The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Flagg]

I'll add another reason as well:

This election has shown, if it wasn't clear before, that the Republican Party has become a threat to the survival of American democracy. It is a vile, corrupt organization which no longer functions in an effective or ethical manner.

Wait did the GOP email servers also get hacked and emails released showing implying (*wink* *wink* *nudge* nudge*) that the party foot soldiers and insiders conspired to rig the primary against The Donald's rivals to ensure that the God Emperor get the Republican nomination as well?!?

Holy shit when did this happen

Yeah, intraparty shenanigans are right up there with lying the country into a war and dereliction of disaster management so severe a 3rd grader playing Sim City could have done a better job de-Atlantasing New Orleans.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Crown, you will cease trolling immediately.

Maraxus, stop feeding the troll.

[Flagg]

Edited per mod action.

[Crown]

Crown, you will cease trolling immediately.

Maraxus, stop feeding the troll.

I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely baffled as how someone could write that the rank outsider clinching his party's nomination the reaction of which has led an almost un-ending rank and file of the big donors, established politicians and party elders all lining up to denounce their own fucking nominee could be construed as evidence that the "Party has become a threat to the survival of American democracy. It is a vile, corrupt organization which no longer functions in an effective or ethical manner."

It's mind boggling to me that someone could actually type that when on the other side of the coin the chair of the party who was supposed to remain neutral had to "take one for the team" when her clear bias was exposed. Lets not even get into the issue of how much money the DNC was laundering to Hillary (but not Bernie, strange huh?).

I'll concede I was typing with mirth, but I would like an answer from that person as how he squares those things in his mind.

[Terralthra]

It is five days after the DNC concluded with her nomination, and only ten days after you breathlessly thought she had lost the election due to the exact same short-term nowcast. Slow your roll, human.

First, I never presumed to predict with certainty the results of the election.

Second, whatever concerns I had were sure as fuck based on more than one poll.

Third, I'm hardly declaring victory over this news. I'm simply saying that it is a very positive development, which it is.

You are simply taking the opportunity to throw tired insults at me without cause.

The 538 nowcast is looking real sunny for Clinton:


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ecast/#now

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ecast/#now

538 is now giving Trump a 54.5% chance of winning the election in its projections.

I truly hope I'm wrong, and I know its far too early to say for certain, but I have a sinking feeling that Clinton just lost the country to a Nazi Russia puppet for the sake of giving Debbie Wasserman Schultz a pat on the back.

Now, I didn't insult you, I simply said slow your roll. Take a deep breath. The election is 3+ months away.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely baffled as how someone could write that the rank outsider clinching his party's nomination the reaction of which has led an almost un-ending rank and file of the big donors, established politicians and party elders all lining up to denounce their own fucking nominee could be construed as evidence that the "Party has become a threat to the survival of American democracy. It is a vile, corrupt organization which no longer functions in an effective or ethical manner."

A) Their policies are unethical as fuck, and the party machine has been courting the white nationalist vote since Nixon administration. Formless is correct about this, they have been sliding farther and farther down that track for decades.

B) The Tea Party has effectively taken over the party, and it is largely composed of white nationalists and other retrograde motherfuckers

C) The GOP reached an inflection point this year--they have been headed for its precipice for a while, but they seem to have reached it this year. Irrespective of denouncements from the much weakened (in terms of political capital) establishment, they are being steered by an authoritarian white nationalist, on a platform largely crafted by Ted Cruz.

Let that sink in for a moment.

It's mind boggling to me that someone could actually type that when on the other side of the coin the chair of the party who was supposed to remain neutral had to "take one for the team" when her clear bias was exposed. Lets not even get into the issue of how much money the DNC was laundering to Hillary (but not Bernie, strange huh?).

It was not money laundering, it is perfectly legal. It was a joint fundraising venture between the DNC, the State Parties, and the Clinton Campaign. The other candidates were invited to participate similarly, and did not do so. It does not approach election rigging as you attest.

That, and he out-raised her anyway. So it does not particularly matter.

[Crown]

I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely baffled as how someone could write that the rank outsider clinching his party's nomination the reaction of which has led an almost un-ending rank and file of the big donors, established politicians and party elders all lining up to denounce their own fucking nominee could be construed as evidence that the "Party has become a threat to the survival of American democracy. It is a vile, corrupt organization which no longer functions in an effective or ethical manner."

A) Their policies are unethical as fuck, and the party machine has been courting the white nationalist vote since Nixon administration. Formless is correct about this, they have been sliding farther and farther down that track for decades.

B) The Tea Party has effectively taken over the party, and it is largely composed of white nationalists and other retrograde motherfuckers

C) The GOP reached an inflection point this year--they have been headed for its precipice for a while, but they seem to have reached it this year. Irrespective of denouncements from the much weakened (in terms of political capital) establishment, they are being steered by an authoritarian white nationalist, on a platform largely crafted by Ted Cruz.

Let that sink in for a moment.

A) I wasn't disagreeing with TRR's Hitler hyperbole (as over the top as that is), so what point is this addressing?

B) The tea party candidate lost the nomination, and repetitious argument

C) Is a shallow assessment

They are being steered by a non-establishment demagogue. The Democratic party nearly had their own version clinch the nomination against 'The Inevitable'. There is something beyond racism at play here (on the Republican side). The electorate is rebelling against the political establishment across the board. The fact that Trump got their nomination isn't a mark of how corrupt the GOP is, but more a mark of how that party is not representing their own electorate.

It's mind boggling to me that someone could actually type that when on the other side of the coin the chair of the party who was supposed to remain neutral had to "take one for the team" when her clear bias was exposed. Lets not even get into the issue of how much money the DNC was laundering to Hillary (but not Bernie, strange huh?).

It was not money laundering, it is perfectly legal. It was a joint fundraising venture between the DNC, the State Parties, and the Clinton Campaign. The other candidates were invited to participate similarly, and did not do so. It does not approach election rigging as you attest.

Bernie was asked to participate and he declined? Could you provide a source.

That, and he out-raised her anyway. So it does not particularly matter.

That does not make it ethical. It's like saying "well you beat me in sponsorships despite me being on PEDs so it doesn't matter that I was on PEDs, oh look I won the race". The DNC is supposed to be a neutral member during the primaries allowing all the prospective nominees to put forward their arguments and to be heard by the primary voters. Can you say, that in good conscience that this accurately describes what happened this time round?

