Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

On that note, watch for the Millie builders.

There are some younger GOPers who are already talking about some issues that you would never see Red Boomers embrace.

Rather then continue to fight against the tax system they want to refurbish it to be commensurate with other advanced countries.

For example, things like eliminating depreciation schedules and replacing them with a one year expensing holiday (e.g. in order to motivate corps and rich people to spend money on capital and infrastructure investments). Things like giving all businesses the same (corporate) tax treatment - yes that means small businesses would no longer muddle corporate and personal tax info - talk about closing a loop hole that in the aggregate results in huge revenue losses. Corporate tax rates would be lowered to either the Obama number (28%) or a slightly lower figure like 26%. Most forms of debt interest could no longer be deducted (with mortgages being up for debate).

Meanwhile, increasing Federal infrastructure and science spend.

So much more to build here. This is just scratching the surface.

This sounds like the former Mayor of San Francisco and Lt. Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. We likely will be hearing from Newsom as a presidential candidate in the 2020s if he becomes Governor of California in 2018.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Dukakis is as ridiculous as he looks. Mike Dukakis became a UCLA Political Science Professor who has distinguished himself by crusading against nearby Westwood residents allowing (or renting) students to park on their driveways in front of their garages during the day. http://www.laobserved.com/archive/20...n_westwood.php

Sounds to me like he needs a full time job. That being said apron parking is a problem when one is backing out of their drive way, around fire hydrants and for the disabled particularly the blind without the aid of a dog. It really is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If the shoe fits...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If the shoe fits...

And in other news, Chicago Public Schools are going BK ... but hey ... we've got our priorities straight. Darn that Cruz and his attacks on the "rights" of pork fed corn farmers ... darn that Clinton and her use of a good private email system instead of the Russian-hacked Dept of State one ... Darn ... Ya sure ... You betcha! / sarc

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is boring, but so is attempting to debate with a Democratic Partisan. Face it Playdude, everyone already knows that you'll vote for whomever the Democrats offer. It doesn't matter if it is Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. You are part of the Democratic 15%. That is to say 15% of the population is going to vote for whomever the Democrats put on offer. The GOP also has 15%. That 30% is not who decides elections, thankfully.



If I were you I'd leave the psychological analysis to the psychologists on the board. You see I personally don't care if you post either. That we agree on much doesn't mean I even have to like you. Honestly much of the time I think you're a pretentious bore, but I think that of many liberals so you're not alone. You really should stick to posting about MMT, that is one of the few times you're not a pretentious bore.

As for the technique, it is effective. It gets your blood up, I see that by your post. It is effective so I'll use it in the future. See that is the thing I've noticed about Boomers (especially white ones) early on. They hate thinking they aren't being taken seriously--whether they are being serious or not. I blame it on GI parenting and its indulgent ways.

Also it it is Gangnam Style. I googled Gaungan Style and well Google says they've never heard of it. Playing fast and loose again? You know cause it works so effectively against people who actually take the time to think about what they post before they actually post.



I don't need to. Your ignorance of Asia in general and Korea in particular will do the work for me.



The governmental structure of Korea has been written down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...of_North_Korea

I know, I know wikipedia. Needless to say I've read translated versions of the document for myself. Kim has to deal with his own Party's politburo and his power isn't unlimited. He has exactly as much power as the Army and the Party allows, the two foundations of the power he has. Which is prudent given that he is both young and untested, and that regencies are not uncommon in monarchies which it is slowly becoming evident the DPRK actually is.

Furthermore, I'd argue that any problems with having a Bellicose Moron in the White House would be primarily domestic. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the US does not attack powers with nukes because we don't want ourselves blown up and we most certainly do have checks on said bellicose moron's power. Or do you plan on arguing that the US is itself a totalitarian dictatorship or whatever you plan on claiming the DPRK is.



History is also rife with coups d'etats when something like that is close to happening. Kim's power is not absolute, he rules only by the consent of the Army really. One of the many flaws of Kim Jong-Il's policy of Army First.



Again with the Guangan Style...if you mean Gangnam Style it is clear that you have not understood the meaning of the song (which I will admit is rather vapid in and of itself, but it actually does have a meaning). No the grammar police tactic is not a misdirection. It is pointing out that someone who can't be bothered to use names correctly cannot be taken seriously.

As for using Google, you may want to try it. One can learn many useful things off google. Hell the search engine has inspired its own religion.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

In some ways I kind of see their point.



Kim's power rests on the Army's consent. Which is evident upon an analysis of the power dynamics within the DPRK with has been made available through the CIA among other sources.



I'm not particularly interested in doing that. It is obvious you haven't debated me much, but if you did you'd know I don't play that game. I leave that for the Partisan Republicans on the board.



I've read that book. I understand that book. But it is obvious that you don't understand the Song referenced in my Signature. Furthermore, Animal Farm in the 8th grade, read it in 6th down here. Don't tell me New York now lags behind Florida!

The fact is that Orwell wrote a fable based upon what he thought. The man may have been involved in the Spanish Civil War, but he never learned to speak Spanish so he could only base his thoughts on what he was told was happening. He also never went to the Soviet Union, and even if he had he certainly didn't speak Russian so like Spain he could only base his thoughts on what he was told.

No I have a better book that I think you should review. The Prince by Machiavelli. Even an absolute monarch has to cater to that base which supplies him with power. Kim is no different, and he isn't even close to being an absolute monarch even if him being a monarch is an arguable point.



It isn't my fault you cannot understand basic logic. That logic being that Hillary Vs Any Republican is not a binary choice until AFTER she is anointed (or nominated if you prefer) the Democratic candidate.



I understand how the two party system works. Perhaps better than you do. I have to, not having either that actually represents me any way, shape or form, though Progressive (not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) Democrats come closest. Also I understand basic math, I did after all graduate the 4th grade.



Again not a point of contention other than the fact that the Democrats have their own primary binary choice: A New Deal Progressive vs DLC Corporatist Democrat. In short Sanders Vs Clintion. I could even simply it further An Indpendent that acts like a Democrat (in the New Deal Traditional sense) vs A Democrat that acts like a Republican (That is uses traditionally Non-ClownCar GOP talking points and positions).

The fact that you don't seem to understand that no matter the desires of the DNC or the DLC, Hillary is a Democrat that acts like a Republican (and the fact that everyone outside of the Democratic 15% knows this) means we have a choice between whomever the GOP picks (Establishment or Non-Establishment doesn't matter) and whomever the Democrats pick, and whom the Democrats pick does matter. At least for everyone outside of the GOP 15% and the Democrat 15%.

