happened under George W. Bush, and then multiply it enormously. It might not end the world, but it could sure as hell hurt and kill a lot of people.

Thing is, and this is a tangent, I don't see how you can avoid that even if Sanders got elected. Let alone with someone like clinton or Trump. The only way would be if you got Sanders and a Sanders friendly congress and Sanders friendly state governments all in a package.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thing is, it does seem to be age related. As people grow older they seem to grow out of fanaticism in either direction in favor of disillusionment. Well aside from the minority that were and remain properly crazy. You can also observe these trends in other groups such as neo nazi organizations, football hooligans etc. Membership always tends to spike around that age group.

Stats? Or is this just, at least to some extent, a bit of popular "wisdom" people assume to be true?

To some extent its valid, maybe. But I prefer not to overgeneralize.

That's the thing. While these people exist they are always a (if vocal) minority. But to me at least it would seem that young people often get caught up in some sort of temporary crazy.

Are they always a minority? Their have, of course, been countries in the past where the extremist elements took power.

Besides, all you did was contradict my example without actually refuting it. Or are you going to argue that the Tea Party is driven by youth support?

Yes and no. They can theoretically do damage. But when you look at what actually tends to happen and what is actually happening for the most part that theory does not pan out into practice. I mean, just look at the last, well almost a decade. The same party you feared held and still holds control of your congress. And they did not drive your country or the world into the ground. Why would one extra man change that?

Because the President has powers the Congress does not. Like vetoing Congress's worst bullshit. And picking Supreme Court choices, who interpret the Constitution potentially for decades to come.

Give them that one man, and they control all three branches of government instead of just one.

Besides, you can put a lot of the blame for the recession, the various economic crises of recent years, the state of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria, the current predicament of the EU, and the refugee crisis squarely on the consequences of Republican policies. Not all of it, of course, but they are not blameless. To say nothing of systemic problems like Climate Change and lack of affordable health care where they have obstructed reform. They have already done immeasurable damage.

Bottom line is that for better or worse politicians are always going to be pragmatic in seeking out their one and only interest. That being personal enrichment. Everything else is just opium for the masses to make you pick them in the worlds greatest popularity pageant. And yes, I am aware of how cynical that sounds.

To be blunt, I despise this attitude.

First of all, politicians are people just like any others. Suggesting they are capable of only one selfish motivation is like suggesting all human beings are. Its a horrible stereotype.

Secondly, it normalizes political corruption, and tells us its something we should just accept.

Thing is, and this is a tangent, I don't see how you can avoid that even if Sanders got elected. Let alone with someone like clinton or Trump. The only way would be if you got Sanders and a Sanders friendly congress and Sanders friendly state governments all in a package.

No President will be able to make everything instantly perfect, of course.

But its a question of degree as well as intentions. Sanders, by and large, would try to make things better. The Republicans would do all they could to make things worse.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Oh, everyone who pays attention at all and isn't wildly delusional has known from the outset that the Democrats were getting their dynasty this election. Bernie's entire goal from the outset has been more raising awareness than any sort of belief that he was likely to win the nomination.

So for all of you whining whiners who refuse to vote for Clinton because <insert thing any GOP nominee would/would have (or did) backed and/or worse>, why not just vote for the Republican or not vote for POTUS at all? Because that's effectively what you'll be doing.

On foreign policy Clinton is a Republican! She got up the same same shenanigans as Ronald Reagan. Selling weapons to people who hate us because they'll use those weapons against people we both hate. Interventionism. Toppling other governments because they don't serve our interests. It can be hard to morally justify voting for someone who already has that track record, especially when you're in a state that's either solidly red or solidly blue every election. If you are opposed to military interventionism at every turn, it's rather odd to vote for someone who has been consistently in favor of it.

When things get closer and there are better statistics on how Utahans are likely to vote, I'll be in a better position to make a firm decision on if I'll hold my nose and vote for someone who has done frankly evil things or if I'll vote third-party. As it stands, Hillary vs The Donald could turn Utah into a swing state.

Isn't Trump somewhat of an anti-Interventionist? Why not vote Trump wholeheartedly if that is your primary criteria?

