Originally Posted by playwrite

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.

I'd sleep with him for a couple thousand.

What? I like money. I have a couple grand in credit card debt. It'd be worth it.

Any more homophobic comments you feel like posting?

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is just a flat out lie.

National polls still have Clinton with a double digit lead.

Against the Republicans sure all day long. Against Sanders? I don't think so unless you're looking at polls from August.

There's tons of people enthusiastic about her.

Yes, the bankers, the Wall Street types, Health Insurance Companies, the GOP cause they can beat her with enough mud cause it always sticks to her or they can buy her. Sander's can't be bought. Trump can't be bought. That's their appeal.

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

I don't watch Faux News, or MSNBC or Corporate News Network for that matter. I do, however, make it a point to check out the BBC World News at least daily, and watch RT almost religiously.

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

I couldn't care less about Palin, but even my hyperliberal feminist mother has to say that "Trump says some things that make sense."

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

You know, you should really keep your castration phobia to yourself. Clinton even if she is elected President isn't coming for anyone's gonads. In the last debate she flat out said she's running as Obama's Third Term so we're going to get 4 more years of "Can we please make a deal?" with a group that has made it clear that that they won't make a deal.

Are you really so afraid that Bernie can with his Grumpy Old Man ways force the GOP to tell the American People "No" and then hold their feet to the fire? You know the same way FDR got shit done. The same way Truman got shit done. I can't speak for Boomers but Xers approve of that "getting shit done" concept.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

Not that I disagree. But that whole video it just looked like The Donald could use a Squatty Potty, or some Preparation H.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

It won't even take that. I foresee Hillary losing in South Carolina. I've seen some of her events down there on C-Span she puts on this Southern Accent. The problem with it is it is obviously put on, not the right accent for the Low Country, and she may not realize it but she is actually offending them by doing it. Sanders on the other hand will probably sound like the New Yorker he is. Once Super Tuesday hits it will be pretty much over.

Like you said Sanders is already ahead of where BHO was in 2008 and his message is resonating even with Working Class Southern White Men a demographic that does vote (usually republican) and absolutely despises Hillary Clinton. So he could split them like BHO did.

It's pretty obvious from reading this article ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213546 ) that Trump has a coherent if unorthodox view of foreign policy and that he has been waiting since 1987 for the 3T unravelling to advance enough to implement his view. Trump's ideas only appear stupid if one believes that history is progressive and teleological. For those of us who see history in cyclical and generational terms, the idea that the US should pull in it's horns, close out most of it's alliances and international commitments and permit foreigners to kill each other without interference actually makes some sense and may even be realistic. Because now that so many nations have come close enough to catching up with the US economically and technologically that American hard power does not go nearly as far as it used to even in 2000 we may not be able to meet these commitments if challenged without getting us involved in a war that we may lose.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's pretty obvious from reading this article ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213546 ) that Trump has a coherent if unorthodox view of foreign policy and that he has been waiting since 1987 for the 3T unravelling to advance enough to implement his view. Trump's ideas only appear stupid if one believes that history is progressive and teleological. For those of us who see history in cyclical and generational terms, the idea that the US should pull in it's horns, close out most of it's alliances and international commitments and permit foreigners to kill each other without interference actually makes some sense and may even be realistic. Because now that so many nations have come close enough to catching up with the US economically and technologically that American hard power does not go nearly as far as it used to even in 2000 we may not be able to meet these commitments if challenged without getting us involved in a war that we may lose.

After reading that article it makes me wonder if in a Mega-Unraveling if not one but two Grey Champion types (again see my views about how they are named that after the fact) might emerge. In this case we would see Sanders as the Grey Champion of the Federalist/Whig/Progressive/New Deal side of politics (a side that has existed since 1789) and Trump would be the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/Protectionist/Isolationist side of politics (a side that has also existed since 1789--and also probably explains why I think "some of the things he says makes sense", because I have a strong isolationist streak).