So then if the choice is between say Ted Cruz Vs Ted Cruz Lite (since HRC might not enforce Marijuana Laws and probably will let women have abortions) the clear choice for the 70% is clear. Ted Cruz. Trump is more tricky because his positions quite frankly are all over the map if you listen to the man.



Actually I was not confused by it. But the problem you have is in your assumption that HRC will end up being the nominee. Polls conducted in real time seem to indicate otherwise. And that isn't even bringing in the fact that she was supposed to have been the nominee in 2008 and Obama came out of no where running on a Progressive (again not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) platform.

In short you are being illogical from the start by assuming that something which is not a given is in fact a given. It is akin to assuming that x+y=2 that both x and y must be 1 and ignoring the possibility that x or y could be 2 and x or y could be 0.

For the record 2 can be derived through addition by the following processes: 1+1=2, 0+2=2, 2+0=2. If you disbelieve me you may want to consult your 8th grader on the matter.

As such since we are dealing with a binary choice and we know that the answer is 2 we must first determine if either x or y is in fact 0 before we conclude that both are 1. In American politics this happens through one means, the primary process. As such attempting to determine whom one is going to vote for in the General election cannot happen (unless one is voting strictly on the basis of political party--which if that is how you do things, that's your choice but for others the process is quite different) until after it is mathematically impossible for anyone other than the eventual nominee to be nominated.

To make a complex system simple, each state is allocated delegates that are assigned in proportion to how that state goes with the addition of a few delegates from the Party's National Center (AKA Super-delegates...a trick HRC tried in 2008 and failed at as well). These delegates then vote on the basis of the preferences of the electors (IE the people who voted in their state's primary) that sent them to the Convention. This may or may not require several rounds of voting depending on if anyone has an overwhelming majority.



Or perhaps you are realizing that you are slowly painting yourself into a corner with real time information trickling in that Sanders is beating Clinton across the board and that he Beats the GOP candidates across the board by more points than HRC does. In any case I'll proceed to blow up your simplistic model because it is first simplistic and second it is wrong.



I notice that you're attempting to ascribe plus points and negative points to the candidates. I would contend that if we are going to ascribe these points we should not do so on the basis of Party but rather of actual positions (assuming one can actually nail down Hillary on any, seriously she filp flops more than Romney and as such one can only conclude she'll say anything to get elected).

As such we'll ascribe to New Deal types (and New Deal Lite types) the value of +10, and we'll ascribe to the Tea Party/Know-Nothing types -10.

As such we'll get the following values:

Cruz: -10
Rubio: -7
G. W. Bush: -7 (not on the ballot but used as a frame of reference)
Jeb Bush: -5 (He could have been a worse Governor, in fact we have a worse Governor now)
Bill Clinton: -0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Trump: ? (really listen to the man, somethings are really monstrous, some things sound like Bernie)
HRC: ? (again listen to her, on the one hand she's all for the ACA & the BHO record, on the next she's claiming that Single Payer would be the end of the USA--never mind Single Payer has been a Democratic position SINCE Truman)
Al Gore: +0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
O'Mally: +3 (I've checked him out he reminds me of a milquetoast version of Mondale)
BHO: +4 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Bernie: +9 (Sorry but the only +10 president we've had since Lincoln was FDR, though TR was about a +9.5)

Now as we can see we have two candidates, one of which is not guaranteed to win nomination by their party (seriously were you asleep during the Primaries in 2008?) the other of which can win their party's nomination after defeating Cruz (which should be easy, the Birther thing + tapping into raw electoral anger can win Trump the GOP nomination).

Now it should be obvious that since I broke for Obama twice, and Al Gore once, and would have voted for Bill Clinton twice had I had the opportunity to (one has to remember I was 13 and 17 in '92 and '96 respectively) I'm not opposed to voting for candidates I'd consider to be "on the bubble". Often that is the only choice presented. I also voted for Kerry but that was an A.B.B vote. (Anybody but Bush).

Now one would think by looking at the scores I've given these candidates, I'd vote primarily Democratic, and they would be right. The New Deal/Great Society Democrats (to use Truman's terminology "Democrats that act like Democrats") do by and large represent a great deal of my views (they only piss me off in that they don't go far enough). On the other hand, if one carefully looks at the divisions within the Democratic party one will clearly notice that those candidates that coalece into what is usually termed the Democratic Leadership Caucus (DLC) score the lowest of all Democrats. Hillary Clinton is very much a creature of the DLC just like her Husband (whom I've criticized a great deal both in the 90s and 00s for being "too willing to cave to the GOP"). As such I have no reason to expect that she won't, like Bill be at least a -0.5.

Now if we add into the things she actually has said in the past 20 years her numbers sink much much lower than Bill's. As such given her current trajectory we're looking at a -3 at least. Granted that is two points above Jeb Bush and seven points above Cruz, but we do know that HRC is a DLC Democrat and when confronted with a GOP dominated Congress will cave to them because that is what DLC Democrats do (you know, cause they are Republican lite).

As such we have no idea where Trump would place. I've actually listened to the man, and in the GOP debates he is the only person I could stand to vote for if someone besides Hillary (seriously it may not be logical but I viscerally hate the woman and that is a trait shared by many nominal Democrats, including my own mother) and besides Bernie runs on the Democratic ticket and even then it is a close thing. He seems to me to be very much on the bubble.

On the one hand he says some pretty monstrous things, all of it has the look and feel of Red Meat for the Red Base (to be expected during a primary) on the other hand he says some incredibly progressive things (not to be confused with Neo-Progressivism) such as wanting single payer and scrapping NAFTA, TPP and other "free trade" deals that result in the destruction of high paying blue collar jobs upon which the Proletariat depends. That being said, he most likely would place somewhere under Bill Clinton but above Jeb Bush (which remember I scored as -5).

As such assuming that HRC scores at least a -5, which she can do easily just on likability alone never mind her positions (again assuming she actually has some--seriously she acts like a Democratic Romney). Even Ted Cruz starts to look good. You might call it illogical, and maybe it is, but let us see if we can understand why.

