Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

You're right!

But maybe I'm just here to desensitize you to that eventual image that will come regardless.

The real question is why is Kinser here?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

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.

And you can count on the very same things from Democrats who run as Republican Lite. I would have thought that Bill Clinton would have proved that. In 2008 BHO ran to the left of HRC, and won and has managed to pass some form of healthcare reform which isn't going to be repealed at any time so long as a Democrat holds the White House unless the GOP can muster up an over-ride (which is difficult by design). As such we can expect from HRC the exact same things we can from Cruz, Rubio or Bush.

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.

It is only a choice between Hitler and Schuschnigg if Hillary is nominated. (This assumes that any Republican is automatically Hitler.) Which I have explained several times now is not a given. She was supposed to have been nominated in 2008 but lost to a Junior Senator from a Red State with a very large Blue City in it with almost no record nationally. Seriously look at voting map of Illinois some time. Chicago is deep blue with purple suburbs and the rest of the state is red, or redish-purple. Do you really think she can stand up to the King of Amendments? I don't.

The fact is that the records of both this time are known. Sanders can't be bought, Clinton is up for sale and everyone knows it.

America has more than enough victims with crony capitalism alone.

I agree. I also know that HRC won't do a damn thing about it either. She is after all in the faction in the Party that pushed for the deregulation of the banks and Wall Street, the we don't need Glass-Steagall crowd the banksters and Wall Street critters just love. She will not stand up to the economic royalists (as FDR would put it), she does not welcome their hatred. She claims she wants to be loved by everyone. Yet in trying to please everyone she will only wind up pleasing no one. Just ask doughface Buchanan about that. Which is great if you want the Whig Wing of American Politics to lose and let the Jacksonians drive the country off a cliff.

Seriously PBR, if you support her because you love Wall Street Banksters just say so and quit trying to pretend you're some sort of progressive. At least that would be honest. If you support Sanders then you should know already that it is Bernie or Bust.

We are talking about generational cycles here, and cyclical history. Since I subscribe to the Mega-Saeculum theory I believe it may be possible in a Mega-Unraveling (which all history of this saeculum indicates it should be) might produce not one but two grey champions. Sanders and Trump seem to fit the bill but only one can be the victor.

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.

When one party is awful and the other is horrific the choice isn't for the awful if you have the option of not-awful. The Democratic Party is pretty awful these days. I blame a lot of it on Boomer Leadership and the DLC wing of the Party which caves to the GOP at every opportunity. Therefore by going that route we get the awful who want to be the horrific. Bernie offers us a chance to have not-awful.

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.

Apparently you've been in a coma since 1992 since most of the Democrats these days run to the right of the Yankee Liberal trajectory. BHO ran to the right of it, but to the left of all other Democrats except Kucinich (who had the right ideas but probably was the wrong person) and he won by adhering to that tradition and not running away from it as the DLC Democrats (like Bill and Hillary Clinton) have been doing since at least 1992 (and arguably since 1988). Running to the right might keep the blacks (though they are starting to defect to Trump and Sanders is starting to pick them up now as well--among the liberal blacks) but at what cost? The soul of the Yankee Liberalism (I'd call it Whigism really) is not worth any demographic.

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

Actually, that might not be the case with Trump. It seems he has a long track record of political comments going back to the mid-80s and they have very consistent themes that hearken back to some political lines that have lain dormant for a while. Isolationism, protectionism, are key to understanding him and to understanding where he's coming from. The last person to ever bring these points up was Robert Taft. Furthermore Trump has the means to tell the Kochs to kiss his ass if he doesn't like what they like. And given his tendency toward saying what is apparently on his mind without a filter he just may do so even if he did like it. I keep saying to people on the left that don't seem to get it...his appeal is in that he appears to not be for sale. Whether he is for sale or not is anyone's guess cause he isn't saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft

Those lines are very old, and very Jeffersonian/Jacksonian. That is to say Trump is the Grey Champion for Virginian Democratic-Republicanism.

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

Possible. Florida is weird, I'll admit. We have several consultancies that are in constant battle and constant flux. Racial and Ethnic Minorities that are mainly democrat and the young white working class in the state south of St. Augustine are overwhelmingly blue. The mostly Silent retirees are mostly Red. The Panhandle is red (Dixiecrats mostly), and Miami was red (Batistaista Cubans) but is now deep purple (the children of those Batistaistas are not beholden to the GOP).

As such local elections go red or blue depending on county. Furthermore, with the white working class south of St. Aug the blue lean is not a given. The Dems have to earn that vote and I mean earn it. The have to stand for things or people stay home (which results in a GOP victory every time).

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

I would argue that Party-switching happens both to the parties themselves and individuals that are in or identify with those parties. The Parties are also not as polarized as one is told either. The DLC is only an inch to the left of Reagan, and the GOP is only a foot to the right of him.

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.

Maybe, but if it works does it matter?

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).

Lugar or Voinovich might not have made asses of themselves on a regular basis, but they have the same terrible ideas that W has. The results would have been the same. Furthermore, it is also these same ideas that HRC has backed time and time again. Sanders has not. What matters is not who is president, what matters is what the person who is president thinks because that is reflected in what (s)he does.

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.

A couple days ago I ranked him a +4 on a -10 to +10 scale with FDR being +10 and Cruz being -7. Over all Obama has been a surprisingly good President. He could have been better, but in the face of the obstruction he's had to deal with actual progress has been made. That said, he is not without criticism and the main criticism of those who are informed by the Whiggish view (I believe you call it Yankee Liberalism, but I prefer Whig, I think it more honest, or at least in my case it is because I'm liberal but I'm no Yankee) is that he tried to play "Let's Make a Deal" when the days for that game are over. The game he should have played is "Pass this or I take it to the people". FDR had Democratic majorities and kept them by first having the GOP defeat itself (bad or no ideas) and by Obstructing Obstructionism.

