The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

Even if we make the most generous assumptions about him and assume that he means not a word that he says, the mere fact that he is out their playing to and encouraging xenophobia, bigotry, and violence to gain power is highly dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is encouraging, emboldening, and legitimizing some very dangerous ideas, and his victory would only do so to a greater extent (unless maybe he did a total 180 consistently for the next six months, which I'm fairly confident he won't).

At best, you can basically say "He's not really an authoritarian bigot, he's just willing to lie constantly and advance the causes of authoritarianism and bigotry in order to gain power". Which isn't much of a defence.

Edit: And again, I want to emphasize that this is a candidate who's so offensive that the best case scenario is that he's basically lying through his teeth every time he opens his mouth.

To be fair. What Trump is doing is not much different than many other politicians. Other politicians are just savvy enough to use dog whistles and codewords to pander to the bigoted.

Take Hillary for instance, do I think she is racist? Not necessarily. But when she used the "Super Predators" line it was a clear attempt to appeal to the sensitivities of racist politicians that were on the fence about voting for the crime bill. Does that mean she's racist, no it just means she knows how to play the game of politics.

Trump being undisciplined in politics hasn't mastered the art of using code words.

Yes, I know other politicians have used dogwhistles/code words. But while that is certainly harmful and distasteful, it does not, in my opinion, have the effect of legitimizing intolerance and outright violence that Donald's success on a platform of open bigotry and thuggishness has.

[Elheru Aran]

Even if we make the most generous assumptions about him and assume that he means not a word that he says, the mere fact that he is out their playing to and encouraging xenophobia, bigotry, and violence to gain power is highly dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is encouraging, emboldening, and legitimizing some very dangerous ideas, and his victory would only do so to a greater extent (unless maybe he did a total 180 consistently for the next six months, which I'm fairly confident he won't).

At best, you can basically say "He's not really an authoritarian bigot, he's just willing to lie constantly and advance the causes of authoritarianism and bigotry in order to gain power". Which isn't much of a defence.

Edit: And again, I want to emphasize that this is a candidate who's so offensive that the best case scenario is that he's basically lying through his teeth every time he opens his mouth.

To be fair. What Trump is doing is not much different than many other politicians. Other politicians are just savvy enough to use dog whistles and codewords to pander to the bigoted.

Take Hillary for instance, do I think she is racist? Not necessarily. But when she used the "Super Predators" line it was a clear attempt to appeal to the sensitivities of racist politicians that were on the fence about voting for the crime bill. Does that mean she's racist, no it just means she knows how to play the game of politics.

Trump being undisciplined in politics hasn't mastered the art of using code words.

Yes, I know other politicians have used dogwhistles/code words. But while that is certainly harmful and distasteful, it does not, in my opinion, have the effect of legitimizing intolerance and outright violence that Donald's success on a platform of open bigotry and thuggishness has.

To put it another way... it's not often that the Ku Klux Klan outright endorses the likely GOP candidate for President. When one of the most openly racist and bigoted organizations in the United States is putting their stamp of approval on the guy, you know they believe he jibes with what they propose. It's not a good scene.

[FaxModem1]

Paul Ryan says that he'll do what Trump instructs at the convention.

CNN

Search CNN
CNN.com
Paul Ryan will skip chairing convention if Donald Trump asks
By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 3:46 PM ET, Mon May 9, 2016



0:00
/ 0:14


Donald Trump
Donald Trump: General election starts now

Donald Trump: I won because I went for 'the knockout'
donald trump 2016 2016 speeches origwx bw js_00005015.jpg
Donald Trump: Then & Now
US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in New York on May 3, 2016, following the primary in Indiana.
Republican Party chief Reince Priebus declared Tuesday that Donald Trump will be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after his main rival Ted Cruz dropped out of the race. / AFP / Jewel SAMAD (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
Priebus: It's pretty obvious Trump will get to 1,237

Donald Trump on Ted Cruz: 'One hell of a competitor'
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Orange County Fair and Event Center, April 28, 2016, in Costa Mesa, California.
Trump is vying for votes in the June 7 California primary election in hope of narrowing the gap to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination. / AFP / DAVID MCNEW (Photo credit should read DAVID MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images)
RNC: Donald Trump presumptive GOP nominee