[bilateralrope]

Hah hah oh yeah election fraud fun times it's not like there's a possible example of possible machine manipulation. And believe you me, once we get a really squirrely election the thing that will help most is a history of opposing investigations of electronic voting machines.

I'm sorry did everyone forget less than twenty years ago when voting irregularities ended up giving us George W Bush? Why under the sun would you not be happy to have our increasing proprietary yet still hideously vulnerable election process be thrust under review? For the last twenty four odd years since 1998's first big use of electronic voting machines we've been seeing results that are "off". Normally small enough people can brush off any calls for investigation to say the .5% vote flip that looks wrong is within the margin of error and maybe it is but the point is we don't check. Kansas is a good example of every single polling group being wrong or someone is putting their finger on the scales during state primaries to give the party insiders a 1% edge and the state Republican party has fought every effort to compare the electronic record vs the paper record.

Given the world we live in why the heck not embrace Trump's call to ensure the elections are not fixed by digging in deep and checking a few primaries or general elections to verify everything on the up and up?

It seems shortsighted not to embrace an opportunity for improvement just because Trump is the source of that idea.

Remember Virigina as of two years ago was using eletronic voting machines with such hard to guess passwords as abcd and admin. Truly the most secure of passwords to protect the process that results in the leader of the free world.

Especially when we have one foreign government (Russia) that has already done some hacking in favour of one candidate. What is to stop a foreign government from hacking the voting machines to produce the result that they want ?

It doesn't matter which foreign government we are talking about, nor which result they want. What matters is that I'm not aware of any mechanism to prevent that once you start using electronic voting machines.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely baffled as how someone could write that the rank outsider clinching his party's nomination the reaction of which has led an almost un-ending rank and file of the big donors, established politicians and party elders all lining up to denounce their own fucking nominee could be construed as evidence that the "Party has become a threat to the survival of American democracy. It is a vile, corrupt organization which no longer functions in an effective or ethical manner."

Because this particular outsider isn't just any outsider. He's an outsider who hijacked a machine the party has been operating for a long period of time.

Trump is able to be a far-right demagogue who can't go more than a day or two without proposing to violate someone's civil rights, and whose underlings talk like thugs, because the Republican Party primed us for this. They've been cultivating within their own ranks a formerly-loyal faction of the party who were predisposed to follow someone who speaks as Trump speaks and acts as Trump acts.

That is why people are blaming the Republican Party.

Just because Doctor Frankenstein denounces the monster he's created, doesn't mean that he isn't responsible for it. Or that he isn't a threat if he plans to go back to monster-making in four more years.

It's mind boggling to me that someone could actually type that when on the other side of the coin the chair of the party who was supposed to remain neutral had to "take one for the team" when her clear bias was exposed. Lets not even get into the issue of how much money the DNC was laundering to Hillary (but not Bernie, strange huh?).

You can certainly make an argument that both parties have drifted out of touch with their voter base. But the underlying reasons are different in the two parties. The Democrats have drifted out of touch with part of their voter base (the furthest left part) because they tend to ignore that wing of the party when it's expedient, in order to win votes from the rest of the country.

The Republicans have drifted out of touch with their base because they've been systematically radicalizing their base, without actually moving further right themselves. The first sign of trouble was when the party establishment found itself unable to control the Tea Party candidates of 2010 and later, and Trump is bringing the issue fully out into the open.

B) The Tea Party has effectively taken over the party, and it is largely composed of white nationalists and other retrograde motherfuckers

B) The tea party candidate lost the nomination, and repetitious argument

There was no 'Tea Party candidate.'

I don't know how you think American politics works, but the Tea Party is not like some kind of far-right minority party with its own independent structure and a single designated nominee who goes to the main primary and competes against a group of moderates. The Tea Party is an informal name for an ideological movement within the Republican Party. Several candidates went into the nomination cycle promoting Tea Party ideas. Ted Cruz was perhaps the one with the biggest reputation as a Tea Party man before the election, but he wasn't the only person associated with the Tea Party movement in the nomination as a whole.

Trump has incorporated large elements of the Tea Party movement's ideas and tactics into his own campaign, and shows every sign of being on that wing of the party. He is not a centrist candidate. He is a far-right candidate, one who may differ from most of the people we'd have called "Tea Party" in 2014 in some ways, but who is like them in other ways.

C) The GOP reached an inflection point this year--they have been headed for its precipice for a while, but they seem to have reached it this year. Irrespective of denouncements from the much weakened (in terms of political capital) establishment, they are being steered by an authoritarian white nationalist, on a platform largely crafted by Ted Cruz.

Let that sink in for a moment.

C) Is a shallow assessment

That doesn't mean anything unless you expand on it and substantiate it.

They are being steered by a non-establishment demagogue. The Democratic party nearly had their own version clinch the nomination against 'The Inevitable'. There is something beyond racism at play here (on the Republican side). The electorate is rebelling against the political establishment across the board. The fact that Trump got their nomination isn't a mark of how corrupt the GOP is, but more a mark of how that party is not representing their own electorate.

There is, indeed, something complicated going on here. However, it is in fact two different things happening. It is two separate revolts against the beige political establishment, occurring simultaneously and in opposite directions.

On the right we have a revolt induced because one of the two parties has spent so long propagandizing its own base that they now fall into lockstep with anyone who uses the right slogans. And the more thuggish and ignorant the candidate may appear, the better! Because these are voters conditioned to reject the role of education and political/historical awareness in politics, in favor of "go for the gut" solutions that are in turn drawn from a set of stock answers and catch phrases that the Republican Party has spent forty years training into its voter base.

Partly because the leader of this 'revolt' was using all the right code phrases and behavior patterns, the Republican Party leadership was effectively paralyzed and unable to react against him. Trump is, in essence, a cuckoo in the Republicans' nest

On the left, we had a far milder revolt from a wing of the party that not only hasn't been propagandized by the Democrats, but has been largely ignored by them whenever possible. Here, the establishment candidate won, for a variety of reasons, some of which can reasonably be called foul play, and some of which can't.

