The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Flagg]

Wait, Hillary is a racist fake billionaire windbag... Because golden mean? Is this 2000 all over again when dumbasses like Rage Against The Machine were like "oh dudes, Bush and Gore are totes the same, don't vote or vote Nader!" And then they had to shut the fuck up forever or choke on the bullshit they spewed rushing back into their oral cavities?

[Lagmonster]

This election is a choice between a bologna sandwich and a shit sandwich. Neither will kill you, but while bologna isn't that great, at least it's not shit.

Meanwhile, the unrepresented rest of planet earth would like to remind America that it can go fuck itself if it doesn't vote for Clinton, because we have no intention of sending important political envoys to the court of a self-serving blowhard whom many of our leaders have repeatedly referred to as a lopsided jackass in the press.

[Borgholio]

This election is a choice between a bologna sandwich and a shit sandwich. Neither will kill you, but while bologna isn't that great, at least it's not shit.

Meanwhile, the unrepresented rest of planet earth would like to remind America that it can go fuck itself if it doesn't vote for Clinton, because we have no intention of sending important political envoys to the court of a self-serving blowhard whom many of our leaders have repeatedly referred to as a lopsided jackass in the press.

You know, I seriously wonder if the rest of the world would be up to the task of giving America the isolationism that that many right-wing blowholes say they want. I mean doing the political equivalent of, "You are a complete asshole, President Trump, and we will not work with you in any way, shape, or form."

[maraxus2]

You know, I seriously wonder if the rest of the world would be up to the task of giving America the isolationism that that many right-wing blowholes say they want. I mean doing the political equivalent of, "You are a complete asshole, President Trump, and we will not work with you in any way, shape, or form."

They'd still work with him - what are you gonna do, y'know? But they'd probably be actively hostile to him and talk mad shit to the press. Just like in the good ol' Dubya days!

[Flagg]

You know, I seriously wonder if the rest of the world would be up to the task of giving America the isolationism that that many right-wing blowholes say they want. I mean doing the political equivalent of, "You are a complete asshole, President Trump, and we will not work with you in any way, shape, or form."

They'd still work with him - what are you gonna do, y'know? But they'd probably be actively hostile to him and talk mad shit to the press. Just like in the good ol' Dubya days!

Even in the W days there was a thin veneer of normalcy, even when Darth Cheney went to Auschwitcz in a green parka. That goes out the window with President "You're Fired!"

[Dalton]

COMEY: We don't recommend charges-
TRUMP: SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
COMEY: Secretary Clinton was extremely careless-
TRUMP: SYSTEM RIGGED! CROOKED HILLARY!
COMEY: Look, this is a good attack line for the general elec--
TRUMP: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOOD AT KILLING TERRORISTS

[maraxus2]

COMEY: We don't recommend charges-
TRUMP: SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
COMEY: Secretary Clinton was extremely careless-
TRUMP: SYSTEM RIGGED! CROOKED HILLARY!
COMEY: Look, this is a good attack line for the general elec--
TRUMP: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOOD AT KILLING TERRORISTS

Paul Ryan's life since endorsing Trump:

Ryan: I endorse Trump
Trump: Obama secretly supports the Orlando shooter
Ryan: I disagree with-
Trump: Our soldiers in Iraq are liars and thieves
Ryan: That's not-
Trump: A person with disabilities should only get half a vote
Ryan: I don't-
Trump: Vaccines make you Muslim
Ryan: Why-
Trump: When Starbucks misspells your name, that is legally your new name

In other news, Trump's apparently gotten back on the money-raising bandwagon. No Cash-On-Hand numbers yet, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if he used grifty direct-mail fundraising techniques. Those usually have a high burn rate, so he might not actually have much cash in the bank.

Link

Post Politics
Trump beats expectations, raises $51 million with GOP in June

By Matea Gold July 6 at 1:44 PM

Much of Donald Trump's fundraising haul in June appears to have come in the last 10 days of the month, after he began fundraising online in earnest. (David Zalubowski/AP)
This post has been updated.

Donald Trump raised more than $26 million for his campaign and another $25 million in conjunction with the Republican National Committee in June, his campaign announced Wednesday, a hefty haul that his allies hope will put to rest anxieties in the party about his fundraising prowess.

The combined $51 million falls short of the $68.5 million that presumptive Democratic contender Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party collected in June, which included $40.5 million she raised directly for her campaign. But it was the biggest monthly take by far for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, who did not begin to hold fundraising events until late May. And it suggests that Trump has the ability to quickly inject large sums of money into his campaign coffers by tapping into the fervor of his supporters.

Much of the campaign's money appears to have come in during the final 10 days of the month, when Trump’s operation began aggressively soliciting money online for the first time. The Trump campaign announced Wednesday that more than 400,000 supporters made donations in June, with more than $3 million coming in just one day. That indicates that the billionaire will be able to post far larger totals in the coming months if he continues to actively urge his backers to give.

Trump also contributed $3.8 million personally last month, bringing his total donations to $55 million, his campaign said. The Trump campaign must file a detailed report about its June fundraising and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission by July 20, which falls right in the middle of the Republican National Convention.

The campaign began its first real attempt to raise funds online in late June, after its most recent FEC filing showed it brought in just $5.4 million in May, including a $2.2 million loan from the candidate. That paltry total — and the fact that Trump began June with just $1.3 million in the bank — astonished party leaders and fundraisers. They warned that the candidate’s fundraising deficit could hurt down-ticket Republicans counting on a well-funded RNC get-out-the-vote operation.