You see when one elects a President he also is electing a Vice President, a House, and a Third of the Senate. Now in my case since Rubio is not running for re-election assuming he isn't nominated for Vice President, the choice is simple, vote for the Democrat, any Democrat will do (though a progressive is strongly preferred). It should be noted that we've had a couple constitutional changes lately (since 2000) and one of them prohibits a candidate from appearing twice on the Ballot (one of Jeb Bush's doings, something he did right but only on accident as I told both my BF and Mother). As such it is a safe bet for me to vote for a Democrat for Senate, and I'll also be voting Democratic for the House. This therefore means that even if Hillary runs and I about face and vote a split ticket (extremely rare for me I assure you) and vote for Trump or hell even Cruz those two will be actively working against his agenda and gumming up the works.

At the same time, let us suppose that Bernie is running. This means that he will get my senator assuming the Democrat wins, which is possible Allan Greyson win on the I-4 alone (the I-4 corridor is an intensely blue stripe down the middle of an otherwise red state), and my representative (which with the new districts can happen, my county has been hit very hard these last few years). He very well could ride a wave of left-populism into a super-majority in both houses. As such this simplies the maths even further and makes your judgements on the presidency alone patently absurd.

So lets us break it down:

GOP Prez w/ GOP Congress: -2 (backward)
GOP Prez w/ Dem Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ GOP Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ Dem Congress: 0 (progress so long as congress doesn't go much further left than John Kerry)
Bernie Prez w/GOP Congress: +1 (making the Republicans say "No" and telling the people they said "No", you know like FDR did.)
Bernie Prez w/ Dem Congress: +2 (forward)

As you can see once one includes the Congress into the metric (which they have to because the President isn't a dictator or even a king) we see that the top score that Hillary can achieve for us is a 0 (and that is assuming she is a hard zero and not a fractional negative which here DLC ways indicate). What is known, is that Hillary will not attract the Presidential race voters which swept BHO into office and weakened the GOP House and Senate in 2012 after the GOP wave of 2010 (though the GOP made marginal gains in 2014 but that was to be expected in a low turn out midterm). As such one must conclude that the realistic outcome of HRC being elected will be a -1 result. That is to say gridlock.

Now, here is the problem with gridlock, we have to deal with the mathematics of the collapse of the Third Republic (I've at times divided US history into various republics on the basis roughly of saeculum, the first was 1789-1865, the second 1865-1945, the third 1945-present). Since we all know that systems that must collapse eventually will, and that some collapses are good for you, and that bigger collapses are nastier than smaller ones, and that frequent collapses are better than infrequent ones. It makes sense that if the best Hillary can offer is gridlock, that therefore a backwards result is better. It is better in that it will bring the collapse of the Third Republic.

Of course best of all would be the establishment of the Fourth Republic through democratic and electorial means with a Democratic Congress and Bernie Sanders at the helm. Which won't happen if Hillary is in fact the nominee. As such it makes logical sense that if the end goal is the destruction of the Third Republic and the creation of the Fourth Republic that "going backwards" really is going forwards.

My apparent failure is not one of logic, but rather your failure to understand the dialectic at play.

Well that was quite a turgid load you dumped on us. Let's see if there's anything salvageable here -

- First, it certainly isn't your rather humorous continued attempt at credentials by bolstering your thinly-disguised grammar policing with a Wiki link and unnamed CIA reports. Anyone believing that an online description of government form translates to actual government function has been caught short of more that just a few years of real life experience - does your mom or a life assistant do your taxes, get your driver's, pay your bills? And those exclusive CIA reports, do they just come in the mail or do you have to tune your tin foil headwear to a particular frequency? Because the one I'm familiar with -

http://www3.dogus.edu.tr/cerdem/imag...s%20father.pdf

states the following -

a “malignant narcissist” exhibiting “extreme grandiosity and self-absorption,” a lack of “capacity to empathize with others,” and a heightened risk of “major political/military miscalculation.”

Good we have a resident 'expert' in you on the forum to hint at those real CIA reports you exclusively get to counter their public reports and that can assure us there is nothing about Kim to be concerned about!

- Moving on to the second, not much there either regarding your general faith in the the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful 'math' of the state. As long as you all never get into actual power positions again, we can overlook that slight flaw, obvious to all but yourselves, of your statist faith that the system just simply precludes a state dictator from truly dictating to the state. I mean even if Orwell spoke fluent Spanish, I think he would still be surprised that the 10s of millions crushed under Stalin's or Mao's boot didn't give you a pause let alone humble your faith. Really, why should we expect anything else from you other than Kim is but a servant figurehead to the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful Korean version of the central committee (- particularly when collaborated by those exclusive reports the CIA beams down to your headgear!).

- Third, you do seem to at last caught on that the election for Prez is primarily a set of binary choices, with the particularly one of most import being the last, i.e., the GOP nom. v. Dem. nom. No argument there from me, of course, but I do stand amazed at the amount of keyboarding you had to traverse from 'no, it's not,' because I first said it, to you now lecturing us that it is obviously so - a true example of the amazing value-added you bring to the forum!

So putting aside those three elements of your turgit dump being just more of the same old boring crude you spew, is there anything new to amuse us?

What is interesting is your weird clobbering together of the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" with not only your full buy-in of the "false equivalency meme" but some sort of Palin-like bro romance with The Donald ('I looked into his eyes' - wasn't the a Bush thingee?). The only thing that could put a cherry on top of that would be your breaking the Godwin Law in some new moronic way of suggesting the Fuhrer could be part of the Democratic Party! And wow did you paid off like a broken slot machine!

Only someone in a coma for the last 30 or so years would not be aware of the general trend -



Even Ron Ray-gun would be considered too liberal for today's GOP nomination. What that graph of the continuing AVERAGE doesn't show is the moving standard deviation around that line - it use to be pretty broad but today barely discernable from the GOP's average. Let me spell that out for one with a Palin-type of mind - it's very likely a rather solid GOP voter of the 1980s could be confused today as being a yellow dog Dem voter, even a Bernie supporter. I'm not a big fan of the Far Lefties (they mostly whine alot) but your thinly-disguised false equivalency meme that 10% of the DEM base is as crazy as the 10% GOP base - well, the dog don't hunt regardless of what percentages you want to spew out. You just come across as being ridiculously silly - it is amusing though.