It's not wrong to say "hey, there's an anti-establishment trend here," but closer analysis shows two separate forces at work. Trying to understand the overall situation, especially on Trump's side of the line, and the likely consequences of Trump winning the election, without realizing that there are two separate pressures acting against the establishment... That is not going to give you accurate information.

[maraxus2]

A) I wasn't disagreeing with TRR's Hitler hyperbole (as over the top as that is), so what point is this addressing?

B) The tea party candidate lost the nomination, and repetitious argument

C) Is a shallow assessment

They are being steered by a non-establishment demagogue. The Democratic party nearly had their own version clinch the nomination against 'The Inevitable'. There is something beyond racism at play here (on the Republican side). The electorate is rebelling against the political establishment across the board. The fact that Trump got their nomination isn't a mark of how corrupt the GOP is, but more a mark of how that party is not representing their own electorate.

Much of this is not supported by available evidence. Hillary Clinton decisively defeated Bernie Sanders, both in terms of delegates and popular vote. There was no "nearly" about this contest. The defeat would have likely been even more decisive had the primaries not included caucuses. And now the Bernie people are so anti-establishment that nearly 90% of them say they will vote for the most Establishment Democrat in living memory.

Trump meanwhile won against a badly divided GOP with less than a majority of the primary electorate. Had Trump's opponents not dropped out after Indiana, he very likely would have ended the election with around 40% of the total vote. Significant, to be sure, but anti-establishment across the board? Not so much.

This is the problem with calling 2016 an anti-establishment election - it's just not trickling down to any of the lower levels. The vast majority of Representatives are likely to keep their seats. So far, only three Reps have lost their primaries. Two lost because of court-mandated redistricting, and the other lost because he was indicted on (and subsequently convicted for) corruption charges. We might have another Republican primary loss tonight, but Huelskamp will lose because he's too anti-establishment, not because he's a party hack. No Senator nor Governor has lost their primary yet. In fact, Trump-alligned candidates have an abysmal track record so far. So if the Republican party is very obviously not representing their electorate, why are virtually all incumbent Republicans going to win their primaries?

The country as a whole can't even be said to be in a bad mood, considering Obama's job approval has stayed static for much of the year, and is now inching up towards his second term peak popularity.

That does not make it ethical. It's like saying "well you beat me in sponsorships despite me being on PEDs so it doesn't matter that I was on PEDs, oh look I won the race". The DNC is supposed to be a neutral member during the primaries allowing all the prospective nominees to put forward their arguments and to be heard by the primary voters. Can you say, that in good conscience that this accurately describes what happened this time round?

Who said anything about ethics? You're using words like "money laundering," which has a specific legal, not ethical, connotation to it. As for your bad PED comparision, do you have evidence that the behavior shown in those emails cost Bernie any votes? Any evidence that they cost him a single vote?

[Wild Zontargs]

The DNC email fallout continues. DNC CEO, CFO, Chief of Communications resign:

DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy
By Jeff Zeleny and Tal Kopan, CNN

(CNN)The CEO of the Democratic National Committee and two other high-level staffers left the organization on Tuesday in the wake of the committee's hacked email controversy.

Amy Dacey is the highest-ranking official at the DNC to step aside due to the matter, a senior Democratic official said. The DNC also announced the departure of CFO Brad Marshall and and Communications Director Luis Miranda in a press release Tuesday afternoon.

Dacey is well-respected by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC circle, a source familiar with the resignation said. But the committee is looking to clean house in the wake of leaked emails that appeared to show the committee favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primary.

Dacey's resignation was first reported by Politico.

Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who stepped in after the resignation of former Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also announced some additions to her team, saying former Howard Dean aide Tom McMahon would lead a transition team focused on November's election. The chief of staff that joined the DNC in June, Brandon Davis, will retain his post and oversee general election efforts, Brazile announced. Also joining as an interim senior adviser is Doug Thornell.

Wasserman Schultz resigned after the party's convention last week as a result of the revelations, and Brazile has stepped in as interim chair through the election.

The changes at the DNC come as the Clinton campaign is moving to take greater control of party headquarters in Washington and in states across the country.

Democrats are also trying to get ahead of the disclosure of more emails and internal documents from hacked computer systems, fearful of more embarrassing revelations.

The press release made no mention of the controversy, focusing instead on gearing up for the November election.

The controversy began late last month when nearly 20,000 internal emails, released by WikiLeaks, were dumped on the Internet.

The emails between a handful of DNC officials revealed conversations about Sanders' campaign, including one official suggesting he should be questioned about his faith to hurt him in key Southern states.

The emails are believed to have been released by Russian operatives after the DNC was hacked earlier this year. The US has not made an official assessment of responsibility, but has acknowledged that experts agree the hack was committed by hackers working for the Russian military and intelligence.

Though the DNC and Democrats have focused on the implications of suspected Russian meddling in the US election, the emails have cast the organization in a negative light.

The White House hasn't officially commented on Russia's involvement, other than to say the FBI is investigating, but in a press conference on Tuesday, President Barack Obama downplayed the significance of the suspicion.

"If, in fact, Russia engaged in this activity, it's just one on a long list of issues that me and Mr. (Vladimir) Putin talk about," Obama said. "I don't think that it wildly swings what is a tough, difficult relationship that we have with Russia right now."

CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

[maraxus2]

The DNC email fallout continues.

Yeah, it was almost a given that anyone unfortunate enough to get caught up in those emails would have to fall on their swords.

Meanwhile, Donald continues his strategic brilliance

Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries
by Philip Rucker Aug. 2, 2016 4 min read original
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is “not quite there yet” in endorsing his party’s top-ranking elected official.

Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily.

With Ryan’s Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running “a very good campaign.” Trump said that Ryan has sought his endorsement — an assertion that a Ryan spokesman denied later Tuesday — but that as of now he is only “giving it very serious consideration.”

“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

Trump’s refusal to back Ryan represents an extraordinary breach of political decorum and signals that the Republican Party remains divided two weeks after a national convention in Cleveland staged to showcase party unity.

Both Republicans and Democrats are publicly responding to the row between GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and Khizr Khan. Khan's son was killed while serving in Iraq. Here's what politicians from both parties said. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
[Obama: Trump is ‘unfit to serve as president’]

Trump made his comments during a wide-ranging interview Tuesday afternoon over lunch at the Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia.