If Clinton can be trusted (and I'd argue she can't) she claims she'll be 4 more years of Obama. Sorry I do not want. I'd rather have the Jacksonians drive the country off a cliff. The time for compromise is finished, it is a 4T lets get this shit done. I swear sometimes I feel like Churchill shouting in the Commons that "war is coming".

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.

Single Payer is not in the GOP's playbook. Trump is getting heavy flak for it on the other side. (Yes I listen to them. Know your enemy know yourself that's the key to life.)

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

That is because the GOP understands that the time for compromise is finished. "Let's make a deal" is over. It is a 4T.

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.

One way to guarantee that they don't fail is to nominate someone that keeps the young, the minority, the LGBT+ home. Low turn out always helps the Republicans...always.

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.

You don't get it. It wasn't the homophobia that bothered me. I've heard worse from my own father, and coming out gay was easier than coming out atheist. I've been dealing with shit like that for years. The part that I found insulting was the assumption that because I'm a homosexual that I must therefore support any democrat over any republican out of some sort of demographic obligation.

Gay may be a demographic I belong to but who I make love to in no way impacts who I vote for. I also don't vote on the basis of being black either. I voted for Obama not because we're both black, but because he wasn't HRC and he was better than McCain. As for Romney...

Originally Posted by Rev 3:15-17 KJV

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

I don't often quote the Bible, but I do have to admit that John said it better than I ever could.

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).

Some states we already have an idea how they are going to go. No Republican is going to win California, and no Democrat is going to win Oklahoma. That is why the focus every cycle is on the swing states. In a way it makes me wish we had a President by Popular Vote, then they would have to visit the people in every state, and that is what is needed now more than ever--a 50 state solution. That being said, I don't foresee an amendment to abandon the electoral collage happening in my lifetime. I could be wrong though, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks it is bullshit.

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.

Stating that someone is using a psychological defense mechanism is not the same as performing a psychoanalysis. I'm not impressed by an argument from ignorance. Usually you're better than this. I'm disappointed.

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

Did not Obama have US citizens on kill lists? Or have you forgotten? If you run afoul of any world leader and he wants to kill you, he will. The state is an organized form of force. Always has been, always will be.

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.'

Repeating lies put out by Nazi Germany is still repeating lies put out by Nazi Germany. It isn't a matter of degree. This is a case of is or is not.

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?

All states had at that time capital punishment. This country still has it but Russia does not. There are worse things than being killed. Being forced to live in an 6'x8' box for the rest of one's natural life comes to mind.

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.

Here is what I think you are discounting. Hillary Clinton will hamper GOTV efforts by the Democrats. Sanders won't, he'll bring people out because he's offering something new (though he is old and his ideas aren't really new either--they've just been dormant since 1980). As such he brings to the table the opportunity to take back the Senate (all those Baggers are up for re-election this year) and to make strong headway in the House.

As for what the GOP is going to say about any Democratic candidate...I think we know. They'd call Richard Nixon a pinko commie if he ran on a Democratic Ticket. We know what they are going to say, and we know what they are going to do. They are predictable.

That being said, since it seems like we have two grey champions running now, and it is a binary choice I'm going to go for the grey champion who is the Whig. I'm completely convinced that it is Bernie or Bust. I have been since July of last year, so that is nothing new from me.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Excellent points. The Clintons are still living in the 1990s

And that was her problem in 2008 and is her problem in 2016.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The real question is why is Kinser here?

Ultimately to discuss S&H and their theory which takes up the bulk of my posts. And I've even questioned if there may be a mega-saecular play here with Trump and Sanders both playing GC roles. I don't recall S&H ever saying that there could be only one GC.

But even asking that question shows you don't actually read the posts of others. Not that I didn't already know that.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

.... As such we can expect from HRC the exact same things we can from Cruz, Rubio or Bush.

Let me clue you in on something, when you say pure horseshit like this, you make it difficult for anyone with more than half a brain to take seriously the rest of your diatribe.

Why not dig a little deeper and examine the real differences between Bernie and Hillary? You really don't even need to spend time comparing either to what the clown car is presenting - no one here on this forum is really that stupid or uniformed.

You're obviously a very smart guy, but you keep this at some weird sophomoric level akin to a t-bagger bumper sticker. Why?

Why are you so hyped up on pissing off, splitting off, those people who Bernie is not their first choice but without whom he has absolutely no chance of winning in the general?

It's weird and ugly.

Frankly, it suggests a Trump bot no matter your credentials.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let me clue you in on something, when you say pure horseshit like this, you make it difficult for anyone with more than half a brain to take seriously the rest of your diatribe.

Why not dig a little deeper and examine the real differences between Bernie and Hillary? You really don't even need to spend time comparing either to what the clown car is presenting - no one here on this forum is really that stupid or uniformed.

You're obviously a very smart guy, but you keep this at some weird sophomoric level akin to a t-bagger bumper sticker. Why?

Why are you so hyped up on pissing off, splitting off, those people who Bernie is not their first choice but without whom he has absolutely no chance of winning in the general?

It's weird and ugly.

Frankly, it suggests a Trump bot no matter your credentials.

Your problem is that you think everyone who doesn't blindly follow the Establishment Dem narrative is automatically ignorant or stupid and worthy of derision. Bernie is soaring in the polls and you Hillary-bots can do nothing but parrot 90s 3T centrist BS about how Sanders in un-electable, or like Senator McCaskell is resorting to outright anti-Leftist red-baiting. You would make a good political pundit because you just as dense.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let me clue you in on something, when you say pure horseshit like this, you make it difficult for anyone with more than half a brain to take seriously the rest of your diatribe.

Why not dig a little deeper and examine the real differences between Bernie and Hillary? You really don't even need to spend time comparing either to what the clown car is presenting - no one here on this forum is really that stupid or uniformed.

You're obviously a very smart guy, but you keep this at some weird sophomoric level akin to a t-bagger bumper sticker. Why?

Why are you so hyped up on pissing off, splitting off, those people who Bernie is not their first choice but without whom he has absolutely no chance of winning in the general?

