The real question is why is Kinser here?

- Sock Puppet Troll

Why do you post your scurrilous, ad hominem horseshit here Big Boy?

This individual has been getting away with turning this board into a shitshow for years now. Where's that moderation, eh?

It's almost like this individual sets out to exemplify everything wrong with a stereotypical Baby Boomer. But the abusive sociopathic behavior goes beyond normal Boomers and he stands out as nothing more than a tiny little wannabe bully.

I laugh at your candidate. I do hope Hillary Clinton gets elected. She is a doddering old fool and will show the country just how old and out of touch certain people are.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Why do you post your scurrilous, ad hominem horseshit here Big Boy?

This individual has been getting away with turning this board into a shitshow for years now. Where's that moderation, eh?

It's almost like this individual sets out to exemplify everything wrong with a stereotypical Baby Boomer. But the abusive sociopathic behavior goes beyond normal Boomers and he stands out as nothing more than a tiny little wannabe bully.

I laugh at your candidate. I do hope Hillary Clinton gets elected. She is a doddering old fool and will show the country just how old and out of touch certain people are.

ad hominum here?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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."

Martin Luther King was a Christian, a non-socialist, and not a black nationalist. if there was any black person that white people were going to accept as an equal (barring some Hollywood types), it was Martin Luther King, Jr.

The KGB files on Martin Luther King showed a chilly relationship between him and the Soviet Union. He had no problem with capitalism so long as it allowed ethnic equality. The Soviet Union preferred the Black nationalist types.

After the Second World War the Soviets used the way that African-Americans were treated in the United States as an attempt to gain influence in the Third World. At first they welcomed the campaigns of Martin Luther King against the Jim Crow Laws as it provided evidence of the worldwide struggle against American imperialism. However, to the dismay of the KGB. King repeatedly linked the aims of the civil rights movement to the fulfillment of the American dream and "the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence".

After King's inspirational letter from Birmingham Jail on 16th April, 1963, where he argued "We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America, is freedom", it was decided by the KGB to mount a smear campaign against the leader of the civil rights movement. The task was given to Yuri Modin, deputy head of Service A (KGB's disinformation unit). Modin is an interesting character who has been largely ignored by historians. Modin was the man who in 1947 he was sent to London and became the main contact of Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross. Modin also arranged the flight of Maclean and Burgess in 1951 and was in Beirut when Philby went missing in January 1963.

One of the great ironies in history is that while the KGB were trying to portray King as betraying African-Americans, J. Edgar Hoover was telling William C. Sullivan, the head of the Intelligence Division of the FBI, that “King was an instrument of the Communist Party” and posed “a serious threat to the security of the country.” Hoover instructed Sullivan to get evidence that “King had a relationship with the Soviet bloc”. Despite an intensive surveillance campaign, Sullivan was unable to find a clear link between King and the Communist Party of the United States. This did not stop Hoover from using his contacts in the press to write stories giving the impression that King was a communist.

The KGB campaign against King was stepped up with the passing of civil rights legislation under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Modin arranged for articles to appear in the African press which could be reprinted in American newspapers, portraying King as an "Uncle Tom" who was secretly receiving government subsidies to tame the civil rights movement and prevent it threatening the Johnson administration.

One of the most interesting documents in the KGB archive is dated August 1967 and authorizes Modin: "To organize, through the use of KGB residency resources in the US, the publication and distribution of brochures, pamphlets, leaflets and appeals denouncing the policy of the Johnson administration on the Negro question - and exposing the brutal terrorist methods being used by the government to suppress the Negro rights movement. To arrange, via available agent resources, for leading figures in the legal profession to make public statements discrediting the policy of the Johnson administration on the Negro question. To forge and distribute through illegal channels a document showing that the John Birch Society, in conjunction with the Minuteman organization, is developing a plan for the physical elimination of leading figures in the Negro movement in the US."

http://spartacus-educational.com/spa...blogURL41.html

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.

It would be good if we did things again because they are good and not because they expedite and enhance power.

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.

That's a good image. I don't know who is right, though. On health care, for example, Sanders is offering the real solution, as far as liberals and greenies like me is concerned: single payer/Medicare for all. I think it would be fairly easy to set it up, since Medicare already exists and we'd just need to raise the taxes we already pay to cover our younger years. Still, we've gone through hell to set Obamacare up. The ACA is going along, and it might be disruptive to throw it out now. She has a point; the battle for single payer would not be easy. So, evolution or revolution? That's the choice for Democrats in 2016.

