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?

If you put a badge on them and call them police you have that already. I don't really see the change.

Originally Posted by playwrite

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.

So then you're not forming your sentences poorly, you are not insisting I should vote on the basis of my skin color and sexual orientation and you are denying you're a northern white cisgendered heterosexual male liberal? This isn't looking good for you Playdude. Seriously can't you stay on topic?

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

I have stayed on topic. It isn't my fault you don't read other people's posts. As for confidence I have plenty. As for integrity, definitely more than HRC. I after all don't take money from banksters, investment firms, and the like and then promise to regulate them.

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)

Which is why I admitted from the start that a lot of my distrust of HRC is visceral. Of course of course. That's me burying the irrational component of this so-called CDS. Perhaps what we have here is a case of you wanting to hide the fact that your support for HRC is irrational. After all for someone who claims to be a progressive you sure do seem to love a person who has gone out of her way to be incredibly friendly to banksters, investment firms and the like. Therefore only two possible options exist: 1. You are a progressive and are being completely irrational for some inexplicable reason (probably some northern white cisgendered heterosexual male liberal guilt and HRC having a vagina), or 2. you really aren't a progressive of any stripe at all and see HRC as the most viable corporatist candidate because the Establishment GOP is objectionable on other grounds.

so virulent that if Sanders isn't the nominee you would swing to Trump.

The dialectic indicates that a Republican would lead to faster destruction of the Empire, so should Sanders not be nominated, and we're going to have either a Republican or Republican Lite anyway...may as well go with the Republican and get the job done faster. That you do not see this dialectic at play in the mind of a Marxist ether indicates you don't understand dialectical strategy (even after I have explained it twice) or a severe case of suffering from Boomer's Disease.

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

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.

Of the two Democrats that have an actual chance of being nominated supporting Sanders over Clinton makes sense if one thinks that Sanders can (or could) bring about the necessary changes to the economic order. Sander's record reflects that he can, Clinton's record reflects that she is not interested in doing so. Given that I'm not prone to supporting parties but rather candidates when it comes to bourgeois elections, and given that I've already postulated that both Trump and Sanders are in fact GCs it would make sense for me to support whichever one can actually win. While I would prefer Sanders, Trump would work just as well, though it may mean having to endure a civil war and possibly becoming a fifth column element should WW3 break out.

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.

It isn't my fault you can't understand that if my choice is between a Republican and a Republican who poses as a Democrat (which is the height of being disingenuous). The fact of the matter is that there is maybe an inch of difference between Trump and HRC. If anything given Trump's positions on protectionism he may even be to the left of her economically. However, it is not my fault you cannot see that for someone who isn't a partisan Democrat that they simply do not see that "D" as enough to elect someone.

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.

Any geopolitical risks are small unless the US initiates force first. Let us be clear, no other country has the hard power the US has. The US spends more on the military than the next six largest militaries combined. On top of that we have a nuclear arsenal. There is no evidence of anyone else being a threat to world peace to the extent that the US is as such there is no geopolitical risk, not even from Kim Jong-un.

Since I cannot prove a negative, if you are prepared to make a statement that North Korea or any other nuclear armed state is a threat then do so and prove it. That is how the burden of proof works.

I'm going to ignore your last barb because honestly it is truly pathetic.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

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

Tara, his behavior should have given away his generation.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If you put a badge on them and call them police you have that already. I don't really see the change.

Oh, good point!

[QUOTE=Kinser79;547167


Any geopolitical risks are small unless the US initiates force first. Let us be clear, no other country has the hard power the US has. The US spends more on the military than the next six largest militaries combined. On top of that we have a nuclear arsenal. There is no evidence of anyone else being a threat to world peace to the extent that the US is as such there is no geopolitical risk, not even from Kim Jong-un.