Then the Question should be did there arise two figures who could have been Grey Champions in England or the Americas prior to the Glorious Revolution?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's pretty obvious from reading this article ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213546 ) that Trump has a coherent if unorthodox view of foreign policy and that he has been waiting since 1987 for the 3T unravelling to advance enough to implement his view. Trump's ideas only appear stupid if one believes that history is progressive and teleological. For those of us who see history in cyclical and generational terms,

It's not either or, as I pointed out before. It's both.

Unless there is a cycle, nothing can move forward. Try moving forward without wheels. It's that simple. "Believe me" as Trump would say.

Of course, you can walk or ride a horse. But then you have two or four legs; one is pivoting back and one is thrusting forward in the air.

As illustrated in this video. Enjoy the ride!

the idea that the US should pull in it's horns, close out most of it's alliances and international commitments and permit foreigners to kill each other without interference actually makes some sense and may even be realistic. Because now that so many nations have come close enough to catching up with the US economically and technologically that American hard power does not go nearly as far as it used to even in 2000 we may not be able to meet these commitments if challenged without getting us involved in a war that we may lose.

Genocide (e.g. as in Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Libya, Syria) is still something that the international community needs to address and stop. The USA can't do everything, but it can contribute to a multi-lateral effort.

Trump's "keep everybody out" rhetoric is not realistic, and his foreign policy consists of saying "we'll kick the shit out of ISIS" and "we're not the world's police and Putin is a good guy." Completely incoherent. "Make America great again!" wtf does that mean?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

If a viable 3rd party offering was available, I would agree. In this case, I think it's a no-vote scenario, one that hurts the Dems down-ballot even more than Hillary.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If a viable 3rd party offering was available, I would agree. In this case, I think it's a no-vote scenario, one that hurts the Dems down-ballot even more than Hillary.

Other than TR in 1912 when was the last third party offering that was viable?

Low turn out always hurts Democrats of all levels. There are those like myself, who are going to turn out no matter what. Should the Dems nominate Hillary, I would likely vote a straight Democratic ticket (mostly because all the Republicans on offer are worse--voting against someone worse is more common for me than voting for someone) but when those who would otherwise vote Democratic don't turn up they are effectively voting Republican. The GOP isn't very good at keeping itself "on task", but it is very good at GOTV efforts.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Other than TR in 1912 when was the last third party offering that was viable?

Low turn out always hurts Democrats of all levels. There are those like myself, who are going to turn out no matter what. Should the Dems nominate Hillary, I would likely vote a straight Democratic ticket (mostly because all the Republicans on offer are worse--voting against someone worse is more common for me than voting for someone) but when those who would otherwise vote Democratic don't turn up they are effectively voting Republican. The GOP isn't very good at keeping itself "on task", but it is very good at GOTV efforts.

I think you misunderstand the idea of a 3rd party candidate. If suitable, they are there to send a message. So yes, TR, but also George Wallace and Ross Perot. Even John Anderson served that purpose. It's a case of saying the prime offerings are so bad that you can't even pick the lesser of two evils. I've voted outside the box n the past, and will again ... this guy being a prime example.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you misunderstand the idea of a 3rd party candidate. If suitable, they are there to send a message. So yes, TR, but also George Wallace and Ross Perot. Even John Anderson served that purpose. It's a case of saying the prime offerings are so bad that you can't even pick the lesser of two evils. I've voted outside the box n the past, and will again ... this guy being a prime example.

Don't forget
Ralph Nader.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't forget
Ralph Nader.

Yeah, I forgot to mention him, and he's the one who actually affected an election ... just ask President Gore.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

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



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.


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.

Hey Rags, I checked in with HC's people and they assured me you are not on the list for gonad collection.

I debated with myself on whether to give you that assurance. I want that awesome magic pony poopin rainbows out his backend, and I was going to tell you that your ticket for keeping your gonads was turning over that pic to me. I'm too ethical for that - but, I am putting that photo into my library and marking it as a favorite. Thanks!