Paul Ryan: I'll quit convention chair job if Trump asks
LYNDEN, WA - MAY 07: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a speech during a rally at the The Northwest Washington Fair and Event Center on May 7, 2016 in Lynden, Washington. Trump became the Republican presumptive nominee following his landslide win in Indiana on Tuesday. (Photo by Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images)

Donald Trump: I won because I went for 'the knockout'
donald trump 2016 2016 speeches origwx bw js_00005015.jpg
Donald Trump: Then & Now
US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in New York on May 3, 2016, following the primary in Indiana.
Republican Party chief Reince Priebus declared Tuesday that Donald Trump will be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after his main rival Ted Cruz dropped out of the race. / AFP / Jewel SAMAD (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
Priebus: It's pretty obvious Trump will get to 1,237

Donald Trump on Ted Cruz: 'One hell of a competitor'
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Orange County Fair and Event Center, April 28, 2016, in Costa Mesa, California.
Trump is vying for votes in the June 7 California primary election in hope of narrowing the gap to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination. / AFP / DAVID MCNEW (Photo credit should read DAVID MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images)
RNC: Donald Trump presumptive GOP nominee

Paul Ryan: I'll quit convention chair job if Trump asks
LYNDEN, WA - MAY 07: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a speech during a rally at the The Northwest Washington Fair and Event Center on May 7, 2016 in Lynden, Washington. Trump became the Republican presumptive nominee following his landslide win in Indiana on Tuesday. (Photo by Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images)
Washington (CNN)House Speaker Paul Ryan would back out of chairing the Republican National Convention in July, if Donald Trump asks him to, his office confirmed Monday.

Ryan first made the comments to a home-town paper, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "He's the nominee. I'll do whatever he wants with respect to the convention."
The two are set to meet Thursday in Washington, after Ryan told CNN last week he was "just not ready" to throw support behind Trump, after rivals Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich both suspended their campaigns making Trump the presumptive Republican nominee.

Trump said the speaker's comments "blindsided" him.
RELATED: Ryan: I'm 'not ready' to support Trump
Trump responded with a statement saying he wasn't "ready" to embrace Ryan's agenda.
Ryan repeated that he did not rule out supporting Trump in the future, but had concerns he wanted addressed first.
"I never said never. I just said (not) at this point," Ryan told the Journal Sentinel. "I just want to get to know the guy ... We just don't know each other."
And Ryan said that he wasn't in the camp pushing for a third-party candidate to run against Trump.
That "would be a disaster for our party," Ryan told the Journal Sentinel. "I have communicated that to plenty of people."
RELATED: Palin to campaign against Ryan
Ryan is scheduled to preside over the GOP convention in Cleveland in July as part of his role as House speaker. He said even though he's not ready to back Trump, he would continue to fill that role regardless.
One of Trump's highest profile surrogates, Sarah Palin, announced on Sunday that she would back Ryan's primary challenger in Wisconsin.
"I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,' as in Eric Cantor," Palin said, referring to the former Republican House majority leader who was ousted in a shocking upset in his 2014 Virginia primary race.
Asked about Palin's comments on CNN, Trump called Palin "very much a free agent" and said he wasn't aware of her plans to back Ryan's opponent.

© 2016 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of service | Privacy guidelines

[Terralthra]

It is really not that hard to only copy and paste the relevant sections of an article. Please look at what you're about to post before you post it, as what you've posted is full of filler and (I presume) links to other articles. It is very hard to read.

[Broomstick]

“I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour,” he said

I don't like Trump, but every now and then he says something that makes sense.

If by his waverings Mr Trump is making it harder for his sceptics to pin him down that will be fine by him. Especially exasperated is the deep-conservative wing of the party which has long contended he is not really one of them on issues ranging from foreign policy, abortion and gay rights; his new pronouncements on tax and wages will only reinforce their suspicions.

Fuck the "deep-conservative wing". Fuck 'em with a spiked donkey dildo.

[The Romulan Republic]

Small dick Donald may be saying something true about the minimum wage, but its in contradiction to what he's said in the past on the subject.

This, I think, is just a shallow, transparent attempt to reel in bitter Bernie voters.