As for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome, your big complaint is HC supports Obamacare unlike Bernie promising to bring single payer to everyone with only tax pain on the very rich. I guess you must also have a Krugman Derangement Syndrome since he gave old Bernie's plan the same big magical thinking asterisk that he gave Paul Ryan's magic pony plan -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ed-at-bernies/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-from-vermont/

Even you can't pin down why you hate the Clinton 'bitch.' Why don't you just grap those gonads and admit that the castrating femnazi reminds you of one of your ex-wives?

As for your bro-mance with Trump, I'll just go with that NY Post headline again and suggest that three's company afterall.

But what's really telling is what you saved for last. First, the hope-for scenario of Bernie in the WH and at the helm of a Dem-controlled Congress. And then the magic carpet ride that will take us there - EXACTLY what the 08 Obamatrons yelled with certitude - 'he'll come in and make all those meanie GOP Congressional critters look really mean when they say no and their t-bag supporters will get really mad and not vote for those big meanies ever again!'

Ride that magic pony, Kinser, ride that pony!!!



You all are so cute!

Originally Posted by SZA

what surprises me is how many people think that Republicans can win in 2016.

today, Republicans need more than the white vote to succeed. I think it was in 2012 that Obama lost the same percentage of the white vote that Dukakis did in 1988 and the results were basically reversed. Obama cruised to victory with +5m votes and a significant electoral advantage. Dukakis wasn't quite so lucky.

voter suppression may work in some states (North Carolina, notably), but it won't be enough to wipe out the Democratic advantage this election.

actually, I would say absent a significant shift to the right in minority communities, the Republicans are SOL as far as general elections are concerned.

Democrats have a huge advantage among Millennials, women, people of color, and the LGBT. not only that, the number of people who lean Democratic is higher today than it was 20 years ago, when Clinton was winning a 2nd term.

I read somewhere that Republicans would need at least 47% of the Hispanic vote to win in 2016. Romney managed around 28%. the highest polling Republican so far was Bush with 44%, the same number W. won in 2004.

significantly, the 2012 GOP autopsy stated point blank that Romney's stance on immigration had repelled Hispanic voters and given Democrats a significant advantage. they recommended a more moderated approach to immigration, including immigration reform. the Gang of Eight couldn't get it done. now we have Trump doing his thing.

this won't end well for the right-wing side in November, barring some substantive happening outside of politics. (recession, depression, total war, etc.)

All true enough, but inconsequential if the GOTV effort yields lousy results. Look at the list the Democrats need to win, and few are reliable voters.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

This sounds like the former Mayor of San Francisco and Lt. Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. We likely will be hearing from Newsom as a presidential candidate in the 2020s if he becomes Governor of California in 2018.

His political timing is miserable. His horoscope score is worse than Sarah Palin's.

Now I'm not claiming that everyone with a very positive score gets elected president. You have to be in a position to show your stuff, as Virgil Fox said. But for those who enter and play the game, get noticed, and are reasonably-enough mainstream within one of the two parties, the horoscope scores are very useful in telling who will actually win the brass ring. Newsom has no chance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

All true enough, but inconsequential if the GOTV effort yields lousy results. Look at the list the Democrats need to win, and few are reliable voters.

But as of now, that list is more reliable in presidential elections. But the question remains, if Hillary gets the nomination (because it's "her turn,"), will enough diverse millennials turn out and vote for her?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But as of now, that list is more reliable in presidential elections. But the question remains, if Hillary gets the nomination (because it's "her turn,"), will enough diverse millennials turn out and vote for her?

-- not just Millies. Will enough if anybody turn out to vote for her

Oh boy, one clown endorses another!



Palin "stumps for Trump!"

What about a Trump-Palin ticket! You betcha

rock'n'rollers, and holy rollers! hands that rock the cradle, unite!

A CIC who will let our warriors to kick ISIS in the ass! What does that mean? Kill as many civilians as you can along with the terrorists, and thus create more terrorists. Never mind, let's make America great again!

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- not just Millies. Will enough of anybody turn out to vote for her

Yes, older women will. Many Democrats will.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well that was quite a turgid load you dumped on us. Let's see if there's anything salvageable here -

- First, it certainly isn't your rather humorous continued attempt at credentials by bolstering your thinly-disguised grammar policing with a Wiki link and unnamed CIA reports. Anyone believing that an online description of government form translates to actual government function has been caught short of more that just a few years of real life experience - does your mom or a life assistant do your taxes, get your driver's, pay your bills? And those exclusive CIA reports, do they just come in the mail or do you have to tune your tin foil headwear to a particular frequency? Because the one I'm familiar with -

http://www3.dogus.edu.tr/cerdem/imag...s%20father.pdf

states the following -

Good we have a resident 'expert' in you on the forum to hint at those real CIA reports you exclusively get to counter their public reports and that can assure us there is nothing about Kim to be concerned about!

Several huge problems with this paper. First is that this person has never been in proximity to Kim Jong-Il long enough for him to perform a proper psychological analysis of him. Second it was published about Kim Jong-Il after his death. Third it is about Kim Jong-Il and we are expressly talking about Kim Jong-un.

Surely you can differentiate between a father and a son. However, if you cannot then that demonstrates your problems and not my own.

As to the CIA world fact book...it is public record. Anyone with a computer can google it for themselves. And while I'll admit that wikipedia is not the best source in the world, at least I actually have sources that are relevant to the topic under discussion and not a non-anaylsis of a dead man.

Truly it would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

- Moving on to the second, not much there either regarding your general faith in the the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful 'math' of the state. As long as you all never get into actual power positions again, we can overlook that slight flaw, obvious to all but yourselves, of your statist faith that the system just simply precludes a state dictator from truly dictating to the state.

All most no dicator, no matter how all powerful dictates all the day to day functions of the state. Well unless you're proposing that Mao really cared if the kids went to bed at bed time or Franco dictated what was for supper. Again it would be hilarious if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

I mean even if Orwell spoke fluent Spanish, I think he would still be surprised that the 10s of millions crushed under Stalin's or Mao's boot didn't give you a pause let alone humble your faith. Really, why should we expect anything else from you other than Kim is but a servant figurehead to the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful Korean version of the central committee (- particularly when collaborated by those exclusive reports the CIA beams down to your headgear!).

Considering that there aren't 10s of millions that have been Crushed under Stalin or Mao's boots I think Orwell would be surprised to learn even if he spoke fluent Manderin that you unquestioningly accept accounts of events that either never took place or were known then to be fabrications and/or are known now to be fabrications. Tell me did you not read my posts concerning how Robert Conquest's "research" consisted of regurgitating "facts" produced by Goebbels' Ministry of Truth?