I don't know what Trump really believes, if he actually believes anything. He's too much of a wild card for me to feel comfortable voting for him on anything. He used to profess liberal beliefs, all of a sudden he professes conservative beliefs. His history as a businessman certainly indicates he's a shitlord of the highest order, though.

I will give Hillary Clinton this: She's not actively hostile to the concept of minority rights, unlike the two Republicans that have consistently been opposed to equal rights and the guy who, even if not planning to roll back rights, doesn't give a shit about his words being directly responsible for people coming to harm. Or his business decisions. *cough*slumlord*cough* I wouldn't expect her to put up the same fight as Obama has, but she's not going to make rolling back rights across the nation a priority at any point. She's pro-surveillance state but that's about the worst of it when it comes to civil rights. I expect she'd throw us under the bus in interests of a big enough business interest, but that's most politicians. The Republicans, however, would throw us under the bus even if they didn't stand to profit from it. Cruz out of sheer animosity, Kasich because... Well, I don't know his reasons, and Trump because he seems to think it's all a game.

[Soontir C'boath]

So I think it would be fair to pose now. Would you (in general) vote for Bush I or Bush Jr? Would you vote for Bush Jr. or Trump/Cruz/Kasich? Because, this is what it all boils down to in the coming years if we keep thinking this way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., I'd probably vote third party/independent. Not enough difference between them to push me to vote for one to keep the other out of power. Might be the same if it was either of them vs. Kasich. I'll also admit that I'd probably be rather tempted to go third party/independent if it was Kasich vs. Clinton, although I'd probably ultimately still vote for Clinton because I feel the modern Republican Party is irredeemable as an institution and needs to be discredited and crippled.

I'd vote for either of the Bushes over Drumpf or Cruz, though, because I consider the former an honest to God fucking fascist and the latter the budgetary equivalent of slash and burn, among other reasons.

Of course I know your intention is probably to criticize voting for unpalatable candidates to keep worse candidates out, using a "they're all the same" line of reasoning. But that is objectively false, especially when applied to nuts like Drumpf and Cruz.

And once you get to the general election, the stakes are too fucking high for "my way or the highway". If you want to get the best possible candidate, the time to fight for that is in the primary, unless something happens that completely upends the two party dominance. So back Bernie now, failing that back Hillary as damage control, back a progressive in the next primary. Considering how well Bernie has done against someone with the overwhelming establishment backing Clinton has, its not out of the question by any means for a progressive/socialist to get the Democratic nomination in the fairly near future even if Bernie loses this time around.

So, I'm looking at it long term.

[Purple]

Stats? Or is this just, at least to some extent, a bit of popular "wisdom" people assume to be true?

As I said, this is all just a result of my personal observations. I do not presume to be a scientist in this respect or have conducted any sort of studies. It's just something that I've seen in life and that I did not really think much about before the internet exposed social movements so plainly for me to observe.

Are they always a minority? Their have, of course, been countries in the past where the extremist elements took power.

The fact that realistically we can call these out by name in history books as bad examples alone should be indicative of the fact that they are far from being the norm.

Besides, all you did was contradict my example without actually refuting it. Or are you going to argue that the Tea Party is driven by youth support?

1. It is a political movement that whilst vocal is relatively small compared to the main parties and the like.
2. It is driven by again a minority of all voters. It just so happens that half of them are really loud and the other half have a lot of money.

Because the President has powers the Congress does not. Like vetoing Congress's worst bullshit. And picking Supreme Court choices, who interpret the Constitution potentially for decades to come.

This is only true to a limited extent though. If the republicans really were so crazy they would have pushed far harder and you would have had stuff like government shutdowns every other week as they engage in a newer ending war for power with your president.

Give them that one man, and they control all three branches of government instead of just one.

Again, I don't really see it. Your president can't just force the chief justices to quit (at least I think, feel free to correct me) nor can he force the population to go along with things that are too crazy. And of course, nobody in your government wants the country or world to go down the drain since that won't help them get richer.