Trump responded to the criticism by first blaming party leaders for failing to rally around his candidacy and threatening to self-fund his bid, leaving the GOP to fend for itself.

But within days, his campaign began rolling out a series of emails asking supporters for donations. And the real estate tycoon announced that he was converting $50 million worth of loans he made to his campaign into contributions, seeking to assuage fears that he would use donations to pay himself back.

The billionaire, who spent much of the GOP primary lambasting the donor class, is now also actively seeking high-dollar contributions. He held 22 fundraising events in conjunction with the RNC since late May, bringing in $25 million. Party fundraisers are finalizing a busy schedule of coming finance events for Trump, who is set to headline several events nearly every week through the end of the summer, according to a person familiar with the plans.

It remains to be seen whether the real estate tycoon can come close to matching Clinton’s fundraising totals — or whether he will need to. Trump has repeatedly scoffed at suggestions that he needs to adopt traditional political strategies, such as running costly television ads.

By the end of June, Clinton had raised about $288 million directly for her campaign and had more than $44 million in the bank. Trump brought in $89.5 million during the same period, including $50 million of his own money. His campaign did not say how much it had on hand going into July.

[momochan]

TRUMP: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOOD AT KILLING TERRORISTS

...Actually that's true. Invading Iraq, thereby removing Hussein, thereby removing any brake on groups like ISIL, is the gift that just keeps on reverberating.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I seriously wonder if the rest of the world would be up to the task of giving America the isolationism that that many right-wing blowholes say they want. I mean doing the political equivalent of, "You are a complete asshole, President Trump, and we will not work with you in any way, shape, or form."

They'd still work with him - what are you gonna do, y'know? But they'd probably be actively hostile to him and talk mad shit to the press. Just like in the good ol' Dubya days!

Even in the W days there was a thin veneer of normalcy, even when Darth Cheney went to Auschwitcz in a green parka. That goes out the window with President "You're Fired!"

If Trump is secretly a competent man pretending to be a lunatic blowhard, what he'll do is, he'll find a normal person to be his vice president, and another normal person to be his Secretary of State, and have them do all the diplomacy.

If he really is as much of a lunatic as he plays on TV, all bets are off.

[Elheru Aran]

TRUMP: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOOD AT KILLING TERRORISTS

...Actually that's true. Invading Iraq, thereby removing Hussein, thereby removing any brake on groups like ISIL, is the gift that just keeps on reverberating.

Arguable. Hussein was good at *suppressing* terroristic movements. And frankly, whether or not he was good at killing terrorists (or, more likely, people he found it convenient to label terrorists) he's not the kind of head of state that we want our leadership to emulate.

[Simon_Jester]

On a side note when I dug back through the last page or two...

Given the optics, you'd have a hard time convincing any AUSA who isn't Stannis Baratheon or Samuel Vines to take on such a high profile case with relatively minor legal stakes but so politically turbocharged.

...I am going to have happy dreams of Sam Vimes as attorney general now. Thank you.

[maraxus2]

TRUMP: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOOD AT KILLING TERRORISTS

...Actually that's true. Invading Iraq, thereby removing Hussein, thereby removing any brake on groups like ISIL, is the gift that just keeps on reverberating.

I mean, apart from all the terrorists/insurgents he created by being a repressive shitbag in the first place. Think Kurdistan would be up in arms if it weren't for the Al-Anfal campaign? Think the Ayatollahs would have consolidated power in Iran without Saddam's war?

In other news, Bernie received a cold reception from House Dems earlier today. Apparently the MoCs who lost their House Committee chairs don't buy the whole "The point of elections isn't to win" stump line.

Link

Sanders booed by House Democrats
Lawmakers press Sanders during a tense question-and-answer session on whether he would ultimately endorse Clinton and help foster party unity.
By HEATHER CAYGLE and SEUNG MIN KIM 07/06/16 10:49 AM EDT Updated 07/06/16 02:09 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sen. Bernie Sanders is still talking like a guy who's running for president. But frustrated House Democrats — who booed him at one point during a morning meeting — say it's time to stop.
With the Democratic convention just weeks away, Sanders still hasn't endorsed one-time rival Hillary Clinton and dodged questions about when he would during a tense meeting Wednesday morning with House Democrats.
Story Continued Below

Sanders also stunned some of the Democrats in attendance when he told them that winning elections wasn't the only thing they should focus on. While they wanted to hear about how to beat Donald Trump — and how Sanders might help them win the House back — he was talking about remaking the country.
"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America," Sanders said at one point, according to multiple lawmakers and aides in the room.
Some Democrats booed Sanders for that line, which plays better on the campaign trail than in front of a roomful of elected officials.
House Democrats overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary fight, so it was not surprising that Sanders got a cool reception from them.
But frustration with Sanders was also evident. Rank-and-file House Democrats want Sanders to officially drop out of the race and throw his support behind the presumptive nominee, and they can't understand why he hasn't so far.
"It was frustrating because he's squandering the movement he built with a self-obsession that was totally on display," said a senior Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
After delivering his opening remarks — which touched on Sanders’ favorite issues including campaign finance, Wall Street reform and trade — lawmakers inside the meeting pressed Sanders during a tense question-and-answer session on whether he would ultimately endorse Clinton and help foster party unity.

Sanders complained about the "super delegate" process used during the primaries. "One person is starting with 900 delegates before anyone even votes," Sanders said. The Vermont socialist and his supporters have been upset about the issue for months.