Go see the Revenant - it has the model for how every rape scene should end for the rapist. HC has been politically dicked around with for decades, it's time for her to end the scene with a collection - most from the Right, but I'd be okay with more than a few pair from the Left.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you misunderstand the idea of a 3rd party candidate. If suitable, they are there to send a message. So yes, TR, but also George Wallace and Ross Perot. Even John Anderson served that purpose. It's a case of saying the prime offerings are so bad that you can't even pick the lesser of two evils. I've voted outside the box n the past, and will again ... this guy being a prime example.

No, I get what you mean. Third Party candidates if they are particularly strong can act as a spoiler. TR did in 1912, and Ralph Nader in 2000 in particular (though I voted for Gore because--swing state). Also there is the consideration about Florida (among some other states) that due to its purple nature a third party vote would swing the whole state red (which arguably might not be too bad if we're talking Trump but would be a disaster if it were Cruz).

I just don't see the point really. Given my situation being in one of those battle ground states I may as well vote for the Republican if Hillary is on offer because to vote for a third party candidate is essentially the same thing (though one could argue 'but I voted for <insert Green/Communist/Socialist Candidate Here>' but that only works with people don't understand either the Electoral Collage or FPTP).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No, I get what you mean. Third Party candidates if they are particularly strong can act as a spoiler. TR did in 1912, and Ralph Nader in 2000 in particular (though I voted for Gore because--swing state). Also there is the consideration about Florida (among some other states) that due to its purple nature a third party vote would swing the whole state red (which arguably might not be too bad if we're talking Trump but would be a disaster if it were Cruz).

I just don't see the point really. Given my situation being in one of those battle ground states I may as well vote for the Republican if Hillary is on offer because to vote for a third party candidate is essentially the same thing (though one could argue 'but I voted for <insert Green/Communist/Socialist Candidate Here>' but that only works with people don't understand either the Electoral Collage or FPTP).

When I voted for Dick Gregory in '68, I was officially living in New York, though I was in Japan at the time. New York went big for Humphrey, but even at that, only by plurality. When I voted for John Anderson in 1980, Virginia went for Reagan in a walk. So my protest votes didn't have any real impact, except to make me feel better.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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).

If that switches a Bernie supporter to a Trump supporter, I certainly don't want such mindless whoosies in the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

Ah, in '08, Obama had an advantage with minorities post- lily White IA and NH; the opposite is true in '16 and Bernie hasn't helped himself much in that regard.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

When I voted for Dick Gregory in '68, I was officially living in New York, though I was in Japan at the time. New York went big for Humphrey, but even at that, only by plurality. When I voted for John Anderson in 1980, Virginia went for Reagan in a walk. So my protest votes didn't have any real impact, except to make me feel better.

Exactly. I don't feel the need to vote on lines to make myself feel better. I don't vote for me. I vote for the country. Maybe this is my cuspiness acting up here, but I vote out of a civic responsibility to do so. It is a head and not a heart decision, always has been.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

In a way you are right. The difference between the "Establishment" and "Maverick" types in the Republican primaries is more style than ideology or intended policy. You can count on the Republicans to seek to privatize everything that some profiteer can turn into an abusive monopoly for maximal gain, destroy what remains of the welfare state, shift taxes from the super-rich (to the extent that the rich get taxed) to the non-rich, and eviscerate unions. You can also count on the debasement of public education both in quantity and quality, degradation of the environment when such enhances profits, and brutal enforcement of newly-defined rights for the super-rich.

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.

If you must choose between Hitler and Schuschnigg, then by all means choose Schuschnigg. If you must choose between Hitler and a Hapsburg pretender, then choose the Hapsburg pretender. But even a conservative needs recognize that the Republicans have a high likelihood of nominating a dangerous demagogue, someone capable of promoting religious bigotry for political gain. I do not have to like Islam to recognize that Muslims have their right to live as Muslims in America and to influence American life. If Islamic influence is that drunks, whores, pimps, pushers, and dopers get busted if they set foot in town, then so be it.