Trump and Ryan have had a difficult and tense relationship over the past few months. Ryan endorsed Trump this spring after he became the presumptive nominee and spoke on his behalf at the convention, but only after a period of public soul-searching.

Ryan has disagreed with Trump on several key issues — including his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States — and issued a statement over the weekend that indirectly took issue with Trump’s belittling of the parents of dead U.S. Army captain Humayun Khan.

“Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice,” Ryan said in the statement. “Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

McCain could not be reached immediately for comment. The Ryan spokesman, Zack Roday, issued this statement: "Neither Speaker Ryan nor anyone on his team has ever asked for Donald Trump's endorsement. And we are confident in a victory next week regardless."

With wife Ghazala at his side, Khizr Khan spoke at last week’s Democratic National Convention. He said Trump “smears the character of Muslims” and challenged the Republican nominee’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

Asked about the Khans, Trump said in Tuesday’s interview, “I was viciously attacked on the stage, and I have a right to answer back. That’s all I have to say about it.”

In making his comments Tuesday, Trump may have been seeking retribution for Ryan’s dragging his feet about endorsing Trump in May. Trump’s phrasing of his uncertainty about Ryan — “I’m just not quite there yet” — echoes what Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper in a May interview about endorsing Trump: “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.”

[Trumps draw fire for suggesting ‘strong’ women can avoid sexual harassment]

Nehlen came to Trump’s defense for his comments about the Khans, for which Trump thanked him in a tweet Monday night. Trump’s shout-out sparked speculation that he might endorse Nehlen.

Asked about this in the Tuesday interview, Trump said that Nehlen “sent me a nice letter and I merely thanked him.”

“[Ryan’s] opponent is a big fan of what I’m saying — big fan,” Trump said. “His opponent, who’s running a very good campaign, obviously, I’ve heard — his opponent sent me a very scholarly and well thought out letter yesterday and all I did was say thank you very much for your very nice letter. You saw my statement.”

Trump added, “I’m giving very serious consideration to that whole situation, to Ryan, to Paul.”

On Monday, McCain, a Vietnam war hero, issued a lengthy statement denouncing Trump for his comments about the Khan family. Asked about McCain’s rebuke, Trump said, “I haven’t endorsed John McCain.

“I’ve never been there with John McCain because I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets,” Trump continued. “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets. So I’ve always had a difficult time with John for that reason, because our vets are not being treated properly. They’re not being treated fairly.”

McCain is locked in a three-way Republican primary — the election is Aug. 30 and early voting begins this week — against former state senator Kelli Ward and tea party activist Clair Van Steenwyk. A third challenger, Alex Meluskey, suspended his campaign this week.

Trump said he thought it was a mistake for senators to distance themselves from him because of his popularity with the Republican base. He singled out Ayotte, who like McCain condemned Trump’s comments about the Khans.

“New Hampshire is one of my favorite places,” Trump said. “You have a Kelly Ayotte who doesn’t want to talk about Trump, but I’m beating her in the polls by a lot. You tell me. Are these people that should be representing us, okay? You tell me.”

Trump continued, “I don’t know Kelly Ayotte. I know she’s given me no support — zero support — and yet I’m leading her in the polls. I’m doing very well in New Hampshire. We need loyal people in this country. We need fighters in this country. We don’t need weak people. We have enough of them. We need fighters in this country. But Kelly Ayotte has given me zero support, and I’m doing great in New Hampshire.”

Ayotte tweeted a response later Tuesday: “I call it like I see it and I'm always going to stand up for our military families and what's best for the people of New Hampshire.”

She also still plans to vote for Trump, according to her campaign.

[Elfdart]

Uh, no, this is actually genuine. Millions of people are seriously concerned that Trump may provoke major constitutional crises, fatally compromise important constitutional rights, and cause massive damage to the US's standing overseas. And they can present considerable evidence for all these claims, because basically... Trump has specifically announced that he will do those things, if you pay any attention to what he says and what the consequences would be if he did anything remotely resembling what he said. Or, for that matter, even took office at all, because other people in other countries will react to him winning the election.

This is not a propaganda tactic. People actually think Trump winning the election would be uniquely disastrous. And if you believe that, which a lot of people every bit as smart as you do... Then it logically follows that there is absolutely no reason to increase the risk of that happening. Or to risk allowing it to happen by inaction.

The ultimate constitutional crisis is the undeclared war, where a president decides on his own to start wars. This country is already fighting undeclared wars all over the globe, and slaughtering multitudes of innocent people in the process. Will Trump start more illegal wars? Who knows? I find it hard to believe he'd be any more belligerent than every other president since Carter.

Neither Reagan nor Bush, Jr. were anywhere near as fascist,

Now you're just talking out of your ass. Reagan supported militarily, diplomatically or financially real-life honest to fucking goodness fascists, not the town hall hooligans Trump favors. Case in point: Mario Sandoval Alarcon, one of the leaders of the Nazi death squads in Guatemala was a guest of honor at Reagan's inaugural ball. Reagan also supported Rios Montt, the bible-thumping lunatic who helped Alarcon exterminate around 200,000 Mayan Indians. Then there's Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran Nazi who told journalists that Jews spread communism, so the Germans were right to kill them. We also have Jonas Savimbi, another fundie Christian maniac who started a war in Angola, killed off over a million civilians and committed such lovely acts as burning women and children alive for witchcraft. There are countless other fascists Bitburg Ronnie supported. His chief speechwriter was holocaust "revisionist" Pat Buchanan for fuck's sake!

As for Dubya, one of the trademark moves for the big league fascist leaders is to lie their country into a war of aggression, especially one where the objective is to take over another country's oil. It's the reason Hitler attacked the Soviet Union (Caucasus oil), as well as the reason Hirohito attacked the US, UK and others in Pacific (Dutch East Indies oil). And it was the main reason Dubya attacked Iraq. He also used water torture, a favorite of the Nazis, as well as Nazi euphemisms ("Verschärfte Vernehmung")to describe his sadistic crimes against humanity.

and Trump manages to be even more ignorant of public affairs and even more willing to rely on complete lunatics as his trusted advisors.

Nuttier than PNAC? Pat Robertson? I think not.

If you don't perceive the difference, then you're not paying attention.

I already pointed out the main difference: Trump doesn't sugar coat his bullfuckery. He's a boorish asshole who can't control his mouth.

