2016 Presidential Candidate

[Bob W]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.

To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.

On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.

well it kinda does matter as  racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic.  Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media.         I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies.    Not that their is anything wrong with that.

[forummm]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.

To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.

On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.

well it kinda does matter as  racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic.  Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media.         I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies.    Not that their is anything wrong with that.

I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?

[MDM]

I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?

One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics

[forummm]

I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?

One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics

I'm not up with the latest slang. What was racist in there? There is use of the N word, but my understanding is that it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) in that context.

[MDM]

... it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) ...

That opens up a whole different discussion branch: is it the sayer/writer or the hearer/reader (or some third party) who gets to decide whether something is ___ist?

[midweststache]

... it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) ...

That opens up a whole different discussion branch: is it the sayer/writer or the hearer/reader (or some third party) who gets to decide whether something is ___ist?

The inability of language to ever fully signify is a deconstructionist rabbit hole that could lead us down a linguistically-nihilistic adventure that eventually negates the entire purpose of language, communication and, by extension, this forum.

The short answer is: both/and.

[Jack]

I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?

One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics

I'm not up with the latest slang. What was racist in there? There is use of the N word, but my understanding is that it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) in that context.

(I agree that this is off-topic, and would like to gently remind forummm of what he said to me several pages ago about taking off-topic stuff to another thread)

I just read the lyrics and watched the video, and I saw a lot of glorification of stereotypical black gangster culture, but nothing denigrating other cultures. The video even had a couple of white women riding around in the guy's Caddilac with him, so yay, multiculturalism?

(Fun fact: black gang members (and therefore also gangster rappers) like to refer to Atlanta neighborhoods by their police precinct. The video was recorded in "zone 4" (which I could tell because it's also the namesake of the record label). I live in "zone 6," which is only a few miles away and pretty similar architecturally and demographically, except that my neighborhood has a significant white yuppie/hipster minority and zone 4 doesn't. Anyone who might question my understanding of issues of race should keep that in mind.)

[Cressida]

twell it kinda does matter as  racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic.  Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media.         I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies.    Not that their is anything wrong with that.

I'm just going to leave all of this right here. A good percentage of U.S. voters actually think this way. If anyone wonders why we in the U.S. never make any progress, I point you to this comment.

[yuka]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

Benghazi is always an easy starting point. From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

Also, it's hard to trust someone who was so determined to reveal nothing about herself in her early candidacy. In April she announced the beginning of one of the most (if not the most) anticipated campaigns of the cycle, yet she answered only seven press questions in the first several weeks (and what she gave weren't really answers, even by political standards.) She's so adapted to prioritize self-preservation and -advancement above anything else that she forgot she needed to open up a bit and be somewhat amiable when she became a candidate.

[yuka]

Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win.

By "normal way to win" do you really mean to say "only appeal to wealthy Christian white males"?  Because that's kind of what you sound like.

As for the bit about "focusing on the middle" to the exclusion of women, minorities, old people, and young people, I suggest you spend some time with latest US demographic data.  Those people are the new middle.

I think cripzychiken probably meant pitching a coherent portrait to the entire electorate, so that the election would focus on improving the country, rather than telling each special group how they can get theirs.

[yuka]

When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you. There's an amazing ability of humans to think that they truly understand both sides of an argument and have made an objective identification of the superior argument while people who disagree have simply failed to understand the arguments which seem so simple to them. The idea that the people on the other side might have done the same thing you have seems inconceivable.

From there we just get into echo chambers where nobody really cares what the other side think because you already know they're wrong.

On the contrary, it's sort of convenient in that, if that site is representative of the poster's own opinions, you can know exactly where your points of disagreement are originating.

[yuka]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.

Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell?  Is that where your wife is from?

This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?

I was actually waiting for one of them to crack. I thought we had had a /b/ spill, and these two had accidentally run head-first into one another rather than bothering the other posters.

[MoonShadow]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.

Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell?  Is that where your wife is from?

This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?

I was just joking.

[MoonShadow]

His father was willing to be booed during a debate for his honesty. But Rand is not. He's going to lose as a result unless he changes that. He had a really good chance, but he's blowing it so far.

I find this viewpoint a bit odd. Ron Paul was willing to get booed, yes, but he really wasn't running to win the nomination; but to affect the base.  Which he had some success at.  Rand is actually running to win it, which means tip-toeing around some subjects to not offend the base before they are ready to hear it.

