Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

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.

Yea, and that would be trying to break through their amygdala lock and allow their cerebral lobes to grasp that they're destroying their own economic self interest.

Education is a good thing; you should try to get some too.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

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.

No, the Kochs focus on rent-seeking ... and they do it well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, the Kochs focus on rent-seeking ... and they do it well.

The Kochs focus on business...and they do that very well. However, I don't view them as a couple of Gods who have Godly power over me.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I wonder if the Koch brothers spent their life dabbling with their career and playing around with and wasting dead ancestor money.

No, instead they spend their dead ancestor money on media/candidates that make your amygdala tingle with fear and punch down with glee.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

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.

No, you won't and you haven't... because the Crotch Bros have convinced your amygdala that the tax man would cometh for you... take your guns as well.

What's funny is you actually believe you came up with that all by yourself.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

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.

We liberals have been unable to rely upon poor white people since 2000. I will be delighted to do much forgiving about their recent politics when they give up in significant numbers on the Reactionary Party.

But ask yourself: what have the Corporate Right and the GOP done to help white working-class people in the last couple of decades?

We liberals do not need to control poor white people in the South. In fact we are not going to get a majority. But maybe if we poach a few million votes from Republicans in the South we get to take back the House.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

..., I don't view them as a couple of Gods who have Godly power over me.

The Crotch Bros want to tell you they find you really cute and amusing -



Oh, and they said you have to do two Father Davids and three Hail Charles for repentance. On your knees, sheeple!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, and that would be trying to break through their amygdala lock and allow their cerebral lobes to grasp that they're destroying their own economic self interest.

Education is a good thing; you should try to get some too.

Education was a pretty good thing. I have past teachers who are considered as friends today. I have past teachers that I still admire and highly respect as people (Most of whom are dead or retired). That's why your crowd should've stayed out and kept its nose out of education. I had a couple of your types as teachers. The only two teachers who drove a Corvette to school. The only two teachers who wore more expensive trendy clothes. The only two teachers who could afford an expensive cocaine habit. I'm aware of your types and your contributions to a failing educational system.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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.

Actually my point was, how quickly some people forget. She sort of flirted with bigotry herself a bit in the panderfest that was her 2008 campaign. Now she's the patron saint of diversity and Sanders is only about the white bros? Where'd that come from?

@ Playwrite: BTW, I don't think (for now anyway--we'll see what happens if this stays as close as it was in 2008) that Clinton or her campaign is necessarily behind the "Berniebros" meme or the general idea that Sanders is somehow out of touch with blacks or whatever (I don't think she's too upset about it though). I think that's some of her supporters, although I also think those ideas are slowly losing traction among blacks themselves. It's just curious to me that I remember her getting some attention for some borderline dog-whistly stuff she said here and there in 2008 when running against a black candidate, and now everyone's forgotten--or else maybe chalked it down to "well, that's our Hillary, she has to pander, because you know how it is" or something. What perplexes me is why Sanders gets that rap now, other than because he comes from a state that has a higher-than-average white population? That's a pretty unfair attack on the character of him or his supporters, too.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Education was a pretty good thing. I have past teachers who are considered as friends today. I have past teachers that I still admire and highly respect as people (Most of whom are dead or retired). That's why your crowd should've stayed out and kept its nose out of education. I had a couple of your types as teachers. The only two teachers who drove a Corvette to school. The only two teachers who wore more expensive trendy clothes. The only two teachers who could afford an expensive cocaine habit. I'm aware of your types and your contributions to a failing educational system.

Unless they have an inheritance from Mom and Dad or marry a rich spouse, teachers are unlikely to drive Corvettes. Cocaine? The teachers I have met as a sub are as conservative as I am... about drugs. I have to be very careful about what I say about what I feel about mass culture (as in tastes in movies and music), but for me I can say "I HATE DRUGS!" and get away with it.

There's not much room for me to introduce my political views into a K-12 classroom, aside from telling kids not to trust welfare and to recognize that the economic elites believe that responsibility is for the common man and that rewards are for the economic elites. OK, I did wipe some neo-Nazi stuff off the chalkboard that appeared during the lunch break... but I would have also deleted an image of a nude female. The chalkboard is mine, kids! I control the chalkboard!