[Raw Shark]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't matter; Cynical Hils will beat him like a drum. Bitter Bernie supporters will scatter to the four winds, voting Clinton, Stein, maybe a few for Donny Jingles, or staying home. Barring an indictment, it's all but over.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll repeat what I've said before- while I'd certainly like to think Donald is certain to loose, I think that in practice that attitude involves a dangerous degree of complacency that could involve a lot of people not bothering to vote because they mistakenly think they don't need to worry about the outcome.

[Raw Shark]

I'll repeat what I've said before- while I'd certainly like to think Donald is certain to loose, I think that in practice that attitude involves a dangerous degree of complacency that could involve a lot of people not bothering to vote because they mistakenly think they don't need to worry about the outcome.

I see myself more as angry than complacent. I refuse to participate in the election of somebody who supported the Patriot Act and consistently runs shit-flinging campaigns, on principle, and I think voting for a different woman might send a message about the, "Hillary or sexist!" tactic. You act in accordance with your conscience and I'll act in accordance with mine. That's democracy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I don't question your right to vote as you see fit, obviously, but I do question the wisdom of your choice.

The worst thing Bernie supporters could do, for the long term viability of the movement, is to not back Clinton if she's the nominee. Because one of two things will realistically happen:

1. She'll lose, Donald will bring in policies that are entirely at odds with what the Sanders crowd wants (and the Right will probably enact more voter suppression and gerrymandering, making it harder for the progressives to win in the future), and the Democrats will blame the Sanders supporters. Sanders will end up more hated than, and nearly as marginalized as, Nader.

2. She'll win anyway, without their support, and likely, in part, on the support of conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans who abandoned Drump. Meaning that the Sanders people will go from having some influence in the Democratic Party that they could build on in the future, to utter irrelevancy.

[Flagg]

I'll repeat what I've said before- while I'd certainly like to think Donald is certain to loose, I think that in practice that attitude involves a dangerous degree of complacency that could involve a lot of people not bothering to vote because they mistakenly think they don't need to worry about the outcome.

I see myself more as angry than complacent. I refuse to participate in the election of somebody who supported the Patriot Act and consistently runs shit-flinging campaigns, on principle, and I think voting for a different woman might send a message about the, "Hillary or sexist!" tactic. You act in accordance with your conscience and I'll act in accordance with mine. That's democracy.

As long as you accept that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump and don't whine like a baby when made fun of for it.

[Raw Shark]

As long as you accept that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump and don't whine like a baby when made fun of for it.

No, it's a vote for Stein. We need a viable third party to break the dichotomy, and the more people that support one, the more likely that it will happen. I voted Green guilt-free in a blue state in 2000, and I'll proudly do it again.

[Lord MJ]

So when Hillary pivots to the right and Trump pivots to the left, of course Bernie voters should be smart enough to realize Trump is a phony. But what are we supposed to do about Hillary?

As I said if Hillary shows herself to be a disaster before the convention we should have the opportunity to make a change there, but the Dems are either corrupted by the establishment or so stuck in Washington bubble thinking that they will look at Hillary and say "This is a winning strategy!"

[Gaidin]

So when Hillary pivots to the right and Trump pivots to the left, of course Bernie voters should be smart enough to realize Trump is a phony. But what are we supposed to do about Hillary?

As I said if Hillary shows herself to be a disaster before the convention we should have the opportunity to make a change there, but the Dems are either corrupted by the establishment or so stuck in Washington bubble thinking that they will look at Hillary and say "This is a winning strategy!"

What the hell were you expecting? That Hillary ignores the right all through the general election? No. She's going to deal with the right through the general election. As they say she's running to be the President of Everyone. The question is if she pivots by flip-flopping by Trump is blatantly doing on some of his stances.

[Lord MJ]

So when Hillary pivots to the right and Trump pivots to the left, of course Bernie voters should be smart enough to realize Trump is a phony. But what are we supposed to do about Hillary?

As I said if Hillary shows herself to be a disaster before the convention we should have the opportunity to make a change there, but the Dems are either corrupted by the establishment or so stuck in Washington bubble thinking that they will look at Hillary and say "This is a winning strategy!"

What the hell were you expecting? That Hillary ignores the right all through the general election? No. She's going to deal with the right through the general election. As they say she's running to be the President of Everyone. The question is if she pivots by flip-flopping by Trump is blatantly doing on some of his stances.

