Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump will win in NH but faces a shellacking in SC. NV is a toss up.

Super Tuesday will be the true shake out.

For all that, Trump is still way ahead in SC. And the rest of the South. And there's a reason for that. Conservative Christianity has gone through an evolution, particularly in the South in which Calvinism and Dominionism, with their emphasis on predestinarianism (the idea that people are predestined to be saved or damned) has come back to the fore with the rich obviously "saved". Only this time, poorer whites can no longer console themselves with the notion that a darker skin is evidence of damnation. There are too many poor whites who are hurting, financially and through lack of access to health care and who can no longer deny it. Not with a heroin epidemic sweeping the rural South and, if drug laws continue as they are, threatening to sweep poor whites, especially poor white males into the same legal hell that African-Americans are in. And not with the epidemic of gun suicides amongst poor white males. And younger whites who are tired of their more religious elder's antics.
So Trump has these voters, at least for now, because much of the Republican electorate is in play. Trump could yet lose some of these voters. But if they go, many of them are more likely to cross the line...and vote for Sanders. Especially since Hillary Clinton has written them off. Trump may yet go down in history as the ice breaker, who broke the conservative social trance that held many Southern white voters in thrall, and made it possible for southern voters to vote socialist.
There is precedent for this. Huey Long "every man a king" was a populist who favoured redistribution of wealth (for whites) too. And he broke the ice in the South for Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I created the maps in another site that does a historical study on elections. Until a few years ago, red was for Democrats and blue was for Republicans because the Democrats were seen to be on the Left (with socialists and commies) and blue was associated with conservative causes (like Franco's Spain).

Today red fits Republicans because red is associated heavily with totalitarian causes (Commies and Nazis), as if they were making Freudian slips about themselves (the Republican Party has taken on characteristics of a totalitarian organization)... but the source of those maps still has Democrats in red and Republicans in blue. If I want to create a map, that is where I create it -- and where I get it from.

I am not sure that I see an advantage for Republicans. If they win all the close Senate races they will hold onto the Senate and exchange Senate seats in Illinois and Wisconsin for Senate seats in Colorado and Nevada. But that is the most favorable situation that I can see for Republicans. That's how things worked in 2014, a low-turnout election. Low turnout usually favors Republicans, as in 2010 and 2014. But 2016 will feature a high-turnout election, as is especially typical of a Presidential year with an open seat for President.

Look at the states that I see as tossups for Senate seats. All but one (Nevada, with Senator Harry Reid retiring) now has an incumbent Republican Senator. Some of my calls are arguable; I just saw a poll of Georgia in which the incumbent Republican Senator has a lead... but only a 38% approval rating. Losers of 2014 did well in an R-leaning state in a bad year for Democrats; if Democrats can get out the vote in Georgia they might swing that Senate seat. A 38% approval rating is very poor. Until I saw that abysmal approval rating I thought that Republicans had an edge in Georgia. They don't hold an edge in Georgia.

At this stage I go largely with random scatter of results for lack of anything else.

Republicans don't have a solid nominee for Florida... which is big trouble for holding onto the Senate seat that Marco Rubio is vacating.

Republicans can be counted on to fund every possible campaign in 2016 so that they have a chance of transforming America into a Christian and Corporate State, the sort of country that I would emigrate from if I were thirty years younger. (I'm 60).

The Koch family remains the most powerful dynastic family short of the Windsor family and the House of Saud... it owns the House of Representatives and will hold it until at least 2022 due to effective gerrymandering. We no longer live in a representative democracy.

Look into retiring to the BC Okananogan Valley if the Republicans win.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For those thinking Rubio is actually less repugnant as opposed to carefully working to paint that persona, I present to you his number one financial backer -

http://www.gregpalast.com/rubios-bil...-sugar-daddie/



Asbestos anyone?



Pay your debt small African nation or I will literally kill your babies -



Or, have your country pay for you to flee -



Obama and Clinton must pay!



.but, but, but Rubio is a moderate.

Yea, and a Christian too!