So what is in it for a teacher? Influencing children and teens and seeing them make intellectual progress that improves the prospects of their lives gives a very satisfying rush. As a sub I have taught just about everything possible in K-12 education. Math and science are my strengths, probably because the material is so structured that I simply follow the text closely. I've gotten to do some art... and I have discussed something so important as perspective. (So what do you know about how to show that an object is far away? Its image is shrunk; it is less detailed; it is more blurred and muted in color). But it is acting... I had no idea that I had some flair for drama.

I can use just about anything that I have learned to aid me as a teacher (well, all but the sordid stuff in life). I try to keep the environment G-rated. In case you wonder why I am so fussy about profanity -- now you know. I may find George Carlin's comedy routine The Seven Words You Can't Say on the Radio hilarious because the words are meaningless out of context. Most people use them in context... and if I can't get away with them, neither can a student.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We liberals have been unable to rely upon poor white people since 2000.

But ask yourself: what have the Corporate Right and the GOP done to help white working-class people in the last couple of decades?

We liberals do not need to control poor white people in the South. In fact we are not going to get a majority. But maybe if we poach a few million votes from Republicans in the South we get to take back the House.

So, you just need them for this election? Are we talking about people or votes? Do you see people or votes? Do you have enough integrity to talk about the people that your interested in as far as votes? Where's the compassion for the votes that your interested in and feel you need? Are you getting a glimpse, an inkling, a sense as to why, I think so lowly of you and most liberals here and treat you like shit and don't really care if people like you are removed from society? You want to coddle, suck up to them for votes which is viewed as a weakness that can be used and exploited, go ahead be my guest.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Kochs focus on business...and they do that very well. However, I don't view them as a couple of Gods who have Godly power over me.

If that was true, they wouldn't be spending almost a Billion dollars on this election cycle ... but of course, they are.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Crotch Bros want to tell you they find you really cute and amusing -



Oh, and they said you have to do two Father Davids and three Hail Charles for repentance. On your knees, sheeple!

That's Hail Charleys, if you please!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 4, 2016


Republican Race Tightens Nationally; Clinton Still Solid

Raleigh, N.C. –
PPP’s newest national poll finds the race on the Republican side tightening considerably in the wake of Donald Trump’s surprise loss in Iowa on Monday night. Trump’s lead has fallen to just 4 points - he’s at 25% to 21% each for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, 11% for Ben Carson, 5% each for Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and the now
departed Rand Paul, 3% each for Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, and 1% for Jim Gilmore. Rick Santorum had literally zero supporters on our final poll including him.

Trump’s 25% standing reflects a 9 point drop from our last national poll, which was taken the week before Christmas. It reflects an overall decline in Trump’s popularity with GOP voters. Trump’s favorability has dropped a net 17 points, from a previous +24 standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the right- he’s dropped to 3rd place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34%
and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group. He does still lead with moderates and ‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage.

“Donald Trump’s really seen some cratering in his support this week,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “A key part of his message has always been that he’s a winner and now that he’s lost something Republicans- and especially conservatives- aren’t finding him as compelling as they did a few weeks ago.”

Rubio is the candidate with the real momentum in the race. He’s up 8 points from his 13% standing in our poll right before Christmas. Beyond that he’s seen a large spike in his favorability rating- it’s improved a net 28 points from +15 at 49/34 to +43 at 64/21. That ties him with Ben Carson as being the most broadly popular candidate on the Republican side.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...n-race-tighten

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...onal_20416.pdf

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unless they have an inheritance from Mom and Dad or marry a rich spouse, teachers are unlikely to drive Corvettes. Cocaine Reply With Quote? The teachers I have met as a sub are as conservative as I am... about drugs. I have to be very careful about what I say about what I feel about mass culture (as in tastes in movies and music), but for me I can say "I HATE DRUGS!" and get away with it.

There's not much room for me to introduce my political views into a K-12 classroom, aside from telling kids not to trust welfare and to recognize that the economic elites believe that responsibility is for the common man and that rewards are for the economic elites. OK, I did wipe some neo-Nazi stuff off the chalkboard that appeared during the lunch break... but I would have also deleted an image of a nude female. The chalkboard is mine, kids! I control the chalkboard!

So what is in it for a teacher? Influencing children and teens and seeing them make intellectual progress that improves the prospects of their lives gives a very satisfying rush. As a sub I have taught just about everything possible in K-12 education. Math and science are my strengths, probably because the material is so structured that I simply follow the text closely. I've gotten to do some art... and I have discussed something so important as perspective. (So what do you know about how to show that an object is far away? Its image is shrunk; it is less detailed; it is more blurred and muted in color). But it is acting... I had no idea that I had some flair for drama.