It's weird and ugly.

Frankly, it suggests a Trump bot no matter your credentials.

It might not be this simple, but it is said that to a white guy, all (fill in your least favorite race here) look alike. To a Marxist Leninist, perhaps the whole clown car looks alike, and indistinguishable from the other clown car? As a progressive, I do sort of lump the whole clown car together under one label.... unacceptable. I appreciate that there are significant and even blatantly divisive differences if one is riding in the same clown car, but I'm not in that car and can't be bothered to track them all.

Of course, to me all Marxist Leninists are alike... in a distinctly unacceptable category if I'm to use PG rated language.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The real question is why is Kinser here?

I've been wondering about that for some time.

I would think he might prefer North Korea or something like that. Or at least Cuba. It's not that far from where he is now, in fact. Just get on a boat and go there, kinser.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I've been wondering about that for some time.

I would think he might prefer North Korea or something like that. Or at least Cuba. It's not that far from where he is now, in fact. Just get on a boat and go there, kinser.

I'm glad we have a Kinser posting here -- his is an unusual viewpoint. I'm also glad we have an Eric the Green and a Playwrite and a Danilynn.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with their posts, but it's good to hear other voices rather than just being an echo chamber.

Originally Posted by playwrite

- and you did.

Maybe if you expected the posting style of someone else. For me it was actually fairly short. I can get very verbose at times. I believe Eric once commented on it when I was a newbie here that I was as long winded as any boomer.

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.

Says the guy who obviously did not read my original post to him or any of the subsequent ones.

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.

Oh but it was. My first choice has always been Sanders. My second choice in the General has always been A.B.C. (I don't feel the need to explain that particular abrivation anymore I'm sure everyone knows hat it means by now).

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.

Would be true if I broke Godwin's Law which I did not which you would have known by actually reading my posts instead of merely responding to them. Your knee jerk is showing.

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.

And you are conveniently ignoring that the Democrats, not that long ago were the Party with the Clown Car. Perhaps you think in terms of D's and R's but I think in terms of Jacksonians and Whigs (and have for a long time). These are the two main currents of American Political Thought and have been since at least halfway through what I call the First Republic (though I would argue that a great deal of Jacksonianism is a radicalized form of Jeffersonianism).

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?

I'm pretty sure I'm not DebC. Our posting styles are different (but since you react to post instead of respond to them how would you even know).

Obamacare did move the FDR agenda further than since LBJ. I don't think that has ever been in contention. However, to turn around and then say that we should abandon the goal that FDR set out because we got this half-loaf is not incremental improvement. In fact it is a losing strategy, that will result in a GOP Victory and a repeal and replace with nothing outcome.

You are forgetting they aren't reading from the Whig playbook.

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.

Exactly. That is why I can't vote for someone who is exactly like a Republican except she has a D behind her name. The Democrats do not get my vote because I'm registered to that party. They don't get it because I'm black, or because I'm gay, or even because I'm socially liberal. They get it because their views are most in line with mine and Hillary Clinton's views and mine are opposed.

(Also applies to why I don't often vote third party.)

If you want to talk about stupid, stupid would be voting for someone on the basis of their political party.

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."

I will agree that Trump does have Party apperatus behind him. All of the candidates do, reguardless of their party. That being said, his options should he be nominated are more open than you think. Impeachment is quite difficult to do to a president. Which is why it has only been done twice (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and why both times it has failed. Furthermore, it should be noted that in neither of those two times has the party in controlling congress been the same as that of the President.

A. Johnson: GOP House, GOP Senate, Democratic (elected as national union) President
B. Clinton: GOP House, GOP Senate, Democratic President.

Should Trump be nominated by the GOP, then go on to win the Presidency and they then impeach him that will be political suicide for them. Should they primary him as an incumbent they will lose the general election in 2020.

A GOP Impeachment of a GOP President is as off the table as a Democratic Impeachment of a Democratic President is off the table. In 227 years of history it has never been done. I would argue can't be done for the reasons I outlined above. While I don't have much faith in the GOP being sane I'm pretty sure they aren't suicidal.

So then as people who are going to vote Democratic (barring someone truly awful being nominated--the issue over which we seem to differ) who they nominate really isn't that important to us. What is, is, who is the Democratic nominee. Which isn't HRC or Sanders...at least not yet.

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.

I agree that Obama is the best President we've had in a very long time. At least since LBJ. (incidentally I rank LBJ third among the 43 [Former] Presidents, but still refuse to rank Obama until after his term is over, he isn't done yet.) I would even go so far as to say he's been pretty damn awesome. That being said, let us see who has consistently supported Obama when they were Senate. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Hillary.

She was in the State Department being sent out of Washington on a regular basis. I know it shocked many people in 2009, here he is appointing this woman who made it her mission to make him un-electable the whole primary season and he's making her secretary of state? I can't speak for you but I understood why he did it that way. He couldn't count on her losing her Senate Seat and he didn't want her to be a thorn in his side which a senator can do easily. Ergo, appoint her to an Executive Branch Department and make her legacy tied to his. Hillary aught to be glad the US is a republic with democratic institutions, in other countries political threats are neutralized with lead.

Meanwhile Sanders in the Senate did his King of the Amendment thing and has supported Obama since long before he was the Democratic Nominee in 2008. Both are from the Whig Tradition, HRC is was a Goldwater Girl and yes that still informs her to this day (that's why she's a DLC Democrat). Not only that, before Obama even arrived on the scene Sanders has worked to advance the FDR/LBJ agenda.

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.

If we assume that the GOP will retain the House and Senate (which I contend that Sanders could start a wave, he's offering a political revolution) I do not think that Sanders as President would spend his chips on the ACA. He would be too busy vetoing any repeal that came across his desk coming from the GOP that did not have a replacement proposal attached. Let me give you a little hint about that, that isn't happening. They may say they want to replace it, but they want to replace it with NOTHING.