Methinks someone needs to invest in some tin foil headgear but it isn't me. Again it would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

- Third, you do seem to at last caught on that the election for Prez is primarily a set of binary choices, with the particularly one of most import being the last, i.e., the GOP nom. v. Dem. nom. No argument there from me, of course, but I do stand amazed at the amount of keyboarding you had to traverse from 'no, it's not,' because I first said it, to you now lecturing us that it is obviously so - a true example of the amazing value-added you bring to the forum!

The fact that the election ultimately is a choice between the Democrat Nominee and the Republican Nominee was never in question. Seriously I'm starting to think you need to invest in some of that tin foil hat technology, the CIA, FBI or Space Aliens must be beaming the thought that that was some how a debate into your head!

Again it would be funny if it weren't so goddamn sad.

The amount of keyboarding was necessary to explain that even though the ultimate choice is simple, the road to getting to that end choice is not. That you obviously do not understant that much would again be funny if it weren't so goddamn sad.

So putting aside those three elements of your turgit dump being just more of the same old boring crude you spew, is there anything new to amuse us?

What is interesting is your weird clobbering together of the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" with not only your full buy-in of the "false equivalency meme" but some sort of Palin-like bro romance with The Donald ('I looked into his eyes' - wasn't the a Bush thingee?).

Let's see here if we can salvage anything from the billge here. There really isn't much. "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" is probably some term you made up to make it appear that you have the creditials to say anyone who doesn't want Hillary to be annointed the Democratic Nominee is mentally ill. Truly a rhetorical device for those who have no substantive argument.

Then there is the failure to understand that the "false equiviancy meme" is accurate if the choice between a Repbulican and Democrat can be boiled down to a taste test between coke and diet coke (which is what happens when Democrats run as Republican Lite). Again a rhetorical device for those with no substantive argument.

And now, some how concluding (probably because the KGB beamed it into your head) that expecting that the Republican front runner occasionally throws out meaningless soundbites to his base to gin up even more support (IE Red meat for the red base--red meat being a very old political meme) as some sort of magical thinking can only be the work of someone who is either delusional or truly partisan. Which are you Playdude? It is a binary choice.

The only thing that could put a cherry on top of that would be your breaking the Godwin Law in some new moronic way of suggesting the Fuhrer could be part of the Democratic Party! And wow did you paid off like a broken slot machine!

Hardly Godwin's law. The fact is that 15% of the electoriate will vote for the Democratic Candidate no matter who they run. That being said I'm not surprised that you don't understand Godwin's Law, must be difficult trying to project your schizophrenia on to others what with the FBI, KGB, CIA and space aliens all beaming thoughts into your head and not having the benefit of one of those high tech tin foil hats.

Again it would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

Even Ron Ray-gun would be considered too liberal for today's GOP nomination.

And he is still too far to the right for me. Remember I consider HRC a rightist.

What that graph of the continuing AVERAGE doesn't show is the moving standard deviation around that line - it use to be pretty broad but today barely discernable from the GOP's average. Let me spell that out for one with a Palin-type of mind - it's very likely a rather solid GOP voter of the 1980s could be confused today as being a yellow dog Dem voter, even a Bernie supporter. I'm not a big fan of the Far Lefties (they mostly whine alot) but your thinly-disguised false equivalency meme that 10% of the DEM base is as crazy as the 10% GOP base - well, the dog don't hunt regardless of what percentages you want to spew out. You just come across as being ridiculously silly - it is amusing though.

Except it is totally true. Do you think that Eric for all his wackiness would ever vote for a Republican? Want to talk about a Pailin-like mind, better her mind than yours if you don't see the obvious truth. Never mind your graph which without the moving standard deviation is meaningless.

As for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome, your big complaint is HC supports Obamacare unlike Bernie promising to bring single payer to everyone with only tax pain on the very rich. I guess you must also have a Krugman Derangement Syndrome since he gave old Bernie's plan the same big magical thinking asterisk that he gave Paul Ryan's magic pony plan -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ed-at-bernies/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-from-vermont/

Krugman is known to be often wrong. The fact of the matter is that Clinton is actively saying now that implementing a single payer system is not even the end goal of Obamacare. Instead the end goal is endless subsidies and corporate welfare for insurance companies, the very companies whose profits are derived from denying people healthcare.

Never mind that the total inception phase of what is now called Obamacare was created whole cloth from a Right-Wing think tank. The Clintonbots like you and apparently Krugman are grasping at any straw they can to prevent a populist revolution, the only problem with that is if it isn't Sanders it will be Trump. And you won't like Trump. Boy will you not like Trump.

Again it would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

Even you can't pin down why you hate the Clinton 'bitch.' Why don't you just grap those gonads and admit that the castrating femnazi reminds you of one of your ex-wives?

I don't have any ex-wives. Maybe you've missed it but I'm openly gay. Oh wait, that was right, you were busy with the CIA, FBI, KGB, Space Aliens and Ronald Ray-Gun beaming thoughts into your head.

It would be funny if it wasn't so goddamned sad.

As for your bro-mance with Trump, I'll just go with that NY Post headline again and suggest that three's company afterall.

It would make little difference. Those of us who are either sane or on our meds already know that the NY Post is a GOP rag. No one would care, unless maybe Ted Cruz got wind of it and then used it as an attack ad against Trump "Trump has a communist who said he'd vote for him over Hillary Clinton". I hear the ominous music already.

But that would probably backfire on Cruz. Which would be funny if it weren't so goddamn sad.

But what's really telling is what you saved for last. First, the hope-for scenario of Bernie in the WH and at the helm of a Dem-controlled Congress. And then the magic carpet ride that will take us there - EXACTLY what the 08 Obamatrons yelled with certitude - 'he'll come in and make all those meanie GOP Congressional critters look really mean when they say no and their t-bag supporters will get really mad and not vote for those big meanies ever again!'

Ride that magic pony, Kinser, ride that pony!!!

You're discounting one factor. Sanders has the balls to make the GOP say no even if they do keep the Congress which will make them look like fools. Why because since Sanders is applying the Truman Formula it is reasonable to suspect he will also use Roosevelt Tactics.

As for your magic ponies...I can't ride them, since the only people here who have any are Clintonbots. And that truly would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

All true enough, but inconsequential if the GOTV effort yields lousy results. Look at the list the Democrats need to win, and few are reliable voters.