Don't forget Mel and Betty Sembler (major shopping mall owners in FL) and Ken Adelson. They are totally opposed to legal marijuana because they back the WWASPS brainwashing camps for "wayward" teens. Rubio would enforce federal drug laws against marijuana in states that have legalised it And they are backing Rubio. . Probably all the way down to the user level.
Whatever Rubio is, he's no friend of states rights. In fact Rubio is more of a fascist than Donald Trump is. Then again, so is Hillary.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Don't forget Mel and Betty Sembler (major shopping mall owners in FL) and Ken Adelson. They are totally opposed to legal marijuana because they back the WWASPS brainwashing camps for "wayward" teens. Rubio would enforce federal drug laws against marijuana in states that have legalised it And they are backing Rubio. . Probably all the way down to the user level.
Whatever Rubio is, he's no friend of states rights. In fact Rubio is more of a fascist than Donald Trump is. Then again, so is Hillary.

Hillary is a fascist? And you were doing so well.

Why is it Berniebots have to bring the stupid? You can be for Bernie and against HC based on either actual policies or even personalities or personal histories, but you don't have to go with what just makes you look, well, how can we say this, one who obviously didn't pay attention in school? Maybe this will help -

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy

At certain others' request, I'm trying to be the more mellow PW; and with a house in Vancouver, we'd practically be neighbors - at least on occasions in the Summer. I'll just say this - It's nice to have young'uns get interested in politics, I just wish they were a little less ignorant on the basics.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hillary is a fascist? And you were doing so well.

Why is it Berniebots have to bring the stupid? You can be for Bernie and against HC based on either actual policies or even personalities or personal histories, but you don't have to go with what just makes you look, well, how can we say this, one who obviously didn't pay attention in school? Maybe this will help -

At certain others' request, I'm trying to be the more mellow PW; and with a house in Vancouver, we'd practically be neighbors - at least on occasions in the Summer. I'll just say this - It's nice to have young'uns get interested in politics, I just wish they were a little less ignorant on the basics.

Sanders also pulls a minor version of the Weirdo Constituency which exists on The Left.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yep. After FDR, they didn't really get back into the game until LBJ, Nixon and the Southern Strategy. I don't know that any new ideas the Democrats come up with will be as high impact as the New Deal and the US as a Superpower. A conservative comeback could come sooner if there is no decisive successful crisis the Democrats can hang their hats on. FDR would be a tough act to match in terms of reinventing a new America.

The Republicans might try a variation on sanity as soon as 2024, but a successful new platform might have to wait longer.

How about a US that is NOT the number one superpower? Is there life for this country beyond being globocop? How about a US that prefers getting strategic minerals from asteroids to fighting over rare minerals and energy deposits, that factors in the cost of repeated military action to secure "dirtside" resources as a REAL cost when contemplating fossil fuels produced at home vs abroad vs renewable resources (as Germany has had to do from hard experience) and minerals? How about providing income insurance to make the pain of jobs lost to automation of repetitive tasks tolerable? And shorter hours to spread what work is left among as many people as possible?

Rand Paul and Rick Santorum call it quits.



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is suspending his presidential campaign, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty," the senator said in a statement on Wednesday, following his fifth place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Paul, who has served in the Senate since 2011, launched his presidential bid in April. The self-described "libertarian-ish" candidate poised himself as an alternative to establishment candidates, touting his grassroots appeal.

However, Paul failed to break ahead of the crowded GOP field, landing behind business mogul Donald Trump, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and others in most polls. His numbers further plummeted in the fall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b069b4e1fbc71b

And as if anyone now cares:

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) is suspending his presidential campaign, CNN and The Washington Post report.

The news comes after Santorum finished with just one percent of the vote int he 2016 Iowa GOP caucus. The loss had already prompted his campaign to postpone a planned 46-county tour in South Carolina.

Santorum announced his presidential run on May 27 in a Pennsylvania factory, joining an already-crowded field of GOP contenders. His highly conservative platform, fueled by his own blue-collar roots, rested upon reining in spending and fighting on behalf of the American worker.

"It’s time to revitalize manufacturing, processing, construction and energy sectors of our economy again so America can once again thrive," his campaign website said.

On some issues, he veered away from many in his party, proposing to raise the minimum wage by 50 cents per year over three years during a CNN Republican debate.

Santorum is also known for his hawkish foreign policy. He has staunchly opposed the nuclear deal struck between world powers and Iran, calling it "the greatest betrayal of American national security" in U.S. history. He also advocated for 10,000 U.S. troops to defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist group also referred to as ISIS or ISIL.