[/QUOTE]
In that case, there is a great deal of geopolitical risk, because the US is crowding the next two Great Powers, Russia and China and even driving them more and more together. Eventually, this neo-conservative foreign policy path that has become Orthodoxy ever since the Berlin Wall failed is going to cause the US to push one or both of these powers too far and one or both will push back, either on their own account or to protect an ally. This is how World War I broke out. Austria felt secure enough in it's alliance with Germany to demand humiliating conditions amounting to loss of sovereignty to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by agents freelancing for the Serbian Secret Service and Russia mobilised against Austria forcing Germany to mobilise at which point France and the UK mobilised within a few weeks. Everyone involved in 1914 thought it would be a quick 3T war, over within a few weeks (though Germany quickly decided that it was in a fight for it's survival, which turned out to be the case.
That's the thing about crises. Nobody sees it as a crisis until they are already in the middle of it. The Revolutionary War Crisis did not look like a crisis in 1775 to either Colonials or the British Crown. And the Civil War did not look like a Crisis until after the rout of Union forces in the First Battle of Bull Run.
We could very easily get into a world war Crisis with Russia over Ukraine or even Syria and with China over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, thinking that either our adversary is a coward that will inevitably back down when presented with American resolve or that American military supremacy will win the day quickly. A mistake. The US may have the largest military force in the world (superiority) but there is a big difference between superiority and supremacy. Even in the early stages of the Cold War (post WWII and Korea) American military planners soon realised that American logistics limitations made an invasion of Russia or China untenable (just as America's isolation, military strength at home and armed populace makes a Russian or Chinese invasion of the US logistically untenable). Something we seem to have forgotten even as the military and especially economic capabilities of the rest of the world vis a vis the US has progressed considerably since the early 1950s

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

In that case, there is a great deal of geopolitical risk, because the US is crowding the next two Great Powers, Russia and China and even driving them more and more together. Eventually, this neo-conservative foreign policy path that has become Orthodoxy ever since the Berlin Wall failed is going to cause the US to push one or both of these powers too far and one or both will push back, either on their own account or to protect an ally. This is how World War I broke out. Austria felt secure enough in it's alliance with Germany to demand humiliating conditions amounting to loss of sovereignty to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by agents freelancing for the Serbian Secret Service and Russia mobilised against Austria forcing Germany to mobilise at which point France and the UK mobilised within a few weeks. Everyone involved in 1914 thought it would be a quick 3T war, over within a few weeks (though Germany quickly decided that it was in a fight for it's survival, which turned out to be the case.
That's the thing about crises. Nobody sees it as a crisis until they are already in the middle of it. The Revolutionary War Crisis did not look like a crisis in 1775 to either Colonials or the British Crown. And the Civil War did not look like a Crisis until after the rout of Union forces in the First Battle of Bull Run.
We could very easily get into a world war Crisis with Russia over Ukraine or even Syria and with China over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, thinking that either our adversary is a coward that will inevitably back down when presented with American resolve or that American military supremacy will win the day quickly. A mistake. The US may have the largest military force in the world (superiority) but there is a big difference between superiority and supremacy. Even in the early stages of the Cold War (post WWII and Korea) American military planners soon realised that American logistics limitations made an invasion of Russia or China untenable (just as America's isolation, military strength at home and armed populace makes a Russian or Chinese invasion of the US logistically untenable). Something we seem to have forgotten even as the military and especially economic capabilities of the rest of the world vis a vis the US has progressed considerably since the early 1950s

Let us assume that Neo-conservatism is the orthodoxy which may lead Russia or China or both to view the US as an existential threat. (And most likely China because they are having a 4T too while Russia is in a 1T.) It would therefore stand that HRC and the Establishment Republicans are the worst possible choices.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Let us assume that Neo-conservatism is the orthodoxy which may lead Russia or China or both to view the US as an existential threat. (And most likely China because they are having a 4T too while Russia is in a 1T.) It would therefore stand that HRC and the Establishment Republicans are the worst possible choices.

Makes sense to me. (And now that Hillary is starting to falter, Michael Bloomberg is making noises about becoming the Establishment Centerist candidate).

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Makes sense to me. (And now that Hillary is starting to falter, Michael Bloomberg is making noises about becoming the Establishment Centerist candidate).

The only thing I can see Bloomberg running as an independent accomplishing is if he makes it to the general election acting as a spoiler for either of the parties. I only see him being able to attract those Republican leaners who find Trump objectionable, and those Democratic leaners who find Sanders objectionable (which means the DLC and that's about it).

As for Hillary faltering, that is to be expected. Generally speaking candidates, even if they may be nominated later, once they have been rejected once, will be rejected a second or in the rare case a third time.

I ran into this excellent take down of Clinton:

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Makes sense to me. (And now that Hillary is starting to falter, Michael Bloomberg is making noises about becoming the Establishment Centerist candidate).

Sanders says he can handle two New York billionaires running against him.

But HRC is not a neo-conservative just because kinser says she is. She has the right answers now about Syria; she seems wise enough not to threaten China.