But House Democrats didn't seem very impressed with the unapologetic Sanders, who didn't yield an inch despite the rough handling he received.
For his part, Sanders told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "we look at the world a little bit differently," when asked about the booing later on Wednesday.
"What I'm trying to do and the reason I ran for president is to help transform this country. To deal with income and wealth, inequality a declining middle class, the fact that so many of the young people leaving school deeply in debt," Sanders added, though he remained noncommittal about endorsing Clinton. said, before expressing approval of Clinton's policy announcement Wednesday combining his higher-education proposals with hers.
But during their earlier meeting, House Democrats including John Garamendi of California and Joyce Beatty of Ohio asked Sanders for specifics on when he would get behind Clinton — questions that were accompanied by some cheers and clapping from other House Democrats, sources inside the room said.

"When are you going to run as a Democrat? This is the Democratic Caucus," Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said to applause.
Sanders didn’t give them a clear answer, according to attendees. Instead, Sanders declared that elections are not necessarily about winning, but about transformations.

The senator also talked about his outstanding issues with the party's platform, particularly when it comes to trade.
"To say, as he did, that the goal is not to win elections but for people to embrace his ideas is disconnected from what we are trying to do here. He had a chance to talk about getting things done and instead talked about prolonging his process," the Democratic source added.
Sanders did have some support among House Democrats.

“A lot of members are anxious about when is he going to explicitly support Hillary," said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). "And what he’s saying is that’s an ongoing process. But if we want to win, we’ve got to take the long-view that we need a platform that is going to genuinely create excitement for our nominee.”

Welch added: “What he said very clearly is we’ve got to beat Trump and the way he believes we’re going to do it is by having a commitment to an agenda that excites people, including the younger people. And he’s working on that."

For his part, Sanders said he had a basic message for House Democrats.
“My message was a simple message: We have got to fight for the needs of the middle class and working families of this country,” Sanders said as he left the caucus meeting. “We got to get people involved in the political process, we got to get a large voter turnout, and if we have a larger voter turnout, Democrats will regain control of the Senate and I believe they’re gonna take the House back.”

Sanders also weighed in at a press conference on the FBI's decision not to recommend charges against Clinton for sending classified information over her private servers as secretary of State.

"I think you’ve heard me say from day one that there is a process in terms of the investigation regarding Secretary Clinton and the emails," Sanders said. "Yesterday was an important part of that process. Now we wait to hear from the Justice Department."
John Bresnahan and Gabriel Debenedetti contributed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Clinton is a known quality, yes. And thus predictable. We know that she won't do anything too crazy, extremist, or destructive to the basic functioning of society. We cannot claim the same for Trump. But we can say he's an unapologetically bigoted, abusive, arrogant, and dishonest man.

Yes, we know Clinton. We know she voted for the Patriot Act. We know she voted for the Iraq War, and against the mitigating amendments that would have protected against the bullshit lies used to justify it. We know she wants to deny you your constitutional rights without due process. We know she's arrogant enough to ignore the experts to do an end-run around the FOIA and put top secret information on her own private server, and then lie about doing so.

"...But Trump!" is not an excuse. Clinton is plainly unfit to be President. That Trump is also plainly unfit to be President does not make Clinton any less shit, it means that you need to find one of the other 149,999,998 eligible candidates who is actually deserving of our trust.

Yes, I'm sure Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or some other third party nobody will ride in and save the day... just as soon as pigs fly over a frozen Hell.

[Joun_Lord]

How is Trump a RINO?

Because until Trump started getting ready for running for President he was a Democrat in every way shape and form. He donated to Democrats including his pal Hillary Clinton plus people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He supported generally Democratic positions including abortions, assault weapon bans, and drug legalization.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/ ... -democrat/
http://www.newsweek.com/brief-history-d ... hts-461705
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/donal ... ion-on-gun

Trump has actually switched parties multiple times so probably the most accurate term is atleast according to wikipedia, a "populist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr ... filiations

"Both sides are the same" was always the vapid and dishonest cry of fringe extremists and those just trying to sound cynical and edgy, but its particularly false in this case.

Or its the cry of people who do a bit of research and don't take whatever piles of shit drip out of the faces of the candidates at face value. The cries of Obama and Romney were valid considering they had almost identical positions until Romney tried running for President as a Republican, Obama even cribbed Romney's health care system. The cries of Hillary and Trump being the same are just a valid now considering the fact they held nearly identical positions until........Trump tried running for President as a Republican.

Though I won't dispute you on the cynical part.

Both are corrupt and dishonest, yes, but only one has actual governing experience and has actual held political office. And only one is campaigning on blatant bigotry, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and inciting violence.

Because only one is campaigning to a party that eats up that disgusting shit. And the one who had held public office has shown she was only too willing to break laws and use her position improperly.

And while Trump has never had a chance to show us how bad he would be in government, I'd rather take him at his word that he'd be a borderline despot than gamble that he won't be. Besides, he has shown his true narcissistic, dishonest, racist, misogynist character in plenty of other circumstances.

Why take him at his word when he word changes like he color of the leaves? Why take him at his word that he is pro racism, misogyny, and abortion when until fairly recently he was anti all that crap. The only thing he was remained consistent on is his narcissism and his dishonesty, traits shared by his supposed opponent.

Clinton is a known quality, yes. And thus predictable. We know that she won't do anything too crazy, extremist, or destructive to the basic functioning of society. We cannot claim the same for Trump. But we can say he's an unapologetically bigoted, abusive, arrogant, and dishonest man.