The problem is that that approach might get the establishment republicans, it would be almost useless in getting the GOP base voter. And by extension piss off Bernie supporters and other base Democrats. It's also the exactly wrong strategy to get Independents. It's essentially the same failed strategy the 2014 Democrats used.

[The Romulan Republic]

As long as you accept that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump and don't whine like a baby when made fun of for it.

No, it's a vote for Stein. We need a viable third party to break the dichotomy, and the more people that support one, the more likely that it will happen. I voted Green guilt-free in a blue state in 2000, and I'll proudly do it again.

You're Colorado, right?

Same here. And if you follow state politics closely, you know damn well that while Colorado has gone blue in the last two Presidential elections, it is in no way a safe blue state. It is a solid swing state that lost a Senate seat to the Tea Party last time around (with the Democratic governor barely hanging on to his office).

Edit: In other words, a Bernie supporter voting Green in Colorado of all places is pretty much the worst example of vote splitting imaginable, because you're doing it in a God damn swing state.

[Raw Shark]

You're Colorado, right?

I am.

Same here. And if you follow state politics closely, you know damn well that while Colorado has gone blue in the last two Presidential elections, it is in no way a safe blue state. It is a solid swing state that lost a Senate seat to the Tea Party last time around (with the Democratic governor barely hanging on to his office).

Gerrymandering, particularly in Aurora and Lakewood. I fully intend to vote straight-ticket Democratic for congress to try to put a stop to that, and as far as I'm concerned, the #1 issue this year is Amendment #69.

Edit: In other words, a Bernie supporter voting Green in Colorado of all places is pretty much the worst example of vote splitting imaginable, because you're doing it in a God damn swing state.

We may be purple in general, but Bernie took this state with 58% for president.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, at least you're not splitting the Congressional vote.

But I wouldn't get complacent about Colorado in the Presidential election. I suspect it'll go blue again. I certainly hope it will go blue again. But I suggest that you keep an eye on the polls, and see how close it is in late October.

[maraxus2]

So when Hillary pivots to the right and Trump pivots to the left, of course Bernie voters should be smart enough to realize Trump is a phony. But what are we supposed to do about Hillary?

As I said if Hillary shows herself to be a disaster before the convention we should have the opportunity to make a change there, but the Dems are either corrupted by the establishment or so stuck in Washington bubble thinking that they will look at Hillary and say "This is a winning strategy!"

They'll presumably not be dumb and vote for Hillary? I've already posted one poll showing that nearly 90% of Bernie voters will vote for her over Trump. I see no particular reason think this will be incorrect, especially since Trump's "left wing views" aren't at all left wing, and Hillary basically agrees with Bernie's policies. The obvious difference is in messaging, which only you seem to care about.

Hillary doesn't need Republicans in order to win; she just needs to keep the Obama coalition together. Obama actually lost "independents" by a fairly substantial margin, yet he managed to win the election by an equally substantial margin.

What could Trump possibly say that would make Sanders voters ignore his previous, and abominable, statements, while Hillary basically supports Bernie's platform across the board?

[maraxus2]

No, it's a vote for Stein. We need a viable third party to break the dichotomy, and the more people that support one, the more likely that it will happen. I voted Green guilt-free in a blue state in 2000, and I'll proudly do it again.

And just look how viable the Green Party became after 2000! Nader banished himself to political irrelevance after the nonsense he pulled in New Hampshire and Florida, and for good reason.

[Lord MJ]

So when Hillary pivots to the right and Trump pivots to the left, of course Bernie voters should be smart enough to realize Trump is a phony. But what are we supposed to do about Hillary?

As I said if Hillary shows herself to be a disaster before the convention we should have the opportunity to make a change there, but the Dems are either corrupted by the establishment or so stuck in Washington bubble thinking that they will look at Hillary and say "This is a winning strategy!"

They'll presumably not be dumb and vote for Hillary? I've already posted one poll showing that nearly 90% of Bernie voters will vote for her over Trump. I see no particular reason think this will be incorrect, especially since Trump's "left wing views" aren't at all left wing, and Hillary basically agrees with Bernie's policies. The obvious difference is in messaging, which only you seem to care about.

Hillary doesn't need Republicans in order to win; she just needs to keep the Obama coalition together. Obama actually lost "independents" by a fairly substantial margin, yet he managed to win the election by an equally substantial margin.