If we assume that the GOP retains the Congress they aren't going to offer HRC or Bernie Sanders expansions on subsidies (unless of course they get contributions from insurance companies--and sorry but smells like corporate welfare to me), they wont' be expanding Medicare or Medicaid. And the internal pressure in Red States to accept these expansions is vastly over stated. Which you would know if you lived in a swing state (cause here it is a knock down drag out fight but in say Mississippi it isn't--it ain't happening end of story).

And also if we assume that have a GOP controlled Congress, particularly one that is Red Xer dominated (and that is already the case in the House) Hillary Clinton will be portraid equally nastily. Do you honestly think that they see a difference between her or Sanders? They don't. They hate them equally, but bringing down a Clinton will stroke the ego of any Red Xer Representative I assure you. So then with that assumption it is angry old man in the White House, or out of touch old woman in the White House.

Now as two people who are both following the Whig tradition ourselves (or at least I'm assuming you're not in favor of Clinton because she's soft to Banksters and Wall Street--which if that's the case just say so and don't pretend to be any type of progressive) we can see the differences. What is the difference. Sanders like FDR says "They will hate me and I welcome their hatred". He's no clueless idealist, he's tapping into FDR's spirit. Hillary says though "I want everyone to love me."

Well here's the truth. The GOP IS the enemy. Caving to them IS treason to the Whig Tradition. And the GOP HATES Hillary Clinton and HAS HATED her since at least 1992 (again don't know about before then and really don't care). Add to that she is divisive within the party itself and it spells disaster. So if you want both a GOP president and GOP congress by all means go out and raise some money for HRC. I'll campaign for Bernie instead.

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.

Polls change.

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.

I used to live in NYC. Harlem to be exact. I rather liked it but it became gentrified for me and I ended up in NJ before my grandmother took ill and well I had obligations. Given the choice though I still prefer the Windy City. And for the record I was stationed in California for sometime, the weather was nicer but I couldn't stand the place. Far too many weirdos.

That being said, I would appreciate it if you didn't act like I owe the Democrats my vote because I'm black and gay. That has nothing to do with how I vote. I vote on issues and views. If someone doesn't get a spoiler vote, it is because they earned my vote. Even if it is because they are less terrible than the other guy. (Again which is not something I can say about HRC in comparison with any Republican except maybe Cruz. That guy gives me a severe case of creeps.)

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.

Guess whose been taking her to task. It isn't her own base.

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?

No, I said that I wasn't sure it was rational. Not everything is. Not everything can be, human intelligence is limited, only the universe and stupidity are infinite.

I do know it IS NOT sexist. Honestly if Bernie wasn't running I'd be pulling for a "Draft Warren", so it isn't that. I can't speak for you but I also don't vote on the basis of a candidate's genitals. I do know that her feminist creditials are weak due to those scandals with Bill and not keeping it in his pants though. But I don't judge people on their choice of spouse either.


Hillary Clinton has always made me feel like I was covered in slime whenever I heard her speak. That was true in the 1990s, it was true in 2008 (I could ignore her being the NY Senator cause not my senator) and it is true today. She makes me feel like I've been swimming in snot. That is not a feeling I want to have about someone running for the nomination of the party I usually vote for. It means that there is something wrong about them even if I don't exactly know what is wrong. I'm sure that you've felt the same thing from people and avoided them.

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.

There is no evidence that Kim Jong-Un even if he could, would launch a missile at the US or for that matter Japan. It would piss off China and only China likes him (barely).

I check with wifey-poo and my 89 year old father in law; even I can't repeat what they said.

I'm sure their urban legends were doozies. The best ones are. Should I be the supreme leader after a socialist revolution in this country I would consider myself to have failed if people didn't say I as a homicidal necrophile that was into bestiality and killed the population of my own country twice over. Ever hear of the Big Lie Theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Not just nazis use it. Just like not just Hitler was a vegetarian.

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.

If he believes that chattel slavery was carefree and wonderful then he can't possibly have a clue about the Gulag (yes they existed and yes they were terrible...prisons are supposed to be).

As for AIDS sounds like he doesn't understand how evolution or viruses work. It isn't like the disease only infects gays or drug users. It can and will infect anyone it can.

"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.

This only indicates you aren't listening to Bernie or for that matter Hillary. I've already established you aren't listening to me but that's probably just Boomer's Disease acting up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwVcGXhi0o

Bernie has the determination to propose something and force the GOP to say no and then take that no to the people. FDR tried the same tactic and the result was always the same, the GOP caved to the Democrats instead of the other way round. What does "I want everybody to love me" Clinton offer? More of "Let's make a deal" and then when the answer from them is "go fuck yourself" what? Move to the right?

As for subterfuge, deceit, and experience. Yeah Clinton ran on that in 2008. It didn't work then, and Sanders is no Junior Senator that's only been in DC for two years. His position as opposed to Clinton is stronger than BHOs was in January and he's getting stronger.

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

I still have the odds of you being a Trump bot around 35%.

That's nice but ultimately irrelevant. We both know that the election will not swing on my vote, just like it doesn't swing on yours. The only difference is Florida is Purple and NY is Blue.

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.

So you can't figure out that I vote based on who I think is the right person (which isn't Hillary Clinton just like it isn't Cruz) because I'm not voting by my demographics? You don't know that identity politics is bullshit? That who you are is more important than what you are. You also do not understand that as a Marxist-Leninist that I apply a dialectic and that dialectic indicates that except for Sanders any Republican will make things worse and the people can't take things getting worse their expectations are too high resulting in something blowing up (literally or figuratively doesn't matter).

I'm sure that the very concept that one might prefer a genuine asshole over an asshole who pretends to not be an asshole also boggles your mind. Your failures to understand such concepts are not my problem. But I do have a suggestion. Perhaps periodically you might want to leave your island and come down South, or visit the Fly Over. The continent is different from your island. I'd know I'd lived in both.

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.