[swick]

MOD NOTE: I don't know why this topic was locked. I'm looking into it. In the meantime, I will unlock it and just remind everyone to keep posts in-line with the forum rules. Thanks.

[Dexterous]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight.  We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay.  We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.

[regulator]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight.  We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay.  We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

[yuka]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight.  We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay.  We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.

This one's a bit old, and the guy who actually did it did get convicted, but there's also the Clinton staffer who got caught removing documents from the national archives. Admittedly he could have been independently crooked,  but it's not such a stretch to imagine that he was looking to do some clean up for Hillary before a possible 2004 presidential run (or maybe just way ahead of 2008.) You have to have some serious dirt to give up your license to practice law rather than endure some questioning.

[forummm]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight.  We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay.  We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

[forummm]

This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly

[Bob W]

This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly

According to Trump and Fox CEO they have kissed and made up.   I guess Fox likes having the highest viewed news program of all time and Trump likes all the viewers as well.   

Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away?  Too weird. 

One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats.   Sounds like a possible branding problem.   

[dramaman]

This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly

According to Trump and Fox CEO they have kissed and made up.   I guess Fox likes having the highest viewed news program of all time and Trump likes all the viewers as well.   

Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away?  Too weird. 

One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats.   Sounds like a possible branding problem.

Whatever branding problems the Democrats may face are nothing compared to the branding problems that the Republicans are confronting - even before Trump jumped in the race. The difference between the two is that the Democrats' agitators are truly on the fringe and mostly noisy but ineffectual, while the Republicans' agitators constitute a larger part of their base and have managed to exert a sizable choke hold on the nomination process.

[regulator]

I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)

I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. 

Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.

Hillary is a special kind of crooked.  I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal.  I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.

Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt?  That's just ridiculous.

From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.

My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight.  We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay.  We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

Largely irrelevant to the matter of Hillary Clinton intentionally breaking laws with her email server and subsequent destruction of documents/evidence.  We are talking about one of the many filthy, egg-sucking weasels seeking to be in charge of the public hen house, not private individuals and corporations pursuing profits.

[dramaman]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society.

I believe those 'Republicans' have been branded as RINOS, but they might as well be called unicorns. ;)

Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!

Indeed.

[Vertical Mode]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!

I'm pretty sure your ideal candidate would probably be a libertarian, then. The closest I can come up with to the combination you've put forth is Gary Johnson:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/gary-johnson-preparing-to-run-for-president-in-2016/

If he's running again, I'll probably be voting for him myself.

[beltim]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Maybe Kasich?

[zoltani]

Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win.

Why do you think he won't win? I think he will bring the young people out to vote, and they will cast their vote for him.

[willikers]

Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away?  Too weird. 

One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats.   Sounds like a possible branding problem.   

Those people were part of an organisation claiming to be part of the #BLM movement. They're known as "Outside Agitators 206" and are not on the list of endorsing organizations on the Black Lives Matter website. One of the women on the stage is a Palin supporter and "Radical Christian Mullatanist" (I am unfamiliar with the definition). She had this to say on her FB after the event.

Please note…
I am only as respectable as the cross.
I am only as apologetic as he cross.
I am only as concerned with worldy powers as the cross.
I am only as concerned about upward mobility as the cross.
I am only as neutral, as polite, and as comforting as the cross.
I am only as rational as the cross.
This is my offering. The Spirit convicts, directs, and affirms me.
But this shit is scandalous. That is the call of discipleship.
I live like the resurrection is coming and Christ is sovereign. It is utter foolishness. It is life.
I do not worship Caesar. I cannot partake in Babylon. I cannot serve two master.
Believe, I have made my choice.

I don't think her motivation is to hold "progressives accountable" but to discredit his campaign in the eyes of minorities. The fact that they haven't stormed the stage of Hillary or any of the Republican candidates is telling, especially when you compare the their voting records. It doesn't make sense to go after someone who marched with MLK and has such a consistent voting record on Civil Rights. I think for her, specifically, it is about faith, and since he is Jewish, she is targeting him. Full disclosure: I am also Jewish, so I may be biased.

That being said, I think Sanders made a sound move. It would be contrary to have them arrested (which he could have done) and would have been dismissive and disrespectful to the actual BLM movement. He also released a sweeping racial justice policy.