One thing is for certain, the GOTV effort will fail if Hillary is the candidate. Everyone has had 20+ years to form an opinion on her, and few of them are positive. Honestly I think the only person I've encountered that has supported her more than as a tactical vote is a 90 year old white woman who might have dementia and Playdude. For the record this white woman also confuses Hillary Clinton with Nancy Reagan with regular frequency.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- not just Millies. Will enough if anybody turn out to vote for her

I think if the Dems pick HRC people will turn out to vote ABC (anybody but Clinton) even if they otherwise vote a straight democratic ticket. Daffy Duck looks like he'd be a good candidate this year.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Is it just me or does Trump in that video look like he wants to anywhere else but standing next to that "special, special person".

At least he got the "special" part right.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Oh boy, one clown endorses another!



Palin "stumps for Trump!"

What about a Trump-Palin ticket! You betcha

rock'n'rollers, and holy rollers! hands that rock the cradle, unite!

A CIC who will let our warriors to kick ISIS in the ass! What does that mean? Kill as many civilians as you can along with the terrorists, and thus create more terrorists. Never mind, let's make America great again!

America's Dark Night of the Soul ...

This too shall pass.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

...As to the CIA world fact book...it is public record.

You bring up the CIA paper that supports your conviction that Kim is check by his government, and then tell me to google CIA's world fact book. Too funny. Show me where the fact book provides that kind of analysis. What it does say is -

Government type:
Communist state one-man dictatorship

If you have problems with that, here's a source for flash cards for 7th graders -

http://www.flashcardmachine.com/7th-...mentscrct.html

Originally Posted by Kinser79

.... at least I actually have sources...

... and apparently you found them here -



- because it certainly isn't in your wiki link or one's CIA world fact book.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

All most no dicator, no matter how all powerful dictates all the day to day functions of the state. Well unless you're proposing that Mao really cared if the kids went to bed at bed time or Franco dictated what was for supper. Again it would be hilarious if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

But we're not talking about putting kids to bed or what's for supper; we're talking about the top of the chain-of-command (one who feeds his rivals alive to dogs) dictating the launch of a missile. Is this just another feeble attempt at misdirection or do we in addition to your problems with reading comprehension and logic have to add short-term memory loss?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Considering that there aren't 10s of millions that have been Crushed under Stalin or Mao's boots I think Orwell would be surprised to learn even if he spoke fluent Manderin that you unquestioningly accept accounts of events that either never took place or were known then to be fabrications and/or are known now to be fabrications.

Now you're denying what Stalin and Mao did? I'm married to a Russian with a very large extended family and countless friends; they remember. I also have traveled to China at least once a year for the past couple decades, and can easily find similar personal experiences.

It's one thing to rely on Google for all your knowledge; it's another to use it to selectively reinforce your existing mythologies.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The fact that the election ultimately is a choice between the Democrat Nominee and the Republican Nominee was never in question.

Really? Maybe you should go back and read your own posts - particularly those before you went off on your grammar police misdirection.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The amount of keyboarding was necessary to explain that even though the ultimate choice is simple, the road to getting to that end choice is not.

Neither the binary choice of the GOP v. Dem or the binary choice of HC v. Sanders is simple just because it's binary; that doesn't make it something other than binary, however. And here I thought you had finally grasp the concept. Keep working at it, grasshopper.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Let's see here if we can salvage anything from the billge here. There really isn't much. "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" is probably some term you made up to make it appear that you have the creditials to say anyone who doesn't want Hillary to be annointed the Democratic Nominee is mentally ill. Truly a rhetorical device for those who have no substantive argument.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way, Kinser. There are legitimate, rational arguments against HC's candidacy; just as there are against Sanders. You, yourself have said your not sure you have one; you just hate the castrating femnazi bitch - that's the derangement.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Then there is the failure to understand that the "false equiviancy meme" is accurate if the choice between a Repbulican and Democrat can be boiled down to a taste test between coke and diet coke (which is what happens when Democrats run as Republican Lite). Again a rhetorical device for those with no substantive argument.

You are aware of the term "psychological projection?" Look it up.

It isn't between coke and diet coke. It is between two fundamentally different viewpoints of two different political parties with different histories, philosophies, policy positions, millions of backers, operatives, etc. To suggest that either party would let one of the candidates from the other in is just as preposterous as your suggestion of Hitler being welcome into the Democratic Party. You can argue that Sanders, being a really gruff old guy, could succeed in single payer health care where Obama failed and where Clinton wants to defend against retrenchment but only a moron or one pursuing a "rhetorical device" would suggest that difference qualifies someone to be part of today's GOP.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... that expecting that the Republican front runner occasionally throws out meaningless soundbites to his base to gin up even more support (IE Red meat for the red base--red meat being a very old political meme)

But that's his base, dude. You don't get it. That's HIS base; its not HC's, its not Bernies. And that's what you are willing to join? Magic thinking, indeed.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which are you Playdude? It is a binary choice.

Truly partisan. Anyone today, in this specific election, with the SCOTUS on the line for a generation or two, who isn't partisan is just extremely uninformed and/or stupid. Once that binary option is decided, the next is whether they're of the GOP or just GOP enablers - both are uninformed and/or stupid.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The fact is that 15% of the electoriate will vote for the Democratic Candidate no matter who they run.

That use to be derogatory; today, it is an attribute. The fact that you don't get that just puts you in the extremely uninformed category - the only question now is are you an outright supporter of the Right or just an enabler?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That being said I'm not surprised that you don't understand Godwin's Law, must be difficult trying to project your schizophrenia on to others what with the FBI, KGB, CIA and space aliens all beaming thoughts into your head and not having the benefit of one of those high tech tin foil hats.

Ah, sorry dude but -

Godwin's Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.

and claiming that I would vote for Hitler kinda says you believe I'm a Nazi. Maybe Google "Nazi" "Hitler"?

So given that not knowing Godwin's Law means all those things, I guess that confirms your metal headgear.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Remember I consider HRC a rightist.

Yes, that has become abundantly clear, but from what you have presented here, there's probably no stronger argument for her Presidency.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Except it is totally true. Do you think that Eric for all his wackiness would ever vote for a Republican?

Eric apparently just woke up sooner than a lot of us. Maybe there is something to astrology after all.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Never mind your graph which without the moving standard deviation is meaningless.