This election feels like a reunion of the Woodstock generation
By Michael Goodwin January 24, 2016 | 1:16am
http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/this-el...ck-generation/



Forget the chatter about millennials, the tech revolution and a new world order. The presidential campaign is taking a *U-turn and suddenly feels like a reunion of the Woodstock generation.

No wonder — the race is likely to be the last hurrah of the baby boomers, for both candidates and voters.

Donald Trump is 69, Hillary Clinton is 68, and it was 74-year-old Bernie Sanders — slightly too old to be a boomer — who dusted off Simon & Garfunkel for a touching trip down memory lane.

Over a soundtrack of the duo’s 1968 hit “America,” the Sanders ad shows farmers, families and enthusiastic crowds at his rallies. A mosaic of faces flashes by in a bid to rekindle the idealism of older voters who remember the song and its swelling refrain of “All come to look for America.”

The one-minute nostalgia ride is Sanders’ upbeat closing statement before Democrats cast their ballots in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the demographic targeting is the key. To win the first two states and have even a long shot at the nomination, the Vermont senator needs to cut into Clinton’s big advantage among baby boomers.

Sanders already has a substantial lead among millennials, generally defined as those born between 1985 and 1997, beating Clinton by 2-1 in most polls. But her strength is among those aged 50 and over, where she holds a 3-1 edge, and it is even larger among nonwhites and women in that age group.

Sanders is shopping for support among those older voters, and Simon & Garfunkel’s wistful elegy fits his theme like a glove.

If you don’t believe me, do a focus group of the ad at home. Kids will like it, but many of those who were young in the turbulent ’60s and are prime voters now will find it emotionally powerful. The ad skillfully links Sanders’ populist campaign to voters’ memories of the civil-rights and antiwar movements.

Not incidentally, it avoids any specific policy prescriptions that might remind boomers that Sanders is an avowed socialist whose ideas are far to the left of even most Dems. It’s all about pushing the feel-good buttons aimed at getting voters to jump on a *final bandwagon.

Music with a message, of course, is a staple of campaigns. The Clintons burst onto the national scene in 1992 with Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” blaring at virtually every event, a not-so-subtle endorsement of the generational change Bubba and Hillary represented.

Now? Musically, like much else in her campaign, Hillary’s trapped by her desperate attempt to be all things to all people. The “official” Spotify playlist her team released tried to make her look younger by featuring songs all released after 1999, CNN noted. Nearly all the artists were young and female, such as Kelly Clarkson and Ariana Grande, with Katy Perry, Demi Lovato and Christina Aguilera performing at her rallies.

She’s slumping in the polls now, but it’s not likely she’ll follow Sanders into the oldies bin. Think of the landmines if she tried to spark voter nostalgia with, say, The Beatles’ hit “Yesterday.”

“Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they’re here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday”

No, looking backwards won’t work for her, with her baggage of faded hope, e-mail scandals and suspect integrity. Better she stick to contemporary pop.

And then there’s Trump. Not surprisingly, the GOP front-runner has eclectic tastes, playing Elton John’s “Rocket Man,” Adele’s “Skyfall,” opera star Luciano Pavarotti and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom of the Opera.” He ran into trouble with R.E.M. and Neil Young, with both demanding he stop playing their music at his rallies because they don’t like him.

Still, the right music could help Trump quell conservative angst over his commanding lead. One option is a popular blast from the ’60s that offers timeless pearls about the twists and turns of life. As The Rolling Stones put it,

“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime, you just might find,
You get what you need”

Ah, yea.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But HRC is not a neo-conservative just because kinser says she is. She has the right answers now about Syria; she seems wise enough not to threaten China.

Of course not. Her record merely reflects that she is in fact a neo-conservative.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...a_neo-con.html

I can't "stop thinking" how nice it would be to have a second round.



Great song; great moment. Can Hillary capture it again?

But this is nice too!

On Jan 14 here was what 538 data gave me

Originally Posted by Mikebert

With these assumptions Trump has a 15% chance of winning both (IA & NH) and gaining a very strong shot at the nomination. Conversely he has a 53% chance of losing both and fading out.

RCP now has Trump ahead in Iowa. 538 has new numbers. Trumps chance of winning both has increased to 22%, while his probability of losing both has fallen to 33%.

He no longer is doomed in that he has a 2/3 chance of coming out of NH not in collapse mode. I will note that it seems that the Donald himself agrees with my assessment that he has to win in Iowa. He has gotten the governor to attack Cruz and got Palin's endorsement that should build excitement for his voters. According to the polls it seems to have worked.