Clinton herself, and her campaign, don't seem to be pushing the "the far left is a threat" line.

Their media stooges certainly do, which is why social media is awash in accusations from Clinton fluffers that Jill Stein is an anti-vaccination nut, even after it was completely debunked by Snopes and every other halfway reputable source. If Trump is the worst thing to afflict the republic since Spanish Influenza, you'd think these hounds would be baying after him instead -especially since Trump is easier to attack: you don't have to make up lies to do it.

I would speculate that the problem might be that YOU, personally, are running into those arguments a lot. Because YOU, personally, are the one going around pretending there's no difference between, say, Trump and Reagan. There is; Trump is significantly worse in almost every way that matters. As a result, your standardized cookie-cutter "a pox on both their houses, aren't I sophisticated for rejecting the two-party binary" stance causes them to become alarmed, and to argue with YOU, personally.

I never said there was no difference, you strawmanning fuckhead. I said the main difference between Trump and Reagan is one of style, not substance. Ditto for Bush, Palin, et al. Trump wears his contempt for anyone different from himself on his sleeve. The others pretended (with varying degrees of success) to not be hostile to minorities.

Because they're afraid of what happens if Trump wins. And it is at least conceivable that he could win, and somewhat more likely if the left wing of the party stays home on Election Day. Which they would only do because they don't care if Trump wins, due to the sheer arrogance and foolishness of this sophisticated rejection of the two-party binary.

If they're that afraid of Trump, why do they expend so much energy attacking left-leaning Democrats and independents? If they wanted the die hard Sanders supporters or Stein followers to vote for Hillary, maybe telling lies about them and telling them to fuck off is the wrong way to go. No, it's always the fault of those Dirty Fucking Hippies -I mean, "Bernie Bros".

Besides, I always thought the reason he have primary and general election campaigns was for candidates to try to convince voters to support them. If Hillary loses to Trump (barring a putsch of some kind), she has no one to blame but herself.

[maraxus2]

We might have another Republican primary loss tonight, but Huelskamp will lose because he's too anti-establishment, not because he's a party hack.

Someone's ears must have been burning because this is precisely what's happened.

Bit of background: Huelskamp is a true believer who got elected in the 2010 landslide and immediately made a name for himself as one of the chief carbuncles in the Asshole Caucus. Huelskamp wasn't necessarily the most right-wing member of Congress (though he certainly tried to be), but he was the biggest thorn in Boehner's side for quite some time. He was such an egregious prick that he ended up getting booted off the Budget Committee, along with two others.

Huelskamp got revenge by being a part of the faction that pushed Boehner out of office. But he was such a dipshit true believer that he wouldn't support things, like the Fucking Farm Fucking Bill, that aren't just popular back in the Big 1st District - they're critical to peoples' survival out there.

Anyway, the Farm people got tired of his nonsense and supported a no-name candidate in 2014. Huelskamp won by a 55-45 margin, which is decisive but worrying for an incumbent conservative in this ruby-red district. Plus, Huelskamp outspent his opponent something like 50-1.

This time, the Kansas Farm Bureau and other Ag interests went all-in on a challenger, namely physician Roger Marshall, whose main attribute is "not-being-Tim-Huelskamp." The two have been throwing elbows at each other for a long time, but it looks like Huelskamp has definitively lost, since he kicked reporters out of his election party and threatened to call the cops on them if they didn't leave.

tl;dr: With enough grit, determination, and can-do, you can become too much of an asshole for the most right-wing part of an already right-wing state.

If they're that afraid of Trump, why do they expend so much energy attacking left-leaning Democrats and independents? If they wanted the die hard Sanders supporters or Stein followers to vote for Hillary, maybe telling lies about them and telling them to fuck off is the wrong way to go. No, it's always the fault of those Dirty Fucking Hippies -I mean, "Bernie Bros".

Besides, I always thought the reason he have primary and general election campaigns was for candidates to try to convince voters to support them. If Hillary loses to Trump (barring a putsch of some kind), she has no one to blame but herself.

Sorry, who is spending energy attacking left-leaning Democrats and independents? Random-ass people on the internet? Clinton's campaign certainly doesn't seem to be Hippie-Punching. Not that there's much need to punch Stein's campaign; she's really her own worst enemy at this point.

[Gandalf]

Nah, there's just the fact that their nominee incites violence, proposes policies that would violate the Constitution, may have committed treason...

Treason? How so?

[FireNexus]

No so. We have no enemies, legally speaking. Some on the left have started throwing that around like they're Republicans.

[Flagg]

We might have another Republican primary loss tonight, but Huelskamp will lose because he's too anti-establishment, not because he's a party hack.

Someone's ears must have been burning because this is precisely what's happened.

Bit of background: Huelskamp is a true believer who got elected in the 2010 landslide and immediately made a name for himself as one of the chief carbuncles in the Asshole Caucus. Huelskamp wasn't necessarily the most right-wing member of Congress (though he certainly tried to be), but he was the biggest thorn in Boehner's side for quite some time. He was such an egregious prick that he ended up getting booted off the Budget Committee, along with two others.

Huelskamp got revenge by being a part of the faction that pushed Boehner out of office. But he was such a dipshit true believer that he wouldn't support things, like the Fucking Farm Fucking Bill, that aren't just popular back in the Big 1st District - they're critical to peoples' survival out there.

Anyway, the Farm people got tired of his nonsense and supported a no-name candidate in 2014. Huelskamp won by a 55-45 margin, which is decisive but worrying for an incumbent conservative in this ruby-red district. Plus, Huelskamp outspent his opponent something like 50-1.

This time, the Kansas Farm Bureau and other Ag interests went all-in on a challenger, namely physician Roger Marshall, whose main attribute is "not-being-Tim-Huelskamp." The two have been throwing elbows at each other for a long time, but it looks like Huelskamp has definitively lost, since he kicked reporters out of his election party and threatened to call the cops on them if they didn't leave.

tl;dr: With enough grit, determination, and can-do, you can become too much of an asshole for the most right-wing part of an already right-wing state.

If they're that afraid of Trump, why do they expend so much energy attacking left-leaning Democrats and independents? If they wanted the die hard Sanders supporters or Stein followers to vote for Hillary, maybe telling lies about them and telling them to fuck off is the wrong way to go. No, it's always the fault of those Dirty Fucking Hippies -I mean, "Bernie Bros".