Hillary has almost all the endorsements. It doesn't do Bernie any good to complain about it, or to call them "establishment." She got them all lined up mostly even before Bernie entered the race with seemingly no chance to win. If the people vote for Bernie, those organizations will just have to migrate over to him. It would be better for Bernie to keep his cool as the race gets hotter. And for Hillary too. Both need to look presidential and able to handle pressure, just like no-drama Obama.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Martin Luther King was a Christian, a non-socialist, and not a black nationalist. if there was any black person that white people were going to accept as an equal (barring some Hollywood types), it was Martin Luther King, Jr.

The KGB files on Martin Luther King showed a chilly relationship between him and the Soviet Union. He had no problem with capitalism so long as it allowed ethnic equality. The Soviet Union preferred the Black nationalist types.

Not relevant to my statement. The fact is that civil rights for blacks and now gays exist not because White Northern Liberals "gave" them to us. It is because we took those rights. Mankind has never freed others, they have always freed themselves, which is why I've always had a problem with the some of the liberals, it is like they expect there is some sort of force (be it god, or the government, or what have you) that will do the heavy lifting for them.

http://spartacus-educational.com/spa...blogURL41.html

Again not relevant. Soviet Propaganda was, even by your own source, used in Africa to portray the US as against the interests of the Black peoples there--which it was and largely still is.

It would be good if we did things again because they are good and not because they expedite and enhance power.

With LBJ I think he always wanted integration, an end to Jim Crow and equality amongst the races (at least on the political level). His problem is saying that in Texas in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s would make one unelectable because the Dixiecrats would paint him as, and in their words a "N....r Lover". As such he kept his views on the issue to himself until King made an opportunity for him to twist arms in the Congress and do what he had always wanted to do. It is my feeling that only LBJ could have pulled it off as well. It had to be a Southerner to do it, much like only Nixon Cold Warrior extraordinaire could seriously open up relations with the PRC.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary has almost all the endorsements. It doesn't do Bernie any good to complain about it, or to call them "establishment." She got them all lined up mostly even before Bernie entered the race with seemingly no chance to win. If the people vote for Bernie, those organizations will just have to migrate over to him. It would be better for Bernie to keep his cool as the race gets hotter. And for Hillary too. Both need to look presidential and able to handle pressure, just like no-drama Obama.

Shit yeah, I think she should wear a uniform to thank all of her endorsements with some of her own.





$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...eign-donations

And some flags from countries where she's got Clinton Ca$h.

Man, she's gonna need a wedding dress type uniform so all those logos will fit!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...&cid=N00000019

While Obama looks presidential, Shillary looks like a political hack.

Citigroup Inc	$824,402	$816,402	$8,000
Goldman Sachs	$760,740	$750,740	$10,000
DLA Piper	$700,530	$673,530	$27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$696,456	$693,456	$3,000
Morgan Stanley	$636,564	$631,564	$5,000
EMILY's List	$609,684	$605,764	$3,920
Time Warner	$501,831	$476,831	$25,000
Skadden, Arps et al	$469,290	$464,790	$4,500
University of California	$417,327	$417,327	$0
Sullivan & Cromwell	$369,150	$369,150	$0
Akin, Gump et al	$364,478	$360,978	$3,500
Lehman Brothers	$362,853	$359,853	$3,000
21st Century Fox	$340,936	$340,936	$0
Cablevision Systems	$336,613	$307,225	$29,388
Kirkland & Ellis	$329,141	$312,141	$17,000
National Amusements Inc	$328,312	$325,312	$3,000
Squire Patton Boggs	$328,306	$322,868	$5,438
Greenberg Traurig LLP	$327,890	$319,790	$8,100
Corning Inc	$322,450	$304,450	$18,000
Credit Suisse Group	$318,120	$308,120	$10,000

Yeah, she needs to wear that jacket

I don't know what your 3 columns indicate, other than some kind of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

She has one strong point in her favor. Citizens United was a campaign directed against HER. Do you think she'd favor overturning it, and appoint the right judges to do it? I think so.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, she needs to wear that jacket

I don't know what your 3 columns indicate, other than some kind of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

She has one strong point in her favor. Citizens United was a campaign directed against HER. Do you think she'd favor overturning it, and appoint the right judges to do it? I think so.