Actually I think you'll find that a great number of people are absolutely willing to vote third party or spoil their ballots if it isn't Bernie. I've advanced an proposal that during a Mega-Unraveling (which is what this saeculum has been) that it may be possible (perhaps even probable) that two so-called grey champions emerge. From the looks of the historical political lines in this country dating back to 1789 we see two: Federalist/Whig/Progressive/New Deal (PBR calls it Yankee Liberalism) and Anti-Federalist/Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/Robber Baron. If the Bernie is the GC for the former then Trump very well could be the GC for the latter (both are within 5 years of each other in age, as is HRC which makes her statements about Bernie being too old hilarious) and both are hankering back to two very old lines of political thought in this country.

Originally Posted by B Butler

It might not be this simple, but it is said that to a white guy, all (fill in your least favorite race here) look alike. To a Marxist Leninist, perhaps the whole clown car looks alike, and indistinguishable from the other clown car? As a progressive, I do sort of lump the whole clown car together under one label.... unacceptable. I appreciate that there are significant and even blatantly divisive differences if one is riding in the same clown car, but I'm not in that car and can't be bothered to track them all.

Of course, to me all Marxist Leninists are alike... in a distinctly unacceptable category if I'm to use PG rated language.

Honestly it isn't that simple. I can tell the differences in the clown car, but not well. But I can also distinguish between most of the Seven Dwarfs (seriously I hate Disney films they are either overtly racist or sickly sweet). In the GOP Clown Car there is not much distinguishing Cruz, Bush or Rubio except that Bush is "My turn" (a turn off I'd admit but at least Jeb never made viscerally react to him like Cruz and Clinton do), Rubio is "hey guys I'm a Latino, too" (blatant identity politics on the part of the GOP also a second attempt at Favorite Son-ing), and then there is old grease ball himself. (In before Odin says something bout me calling a Latino a grease ball even if he's slicker than snot on a doorknob, diametrically opposed to everything we both stand for and everyone knows it.)

Carlton, or whatever that House Negro's name is (seriously I can't bother to keep up with all of them the GOP trots one out every year), is "sleepy". Makes me wonder how many times he's been called 'boy' at rallies.

That rounds out the "Clown Car" except for Two. Rand Paul who isn't even a Republican--he's a Libertarian and thus unacceptable even if he isn't very clownish (excluding his stupid haircut). And, Donald Trump who is an angry white guy who taps into the anger of others and occasionally says really monstrous things and sometimes says things that make some "damn good sense" and even says things that are both good sense and monstrous at the same time.

On the Democratic side, there is a great deal more detectable nuance than on the GOP side, but with Sanders objectively preferable to Clinton on the basis of their positions. Clinton runs like an Eisenhower Republican (which to me is the same as running as a non-clown car republican), Sanders speaks like he's FDR or LBJ's second coming.

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you think everyone who doesn't blindly follow the Establishment Dem narrative is automatically ignorant or stupid and worthy of derision. Bernie is soaring in the polls and you Hillary-bots can do nothing but parrot 90s 3T centrist BS about how Sanders in un-electable, or like Senator McCaskell is resorting to outright anti-Leftist red-baiting. You would make a good political pundit because you just as dense.

The most insulting thing though is that he expects me to vote on the basis of my demographics. It could be a failing on his part being a lily white heterosexual male northern liberal (who probably thinks I owe him some gratitude or something for the civil and gay rights--as if they were a gift and not something taken by force--moral force to be sure but still force) to understand that not everyone who is black is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal. That not everyone who is gay is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal (ever notice the GOP's sex scandals always have a gay undertone? surely it just isn't me).

And that is before we get into my actual politics.

All that said, Odin, I must say I'm surprised. I would have thought that you would agree with Playdude here. He is after all using the correct formula. You know, gay black people are not supposed to even consider people like Trump as acceptable. They are expected to vote for anyone the Democrats offer because anyone the GOP offers is auto-magically worse.

Maybe hope isn't a buzzword after all.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The most insulting thing though is that he expects me to vote on the basis of my demographics. It could be a failing on his part being a lily white heterosexual male northern liberal (who probably thinks I owe him some gratitude or something for the civil and gay rights--as if they were a gift and not something taken by force--moral force to be sure but still force) to understand that not everyone who is black is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal. That not everyone who is gay is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal (ever notice the GOP's sex scandals always have a gay undertone? surely it just isn't me).

And that is before we get into my actual politics.

All that said, Odin, I must say I'm surprised. I would have thought that you would agree with Playdude here. He is after all using the correct formula. You know, gay black people are not supposed to even consider people like Trump as acceptable. They are expected to vote for anyone the Democrats offer because anyone the GOP offers is auto-magically worse.

Maybe hope isn't a buzzword after all.

I have noticed that a lot of Hilary-bots insist that they have the votes of all the women's rights activists, POC, and LGBT folks locked up just because the mainstream organizations claiming to represent those groups are endorsing Hillary. Right now they are currently screaming that Sanders is somehow against women because he called Planned Parenthood "establishment".

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm glad we have a Kinser posting here -- his is an unusual viewpoint. I'm also glad we have an Eric the Green and a Playwrite and a Danilynn.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with their posts, but it's good to hear other voices rather than just being an echo chamber.

Absolutely. An echo chamber would be totally boooorirrinng!

Originally Posted by Odin

I have noticed that a lot of Hilary-bots insist that they have the votes of all the women's rights activists, POC, and LGBT folks locked up just because the mainstream organizations claiming to represent those groups are endorsing Hillary. Right now they are currently screaming that Sanders is somehow against women because he called Planned Parenthood "establishment".

How can Planned Parenthood not be Establishment? The organisation is over 100 years old.
Hillary reminds me of the union business agent who is telling the strike meeting why a raise isn't possible.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The most insulting thing though is that he expects me to vote on the basis of my demographics. It could be a failing on his part being a lily white heterosexual male northern liberal (who probably thinks I owe him some gratitude or something for the civil and gay rights--as if they were a gift and not something taken by force--moral force to be sure but still force) to understand that not everyone who is black is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal. That not everyone who is gay is a Democrat or for that matter even economically let alone socially liberal (ever notice the GOP's sex scandals always have a gay undertone? surely it just isn't me).