Besides, I always thought the reason he have primary and general election campaigns was for candidates to try to convince voters to support them. If Hillary loses to Trump (barring a putsch of some kind), she has no one to blame but herself.

Sorry, who is spending energy attacking left-leaning Democrats and independents? Random-ass people on the internet? Clinton's campaign certainly doesn't seem to be Hippie-Punching. Not that there's much need to punch Stein's campaign; she's really her own worst enemy at this point.

So, anti-vaxx dog whistles, wi-fi hurting our children, and a vp candidate who calls Bill Clinton a racist and seems to imply Muhammed Ali is being "Uncle Tom'd" in death. A platform you can believe in!

[Flagg]

Nah, there's just the fact that their nominee incites violence, proposes policies that would violate the Constitution, may have committed treason...

Treason? How so?

I think he doesn't know what that word means beyond "something real real bad someone I don't like done did".

[Flagg]

The DNC email fallout continues.

Yeah, it was almost a given that anyone unfortunate enough to get caught up in those emails would have to fall on their swords.

Meanwhile, Donald continues his strategic brilliance

Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries
by Philip Rucker Aug. 2, 2016 4 min read original
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is “not quite there yet” in endorsing his party’s top-ranking elected official.

Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily.

With Ryan’s Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running “a very good campaign.” Trump said that Ryan has sought his endorsement — an assertion that a Ryan spokesman denied later Tuesday — but that as of now he is only “giving it very serious consideration.”

“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

Trump’s refusal to back Ryan represents an extraordinary breach of political decorum and signals that the Republican Party remains divided two weeks after a national convention in Cleveland staged to showcase party unity.

Both Republicans and Democrats are publicly responding to the row between GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and Khizr Khan. Khan's son was killed while serving in Iraq. Here's what politicians from both parties said. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
[Obama: Trump is ‘unfit to serve as president’]

Trump made his comments during a wide-ranging interview Tuesday afternoon over lunch at the Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia.

Trump and Ryan have had a difficult and tense relationship over the past few months. Ryan endorsed Trump this spring after he became the presumptive nominee and spoke on his behalf at the convention, but only after a period of public soul-searching.

Ryan has disagreed with Trump on several key issues — including his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States — and issued a statement over the weekend that indirectly took issue with Trump’s belittling of the parents of dead U.S. Army captain Humayun Khan.

“Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice,” Ryan said in the statement. “Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

McCain could not be reached immediately for comment. The Ryan spokesman, Zack Roday, issued this statement: "Neither Speaker Ryan nor anyone on his team has ever asked for Donald Trump's endorsement. And we are confident in a victory next week regardless."

With wife Ghazala at his side, Khizr Khan spoke at last week’s Democratic National Convention. He said Trump “smears the character of Muslims” and challenged the Republican nominee’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

Asked about the Khans, Trump said in Tuesday’s interview, “I was viciously attacked on the stage, and I have a right to answer back. That’s all I have to say about it.”

In making his comments Tuesday, Trump may have been seeking retribution for Ryan’s dragging his feet about endorsing Trump in May. Trump’s phrasing of his uncertainty about Ryan — “I’m just not quite there yet” — echoes what Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper in a May interview about endorsing Trump: “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.”

[Trumps draw fire for suggesting ‘strong’ women can avoid sexual harassment]

Nehlen came to Trump’s defense for his comments about the Khans, for which Trump thanked him in a tweet Monday night. Trump’s shout-out sparked speculation that he might endorse Nehlen.

Asked about this in the Tuesday interview, Trump said that Nehlen “sent me a nice letter and I merely thanked him.”

“[Ryan’s] opponent is a big fan of what I’m saying — big fan,” Trump said. “His opponent, who’s running a very good campaign, obviously, I’ve heard — his opponent sent me a very scholarly and well thought out letter yesterday and all I did was say thank you very much for your very nice letter. You saw my statement.”

Trump added, “I’m giving very serious consideration to that whole situation, to Ryan, to Paul.”

On Monday, McCain, a Vietnam war hero, issued a lengthy statement denouncing Trump for his comments about the Khan family. Asked about McCain’s rebuke, Trump said, “I haven’t endorsed John McCain.

“I’ve never been there with John McCain because I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets,” Trump continued. “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets. So I’ve always had a difficult time with John for that reason, because our vets are not being treated properly. They’re not being treated fairly.”

McCain is locked in a three-way Republican primary — the election is Aug. 30 and early voting begins this week — against former state senator Kelli Ward and tea party activist Clair Van Steenwyk. A third challenger, Alex Meluskey, suspended his campaign this week.

Trump said he thought it was a mistake for senators to distance themselves from him because of his popularity with the Republican base. He singled out Ayotte, who like McCain condemned Trump’s comments about the Khans.

“New Hampshire is one of my favorite places,” Trump said. “You have a Kelly Ayotte who doesn’t want to talk about Trump, but I’m beating her in the polls by a lot. You tell me. Are these people that should be representing us, okay? You tell me.”

Trump continued, “I don’t know Kelly Ayotte. I know she’s given me no support — zero support — and yet I’m leading her in the polls. I’m doing very well in New Hampshire. We need loyal people in this country. We need fighters in this country. We don’t need weak people. We have enough of them. We need fighters in this country. But Kelly Ayotte has given me zero support, and I’m doing great in New Hampshire.”

Ayotte tweeted a response later Tuesday: “I call it like I see it and I'm always going to stand up for our military families and what's best for the people of New Hampshire.”

She also still plans to vote for Trump, according to her campaign.

I love it! "Trump is a dick for taking a huge steaming dump on the family of a Muslim casualty of war and I'll always stand with our military families! But I'm still going to vote for him to be Commander in Chief!"

