The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

The problem is, Flagg is right. You dont know what Treason is. It is defined in the constitution and has a very very specific legal meaning. Thus far, what Trump did, as bad and assholish and dangerous-in-its-implications as it is, does not meet the legal definition of treason.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've read the definition in the US Constitution, actually:

Here it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Now, I will point out that I personally did not go any further than to say that Trump might have committed treason, because I am not a lawyer, judge, or juror for Trump's hypothetical treason case, and respect the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I will say, again, that practically speaking, I very strongly doubt that he would be convicted regardless.

But I will also point out that I am not the person who came up with that allegation, and that its not just random fringe nuts/conspiracy theorists on the internet saying it either. And that their is at least considerable circumstantial evidence that Trump is acting on behalf of the Russian government, and that they are working on his behalf to affect the election in his favour.

I suppose the question would be how broadly the term "enemies" is defined (since its not specified here, it would, I presume, be determined by legal precedent- is their any precedent for a treason conviction for betraying America to a foreign nation with whom the US was not actively at war?). Trump certainly did not levy war against the US, and I don't think simply asking Russia to interfere on his behalf in the election (despicable and likely illegal though it is) would qualify as treason either, but Trump could, perhaps, be said to be giving "aid and comfort" to Russia (a nation which, while not at war with the US, is certainly a rival and hostile to various interests of America and its allies) if he is, in fact, in any kind of collusion with Russia to advance Russian interests in exchange for their aid in the election.

I acknowledge, as I always have, that such collusion is as yet unproven. But their is enough circumstantial evidence that I think the possibility should be looked at very closely.

[FireNexus]

Jesus Christ, fuckface. Just concede. People didn't get convicted of treason for aid to the SOVIET FUCKING UNION. Because we weren't at war with them. Treason has a narrow definition. So narrow that there is no might. He did not, under any circumstances or by any currently accepted legal definition, commit treason. Even if he straight up went to Putin and coordinated with him.

Now shut the fuck up about it, you fucking moron.

[FireNexus]

The only way that he might get a charge and conviction of treason is if he provided material support to ISIS. And that's iffy because it's an undeclared war. Please do not write 8 paragraphs in response trying to twist yourself into rhetorical pretzels to justify your statement. It was plain, flat, unquestionably wrong. No matter how you qualified it. He. Did. Not. Commit. Treason. PERIOD.

[Ralin]

Just going to throw this out there, I've pointed the constitutional definition of treason to Romulan Republic before myself (with the same link even!), but there is a difference between the legal definition of something and how it is used in day to day speech. Treason is a very narrowly defined crime in the US, but by the same token were never at war with Vietnam or Iraq legally speaking. Most people would describe the Vietnam and Iraq wars as wars despite that, and I don't fault them for doing so because they were by most standards. Most people would describe you walking up and slugging them in the face as assault, even though technically I'm told it refers to verbal assault.

Basically I'm saying that Romulan Republic is dumb and his Little Lord Fauntleroy routine is annoying, but when all is said and done this is verbal hair-splitting. The people sounding off about Trump committing treason are doing it as rhetoric, not a legal argument.

[FireNexus]

Except when they are actually making it as a legal argument for rhetorical effect.

But, more than that, I dislike the accusation of one of the most serious crimes in our legal system for rhetorical effect. It's bad for democracy, IMO. Trump does it by accusing people of murders they clearly did not commit, and we libs denounce it. But it suits our narrative and we (and by we I mean TRR and others who consider themselves Serious Political Thinkers (TM)) jump on it like it's a Christmas gift. It's disgusting, hypocritical, and unhelpful. Besides the fact that it's fuckin stupid.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only people who have ever been convicted of actual treason were either A) Rebelling against the state in an armed fashion, or B) Fighting or otherwise acting on behalf of the other side during a declared war. That is it. Ever. In the history of the US, there have been all of a dozen treason convictions.

Even as just rhetoric, it is bad. He (Trump) didn't betray anything, there was no overt act. It is as if someone said on TV "Hey Angela Merkel, if you want to get your revenge and tap Obama's phone, I wont say anything". It carries that much (read: very little) weight.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough. Though I would still call him a traitor in the colloquial, non-legal sense.

Its not as if Trump needs to have literally committed treason to still be an extremely dangerous scumbag who is blatantly undermining the security and stability of the United States.