Considering all the campaign contributions that she now gets from corporations and other such "persons" now I highly doubt it. The problem with a pragmatist sometimes is that you end up with the pragmatism but an absence of any principles. Like Romney HRC is neither hot nor cold.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Why do you post your scurrilous, ad hominem horseshit here Big Boy?

This individual has been getting away with turning this board into a shitshow for years now. Where's that moderation, eh?

-- maybe they got him on ignore. Seriously. I use to belong to another (now defunct) discussion group that was plagued by an obnoxious troll for awhile & the moderators had him on ignore so they wouldn't have to read his spew. I think eventually the administrator got rid of him

It's almost like this individual sets out to exemplify everything wrong with a stereotypical Baby Boomer. But the abusive sociopathic behavior goes beyond normal Boomers and he stands out as nothing more than a tiny little wannabe bully.

I laugh at your candidate. I do hope Hillary Clinton gets elected. She is a doddering old fool and will show the country just how old and out of touch certain people are.

-- I agree completely, with the exception of your last paragraph. Bernie 4 Prez!!

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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

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

Kinser's List of Things Playdude does not understand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now...it is Bernie or Bust.

-- too bad there are no like buttons to click

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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.

-- ya think? Cuz I'm thinking the Donald has the peckerwood vote locked up

But it would be great if they vote 4 Bernie however

Kinser, I've got a question for you. If the election is a choice between someone you dislike (Clinton) and a non-Trump Republican who you detest (Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or Carson), would you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils or do a protest third party vote or abstain from voting for Pres (only voting down ballot)? Would the VEEP choice matter?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Kinser, I've got a question for you. If the election is a choice between someone you dislike (Clinton) and a non-Trump Republican who you detest (Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or Carson), would you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils or do a protest third party vote or abstain from voting for Pres (only voting down ballot)? Would the VEEP choice matter?

Last I understood he was voting for Trump because that would start the revolution sooner.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Last I understood he was voting for Trump because that would start the revolution sooner.

...but if Trump is not in the equation?

Anyway, I'd like Kinser to answer for himself.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not relevant to my statement. The fact is that civil rights for blacks and now gays exist not because White Northern Liberals "gave" them to us. It is because we took those rights. Mankind has never freed others, they have always freed themselves, which is why I've always had a problem with the some of the liberals, it is like they expect there is some sort of force (be it god, or the government, or what have you) that will do the heavy lifting for them.

Equal rights for blacks and now homosexuals (you ignore lesbians) were always, depending upon your formulation, God-given or inherent in shared humanity. Nobody can deny that those with the most personally at stake did the bulk of the struggle. But don't disparage white liberals on the civil rights of blacks and homosexuals for telling the white reactionaries that the game is up and that the reactionaries have lost.

Soviet Propaganda was, even by your own source, used in Africa to portray the US as against the interests of the Black peoples there--which it was and largely still is.

Only the brainwashed (like avid viewers of FoX Propaganda Channel) believe that America's economic elites have the interests of the common man irrespective of nation or even ethnicity at heart. Beyond any doubt, except for availability of jobs (undereducated black people needed the factory jobs to live reasonably well), things are undeniably far better than they were fifty years ago.

With LBJ I think he always wanted integration, an end to Jim Crow and equality amongst the races (at least on the political level). His problem is saying that in Texas in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s would make one unelectable because the Dixiecrats would paint him as, and in their words a "N....r Lover". As such he kept his views on the issue to himself until King made an opportunity for him to twist arms in the Congress and do what he had always wanted to do. It is my feeling that only LBJ could have pulled it off as well. It had to be a Southerner to do it, much like only Nixon Cold Warrior extraordinaire could seriously open up relations with the PRC.

Let me say something about Texas. Texas straddles regions of the United States, having areas that are distinctly Dixie (basically anything east of US 75, Dallas, and I-45), Western, and even Midwestern. The Texas Panhandle has much more in common with Nebraska than with "East Texas". LBJ is from the fairly-sophisticated and cosmopolitan part of Texas that includes Austin and San Antonio. The crass racism characteristic of East Texas was an embarrassment in Austin or San Antonio. It may be that people like LBJ who need travel only about 80 miles to find separate facilities have more cause to despise such things as people who never experience those have no clue. Harry Truman had similar experiences in Missouri.