[Patroklos]

Neither Reagan nor Bush, Jr. were anywhere near as fascist,

Now you're just talking out of your ass. Reagan supported militarily, diplomatically or financially real-life honest to fucking goodness fascists, not the town hall hooligans Trump favors. Case in point: Mario Sandoval Alarcon, one of the leaders of the Nazi death squads in Guatemala was a guest of honor at Reagan's inaugural ball. Reagan also supported Rios Montt, the bible-thumping lunatic who helped Alarcon exterminate around 200,000 Mayan Indians. Then there's Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran Nazi who told journalists that Jews spread communism, so the Germans were right to kill them. We also have Jonas Savimbi, another fundie Christian maniac who started a war in Angola, killed off over a million civilians and committed such lovely acts as burning women and children alive for witchcraft. There are countless other fascists Bitburg Ronnie supported. His chief speechwriter was holocaust "revisionist" Pat Buchanan for fuck's sake!

That's all well and good but supporting fascists (amongst every other type of government under the sun, including communist ones at times) doesn't make you a fascist. It can make you an asshole or realpolitik or both, but fascism is decidedly a domestic affair.

The U.S. supports monarchies (as does Germany, France, etc...) yet only an idiot would say that makes us monarchists.

As for Dubya, one of the trademark moves for the big league fascist leaders is to lie their country into a war of aggression, especially one where the objective is to take over another country's oil. It's the reason Hitler attacked the Soviet Union (Caucasus oil), as well as the reason Hirohito attacked the US, UK and others in Pacific (Dutch East Indies oil). And it was the main reason Dubya attacked Iraq. He also used water torture, a favorite of the Nazis, as well as Nazi euphemisms ("Verschärfte Vernehmung")to describe his sadistic crimes against humanity.

1.) Foreign adventures for dubious reasons and returns are a hallmark of all sorts of forms of governance and it has been that way since at the dawn of time. You have to be a bit more discriminating in your qualifications to be convincing.

2.) Oil was not a major concern used to justify the invasion of the Soviet Union. In fact there were no plans to invade the Caucusses at all because Moscow was supposed to fall and the Sofiets to sue for peace. The Caucusses oil fields were a target of the follow on campaign and were as much about denying them to the Sofiets as they were gaining them for the Germans.

Am I saying nobody thought of the likely bounty of aquired Soviet territory? No. But on the list of things to worry about oil specifically was far below fantasies of destiny, living space, racial bumfuckery and neutralizing a growing threat preemptively. Even resource wise oil wasn't the top loot from Eastern expansion but rather possible food stuff self sustainability.

3.) a war for resources? How novel! Surely nobody had done that before fascism was invented. Well, except for 99% of wars over thousands of years of human history. But except for those, nobody...

[maraxus2]

Turns out that tonight was actually a pretty crappy night for conservative Kansans in general:
Link

Updated 11:15: Berger beats Bruce, McGinn keeps seat in ‘brutal’ night for conservatives
5 min read original
One of Gov. Sam Brownback’s closest allies in the Legislature lost his bid for re-election Tuesday night.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce conceded the race to Ed Berger, the former president of Hutchinson Community College, shortly after 10 p.m.

“The Voters have spoken and they wanted to go in a new direction,” Bruce said in a statement. “Congratulations to Dr. Ed Berger in his victory. I want to thank the people of the 34th District for placing their trust in me the last twelve years. It has been an honor to serve them.”

Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, has been one of the main leaders of the conservative faction that took control of the Senate in 2012.

Brownback is not on the ballot this year, but his policies were very much at stake in this election.

Moderates, who have seen their influence wane since Brownback took office in 2010, tried to recapture some power Tuesday. Early signs suggested that they would make some gains. In addition to the Hutchinson race, Sen. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona, trailed his challenger Bruce Givens with half of the precincts counted.

Moderate Sen. Carolyn McGinn, R-Sedgwick appeared to have pulled out about a 230-vote victory over conservative candidate Renee Erickson.

“The race was a little closer than I had hoped, but it paid off a lot of walking and talking and knocking at the door steps, paid off,” said McGinn, who also survived a strong challenge in 2012. "I think Kansas voters want to get away from political tactics and want to get our state back to where we balance a budget, where we are able to run our essential core services, whether it’s school or building infrastructure for business and they want us to get back on track and we’ve been going the wrong direction for the last four years."

Moderate candidates tried to tap into voters’ frustrations with the state’s budget woes, highlighting their opposition to a sales tax increase and the practice of taking money from the highway fund to plug budget holes. Berger, for example, ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility.

“That was our message all the way through and I think that resonated with people,” Berger said in a phone call.

‘Brutal. Brutal. Brutal’
Sen. Michael O’Donnell, R-Wichita, who is leaving his seat in the Legislature to pursue a spot on the Sedgwick County Commission, remarked Tuesday night that he “saw the freight train coming.”

“I think a lot of people just weren’t listening to their constituents…I knew we were going to lose people,” O’Donnell said.

He blamed the losses of conservative candidates on a perception that lawmakers were unwilling to stand up to Brownback on fiscal issues. “It’s the complete reversal of what happened four years ago,” he said.

Tim Graham, a Democratic staffer, sent a text message seconds after Bruce’s concession: “The earthquake you’re feeling isn’t fracking, it’s Brownback’s house of cards falling.”

Rep. Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita, who won his own primary but saw the ousting of friends, had one word to describe the overall night for conservatives: “Brutal.”

“Brutal. Brutal. Brutal. Absolutely brutal,” Hawkins said.

‘Especially tough blow’
Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas, said ahead of the vote that “if moderates do gain some ground then I think that’s an especially tough blow on Brownback.”

A poll released this month by Fort Hays State University pegged the governor’s approval rating at 15 percent and many moderates sought to tie their opponents to the governor.

Brownback didn’t issue endorsements or join candidates on the campaign trail, but he quietly waded into races.

His staff members went door to door in support of candidates ahead of the primaries in Wichita and Johnson County and his political action committee spent nearly $100,000 in support of conservative candidates.

“At stake this election is increased support in the legislature for polices that endanger the unborn, degrade 2nd amendment rights, expand the welfare state, and grow government regulation and taxation on businesses and citizens of Kansas,” said Eileen Hawley, the governor’s spokeswoman, in an e-mail.

Kelly Arnold, the state Republican chairman, predicted that moderates would take out a few conservative incumbents after sustaining losses in recent years.

“I think what you’ll see tonight is a little bit of a shift. … You’re not going to see a massive wave like you did four years ago, but you’re going to see a little bit of a shift back,” said Arnold, who attended a primary night party in west Wichita.

On Wednesday, he said, the party would turn its focus toward the general election and building unity between the different factions.