What could Trump possibly say that would make Sanders voters ignore his previous, and abominable, statements, while Hillary basically supports Bernie's platform across the board?

As mentioned before, Sanders voters don't need to vote for Trump. They just need to not vote for Hillary. Furthermore Sanders voters also include blue collar white voters, many of whom would vote for Trump. Furthermore Bernie and Trump both do better than Hillary among independent voters.

It is totally baffling to me that the Democratic party can't grasp that their is widespread discontent about establishment politics. Both as evidenced by Trump and Bernie's appeal, but by millions of other people that have simply checked out of the political process.

Hillary basically agrees with Bernie's policies.

I strongly doubt that. The primary reason the establishment has been against Bernie is because he legitimately represents a threat to their power structure. He would actually bring about real change, or at least use the powers of the office of the President to bring about said change. They obviously feel a lot safer with Hillary. Hillary would bring about 5% change that doesn't endanger the power structure that keeps them at the top.

"Establishment" = big donors more or less.

Hillary simply is not in favor of bringing about a system where big donors do not have control of the political system.

[Lord MJ]

* Kyle makes a mistake in this video, in that I don't believe Hillary herself has reached out to Bush donors. But it's more about her strategy to get independents.





Don't know if John Kerry was speaking in a one time fashion, or if this would be a sustained line of attack. But it echoes Lindsey Graham's line that Trump is bad because he wants less interventionism.

[maraxus2]

I've seen you say some variation of this post a few times, so let's walk through your points one by one.

As mentioned before, Sanders voters don't need to vote for Trump. They just need to not vote for Hillary.

Which should not be a problem for Hillary since, per this poll, they're splitting 86-10 for her and against Trump. That seems like an especially significant margin.

Furthermore Sanders voters also include blue collar white voters, many of whom would vote for Trump.
The blue collar Dems are mostly non-white, so there's actually reasons to think Bernie's doing poorly among them. Moreover, those white blue-collar Dems (Reagan Democrats, you might say) basically don't exist anymore; they've been Republicans for a very long time now.

Furthermore Bernie and Trump both do better than Hillary among independent voters.

True for Bernie but irrelevant since Bernie isn't going to be the nominee.Trump is also about as unpopular among "independent" voters as Clinton, which, again, is mostly irrelevant since Clinton doesn't need to decisively win among independents, just crush him among Democrats. Which she's likely to do.

It is totally baffling to me that the Democratic party can't grasp that their is widespread discontent about establishment politics. Both as evidenced by Trump and Bernie's appeal, but by millions of other people that have simply checked out of the political process.

It's totally baffling to me why you keep asserting things without providing a shred of evidence. It is also totally baffling to me why you keep using words like "establishment" and "neoliberal" and "corporatocrat" and "neocons" like they actually mean anything.

I strongly doubt that. The primary reason the establishment has been against Bernie is because he legitimately represents a threat to their power structure. He would actually bring about real change, or at least use the powers of the office of the President to bring about said change. They obviously feel a lot safer with Hillary. Hillary would bring about 5% change that doesn't endanger the power structure that keeps them at the top.

Your doubts are unfounded. They both support a universal healthcare system. They both support raising the minimum wage (Hillary actually changed from 12/hour to 15/hour due to pressure from the progressive left. There's a victory for you). Both would appoint progressive justices to SCOTUS who would help undermine Citizens. Both support Wall Street oversight and reform laws (Clinton's is actually better in this respect, since it's more plausible and nuanced). Both support aggressive climate change laws. Both support protecting public lands and expanding them. Both support promoting LGBTQ rights and protections, especially the T part. Their main differences are in their foreign policy, wherein Clinton is hawkish and Bernie obviously knows fuck-all. So take your pick.

"Establishment" = big donors more or less.

Hillary simply is not in favor of bringing about a system where big donors do not have control of the political system.

Look, if you've decided that Clinton is a corrupt person who doesn't deserve your vote, that's fine. Just know that you're very much in the minority here, even among Sanders supporters.