[FireNexus]

Nobody is saying he isn't. But there's a very important distinction between calling someone a dangerous scumbag for political points and calling them a literal criminal for same. Thank you for your concession.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nobody is saying he isn't. But there's a very important distinction between calling someone a dangerous scumbag for political points and calling them a literal criminal for same. Thank you for your concession.

Its not just for "political points". If Trump wasn't running for office, he'd be a hell of a lot less dangerous, but he'd still be a horrible person who deserved to be exposed.

I'll add that while obviously he has not been charged or convicted (yet), this is hardly the only accusation of a crime levelled against Trump. And yes, you could say the same of Clinton, but she's been investigated and effectively cleared again and again, while Trump still has shit like Trump university hanging over his head.

[FireNexus]

Again, this is a baseless accusation of a crime he clearly didn't commit. He is guilty, on the evidence, of being a dangerous asshole. Other crimes he may have committed are totally immaterial to th accusation of treason. It is 100% for political points, because it is without merit on the face and designed to hurt him at the polls. That's the definition of "for political points". Nobody expects him to be tried, let alone convicted, because it is legally impossible for him to be found guilty of treason due to even the most illegal of acts concerning Russia and espionage unless he is helping them start a shooting war against us. They are geopolitical rivals of the US, not enemies.

There is no defense for it. You're wrong.

[FireNexus]

Why must you keep saying things that force me to defend Donald Trump, they're so stupid? Even after you conceded, you just cannot let it go. It's ok to be wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again, this is a baseless accusation of a crime he clearly didn't commit. He is guilty, on the evidence, of being a dangerous asshole. Other crimes he may have committed are totally immaterial to th accusation of treason. It is 100% for political points, because it is without merit on the face and designed to hurt him at the polls. That's the definition of "for political points". Nobody expects him to be tried, let alone convicted, because it is legally impossible for him to be found guilty of treason due to even the most illegal of acts concerning Russia and espionage unless he is helping them start a shooting war against us. They are geopolitical rivals of the US, not enemies.

There is no defense for it. You're wrong.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm not trying to argue that he's guilty of treason. Hell, the most I ever said was that he might be, and I pretty much retracted even that. I accepted Alyrium Denryle's argument on that point, and that's the end of that.

My point is that a) I object to the implication that my motives for attacking Trump were purely political, and b) even without the treason thing, there's a whole pile of nasty shit hanging over Trump, some of it possibly illegal. Would you like a list?

If you want to defend Donald Trump so you can pick a fight with me, that's on you.

[Patroklos]

My point is that a) I object to the implication that my motives for attacking Trump were purely political, and b) even without the treason thing, there's a whole pile of nasty shit hanging over Trump, some of it possibly illegal. Would you like a list?

Then how about you save everyone a lot of time and just stick to those things? Let us not forget you predicted Trump will cause WWIII a dozen pages back. Your hyperbole just makes your comments on more sane avenues of attack less effective.

[FireNexus]

You're trying to justify the line of attack by shifting the goalposts to other alleged illegal activities. That implies you feel that the attack is not totally out of left field and wrong because "look at all these other accusations". Maybe your attack of treason wasn't purely political. In that case, it was just stupid.

I've seen you pull this shit against Clinton in the primaries, as well. You get told you're wrong about a specific accusation and you bring up other accusations to deflect criticism from your hyperbolic declarations. The fact that you now defend her with "investigated and cleared" implies there is a strong political component to it.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're trying to justify the line of attack by shifting the goalposts to other alleged illegal activities. That implies you feel that the attack is not totally out of left field and wrong because "look at all these other accusations". Maybe your attack of treason wasn't purely political. In that case, it was just stupid.

Acknowledging that Trump didn't commit treason but pointing out that he is nonetheless connected to other shady shit is "shifting the goal posts"?

What, was I supposed to concede that their are no allegations against Trump that might possibly have any merit because anything else would be "shifting the goalposts"?

You spent God knows how many posts attacking me for my opposition to Clinton and support for Bernie, and now you're defending Trump just so you can dishonestly pick a fight with me?

I've seen you pull this shit against Clinton in the primaries, as well. You get told you're wrong about a specific accusation and you bring up other accusations to deflect criticism from your hyperbolic declarations. The fact that you now defend her with "investigated and cleared" implies there is a strong political component to it.

Or it could be, because, you know, their have been new developments in the case since then?