Republicans squared off in 16 Senate primaries and 39 House primaries. Secretary of State Kris Kobach predicted primary turnout to surpass both 2012 and 2014 in large part because there’s more contested primaries than usual this year. Six of those GOP Senate primaries are in Sedgwick County, as are six primaries for House seats.

Statewide, Democrats faced off in nine House primaries and five Senate primaries, including one each in Sedgwick County.

Money, patience spent
Large sums of money went into the races.

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce spent more than $300,000 in support of conservative candidates, while the Kansas National Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, spent more than $235,000 in support of moderates and Democrats, according to campaign finance filings.

Chamber-backed conservatives ousted nine moderate incumbents from the Senate in 2012.

McGinn found herself the target of a flurry of mailers and radio ads making questionable claims.

Erickson’s campaign sent out mailers depicting McGinn as a donkey, the symbol of the Democratic Party.

Even Kansas politicos grew tired of being bombarded with political ads every time they opened their mailbox or surfed the Internet.

“I live in (Sen. Jeff) Melcher’s district,” said Barker, who lives in Johnson County, in a phone interview last week. “Every time I turn on Facebook, it’s (John) Skubal and Melcher ads all over and I finally just clicked to get rid of all of them, you know hide them.”

Barker followed up with an e-mail: “I (expletive deleted) hate (expletive deleted) primary (expletive deleted) elections.”

Melcher was one of several Johnson County incumbents who lagged behind a more moderate challenger early in the night, suggesting a potential power shift in Topeka.

The results were closely watched in Wichita where many prominent conservatives gathered at Villa Luna on city’s west side.

“It can certainly change the complexion (of the Legislature),” remarked Hawkins.

Johnson County has long been the epicenter for tensions between the moderates and conservatives. That county, the state’s most populous, was the site of 13 GOP primaries for House and two for the Senate.

Sedgwick County races
However, Sedgwick County also boasted a number of competitive races after the retirement of several incumbents.

“In Wichita, there were a bunch of resignations. You know, (Rep. Mark) Hutton and (Rep. Mark) Kahrs not running again,” Barker said. “And open seats are the ones where you get some pretty stiff primaries because people are trying for it.”

The race to replace Kahrs, a conservative, in House District 87, for example, pitted two candidates with vastly different views.

Retired banker Roger Elliott voiced strong support for expanding Medicaid, increasing education funding and repealing a tax exemption that allows the owners of certain businesses to pay zero income tax, the governor’s signature policy.

Financial adviser Jeremy Alessi, on the other hand, opposed Medicaid expansion, said school districts need to do a better job managing the money they already have and blamed the state’s budget problems on overspending rather than the income tax cuts.

Elliott led Alessi 61 percent to 39 percent with three of 11 precincts reporting.

Susan Humphries, the first-time candidate for office in House District 99, led Randy Banwart in early returns in the race to replace Rep. Dennis Hedke in east Wichita.

Greg Lakin, a physician, pulled out to an early lead over J.C. Moore in District 91 in west Wichita, but he was reluctant to celebrate as 9 p.m. approached. Lakin led Moore 65 percent to 35 percent with four of 10 precincts reporting.

“There’s a lot of anxiety that goes with this. It’s more relief than it really is celebratory,” said Lakin, a physician. “It’s just a lot of work. I have some blisters on my feet from walking door to door to door.”

Contributing: Oliver Morrison and Matt Riedl of The Eagle

Kansas is one of the states where the right-wing takeovers from 2010 and 2012 really show their mark. Kansas used to have a governing tradition of relatively non-ideological moderation, in part because the moderates could rely on Democratic votes and there were never enough conservatives to have really ideologically right-wing governance. Once Brownback took office in 2011, he set about transforming Kansas into a thoroughly and ideologically conservative state. He did this by supporting conservative challengers to State Senators in the Republican primary - something practically unheard of even outside Kansas. He succeeded in ushering in a substantial conservative majority, and the legislature in turn passed a nearly billion dollar tax cut, including a tax cut that allows certain businesses to pay no tax at all.

These cuts in turn led the State Supreme court to declare that the state was unconstitutionally stiffing poor school districts, and that the legislature must fix it. The Legislature could not really do this under the new tax law, so they tried recalling the judges. When that didn't work, they tried to lower the judges' retirement age, make judges subject to retention elections (with a stupidly low threshold to kick out a judge), and to expand government rights to impeach judges. When that didn't work, the legislature passed a law that would cut ALL of the courts' funding if the State Supreme court specifically ruled against the state on a process issue. Then the Supremes overturned the law anyway, and the courts lost funding for a month. Then the state legislature blinked when they suddenly realized that Governor Brownback had the lowest approval rating in the entire country, and is now sitting at around 15% approval.

So Kansas voters got sick of them and threw the buggers out in favor of more moderate Republican State Senators, who are elected specifically to un-fuck up the system that Sam Brownback and his ilk have fucked up.

This is the kind of thing that gives me all the reason needed to keep the GOP out of power. Lots of people have seen this particular monkey show, and nobody needs to see it again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nah, there's just the fact that their nominee incites violence, proposes policies that would violate the Constitution, may have committed treason...

Treason? How so?

I think he doesn't know what that word means beyond "something real real bad someone I don't like done did".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/l ... z4FjE3YPwz

There you go, Gandalf.

Flagg, stop trying to troll me.

[Gandalf]

That's it? Has he put those thoughts into a piece where the reasoning is outlined?

[Flagg]

Treason? How so?

I think he doesn't know what that word means beyond "something real real bad someone I don't like done did".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/l ... z4FjE3YPwz

There you go, Gandalf.

Flagg, stop trying to troll me.

Dude, you're trolling yourself. Aside from the fact that the guy was saying that George Washington, slave owner and himself a traitor would say what trump did was treason (I imagine after getting a decade long crash course into "how the magic QWERTY Machine operates and sends invisible words and pictures through the air"), he is just blathering on about how the crazy motherfuckering "originalists" would be viewed by the 18th century land grabbing slaveowners who started this country they masturbate while fantasizing about.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bernie was asked to participate and he declined? Could you provide a source.

Not so much "declined" as "signed a joint fundraising agreement he never really used"

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b ... dnc-215559

As for the rest, Simon_Jester and Maraxus pretty much nailed it.