His run has been marred by controversial comments on abortion, homosexuality and immigration. In August, he said that undocumented parents are "like someone who robs a bank because they want to feed their family."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0768126fea11c

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rand Paul and Rick Santorum call it quits.



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is suspending his presidential campaign, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty," the senator said in a statement on Wednesday, following his fifth place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Paul, who has served in the Senate since 2011, launched his presidential bid in April. The self-described "libertarian-ish" candidate poised himself as an alternative to establishment candidates, touting his grassroots appeal.

However, Paul failed to break ahead of the crowded GOP field, landing behind business mogul Donald Trump, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and others in most polls. His numbers further plummeted in the fall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b069b4e1fbc71b

And as if anyone now cares:

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) is suspending his presidential campaign, CNN and The Washington Post report.

The news comes after Santorum finished with just one percent of the vote int he 2016 Iowa GOP caucus. The loss had already prompted his campaign to postpone a planned 46-county tour in South Carolina.

Santorum announced his presidential run on May 27 in a Pennsylvania factory, joining an already-crowded field of GOP contenders. His highly conservative platform, fueled by his own blue-collar roots, rested upon reining in spending and fighting on behalf of the American worker.

"It’s time to revitalize manufacturing, processing, construction and energy sectors of our economy again so America can once again thrive," his campaign website said.

On some issues, he veered away from many in his party, proposing to raise the minimum wage by 50 cents per year over three years during a CNN Republican debate.

Santorum is also known for his hawkish foreign policy. He has staunchly opposed the nuclear deal struck between world powers and Iran, calling it "the greatest betrayal of American national security" in U.S. history. He also advocated for 10,000 U.S. troops to defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist group also referred to as ISIS or ISIL.

His run has been marred by controversial comments on abortion, homosexuality and immigration. In August, he said that undocumented parents are "like someone who robs a bank because they want to feed their family."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0768126fea11c

This was in the works when Trump refused to debate on Fox News and both Paul and Santorum showed up at Trump's alternative rally and in effect, endorsed Trump. Who may get a bit of a boost from both candidates. Paul especially. Santorum can be very helpful to Trump in Pennsylvania and Rand Paul can be quite helpful to Trump in Kentucky. I can see the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party solidifying behind Trump now. Especially since Trump is the only of the three major candidates who is willing to go along with states rights on marijuana. And the candidate most identified with cancelling foreign treaty obligations and free trade.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

How about a US that is NOT the number one superpower? Is there life for this country beyond being globocop?...How about providing income insurance to make the pain of jobs lost to automation of repetitive tasks tolerable? And shorter hours to spread what work is left among as many people as possible?

Bravo on those points.

But of course Hillary is not more fascist than Trump, for the obvious reason that Trump is a xenophobe, the main ingredient in fascism. Hillary has the best ideas on defeating the IS, as opposed to Trump's whose foreign policy in that region which can be summed up as "bomb bomb bomb bomb."

Trump could yet lose some of these voters. But if they go, many of them are more likely to cross the line...and vote for Sanders. Especially since Hillary Clinton has written them off. Trump may yet go down in history as the ice breaker, who broke the conservative social trance that held many Southern white voters in thrall, and made it possible for southern voters to vote socialist.

That's an excellent point. I certainly think some of those votes would more likely transfer to Sanders than to Hillary. But I would not agree that Hillary has "written them off." In fact it was her strength in the primary race with Obama. So there could be a pro-Hillary legacy from the 2008 campaign.

This was in the works when Trump refused to debate on Fox News and both Paul and Santorum showed up at Trump's alternative rally and in effect, endorsed Trump. Who may get a bit of a boost from both candidates. Paul especially. Santorum can be very helpful to Trump in Pennsylvania and Rand Paul can be quite helpful to Trump in Kentucky. I can see the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party solidifying behind Trump now. Especially since Trump is the only of the three major candidates who is willing to go along with states rights on marijuana. And the candidate most identified with cancelling foreign treaty obligations and free trade.

I'm not sure those two candidates bear any closer similarity to Trump than to the others. Opposing free trade and closing borders are not libertarian positions. Marijuana is not a big concern among Republicans. Santorum's along with Huckabee's Christian conservative vote is more likely to go to Cruz, FWIW. Cruz may claim some of the libertarian vote too. But Trump at least is a libertarian in his lack of discipline regarding his mouth. Maybe that will appeal to some libertarians who like "freedom of speech" and "political incorrectness," at least among those libertarians who might vote on the basis of which candidate is more entertaining.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hillary is a fascist? And you were doing so well.