You keep asserting ideas that you think are true, yet you've never once linked to any kind of poll or other scientific measure that might suggest it is. You keep using buzzwords like "establishment" and "neoliberal" that are either undefined or so broad in scope that they're practically useless. And you keep acting like because something feels true, it must be true. It feels like people are against the "establishment," despite the fact that the quintessential establishment candidate crushed the reform candidate like a bug. It feels like Clinton is corrupt, because she lives in a very rarefied atmosphere, markedly unlike the 74 year-old socialist running against her. It feels like Bernie is the better candidate, despite all the polling suggesting that this is certainly not the case.

Stephen Colbert made up a word for this over ten years ago:
Truthiness

[Lord MJ]

Which should not be a problem for Hillary since, per this poll, they're splitting 86-10 for her and against Trump. That seems like an especially significant margin.

Which doesn't at all address the point of whether they will vote for Hillary. All it's saying is that they oppose Trump and that's a given.

The blue collar Dems are mostly non-white, so there's actually reasons to think Bernie's doing poorly among them. Moreover, those white blue-collar Dems (Reagan Democrats, you might say) basically don't exist anymore; they've been Republicans for a very long time now.

I'm not talking about Reagan Democrats. There is one message that Trump has been saying that would have appeal (actually two now that he flipped on wages) and thats jobs. Trump's platform has included jobs. And he hasn't been talking the usual right wing BS. It actually echoes Bernie Sander's platform in that he wants to end trade deals and impose penalties for outsourcing.

True for Bernie but irrelevant since Bernie isn't going to be the nominee.Trump is also about as unpopular among "independent" voters as Clinton, which, again, is mostly irrelevant since Clinton doesn't need to decisively win among independents, just crush him among Democrats. Which she's likely to do.

You're saying she doesn't need to be concerned with 30-40% of the population? True they might not bother to vote in this election since both candidates are undesirable. But Trump making any kind of populist appeals could get them to turn out to the polls which could be disastrous given that Democratic voter turnout is likely to be low. And the most recent elections in 2014 have beared that out.

It is totally baffling to me that the Democratic party can't grasp that their is widespread discontent about establishment politics. Both as evidenced by Trump and Bernie's appeal, but by millions of other people that have simply checked out of the political process.

It's totally baffling to me why you keep asserting things without providing a shred of evidence. It is also totally baffling to me why you keep using words like "establishment" and "neoliberal" and "corporatocrat" and "neocons" like they actually mean anything.

Establishment has different definitions, but for the most part it means the donors. The wealthy, the corporations that essentially control the parties, the system, and politicians. It's their interests that govern the spectrum of policy. On social issues the establishment is perfectly fine with more left leaning policies. On economic issues it's center right. And I would figure the establishments hold on the Democratic party would only increase given that even before Trump, the GOP has gotten into lunatic territory with things like government shutdowns and the like. Democrats would be a safer investment. And that's the big thing they are looking for return on investment. They would be willing to tolerate 5% change as long as they keep the return on investment. A massive shift like what Bernie is proposing (raising marginal tax rates to 52%, Single Payer, Free College Tuition) would be a massive financial loss to the donor class.

Your doubts are unfounded. They both support a universal healthcare system.

A fake position until proven otherwise.

They both support raising the minimum wage (Hillary actually changed from 12/hour to 15/hour due to pressure from the progressive left. There's a victory for you).

Once again a fake position until proven otherwise. And I'm one that actually thinks a 12/hour base is better than 15/hr nationwide given the disparity of cost of living between states.

Both would appoint progressive justices to SCOTUS who would help undermine Citizens.

Slightly more confident than the first two positions. But given Obama's history of supreme court picks (pro-corporate) do you really believe Hillary to be better in that regard? Furthermore on the money in politics issue,it's not enough to overturn CI. It also requires 1. Democrats adopting policies that are more popular with the people so they are less dependent on big money in politics in favor of small donors. 2. Getting a decent public finance system in place. That would reduce the influence of big money in politics. But of course to eliminate the problem completely, it would require amending the constitution to ban the practice (which is what Larry Lessig was going to campaign on until the DNC shut him out of the debates).

Both support Wall Street oversight and reform laws (Clinton's is actually better in this respect, since it's more plausible and nuanced).

Lol. She doesn't support bringing back Glass Stegall. Or actually breaking up the banks which is essential given that if they crash again the fed is so laden with debt from all the stimulus they did after the last crash there is a good chance the fed would crash also. Which would make the last recession look like daisies by comparison. Banks are doing the same behaviour that they did before, and Clinton gets paid by the banks to give speeches where she says that people have been too hard on them and that they've been treated unfairly. Please...