Besides, you can put a lot of the blame for the recession, the various economic crises of recent years, the state of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria, the current predicament of the EU, and the refugee crisis squarely on the consequences of Republican policies. Not all of it, of course, but they are not blameless. To say nothing of systemic problems like Climate Change and lack of affordable health care where they have obstructed reform. They have already done immeasurable damage.

Oh they absolutely are to blame. My point is not that the republicans are not bad. It's that they are bad but that realistically this is as bad as they are going to get.

To be blunt, I despise this attitude.

As do a lot of young people... Idealism seems to be high in these ages. Funny thing is I am not exactly ancient my self. Hell I've not even hit 30. But I sound like an old man.

First of all, politicians are people just like any others.

Which is exactly why I am suggesting they are bad to the core.

Suggesting they are capable of only one selfish motivation is like suggesting all human beings are. Its a horrible stereotype.

We are talking about a system where cutthroat backdoor dealings and sucking up to big money and special interest groups are used to advance the most ruthless and capable individuals into positions from which they can take part in a super expensive popularity contest for a position of ultimate power. I'd say that if you were a honest person when you started you won't be by the time you reach the top. Or alternatively you just won't reach the top.

Now mind you. This is only true for those politicians that campaign directly and hold positions of high power. I would not expect say a generic assembly member or local councilor or who ever to be as corrupt as the guy trying to be president. So it does come in shades. But ultimately if you hold a political position than you most likely are not clean. If for no other reason than because advancing your way through the establishment of your own party requires you to compromise your ideals every step of the way.

Secondly, it normalizes political corruption, and tells us its something we should just accept.

Accept it or not fact is that political corruption has been the reality of things ever since the first cave dwellers chose to pick one of them to be in charge of the fire. And it will be with us until we find a way to remove human nature from those we pick to rule us.

No President will be able to make everything instantly perfect, of course.

But its a question of degree as well as intentions. Sanders, by and large, would try to make things better. The Republicans would do all they could to make things worse.

The way I see it. Sanders is indeed the only one who has the will to try and make things better. But unless he can get your congress and local legislature in the states on his side his results won't be better than what Obama could do. In fact he will probably fair worse on account of the fact that his ideas are even more radical than what the mainstream is willing to support. So he drives the country into the ground by bickering with the legislature where as everyone else does it with varying degrees of support from them instead.

[Soontir C'boath]

So, we can have what happened with Obama becoming President after people tired of 8 years of Bush, we'll take 4-8 years of Cruz/Trump and go right back to a Democratic President. We vote in a Democrat now, and we can forget about the Presidency after 4 years with Clinton/or a socialist/commie bastard as the Republicans will definitely rile their base up with the 2020 Census coming up and that means the chance of redistricting/gerrymandering when they also elect their state politicians along the wave.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, we can have what happened with Obama becoming President after people tired of 8 years of Bush, we'll take 4-8 years of Cruz/Trump and go right back to a Democratic President. We vote in a Democrat now, and we can forget about the Presidency after 4 years with Clinton/or a socialist/commie bastard as the Republicans will definitely rile their base up with the 2020 Census coming up and that means the chance of redistricting/gerrymandering when they also elect their state politicians along the wave.

So deliberately lose because you assume that if you win now you'll lose anyway, in the hopes that by deliberately losing now you might win in the future?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Especially as an argument for gambling with the future of the most powerful country on Earth?

Building a campaign strategy around the assumption of defeat is not a path to victory. Its sugar coating defeatism and surrender.

[maraxus2]

So deliberately lose because you assume that if you win now you'll lose anyway, in the hopes that by deliberately losing now you might win in the future?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Especially as an argument for gambling with the future of the most powerful country on Earth?

Building a campaign strategy around the assumption of defeat is not a path to victory. Its sugar coating defeatism and surrender.

Agreed. This is silly. The Dems only have a chance to consolidate their hard-won gains under a Clinton (or Sanders, for that matter) Presidency. The GOP wants to roll back all of Obama's accomplishments, including the ACA, Dodd-Frank, the Iran nuclear deal, and all of the little-known executive actions that have made life just a little bit easier for the least among us. They won't have an opportunity to recreate that kind of legislation after 4 (maybe even 8 ) years of a GOP presidency. You have to strike when the iron is hot, and it's not going to get any hotter than right now.