Why is it Berniebots have to bring the stupid? You can be for Bernie and against HC based on either actual policies or even personalities or personal histories, but you don't have to go with what just makes you look, well, how can we say this, one who obviously didn't pay attention in school? Maybe this will help -

At certain others' request, I'm trying to be the more mellow PW; and with a house in Vancouver, we'd practically be neighbors - at least on occasions in the Summer. I'll just say this - It's nice to have young'uns get interested in politics, I just wish they were a little less ignorant on the basics.

Hillary may not have the mass appeal that Trump has. But Hillary favours the conjunction between business supremacy (support for repeal of Glass-Steagall, continued support for deregulated big banks), disrespect for civil liberties (Clipper Chip, Know thy Customer, advocating Snowden's and Assange's trial for espionage) and recourse to war (Kosovo, Libya, Iraq) that is the hallmark of fascism. Hillary favoured back doors to the Internet (along with Clinton aide Webster Hubbell) back in the Clinton Administration when the Internet was being rolled out. Remember the Clipper Chip controversy? And the requirements of banks to "Know thy customer"? And share that knowledge with the government (noncontroversial after 9/11)?
And then there are those "tough on crime" initiatives that Hillary supported as much as Bill did. And this is Hillary's record.
Believe me, I do not use the term fascist lightly. Fascism isn't only about mass movements and cult of personality. Especially because her support within the "deep state" runs so deep, Hillary is more likely to give us a closed society than Trump is.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

For all that, Trump is still way ahead in SC. And the rest of the South. And there's a reason for that. Conservative Christianity has gone through an evolution, particularly in the South in which Calvinism and Dominionism, with their emphasis on predestinarianism (the idea that people are predestined to be saved or damned) has come back to the fore with the rich obviously "saved". Only this time, poorer whites can no longer console themselves with the notion that a darker skin is evidence of damnation. There are too many poor whites who are hurting, financially and through lack of access to health care and who can no longer deny it. Not with a heroin epidemic sweeping the rural South and, if drug laws continue as they are, threatening to sweep poor whites, especially poor white males into the same legal hell that African-Americans are in. And not with the epidemic of gun suicides amongst poor white males. And younger whites who are tired of their more religious elder's antics.
So Trump has these voters, at least for now, because much of the Republican electorate is in play. Trump could yet lose some of these voters. But if they go, many of them are more likely to cross the line...and vote for Sanders. Especially since Hillary Clinton has written them off. Trump may yet go down in history as the ice breaker, who broke the conservative social trance that held many Southern white voters in thrall, and made it possible for southern voters to vote socialist.
There is precedent for this. Huey Long "every man a king" was a populist who favoured redistribution of wealth (for whites) too. And he broke the ice in the South for Roosevelt and the New Deal.

I don't think Trump has much interest or much appeal to southern white trash. Why liberals are interested in gaining the support of southern white trash, I don't know.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Hillary may not have the mass appeal that Trump has. But Hillary favours the conjunction between business supremacy (support for repeal of Glass-Steagall, continued support for deregulated big banks), disrespect for civil liberties (Clipper Chip, Know thy Customer, advocating Snowden's and Assange's trial for espionage) and recourse to war (Kosovo, Libya, Iraq) that is the hallmark of fascism. Hillary favoured back doors to the Internet (along with Clinton aide Webster Hubbell) back in the Clinton Administration when the Internet was being rolled out. Remember the Clipper Chip controversy? And the requirements of banks to "Know thy customer"? And share that knowledge with the government (noncontroversial after 9/11)?
And then there are those "tough on crime" initiatives that Hillary supported as much as Bill did. And this is Hillary's record.
Believe me, I do not use the term fascist lightly. Fascism isn't only about mass movements and cult of personality. Especially because her support within the "deep state" runs so deep, Hillary is more likely to give us a closed society than Trump is.

There's no evidence that Trump would not be even tougher on these things than Hillary, other than that he has a better relationship with Putin.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think Trump has much interest or much appeal to southern white trash. Why liberals are interested in gaining the support of southern white trash, I don't know.

I would think that would be among Trump's strongest base, although Trump has competition for it from Cruz, Carson and Rubio.