Both support aggressive climate change laws.

One candidate is saying we need to radically alter our infrastructure and likens it to the total war economy we had during WWII and says things like "reduce emissions by x% by 2030" isn't going to cut it. Forget about other countries at the moment, what can the US do in regards to its own infrastructure to reduce our carbon footprint?

Both support promoting LGBTQ rights and protections, especially the T part.

Social issues, and even on that, Hillary is the type of politician that waits until polling shows overwhelming support. Even on Gay marriage 50% support wasn't enough for her to come out in for it.

Their main differences are in their foreign policy, wherein Clinton is hawkish and Bernie obviously knows fuck-all. So take your pick.

Where is this myth that Bernie knows fuck-all come from? He was astute enough to say that trying to fight Assad and ISIS at the same time was not a good idea. That we cant just be one sided with Israel (especially Likud governed Israel.) And even on issues I disagree with him on (like coming to the aid of rebels in Libya when Qaddafi was about to wipe them out), he points out correctly that almost every major crisis in the middle east now is the direct result of American intervention.

You keep asserting ideas that you think are true, yet you've never once linked to any kind of poll or other scientific measure that might suggest it is. You keep using buzzwords like "establishment" and "neoliberal" that are either undefined or so broad in scope that they're practically useless.

The fact that our government is almost completely responsive to big donor interests while almost completely unresponsive to the regular people. The fact that studies show the US has become an oligarchy due largely to money in politics. Now most people don't understand just how money in politics works and has corrupted the system. They do know the effects.

And you keep acting like because something feels true, it must be true. It feels like people are against the "establishment," despite the fact that the quintessential establishment candidate crushed the reform candidate like a bug.

Bernie has gotten more than enough votes to prove that point. Not even getting into the support Trump has gotten on the GOP side. People are getting more and more sick of establishment politics. And Cenk of the Young Turks has predicted that this is the last election that the pro-establishment pick will win. We'll see if he's correct in that assessment. But if Hillary wins this election that means that in 2020 the anti-establishment victor would be a Republican... unless someone comes up to primary Hillary

It feels like Clinton is corrupt, because she lives in a very rarefied atmosphere,

Sigh. Even taking the whole issue of money in politics aside, the entire Clinton career has been one of borderline dirty politics. This is also ignoring weak scandals like White Water. Trading favors is how the Clintons work. Some call that savvyness, and in some instances the favor trading is used to actually advance policy rather advancing themselves. But they discovered years ago, back in the days or Arkansas that the constituency would be secondary. Bad sadly that's the case with most politicians today. Which is yet another reason why people are fed up with the establishment.

markedly unlike the 74 year-old socialist running against her. It feels like Bernie is the better candidate, despite all the polling suggesting that this is certainly not the case.

Ignoring the general election head to head match up polls (which really don't mean anything until around April timeframe) Bernie has much higher favorability ratings and trustworthiness ratings. And higher ratings in regards to what candidate will look out for their interests. If not for the mainstream media trying to shut him down, we could be cake walking this, except among blacks. But even among blacks if the news they were getting was better quality then a larger percentage of them would go to Bernie.

It's not a coincidence that the younger voters overwhelmingly go for Bernie and their main source of news is not the corporate media. In fact even on my own Facebook feed, the Clinton supporters almost all primarily consume either "establishment" media or "Washington Bubble" media. Washington Bubble being people that operate inside the beltway and are bombarded with inside the beltway thinking.

[Lord MJ]

It could turn out to be the case that Trump is such a bad candidate that Hillary can win with low voter turn out. But Trumps general election strategy will be more left leaning given that the majority of America is center left.

One other thing about Bernie, is that given that his core base has access to more diverse and less corrupt media outlets, Bernie himself hasn't taken his message to those outlets that often. I think his age might explain that, someone of his age demographic would think that Cable news is the news. He recently said the way to combat corporate media is for the Democratic party to fund the equivalent of Fox. No that is a bad idea. Instead there should be an acknowledgement of the online media. An online media that actually talks about things about how money in politics is effecting the process, and the intricacies of universal heath care, and what it will take to actually do something about climate change.