Right now I am still of the opinion that Trump will probably not win in Iowa, but 538 has him with a 41% chance and that is pretty good. And if he wins, it will be useful to see how the polls in NH and the 538 probabilities change with a Iowa victory. That will give a better value for the "bump" I am applying for momentum.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Of course not. Her record merely reflects that she is in fact a neo-conservative.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...a_neo-con.html

I was listening to a story last night about recent Sunni-Shia sectarian violence in a city in Iraq that was liberated from IS by Iraq government forces and Shia militia (which are coming to be almost the same thing) a year ago. Two IS militants suicide-bombed a cafe (IIRC) in the town and in the aftermath there was a wave of anti-Sunni violence by Shia residents. Sunnis have felt excluded and oppressed by the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and that is one of the big things driving the support for IS.

The point is that there is no MILITARY solution to IS, they are like a game of whack-the-mole, try to destroy them and they will pop up somewhere else. The only solution is one derived from the people of the Middle East themselves.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

So then you're not forming your sentences poorly, you are not insisting I should vote on the basis of my skin color and sexual orientation and you are denying you're a northern white cisgendered heterosexual male liberal? This isn't looking good for you Playdude. Seriously can't you stay on topic?



I have stayed on topic. It isn't my fault you don't read other people's posts. As for confidence I have plenty. As for integrity, definitely more than HRC. I after all don't take money from banksters, investment firms, and the like and then promise to regulate them.

Two paragraphs in, with all the previous misdirection and not a single mention of the original issue (i.e., your proposed swing from Sanders to Trump) - and I'm the one with the problem of staying on topic??? Did you get a chance to look up "projection?"

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which is why I admitted from the start that a lot of my distrust of HRC is visceral. Of course of course. That's me burying the irrational component of this so-called CDS.

Yes, you are irrational. I'll come back to how messed up that makes your 'thinking' in a minute. But let's first deal with this stupidity -

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Perhaps what we have here is a case of you wanting to hide the fact that your support for HRC is irrational. After all for someone who claims to be a progressive you sure do seem to love a person who has gone out of her way to be incredibly friendly to banksters, investment firms and the like. Therefore only two possible options exist: 1. You are a progressive and are being completely irrational for some inexplicable reason (probably some northern white cisgendered heterosexual male liberal guilt and HRC having a vagina), or 2. you really aren't a progressive of any stripe at all and see HRC as the most viable corporatist candidate because the Establishment GOP is objectionable on other grounds.

I have stated numerous times with you and with others that my primary motivation in the 2016 election is to keep a GOP clown out of the WH, and the primary factor in that motivation is that I see the next President shifting the SCOTUS profoundly to the Right or the Left for one or more generations. That is why it is completely logical for me to put my full support behind Sanders in the general should he be the nominee even though my preference would be Clinton.

Mine is actually pretty straightforward logic that I would be hard pressed to believe any one on this forum, even those with t-bagger attributes, could not grasp. The fact that you believe it is irrational is just another clue as to how irrational your own 'thinking.' And now lets examine that 'thinking' of yours -

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The dialectic indicates that a Republican would lead to faster destruction of the Empire, so should Sanders not be nominated, and we're going to have either a Republican or Republican Lite anyway...may as well go with the Republican and get the job done faster. That you do not see this dialectic at play in the mind of a Marxist ether indicates you don't understand dialectical strategy (even after I have explained it twice) or a severe case of suffering from Boomer's Disease.

First, you state your 'thinking' is visceral, unexplainable, irrational, and then you offer this 'logic.' Do you see that conflict?

Second, if we can't have Bernie, you want "destruction of the Empire." Ah, exactly what is that? How far does it go? Will it just stop short of impacting you or your loved ones in a horrendous way? How do you know that? Who will be in control of that? There's no risks of it being worse than you imagine?

Let's go to your answer -

Originally Posted by Kinser79

While I would prefer Sanders, Trump would work just as well, though it may mean having to endure a civil war and possibly becoming a fifth column element should WW3 break out.

Third, this "case of suffering from Boomer's Disease?" I take that to mean hyperbolic self-serving without regard for others. Hmm, you want destruction, a willingness for civil war or WW3, to get what you want.... and I'm the one with the Disease?