It seems that the Clinton campaign strategy is to constantly insinuate to women and racial minorities that Sanders supporters are racists and sexists and implying that Sander's rhetoric is "really" for only working class white men. If Clinton wins the nomination because of this it is going to destroy the Democratic Party and boost the Populist Right and the reactionary idiots ranting about political correctness and "SJWs".

The Dem Establishment are a bunch of clueless morons blundering their way into disaster.

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems that the Clinton campaign strategy is to constantly insinuate to women and racial minorities that Sanders supporters are racists and sexists and implying that Sander's rhetoric is "really" for only working class white men. If Clinton wins the nomination because of this it is going to destroy the Democratic Party and boost the Populist Right and the reactionary idiots ranting about political correctness and "SJWs".

The Dem Establishment are a bunch of clueless morons blundering their way into disaster.

Ahem...

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton, 2008

Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_100763.html

Americans are tired of a lawless government which keeps trying to impose globalist initiatives without having been granted consent to do so by the populace. The people want government that works, government that listens to them and that they control.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Ahem...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_100763.html

Your argument hinges on Hillary actually being earnest. She says and does whatever works to her advantage at the time ... a practice that is now coming home to roost.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Hillary may not have the mass appeal that Trump has. But Hillary favours the conjunction between business supremacy (support for repeal of Glass-Steagall, continued support for deregulated big banks), disrespect for civil liberties (Clipper Chip, Know thy Customer, advocating Snowden's and Assange's trial for espionage) and recourse to war (Kosovo, Libya, Iraq) that is the hallmark of fascism. Hillary favoured back doors to the Internet (along with Clinton aide Webster Hubbell) back in the Clinton Administration when the Internet was being rolled out. Remember the Clipper Chip controversy? And the requirements of banks to "Know thy customer"? And share that knowledge with the government (noncontroversial after 9/11)?
And then there are those "tough on crime" initiatives that Hillary supported as much as Bill did. And this is Hillary's record.
Believe me, I do not use the term fascist lightly. Fascism isn't only about mass movements and cult of personality. Especially because her support within the "deep state" runs so deep, Hillary is more likely to give us a closed society than Trump is.

Some people would call this an attempt to cover-up ludicrous conjecture and sheer ignorance by piling on; I see it as trying to put enough horsey-poo together to call it chocolate cake.

Glass-Steagall (G-S) is 85 years old; do you think anything has changed in financial sector? We're not in your grandfather's or great-grandfather's financial system any more and haven't been for some time. G-S is about REGULATED banks; it has nothing to do with the UNREGULATED shadow banking system including bank spinoffs that were mortgage-making sweatshops, brokerage firms that raised money-market funds and securitize mortgages into tranches so no one knew who had what risks, and AIG and others that ballooned those risks into credit derivative obligations. If you don't know what those elements of the shadow banking system are, then you lack the fundamental basis to even have an opinion on G-S; if you do know, then you know G-S would not have done anything to address what was the actual problem of the 2008 financial meltdown. Your conjecture is the typical sophomoric bumper sticker crap of the typical Berniebot; it would be kind of humorous and cute, but not when it is the basis of tearing down a Democrat candidate as a fascist - that's just being an a-hole.

I suggest you try to educate yourself by starting with a pretty good recent assessment by Krugman -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-edition/?_r=0

- of Dodd-Frank which, like Clinton, has actually done something about the problem, instead of mouthing off over an arcane law that has little to do with today's issue. It's like complaining that today's cars are unsafe because they don't have specially-designed storage for buggy whips.

By the way, Bernie FRANK is the Clinton campaign's advisor on financial sector regulation.

And exactly what bank deregulation has Clinton been pushing?

Surveillance There's no easy answer here that easily pigeon holes the fascists from the Neville Chamberlain appeasers - people who do this really have no interest in the actual difficult issue of the proper balance. What we do know is that Snowden's reveal has driven all the terrorist and criminal groups to encryption and alternative communications means (e.g., Xbox Live); its what was used to plan the Paris attacks. It's also pretty apparent to anyone who gives it more than a moment's thought (difficult for the typical BernieBot I know) that Google, Facebook, Amazon, credit bureaus, insurance companies and the rest of corporate world know a whole hell of a lot more about your personal life and personal communications than the government could ever hope for, and yet not a peep from the BernieBots about that, ey? Have you looked up that term "fascist" yet and its corporate origins?