As to my view of Clinton, I don't like her or trust her. That hasn't changed. I'd still vote for her over Trump even if she had been indicted. That hasn't changed either.

But you're obviously trolling me over shit that happened months ago, and have reminded me why I started just trying to ignore you. I'm going back to that now.

[Patroklos]

What developments lead to her being "cleared". I remember it being confirmed she broke the law, lied about it, showed gross incompetence and was nonetheless not going to be held responsible.

You may prefer less damning language, but in no respect was Clinton cleared no matter how many times she or shills for her claim it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/clinto ... falsehood/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... y-clinton/

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh for fuck's sake, can we not rehash the email server again. We have another thread for that shit.

[Crown]

<snip>

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.

I don't buy into that narrative 100%, but at least I can see how you've arrived to it. Disagreeing beyond this point is splitting hairs, you're approaching this as after decades of dog whistling classical conditioning the Republican's accidentally lost control of their monster, I'd approach it as after decades of the electorate being hate fucked by Republicans (and Democrats alike) they're looking for anything anti-establishment.

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.

Actually the far left will moan, whine, stamp their feet and pout but they will either stay home (in the extreme case) or vote Hillary while holding back their bile (hell, her and Bernie split them during the primaries). The Democrats are losing the working class. It's white males and females with no degree that Hillary is polling horribly in. Not the millennials (note, now I'm switching gears to the way Hillary polls when matched against Trump, not Bernie ... she got creamed by Bernie on the millennial vote). The troubling thing for the Democrats is that they (the working class) will vote Trump.

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.

The Evangelicals (as one example) weren't radicalised by the GOP, they already held these views. The Republicans (just like the Democrats) are running out of tricks to get the same stupid people to vote for the same stupid establishment assholes who will wage economic war on them. Which is why a candidate like Trump is appealing to them (well actually not the Evangelicals who loath him, but not as much as they loath Hillary); it's a shot across the bow of the GOP.

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.

At any stage of the Republican debates if you took a screenshot and asked people to point out who was the 'Tea Party candidate' you'd get a near unanimous consensus on Ted Cruz. I think you know this, and I think you're smart enough to understand that I wasn't arguing that Trump was the 'centrist candidate', but the 'outsider'. So this was a lot of wasted time.

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.

You know what, if you hadn't taken the time to actually structure the quotes the way you had, I would have left the (yellow) highlighted line go and accepted that it was reasonable (the way my post read) for you to make that comment, but now I have to ask; how in the flying fuck did you manage to miss the obvious signs (highlighted in pink) that I was expanding and substantiating it? Like that's a special kind of skill there.

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.

I don't think people are appreciating how much the working (and more worryingly middle) class are willing to go with Trump at this stage. We'll see when more accurate polling data, but this is getting beyond people responding to racism. I'm viewing this as Brexit 2.0.

[FireNexus]

But you're obviously trolling me over shit that happened months ago, and have reminded me why I started just trying to ignore you. I'm going back to that now.

No, fuckface. I am taking you to task for a persistent pattern of intellectual dishonesty. That you support Clinton now is great, but that you're bringing to bear the same kind of questionable thought process is not.

Precious, let me see if I can get through to you on this: _Somebody calling you out on your bullshit is not necessarily trolling. I brought up the thin that happened months ago because it's the same thing you're doing here. That we happen to be on the same side this time doesn't make it any less stupid and wrong.

It can't be that everyone in the thread is repeatedly trolling you. It's that you are repeatedly falling into patterns of stupid reasoning and getting tightness in your butt when it's pointed out. Your hollow rationalization a and goalpost shifting was irritate when it was on the side of Bernie, and it's no less so when yu're going whole hog against Trump. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to stop being stupid.

[Starglider]

A Trump presidency could actually be cathartic. It would be a disaster, but a limited disaster (thanks to separation of powers) that would thoroughly discredit all the groups and trends that brought him to power, as well as hopefully forcing a significant house-cleaning on the Democratic side, purging Clinton's rather dubious support structure. The Democrats would be well placed to capture the next several presidential terms with the Republicans (a) in complete disarray and (b) hopefully on the path to a more reasonable platform. In the baseline case of Clinton winning, yes immediate disaster has been averted, but all the same trends are still in play and the Republican base will be even angrier. A significant economic crash is likely to occur in the next four years regardless; Clinton will get the blame and that risks an even worse, slicker presented Republican demagogue in the next election.