How do we know that Clinton won't do something crazy and Trump will? Because Clinton says she won't and Trump says he will? News flash, they lie. We know from experience Clinton will do whatever she feels like regardless of the law as long as it benefits her. We know Trump will flip flop to dick ride whatever popular position like the galaxy's ugliest lap dancer. We know Clinton says shit liberals want to hear but acts more like neoconservative and is willing to shit all over her supporters and has a history of throwing the LBGT community under the bus (something personally I could never forgive her for even ignoring all the other shady shit she's done).

http://www.menstrait.com/article/as-a-g ... y-clinton/
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278350/ ... iage-2002/

Finally, even if Trump does nothing horrible when in office, the mere fact of his election would globally disgrace the United States, destabilize the global economy, provide a recruitment aid for terrorists, and potentially establish his brand of violent, bigoted, xenophobic pseudo-fascism as part of the mainstream. In other words, he can do literally nothing as President and still be a disaster just by being elected.

He would be worse for our image then Bush, the guy who leveled two countries and then leveled the world economy? The guy who opened torture centers world wide, the guy completely destroyed civil rights, the guy who was the laughing stock of the world?

Trump would disgrace the US worse the Obama who got a nobel prize for not being Bush and then proceeded to be a slightly more gay friendly version of Bush? The guy who gave away piles of weapons to Mexican drug cartels? The dude who broke campaign promise after campaign promise including still having Gitmo open? They guy who expanded the drone program and killed who fuck knows how many innocent people? The guy who made Hillary fucking Clinton Secretary of State?

And yet, they are so very, very different.

Well sure, one has a penis and the other has a vagina, I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

A couple common traits (corruption and dishonesty), to differing degrees and in different ways, do not make two people equivalent.

No the fact they have nearly identical positions makes them equivalent.

Yeah, I'll admit I'm not happy about that history, though I'm not sure they'd count as friends any more.

Why? Because they say they aren't friends? Such a long term friendship with the reams of benefits the connects it brings brings isn't going to disappear suddenly. Most likely the back and forth between the two is just the crap people want to hear.

But I don't think Trump has any real cause or allegiance except himself.

The same could be said of Clinton.

Trump may not be a sincere conservative, but his rhetoric, and the people its attracted and "inspired" (for lack of a better word) is simply the true face of the Republican Party revealed at last- a festering pit of violence, selfishness, bigotry, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and stupidity.

I don't disagree with that assessment. The Republican party had some good years but is now the party of hate. Mind you I don't think the Dems are much better though, they are bastards too.

You come so close to the truth, at times, and yet are almost categorically wrong in your conclusion.

Well I've been known to miss the mark a time or two. Last time I went shooting I probably should have wore my stormtrooper armor considering how bad I was. But in this case I think I'm right on the money.

[maraxus2]

Or its the cry of people who do a bit of research and don't take whatever piles of shit drip out of the faces of the candidates at face value. The cries of Obama and Romney were valid considering they had almost identical positions until Romney tried running for President as a Republican, Obama even cribbed Romney's health care system. The cries of Hillary and Trump being the same are just a valid now considering the fact they held nearly identical positions until........Trump tried running for President as a Republican.

You mean like Trump's notably mainstream position on Obama's birth certificate? This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[Joun_Lord]

You mean like Trump's notably mainstream position on Obama's birth certificate? This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Quote me where I ever said said Trump held mainstream positions even before going full conservatard. Go ahead do it, JUST DO IT!! !! !!

Furthermore even if I had said the views Trump held in the past were mainstream, which I didn't, I did say he publically changed those views when he started running for President. And guess what, the first time Trump had a birther movement was when he first said he was seriously running for President.

[Simon_Jester]

"Both sides are the same" was always the vapid and dishonest cry of fringe extremists and those just trying to sound cynical and edgy, but its particularly false in this case.

Or its the cry of people who do a bit of research and don't take whatever piles of shit drip out of the faces of the candidates at face value. The cries of Obama and Romney were valid considering they had almost identical positions until Romney tried running for President as a Republican, Obama even cribbed Romney's health care system. The cries of Hillary and Trump being the same are just a valid now considering the fact they held nearly identical positions until........Trump tried running for President as a Republican.

We have seen evidence that people will suddenly start promoting right-wing ideas in order to secure the Republican presidential nomination, and in order to campaign as a Republican.

What we have not seen is any assurance that those people will suddenly stop, reverse course, and pivot back towards the center after winning the White House.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has a voting record. She has years in public policy. She has a reputation, and it is a reputation more or less in line with the person she represents herself to be today. Specifically, it is a reputation as a watered-down, center-left, establishment toady of a Democrat. And that is pretty much the person she's marketed herself as on the campaign trail!

There is no need to worry about her reversing course or not reversing course, she's going in more or less the same direction she has been since the '90s! I may not be fully happy with that direction, but I don't have to do mental gymnastics about how the direction she'll go in the White House isn't the same as the direction she says she'll go six months before the election.

I don't need to tell myself "oh, she's been voting [more or less acceptable] all her life, she just turned unacceptable to win the presidential election, she's secretly a centrist!" By American standards she was always a centrist candidate. She's a centrist who decided to play a centrist on TV in order to win a presidential election. Fair enough.

Whereas by your argument, Trump is a centrist who decided to play a fascist misogynist bullying creep on TV to win a presidential election.

Okay fine... but either he really is like that, or he isn't. If he is, then he shouldn't be elected because we don't need a fascist misogynist bullying creep. If he isn't really like that... then he's a person who thought that was an acceptable mask to wear, who doesn't have a problem becoming president with people expecting that of him. Which still puts him out of the running in my book, and makes him massively, massively fraudulent as a candidate.