The Dems ARE looking down a particularly bleak barrel in 2018, when all the important Gubernatorial elections will happen. If they can somehow pull a mangy rabbit out of their especially shabby hats and manage to win or hold on to some of the more important seats (PA, OH, MI, IL, etc), they'll be able to offset a bit of the damage that will likely happen in 2020. Probably not likely, but certainly possible.

So I think it would be fair to pose now. Would you (in general) vote for Bush I or Bush Jr? Would you vote for Bush Jr. or Trump/Cruz/Kasich? Because, this is what it all boils down to in the coming years if we keep thinking this way.

I'd vote for HW in a heartbeat over any of those knuckleheads. Dubya not so much; we've seen that particular monkey show and don't need to see no more.

Because voting for the Republican would be a +1 instead of a null, I don't believe in Clinton, and I want to send a, "Give us something or after four years of outrage we will actually get the stoners off the couch, go all Tea Party, and primary you hard," message. It might have as much chance of getting read as a bottle flung into the ocean, but when you're on a desert island you do what you can to pass the time and give yourself hope. I don't whine. I throw glass things.

Is that how you send that message? Not "Please ignore me because I won't show up in the general and almost certainly won't vote in the mid-terms?" That's an...interesting strategy.

As for Bernie's lasting influence, it might very well be ephemeral. He is getting up there in years and will have to go back to the Senate when all is said and done. He's got no shot at a leadership position; Schumer's had the top job locked up for months now, Durbin isn't going anywhere (and Bernie would be a *terrible* whip anyway), Murray isn't either, and there's not a chance in hell that the Senate Dems will let Bernie be the public face of their caucus. He is in line to become Budget Committee chair when the Dems retake the Senate, so he'll have influence there, but he'll have to be a much stronger workhorse than he's been so far.

TL;DR: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Napoleon the Clown]

HW, for all his flaws, wasn't an absolute imbecile as POTUS. Far from a perfect president, but as we've seen we can do a hell of a lot worse.

Honestly, I think Bernie will be able to accomplish more as a Senator than as POTUS. His stint as a candidate has at least shown there's quite a lot more popular support for his policies than many would have thought, so it may start to nudge things in a more progressive direction.

[maraxus2]

Honestly, I think Bernie will be able to accomplish more as a Senator than as POTUS. His stint as a candidate has at least shown there's quite a lot more popular support for his policies than many would have thought, so it may start to nudge things in a more progressive direction.

Agreed. And FWIW, young voters are substantially more left-wing than any generation since the CIO folks from the New Deal. This is why it's so important that they don't get terribly disillusioned with Bernie's defeat in this primary.

It's a slow news Friday, so not much going on. Trump continues to make friends everywhere he goes, and got a warm California welcome in Burlingame today.

Trump urges California GOP to unite behind him amid raging protests
April 29, 2016 2 min read original
Undeterred by protesters who nearly blocked his way into a California Republican convention, Donald Trump called on the party Friday to unite behind him even as he lashed out at what he portrayed as its corrupt system for picking presidential nominees.

Police in riot gear were unable to stop egg-tossing demonstrators who broke through street barricades and rushed to the entrance of the convention hotel near San Francisco International Airport, forcing Trump’s motorcade to pull over on the shoulder of the 101 Freeway.

Surrounded by Secret Service agents, the New York developer hopped a concrete barrier and entered the hotel through a back door.

“It felt like I was crossing the border,” Trump joked to hundreds of Republicans at a lunch banquet. The crowd laughed.

Trump, whose vow to stop illegal immigration should appeal to many voters in California’s June 7 GOP primary, was subdued in his remarks to the state party’s rank and file, a sharp contrast to his fiery performance at a rally Thursday night in Costa Mesa.

The convention crowd applauded politely, but it was a tense embrace as Trump charged that GOP candidates must bribe the party’s delegates -- a number of whom were in the audience -- to win its White House nomination.