[Crown]

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.

Yes, I imagine if the DNC could have found more ways to suppress the vote during the primaries Hillary would have absolutely crushed it. What a well reasoned argument there.

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.

Already dealt with in my reply to simon. It's not the far left I'm discussing but the working (and middle) class white people where she is absolutely fucked in.

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.

Meaningless comparison, as already mentioned Evangelicals are voting for Trump only because they hate Hillary more. There's a lot of that going on in this election.

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?

When Congress approval ratings struggle to make it out of single fucking digit approval ratings and yet incumbents nearly always win I posit that the electorate isn't as animated/informed enough to affect their will. The same cannot be said for a Presidential election cycle that lasts (what over a year?) where you'd have to be dead not to know anything about who you could vote for. A fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be fucking grateful for every day.

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.

Mr Hope and Change ability to maintain high approval ratings (while politically impressive) does not an argument make as to the mood of the electorate. He also had outstanding approval ratings in the UK (higher than in the US actually), how did Brexit go again?

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.

Oh fuck off with the legalese, we're also discussing corruption which doesn't have any requirement to be illegal by definition but dishonest. It would have been illegal for Hillary to accept upfront X amount of money from Y persons, but if Y persons gave that same X money to the DNC who then funnel all that money to Hillary, well that's all not defeating the purpose of caping donations at all ...

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?

I'll answer your question just as soon as you answer mine; 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?

You quoted it, so I know you read it. Answer it. Ta.

[Crown]

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

And yet in the video (and article the video is based on) Bernie is clearly pointing out that it's the DNC who is deciding that all that money is going to Hillary to be used against him and is clearly calling foul. You get that's not what you said was happening right?

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

Yes, I was most impressed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Evangelicals (as one example) weren't radicalised by the GOP, they already held these views. The Republicans (just like the Democrats) are running out of tricks to get the same stupid people to vote for the same stupid establishment assholes who will wage economic war on them. Which is why a candidate like Trump is appealing to them (well actually not the Evangelicals who loath him, but not as much as they loath Hillary); it's a shot across the bow of the GOP.

Actually, you are just flat out wrong here. Until the late 1970s, the Evangelicals were not politically active, they viewed politics as worldly and thus dirty. Most of them did not even vote. The Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of Roe v Wade because for them it was a separation of church and state issue. That changed because the republican party actively courted them and actively lobbied them to change their mind on the issue of abortion. This is where Jerry Falwell got his start in politics, he was an early adopter.

The White Nationalist vote also always held these views, but they too were actively courted by the GOP.

In subsequent years, they have continued to radicalize both groups even further.

The Evangelicals... only some of them loathe trump. Remember, there is a high degree of overlap between White Nationalists and Evangelicals.

At any stage of the Republican debates if you took a screenshot and asked people to point out who was the 'Tea Party candidate' you'd get a near unanimous consensus on Ted Cruz. I think you know this, and I think you're smart enough to understand that I wasn't arguing that Trump was the 'centrist candidate', but the 'outsider'. So this was a lot of wasted time.

Cruz was the one they expected to be the Tea Party candidate. He was not the one the Tea Party ultimately lined up for. Remember, the Tea Party largely consists of White Nationalists.

I don't think people are appreciating how much the working (and more worryingly middle) class are willing to go with Trump at this stage. We'll see when more accurate polling data, but this is getting beyond people responding to racism. I'm viewing this as Brexit 2.0.

It is also fairly early and I think you are over-estimating just how much of the population is going for Trump. Consider:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5952.html

Trump has problems staying above 36-37%. About that percentage of the population was still supporting Bush II at the end of his term. This is the percentage of people who will follow anything with an R next to its name as long as it has a pulse. As time goes on, I would hazard the Trump will hemorrhage even more to Hillary and the Libs, but wont drop below about 30%.

Yes, I imagine if the DNC could have found more ways to suppress the vote during the primaries Hillary would have absolutely crushed it. What a well reasoned argument there.

There is no actual evidence that there was voter suppression beyond the usual logistical fuckups that accompany pretty much every election ever. Someone in NY fucked up a database that hit everyone equally! OH NO! Arizona fucked up its logistics and overloaded some precincts! OH NO! Obviously our republican controlled election commission is a DNC puppet!