As for northern white liberals: they never knew how badly Southern blacks had it until northern white liberals started going to Florida for the winter. Then they got to find out for themselves while traveling in "Ku Kluxistan" by stopping in a restaurant where they saw signs that read "We serve only white people".

Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'

Trump and his supporters are really starting to terrify me. How long after he is president do we start seeing armed gangs of thugs murdering Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks?

Originally Posted by Odin

Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'

Trump and his supporters are really starting to terrify me. How long after he is president do we start seeing armed gangs of thugs murdering Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks?

Private, politicized militias are the bane of democracy. So it was with the Sturmabteilungen of German streets in the 1930s and the "action committees" that the Communist party of Czechoslovakia set up soon after Soviet 'liberation'. So it was at several times with the KKK.

They always go 'too far', and the people who really control them call them back in return for getting more control of the political process. They give a headache and sell the headache remedy for an exorbitant price.

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.

And why are you putting words in my mouth.

If Bernie wins the nomination, I will vote for him without a moment's pause in the general, and I am damn sure I will be contributing more dollars to his campaign than you and probable everyone on this forum combined.

You are attacking me because I prefer Clinton over Bernie and give a pass to some a-hole who will swing from Bernie to Trump because of some irrational fear of Clinton that he, himself, can't fathom why??? And he's doing so because he wants a revolution; revolutions come with a lot of innocent people getting killed or worse. That's what Kinser wants, and you're okay with that?

Get your head out of your ass, Odin. In the meantime, go F yourself.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Private, politicized militias are the bane of democracy. So it was with the Sturmabteilungen of German streets in the 1930s and the "action committees" that the Communist party of Czechoslovakia set up soon after Soviet 'liberation'. So it was at several times with the KKK.

They always go 'too far', and the people who really control them call them back in return for getting more control of the political process. They give a headache and sell the headache remedy for an exorbitant price.

Trump is an entertainer, which is one of the primary qualifications for being the president in our mass media age. I don't know how many gaffes he needs to make before his presidential bid suffers. Is Trump a thug, and will he enable his fellow thugs to hurt people? I guess it depends on how much his appeal depends on hatred and the veneration of bullying.

I have some hope that, if we get stuck with him, that he is not such a bad fellow, but will try to do a decent job. It would still be a potential disaster, unless he wises up and ditches his base on things like climate change.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politi...ort/index.html
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

After the event, Trump declined to answer when asked by CNN to clarify his comments.

The GOP front-runner has repeatedly pointed to the loyalty of his supporters, many of whom tell reporters and pollsters that almost nothing could make them change their mind about voting for Trump in the presidential race.

Trump's comments come as the debate about gun violence in America has taken center stage in American political discourse amid several highly publicized mass shootings.

Trump has repeatedly touted his strong support for the Second Amendment and slammed President Barack Obama's recent use of executive orders to expand the reach of background checks needed to purchase a gun.

The brash billionaire's comments also come less than two months after two ISIS-inspired terrorists killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, and ISIS-linked attacks killed 130 in Paris. In response, Trump has called for fewer gun restrictions and a harder stance on terrorism.

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.

Horse pucky. You are just twisting in the wind trying whatever to misdirect, from playing the grammar police, escalating now to Black gay guy being pushed around by da Man, and everything in between.

Why not just try to stay on topic? Lack of confidence or is it integrity?

From the start, and regardless of how much you want to bury it, this has been about the irrationality of your Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) so virulent that if Sanders isn't the nominee you would swing to Trump. Your voting for Trump against Clinton in the general has nothing to do with your choice of Sanders in the nomination - obviously he would not be part of that binary choice other than supporting the eventual Dem nominee. Further, your rational that HC is GOP-lite might make sense for your nomination choice or your analysis for her chances to be elected, but again that has nothing to do with your binary choice of HC v. Trump in the general. Finally, you offer some Machiavelli plot of 4 years of hell under Trump sufficient to kill off the GOP and yet tell us no significant geopolitical risk because we can rely on the machinations of foreign states to check their dictators, even that of North Korea's Kim because an absolute dictator doesn't dictate absolutely if he doesn't tuck all the children into bed every night.