Because only one is campaigning to a party that eats up that disgusting shit. And the one who had held public office has shown she was only too willing to break laws and use her position improperly.

No one stopped Trump from running as a Democrat, if he felt the Democratic Party was in line with his real political beliefs.

Moreover, while Trump has no history of breaking laws for personal benefit in public office, he has been the target of countless suits and accusations for fraud and other abuses of the law for benefit during his decades as a person with considerable private power. If we're going to start throwing accusations of abuse of power, that should be in play.

Trump, who is running in large part on his own long reputation as a businessman, cannot suddenly disown this reputation and become a "blank slate" candidate as soon as that reputation becomes inconvenient. He cannot pretend he's spent the past fifty years of his life doing nothing.

Nor can we somehow penalize Clinton for every bad thing she's ever been accused of, while pretending Trump is innocent and nothing he's ever been accused of counts because he wasn't a public official while doing it. The likelihood that he will act as a public servant the way he acted when he served only himself is very much at issue here, because he himself is running on his experience as a man who served only himself. If his actions during that time give rise to questions about his character, those questions must be asked.

I mean hell, Charles Manson never did anything wrong while holding public office either. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him for dogcatcher, let alone president.

Why take him at his word when he word changes like he color of the leaves? Why take him at his word that he is pro racism, misogyny, and abortion when until fairly recently he was anti all that crap. The only thing he was remained consistent on is his narcissism and his dishonesty, traits shared by his supposed opponent.

Clinton hasn't pulled a 180 on her entire policy platform. She's a mealy-mouthed establishment toady, but the things she actually does bear at least a reasonable correlation to the polices she claims to believe in.

You can't use Trump's inconsistency as evidence that he's better than a candidate who consistently backs a sane-ish position.

How do we know that Clinton won't do something crazy and Trump will? Because Clinton says she won't and Trump says he will? News flash, they lie. We know from experience Clinton will do whatever she feels like regardless of the law as long as it benefits her. We know Trump will flip flop to dick ride whatever popular position like the galaxy's ugliest lap dancer. We know Clinton says shit liberals want to hear but acts more like neoconservative and is willing to shit all over her supporters and has a history of throwing the LBGT community under the bus (something personally I could never forgive her for even ignoring all the other shady shit she's done).

Trump is riding towards the election on the backs of people who would literally, not figuratively, throw the LBGT community under buses or any other crushing instrument of their choosing, while Clinton asks like a Bush-era neocon only without the tax cut advocacy.

Well frankly, I'd take "Like W, only without the tax cuts" over "President Trump" if I had to.

You cannot make this race about Clinton's lack of character, without also acknowledging Trump's lack of character. Either reputation counts, or it doesn't.

He would be worse for our image then Bush, the guy who leveled two countries and then leveled the world economy? The guy who opened torture centers world wide, the guy completely destroyed civil rights, the guy who was the laughing stock of the world?

Trump would disgrace the US worse the Obama who got a nobel prize for not being Bush and then proceeded to be a slightly more gay friendly version of Bush? The guy who gave away piles of weapons to Mexican drug cartels? The dude who broke campaign promise after campaign promise including still having Gitmo open? They guy who expanded the drone program and killed who fuck knows how many innocent people? The guy who made Hillary fucking Clinton Secretary of State?

Honestly, yes to both, and numerous world leaders have already said so, so it's stupid to question this point. Lots of people already holding prominent office in foreign country have mocked Trump as a ridiculous posturing buffoon, have said things about him that they seldom or never said about Bush and certainly never said about Obama.

A couple common traits (corruption and dishonesty), to differing degrees and in different ways, do not make two people equivalent.

No the fact they have nearly identical positions makes them equivalent.

Except that if you believe what they say, they don't, and if you judge them by what they actually did in past life compared to their current stated positions, then Clinton is being a hell of a lot more honest about her political views than Trump.

Trump may not be a sincere conservative, but his rhetoric, and the people its attracted and "inspired" (for lack of a better word) is simply the true face of the Republican Party revealed at last- a festering pit of violence, selfishness, bigotry, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and stupidity.

I don't disagree with that assessment. The Republican party had some good years but is now the party of hate. Mind you I don't think the Dems are much better though, they are bastards too.

The Democrats, say what you will about them, are not a party that requires the average American and the weak Americans to be thrown under the steamroller in order for the party to be successful.

The Republicans cannot achieve their stated aims without minorities suffering, without women suffering, without the economy getting steadily more and more stacked in favor of a powerful elite, without the country sliding further and further into a state of violently unstable political unrest. It is not possible. The America the Republican Party platform is pushing us toward simply does not and cannot have a good place in it for anyone who isn't either rich, or white and content to be poor.

The Democrats... they can win without bad things happening to normal Americans. It's not a certainty. Many establishment Democrats continue to tolerate bad things happening to normal Americans, and even cheer some of the bad things on. But the party as a whole has, at least, not declared war on normal Americans. If the Democratic Party won and kept winning forever, it would at least be possible for the majority of Americans who are NOT the fortunate power elite to have a fighting chance of a decent life.

Insofar as the Democrats fall short of that goal of a good life for normal people, it is in large part because they started doing things the Republicans wanted to do first, and still want to do harder.

Until that changes, my party affiliation is pretty firmly fixed.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bern and Clinton have apparently reached a major compromise on higher education policy:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... education/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders today welcomed a proposal by Secretary Hillary Clinton which combines the best features of plans that she and Sanders brought forth during the campaign to make higher education affordable for all and substantially reduces student debt.