Come back to me when you have evidence that they managed to suppress ~4 million votes. If you cannot do so, shut the fuck up.

And yet in the video (and article the video is based on) Bernie is clearly pointing out that it's the DNC who is deciding that all that money is going to Hillary to be used against him and is clearly calling foul. You get that's not what you said was happening right?

Joint Fundraiser. If Bernie had utilized his agreement with the DNC, he could have done the same. He did not.

Might it be a little shady? It could be, hell it could even be favoritism, depending on the nature of the agreements and if they substantially differ between candidates. Is it election-rigging, money-laundering, or voter suppression? No.

[maraxus2]

Yes, I imagine if the DNC could have found more ways to suppress the vote during the primaries Hillary would have absolutely crushed it. What a well reasoned argument there.

"More ways to suppress the vote" lol. Do you have a shred of evidence for this assertion? I'm pointing out that Hillary owned Bernie during the primaries, that it wasn't close. You appear to be arguing the opposite, but have provided no evidence to this point.

Already dealt with in my reply to simon. It's not the far left I'm discussing but the working (and middle) class white people where she is absolutely fucked in.

The Democrats haven't won the white working-class vote in a presidential election since Reagan. They are the Republican base of support today and a non-factor in Hillary winning the White House. Hillary needs to keep the Obama coalition together, which she appears to be doing pretty well.

And she's so fucked among middle-class whites that she's currently leading Trump by 18 points in the latest CNN poll. What a disaster.

Meaningless comparison, as already mentioned Evangelicals are voting for Trump only because they hate Hillary more. There's a lot of that going on in this election.

This does not negate my point that Trump won with a minority of the vote, which undermines your argument that there's a widespread anti-establishment feeling going on in this election.

When Congress approval ratings struggle to make it out of single fucking digit approval ratings and yet incumbents nearly always win I posit that the electorate isn't as animated/informed enough to affect their will. The same cannot be said for a Presidential election cycle that lasts (what over a year?) where you'd have to be dead not to know anything about who you could vote for. A fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be fucking grateful for every day.

You don't have to know anything to want to throw the bums out. We've had anti-establishment elections before, where loads of incumbents lost their primaries or the general election. This has not happened so far. In fact, with the exception of Huelskamp, every incumbent MoC in Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan won their primary with 60%+ of the vote.

You forget that congressional primaries are often held on the same day as presidential primaries. If voters are so anti-establishment that they will show up to vote for an anti-establishment candidate, it stands to reason that at least some rabble-rousing challengers would do well in the Congressional elections. This has not happened, and would seem to undermine your argument that there is a widespread anti-establishment sentiment feeling in this election.

Mr Hope and Change ability to maintain high approval ratings (while politically impressive) does not an argument make as to the mood of the electorate. He also had outstanding approval ratings in the UK (higher than in the US actually), how did Brexit go again?

What the fuck does Obama's approval rating in the UK have to do with anything? I'm pointing out that if the voters were in such an anti-establishment mood, they surely wouldn't be giving Obama such a high approval rating. This is a strange argument.

Oh fuck off with the legalese, we're also discussing corruption which doesn't have any requirement to be illegal by definition but dishonest. It would have been illegal for Hillary to accept upfront X amount of money from Y persons, but if Y persons gave that same X money to the DNC who then funnel all that money to Hillary, well that's all not defeating the purpose of caping donations at all ...

Oh fuck off with your goalpost moving. You were accusing Hillary and the DNC of money laundering, not merely shifty shit. In point of fact, what she did was not illegal and effectively had no bearing on the election. As Aly pointed out, Bernie outraised her anyway.

I'll answer your question just as soon as you answer mine; 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?

You quoted it, so I know you read it. Answer it. Ta.

Ostensibly they're supposed to be neutral, but everyone knows they are not. Much the same way that everyone knew that Obama was supporting Clinton prior to coming out and actually endorsing her. Those five staffers who were talking shit about Sanders were clearly not being neutral.

I'm saying that I don't give a shit about it, apart from the fact that it had unfortunate consequences right before the DNC. I see no evidence whatever that their shit-talking cost Bernie a single vote. The fact that you pointedly did not provide evidence to that effect reinforces my belief that it does not exist.


You're creating a series of narratives about this election without a shred of evidence to support it. I have provided abundant evidence to support my arguments, most of which you've ignored.