And that is before we get into my actual politics.

All that said, Odin, I must say I'm surprised. I would have thought that you would agree with Playdude here. He is after all using the correct formula. You know, gay black people are not supposed to even consider people like Trump as acceptable. They are expected to vote for anyone the Democrats offer because anyone the GOP offers is auto-magically worse.

Maybe hope isn't a buzzword after all.

Indeed. You don't need to feel gratitude for when someone agrees to stop cheating you (or stop cheating you as much). To feel gratitude under such circumstances is submission. It's Stockholm Syndrome.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Maybe if you expected the posting style of someone else. For me it was actually fairly short. I can get very verbose at times. I believe Eric once commented on it when I was a newbie here that I was as long winded as any boomer.



Says the guy who obviously did not read my original post to him or any of the subsequent ones.



Oh but it was. My first choice has always been Sanders. My second choice in the General has always been A.B.C. (I don't feel the need to explain that particular abrivation anymore I'm sure everyone knows hat it means by now).



Would be true if I broke Godwin's Law which I did not which you would have known by actually reading my posts instead of merely responding to them. Your knee jerk is showing.



And you are conveniently ignoring that the Democrats, not that long ago were the Party with the Clown Car. Perhaps you think in terms of D's and R's but I think in terms of Jacksonians and Whigs (and have for a long time). These are the two main currents of American Political Thought and have been since at least halfway through what I call the First Republic (though I would argue that a great deal of Jacksonianism is a radicalized form of Jeffersonianism).



I'm pretty sure I'm not DebC. Our posting styles are different (but since you react to post instead of respond to them how would you even know).

Obamacare did move the FDR agenda further than since LBJ. I don't think that has ever been in contention. However, to turn around and then say that we should abandon the goal that FDR set out because we got this half-loaf is not incremental improvement. In fact it is a losing strategy, that will result in a GOP Victory and a repeal and replace with nothing outcome.

You are forgetting they aren't reading from the Whig playbook.



Exactly. That is why I can't vote for someone who is exactly like a Republican except she has a D behind her name. The Democrats do not get my vote because I'm registered to that party. They don't get it because I'm black, or because I'm gay, or even because I'm socially liberal. They get it because their views are most in line with mine and Hillary Clinton's views and mine are opposed.

(Also applies to why I don't often vote third party.)

If you want to talk about stupid, stupid would be voting for someone on the basis of their political party.



I will agree that Trump does have Party apperatus behind him. All of the candidates do, reguardless of their party. That being said, his options should he be nominated are more open than you think. Impeachment is quite difficult to do to a president. Which is why it has only been done twice (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and why both times it has failed. Furthermore, it should be noted that in neither of those two times has the party in controlling congress been the same as that of the President.

A. Johnson: GOP House, GOP Senate, Democratic (elected as national union) President
B. Clinton: GOP House, GOP Senate, Democratic President.

Should Trump be nominated by the GOP, then go on to win the Presidency and they then impeach him that will be political suicide for them. Should they primary him as an incumbent they will lose the general election in 2020.

A GOP Impeachment of a GOP President is as off the table as a Democratic Impeachment of a Democratic President is off the table. In 227 years of history it has never been done. I would argue can't be done for the reasons I outlined above. While I don't have much faith in the GOP being sane I'm pretty sure they aren't suicidal.

So then as people who are going to vote Democratic (barring someone truly awful being nominated--the issue over which we seem to differ) who they nominate really isn't that important to us. What is, is, who is the Democratic nominee. Which isn't HRC or Sanders...at least not yet.



I agree that Obama is the best President we've had in a very long time. At least since LBJ. (incidentally I rank LBJ third among the 43 [Former] Presidents, but still refuse to rank Obama until after his term is over, he isn't done yet.) I would even go so far as to say he's been pretty damn awesome. That being said, let us see who has consistently supported Obama when they were Senate. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Hillary.

She was in the State Department being sent out of Washington on a regular basis. I know it shocked many people in 2009, here he is appointing this woman who made it her mission to make him un-electable the whole primary season and he's making her secretary of state? I can't speak for you but I understood why he did it that way. He couldn't count on her losing her Senate Seat and he didn't want her to be a thorn in his side which a senator can do easily. Ergo, appoint her to an Executive Branch Department and make her legacy tied to his. Hillary aught to be glad the US is a republic with democratic institutions, in other countries political threats are neutralized with lead.

Meanwhile Sanders in the Senate did his King of the Amendment thing and has supported Obama since long before he was the Democratic Nominee in 2008. Both are from the Whig Tradition, HRC is was a Goldwater Girl and yes that still informs her to this day (that's why she's a DLC Democrat). Not only that, before Obama even arrived on the scene Sanders has worked to advance the FDR/LBJ agenda.



If we assume that the GOP will retain the House and Senate (which I contend that Sanders could start a wave, he's offering a political revolution) I do not think that Sanders as President would spend his chips on the ACA. He would be too busy vetoing any repeal that came across his desk coming from the GOP that did not have a replacement proposal attached. Let me give you a little hint about that, that isn't happening. They may say they want to replace it, but they want to replace it with NOTHING.

If we assume that the GOP retains the Congress they aren't going to offer HRC or Bernie Sanders expansions on subsidies (unless of course they get contributions from insurance companies--and sorry but smells like corporate welfare to me), they wont' be expanding Medicare or Medicaid. And the internal pressure in Red States to accept these expansions is vastly over stated. Which you would know if you lived in a swing state (cause here it is a knock down drag out fight but in say Mississippi it isn't--it ain't happening end of story).

And also if we assume that have a GOP controlled Congress, particularly one that is Red Xer dominated (and that is already the case in the House) Hillary Clinton will be portraid equally nastily. Do you honestly think that they see a difference between her or Sanders? They don't. They hate them equally, but bringing down a Clinton will stroke the ego of any Red Xer Representative I assure you. So then with that assumption it is angry old man in the White House, or out of touch old woman in the White House.