“As I’ve traveled throughout the country during this campaign, I have heard over and over again from young people and their parents what the high cost of college and student debt is doing to their lives. For some, it means not being able to go to college at all, and that’s the case for hundreds of thousands of high school graduates.

“These are young people who will find it harder to make it into the middle class and fulfill their dreams. For others, it means graduating school deeply in debt, and being forced to pay off that debt year after year after year. And that may mean not being able to buy a home, get married or have kids.

“I want to take this opportunity to applaud Secretary Clinton for the very bold initiative she has just brought forth today for the financing of higher education. This proposal combines some of the strongest ideas she fought for during the campaign with some of the principles that I fought for. The final product is a result of the work of both campaigns.

“Let me be very clear. This proposal, when implemented, will revolutionize the funding of higher education in America, improve the economic future of our country and make life immediately better for tens of millions of people stuck with high levels of student debt.

“This proposed legislation will provide free tuition at public colleges and universities for all families in America earning $125,000 a year or less – 83 percent of our families.

“In other words, the dream of higher education in America will become a reality for all, regardless of the income of one’s family. This proposal will also provide very substantial relief for students and families carrying student debt.

“In the year 2016, we should be encouraging our people to get the best education they can, not punishing them.

“Our goal should be to have the best educated country in the world. In a highly-competitive global economy, it is insane that hundreds of thousands of bright young people are unable to afford the high cost of college and millions more leave school deeply in debt.

“I thank Secretary Clinton for introducing this proposal which, in my view, will have a profound impact on the future of our country.”

And for a change, the Left's favourite angry old man appears to be in a good mood.

Woohoo! There's that party unity we've been wanting!

[maraxus2]

You mean like Trump's notably mainstream position on Obama's birth certificate? This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Quote me where I ever said said Trump held mainstream positions even before going full conservatard. Go ahead do it, JUST DO IT!! !! !!

You didn't say that he held mainstream positions prior to 2015. You did, however, say:

The cries of Hillary and Trump being the same are just a valid now considering the fact they held nearly identical positions until........Trump tried running for President as a Republican.

I'm pointing out that there was a very big, and very obvious, difference of opinion on whether President Obama was born in Kenya. This seems important since you said that Hillary and Trump held nearly identical positions until Trump started running for President as a Republican.

Furthermore even if I had said the views Trump held in the past were mainstream, which I didn't, I did say he publically changed those views when he started running for President. And guess what, the first time Trump had a birther movement was when he first said he was seriously running for President.

That's literally not true. Like, even a little bit. Trump might have said that he was "seriously running for President," but Trump has "seriously" run for president before. His attention-craving moves in 2011 were taken even less seriously than when he *actually* tried running for the Reform nomination in 2000.

Everything you said in this post was either mendacious or outright false. Delete your account.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12073168/b ... ry-clinton

Weeks after voting in the primaries ended, Bernie Sanders hasn’t conceded defeat and hasn’t officially endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton (though he has said he’ll vote for her against Donald Trump).

But according to Vice President Joe Biden, Sanders isn’t going to keep holding out. Biden told NPR’s Rachel Martin in an interview Thursday that he’s "talked to" Sanders and "Bernie is going to endorse her":


Now, we’ll have to wait for NPR to release more context to get a better idea of what, exactly, the vice president meant. Did Sanders outright tell Biden that he’s going to endorse Clinton, or is that simply Biden’s impression based on their conversation?

The timing also isn’t clear — Democrats have hoped Sanders would endorse Clinton before the convention to unify the party, and it’s not clear at this point whether he intends to do so.

Regardless, it’s clear that Biden’s takeaway was that Sanders isn’t going to withhold his endorsement out of bitterness, as some have suspected he would.

And this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Sanders has long been pretty clear that he will back Clinton in the end, and reiterated in a recent TV interview that "I'm gonna do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump." But, he continued, for the time being he views his "job" as fighting "for the strongest possible platform in the Democratic convention."

There is also talk that the campaigns are discussing an endorsement by Sanders next week, though I'm having trouble finding a good source.

[Gandalf]

How is Trump a RINO?

Because until Trump started getting ready for running for President he was a Democrat in every way shape and form. He donated to Democrats including his pal Hillary Clinton plus people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He supported generally Democratic positions including abortions, assault weapon bans, and drug legalization.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/ ... -democrat/
http://www.newsweek.com/brief-history-d ... hts-461705
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/18/donal ... ion-on-gun

Trump has actually switched parties multiple times so probably the most accurate term is atleast according to wikipedia, a "populist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr ... filiations

This is one thing that puzzles me about the label RINO and when it's applied to people. Trump has a wide base of support, and used it to win the primary. Doesn't this make him a proper Republican?

[Simon_Jester]

It's typically applied by people on the far wings of a party who see centrist candidates affiliated with their party as unprincipled opportunists. It takes a rather odd mindset to use it as a label for a member of a party one isn't a member of, in my opinion.

[Gandalf]

That was my thinking. Trump signed up to be a Republican, ran a primary campaign as he was supposed to do, and won enough to be the nominee.

To my knowledge there is no ideological tests that need to be passed to run, just appeal to the voters.

[Joun_Lord]

We have seen evidence that people will suddenly start promoting right-wing ideas in order to secure the Republican presidential nomination, and in order to campaign as a Republican.

What we have not seen is any assurance that those people will suddenly stop, reverse course, and pivot back towards the center after winning the White House.