I think it was unfortunate, but not permanently  damaging to his campaign. He had 28,000 people turn out in Portland the next day, so it hasn't hurt his rep, at least among progressives who know where he stands. It seems that members of the black community agree, as my twitter exploded with responses from people criticizing the protesters for "working against the only candidate who is actually helping." Him "slinking" off stage was diplomatic and respectful, but obviously comes off as weak to conservatives.

[regulator]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

[zoltani]

From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".

[dramaman]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

I think you'll find a closer chance to finding that Democrat unicorn than a Republican as Basenji described. The union thing may be hard, considering they have been a mainstay of the Democrats support for decades, but everything else is imaginable. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party is not anti-business by definition and many Democrats, like Clinton, get quite a bit of support by the business community.

[beltim]

From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".

This is probably true, but I'm predicting that once the first few primaries are over, the narrative will change.  Clinton is pretty much a known quantity, and unless she changes her tune to become more exciting to primary voters, I see her support falling over time.  Whether that is enough to unseat her as the favorite depends also on what other people do: someone like Martin O'Malley, who is polling in the margin of error range, could have a great debate and get his name out there as a legitimate candidate.  Or Biden could enter the race, which could take some support away from Clinton.

Clinton is absolutely the favorite, but that doesn't mean her chances to actually get the nomination are that high - it just means that no one else's is higher.

[dramaman]

From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".

The mainstream media is saying that because Clinton has tons more money and party support than Sanders. And that's just to get the Democratic Party nomination. If he did manage to get it, then its pretty hard to imagine a self-identified socialist winning the general election. Not impossible, but quite improbable.

[Bob W]

Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away?  Too weird. 

One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats.   Sounds like a possible branding problem.   

Those people were part of an organisation claiming to be part of the #BLM movement. They're known as "Outside Agitators 206" and are not on the list of endorsing organizations on the Black Lives Matter website. One of the women on the stage is a Palin supporter and "Radical Christian Mullatanist" (I am unfamiliar with the definition). She had this to say on her FB after the event.

Please note…
I am only as respectable as the cross.
I am only as apologetic as he cross.
I am only as concerned with worldy powers as the cross.
I am only as concerned about upward mobility as the cross.
I am only as neutral, as polite, and as comforting as the cross.
I am only as rational as the cross.
This is my offering. The Spirit convicts, directs, and affirms me.
But this shit is scandalous. That is the call of discipleship.
I live like the resurrection is coming and Christ is sovereign. It is utter foolishness. It is life.
I do not worship Caesar. I cannot partake in Babylon. I cannot serve two master.
Believe, I have made my choice.

I don't think her motivation is to hold "progressives accountable" but to discredit his campaign in the eyes of minorities. The fact that they haven't stormed the stage of Hillary or any of the Republican candidates is telling, especially when you compare the their voting records. It doesn't make sense to go after someone who marched with MLK and has such a consistent voting record on Civil Rights. I think for her, specifically, it is about faith, and since he is Jewish, she is targeting him. Full disclosure: I am also Jewish, so I may be biased.

That being said, I think Sanders made a sound move. It would be contrary to have them arrested (which he could have done) and would have been dismissive and disrespectful to the actual BLM movement. He also released a sweeping racial justice policy.

I think it was unfortunate, but not permanently  damaging to his campaign. He had 28,000 people turn out in Portland the next day, so it hasn't hurt his rep, at least among progressives who know where he stands. It seems that members of the black community agree, as my twitter exploded with responses from people criticizing the protesters for "working against the only candidate who is actually helping." Him "slinking" off stage was diplomatic and respectful, but obviously comes off as weak to conservatives.

Thanks for that!   I mainly follow these political dramas as a matter of entertainment.   My vote doesn't count in Missouri as we are sure to send the electoral college to vote Republican.  So it matters not how I vote.   Oh and yes,  It comes off as extremely week to more people than just conservatives.   It was his rally and he didn't even speak.   

[beltim]

From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".

The mainstream media is saying that because Clinton has tons more money and party support than Sanders. And that's just to get the Democratic Party nomination. If he did manage to get it, then its pretty hard to imagine a self-identified socialist winning the general election. Not impossible, but quite improbable.

Depends who he's running against.  He'd be a big underdog against a moderate Republican like Bush or Kasich.  But against Trump, Cruz, or Huckabee?  Sanders would win easily.