“It’s a horrible, horrible, disgusting system,” he said.

Trump told the crowd he’d finally won more than 1,000 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination before the Cleveland GOP convention in July. According to the Associated Press, Trump’s tally Friday afternoon was 996, but his point was to urge Republican activists to accept him as their presumptive nominee.

“I think it’s going to come to an end very soon,” said Trump, who hopes to crush rival Ted Cruz by winning the Indiana primary on Tuesday. “And really, I’m speaking to the people in this room, because there has to be unity in our party.”

Still, Trump insulted party luminaries who have criticized him, including Karl Rove, the top political advisor to former President George W. Bush. “Is he the dumbest human being on earth?” Trump asked.

“You’ve got to go a different way, folks, because these people are leading you right into the middle of a very bad, bad desert -- and we’re going to win,” he said. Ideally, he added, “We’re going to be together.”

Before his arrival, a cluster of protesters unfurled a giant yellow “Stop hate” banner that covered most of the window of the hotel’s nine-story glass atrium. Another group draped a “Dump Trump” banner from a bridge between the hotel and a parking lot.

As the protest raged outside, with a huge Mexican flag waving in the middle of the crowd, Trump sneaked in and attended a VIP reception, where he posed for photos with Republican donors next to the U.S. and California flags.

Coming hot on the heels of him receiving a warm California welcome in Costa Mesa too.

Protesters take to streets after Trump rally in California
by Jeremy Diamond And Cheri Mossburg, Cnn April 29, 2016 1 min read original
Protesters took to the streets following a Trump rally in Costa Mesa
At least one Trump supporter was visibly bloodied after being punched in the face
The crowd gathered in the streets outside the OC Fair & Event Center as Trump addressed several thousand supporters at the Center's amphitheater. At least one police car was damaged and several scuffles broke out amid the hectic scene.

Protesters blocked a main intersection, impeding traffic, and officers with the Orange County Sheriff's Department and Costa Mesa Police Department worked to disperse the crowd, ordering protesters out of the streets.

About 20 people were arrested, the Orange County Sheriff's Department tweeted late Thursday night after the protests had cleared.

Lt. Mark Stichter, the Sheriff's Department's public information officer, could not provide an official estimate on the number of protesters, but demonstrators could be seen filling the intersection of Fairview Road and Fair Drive.

Several scuffles broke out between Trump supporters who were leaving the rally and people in the streets who accused them of being racists. One Trump supporter was visibly bloodied after being punched in the face.

Several people damaged a police car, smashing its back window before jumping on it and kicking its doors. As a crowd formed around the car, police officers in tactical and riot gear moved into action, forming a perimeter around the crowd before forcing the demonstrators to move down the road.

While some demonstrators shouted insults and slurs at police officers, others focused on delivering a message of protest against the Republican front-runner's rhetoric.

Several protesters told CNN they were demonstrating against Trump's rhetoric on illegal immigration. Some were seen carrying Mexican flags as they marched in the street. Other demonstrators shouted insults and slurs at police officers.

Rojelio Banuelos, a 26-year-old student, carried a sign that read, "Liberation not deportation."

"I'm against Trump's nativist and nationalistic agenda, which divides people and is very hateful of the other," he said.

While Banuelos simply marched through the streets, he called the property damage and anger some demonstrators expressed Friday night "the symptom of hate speech" and said he did not believe any individuals were taking advantage of the protest.

Katie Brazer, a 26-year-old community organizer who marched alongside Banuelos, agreed.

"I think people are tired of these messages of hate," she said.

[cosmicalstorm]

I've been lurking this thread, it's nice for info about the war between Bernie and Hillary but it does not cover Trump very much.