Now as two people who are both following the Whig tradition ourselves (or at least I'm assuming you're not in favor of Clinton because she's soft to Banksters and Wall Street--which if that's the case just say so and don't pretend to be any type of progressive) we can see the differences. What is the difference. Sanders like FDR says "They will hate me and I welcome their hatred". He's no clueless idealist, he's tapping into FDR's spirit. Hillary says though "I want everyone to love me."

Well here's the truth. The GOP IS the enemy. Caving to them IS treason to the Whig Tradition. And the GOP HATES Hillary Clinton and HAS HATED her since at least 1992 (again don't know about before then and really don't care). Add to that she is divisive within the party itself and it spells disaster. So if you want both a GOP president and GOP congress by all means go out and raise some money for HRC. I'll campaign for Bernie instead.



Polls change.



I used to live in NYC. Harlem to be exact. I rather liked it but it became gentrified for me and I ended up in NJ before my grandmother took ill and well I had obligations. Given the choice though I still prefer the Windy City. And for the record I was stationed in California for sometime, the weather was nicer but I couldn't stand the place. Far too many weirdos.

That being said, I would appreciate it if you didn't act like I owe the Democrats my vote because I'm black and gay. That has nothing to do with how I vote. I vote on issues and views. If someone doesn't get a spoiler vote, it is because they earned my vote. Even if it is because they are less terrible than the other guy. (Again which is not something I can say about HRC in comparison with any Republican except maybe Cruz. That guy gives me a severe case of creeps.)



Guess whose been taking her to task. It isn't her own base.



No, I said that I wasn't sure it was rational. Not everything is. Not everything can be, human intelligence is limited, only the universe and stupidity are infinite.

I do know it IS NOT sexist. Honestly if Bernie wasn't running I'd be pulling for a "Draft Warren", so it isn't that. I can't speak for you but I also don't vote on the basis of a candidate's genitals. I do know that her feminist creditials are weak due to those scandals with Bill and not keeping it in his pants though. But I don't judge people on their choice of spouse either.


Hillary Clinton has always made me feel like I was covered in slime whenever I heard her speak. That was true in the 1990s, it was true in 2008 (I could ignore her being the NY Senator cause not my senator) and it is true today. She makes me feel like I've been swimming in snot. That is not a feeling I want to have about someone running for the nomination of the party I usually vote for. It means that there is something wrong about them even if I don't exactly know what is wrong. I'm sure that you've felt the same thing from people and avoided them.



There is no evidence that Kim Jong-Un even if he could, would launch a missile at the US or for that matter Japan. It would piss off China and only China likes him (barely).



I'm sure their urban legends were doozies. The best ones are. Should I be the supreme leader after a socialist revolution in this country I would consider myself to have failed if people didn't say I as a homicidal necrophile that was into bestiality and killed the population of my own country twice over. Ever hear of the Big Lie Theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Not just nazis use it. Just like not just Hitler was a vegetarian.



If he believes that chattel slavery was carefree and wonderful then he can't possibly have a clue about the Gulag (yes they existed and yes they were terrible...prisons are supposed to be).

As for AIDS sounds like he doesn't understand how evolution or viruses work. It isn't like the disease only infects gays or drug users. It can and will infect anyone it can.



This only indicates you aren't listening to Bernie or for that matter Hillary. I've already established you aren't listening to me but that's probably just Boomer's Disease acting up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwVcGXhi0o

Bernie has the determination to propose something and force the GOP to say no and then take that no to the people. FDR tried the same tactic and the result was always the same, the GOP caved to the Democrats instead of the other way round. What does "I want everybody to love me" Clinton offer? More of "Let's make a deal" and then when the answer from them is "go fuck yourself" what? Move to the right?

As for subterfuge, deceit, and experience. Yeah Clinton ran on that in 2008. It didn't work then, and Sanders is no Junior Senator that's only been in DC for two years. His position as opposed to Clinton is stronger than BHOs was in January and he's getting stronger.

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



That's nice but ultimately irrelevant. We both know that the election will not swing on my vote, just like it doesn't swing on yours. The only difference is Florida is Purple and NY is Blue.



So you can't figure out that I vote based on who I think is the right person (which isn't Hillary Clinton just like it isn't Cruz) because I'm not voting by my demographics? You don't know that identity politics is bullshit? That who you are is more important than what you are. You also do not understand that as a Marxist-Leninist that I apply a dialectic and that dialectic indicates that except for Sanders any Republican will make things worse and the people can't take things getting worse their expectations are too high resulting in something blowing up (literally or figuratively doesn't matter).

I'm sure that the very concept that one might prefer a genuine asshole over an asshole who pretends to not be an asshole also boggles your mind. Your failures to understand such concepts are not my problem. But I do have a suggestion. Perhaps periodically you might want to leave your island and come down South, or visit the Fly Over. The continent is different from your island. I'd know I'd lived in both.



Actually I think you'll find that a great number of people are absolutely willing to vote third party or spoil their ballots if it isn't Bernie. I've advanced an proposal that during a Mega-Unraveling (which is what this saeculum has been) that it may be possible (perhaps even probable) that two so-called grey champions emerge. From the looks of the historical political lines in this country dating back to 1789 we see two: Federalist/Whig/Progressive/New Deal (PBR calls it Yankee Liberalism) and Anti-Federalist/Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/Robber Baron. If the Bernie is the GC for the former then Trump very well could be the GC for the latter (both are within 5 years of each other in age, as is HRC which makes her statements about Bernie being too old hilarious) and both are hankering back to two very old lines of political thought in this country.

Trump IS willing to do what maybe no other candidate is willing to do (even possibly Bernie). End these international commitments and alliances that can force the US to sleepwalk into a major war and which we have treated as if they somehow have gotten added to the US Constitution and which are the driving force behind the reduction of American's civil liberties.