Part of me wants to see a Sanders/Trump election so that the Tea Party Republicans who think that they keep losing elections (especially for President) because they're not selecting a conservative enough candidate will finally learn that general elections are generally won by the candidate closer to the middle.

[regulator]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

I think you'll find a closer chance to finding that Democrat unicorn than a Republican as Basenji described. The union thing may be hard, considering they have been a mainstay of the Democrats support for decades, but everything else is imaginable. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party is not anti-business by definition and many Democrats, like Clinton, get quite a bit of support by the business community.

Doubtful.  Having been in the belly of the beast during Democrats running everything, I can tell you that the only reason they get big sums from business is essentially as protection money.  Their base would really rather they demonize and lash businesses at every opportunity.

Doesn't matter anyway.  All we are likely to get elected are power-hungry nutballs beholden to their donors.  As a result, I have for years voted for whoever would be most likely to ensure absolute gridlock due to infighting.  That way they can hopefully do the least amount of damage possible.

[Bob W]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!

Love your search for perfection!   I'm pretty sure if the Republican's could do that they would win every election from here on out and control both the Senate and the House.   Oh wait,  damn,  they already have the majorities in those two chambers.   Well I guess we are screwed then.

[Vertical Mode]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

As a conservative, I would vote for that Democrat, especially considering our current slate of options. Most likely if someone like this were to make it through the gauntlet, I would think they'd be doing so as a centrist independent and probably with considerable personal financial backing.

[Glenstache]

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

[willikers]

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for

A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included

Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:

The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

[forummm]

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.

What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?

[forummm]

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.

[boy_bye]

This is a really good explanation of what those BLM protesters were up to with Bernie Sanders. What's more, it appears to be working.

http://flavorwire.com/532095/the-real-lesson-of-bernie-sanders-and-black-lives-matter

[Bob W]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 

Here is one quote from his site.

 "In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"

Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart.    I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income?   So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.

To give you an idea how bad the Government is at creating jobs just look at Ferguson ---  It was reported on NPR this morning that $500,000,000 has been spent on Ferguson in the last year and created 1,000 jobs.   I'll do the math for you ---- that is $500,000 per job!   So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs.   I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year.   Any idea where that might come from?

Granted the Walton's are rich.  So if they gave every bit of their stock to a trust that then paid Walmart workers out in the dividends.  Each Walmart worker would have an additional $250 per year in income. 

The theory is that redistributing wealth creates large income for the underclass.   The math just doesn't work that way. 

There is no free lunch --- Witness the 17 Trillion dollar debt. 

So how do you address the massive income inequality?    Close the trade borders?  Yep, that addresses income, but not the resulting unemployment or increase in the cost of goods and supplies?   Mandate a higher minimum wage?  Again,  fewer people employed and higher costs for burgers and fries. 

There is a balance between free market unfettered capitalism and top down socialist control.   I hope that we can find that balance soon. 

Because BS is right about one thing.   It has been a long, slow continuous slide down hill for us.   

[Bob W]

This is a really good explanation of what those BLM protesters were up to with Bernie Sanders. What's more, it appears to be working.

http://flavorwire.com/532095/the-real-lesson-of-bernie-sanders-and-black-lives-matter

Interesting article.  Thanks.   

[beltim]

So I got curious and checked Sanders site.   I must say that I like his general ideas. 
…

So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs.   I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year.   Any idea where that might come from?

The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one.  The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.

The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line.  I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:

Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

[regulator]

As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary).  I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.

You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.

I am really tired of hearing about that one.  Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it.  They did not and instead focused on civil litigation.  That tells me they had a weak case at best.

It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.

Possible since we are in a kleptocracy.  I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts.  And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.

[Jack]

Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.

How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?

I think it's pretty likely that we could even find both of these sets of qualities in the same candidate! The only trouble is that unless he joined one of the two major parties he'd have no chance at winning the general election, and if he did join either of them he'd have no chance of winning the primary.

[zoltani]

So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive.  This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.

To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.

[MDM]

I think it's pretty likely that we could even find both of these sets of qualities in the same candidate! The only trouble is that unless he joined one of the two major parties he'd have no chance at winning the general election, and if he did join either of them he'd have no chance of winning the primary.

+1

Extremists on both sides can clearly see problems with the other, but don't see (or worse, see but ignore) their own problems.