I can use just about anything that I have learned to aid me as a teacher (well, all but the sordid stuff in life). I try to keep the environment G-rated. In case you wonder why I am so fussy about profanity -- now you know. I may find George Carlin's comedy routine The Seven Words You Can't Say on the Radio hilarious because the words are meaningless out of context. Most people use them in context... and if I can't get away with them, neither can a student.

I'm not an elementary school kid or a student of yours or a regular participant within children environments.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Education was a pretty good thing. I have past teachers who are considered as friends today. I have past teachers that I still admire and highly respect as people (Most of whom are dead or retired). That's why your crowd should've stayed out and kept its nose out of education. I had a couple of your types as teachers. The only two teachers who drove a Corvette to school. The only two teachers who wore more expensive trendy clothes. The only two teachers who could afford an expensive cocaine habit. I'm aware of your types and your contributions to a failing educational system.

Yea, that's it, our educational system would be just 1950s peachy again if we just get rid of all the teachers snorting cocaine off the hoods of their Vetts in the parking lots.

I couldn't make that stuff up if I tried, and that was a big part of my career!

It's pretty obvious your enlarged amygdala has totally burnt your cerebral lobs to a crisp. Nothing left for you but to dream of the coming zombie apocalypse and the sheer joy of being cheered-on to shooting those less fortunate than you in the head - the ultimate punch down!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If that was true, they wouldn't be spending almost a Billion dollars on this election cycle ... but of course, they are.

Why wouldn't they be spending a billion dollars on this election? I assume there will be a progressive Democrat running for President.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Actually my point was, how quickly some people forget. She sort of flirted with bigotry herself a bit in the panderfest that was her 2008 campaign. Now she's the patron saint of diversity and Sanders is only about the white bros? Where'd that come from?

@ Playwrite: BTW, I don't think (for now anyway--we'll see what happens if this stays as close as it was in 2008) that Clinton or her campaign is necessarily behind the "Berniebros" meme or the general idea that Sanders is somehow out of touch with blacks or whatever (I don't think she's too upset about it though). I think that's some of her supporters, although I also think those ideas are slowly losing traction. It's just curious to me that I remember her getting some attention for some borderline dog-whistly stuff she said here and there in 2008 when running against a black candidate, and now everyone's forgotten--or else maybe chalked it down to "well, that's our Hillary, she has to pander, because you know how it is" or something. What perplexes me is why Sanders gets that rap now, other than because he comes from a state that has a higher-than-average white population? That's a pretty unfair attack on the character of him or his supporters, too.

I don't think it is racist on either side; this is NOT the GOP.

There is the issue of electability and the numbers don't lie - minorities are extremely important to the Democratic base. Talking around that very real issue can, and has, led to opportunistic name-calling on both sides, both now and in '08. Most can understand, and be somewhat forgiving, that enthusiasm can get a little out of hand - at least up to a point.

Here's the real thing about this - just looking at the numbers, Black women, particularly older Black women, support of the Democratic Party is the MOST stable voting block out there. They're currently pretty much in Clinton's camp, but it is possible some can be pull away by Sanders. What they absolutely will not do is vote for anyone that they perceive as being even slightly hostile to Obama. That's something Sanders better be very careful about. He messes that up (and he's had some recent brushes with doing so) the map in November is going to look Redder than the map in 1972 - DC going Red will be historic.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, you just need them for this election? Are we talking about people or votes? Do you see people or votes? Do you have enough integrity to talk about the people that your interested in as far as votes? Where's the compassion for the votes that your interested in and feel you need? Are you getting a glimpse, an inkling, a sense as to why, I think so lowly of you and most liberals here and treat you like shit and don't really care if people like you are removed from society? You want to coddle, suck up to them for votes which is viewed as a weakness that can be used and exploited, go ahead be my guest.

I'm sure this is obvious, but it is exactly the conservatives, led by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, who have sucked up to, used and exploited those poor white voters in the South and other red states, by appealing to their prejudices in order to get votes for Republicans, who proceed to trash the real interests of those poor whites and boost their own. Those who have compassion, are of course the liberals who understand the real interests of those people and how the rich greedy bosses hold them down with their trickle-down policies.