You're not getting this "psychological projection" exactly right. You see I am a Boomer, one that's actually been in combat, I've not just seen but participated in "destruction." Yes, I'm a Boomer, with varying aspects of that generation's attributions and short-comings but I am nowhere near being what you have presented yourself to be.

This all sets the stage for what you apparently believe is your big contribution of insight to this forum, putting aside all the rationalizing, -

Originally Posted by Kinser79

"[Clinton is] a Republican who poses as a Democrat"

The only question left is not one for you but to anyone else reading your posts - to them, regardless of whether you would vote for Sanders, Clinton, or even Trump, why would you give Kinser's posts any consideration, I mean other than for the entertainment of reading irrationalities?

Excellent analysis of Clinton vs. Sanders.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1282...thwhile-gamble

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Tara, his behavior should have given away his generation.

He is a few years younger than my mother and she is a late boom.

With Michael Bloomberg in the race I see Ross Perot redux at this stage. He apparently helps Trump against both Clinton and Sanders but hurts other Republicans.

http://morningconsult.com/2016/01/ne...bloomberg-win/

Clinton 36%
Trump 37%
Bloomberg 12%

Clinton 38%
Cruz 34%
Bloomberg 11%

Clinton 38%
Rubio 33%
Bloomberg 10%


http://morningconsult.com/2016/01/po...ders-vs-trump/

Sanders 35%
Trump 34%
Bloomberg 12%

Sanders 36%
Cruz 28%
Bloomberg 11%

Sanders 36%
Rubio 29%
Bloomberg 10%

The maps are going to get messy!

What a cluster. The death of the GOP is going to be long, bloody and messy.

Trump is surging. Probability of sweeping both IA and NH not 27%, vs. 28% for losing both.
Just a few weeks ago these numbers were 15% and 53%. Wow.

If you factor in the trend, I think by next Monday Trump will have more chance of winning it all that collapsing, a complete change in my view from just a few weeks ago.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

What a cluster. The death of the GOP is going to be long, bloody and messy.

But it has been taking America with it... into the realm of authoritarian social Darwinism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But it has been taking America with it... into the realm of authoritarian social Darwinism.

No, America is not going to follow the GOP, no matter how depressed you may be personally living in a German town in the Michigrim backwoods. America is going to remind the GOP how irrelevant it has become, in November.

"...why would you give Kinser's posts any consideration, I mean other than for the entertainment of reading the irrationalities of a self-serving moron?"

Awesome moderation. This childish nonsense adds an immeasurable amount of value to this forum.

People who believe in Hillary Clinton obviously do so because of her strong anti-war stance. She is not a Neo Con at all, and has promised to roll back the US jihad against the people of the Middle East. She is going to finally close all the torture farms like Guantanamo (as the Democrats promised to do when Obama was elected, but hey, its only been 8 years), and she also promises to give back her golden Ollie North award for gun running to militants if elected. Now that is integrity.

The other great thing about Democrats is how good they are to the poor. They promise to get minimum wage people off the tax rolls so that their $8 an hour job doesn't bring home less than $6 right off the top from government skim. What a deplorable practice, and it's good that someone is finally talking about it.

They also have made a firm statement that they will really consider hopefully thinking about making a firm statement regarding the brutality of their police state someday- if they keep their committee chairmanships and perks. While it's sad that a lot of unarmed black men are being shot in the back of the head, in the front of the head, and in other unpleasant places (like Chicago), there are larger issues to consider and it's going to have to wait until after the election. Hey, making a public statement is a big deal and you don't want to willy nilly go around condemning those fine boys in blue who think that our cities are a game preserve for their sporting needs.

Yes, there is no reason not to vote for a Democrat. They and their bed buddies, the "Republicans" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are surely our best hope to solve the problems the people of this country face. If there is anyone who knows how to fix a problem, its a Demopublican. After all, since they are the architects of the shit we live in, who knows the issues better? That's called experience people. I'm sure will get another rousing speech any day now, and that should mollify the likes of us.

So let's all line up behind Hillary Clinton, her walker, and ten thousand lobbyists so we can (slowly) march into a bright future. The only thing we have to fear is being called names for not voting for the winning candidate. Voting really matters, and (like prayer), is a great way to feel like you are doing something when you really aren't. If you don't vote, you can't complain that your candidate didn't win. If you do vote and are sadly on the losing side you are still bound by the laws your enemies impose on you, but getting a participation sticker is a nice consolation prize.

Voting actually change things, because the bureaucracy is like totally affected by the changing of the political guard. You want to make a difference don't you?