Mostly because thank fuck none of them have won. But we should judge people by their actions not by what they say. We knew from Romney's actions he was for government run health care, for an assault weapons ban and so on because he had done them despite him saying how Obomneycare was the devil and how he had always been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. We know Trump has donated to Democratic causes.

The problem is Trump is all talk, well not really a problem considering everyone but the most deluded motherfucker knows his actions would be bad.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has a voting record. She has years in public policy. She has a reputation, and it is a reputation more or less in line with the person she represents herself to be today. Specifically, it is a reputation as a watered-down, center-left, establishment toady of a Democrat. And that is pretty much the person she's marketed herself as on the campaign trail!

There is no need to worry about her reversing course or not reversing course, she's going in more or less the same direction she has been since the '90s! I may not be fully happy with that direction, but I don't have to do mental gymnastics about how the direction she'll go in the White House isn't the same as the direction she says she'll go six months before the election.

I don't need to tell myself "oh, she's been voting [more or less acceptable] all her life, she just turned unacceptable to win the presidential election, she's secretly a centrist!" By American standards she was always a centrist candidate. She's a centrist who decided to play a centrist on TV in order to win a presidential election. Fair enough.

But Clinton had been willing to do say shit and do other shit, she had been willing to throw her supporters under the bus. When she wins its probably going to be a continuation of the Obama/Bush Presidencies. Not world ending like Republicans think a Hillary Presidency will be or Democrats think a Trump Presidency will be but certainly alot of broken promises and probably more then a few broken laws.

Whereas by your argument, Trump is a centrist who decided to play a fascist misogynist bullying creep on TV to win a presidential election.

Okay fine... but either he really is like that, or he isn't. If he is, then he shouldn't be elected because we don't need a fascist misogynist bullying creep. If he isn't really like that... then he's a person who thought that was an acceptable mask to wear, who doesn't have a problem becoming president with people expecting that of him. Which still puts him out of the running in my book, and makes him massively, massively fraudulent as a candidate.

Whether or not he is really a wannabe fascist (that term really has lost all meaning) he still shouldn't be elected period. He's a piece of shit that shouldn't even be trusted to run a McDonalds. But my point has been the same is true of Hillary. She hasn't had to whore as much to pander to her base but she is just a fraudulent and should be just as unacceptable as a candidate.

No one stopped Trump from running as a Democrat, if he felt the Democratic Party was in line with his real political beliefs.

Moreover, while Trump has no history of breaking laws for personal benefit in public office, he has been the target of countless suits and accusations for fraud and other abuses of the law for benefit during his decades as a person with considerable private power. If we're going to start throwing accusations of abuse of power, that should be in play.

Trump, who is running in large part on his own long reputation as a businessman, cannot suddenly disown this reputation and become a "blank slate" candidate as soon as that reputation becomes inconvenient. He cannot pretend he's spent the past fifty years of his life doing nothing.

Nor can we somehow penalize Clinton for every bad thing she's ever been accused of, while pretending Trump is innocent and nothing he's ever been accused of counts because he wasn't a public official while doing it. The likelihood that he will act as a public servant the way he acted when he served only himself is very much at issue here, because he himself is running on his experience as a man who served only himself. If his actions during that time give rise to questions about his character, those questions must be asked.

I mean hell, Charles Manson never did anything wrong while holding public office either. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him for dogcatcher, let alone president.

I'm not even sure why he didn't run as a Dem. I'm sure conspiracy theorists would say its to create a boogeyman scary enough to win Clinton the White House but I'm not so far gone as to see a conspiracy in everything. Your name is Romulan Republic. Your initials are RR. Arrr Arrr. I'm onto you you secret pirate, you shall not plunder my gold!!!

Most likely he didn't run because he wouldn't have support compared to the party insider and long time heir apparent for the Democrat party like Clinton whereas it was anyones game for the Republicans.

And I ain't saying Trump ain't a criminal, ain't corrupt. But Trumps many crimes were semi-shady and blatantly illegal shite done as a businessman whereas Clinton has committed crimes while holding office. There is a different level of public trust there. Again that isn't defending Trump, something I'd prefer never to have to do unless Rosie O'Donnel is involved, but that certainly doesn't excuse Clinton. Both are corrupt but Clinton has shown a willingness to be corrupt while holding office.

Clinton hasn't pulled a 180 on her entire policy platform. She's a mealy-mouthed establishment toady, but the things she actually does bear at least a reasonable correlation to the polices she claims to believe in.

You can't use Trump's inconsistency as evidence that he's better than a candidate who consistently backs a sane-ish position.

She hasn't pulled a 180 or 360 (my god Last Action Hero was an awesome movie) or whatever but she has went back on her word, has lied under oath, has been willing to fuck over people if it benefits her. She has pulled a 180 when it came ot gay rights, completely changing her position to better reflect the thankfully new normal of equal rights for the LGBT community (and goddamn it feels good to say that).

I ain't arguing Trump is a better candidate, fuck no, no, no god no, fuck that in the urethra with some rusty barb wire, my argument is they are both equally terrible.

Trump is riding towards the election on the backs of people who would literally, not figuratively, throw the LBGT community under buses or any other crushing instrument of their choosing, while Clinton asks like a Bush-era neocon only without the tax cut advocacy.

Well frankly, I'd take "Like W, only without the tax cuts" over "President Trump" if I had to.