I think Donald Trump will crush Hillary Clinton in the election.
1. Unless he says something absolutely insane, and the likelihood of that is falling fast now.
2. Unless he gets shot.
3. He dies of old age (he'll probably live to 110 due to the status syndrome )

Bernie probably did Hillary a big favor by keeping the spotlights away from her, but now that he is out she will be given a lot more attention, and that is very bad for her because she's such a bore.
The last time I felt any excitement about Hillary was probably in 2005 while reading Weapons of Choice by Birmingham. It was set in the far future of 2019 when Hillary was the POTUS and had a super-carrier named after her hunting evil Muslims before traveling in time.
But how time has passed by, Obama stole her thunder in 2008, now she is too old and frankly she looks sick.
Add the fact that Hillary Clinton is actually writing loveletters to the Rotschild, she would probably continue Bushs and Obamas fucked up Mid east meddling. If she was POTUS I have no doubt there would be an American invasion force in Syria right now.

I think people on the left really fear Donald Trump. He is looking and acting like a winner. Cruz vs Hillary would have been a no brainer, he would have been crushed bad.

Hillary will lose this election, perhaps by a wide margin. But America is changing fast too, Trump will be a stop-gap against the crazy SJW stuff for 4, maybe 8 years. But after that the demographic destiny will simply make it impossible for a white first kind of POTUS like Trump to win forever after.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams blog is a balanced source regarding Trump and the election

And Then There Were Two

Posted April 27th, 2016 @ 8:09am in #Trump

Hillary Clinton effectively sealed her nomination last night. And Donald Trump almost certainly did the same, winning five states by larger margins than the polls and the pundits expected.

Why did Trump exceed expectations?

Probably lots of small reasons added together. But I’ll call out a few from the field of persuasion.

1. Trump’s “lyin’ Ted” linguistic kill shot is working its magic.

2. The so-called “rigged” nomination process has energized voters against the establishment. (Calling the primary system “rigged” was one of Trump’s best persuasion moves of all time.)

3. Trump’s dominant win in New York state made him seem inevitable for the first time. Voters like to be on the winning side.

4. Trump’s “crooked Hillary” and “stamina” linguistic kill shots tell Republican voters that Trump already has a harpoon in Clinton. She’ll bleed out before November. Republicans are warming to the matchup, despite polling that says Clinton beats Trump in a general election.

5. The “Tale of Two Trumps” story has convinced nearly everyone that Trump modifies his approach to the situation. Trump at a Trump rally is mostly stand-up comedy. Trump in a serious interview is a different character. Trump is completely transparent about his different personas, and people are starting to see it as strategy, not insanity.

6. Cruz’ approach to winning delegates without winning the popular vote looks smart and effective. But it also makes him look like the lawyer that he is. That’s not a good look.

7. The weather was agreeable (I think?), and big turnouts are good for Trump.

8. The hiring of Paul Manafort gives Trump top-shelf credibility as a serious contender. The number of people who believe Trump secretly does not want to win has now dropped to zero. (He wants to win.)

9. The invulnerability of Trump to every type of civilized attack is hard to ignore. He’s a winner in the process of winning. People like that.

10. Trump rolled out the “woman card” attack on Clinton. Expect lots of backlash and hollering about sexism. Also expect that 100% of the voting public knows that the “woman card” accusation is a persuasion death blow to Clinton’s campaign. And Trump is the only candidate alive who would dare say it out loud.

Trump’s “woman card” strategy is weapons-grade persuasion. It is a “high ground” maneuver with an “identity” angle. Either one of those approaches can be a kill shot. But together?

Holy sh*t.

I’ve not seen anything like it. The engineering is superb.

Trump will probably win with men for all the obvious reasons. But winning with women has until lately seemed impossible. So the “woman card” kill shot is aimed at women voters, not men. And what it does is flip the framing, as Trump likes to do.

Clinton framing: It is time for a woman president.

Trump framing: Gender is not a job qualification

I remind you that this is the year 2016. Trump’s message recognizes that gender should not be a hiring criteria. That’s the high ground. You can’t get higher.

And it gives women an identity choice. Do they pick the leader who says the “woman card” is a qualification for a good job? Or do they pick the leader who has a long record of promoting and mentoring women because he thinks gender should not be a qualification?

Landslide.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1434794291 ... e-were-two

[The Romulan Republic]

I feel dirty just reading your filth.