BILL Clinton Hmm, maybe you haven't notice but Hillary Clinton is typically in a dress or pant suit; Bill is not. This is also two decades later; a lot has changed. But even if they were the same person and time makes no difference, you really believe Bill Clinton is a fascist? Let's see, that word that begins with "a" and ends with "hole" comes to mind even in a more mellow PW.


Here's a couple things you BernieBots need to start considering. If Bernie is the nominee, he can't come even close to winning the general without those who's first preference was Clinton. Those who support Clinton tend to be older and been around to experience a lot more - we had our McGovern. We can caulk up a lot of primary horsey-poo to youthful enthusiasm (and a heavy dose of lazy ignorance) - we've been there. BUT, there are limits - keep up with your fascist bullpoo and a lot of us might just decide that the Kinser suicide pact is the way to go afterall; we'll stay home and watch the entire map on election night go Red with the single exception (maybe) of Vermont. Kinser gets his wish for a Trump/Cruz/Rubio disastrous 4-years (and a disastrous SCOTUS for 2-3 decades) and the end of the GOP, but we get that PLUS a chasten nitwit wing of the Democratic Party possible growing some politicking brains for at least a generation.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think Trump has much interest or much appeal to southern white trash. Why liberals are interested in gaining the support of southern white trash, I don't know.

Just another example of the GOP sheeple's suck-up-and-punch-down mentality.

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems that the Clinton campaign strategy is to constantly insinuate to women and racial minorities that Sanders supporters are racists and sexists and implying that Sander's rhetoric is "really" for only working class white men. If Clinton wins the nomination because of this it is going to destroy the Democratic Party and boost the Populist Right and the reactionary idiots ranting about political correctness and "SJWs".

The Dem Establishment are a bunch of clueless morons blundering their way into disaster.

That's pretty nasty, Odin. Do you actually have any evidence of her campaign pushing that?

Or are you actually some t-bagger troll trying to piss off enough Clinton supporters to stay home if Sanders is the nominee? Do you really want a President Cruz that much?

There are actual differences in policy, personalities, and personal histories to argue over; why do you Clinton haters have to always take the low road? Lack of confidence in your candidate?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think Trump has much interest or much appeal to southern white trash. Why liberals are interested in gaining the support of southern white trash, I don't know.

You just used an ugly epithet that I have been trying to get liberals to avoid using. Working-class white people will need to jump on the bandwagon of social equity necessary for a satisfying and workable Regeneracy.

I prefer that southern working-class white people recognize the 'economic royalists' of our time as The Problem of our time. Middle-class minorities, whether identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, rightly fear what the 'economic royalists' can do. Working-class minorities already recognize the 'economic royalists' as exploiters who offer little yet demand much -- and that they are as such exploiters.

We are leaving the Age of Scarcity. Economic elites have gone from controlling the means of production to controlling access to consumption, and if they could get away with it they would bring back the Company Store as the only place in which to use otherwise-useless scrip.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Just another example of the GOP sheeple's suck-up-and-punch-down mentality.

Suck-up and punch-down mentality? Sucking up ain't our style boy. Sucking up to get along doesn't come natural to us.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Suck-up and punch-down mentality? Sucking up ain't our style boy. Sucking up to get along doesn't come natural to us.

The Crotch Brothers thank you for your self-delusion.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You just used an ugly epithet that I have been trying to get liberals to avoid using. Working-class white people will need to jump on the bandwagon of social equity necessary for a satisfying and workable Regeneracy.

I prefer that southern working-class white people recognize the 'economic royalists' of our time as The Problem of our time. Middle-class minorities, whether identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, rightly fear what the 'economic royalists' can do. Working-class minorities already recognize the 'economic royalists' as exploiters who offer little yet demand much -- and that they are as such exploiters.

We are leaving the Age of Scarcity. Economic elites have gone from controlling the means of production to controlling access to consumption, and if they could get away with it they would bring back the Company Store as the only place in which to use otherwise-useless scrip.

So, you prefer to use a more subtle style and approach to reach out and gain control over the lowest class of white folks that's still available.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Crotch Brothers thank you for your self-delusion.

I wonder if the Koch brothers spent their life dabbling with their career and playing around with and wasting dead ancestor money. Self-delusional? I think not. If Berny wants to tax your crowd to death, I would support him by not opposing a tax hike that's designed to target your crowd.