Even if Clinton's supporters wouldn't throw gay people under the bus I think Clinton probably literally would and certainly figuratively if it would benefit her. Thats not to say Trump wouldn't do the same, I'm fairly certain he would, but you can't act like Clinton is better then him when she has shown just as much of a willingness to fuck of the far too fucked over and not in the fun bedroom kind of way LGBT people.

You cannot make this race about Clinton's lack of character, without also acknowledging Trump's lack of character. Either reputation counts, or it doesn't.

My point has been that both their lack of characters and terribad reputations should count. My point, just the tip of it, was you can't just automatically say Clinton is the better candidate when she is demonstratively just as terrible as Trump. They are both terrible people that should be banned from even looking in the general direction of the White House because they are so fracking fucking terrible.

Honestly, yes to both, and numerous world leaders have already said so, so it's stupid to question this point. Lots of people already holding prominent office in foreign country have mocked Trump as a ridiculous posturing buffoon, have said things about him that they seldom or never said about Bush and certainly never said about Obama.

Well that seems like double dumbass on them for thinking some jackass who fights with fat blowhards and fires celebs on tv in between saying some of the dumbest most retarded conspiracy theories and some of the most racist bullshit seen on tv since someone shoved a camera in front of Cliven Bundy is worse then a mass murdering war criminal and a slightly less mass murdery spineless jackass. Trump is a terrible person but I can't see how him saying so fucking retarded shit about Mexican Great Walls of China and banning all the Muslims is worse then the people who armed the cartels to make the Mexican Great Wall seem like not completely terrible idea to some people and slaughtered scores of Muslims.

Except that if you believe what they say, they don't, and if you judge them by what they actually did in past life compared to their current stated positions, then Clinton is being a hell of a lot more honest about her political views than Trump.

I don't believe what they say and the only reason why Clinton seems more honest is the fact she is pandering to a base more in line with her own supposed beliefs whereas Trump is not.

The Democrats, say what you will about them, are not a party that requires the average American and the weak Americans to be thrown under the steamroller in order for the party to be successful.

The Republicans cannot achieve their stated aims without minorities suffering, without women suffering, without the economy getting steadily more and more stacked in favor of a powerful elite, without the country sliding further and further into a state of violently unstable political unrest. It is not possible. The America the Republican Party platform is pushing us toward simply does not and cannot have a good place in it for anyone who isn't either rich, or white and content to be poor.

The Democrats... they can win without bad things happening to normal Americans. It's not a certainty. Many establishment Democrats continue to tolerate bad things happening to normal Americans, and even cheer some of the bad things on. But the party as a whole has, at least, not declared war on normal Americans. If the Democratic Party won and kept winning forever, it would at least be possible for the majority of Americans who are NOT the fortunate power elite to have a fighting chance of a decent life.

Insofar as the Democrats fall short of that goal of a good life for normal people, it is in large part because they started doing things the Republicans wanted to do first, and still want to do harder.

Until that changes, my party affiliation is pretty firmly fixed.

All that is true for the current-ish time for the most part. There is a reason why I'm a registered Democrat. I agree with the Republicans on a few things but not enough to make all the racist, sexist, xenophobic, and anti-poor policies they cream all over to seem palatable.

But the Democrats are willing to throw people under the steamroller, are willing to enact policies that hurt the poor and benefit the rich, are willing to declare war on normal Americans when those Americans are their voters. Not all the party is like that, some even do some good shit. My own Senator (he's mine, all mine, I voted for him therefore I own him, thats how these things work I'm sure) isn't too bad even if I don't completely agree with him on firearms. The Democratic Party has hope, the Republican Party completely lacks that.

But I do not count Clinton as part of any hope. She is far too right wing for that. She is far too much like a neocon. She is far too willing to throw morals to the wayside.

Trump is no better, possibly worse, but certainly she is no paragon of virtue, shirley it is obvious that she is no model Democrat, it doesn't take a genius (after all I noticed it) to see she is a terrible person and terrible politician.

I'll admit though I'm a bit biased being a Bernie Sanders supporter very surprisingly. But objectively Clinton is bad news.

I'm pointing out that there was a very big, and very obvious, difference of opinion on whether President Obama was born in Kenya. This seems important since you said that Hillary and Trump held nearly identical positions until Trump started running for President as a Republican.

And again, because apparently you can't read worth shit because you are fucking empty headed moron who is the result of your mother sleeping with her brother and probably the family dog, he only started on the birther shit when he started on his Presidential bid. The birther movement didn't even exist until around 2008 and Trump didn't start into it until around 2011.

That's literally not true. Like, even a little bit. Trump might have said that he was "seriously running for President," but Trump has "seriously" run for president before. His attention-craving moves in 2011 were taken even less seriously than when he *actually* tried running for the Reform nomination in 2000.

Everything you said in this post was either mendacious or outright false. Delete your account.

And his previous Presidential run has what exactly to do with what I said? And those links dispute my argument how exactly? Says he is still a birther, thats surprising to exactly nobody.

Hows aboot I delete my account around the same time you get even a modicum of reading comprehension. So never then.

[FireNexus]

The Bern and Clinton have apparently reached a major compromise on higher education policy:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... education/

Not thrilled about this because I believe "free higher education for all without a massive overhaul of K-12 funding focused on those in minority districts" is inherently unhelpful to the people who need it most and ultimately unintentionally racist.

But it's a proposal that can't pass at this point, and the original Hillary plan of free Community College with needs based assistance for public universities will be seen as a good compromise. And I firmly believe that is the policy that is ultimately best for the people most in need of a leg up until we get the legislative power to really go after K-12.