Like the fact that you apparently regard the prospect of a "white first" (your words) President not being able to get elected as a bad thing. You ever heard of the 14th. Amendment? You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?

On behalf of every one who is not a xenophobic white Right wing heterosexual Christian man- Go fuck yourself, fascist.

[cosmicalstorm]

If he wins the thought of the look on your face will make for some internal lulz.

[The Romulan Republic]

If he wins the thought of the look on your face will make for some internal lulz.

No surprise that a Drumpf supporter would be motivated by petty spite.

[Dominus Atheos]

I feel dirty just reading your filth.

Like the fact that you apparently regard the prospect of a "white first" (your words) President not being able to get elected as a bad thing. You ever heard of the 14th. Amendment? You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?

It's embarrassing to our entire country when you quote the Constitution/Declaration of Independence in the face of a foreigner you're debating.

[Flagg]

Dude, that is some of the best Alt-History shit ever. So in your fictional world-building, how many times has Trump bought out and merged with a massive corporation as opposed to OTL (our timeline), where he's declared bankruptcy more times than Charlie Sheen has transmitted the clap? Oh, and was Clinton still Secretary of State, or did President Biden make her VPOTUS after Obama was removed from office due to being Born in Kenya?

[Flagg]

I feel dirty just reading your filth.

Like the fact that you apparently regard the prospect of a "white first" (your words) President not being able to get elected as a bad thing. You ever heard of the 14th. Amendment? You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?

It's embarrassing to our entire country when you quote the Constitution/Declaration of Independence in the face of a foreigner you're debating.

Ok, we've said our piece, it's popcorn time!

[The Romulan Republic]

I feel dirty just reading your filth.

Like the fact that you apparently regard the prospect of a "white first" (your words) President not being able to get elected as a bad thing. You ever heard of the 14th. Amendment? You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?

It's embarrassing to our entire country when you quote the Constitution/Declaration of Independence in the face of a foreigner you're debating.

I think they're applicable when discussing weather a man who spits on their ideals is fit to be President of the United States, thank you.

If we were discussing who should run whichever poor country is blighted with cosmicalstorm's presence, perhaps it would be more appropriate to cite different documents.

[maraxus2]

I've been lurking this thread, it's nice for info about the war between Bernie and Hillary but it does not cover Trump very much.

I think Donald Trump will crush Hillary Clinton in the election.
1. Unless he says something absolutely insane, and the likelihood of that is falling fast now.
2. Unless he gets shot.
3. He dies of old age (he'll probably live to 110 due to the status syndrome )

Bernie probably did Hillary a big favor by keeping the spotlights away from her, but now that he is out she will be given a lot more attention, and that is very bad for her because she's such a bore.
The last time I felt any excitement about Hillary was probably in 2005 while reading Weapons of Choice by Birmingham. It was set in the far future of 2019 when Hillary was the POTUS and had a super-carrier named after her hunting evil Muslims before traveling in time.
But how time has passed by, Obama stole her thunder in 2008, now she is too old and frankly she looks sick.
Add the fact that Hillary Clinton is actually writing loveletters to the Rotschild, she would probably continue Bushs and Obamas fucked up Mid east meddling. If she was POTUS I have no doubt there would be an American invasion force in Syria right now.

I think people on the left really fear Donald Trump. He is looking and acting like a winner. Cruz vs Hillary would have been a no brainer, he would have been crushed bad.

Hillary will lose this election, perhaps by a wide margin. But America is changing fast too, Trump will be a stop-gap against the crazy SJW stuff for 4, maybe 8 years. But after that the demographic destiny will simply make it impossible for a white first kind of POTUS like Trump to win forever after.

Lol. There is a lot to unpack here. Of all the dumb things that have been said in this thread, this is by far the dumbest. Good thing we have CS's trusty gut instinct to guide us with its truthiness!

Edit: I'm also glad that we finally found something that everyone can agree on - namely that CS's post is dumb as shit and deserves to be roundly mocked. Excellent work, team!

[cosmicalstorm]

Going by "the gut feeling" of the most active leftists on this board Trump should never have happened and he was a joke to start of with, how did that wisdom pan out exactly?