Originally Posted by Odin

I have noticed that a lot of Hilary-bots insist that they have the votes of all the women's rights activists, POC, and LGBT folks locked up just because the mainstream organizations claiming to represent those groups are endorsing Hillary. Right now they are currently screaming that Sanders is somehow against women because he called Planned Parenthood "establishment".

Indeed. I have never voted according to endorsement anyway. I vote on the basis of what people say. Not on who their endorsers are, too me that is like saying I like ice cream too. It is meaningless to me, and only really of interest to the commentariat.

Which is why before the GOP primary was over last time I knew that Romney didn't have a chance. He couldn't decide if he was hot or cold. He lost, and essentially the only people who voted for him were people who wouldn't have voted for Obama if he was running for house boy.

As to Planned Parenthood, well they are. As in the NAACP. I suppose I'm anti-woman and anti-black now because two organizations that are a century old are part of the establishment and I have said as much.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Indeed. You don't need to feel gratitude for when someone agrees to stop cheating you (or stop cheating you as much). To feel gratitude under such circumstances is submission. It's Stockholm Syndrome.

Not quite I was going for. White Liberal Northerners did assist in the Civil Rights movement which was overwhelmingly Silent and Black led. That being said, their involvement was mostly along the lines of saying to LBJ (who disagreed with segregation anyway though being a southern politician he could never say such) "Look, we have a choice here we can give this King guy what he wants, or we can deal with riots and what this Malcolm X guy is talking about. Either way they are taking the rights that they are supposed to have."

The choice was obvious for LBJ. Go with King and not have a racially based civil war. It also had the additional benefit of blunting Soviet Popular Enlightenment on the treatment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the US particularly in Africa, but also other places.

As for submitting. I bet you can guess my feelings on that.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

How can Planned Parenthood not be Establishment? The organisation is over 100 years old.
Hillary reminds me of the union business agent who is telling the strike meeting why a raise isn't possible.

You know, when a union boss does that when the union is hyped up the results are rarely good...well for the union boss.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Trump IS willing to do what maybe no other candidate is willing to do (even possibly Bernie). End these international commitments and alliances that can force the US to sleepwalk into a major war and which we have treated as if they somehow have gotten added to the US Constitution and which are the driving force behind the reduction of American's civil liberties.

That is something else I've noticed across the board with everyone who isn't at least an older Xer or older. Everyone is tired of endless wars, endless wars that cost much in gold, iron and blood and only seem capable of producing terrorists and hatred for the country abroad.

Withdrawing from many of these alliances would be a fundamentally good idea.

I would say that staying in the UN is a fundamentally good idea. Maybe would pull a Japan. The UN wants to send some "peace keepers" some where. Okay We'll send 1 Humvee and a medic.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

How can Planned Parenthood not be Establishment? The organisation is over 100 years old.
Hillary reminds me of the union business agent who is telling the strike meeting why a raise isn't possible.

Speaking of unions, people like to think that they are on the Left economically, but all the actual leftists got purged during McCarthyism and the union leadership is pretty much pure Establishment, now.

IIRC by the 80s many unions became purely about "I got mine, fuck you", protecting the benefits of current members and screwing over young Xers entering the workforce. The mainstream unions have degenerated into instruments of division among workers rather than solidarity.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That is something else I've noticed across the board with everyone who isn't at least an older Xer or older. Everyone is tired of endless wars, endless wars that cost much in gold, iron and blood and only seem capable of producing terrorists and hatred for the country abroad.

Withdrawing from many of these alliances would be a fundamentally good idea.

I would say that staying in the UN is a fundamentally good idea. Maybe would pull a Japan. The UN wants to send some "peace keepers" some where. Okay We'll send 1 Humvee and a medic.

I hate the endless wars, but isolationism also disgusts me on a visceral level (blame the news stories about Bosnia and Rwanda I saw as a kid). There are ways of being active internationally without being a warmongering ass.

Originally Posted by Odin

I hate the endless wars, but isolationism also disgusts me on a visceral level (blame the news stories about Bosnia and Rwanda I saw as a kid). There are ways of being active internationally without being a warmongering ass.

Not really. I have yet to see an instance anywhere in the world where someone getting involved in the problems of others has resulted in their gratitude much less not ended up costing much in gold, iron and blood for little gain. A people who wants to be free must free themselves, getting involved in the civil war of others only makes both sides hate you.

I'm fine with doing things with and in the UN but we should not take a leadership role and we certainly should not be attempting to build other people's countries up while ours decays. That being said, should we not sleepwalk into a WW3, I have a feeling that allowing our economy and infrastructure deteriorate to levels that Bangladesh would find embarrassing will result in a loss not only of what soft power the US has but also it's hard power.

Armies cost money and resources and lots of both.

That being said, isolationism was the American Norm until after WW2. I would argue that this saeculum is the aberration, not the two preceding it.

Perhaps a better term would be non-interventionism, that is not becoming involved in the wars of others unless invited (and I mean formally invited) or our own national territory is threatened or attacked.

It is like an argument I had with someone about Middle-Eastern peoples "hating us for our freedoms", I argued that they don't hate us for our freedoms, they couldn't give two shits about our freedoms (that is beyond their rationale) what they hate us for is our proximity. After all how dare Iran put their country near our military bases.

Glenn Beck - hardly someone one would deem part of the political establishment - tore into Trump during his show yesterday.

Like I wrote a while back, Trump has jumped the shark.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news...uz-citizenship

Assuming that Cruz makes to to Super Tuesday (which is possible he's currently polling around 28% give or take and depending on which poll), it looks like the birther issue will rear it's ugly head yet again. As I've pointed out before Cruz is not well liked in the Senate, any joint resolution will be vetoed by BHO (assuming that Trump really did jump that shark) and I'm not sure how a campaign that is weighed down with a court case over citizenship will fare.

That said, Greyson is my rep. If he says he'll sue Cruz if he gets remotely close to the nomination...he will.

ETA:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-i-told-you-so