Many liberals think just as lowly of you guys. But you would be wise to not be exploited by the bosses. The liberals are and always have been the politicians who look out best for the little guy. The conservatives are always those who want to keep the status quo in power. The status quo today is big money and big business, and the politicians who eat at the trough of this big money.

You need to get an inkling that you have been hoodwinked. Your idea that liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't, is the number one deceptive slogan used to keep big money in power. NUMBER ONE! with no close second. That's the ruse being pulled over your eyes. You think that you sincerely believe in this idea, this slogan. I don't think you do. I don't think you came up with this idea on your own. It has become ubiquitous. It is brainwashing on a huge scale. It has gone viral a long time ago. It is nobody's idea except the elite's, who have foisted it upon you. It is tempting, it is comforting. It feeds your frustration and mis-directs it at the wrong target. Most of all, the meme that says "liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't" is completely and utterly wrong.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm not an elementary school kid or a student of yours or a regular participant within children environments.

And you're lacking that experience provides a good warning of the consequences.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, that's it, our educational system would be just 1950s peachy again if we just get rid of all the teachers snorting cocaine off the hoods of their Vetts in the parking lots.

I couldn't make that stuff up if I tried, and that was a big part of my career!

It's pretty obvious your enlarged amygdala has totally burnt your cerebral lobs to a crisp. Nothing left for you but to dream of the coming zombie apocalypse and the sheer joy of being cheered-on to shooting those less fortunate than you in the head - the ultimate punch down!

I went to school during the 1970's and early 80's. Back then, students were treated like adults and expected to act and take their punishment and answer to their mistakes like adults. I have no recollections of what school was like during the 50's. Unless you are unable to associate generational symbols or birth years with age, you may want to drop the 1950's association crap that you were associated with.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And you're lacking that experience provides a good warning of the consequences.

I went through that experience a long time ago and I no longer need it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bravo on those points.

But of course Hillary is not more fascist than Trump, for the obvious reason that Trump is a xenophobe

I actually read what Trump says on immigration in his new book, which I perused while following my mother around Wal-Mart last night (didn't buy the book). Trump's actual position is not xenophobic. Trump is not against legal immigration (as Cruz is, by the way). He wants to force undocumented immigrants into what would amount to a revolving door out of the country and back in with legal status (which is what the current law requires). Trump is not in league with John Tanton (a closet Green, by the way) and Chris Kobach who ARE xenophobic racists. He is just leading a lot of his base on to think that he is. Of course political logjams could develop both pushing undocumented immigrants (which Latino groups would oppose ) out and letting them back in (which Tanton's people in Numbers USA,(which advertises prominently at all Debates, Democratic as well as Republican), FAIR and Center for Immigration Reform ) would fight tooth and nail.
A moratorium on Muslim immigration (which Trump assures us would be temporary, until new policies are instituted) would actually be easier to implement on a de facto basis simply by filling immigration and refugee quotas from the Mideast with Christians and maybe Yezidis. De facto immigration bans have been a reality in this country, regretted after the fact. FDR (was he a fascist?) had a de facto ban on almost all Jewish immigration throughout his term, even during the Holocaust, on the assumption that Jews would be a security risk because their families could be used as hostages by the Nazi Abwehr. The hard fact of the matter is that it is practically untenable to declare a group the enemy abroad without repercussions on enemy nationals at home. Especially when groups like ISIS DO have a policy of inciting attacks at home to goad the United States into fighting them on the ground on their turf to prove their point. Which except for one attempted terrorist attack by Japanese right after Pearl Harbor, was never the case with Japanese Americans.
So I don't think opposition to illegal immigration alone amounts to xenophobia. True xenophobia would amount to a broad based opposition to a wide range of "deviants"; gays, women who have abortions, immigrants, drug users, prisoners and ex-cons. That is what we see in Kansas, with Sam Brownback and Kurt Kobach and that is Ted Cruz's demographic. Donald Trump; not so much.
Trump's ideas on the untramelled right of the federal government to snoop on Americans (which Hillary shares and Obama shares, by the way) do worry me though.
,

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."