No, it's not. And please haven't we had enough of your grammar police, you now have to throw-in statistical critique for misdirection too?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Krugman is known to be often wrong. The fact of the matter is that Clinton is actively saying now that implementing a single payer system is not even the end goal of Obamacare. Instead the end goal is endless subsidies and corporate welfare for insurance companies, the very companies whose profits are derived from denying people healthcare.

Strange, I've never heard those words coming out of either Krugman or HC's lips. Could this be an aspect of your reading comprehension problem?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Never mind that the total inception phase of what is now called Obamacare was created whole cloth from a Right-Wing think tank.

Well no shit Sherlock. Did you also notice that the GOP has now voted over 60 times to repeal it; ran against it and took over the Congress in 2010? Are you aware that millions now have insurance coverage that they never had before? And have you notice that you former '08 Obamatrons and now Bernisters haven't done one damn thing for anybody's health care except perfect your whining? Can you imagine how good you'll get, at whining, when Bernie eventually disappoints you with the same reality that Obama did? There really should be some award equivalent to the Oscars for your all magnificence, but impotent, whining - maybe, we should call it the Mastrubator.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The Clintonbots like you and apparently Krugman are grasping at any straw they can to prevent a populist revolution, the only problem with that is if it isn't Sanders it will be Trump. And you won't like Trump. Boy will you not like Trump.

Revolution, my ass. You really need to get out more and see the Nation. 335 million people, driving around in their SUV and texting on their cell phones are going to get lit up for revolution?

Ride that magic pony, Kinser, ride!

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I don't have any ex-wives. Maybe you've missed it but I'm openly gay.

Well, congratulations! I do hope you find a significant other, maybe get married, settle down. Why shouldn't you be as miserable as the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... Ted Cruz got wind of it and then used it as an attack ad against Trump "Trump has a communist who said he'd vote for him over Hillary Clinton". I hear the ominous music already.

But that would probably backfire on Cruz. Which would be funny if it weren't so goddamn sad.

... and Gay too!

Actually, that is pretty funny.

I wonder if Trump is going to announce a Wall for you all as well. I doubt it, he would never be able to set foot on my little island again!

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You're discounting one factor. Sanders has the balls to make the GOP say no even if they do keep the Congress which will make them look like fools. Why because since Sanders is applying the Truman Formula it is reasonable to suspect he will also use Roosevelt Tactics.

If you can put away all the foolishness, this is really the difference between us. I don't think Sanders comes anywhere close to having the potential to do this. Soon after his inauguration, I see his frontal approach as becoming the gist of laughing stock material for both late night shows and early morning punditry - the angry old White dude hold up in the WH. You savior types really believe that the GOP Congress can be shamed before their GOP base to do what a DEM wants let alone a DEM from the Far Left. You guys are simply wrong. Moreover, Obama used upped all the Executive tricks, the next GOP Congress will be ready for that. Just like with Obama, people like you, with the savior complex, will abandon Bernie out of frustration before his first year is up.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As for your magic ponies...I can't ride them, since the only people here who have any are Clintonbots. And that truly would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn sad.

You, and all the savior types, are riding the ponies, Kinser. Your inability to see that, once again, is what is truly sad.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

One thing is for certain, the GOTV effort will fail if Hillary is the candidate. Everyone has had 20+ years to form an opinion on her, and few of them are positive. Honestly I think the only person I've encountered that has supported her more than as a tactical vote is a 90 year old white woman who might have dementia and Playdude. For the record this white woman also confuses Hillary Clinton with Nancy Reagan with regular frequency.

This is just a flat out lie.

National polls still have Clinton with a double digit lead. There's tons of people enthusiastic about her.

I might say that you're just another clueless viewer falling for the entertaining news.

However, I really beginning to get the sense that you truly are a Trump/Palin bot

You all are really afraid of Clinton. You should be, but it will not matter - she's coming to collect your gonads.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is it just me or does Trump in that video look like he wants to anywhere else but standing next to that "special, special person".

At least he got the "special" part right.

Yes, Kinser, he's thinking of you, he's looked into your eyes as well. He wants to be with you!

If you two get a room, I'm sure it would be YUGE!

I'm sure the actual room will be pretty big as well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, older women will. Many Democrats will.

Huh? I'd agree she'd probably will get the droopie-boobie [older women] vote, but that's about it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome, your big complaint is HC supports Obamacare unlike Bernie promising to bring single payer to everyone with only tax pain on the very rich. I guess you must also have a Krugman Derangement Syndrome since he gave old Bernie's plan the same big magical thinking asterisk that he gave Paul Ryan's magic pony plan -

Not here, I claim to have a sickly feeling of a woo-origin [see Eric about premonitions] that a Clinton POTUS will doom the US to some horrid fate of magic unicorns pooping real shit instead of gold bricks that I like.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Eric apparently just woke up sooner than a lot of us. Maybe there is something to astrology after all.

See above. Yeah and probably the same goes for when certain folk get bad vibes so to speak.



Future invites to the DNC if Clinton wins the nomination. It's just so you, playwrite. The only difference between magic ponies and magic unicorns is that unicorns have a single horn.

Let's not forget the kiddies. A HRC presidency means multi-hued ice cream for all the kids.



******* The dawning of the age of the Unicorn *******
http://fortune.com/2015/01/22/the-age-of-unicorns/

Just like the dawning of the age of Aquarius was a signal of the 1970's stock bust, so will the dawning of the age of the Unicorn be a signal of a subsequent bust. So it may be just a big meh for whoever gets to be POTUS. The big bad stock bear has not match.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

His political timing is miserable. His horoscope score is worse than Sarah Palin's.

Now I'm not claiming that everyone with a very positive score gets elected president. You have to be in a position to show your stuff, as Virgil Fox said. But for those who enter and play the game, get noticed, and are reasonably-enough mainstream within one of the two parties, the horoscope scores are very useful in telling who will actually win the brass ring. Newsom has no chance.

For Governor of California too?

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is just a flat out lie.

National polls still have Clinton with a double digit lead. There's tons of people enthusiastic about her.

I might say that you're just another clueless viewer falling for the entertaining news.

However, I really beginning to get the sense that you truly are a Trump/Palin bot

You all are really afraid of Clinton. You should be, but it will not matter - she's coming to collect your gonads.