America has more than enough victims with crony capitalism alone.

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.

When one Party is awful and the other is horrific, then we have a situation in need of pervasive change. But the more easily-available change can be the worst available.

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.

The Democratic Party has become the bastion of Yankee liberalism (since 1930, really) and Southern blacks (since the Southern racists and reactionaries abandoned the Democratic Party). The Republican Party has become the bastion of economic elites and resentful white people left behind in the struggle for the American Dream.

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.

We Democrats have a more genuine choice. Republicans will simply do as the Koch syndicate tells them to do.

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.

Maybe living in "Michigrim" gives me a different perspective: the state votes like California in federal elections but like Alabama in local elections.

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.

Party-switching usually involves the rapidly-disappearing middle-of-the-road pols or people undergoing conversions. The Parties are now very polarized.

Donald Trump is a shallow, egotistical crony capitalist who thinks that he has found a formula that will put him in the pantheon of the most powerful people to have ever lived (Emperor of Rome; President of the United States). A brutal tyrant like Kim Jong-Un who has the power to burn people alive or feed people to hungry dogs in his own country might be a sick joke elsewhere.

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.

Maybe disrespect for the President just for being on the other side of the political divide is the problem this time. (At least with Dubya the disrespect was with incompetence, corruption, and war crimes; some other Republican might have not so sabotaged his credibility. Richard Lugar or George Voinovich would have been far better Presidents than Dubya).

Add 5% to the approval polls for Barack Obama -- a reasonable allowance for racist contempt for the President for being black -- and one sees a very good President. One thing is certain: any of the Republican nominees for President, if elected, will make us recognize what a good President Barack Obama is.

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.

Single-payer will be a legitimate "repeal and replace". Had Republicans offered that, perhaps with some appropriate changes in tax laws (like increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and adding some more fuel tax because vehicle collisions are a major cause of medical disasters), then Barack Obama might have signed it.

But no -- it's my way or the highway. Democratic processes require some give and take.

9. That a Sanders 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).

Democrats need to pick up House seats up to R+5 in favor of Republicans or regain the seats that they used to have in the South. One way or the other, Democrats rely upon GOP failure. That will take time.

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.

For homophobia, just remember the now-banned "apollonian" who accused me of being a homosexual child abuser. I made clear that I would let the accusation of homosexuality slide... but not the accusation of child sexual abuse. Gay is OK; it's just not for me. Child sexual abuse is wrong for perpetrator and victim alike.

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.

We don't know yet. It is possible to win a nomination by winning the primaries in states that one's Party is practically doomed to lose (think of Mitt Romney in 2012).

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.

Psychoanalysis of people participating in a chatline? One can draw conclusions only in extreme cases, as with the sorts of people who post on Stormfront.org or Free Republic. I don't suggest arguing with narcissistic types who fill militia movements, let alone sociopathic scum who find kindred spirits in Hitler and other Nazi figures. But such people are often stereotypes.

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.

Even Stalin could not dictate when to inhale and exhale. But if you ran afoul of him you would die.

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.

Robert Conquest had the decency to scale back the number of culpable deaths involving Stalin, recognizing the figures to recognize double counting and triple counting, as in the same person being killed for being 'an enemy of the people', 'a bourgeois nationalist' and 'a participant in anti-Party activities.'

Any unjust killing is still a monstrous deed. If I recognize Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker as abominable people for their crime wave, then what can I say of Stalin?

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.

Anyone who gets the Democratic nomination will be a laughing stock on the Right Wing hate media. If either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets the Presidency but the Reactionary Party holds either House of Congress, then things will be business as usual.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, in '08, Obama had an advantage with minorities post- lily White IA and NH; the opposite is true in '16 and Bernie hasn't helped himself much in that regard.