Behind all the "bomb, bomb, bomb bluster, Trump's idea about defeating ISIS amounts to giving the Russians a free hand to bomb, bomb, bomb--and do whatever else they feel they need to do. Which may be the most realistic way for the US to disengage from the Mideast. Hillary's policies amount to allowing the country to be drawn into further military action on the ground to protect the petrodollar, just as ISIS wants the US to be. With a good chance of eventual war with Russia.

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.

As we all know, the Clintons relied upon poor southern whites (and Bill Clinton's reputation as a southern governor) to carry some of the South in 1992. And the Clintons threw African-Americans under the bus to keep that demographic. Thus, triangulation. Thus, executing an Arkansas inmate who was too retarded to know that he was being executed. Thus, "tough on crime" and "tough on immigration".
This came back to haunt the Clintons in 2008. The Clintons, as we know, were able to use poor whites to win elections against Obama (perhaps with a measure of crossover votes from Republicans who could not abide the thought of an African-American in the White House) but two elections showed that in a general election, a Democratic candidate can be hard put to defeat Republicans in southern states. So this time around, the Clintons are relying on the Obama playbook and relying on the Atlantic Wall, from Virginia to Maine, the Pacific Coast states and key battleground states like Michigan and Ohio and Wisconsin and Minnesota. While in the primaries, relying on African-American voters to win Southern delegations that they will then write off in the General Election. And this is the conventional wisdom that Bernie Sanders is challenging, especially with his appeal to younger voters.

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.

A lot of the appeal has gone out of the libertarian position because of the results of the "on your own" economy. And because of marijuana legalisation. Libertarians may have taken for granted just how much of their strength derived from weed smokers. Once the smell of legal weed is in the air, a lot of that constituency goes "up in smoke". Which may help explain why Rand Paul's support has been so illusory. Especially since Trump has adopted a laissez-faire states rights position on marijuana, which is at odds with Cruz and Rubio's moralistic determination to enforce federal marijuana laws on states with legal (even medical legal) weed. Hillary's more "nuanced" position on marijuana of late won[t satisfy this constituency, since Hillary is not trusted and has the Clinton legacy from the 1990s to live down if she can, which I doubt. Besdies which, her stand on "more research needed" while appearing erudite will be interpreted as stalling and filibustering, which it should be.
If Trump starts to fade and Cruz and Rubio start to dominate Republican parties I would expect this constituency to migrate to Bernie. (And I suspect that some already have). Because it becomes a fear factor. People who now have access to legal medical or even recreational marijuana fear a return to prohibition, and the prospect of federal charges. Federal charges, enforced across the board carry mandatory prison terms, not probation. Legal marijuana users are a big enough constituency to swing elections and carry some states for Bernie (who actually supports an end to Federal marijuana prohibition) he might otherwise not carry.

[QUOTE

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, you just need them for this election? Are we talking about people or votes? Do you see people or votes? Do you have enough integrity to talk about the people that your interested in as far as votes? Where's the compassion for the votes that your interested in and feel you need? Are you getting a glimpse, an inkling, a sense as to why, I think so lowly of you and most liberals here and treat you like shit and don't really care if people like you are removed from society? You want to coddle, suck up to them for votes which is viewed as a weakness that can be used and exploited, go ahead be my guest.

=Eric the Green;548398]I'm sure this is obvious, but it is exactly the conservatives, led by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, who have sucked up to, used and exploited those poor white voters in the South and other red states, by appealing to their prejudices in order to get votes for Republicans, who proceed to trash the real interests of those poor whites and boost their own. Those who have compassion, are of course the liberals who understand the real interests of those people and how the rich greedy bosses hold them down with their trickle-down policies.

This is where the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintons went wrong, trying to beat Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes (who were the Republican spinmeisters of the 1990s-Karl Rove came later) at their own game. The Clinton's record in office belies their claims to compassion. And yes, Bill Clinton was being honest when he claimed famously that the Clinton Administration was a "co-presidency" and that the country was getting "two presidents for the price of one".

Many liberals think just as lowly of you guys. But you would be wise to not be exploited by the bosses. The liberals are and always have been the politicians who look out best for the little guy. The conservatives are always those who want to keep the status quo in power. The status quo today is big money and big business, and the politicians who eat at the trough of this big money.

And the Clintons are part of that status quo.