Speaking as a Sanders supporter, that last image will send enough males to Trump to put Trump over the top. Hillary is scarier that way than any woman in politics with the exception of Iowa Senator Joni Ernst (who actually HAS castrated hogs).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is it just me or does Trump in that video look like he wants to anywhere else but standing next to that "special, special person".

At least he got the "special" part right.

It's just you. If Trump didn't want to share a podium with Sarah Palin, he wouldn't have. It's his podium. And she's not going to be her VP nominee either. Actually, Joni Ernst (R-IA) would be a shrewd choice for Trump as a running mate if she endorses Trump. Farm girl AND veteran AND conservative Christian--and a sitting US Senator. The RIGHT woman running with Trump could give him 10 points in many polls. And Iowa IS a swing state.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is just a flat out lie.

National polls still have Clinton with a double digit lead. There's tons of people enthusiastic about her.

I might say that you're just another clueless viewer falling for the entertaining news.

However, I really beginning to get the sense that you truly are a Trump/Palin bot

You all are really afraid of Clinton. You should be, but it will not matter - she's coming to collect your gonads.

The important comparison is with 2008. Bernie Sanders is ahead of where Barack Obama was at an equivalent time in 2008. Hillary was favoured against Obama until Obama won Iowa too. And even thereafter until very late in the primary season, like Indiana. Though the major shift occurred right after Super Tuesday when Caroline Kennedy Schossberg (and the rest of the Kennedy Clan) endorsed Obama over Hillary.

Originally Posted by playwrite

stuff

I was going to write a huge post and a line by line refutation of it but the forum seems to have eaten it. Suffice it to say in post I deleted because it is mostly long rambling nonsense, and you've exposed Playdude that you don't understand some things. Well many things so I'll try to address them as simply as possible.

Here, let me list them. I figure something more complex than that would probably confuse you and over excite your amygdala or whatever is wrong with schizoids.

Kinser's List of Things Playdude does not understand:

1. Primaries. There is not one binary choice (the general is always the binary choice between whomever has an R behind their name and whomever has a D behind their name). There are in reality two (2) choices: Who it is that is going to have that D behind their name, and if they can beat the guy with the R behind his name.

2. Godwin's law. Playdude seems to think that by saying he would vote for Hitler if he ran on the Democratic ticket is the same as calling him a Nazi. Actually that's what he wants it to mean. What it actually means is that he is either unwilling or unable to rationally think about candidates and will blindly vote for any person who has a D behind their name even if they are almost exactly the same thing as the person with the R behind their name.

3. That people cannot change political parties, that the political parties have not always had the same positions they have now, and that because of this simply voting on the basis of party is a poor methodology for choosing one's President, Senators, Representatives, Etc.

Since the founding of the Democratic Party it has been the Bastion of Yankee Liberalism (largely since 1932) and the Party of Southern White Power (largely before 1932). As such simply voting for a Democrat is not acceptable for any thinking person who actually cares about the positions of the candidates because he understands that what people think informs what they do.

4. That Hillary Clinton has since November been triangulating to the left and right of Sanders because Sanders wants to finish the job that FDR and Truman laid out at the start of the Saeculum whereas Clinton is fine with half measures.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...yer-healthcare
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_sanders.html

5. He does not understand that unlike Eric, who throws away his vote entirely and without consequence by being in Solid Blue California, those of us in Purple States like Florida must pick someone from either of the two parties in the General, unless god forbid the election be a disaster like 2000 or worse get kicked over to the House. Again the second binary choice.

6. That persons who were Republicans can become Democrats and vice versa. I can only assume this is because he's never heard of Charlie Crist (former Republican Governor of Florida now running as a Democrat for the FL 13th US House District) or Ronald Wilson Reagan (former Republican US President who was a Democrat prior to 1962). I can only attribute this to either ignorance of the fact that people can and do change parties and can and do after that fact get nominated by their new party for office.

Shit, Donald J. Trump has been a Democrat, then Republican, then Reform, then Republican again. The man changes his political party with more frequency than some people change their underwear.

7. That Hillary Clinton is already trying to hitch her cart to the "Obama's Third Term" wagon which is inviting GOP attack on their favorite whipping girl. I'm sure it will make for some great TeeVee but I'd rather we discuss issues this time round. The 3T is over we need solutions.

8. That even if Bernie tries and fails to pass single payer, he will not, if elected allow the GOP to repeal Obamacare. He will veto that on the spot and it is unlikely that they will have the votes to override.

9. That a Sander's General Election Run could have with it huge coat tails which will have a major impact on the Congress. Presidential candidates always do because there are three types of voters. Super Voters (every primary and election), regular voters (On year and Off year general elections), Presidential Year voters (only vote during presidential years).

10. That his homophobic comments do not effect me. I'm a gay, black communist with a boyfriend of many years, who typically votes Democratic but sometimes doesn't. You know because he doesn't read other people's posts prior to deciding to be insulting towards them. Not only is it bad form but it often backfires.

11. That because the US has a primary system Hillary Clinton is not guaranteed to win the Nomination (you know like she was supposed to against BHO in 2008). I can only assume that is because he was taking a Rip Van Winkle like nap or something.

12. That it is in fact he who is projecting his own insecurities onto me by trying to make this a matter of sexism on my part. That he would even consider this makes me wonder if his support for HRC is only because she has a vagina and he's trying to atone for some sort of sexism whether he is conscious of it or not.

Given that he's already projecting I'm thinking that's the case.

13. That dictators no matter how powerful they may be do not dictate every aspect of life in the countries they rule over. That there is no such thing as a one man dictatorship just like every absolute monarch has his ministries do the vast majority of the governmental work.

14. Finally (so I've only got like about ten more points) he doesn't understand that stories about how horrible Stalin and Mao were from people who always seem to make it about their auntie's next door neighbor's best friend really are what I would call Urban Legends. That many of those figures put out by Conquest and other anti-communists are either made up or come directly from Nazi Propaganda and so on. I don't feel a real need to go on since I have this same argument with PBR at least once a week.

15. He doesn't understand that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a laughing stock on Late Night and Early Morning Punditry on the Right Wing Noise machine (which controls 3/4ths of the total airwaves) for the last 20 years. That Sander's in your face style is exactly what we need because Obama tried "Let's Make a Deal" and that didn't work.

As Einstein said, trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. We can clearly see that Playdude is either A insane or B stupid from this list of things he doesn't understand.

Now...it is Bernie or Bust.