I think you discount the revulsion factor too cavalierly. Hillary is as divisive as any candidate to ever run, simply due to exposure and, frankly, some very dumb things she's done over the years. It doesn't matter if it's legitimate or not. It's powerful.

I don't see her getting enough young Xers and Millies to offset the mouth-breathers that Cruz or Trump will attract like flies. She only has a shot of beating a conventional candidate, and none of them are doing very well ... for a reason. All the negative seeds planted over the last several election cycles have finally come to full flower. "Professional politician" is as well received as "personal injury lawyer" or "used car salesman". You can't beat those images, even ones that are undeserved slurs. It's the emotional mindset that's driving results.

So, it's an outsider this time ... again. Let's hope for better.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Exactly. I don't feel the need to vote on lines to make myself feel better. I don't vote for me. I vote for the country. Maybe this is my cuspiness acting up here, but I vote out of a civic responsibility to do so. It is a head and not a heart decision, always has been.

I hoped to send a message, though to be honest, no one was listening. I avoided Nader because I knew he was dangerous. The others made my point, though to whom is a good question. In '68, neither major candidate was anti-war. In '80, neither major candidate had a handle on worker's rights or the economy. In 2000, I wasn't enamored by Gore either, but he was head and shoulders above his competitor.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you discount the revulsion factor too cavalierly. Hillary is as divisive as any candidate to ever run, simply due to exposure and, frankly, some very dumb things she's done over the years. It doesn't matter if it's legitimate or not. It's powerful.

I don't see her getting enough young Xers and Millies to offset the mouth-breathers that Cruz or Trump will attract like flies. She only has a shot of beating a conventional candidate, and none of them are doing very well ... for a reason. All the negative seeds planted for the last several election cycles has finally taken come to full flower. "Professional politician" is as well received as "personal injury lawyer" or "used car salesman". You can't beat those images, even ones that are undeserved slurs. It's the emotional mindset that's driving results.

So, it's an outsider this time ... again. Let's hope for better.

Excellent points. The Clintons are still living in the 1990s when the USSR had just collapsed. Hillary dosen't realise that compromise is a dirty word to most Americans. The biggest compromiser and wheeler-dealer of them all, Donald Trump, disguises it well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If that switches a Bernie supporter to a Trump supporter, I certainly don't want such mindless whoosies in the Democratic Party.

Images count! I actually saw a political cartoon of Hillary Clinton with a huge scissors that was published right after the Bobbit near castration. I learned a lot about what imagery can mean (and psychoanalysis of political trends) from a few years I was on the Psychohistory listserv, which is quite stimulating if very orthodox Freudian. The only reason I was unable to stay on it was that the host changed to require Yahoo, which I am not. But images can reflect a lot going on under the surface. That's why political cartoons are powerful.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I was going to write a huge post

- and you did.

Coupled with your memory loss of your own post, swinging from Bernie to Trump, etc., I think this might be a sign you are dealing with a lack of self-awareness, adrift.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

But that was neither yours or my positions in the beginning. You have come around, which is good thing; being able to recognize your evolution would be even better.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

There should be a corrolary to Godwin Law - those who break it (and lose) rarely recognize what happened - that's why the Law keeps getting broken repeatedly by the same offenders.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

But I didn't say the Parties are changeless; I instead said that they have different histories among many other things - they are what they are at this moment in time, and anyone who believes anyone from today's GOP clown car could run in the Dem Party or vice-versa has a screw loose.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

There's a fundamental difference between hoping magic ponies are going to alight and shoot rainbows out their asses (and abandoning their latest savior when that doesn't happen) and actually moving the ball forward. For example, Obamacare moved FDR's agenda further than anything since LBJ's Medicare. I'd rather have hard incremental improvements than nothing, even if those incremental improvements come with whining Far Lefties crying for their magic pony rainbow farts - you sure you didn't post earlier as DebC?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

Ah, you do realize I was the first to note the binary choice. Here's another first that I will also note for you - just because you only have two options doesn't mean you have to be completely stupid about it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

Ah, we're talking about THIS YEAR'S election with a final single binary choice at the Presidential level. Even Trump comes in with a Party apparatus of operatives and expectations that limits his choices particularly if he wants to be a two-termer and avoid impeachment by his own Party. Yes, a screenwriter has some leeway with the text, but tough to turn "Saw 8" into the "Sound of Music."