You need to get an inkling that you have been hoodwinked. Your idea that liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't, is the number one deceptive slogan used to keep big money in power. NUMBER ONE! with no close second. [/QUOTE
That is VERY true. And it has been used to divide the working class ever since the 1890s. It's fraying now because American workers have gotten a lesson in reality from this faux recovery. Think about machinists laid off in 2008-9 who look at the want ads on or off line and see ads for --CNC Machinists and 3-d printer machinists. And the lucky ones who manage to have late enough model cars become Uber drivers until their cars give out.
Then they try to take temp jobs and find that (at least here in California) that yes, employers DO ethnically profile their workforce. That employers want Spanish speaking employees because supervisors are Spanish speaking. And contractors like subcontractors who are Koreans and Vietnamese supervising Latinos. (An ethnic caste system has been California, by the way, ever since the 19th Century). Temp work become little to no work. And the only place real diversity is wanted is Hollywood. Everything becomes a gig economy, just like acting.
There just isn't enough work available for people to work hard AT. And what work there is is unsteady, unless one has money already or skills that are in demand--until an employer can get someone from overseas cheaper on an H-1 visa. That is the reality of Thomas Friedman's "flat earth".

]That's the ruse being pulled over your eyes. You think that you sincerely believe in this idea, this slogan. I don't think you do. I don't think you came up with this idea on your own. It has become ubiquitous. It is brainwashing on a huge scale. It has gone viral a long time ago. It is nobody's idea except the elite's, who have foisted it upon you. It is tempting, it is comforting. It feeds your frustration and mis-directs it at the wrong target. Most of all, the meme that says "liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't" is completely and utterly wrong.

And as old as the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War.

The problem with Trump's rhetoric is indeed that it makes it harder to defeat ISIS, because we need Muslim allies in the region. I think xenophobia is a better description of Trump's attitude than racism; clearly he is using resentment against immigration and fear of foreign terrorists to propose outlandish policies that can't be implemented.

I think Trump did say he wants to bomb the IS. He wants to cooperate with Putin on the civil war in Syria, which would be an utter disaster.

I don't know what triangulation means with regard to the Clintons. They are just using political calculation, which means they might pander to one group when they need them, and then desert them when they don't. This time Hillary offers pragmatic progress in the direction Obama has pursued. That's a much better prospect than any Republican offers.

I don't know how much marijuana is an issue. I don't think they can tell that much difference between Hillary and Republicans, except that Democrats are more likely to support legalization. Bernie may be better, and may get some votes, but I don't know that Trump has advocated a state's rights approach on this issue. The marijuana issue I would guess would have a small effect in some western states. Only two states have legalized it, but Colorado is a swing state and could be important. And yet, it's trending red now anyway.

trump seems to be fading fast. Maybe mikebert's and XYMOX's theories are correct. It depends on NH, and what kind of boost he gets if he wins big there. He's still up there by about 20 points. Although a new poll today reduces that to about 10 already.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm sure this is obvious, but it is exactly the conservatives, led by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, who have sucked up to, used and exploited those poor white voters in the South and other red states, by appealing to their prejudices in order to get votes for Republicans, who proceed to trash the real interests of those poor whites and boost their own. Those who have compassion, are of course the liberals who understand the real interests of those people and how the rich greedy bosses hold them down with their trickle-down policies.

Many liberals think just as lowly of you guys. But you would be wise to not be exploited by the bosses. The liberals are and always have been the politicians who look out best for the little guy. The conservatives are always those who want to keep the status quo in power. The status quo today is big money and big business, and the politicians who eat at the trough of this big money.

You need to get an inkling that you have been hoodwinked. Your idea that liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't, is the number one deceptive slogan used to keep big money in power. NUMBER ONE! with no close second. That's the ruse being pulled over your eyes. You think that you sincerely believe in this idea, this slogan. I don't think you do. I don't think you came up with this idea on your own. It has become ubiquitous. It is brainwashing on a huge scale. It has gone viral a long time ago. It is nobody's idea except the elite's, who have foisted it upon you. It is tempting, it is comforting. It feeds your frustration and mis-directs it at the wrong target. Most of all, the meme that says "liberals take money from people who earned it, and give it to lazy people who didn't" is completely and utterly wrong.

Are you looking out for them? How can you claim to be looking out for them when you've signed off on them as votes? Where's the compassion dude, where's the understanding as to why southern working class folks aren't eager leave their trailer home or small shack in a town, hand over their guns, burn their bible and accept progressive rules and values as the new rules and values they must follow in order to sustain themselves as members of the liberal welfare state?