With such an array of 'reasoning,' I can understand your lack of confidence and need to attempt misdirection. However, as a Trump bot, your 'reasoning' as well as your misdirection does perhaps make some sociopathic sense - it does raise the integrity question, however.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Why do you post your scurrilous, ad hominem horseshit here Big Boy?

This individual has been getting away with turning this board into a shitshow for years now. Where's that moderation, eh?

It's almost like this individual sets out to exemplify everything wrong with a stereotypical Baby Boomer. But the abusive sociopathic behavior goes beyond normal Boomers and he stands out as nothing more than a tiny little wannabe bully.

I laugh at your candidate. I do hope Hillary Clinton gets elected. She is a doddering old fool and will show the country just how old and out of touch certain people are.

Oh, for crapsake's, Seattle, you were the poster child of the '08 Obamatrons that turned on him when he didn't delivery you the magic pony. You'll do exactly the same for Bernie should he get elected.

I may be a Baby Boomer, but you're a child.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh, for crapsake's, Seattle, you were the poster child of the '08 Obamatrons that turned on him when he didn't delivery you the magic pony. You'll do exactly the same for Bernie should he get elected.

I may be a Baby Boomer, but you're a child.

I thought you were an early wave xer? Well leaning xer. A jonser, like my mother except she is more boom.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- ya think? Cuz I'm thinking the Donald has the peckerwood vote locked up

But it would be great if they vote 4 Bernie however

There are a minority that are listening to Sanders, though the majority probably will go for Trump.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Equal rights for blacks and now homosexuals (you ignore lesbians)

I wasn't aware that lesbians were not in fact homosexual. Silly me for expecting that homosexual would mean someone sexually attracted to their own sex reguardless of whether they are male or female.

But don't disparage white liberals on the civil rights of blacks and homosexuals for telling the white reactionaries that the game is up and that the reactionaries have lost.

It isn't disparaging of those allies to politely inform them that we Owe them nothing considering it is those groups who carried the load. Seriously PBR, you recognized that HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS. What do you want a cookie?

Only the brainwashed (like avid viewers of FoX Propaganda Channel) believe that America's economic elites have the interests of the common man irrespective of nation or even ethnicity at heart. Beyond any doubt, except for availability of jobs (undereducated black people needed the factory jobs to live reasonably well), things are undeniably far better than they were fifty years ago.

Considering historical racism, the formation of funding for education on the basis of local property taxes, the vast majority of black people are undereducated in comparison to white. Furthermore, even in most whites they are finding that they do in fact need those factory jobs to live reasonably well. I can't tell you how many people with degrees I have working with me at the local donut shop. The reason there is so-low demand for designers and such is that no one can afford their services so you end up with people with degrees working in said donut shop with me, and it isn't what they wanted to do.

If things are better off for those of us who have to work for a living than 50 years ago, I'm not seeing it. However, this problem isn't racially based, it is a product of capitalism. The very system you seek to keep around even with a "human face" ignoring that the underpinning structure of that system always results in the concentration of the wealth in the hands of the very few.

Let me say something about Texas. Texas straddles regions of the United States, having areas that are distinctly Dixie (basically anything east of US 75, Dallas, and I-45), Western, and even Midwestern. The Texas Panhandle has much more in common with Nebraska than with "East Texas". LBJ is from the fairly-sophisticated and cosmopolitan part of Texas that includes Austin and San Antonio. The crass racism characteristic of East Texas was an embarrassment in Austin or San Antonio. It may be that people like LBJ who need travel only about 80 miles to find separate facilities have more cause to despise such things as people who never experience those have no clue. Harry Truman had similar experiences in Missouri.

During segregation, ALL of TEXAS was segregated. Furthermore, LBJ stated that he formed his views on the wrongness of segregation while teaching school as a young man. He realized that the only way to change that would be through elected office and the hope that eventually the Blacks, and Latinos would tire of their poor treatment. That tactic was used by many white southerners. They might not have agreed with the system that the South had but saying so would have been a disaster for them.

As for northern white liberals: they never knew how badly Southern blacks had it until northern white liberals started going to Florida for the winter. Then they got to find out for themselves while traveling in "Ku Kluxistan" by stopping in a restaurant where they saw signs that read "We serve only white people".

LOL...you think the North was sunshine and kittens? The most segregated cities outside of the South were the ones with the largest black populations. The north was only marginally better.