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

Obama has preformed awesomely in a political environment that will be almost exactly the same as what the next President will face - a majority of GOP morons in Congress (although hoping, however, we take the Senate at least) - any DEM candidate should be making the case that they could do as well as Obama with the exact same challenge, and that STARTS by recognizing his awesomeness.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

But spending his political chips on the impossibility of single payer is not only going to forgo the possible of expanding Medicare/Medicaid under the ACA, increasing subsidies, expanding acceptance in more states from internal political pressures, etc but it is going to contribute greatly to him being painted as the grumpy old man loser holed up in the WH that will allow the GOP to gain in 2018 midterms, possible gain the WH in 2020, and slow the day of their final demise a national political power.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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).

Even under the most optimistic Progressive polling between now and 2020, there's no chance of the DEMs regaining the House or highly unlikely they'll get a filibuster proof Senate. If that's the game you're playing, it's one of riding magic ponies and waiting for them to fart rainbows.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

Oh save the Black Gay Guy outrage for somebody who doesn't live in NYC and made half his living in the theater; it's about as out of date here as leisure suits. You should come visit sometime where you can relax that well-honed angst - you just got to trade it for a myriad of other island life angst.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

Ah, if you look upstream, you might note that I said the DEM primary comes down to a binary choice and that the HC team was taken to task for supposedly trying to make it a coronation. Maybe you're not taking a big Rip Van Winkle nap but you sure seem to shut off incoming data for at least short periods of time.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

You, yourself, said you had no idea or no rational reason for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS). Its obvious that many who do have CDS derive it from sexism. If you both leave your own reason in question and still display virulent symptoms of the disease, you do invite a little fishing around as to its source. You might want to heed that notion of "an unquestioned life" - maybe probing the depths of your CDS could open doors?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

You keep suggesting that since a dictator can't dictate each person's every moment that somehow prevents him as Commander-in-Chief from ordering a military launch of a missile. It's kind of weird.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

I check with wifey-poo and my 89 year old father in law; even I can't repeat what they said. I'll just say such arrogant American ignorance doesn't deserve a dignified response. Sort of like having you explain to my father in law, that no, being a slave in the 1800s was actually not so carefree or that AIDS wasn't actually a good way to improve the human gene pool. Some things just don't translate well; actually they do, but then comes a lot of blood letting.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

"Let's Make a Deal" is based on the same underlying assumption as Bernie's "huffing and puffing" - that the other side will act differently. Stop riding the magic pony for just a minute, and listen. Are you ready? Okay, here it is - T H E Y W I L L N O T - at least not knowingly, openingly, or willingly. That's going to take subterfuge, deceit and someone with the personality, the experience, and most important, the right motivation to "triangulate' the morons to the political trash bin that they deserve. That's not Bernie.

--------------------------------------------------------

I still have the odds of you being a Trump bot around 35%. It's not really the overt weirdness of someone swinging from Bernie to Trump (I'd think that would actually make Bernie vomit and Trump laugh with glee). It's more subtle. The combination of how important credentials are to you and your credentials as being Black, Gay and so far Left that you adopt the 'attributes' of the Far Right. It is pretty convenient for you.

If that's your game, it's not going to work. When it comes down to it, there's not an HC supporter out there that will not go full out for Bernie if he's the nominee. I'm pretty sure that's true the other way for Bernie supporters. This is, after all, the Democrat Party, we're not generally stupid - that's those other guys.